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'.
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!
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.
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.
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.
When I went to France I noticed a lot of people use resistive heating because the electricity is cheap. If a lot of people switched to central heating the country could probably be more energetically efficient. Somehow I suspect once they close the nuclear power plants the electricity prices will go up. A lot.
If a lot of people switched to central heating the country could probably be more energetically efficient.
Why central? Retro-fitting to old buildings would be unnecessarily expensive. (except perhaps single-storey homes, but they are not common.)
Just replace the electric radiators with split-system reverse-cycle air-conditioners. Modern systems can use a quarter the energy, or less.
And the next time a summer heatwave hits, the French won't be dying en-masse from heat exhaustion.
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.
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).
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
has very little waste,
http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/10/study-vermont-yankee-thermal-discharge-into-connecticut-river-exceeds-limits/
The study found that from 2006-2010, between the months of May and October, Vermont Yankee’s discharge exceeded the permitted rise in temperature 58 percent of the time. In June, that number rose to 74 percent. The report also noted that temperature increases near the nuclear plant held at least 22.5 miles downstream in Massachusetts.
In August, TEPCO admitted that up to 400 tons of contaminated water flows into the Pacific Ocean every day
According to TEPCO, some 300 tons of highly contaminated water had leaked from a 1000 ton cylindrical steel storage tank.
In January 2014 it was made public that a total of 875 trillion becquerel (Bq) of tritium are on the site of Fukushima Daiichi; it would take 59 years to safely discharge this amount of tritium to the sea.
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.
Issues to be concerned about to be certain but these issues amount to almost nothing when scaled against the long term problem of global warming.
And even that's still ignoring the massive health issues parts of the world are currently "enjoying" due to carbon emitting power plants.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
these issues amount to almost nothing when scaled against the long term problem of global warming.
These issues are happening NOW, with our current level of nuclear use.
They will be even worse if nuclear capacity increases.
It will only take one more tsunami or earthquake to put a major portion of the world's population in jeopardy.
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!
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.
and yet, other than thermal pollution, all of those issues are due to running OLD reactors that should have been replaced by now, with NEW gen IV reactors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
It's because... NUCLEAR (booga! booga! booga!) The radioactive waste will last 10,000 years! Just ignore all that talk about reprocessing, mind you. And make sure to oppose any plan to actually deal with the waste in a sane manner. NUCLEAR!!!
Seriously, don't ask for a logical reason. Environmentalists have spent the last thirty or forty years convincing themselves and anyone who listened to them that nuclear power is the devil. It's a little hard to turn those beliefs and feelings around on a dime, now that it turns out nuclear power may end up being the key to saving the planet because of environmental concerns. Irony.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
all of those issues are due to running OLD reactors that should have been replaced by now, with NEW gen IV reactors.
Nuclear advocates have NEVER been able to tally up the actual costs of what they are proposing, why should we believe them now?
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.
Huh? There is nothing in there about retro-fitted central heating. I'm sure they already had it, and the article talks about insulation, regenerative brakes on the elevators, LED lights ... all good things but irrelevant to French homes' choice of central vs split-system AC.
Taking a neutral position, in that case it just means some cheapskate didn't design the cooling system to match the government requirements and that it's not being properly enforced. Having a lake large enough to get the cooling water temperature down before it ends up back in the river is one of the many reasons why nuclear has such a large capital cost - the benefit of running really hot means you have to pass a lot of water through it.
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.
The benefit of running really hot means you have to pass a lot of water through it.
The big efficiency problem with nuclear power is that you CANNOT run "really hot". For safety reasons, nuclear plants must run at much lower temperatures than coal fired plants. The lower temperature means there is much less thermal overhead and much lower efficiency. You need much more cooling water per generated kwh for a nuclear plant, and it spews much more thermal energy into the waste water than a coal-fired plant. Thermodynamics is a harsh mistress.
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.
Nuclear power plant produces much more thermal power than electrical. If not used for central heating, it will be wasted anyway.
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.
"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.
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.
Dear idiot pretending to be knowledgeable. Modern plants extract electricity not from "heat" but from "heat differential". This applies to all plants that work steam turbines, which means everything from nuclear to burners.
