Comparative Table of green electricity by Greenpeace

[Christophe]

Precisely, I reacted to your "It is discussed" ... I have no good?

[Woodcutter]

Precisely, I reacted to your "It is discussed" ... I have no good?

Well I never spoke of the "green" side, but of the "dangerous" side ...

If you prefer, I am not saying that we must classify nuclear energy as green energy, but to say that it is more dangerous than CO2, personally I do not agree ...

[Frederic_L]

Well I never spoke of the "green" side, but of the "dangerous" side ...

If you prefer, I am not saying that we must classify nuclear energy as green energy, but to say that it is more dangerous than CO2, personally I do not agree ...

I see things like this: If I am sprayed with CO2 on my face, I do not risk my health, if on the other hand I am in contact with radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant if only for a few seconds, I does not give dear of my health, and that of my possible children ...

Now it's true that you also have to see the long-term effect that C02 can have on the climate and its consequences, it may be even more perverse, I love the comparison that Al Gore uses in " An Inconvenient Truth "when he talks about the frog in the jar of boiling water.

[Christophe]

when he talks about the frog in the jar of boiling water.

Pff you speak he repumped it on econo this idea
It was one of the first articles from econo: https://www.econologie.com/la-petite-gre ... s-131.html

[Frederic_L]

Pff you speak he repumped it on econo this idea
It was one of the first articles from econo: https://www.econologie.com/la-petite-gre ... s-131.html

Effectively

[Woodcutter]

[...] I see things like this: If I am sprayed with CO2 on my face, I do not risk my health, if on the other hand I am in contact with radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant if only for a few seconds, I do not give dear of my health, and that of my possible children ... [...]

Yes, but it is a completely biased image because, whatever you do, you will not be able to escape the problems linked to CO2 if the projections of the climatic models are confirmed, whereas to be in contact with radiations resulting from the manufacture energy by civilian nuclear power, there must either be serious negligence or terrorist acts.

Everyone is aware of the displayed danger of civilian nuclear energy, and so we are trying to protect ourselves against it (and we know how to do it anyway ...). But who has Actually aware of the problems associated with global warming?

[Christophe]

either because of gross negligence, or because of terrorist acts.

Not quite agree: there is also waste ... and who can say with certainty that the companies managing this ultimate waste will have the capacity ad erternam to contain it without risk?

And I'm not even talking about the economic shocks hanging in our face with the end of the oil abundance ...

On the other hand, the evolution of science could make it possible to treat this waste once and for all ...

But who is really aware of the problems linked to global warming?

I would say ... nobody ... Because the uncertainties in the assessment of risks and problems are far too great ... The only certainty: it will "change"

Edit: found it "Climate risks comparable to threats of nuclear war" http://www.notre-planete.info/actualites/actu_1268.php

[Woodcutter]

Je suis d'accord ...

PS: this Russian article is very interesting.

[Woodcutter]

With the same idea : Caradisiac article on the "danger" of climate change ...

[Christophe]

A news: https://www.econologie.com/liberalisatio ... -3410.html