Slashdot Mirror
France To Reduce Reliance On Nuclear Power
AmiMoJo writes: French lawmakers have approved a bill to reduce the country's reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% by 2025. The policy was one of President Francois Hollande's campaign pledges. The legislation also includes a target of reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to the level in 1990. The new law aims to eventually halve France's energy consumption by 2050 from the 2012 level. The ambitious goal came in the lead-up to the COP 21 climate change conference in Paris later this year. France will chair the meeting.
Note that Nuclear is not going to shrink, the idea is just that most new capacity will be non nuclear.
What a bunch of idiots.
They can keep the plants going, build more capacity and export the rest, reducing the "reliance" on nuclear power.
A cynical way to fulfill a keepable promise.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Why 1990 and will that be a net reduction for France compared to where they are now?
France is one of the world's biggest energy exporters, selling electricity to most of Western Europe. They aren't going to build too many more nuclear plants, but they sure as hell aren't going to be tearing down the ones the have already. They are going to run them as hard as they can as they add capacity with wind, solar, and hydro.
Yes, nuclear will be a smaller fraction of the portfolio, but total nuclear generation isn't going away any time soon. The wording of Hollande's "promise" was crafted to sound good to the anti-nuke crowd, but the folks in the power sector who can actually do fractional arithmetic know what the actual intent is.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
... Poland will be building more coal power plants to export more electricty to western europe so that idiot evironementalists can be duped by corrupt politicians into thinking that CO2 consumption has been reduced when all that happened was they started importing electricity instead of directly producing it themselves.
The same thing is going on all over europe and it is very common in the US as well. California for example has dramatically lowered their statistical carbon foot print by shutting down power plants in the state and then importing the power from Arizona and I think even mexico. I'm not sure about mexico... I vaguely remember something about that but I'm not sure.
Point is the whole carbon thing is supposed to be global so where it is actually emitted is not relevant. And thus they really need to do proper third party accounting on the carbon emissions of imported electricity.
The germans have some statistics on that but they're not third party and thus given all the gaslighting and obfuscation on the issue its not credible to accept the statistics from the people that are already on record cooking the books.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Also note that reducing domestic consumption by 50% means that France can sell more electricity with the same installed capacity. It's all about GDP.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Nuclear power is one of the most efficient sources of energy that we use, what is the reason for lowering the dependency on it if the plants are properly maintained? What kind of alternative energy source are they planning on relying on? These are legitimate questions, I'm sincerely confused about this.
not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
Which makes not a lick of sense since you just end up using the appliance for longer to get the same fuckin' result. Carbon footprint remains the same.
These would be the same tools who mandated the use of CCFL lights which contain mercury and white phosphorous, over incandescants which contain a chemically inert gas and a chemically inert filament inside a chemically inert container.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
So we are reaching a point where fossil fuels are becoming harder to harvest, climate change is becoming more evident, and people are using more electricity than ever. Instead of researching safer nuclear, which would provide us enough energy to last us millennia even with increasing usage, they are simply turning their backs on the idea, and reaching for what? Solar? Windfarms? I'm as hardcore left as one can get, I support alternative energy, and whatnot, and yet I feel like I'm one of the few rational ones that look at things like verifiable science, statistics, and research to direct my views rather than blind ideology and common opinion.
From what I've read, the only viable alternative that is right now available that can fulfill our needs is primarily nuclear with other alternatives merely supplementing those needs. If I'm wrong I'd like to see some evidence, preferably from less biased sources.
A Republican says hate. HATE! Hate! Hate says the Republican. HATE! YOU REPUBLICANS!!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
And the real question is how will this work out (Assuming the plan isn't simply economic collapse) with Electric Cars become more common if not standard?
Well, technically they'll take steps to reduce consumption, like better insulation, light bulbs, and other steps necessary to reduce actual energy usage.
The EU is a shrine to bureaucracy. I guess after more than a thousand years of war, and you pile the weather on top of that, people are just to tired to resist.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Perhaps you need to do some research about the correlation between party affiliation and rape. Starting with Bill Clinton.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There are also things like design efficiency in the rest of the unit as well as in the electric motor itself. How much energy the product uses versus how much of that energy actual is expressed in it's useful function. Placing limits on energy consumption forces better design to make better use of that energy limit, why, because FUCKING GREED. Lazy greedy fuckers will just up the engine energy consumption to make up for poor design but hey its FUCKING CHEAPER that way. Also up the warranty requirements to substantially reduce energy used to produce goods that fail shortly after the 90 fucking day warranty. How about mandated 10 YEAR warranties, a decade of product reliability, it will certainly cost more but the energy used to replace a product 40 fucking times versus one product that lasts a decade will be substantially reduced. Why does it have to be legislated because of psychopathic corporate greed.
So how much energy would be saved with mandated decade long warranties on all applicable products. Boy could you imagine the complaints from psychopathic corporations who would demand the right to produce crap products that would be replaced 40 fucking times in that decade long time period. You want a real look at psychopathic planet destroying greed, look no further than a 90 fucking day warranty.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It makes a lot of sense if you are ignorant of physics. Or just plain dumb.
Are they going to emulate what Britain has been doing - convert old coal powered generators into wood burning generators?
Without drastic reduction on the demand side, solar / wind and even tidal waves can't replace the amount of power generation lost to the closing of those reacors
Whoopee ! . . We're all gonna die.
