Less consume electricity

[izentrop]

Yes of course by people paid by the state !!

Solid as an argument

the Swiss have an idea for cheap storage

This kind of project flourished a lot on the internet. The cheap is too much, I think

[Flytox]

In France, nuclear power is very safe and decarbonated. Replace it with intermittent and expensive energies without storage means, do not solve the problem of global warming https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/fr/base ... -tout-enri

patch:

In France, nuclear power is not safer than elsewhere but is one of the most dangerous sectors for the population, but it is less carbon-intensive than the fossil fuel sector, for example. Replacing the nuclear with intermittent energies is not going to be done in 5 minutes, without profoundly altering the consumption (waste) of the population / industry, the existing electricity networks as well as the way of storing energy. The intermittent energies are progressing ..... but without the detriment of the security of the populations.

For the economic side, all the intermittent industries have lowered their costs significantly in recent years ... but the nuclear kW already the most expensive, becomes every day less competitive (Technology of the past) ... without being able to guarantee the population security ...

For solving climate problems, the problem is more global / complicated and nuclear or not we are still in for a long time.

[izentrop]

For the economic side, all the intermittent industries have lowered their costs significantly in recent years ... but the nuclear kW already the most expensive, becomes every day less competitive (Technology of the past) ... without being able to guarantee the population security ...

This is not yet the case, except for the solar, but it will become, the antis ... will be able to rejoice to pay much more expensive electricity, like their German friends.

For ADEME, the existing nuclear power is not expensive enough, so do not keep it too long https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/fr/base ... -longtemps

"An excessive extension of the historic nuclear power coupled with the development of new renewable capacities would keep market prices low and unbalance the profitability of all the means of production: the total margin from nuclear facilities would be reduced by 3,6 € bn per year over the period 2030-2044; public support should be increased to compensate for the loss of revenue from renewable support systems (historical and new facilities); the breakeven point of the RE would be shifted to 2045 ".

[Bardal]

patch:

In France, nuclear power is not safer than elsewhere but is one of the most dangerous sectors for the population, but it is less carbon-intensive than the fossil fuel sector, for example. Replacing the nuclear with intermittent energies is not going to be done in 5 minutes, without profoundly altering the consumption (waste) of the population / industry, the existing electricity networks as well as the way of storing energy.
[/ Quote]

Oh? So you have done some thorough studies, and solidly supported, to hold this statement?

In which case, you should tell us, because for me, the only ones I have are those of WHO and Unscear, which rank nuclear among the least dangerous energy industries, and far. Better than that, since 50 years that nuclear power is exploited industrially, and has produced millions of electric teraWh, there has been no no victim identified in OECD countries; however, it is not the supervision that has failed. And if the tsunami has made 20 000 dead in Fukushima, the radioactivity has not claimed any victims so far, nor has it done at Three Miles Island ...


Or your affirmations are serious, and you have to publish the sources, or it's counter talk and we must stop peddling news fakes.

[Bardal]

Incidentally, but really very incidentally, coal makes in Europe a little more than 30 000 dead per year (350 000 in 50 years) and oil and gas, together, almost as much. There we can speak of proven dangerousness for the populations; in France, the estimated number of deaths is about 1300, mainly due to coal plants in Germany, England and Poland (smoke clouds also cross borders) ...

But what is it that 30 000 dead per year, when they can not serve as propaganda anti-nuclear ...

[izentrop]

Bardal everything you wrote is correct and verifiable. I would just correct an insignificant and recent detail

in Fukushima, the radioactivity has not been victimized to date

https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2018/09/0 ... _23518800/

Jancovici is independent, I specify it in case
His presentation at his invitation by the Senate in 2012, but still relevant.

[lemontval]

Yes of course by people paid by the state !!

Solid as an argument

As solid as your links which it misses just .gouv.fr !!

[Flytox]

patch:

In France, nuclear power is not safer than elsewhere but is one of the most dangerous sectors for the population, but it is less carbon-intensive than the fossil fuel sector, for example. Replacing the nuclear with intermittent energies is not going to be done in 5 minutes, without profoundly altering the consumption (waste) of the population / industry, the existing electricity networks as well as the way of storing energy.

Oh? So you have done some thorough studies, and solidly supported, to hold this statement?

I have not done extensive studies to tell you that with our (58?) Nuclear power plants spread over our small country, the first serious terrorist attack the country will quickly become totally unlivable .... Others on the other hand, to make a central fart, there is no need for terrorists, just wait. Official statistics had told us something like: 1 accident / million year, in reality it's more around the ten year ...

"without profoundly modifying the consumption (waste) of the population / industry"

I have not had the opportunity to read serious proposals talking about abundance for energy in the years to come. It will be rather the opposite, I deduce that we will be forced to do less, or much less, to limit wastage .... that we can not afford.

