French Nuclear Cycle Crash

[Voyageur]

I try and keep an eye on horse's 'Fukushima' thread for updates, which reminds me to check in with Arnie Gundersen's Fairewinds site. As such, noticed this article and video with the French nuclear policy consultant, Mycle Schneider.

In the article there was much to learn about all things nuclear energy in France and their plans to mothball 20 plants by 2025, not to mention the exponential electrical grid requirements for every 1 degree of temperature drop. Fuel waste and so called recycling was another imported discussion here, too.

In the Dec 6th C's session, French nuclear plants were also discussed here:

(Pierre) I have a question about those drones. Many drones have been observed over French nuclear plants. Are these really drones?

A: Yes.

Q: (Pierre) Who is operating them?

A: Wouldn't you and the army like to know?

Q: (Andromeda) So it's not the army...

(Perceval) It's probably just... Okay, so it's not just some locals.

(Pierre) It's over the whole country - for weeks.

A: Who is spying on everyone everywhere?

Q: (Perceval) NSA.

(Pierre) Mossad.

A: Close enough!

Q: (Pierre) Why?

A: Keeping the pressure on France.

Q: (Pierre) Like a threat.

(Perceval) The NSA is trying to scare the French political establishment by flying drones over nuclear power plants.

(Pierre) To not switch to Russia, or...

(Perceval) ...an "accident" is gonna happen.

Interesting, and while listening to Gundersen and Schneider (November 20th, 2014) here _http://www.fairewinds.org/french-nuclear-cycle-crash/ - they also get into the "drone" flights question, albeit from a complete terrorist-minded point of view.

Despite the above (something to keep an eye on: it was happening in Belgium, too), the article/video is interesting in helping in understand some of the issues facing the French people, which corresponds to other countries with even older infrastructure, such as the U.S.

France has been a world leader in nuclear power, deriving almost 80% of its produced electricity from nuclear reactors. Following the 1974 oil shock, France embraced nuclear power by building 58 nuclear reactors in an effort to be energy self-sufficient. Where do the French see themselves as energy consumers and producers today and what is the future trend for the French after a 40 year investment in production of nuclear power?

From one expert to another, Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education interviews independent international energy and nuclear policy consultant Mycle Schneider to get the scoop on the French nuclear scene. A resident of Paris, Mycle has provided nuclear energy consulting services to countless international institutions, governments and NGOs. In an informative Q and A, Arnie and Mycle debunk the perfected nuclear power fantasy and expose the French réalité.

There is also the debt of these utility companies (it's massive all through the EU) along with their 50% stock losses since 2008 - there is no money, so as usual it will fall to the people.

(40:00min)

https://vimeo.com/112329842

 

[horse]

Voyageur, thanks for posting Arnie's interviews. The discussions highlight the many problems with nuclear power. No place for the waste. Soft targets when drones can fly over any country’s spent fuel pool taking pictures. The threat from EMP and CMEs and natural disasters like the quake that broke Fukushima or when the comets come, when they hit, when the people pay the price for creating plutonium and spreading it far and wide will they stop nuclear in time? Not while the pathocrats hold power. Nuclear is a dangerous game piece to have on the board. Peace on earth, goodwill towards others.

 

[kinyash]

Voyageur,

Thanks for the really informative and easily understood interview. The first I heard of the drones was from Pierre in the C's session, and here Mycle also details the same thing. He also points out that the drones could be taking high resolution photographs of the plants probably in preparation for a future attack. The soft targets are much easier to hit and can cause the plant to collapse resulting in a nuclear leak like the one that occurred after the Tsunami in Fukushima.

What also comes out clearly is how inefficient nuclear power is and effectively only 17% of the energy at the input of the process is actually converted into useful electricity! Considering that France is considered to be one of the leading producers of nuclear energy (and in nuclear physics technology), it is clear that nuclear energy is NOT the way to go and never was! France is now stuck with inefficient nuclear energy plants which it has to keep running so as to keep the plants in business, and therefore it continues to use electricity for heating. The Government does not have the guts to admit their mistake in the first place and just shut down the plants and use gas which is about 50% efficient. Of course once they do make the decision, then dealing with the huge amount of hazardous materials will keep them busy for some time.

The sheer amount of nuclear waste generated is amazing and the problems with how to deal with it are yet to be solved. One of the comments made is that a popular saying in the industry is "the solution to pollution is dilution" which it turns out is something Arnie first heard when he was in college. Considering the half life of nuclear waste is in the millions of years (16 million for the radioactive isotope of Iodine!!), what kind of slogan is that!

I really like the way Mycle corrects Arnie on using the correct terminology: - the so called Fuel Cycle ( as applied to nuclear reactors) is actually a Fuel Chain because there is no cycle as such and the by product is waste which is not reusable, hence no cycle. Thus the term nuclear recycling plant is technically wrong.

Given the C's comments and a possible future attack if the French don't play ball. this is definitely must have knowledge!

Thanks for sharing.