Youpie ! . . On va tous crever.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Rape and the Democratic Party, from Bill Clinton to Bill Cosby
not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
Which makes not a lick of sense since you just end up using the appliance for longer to get the same fuckin' result. Carbon footprint remains the same.
These would be the same tools who mandated the use of CCFL lights which contain mercury and white phosphorous, over incandescants which contain a chemically inert gas and a chemically inert filament inside a chemically inert container.
Don't forget the low flow toilet you have to flush three times.
fucking fucking fucking greed fucking fucking
Sounds like a progressive
reduce the country's reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% by 2025.
- ok, stupid but doable.
reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to the level in 1990.
- ok, by itself it does not mean anything, as it doesn't say how that is supposed to be done. But together with the first statement (reducing nuclear power) looks suspiciously contradictory.
The new law aims to eventually halve France's energy consumption by 2050 from the 2012 level.
- WHAT?????
Ok, unless the goal is to half the population and production by 2050 from the 2012 levels while simultaneously switching to non-nuclear power, that's one thing. But if the goal is also to reduce 'green house gas emissions'...
Explain this to me: half the energy consumption, reduce reliance on nuclear power and at the same time reduce green house emissions.
Unless the real goal there is to reduce population then I have a bridge to sell you.
I also may want a unicorn and a tooth fairy and I can even enact legislation about it but legislation that requires unicorns and tooth fairies to become available to me upon the request by the authorities cannot in fact magically produce unicorns and tooth fairies!
You can't handle the truth.
vacuum cleaners range from 3000 watts to a good workout with a straw broom. are you suggesting that a 0 watt stick broom cleaner is somehow not saving power compared to using a 3000 watt vacuum? is burning 'better' than a old standby cleaner like a broom. carpet may feel nice but it uses more resource than throw rugs that are good for beating out when they get dusty. I know some people who used to collect used t-shirts and make rugs from them. too lazy to do the math but http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm roughly if you have a 3000 watt vacuum and it takes an hour a week to clean with it, it uses about 1/7th a ton of coal a year to not get a good mostly anaerobic work out. that isn't including the energy savings of recycled rugs over carpets. or the savings in using a broom instead of a big bulky vacuum.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The polarization of this debate makes it difficult to discuss even the most benign criticism of the Nuclear industry. No doubt I'll be modded down for that however if the Nuclear industry wasn't so fragile perhaps it could tolerate the criticism and overcome many of the issues it has.
The peer reviewed science shows that Nuclear power provides no net energetic return and is not viable in its current form. Perhaps France has identified that and the vote will identify how well understood that is, unfortunately the political cycle is a lot shorter than the long range planning and oversight the Nuclear Industry requires.
The Nuclear industry has serious structural issues and the only way they can be solved is by looking at the facts in a realistic, analytic and pragmatic way. I welcome facts and a debate on this free of the general dogmatic skepticism and ad-hom attacks from nuclear fanbois, after all I am trying to learn as much as I can like any normal person about this important and complex subject.
I am not anti nuclear, I am Responsible Nuclear which is different from being pro or anti nuclear. Please understand the difference in that perspective before you test my radiation suit.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So you're saying that things can never be made more energy efficient?
A broom leaves lots of dirt around. A broom is also useless in households with allergic people. There is a reason the vacuum was invented in 1901. It's not a 21st century luxury item, by far.
TL;DR translation... "We plan on increasing our energy use by 50%, but do not plan on building additional nuclear plants to provide that capacity".
I don't understand why they would want to reduce reliance on nuclear power. Nuclear is presently the best option there is. It generates massive amounts of power, has very little waste, and a relatively small carbon footprint.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I live in Australia, we have had drought for many years at one stage prompting our government to change all the water saving ratings making all the best devices 1 star to promote even further water reduction, and restricting water usage to 120L /person /day. We have water free chemical urinals, water saving devices on all faucets and the local council even reduced the mains water pressure.
I have never had to flush the ceramic throne more than once.
Get yourself a better toilet.
These would be the same tools who mandated the use of CCFL lights which contain mercury and white phosphorous, over incandescants which contain a chemically inert gas and a chemically inert filament inside a chemically inert container.
And did so with the understanding that the generation of dirty power is an order of magnitude worse for the environment and that CCFLs can be a relatively quick change (life of a bulb) vs mandating clean energy (massive changes in power generation industry, massive changes in energy pricing, etc).
Here, allow me to filter it for your 1950's style ears:
Profanity Filter for Chrome
Why. Its called using more efficient systems.
LED lamps instead of Tungsten
Heat pumps instead of cheap electric heaters.
Improved housing insulation
Improved efficiency in refrigerators and other appliances.
Lower "Standby" power for TVs etc.
Commercial buildings having to be insulated, etc.
Smart buildings that will turn lights off when no one is in the room
etc etc etc etc
Its all possible.
Depends on whether oil products used by ICE vehicles are in this energy budget or not.
With vacuum cleaners there is sod all correlation between wattage and cleaning ability.
Cheap high wattage vacuums are just grossly inefficient.
Mercury lighting has been used commercially/industrially for decades.
LED lighting is an alternative, they are lower wattage too for the same light output.
Kettles can be made better, smaller volumes of water (for when you are only doing 1-2 cups), more efficient space heaters, higher heat output for lower energy input.
Talk about FUD, you an oil/gas/coal shill ????
I have a sunbeam mixer that was my mothers wedding present in 1960, still going strong.