While it's true that turbines become more efficient with greater thermal differential, nuclear combats this with total volume of steam going through the turbine. Instead of getting typical 100-200MW turbines used with larger burner plants, nuclear turbines are rated several times that. That is why it "spews more thermal energy into the waste water", which is a really nice way to inject lots of ideologically loaded and factually incorrect words into the argument. It's not a waste water, it's tertiary cooling circuit, which you can use for pretty much anything you want, such as central heating for example. There is no "waste" in the water, it's the same water as one on intake, it's simply somewhat warmer. If you put the plant near the large body of water, it's literally irrelevant how much water you need to pump through tertiary circuit. As long as you meet the needs of the turbine thermal differential, you're good. The extra temperature that ends in your sea or ocean is utterly irrelevant when considering the total volume of water and thermal energy it contains.
But nice use of buzzwords, I'll give you that. What you utterly lack in knowledge of the process, your certainly replace with your considerable talent for demagogy and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Electric heating is 100% efficient once the electricity enters your house, whether it's central or not (and central suggests heating areas of your home you don't need to). Google entropy, or basic thermodynamics.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
When I went to France I noticed a lot of people use resistive heating because the electricity is cheap.
Electricity prices in France are about twice what they are in America.
In Europe, central heating means that you have radiators in every room or underfloor heating or wall heating. And you can regulate it in every room. Central heating means that you have one energy source in the building heating the water for these radiators. Nowadays these systems work with lower temperatures (e.g., 40 C) which is quite efficient. In addition in larger buildings central heating is installed separately in every apartment.
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.
You should do that. Because 1kJ of of electricity is *not* the same as 1kJ of heat. A heat pump, pumps heat from outside into the house and for 1kJ of electricity you can easily pump 4kJ of heat from outside cold to inside hot giving a total of 5kJ of heat. ie 5x better.
So you really should study your basic thermodynamics and entropy because you don't know it. You want to look at a carnot efficiency and heat engines/refrigeration.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
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
Numbers?
Current EDF tarrifs are 0.144 EUR/kWh (flat rate, or you can go for the night rate deal, 0.1572 daytime, 0.1096 off peak).
I've seen claims that average US prices are around 12.64 cents/kWh, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm which is more or less exactly the same amount.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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"
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.
With your plan the place for man is in the grave.
Moron.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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
???? 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".
Not that we'd stay there. After a few hundred years we'd be back where we are now, but that's a lot of time and lives wasted for nothing.
Central heating is a f*cking retarded idea - heating the whole house when the simple fact is an individual can only use one room at a time. Radiators in the halls - WTF is that for?
Massive room for improvement, so why isn't it being radically improved? For the unimaginative this could be as simple as smart-phone controlled room-by room heating settings with options like heat for just the next N hours or heat from hours X to Y daily.
Why don't we have this, why isn't it mandatory for new systems? Why aren't intelligent heating systems being encouraged? Because politicians are as thick as pig-shit.
We haven't even begun when it comes to energy efficiency.
Current generations have been utterly spoiled by cheap energy and cheap gas which won't be around for long.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
> Without drastic reduction on the demand side
I lived in Ireland for a while. One day in October when it was nasty outside I was inside shivering and then noticed why... the drapes were blowing around. So I got up to close the window.
The window *was* closed.
This was in a home built in the 1970s.
In contrast, I am now living in a typical Canadian home built in 1972. It is completely insulated, plastic wrapped and has reasonably high-quality double-pane windows throughout. The only thing that's changed since is to use more insulation overall and to also cover the outside of the basement walls, which they didn't really start doing around here until the 90s.
Even still, it uses much more energy than it has to. I've already replaced all the lights with LED and put in reasonably new appliances, so my daily electricity is down to about 10 to 11 kWh, about half the national average. Most of the energy I use is heating, and I could cut that by 1/2 to 1/3rd by using a georeturn heat pump.
Cutting total energy use in half in the western world is not impossible. Just expensive. But we're talking "about the same as that craptastic Wolf stove and terribly inefficient Sub-Zero fridge" expensive.
When I went to France I noticed a lot of people use resistive heating because the electricity is cheap.
Electric (resistive) heating is generally considered more expensive than other methods of heating in France. Of course that depends on the price of natural gas and oil so it ma change. Really the advantage of electric (resistive) heating is that the equipment is really cheap. So it's favored by landlords but also by people who cannot afford better. Finally there's another reason it's popular in France which is that it has been pushed forward to ensure nuclear reactors have some place to send their electricity to at night as they cannot simply be turned on and off.
Considering that the old buildings being referred to are homes in France your anecdote is irrelevant. Unless of course most of those homes have elevators that would make good use of regenerative braking. I like how you claim someone is claiming "no true Scotsman" when it is apparent they are claiming "no French chatteau"
...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).