Kinyash

 

[Niall]

Not while the pathocrats hold power. Nuclear is a dangerous game piece to have on the board. Peace on earth, goodwill towards others.

I would be careful to distinguish between centers of power that use nuclear power to kill and/or control millions (nuclear bombs), and centers of power that use it to develop infrastructure (nuclear power plants).

 

[gdpetti]

I don't keep up on this but...
Is nuclear power inefficient or only so as we practice it? Is it running at low efficiency on purpose? Isn't this why most nuc plants keep their 'waste', as it's worth more every time it's processed further, and isn't that why nuc subs utilize a highly degree of processed material, for highly efficiency? Wasn't that the message from that ex-nuc engineer guy someone mentioned in a Youtube vid awhile back? Same with most energies or functions in society... dumb it down for easier herd control. Same with cigs, talk about how bad it is... but don't mention all the poisons put in the tobacco, thus giving the plant a bad name. Controlled thought generation.

 

[unkl brws]

Fwiw, I came across this documentary recently (though I haven't seen it yet) called "Pandora's Promise", a 2013 film about the nuclear power debate; _http://pandoraspromise.com/

 

[kinyash]

Hi Gdpetti,

Is nuclear power inefficient or only so as we practice it? Is it running at low efficiency on purpose?

Nuclear power as we use it currently is inefficient and there are better, more efficient sources of energy. For example Mycle Schneider mentions in the video that when the electric car technology starts being rolled out in numbers, it will be incredibly efficient, non-polluting and indeed be able to give a return in 8 years. Compare this with EDF the French utility company that uses nuclear power, and AREVA, the biggest nuclear power generator in the EU. The former has lost 75% of its value and the latter 85%! This translates into billions of dollars. I doubt they are doing this on purpose, and indeed when they initially invested in nuclear power, the projections were no doubt very rosy.

Isn't this why most nuc plants keep their 'waste', as it's worth more every time it's processed further, and isn't that why nuc subs utilize a highly degree of processed material, for highly efficiency?

In fact the waste is not worth more unless you are selling to terrorists at a premium. Nuclear waste makes nuclear power generation have a net negative return because you have to pay to get rid of the waste!

However there are other potential "free" energy sources such as those researched by Nikola Tesla. These promise to be cheap to produce, extremely efficient and environmentally friendly. However there is a very high chance that these technologies have been suppressed by the PTB and military industrial complex so that they can control the energy economy and reap maximum financial returns before any new technology is introduced. I would draw an analogy with cancer research and treatment where mainstream treatments(chemo) are more likely to kill you faster than the cancer. However, cancer is a huge industry with the pharmaceutical companies reaping huge profits from the manufacture and sale of cancer medicine. There is also a lot of money that goes into cancer research. However inexpensive and effective treatments for cancer (e.g. proper diet) are rubbished and/or kept hidden by the mainstream medical industry ensuring that the general population continue to spend huge amounts on medication.

Kinyash

 

[Pierre]

Nuclear power as we use it currently is inefficient and there are better, more efficient sources of energy. For example Mycle Schneider mentions in the video that when the electric car technology starts being rolled out in numbers, it will be incredibly efficient, non-polluting and indeed be able to give a return in 8 years. Compare this with EDF the French utility company that uses nuclear power, and AREVA, the biggest nuclear power generator in the EU. The former has lost 75% of its value and the latter 85%! This translates into billions of dollars. I doubt they are doing this on purpose, and indeed when they initially invested in nuclear power, the projections were no doubt very rosy.

True. Electric motors are getting more and more efficient but, if, to recahrge the batteries you have to use electrictiy generated by nuclear plants you go back to the initial problem. that the problem being currently faced with electric carrs in France.

This being said, as a general rule, the more transformation steps the lower the efficiency. So does it really make sense to burn uranium or oil in order to produce steam that will produce electricity that will power an electric car or is it more sound to directly burn oil in the car engine?

 

[goyacobol]

Nuclear power as we use it currently is inefficient and there are better, more efficient sources of energy. For example Mycle Schneider mentions in the video that when the electric car technology starts being rolled out in numbers, it will be incredibly efficient, non-polluting and indeed be able to give a return in 8 years. Compare this with EDF the French utility company that uses nuclear power, and AREVA, the biggest nuclear power generator in the EU. The former has lost 75% of its value and the latter 85%! This translates into billions of dollars. I doubt they are doing this on purpose, and indeed when they initially invested in nuclear power, the projections were no doubt very rosy.

True. Electric motors are getting more and more efficient but, if, to recahrge the batteries you have to use electrictiy generated by nuclear plants you go back to the initial problem. that the problem being currently faced with electric carrs in France.

This being said, as a general rule, the more transformation steps the lower the efficiency. So does it really make sense to burn uranium or oil in order to produce steam that will produce electricity that will power an electric car or is it more sound to directly burn oil in the car engine?

Pierre,

This is a late response but better late than never? I love your logic. It seems perfectly logical to me anyway. :)