Uses REAL bearings, not plastic bushes, etc etc etc.
Should get another 20 years of life out of it.
Modern electric drills for the consumer are rated for about 20 hours use before they die.
I did look at the warranty. Price of chinese-made el-cheapo trail bike? AUD$1000. Warranty? 30 days. The salesman not only kept a straight face, he told me "you won't need a longer warranty, these things are bulletproof".
Price of six-month-old second-hand Yamaha: ~AUD$5000. Still had 18 months of factory warranty.
My yamaha still goes - starts first time and just goes. My son's friend's el-cheapo bike? It goes, in between repairs and replacement of el-cheapo parts. He might be happy to settle for that kind of "reliability" at that price, but at least my yamaha will be worth something in 5 years.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
We could do that in the US if it wasn't for the Republicans. They keep using more and more energy in their drive to destroy Earth. They hate the Earth nearly as much as they hate us. They are so full of hate. So full. They are the reason we can't save the planet. Can't save it.
Thank goodness the democrats have figured out how to live without consuming any resources. What a shining example the democrats are, so that they can point at the republicans and blame them for all of the Earth's ills.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
We got the same thing across the pond. The EPA passed so many regulations that virtually all steel mills had to shut down. Result. More pollution overall because the steel is made in China, and now has to be transported to the US.
Another place where this comes into play are diesel engines. The EPA demanded such stringent regulations that once rock-stead diesels have a high failure rate, be it no-start conditions due to DEF issues, clogged DPFs (which cost $3200 on up), notorious unreliability (high pressure water pumps and fuel injectors are a "consumable" item), not to mention parts use. Unreliable engines mean people buy more of them... which means more mining to get the minerals, more toxic shit, more energy waste to get the part from China or wherever the cheapest place in the world is to the US, and so on.
It has happened before. The EPA passed so many emissions requirements in 1973, it took over 25 years before cars didn't suck again when it came to horsepower. In the meantime, we the customers paid for the unreliable engines with abortions like K-cars.
Things get better, definitely not thanks to government. CCFLs and their mini-Superfund site they create when they break are being replaced by LEDs (which as the parent pointed out require a lot of toxic stuff to be used in the manufacturing process compared to the relative simple making of an incandescent bulb.)
This rating system explains half of the situation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale
I'm guessing you are normally a 5, 6, or 7.
I'm normally 1, 2, or 3.
There is more to it than just that though. There is also length and diameter. I can produce one that is 16 inches (40 cm) long. It's pretty thick too, just a bit less than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. Sometimes they have tar-like parts that stick to the bowl.
To handle these, my toilet would need to operate like a blender: close the lid, push the "milkshake" or "frappe" or "puree" button, and the blades make quick work of the situation. I've yet to see anybody selling a toilet with blades.
... with their new coal power stations
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...
If France really wants to close down their nuclear power plants, Poland will be more than happy to supply Germany with their excess electricity generated from coal power stations
What about 'Carbon Footprint', you say? Hey, Poland can claim that their 'carbon footprint' is not as high as China, so they get all the greenlights they need to construct even MORE coal power plants
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
(which as the parent pointed out require a lot of toxic stuff to be used in the manufacturing process compared to the relative simple making of an incandescent bulb.)
This effect is miniscule compared to the toxic stuff released during the generation of the extra electricity required for the incandescent bulb.
Don't forget the low flow toilet you have to flush three times.
you might want to try a laxative
Modern electric drills for the consumer are rated for about 20 hours use before they die.
Unless you are in blackburn lancashire, that's probably a lot more holes than you will ever need.
Voute etes tous des vaches. Les vaches disent meuh. MEEEEUUUUHHHH! MEEEEEUUUUUUHHHH! Mueh vaches MEUUUHHHH! Meuh disent les vaches. VOUS VACHES!!
I've seen any number of low-flow toilets in my time, and they almost always need multiple flushes to clean the bowl from #2. Although I'm glad you can trumpet the superiority of white Australia in public. Seriously? How did you even get up to +4? I love the tagline, instructing the inferior people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Right-wingers like you are on the way out, you're headed for the dustbin of history, and you just can't stand it, can you?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Being more efficient (and reducing power used) is a goal. Stopping / not-using something in the name of 'power saving' is a much harder sell. Its just like money. When you are poor and suddenly have 10 or 100 times as much income is a very easy lifestyle change. Moving from a blue-ribbon lifestyle to one with 1/10 or 1/100 as much money is a very much more difficult transition. Going green by using LED instead of incandescent is a good goal. Shutting off all the street lights (potentially letting criminals run loose and certainly not be able to see across the middle of a city street) is not an idea that will get much traction. I wish there was research in better forms of nuclear power, instead 60 year old designs are trotted out as new. Its a shame, and a waste.
By not building new capacity as the old is retired it is going to shrink, and by not committing to new construction some years ago this policy was effectively already in place.
I expect people to note before replying that nothing in that statement is against or for nuclear power, just an observation of the situation. If you have a thin skin either way please scratch it elsewhere.
basically, France should be pushing AE, but as a replacement for their coal plants. In addition, they need to grow their electricity, so rather than cut nuke plants, they should be replacing their coal, AND expanding electricity output via AE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In the USA they have a different standard design of toilet bowl, probably for historical reasons (ie. always done it that way), and combining it with a cistern used elsewhere apparently does not work very well at all. Getting a better toilet may be beyond what the normal suppliers can do.
