Gentilly 2, exploitable pendant 5 ans?

Selon cet article, Gentilly 2 serait exploitable pendant 5 ans, sans réfection.  Donc un petit calcul s'impose!

La centrale peut produite 625MW, disons qu'elle opère à 80% pour les 5 prochaines années.Ceci nous donne... 625,000KW x 0.8 = 500,000KW de puissance!

Soyons généreux avec notre centrale et accordons le même contrat qu'Hydro à donné à Kruger, donc 10,55 cents/KWh.  Ceci nous donne 500,000x10.55cents = 52,750$ par heure d'électricité vendu... on multiplie par 24h et 365j et 5ans  = 2,310,450,000$

Donc on va perdre 2,3 milliard de dollars sur 5 ans?

Hum...

De plus, si on vendait cette électricité aux américains, il n'auraient pas à brulé du gaz de shale pour compenser... Ceci équivaut environ à 2,5 millions de tonnes de CO2 par années!  donc 12,5 millions de tonnes sur 5 ans.  Une auto moyenne émet 11,450 livres de CO2 par années, donc 12.5 millions de tonnes = 25,000,000,000 livres / 11,450 = 2,2 millions de voitures de moins sur la route (équivalence) si on roulait Gentilly 2 sur 5 ans!

Donc le PQ et les écolos, ont manqué le bateau complètement coté économique et écologique.

Évidement mes calculs sont grossier et rapide, mais même en coupant en deux les revenus et autres, c'est un investissement plus intéressant que la fermeture simple et rapide de la centrale.

Oh et une autre raison qu'ils nous disent pour fermer la centrale, les radiations c'est dangereux... Et bien, mes recherche me prouve le contraire... voir mon nouveau blog pour mes découvertes!

Commentaires?

Like We've Been Saying --Radiation Is Not A Big Deal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/print/

Finally, NASA seem to have broken free of the “settled science” that the IPCC imposed.

Here's a comment on this article by Dr Tim Ball, that need to be re-published and saved... Quite important.

Tim Ball says:

January 9, 2013 at 9:38 am

 

Finally, NASA seem to have broken free of the “settled science” that the IPCC imposed. Climate science was effectively frozen for thirty years and NASA are now getting back to where they were in the 1970s. The last valuable contribution they made was Herman and Goldberg’s, “Sun, Weather and Climate”, in 1978.
It was an article about this scientific block by IPCC that triggered the first of my current lawsuits. Here is that article, slightly amended so Anthony and I likely don’t have to worry about another lawsuit.

http://drtimball.com/2011/corruption-of-climate-science-has-created-30-lost-years/
It appears this publication also marks the breaking of the control Hansen had over climate research at NASA. The comments of Hansen’s boss indicate the degree of political power Hansen had as a bureaucrat. What Hansen was doing publicly and politically probably should have been censured, even prosecuted under the Hatch Act.

http://drtimball.com/2012/nasa-scientist-out-of-control/
I understand that upper management were advised by much higher authority not to touch Hansen. When you look at the manipulations used by Senator Wirth for his appearance before Al Gore’s committee it is not surprising.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

This article is a small break through scientifically, but its political implications are profound. Put this with the revisions at the UKMO, and it marks an even greater shift. Can the mainstream media be far behind? They will all want to be on the winning side, especially if it affects funding and credibility.

Ironically, some of the scientists will have more trouble adjusting. As Tolstoi reportedly said,
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

This will particularly apply to those scientists who also hold the political view of those who hijacked climate science for a political agenda.

I think NASA and others who let themselves be bullied must be held accountable. I remember in Winnipeg three Environment Canada employees telling me after a presentation that they agreed with me but would lose their jobs if they spoke out. I used to have sympathy for this position – not any more. It is precisely this type of coercion that must be countered at all levels. Why is there need for a whistleblower law in a supposedly open and democratic society.

Maybe now the person(s) who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) will reveal themselves.

Notes on CO2 and sea level

While reading this blog post I came across this interesting comment from someone called " ferd berple"

1. the ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. This establishes that temperature drives CO2, by a well accepted principle that cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water.
2. if CO2 ALSO drove temperature, then as more CO2 dissolved in the cold ocean during an ice age, and global CO2 levels fell, it would be impossible for the ice age.
3. similarly, if CO2 ALSO drove temperature, then as more CO2 came out of solution as the oceans warmed at the end of an ice age, it would be impossible for there to be a second ice age.
4. since we have been in a pretty regular series of ice ages every 100k years for a couple of million years, this is strong evidence that CO2 cannot be driving temperature. If it did, then we would either be stuck in a low CO2 ice age, or high CO2 warm age. Transition between the two would not be possible given the small irregularity in the earth’s orbit. Yet we see a regular transition in time with a beat frequency of the earth’s orbit.

I think this is quite important and well said