"existing electrical networks"

To optimize a growing share of decentralized intermittent renewable energy, networks need to be rethought for many small, dispersed resources instead of some very powerful ones.

existing power grids as well as how to store energy.

For the moment, the power grid is not suitable for storing energy significantly. There are solutions (not all efficient and economical) but if the proportion of intermittent renewable becomes important we can not do without invest much more massively in there.

In which case, you should tell us, because for me, the only ones I have are those of WHO and Unscear, which rank nuclear among the least dangerous energy industries, and far. Better than that, since 50 years that nuclear power is exploited industrially, and has produced millions of electric teraWh, there has been no no victim identified in OECD countries; however, it is not the supervision that has failed. And if the tsunami has made 20 000 dead in Fukushima, the radioactivity has not claimed any victims so far, nor has it done at Three Miles Island ...

Apparently we do not have the same readings:

there was no no victim identified in OECD countries

Wise cutting, talking about OECD so that Ukraine is not on the list, are you serious there?
In case you do not know Chernobyl it is in Ukraine.

https://elections-en-europe.net/institu ... -de-locde/

For my part I preferred these informations that I found much more honest:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrop ... Tchernobyl

The number of deaths directly attributable to radioactivity varies between 9 000according to the report prepared in 2006 by several UN agencies under the leadership of the IAEA, and nearly a million according to the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (in) of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian researchers3.

For Fukushima it's the same barrel or rather worse ..... but I guess you'll say that there was also no victim. apart from the tsunami and that it is not related to nuclear

Or your affirmations are serious, and you have to publish the sources, or it's counter talk and we must stop peddling news fakes.

Chui fully agree with you the top!

[izentrop]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrop ... Tchernobyl
The number of deaths directly attributable to radioactivity varies between 9 000, according to the report developed in 2006 by several UN agencies under the guidance of the IAEA, and nearly one million according to the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (in) of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian researchers3.

Source https://reporterre.net/Tchernobyl-pres-d-un-million-de
And in this source ... nothing verifiable. They have as a habit: the confusionist ...> not serious to abstain.

[Bardal]

I have not done extensive studies to tell you that with our (58?) Nuclear power plants spread over our small country, the first serious terrorist attack the country will quickly become totally unlivable .... Others on the other hand, to make a central fart, there is no need for terrorists, just wait. Official statistics had told us something like: 1 accident / million year, in reality it's more around the ten year ...

... / ...


Wise cutting, talking about OECD so that Ukraine is not on the list, are you serious there?
In case you do not know Chernobyl it is in Ukraine.

https://elections-en-europe.net/institu ... -de-locde/

For my part I preferred these informations that I found much more honest:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrop ... Tchernobyl

The number of deaths directly attributable to radioactivity varies between 9 000according to the report prepared in 2006 by several UN agencies under the leadership of the IAEA, and nearly a million according to the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (in) of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian researchers3.

For Fukushima it's the same barrel or rather worse ..... but I guess you'll say that there was also no victim. apart from the tsunami and that it is not related to nuclear

Or your affirmations are serious, and you have to publish the sources, or it's counter talk and we must stop peddling news fakes.

Chui fully agree with you the top!

No need to recite the sources, you know them since you have just given them. It is the joint study of WHO, UNScear and IAEA that indicates 49 dead in Chernobyl and potentially 4000 dead futures; let us add that these potential dead 4000 have not been confirmed by epidemiological monitoring 30 years after the disaster (better still, the studies on the liquidators show that they are rather better than the control populations of Ukraine, and they have rather fewer cancers) ... It is this scientific consensus that refers to the health consequences of Chernobyl, and not the fanciful and untested opinions of Pierre, Paul or Flytox who, on the one hand, have no competence in the matter, on the other hand have not conducted any study on the subject.

We have a similar study, with the same actors, on the health consequences of Fukushima, and with very clear conclusions. you will find all information on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrop ... _Fukushima , with all the desirable references.

There was no need to go around the bush any more, the USSR was not part of the OECD, neither was Ukraine ... This is hardly important since, even when integrating the Chernobyl victims , nuclear energy remains the least dangerous energy industry of all, by far. After, you can have all the fantasies that you want on the frightful terrorists, etc ..., it remains only fantasies, without any concrete validity, and without any importance in the face of the hundreds of thousands of deaths, very real ones, due coal-fired power plants over the same period; and that do not seem to move you much, anyway.

It's really boring these repetitions of fakes about "nuclear dangers" based on nothing but infantile fears, and no serious and rational approach, as if repeating could be enough to create scientific truth.