The lesson, for the millionth time in engineering, is if you change one part of the design you may need to change another. Not doing that means a low flow cistern with a bowl that needs a high flow cistern sucks with a low fibre diet.
The Industrial Age is over. The future is a bunch of small, barely self-sustaining agrarian communities loosely interconnected. With the upcoming end of the Information Age the energy requirements will plummet. It's been a great century and some, but science and technology have run their course. The place for Man is with Nature.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. The above poster mentioned Australia because water scarcity is far more of an issue there than even in California. For the purposes of saving water Australian toilets are superior simply because it was a mandated design criteria while it isn't with your cobbled together situation of high flow bowls and low flow cisterns. The entire thing is designed to deal with the job (pun intended) instead of the extra of a low flow cistern added on as an afterthought.
There is NOTHING in that post above about "the superiority of white Australia" or "Right-wingers" - and the amusing thing about your reaction is that it was a "socialist" government body that set the standard and demanded a better design than you are used to.
3%? Only if you redefine nuclear waste to mean something completely and utterly different to technical usage. It's not just the fuel rods that have to be handled with care. The majority of nuclear waste is low grade stuff that has come in contact with the fuel but is not fuel itself, those pesky neutrons tend to break things. The low grade waste is not so difficult to deal with as the high grade waste, but pretending it does not exist is counterproductive and just will make people oppose your viewpoint once they find out they have been tricked. Let's please consider things in terms of reality and not redefinition word games.
Because they had already decided a few years ago to stop building new plants mainly due to high capital cost and an unwillingness to put the money up at the time. Some other energy sources can be built a bit at a time so there is less money needed up front even if the total is more per megawatt. They are also not building any new hydro.
Hmm ... I've owned a dyson (within the mandated wattage) for ages, since I left the country, it's at my girlfriends house, where her parents started using it instrad of the hoover which is 1.5x the mandated wattage as it just works a lot better.
The whole idea is to encourage efficiency, a lot of these other vaccummes just aren't very good, spend the money and get a dyson and hoovering actually becomes fun.
- unfortunately now, I'm looking after another flat with a shit hoover that can't pick up anything and two bastard shedding cats :(
Pretty sure european warranty is much longer than 2 years.
You can't even give an estimate as to the cost of nuclear generated electricity. There are unsolved problems in the waste disposal process. Nobody knows what it will cost to fix the problems or even if they can be fixed. Nobody has actually accounted fully for all the costs. Nobody even knows what all the costs are. Nobody has figured out a way to dispose of the waste. Nobody, not even the French. Nobody knows how much it will cost to clean up the existing mess. When anyone tells you that nuclear electricity is cheap, they are lying.
I often have to cut my loafs with a plastic knife into sections just so it will flush. I shit large! And I often flush multiple times to ensure clears.
Also up the warranty requirements to substantially reduce energy used to produce goods that fail shortly after the 90 fucking day warranty. How about mandated 10 YEAR warranties, a decade of product reliability, it will certainly cost more but the energy used to replace a product 40 fucking times versus one product that lasts a decade will be substantially reduced.
That's why we buy Miele appliances - made in Germany, decades of reliable work, great technology. It costs more, but it is worth it for never having to repair them, alone. For example, I'd hate to have our washing machine break. But it hasn't happened in the last 7 years, and I trust it won't happen till after I have retired. For those used to Chinese-made appliances, this must sound ludicrously impossible.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I just finished watching "Pandora's Promise" which used France as a great example of utilizing Nuclear Energy.
Overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Netflix Info: http://www.moreflicks.com/titl...
What has changed since 2013 since the documentary came out?
Was it politicians or the government? Public Opinion?
After watching the Pandora's Promise documentary, France seemed to be very counter-culture in their energy ambitions.
At speed proposed? No, not without a massive collapse in quality of life or utter exodus of heavy industry.
One issue is that the French nuclear reactors are badly designed. Areva, the French manufacturer, makes HUGE reactors that require extremely large construction equipment. The size of the reactors creates vendor lock-in. Failures can be far more dangerous.
Construction and maintenance is much easier when there are multiple smaller reactors. See, for example, Small Nuclear Power Reactors.
Approximately 96% of "spent" fuel rod is fissile material. The reason it's considered "spent" is mechanics of the process which make it less economic to use at that point.
In much of the world, a mix of anti-nuclear lobby and anti-proliferation lobby declare this 96% spent fuel "waste". In France, they recycle it into fuel.
It's pulled out, enriched back to normal levels and put back into the reactor. Remaining 3-4% are the generated impurities. The portion of this that is "high grade" is actually fairly easy to deal with - you just let it sit and break itself down. The more radioactive it is, the shorter half life it has and the faster it destroys itself. It's the low grade stuff that is problematic, as you can't just wait for it to break itself up, you need to actually store it somewhere. That's what most of the nuclear waste storage brouhaha is about.
France *always* want to seem counterculture. Then the Germans straighten them out.
"miniscule compared to the toxic stuff released during the generation of the extra electricity required for the incandescent bulb."
That depends on the type of exhaust scrubbers fitted to the coal power plant and the type of coal used. I'd wager that technology exists and is actually being used to make the exhaust pretty much free of toxic stuff. The sulfur is converted to gypsum (used in drywall), the ashes are an additive to concrete, etc..