Retrofitting central AC in a house. This is hardly the same thing as what you are talking about. Even if they were putting central AC into the Empire State building, it would be easier than a residence due to the way commercial buildings are built (drop ceilings make for easy air duct installs).
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.
Central heating is a f*cking retarded idea - heating the whole house when the simple fact is an individual can only use one room at a time. Radiators in the halls - WTF is that for?
You are assuming that everybody lives on their own, but even then it's still useful to have a central boiler on a timer and simply adjust the individual room radiators down to zero if you're not using a room.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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?
No I meant people can only use 1 room per person at any one time.
We've had electronics and motors for decades, radiators should be remotely adjustable and individually time-able. Industry is in the stone ages still.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
True, but his example is still 100% efficient. Yours is 500% efficient. Aren't heat pumps great?
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
Some people ACTUALLY LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE. Also, you really don't know what central heating is or how it works. I have zones. Valves only allow the hot water to enter the zones where the thermostat is calling for heat.
That's for not having it 59 degrees in the halls while it is 69 in the rooms, resulting in possible frozen pipes (in older buildings that can't be as well insulated) or condensation on the walls. Only old buildings have radiators. Newer ones with hydronic heating use baseboards (or underfloor radiators), and you usually only see them in hallways if there's an outside wall or it's a very, very long hall with a high ceiling.
You probably should realize there are a few things like HVAC which you think are simple, but perfectly intelligent people had to study in great detail to master.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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
OK, now I read your followup. You really are a knucklehead. Not only have we had setback thermostats for ages, the Nest can adjust heating and cooling based on occupancy. It will learn when you are in the house, and in specific rooms. A simple Google search would tell you this. But apparently, you've only lived in old houses with radiators and single zones, and think nothing has changed because obviously, the HVAC fairy would have come along to rip out all that crap and upgrade it for free.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I didn't state at any point that "Some people ACTUALLY LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE." is not true.
You are jumping to conclusions.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
And thermostats are crap, when's the last time you set an actual temperature on a radiator?
Extremely out of date tech needs updating.
How is water going to freeze at 59 when the freezing temp of water is 32???????
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
So excess heat in waste water and a power plant built in a region prone to natural disasters but not built to withstand them means nuclear has to be given up on?
How many people have fallen off of rooves while installing solar panels? Should we abandon this clear impedament to our safety?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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. :^)
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.
As well, with central heating, you are heating the whole house, whereas with their current setup, they just need to heat the parts that are actually used.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
reprocessing has nothing to do with the low grade waste.
When you don't even understand the question, your answer doesn't seem too useful.
Learn to love Alaska
A cup holder of course.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
An electric heater needs only a source of electricity, and is very simple. A heat pump needs access to both inside and outside air and is a much more complex thing. Heat pumps, while much more versatile and efficient, are not drop-in replacements.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Depends on the temperature of the outside air. If it's about 0F/-18C/255K, most heat pumps won't work any better than resistive heaters, and you have to get the air a lot warmer before you're hitting 500% efficiency.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Water isn't going to freeze at 59F. However, a water pipe is likely in the wall, and if it's an outside wall that's not well insulated and it's cold out there could be a problem.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Which is why people that live on the tundra use ground loop heat pumps.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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
Indeed.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
hard to tally it up, when the means keep being shifted.
For example, they were supposed to use up nearly all of the nuclear 'waste', but was then stopped from breeding.
Then the far left fights against burying the 'waste' over at Yucca Mntn.
The smart thing is for us to push Gen IV reactors to burn it up, but we need to make it so that once a site is approved, then the protests and BS stop.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Newer air heat pumps like Mitsubishi ones have just the same efficiency down to -15C, and retain some advantage over resistive heaters up to -25C.
And in France it doesn't really matter, it very rarely gets that cold there.
Electric heating is 100% efficient Something that was produced with a loss of 60% hardly can be considered 100% efficient.
Especially that those numbers are complete meaningless. Interesting how much kW/h you need to heat a certain volume. Regardless how "efficient".
So bottom line you would realize: a heat pump running on electricity uses less electricity than an electric heater ... wow, that was a no brainer.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, the heat pump is 100% efficient and his electric heater only 20% :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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
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.
It is true many real heat pumps don't work when its cold outside but this has *nothing* to do with theoretical performance which is based on *absolute zero*. It is practical problems like the outside heat exchanger icing up and stuff like that.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
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.