What cannot be suppressed is the (nontoxic) CO2 emission. It would be good to quantify things beyond "a lot" and "much more". Electricity can be converted to electricity to electricity at 1 to 2 kWh/kg depending on who you believe (can't be bothered to find out why different values exist). Assumie a CFK lasts 3000 h (actually they should last 6x longer, but it seems to be too optimistic for many use cases) and an incandescent 1000 h. A 60 W incandescent will use 180 kWh over 3000 h, i.e. 90 to 180 kg of coal. The CO2 emission is about 3.5 times that weight.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
European warranty periods are already up to half a decade, depending on type of product.
Fort example for vacuum cleaner there had been a competition to increase wattage but the effect on dust is not linear and frankly mostly firms just added wattage, not necessarily efficiency. We have already went way past the point of diminishing return IMO, and my old cleaner just cleaned as good as the new one, without taking more time. The EU mandate simply means that the firm will have to compete on other domain like efficiency.
I take it you have never actually used an electric drill. The sad part of consumer products with a short life-span is that these days you often can't get anything better even if you're willing to pay a significantly higher price for quality. The "high-end" products (think of blenders for example) also cut corners in some critical areas and use components that fail easily.
Share your sentiment - GP and GGP look like they have their brains removed in a violent manner in their young years. Possibly trough Murican education system.
Anything that requires business to adhere to some (quality, environmental, safety etc) standards brings a violent response from some. I wonder if these are the same brainless people that on other occasions complain about evil corporations dumping chemical waste into their backyards.
We could do that in the US if it wasn't for the Republicans. They keep using more and more energy in their drive to destroy Earth. They hate the Earth nearly as much as they hate us. They are so full of hate. So full. They are the reason we can't save the planet. Can't save it
Thank goodness the democrats have figured out how to live without consuming any resources
English ain't my mother tongue ...
May I know which one is correct:
"any resource"
or
"any resources"?
Dr Charles Till came and spoke at my university. He's the guy who was in charge of the research project in the states to make the safe nuclear reactor in the documentary. He put his heart and soul into that project and had some of the worlds best physicists putting their faith in him. Makes me really sad that the project was cancelled even after they demonstrated that it was the safest reactor ever conceived and they had managed to solve all the problems the nuclear industry had been fighting against.
Why are you insulting the French? This reduction is possible. And it is already happening in the EU. As the same laws of physics apply to the US, it would be possible in the US too. It would be even easier because you waste so much more then Europeans. Instead of using SUVs as city vehicle you could use smaller cars. By that you could reduce CO2 emissions in the car sector by 50% or more. And you could insulate your homes which would require less heating in the winter and less cooling in the summer. Ah yes and you could place solar panels on your roof and collectors for electricity and water heating.
And hey the French will do exactly that (beside the SUV thingy, because they do not use them that much).
Was that Clinton thing not consensual?
Which makes not a lick of sense since you just end up using the appliance for longer to get the same fuckin' result.
No, the EU's limits are actually giving us better products. Take vacuum cleaner motor power, for example. In Japan, a really high end, high power, top rated cleaner might be 600W. In Europe it would be 2500W, make much more noise and heat, and not clean any better. In actual fact the average 250-300W Japanese vacuum cleaner is just as good or better at cleaning than the average 2000W European one, and a lot easier to handle. The secret is to agitate the dust so that it goes up into the air, where it can easily be captured by a 250W motor.
The problem is that in the EU people are stupid. They think more is better, is they buy the most powerful motor they can even though it actually gets them a worse product. Japanese consumers seem to be a but more discerning and willing to educate themselves, but also value low power as a feature. It seems like Japanese consumer magazines and web sites do a better job of reviewing vacuum cleaners too, unlike the European ones that just throw some flour on the floor.
It's the same with pretty much everything. Why make a better kettle when you can just put a more powerful heating element in it, which will also die much more quickly and net you another sale in a few years. Japanese kettles are perfectly fine, they don't take longer to boil because they are more efficient, and they tend to be smaller so you can heat just one cup at a time instead of wasting energy heating 4 cups to make your coffee.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Confirmed. British toilets are crap too, using much more water than necessary and lacking all but the most basic features. Japanese low-flow toilets seem to accelerate the water and make it swirl round instead of just coming down, which keeps them cleaner and uses less water in the process. They also seem to be designed to avoid splashback.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
My Miele combo washing machine from our apartment days just broke down.
Good thing we have 5 years off warranty mandated by law in Norway.
They tried to fix it twice, now they have to replace it and they are actually replacing it (on our request) with a separate washer and a dryer.
But 4 years is a far cry from the "20 years of operation" promised in the commercial.
The above poster was pretending it applied to total waste and not just the fuel, so you are discussing something different to the topic of the thread.
I'm not too sure. A modern washing machine is much cleaner than a 15 year old one. Most good brands will easily work 20 years. Do you also want the crap and inefficient ones to stick around 20 years? The same goes for example for cars.
Most high power appliances use a magnitude more energy in use than in production.
High-tech, low energy usage things such as computers and phones are very energy intensive to manufacture, but aren't typically replaced because they stopped working but because the tech is outdated. Much longer warranties here will increase the cost (financial and energy) for almost no gain.
European carbon footprint is half that of the US per capita. And we have the same or mostly better lifestyles than the US.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
I see no difference between the design of USA toilets and Australian toilets, other than when you google Australian toilets you get a lot of pictures of things that can bite you in the arse (literally like spiders and snakes) :-)
But yes you raise an interesting point. If people are replacing one component of a system they can't expect the same level of performance. It's the same reason why I can't have a lukewarm shower at home, my hot water system's low-flow cut-out point is not designed to cope with water saving shower heads so it's either hot or not not.
Point is the same. If your toilet doesn't work when it's flushed you should fix your toilet rather than blaming the government. There are plenty of places with water restrictions on their toilets which don't seem to be having a shitty problem.
last time I bought a "Challenge" drill from Homebase it lasted precisely two 40mm deep 8mm wide holes in masonry before the motor burned out. That thing went back, it's been Bosch chucks and Black & Decker motors and gearboxes from secondhand stores ever since. Since I'm too broke to afford a Milwaukee or a Makita...
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Japanese toilets will also pre-heat the seat, sing you a song and wipe your arse providing you press the right buttons in the right order.
my mother is replacing her 35 year old Belling electric cooker. Yes, the last two rings (out of four) and the oven have just quit on her in the last month, all she has left is the cool side of the grill.
That thing came with a ten year warranty. It lasted three and a half fucking decades.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
how much toxic stuff do wind generators emit again?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
If you're using a kettle at any point in the coffee making process you ought to be taken out and shot.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Umm, no. Employer and employee. By definition, not consensual.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You have that completely backwards.
It's Germany that went all "atomkraft - nien danke" and ended up burning tons of filthy brown coal, not France.
France is just pandering to more German over-emotional hysteria.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If there is not enough water in the canalisation system then all sorts of problems start to arise, so wasteful toilets are fine for a water rich country.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
If they did need that overcapacity, they would be unable to sell excess to France.
Nimrod.
"Then why does France have some of the lowest energy prices in the developed EU" Because the government hands out money to the companies to keep the cost down.
If nuclear is so cheap, why is the contract for a new nuke power station in the UK guaranteeing a higher price than wind, coal or gas and guaranteeing higher-than-inflation prices for the power?
???? you life in a strange country. I could have a sexual relationship with my boss and our secretary and that would not be a problem legally. Anyway, I am not gay so the first option is only theoretical, and the second option is, well I have a spouse and I am very happy with her.
We did wait about a century for battery technology to get better. Then NiMH batteries came along, and then the entire Li-Ion family of chemistries came along, and battery technology got a whole lot better.
I wonder if this is a case of future shock? Sometimes technology leaves ingrained, conventional wisdom in the dust, and some people are very slow to acknowledge it. Example. . . I still encounter those who say solar power will never be anywhere near cost competitive with fossil fuels. For about fifty years solar was wildly expensive, then solar panel prices fell off a cliff. Some folks still haven't got the memo.
It'll probably be the same with fusion power. We sometimes forget in these discussions that fission plants are merely a stopgap technology until fusion is up and running. We've repeated the joke -- "Fusion power is 40 years in the future -- and always will be!" -- so often that we've all begun to believe it's more than a joke. We've got to the point where the only thing Joe Sixpack knows about fusion is that it's never really going to happen. Joe is going to get a big surprise someday.
I know, but sadly it's the way most people make coffee in the UK. Instant crap... Well, some of the whole bean instants are at least drinkable at work now.
We are fairly shit at making tea as well :-(
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Okay, halving carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, or nuclear power use is one thing (though silly in the latter case). But halving consumption of power? How in the hell is that supposed to work? "Welcome to France, there's no air conditioning."? Perhaps instead of electric vehicles, they're adopting Flintstones style cars? Does it mean all electricity use, or can you still wire up a stationary bike to a generator? Will batteries still be sold?
The interior shape of the bowl is completely different.
WTF is that coming from?
Oh the EU stuff above - sometimes a good idea can be pushed a bit too hard into areas where it isn't but I'll bet the above poster will find that there are exceptions to the "mandate" if they look hard enough.
It's just a situation where the defining leader of the market was something that needed a shitload of water to get rid of a load of shit. After that there's the normal resistance to change and a half-arsed solution. Australia is only really flushed with success because widespread adoption of flush toilets happened later so a more capable design could be developed and be introduced without having to compete with "what they should look like".
You misunderstand. Whenever France goes uppity, the Germans stroll down the Champs Elysees marching and siegheiling all over. Them Germans love their straight-armed salutes and fancy brownshirts. Because they're Germans.
...providing you press the right buttons in the right order.
That would it explain why it preheated my arse, singed the seat and then wiped all my songs.
I thought that one mitigating factor *might* be that America probably has more people living in desert climates than Europe, but looking at List of countries by energy consumption per capita it appears that Northern European countries use more energy than the Mediterranean countries. I guess heating outweighs aircon costs.
However you look at it, the US use more energy than any European country (except Luxembourg - I have no idea what the hell they're doing).
Moo!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
My Makita 9.6v I bought in 98-99 is still going strong after all these years using it for random things.
It could be that it just can't do he types of jobs that would make it wear out quicker.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
What do those seashells do anyways?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I guess the country will soon run on je ne sais quoi.
Don't forget the low flow toilet you have to flush three times.
You are so full of shit...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
French press.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
British toilets are crap too, using much more water than necessary
We overcome this with our native cunning and shove a couple of bricks in the cistern.
lacking all but the most basic features
What other features do you need in a toilet apart from a bowl, water and a way of flushing it? Air conditioning? Leather upholstery? Cruise control?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A broom leaves lots of dirt around. A broom is also useless in households with allergic people. There is a reason the vacuum was invented in 1901. It's not a 21st century luxury item, by far.
And those people are allergic mostly because everywhere is cleaned too well. A bit of dirt is good for you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What other features do you need in a toilet apart from a bowl, water and a way of flushing it?
The way British toilets flush is very wasteful. If you look at Japanese toilets they accelerate the water and make it rush around the bowl, which seems to clean it out better. It also eliminates the overhanging lip so it is easier to clean, you don't need one of those "duck" shaped bottles to squirt bleach up from underneath.
Soft close seats, heated seats for the winter, odour elimination, built in bidet, auto-flush... And for really saving water, some have a basin attached. When you flush the water comes out of a tap and into the basin, so you can wash your hands with it before it goes into the tank to be used for the next flush.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wind and Solare will never be able to compete with nuclear, they are expensive to maintain/operate, not very efficient, expensive to 'store' (batteries, or pumped hydro), and frankly ugly.
Coal is a non-starter, and frankly, so is natural gas IMHO.
If you want sustained, compact, safe, and unlimited energy, there are two solutions, one which has been field tested and proven, and another which is being developed at ITER.
I speak of course of LFTR technology using thorium fuel cycle, and nuclear fusion.
Both of these technologies will make any other energy solution PALE in comparision, and we can DO LFTR now. That tech was well researched in the 70's, and only needs to be brought out of mothballing and put into production. It can even reprocess all those 'used' fuel rods from your uranium fuel cycle as fuel, using 99% of the fuel instead of the pitiful 2-5% in the uranium fuel cycle.
Politicians are bending to the mass hysteria that is 'radiation oh noes'.
If you are 'green' and look at the true facts, you'll see that LFTR is the obvious way to go.
Hollande and his constituents are an idiots.
Even that argumentation is questionable. One has to remember that socialists are almost guaranteed to lose the presidential elections in a few years, and UMP/Republicans are effectively guaranteed to cancel this policy regardless.
It's their plan, and yes, it's questionable. French politics are such that the politics of going non-nuclear while at the same time supporting ITER and the LHC are incompatible (unless they also plan to pull out of ITER).
I'm now currently laughing a little at being modded down, since there were no nuclear closures announced as part of the plan; someone is bad at math:
100% = 75% + 25%; if the 75% is to turn into 50%, then 75% + 75% = 150%. So they plan to increase utilization 50%, if they do not plan plant closures, otherwise the amount provided by nuclear not changing doesn't work out. :^)
I live in an appartement in Paris & my neighbors above me put in a heat exchanger as suggested by cheesybagel a little over a decade ago.
No need for air ducting in false ceilings, they installed insulated piping in the walls (& discretely along the ceiling where necessary) that go between the heating/cooling/fan units in each room and the heat exchangers bolted on to the courtyard facing walls. Yeah, the installation was expensive but heating during the winter is 30% lower than convectors in neighboring units of the same size and they have cooling during the summer (the major reason for the installation because she has some health issues in high heat). The system has by now paid for itself & their lower electricity bills are going to be highly appreciated when they retire in a few years.
The big worry was noise from the heat exchangers but I've only noticed them in the middle of the night & even then it's discreet. If it wasn't for the old couple below us who heats our floors during the winters & the fact that we benefit from their cooling we'd have installed heat exchangers too.
Don't forget the low flow toilet you have to flush three times.
I replaced a toilet about 3 years ago that was plugging at least once a week with one recommended in Consumer Reports. It cost me about $260 plus installation. The new toilet uses 1.28 gallons/full flush and 0.8 gallons for a partial flush. I've had it for 2.5 years now and it's only plugged once in all that time. And I never have to flush it more than once (except the time it plugged where I let it sit for an hour or so and flushed it again which cleared the plug). So, if you get a quality low flow toilet it works just fine, if you go cheap expect problems.
Are you one of those frugality nutjobs who reuses aluminum foil and wipes himself with old socks?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Hanford was not a power plant, it was a bomb-making facility. The first bomb-making facility, in point of fact, which is why it's such a mess now. Thanks for being an alarmist on this issue, it really helps the level of discussion to drag in FUD about plutonium production when talking about power production.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
The EU maximum wattage ratings for kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units exist only on the fevered imaginations of Eurosceptics. The limits on vacuum cleaner power had no effect on cleaning performance as the best performing ones were already below the limit.
A cup holder of course.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
We had allergies before we had 21st-century US cleaning, and telling somebody with an allergy that they could have avoided it if their parents had been sloppier cleaners isn't really helpful.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Around here, employer-employee sex is legal. There are laws about how it can influence the employee relationship, so it can be a problem (two people working for the boss, the more qualified one is screwing him or her, there's one promotion opportunity - any way that decision goes can cause problems).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Umm, how is the kettle more efficient? Heating elements haven't changed for a very long time. You have a smaller heating element, the longer it's going to take to boil. I don't know what miracle material the Japanese have found that somehow boils the same water with a smaller heating element. Thus you're full of shit.
Sure it's possible, but at what costs? Energy is cheap in the US. It's cheaper to consume this energy than it is to build more efficient systems. And yes, there are a lot of people interested here in creating more efficient homes. However, the people that build these homes aren't interested in creating more efficient homes, they're more interested in building a house for 20k with incredibly cheap labor and materials and selling it for half a million.
In much of the world, a mix of anti-nuclear lobby and anti-proliferation lobby declare this 96% spent fuel "waste". In France, they recycle it into fuel.
The only place on the world where spent fuel is called waste is the states. And they do that to distract from the true waste problem.
The actual waste is all the stuff that came in contact with the fuel or other stuff that came into contact with contaminated other stuff and so on.
Also your 96% idea makes no sense ... you seem not to know how nuclear fuel works. Especially: no, it is not fissionable. It is the wrong isotope. To reprocess it you need to enrich it again. And for that you have to reduce that 96% "left over" to half of it, and refill the gap with highly enriched fuel (uranium). So even during reprocessing "half of the spent fuel" is left over as waste. Actually a no brainer.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't think they solved too high price problem.
That doesn't make sense. Sure, be more efficient, but don't aim to lower usage. Readily available energy is how we advance. Focus on making electricity cleaner and more efficiently. This is the equivalent of throttling progress.
X
The costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant are staggering. I suspect this is is a fear-based policy because of Fukushima. The nuclear power industry learned a LOT of lessons from that disaster (and even Three Mile Island) and are taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. I work at a nuke plant - and I receive less radiation in the reactor building than I do getting an X-ray at the hospital. Spent fuel is stored on site in containers that are impenetrable. And yes - nuke jobs pay very very well.
Ah yes, angelosphere. The ignorant trolling continues. You are incorrect on all accounts as usual.
1. "No enrichment of spent fuel rods" policy covers almost entire world minus France and to some extent Russia. This is largely because of proliferation movement combined with anti-nuclear lobby. Same process that is used to enrichment is also used for producing nuclear grade material which creates proliferation fears and anti-nuclear lobby is extremely successful in blocking anything nuclear related that would make it more sustainable, down to security upgrades to Fukushima reactors.
2. 96% figure is the amount of fissible U235 remaining as a portion of what was put in when fuel rod is extracted. 100% means amount of U235 on fresh rod. 96% of this remains when rod is extracted and considered "spent".
I suspect the misunderstanding is on your part. I read the same post you did, and I drew a completely different conclusion than you.
Now that's nice - blaming me for your deliberate misleading shift of the goalposts.
Politeness is wasted on "ends justifies the means" extremists like you that just see it as weakness.
Luxembourg produces lots of steel. Which we of course use. Much like Chinas very bad co2 footprint is mostly making stuff for us :/ .
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Currently pollution from coal is killing something over a million people a year, nuclear supposedly kills about 50.. Chernobyl was a pulse event so is separate but even by the highest sets of statistics Chernobyl killed about as many people as a months coal production.
This produces some very odd stats -
Nuclear power in total has killed some 100,000 people
Nuclear weapons in total have killed some 300,000 to 500,000 people.
Anti-Nuclear protest and regulation have killed some 5 to 10 million people.
Did I mention that France has the lowest carbon emissions per unit of any industrialised nation.
Yet with the intelligence and foresight of chickens people are still turning away from nuclear and towards renewables - and coal.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
There is no shifting of goalposts. All there is is dirt throwing on your part hoping some of it will stick. He clearly stated what he was talking about, you went to great pains to intentionally misunderstand what he was actually saying.
And then you proceeded to throw dirt at those who pointed your error out to you.
My Miele combo washing machine from our apartment days just broke down.
Good thing we have 5 years off warranty mandated by law in Norway.
They tried to fix it twice, now they have to replace it and they are actually replacing it (on our request) with a separate washer and a dryer.
But 4 years is a far cry from the "20 years of operation" promised in the commercial.
That's quite disappointing for a Miele product. For what it's worth, none of my colleagues who have Miele appliances, had them break (yet).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Clearly a major error which I addressed and you embraced as propaganda with a disgusting little goalpost shift trick. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest less deliberate dishonesty.
Does not matter how you count the 96%.
The ignorant idiot is you ... I give you some links:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/N...
Quote: Enrichment
The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So? Idiot? You figured it?
It does not matter if you talk about U-235 (which might be 96% burned) or if I talk about U-MOX together, as the number: 96% is conincidentally the same.
If you had any clue about the topic you knew that and had saved your post.
Thanx for your attention.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why don't you just turn the HW service thermostat down a bit?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Dear mathematically changed moron. I do wonder how you got on a computer-related site which generally requires people to actually comprehend basic math, which you fail at.
It's very, very simple.
Your reactor takes a certain fuel rod (depending on reactor type this can be anything from natural levels to various stages of enrichment). This rod is considered to be 100% fuelled. The actual levels of U235 compared to rest of contents is only relevant from point of view of what kind of reactor you're using it in - it's wholly irrelevant for the scope of this discussion which does not specify reactor types.
You use the rod in the reactor, moving it within the reactor as it slowly depletes. Eventually when there's around 96% of original U235 contents still left in the rod, the rod is considered "spent" and needs to be enriched back to original 100% level (which again can be anything from natural uranium content to various enriched levels depending on reactor type).
Easy math: fully fuelled rod just inserted into the reactor: 100% fuelled.
"Spent" fuel rod: around 96% of the original contents still in the rod.
Do us all a favour, and get through elementary school math before your attempt to discuss mathematics on slashdot again.
Sorry,
all wrong especially: "(depending on reactor type this can be anything from natural levels to various stages of enrichment)". No idea why it is so difficult for you to read up basic stuff on wikipedia.
And I lost desire to educate you.
Have a nice life.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.