Reduce nuclear energy to 50%, a senseless promise

[Bardal]

Oh… The "forecasts" of the Negawatt association…

As long as there are forecasts, we can actually say anything ... But we don't have to believe it.

Let’s take a look at what it does in real life.

Germany has committed 500 billion euros in 10 years for an energy transition that promised mountains and wonders; € 500bn is more than enough to renew any the French nuclear fleet, for those who do not quite appreciate the order of magnitude. It was promised, among other things, a drop in GHG emissions, "local" energy, falling prices, a powerful photovoltaic industry, a bright future.

Where are we today, the test of the facts:

- German electricity is one of the most carbon-containing in Europe (0,5 kg of CO2 per kWh, compared to 60 g in France), responsible in addition for several thousand annual deaths due to pollution; it is also one of the most expensive, equivalent to an additional annual tax of around 1000 € / year per person ... As for the fight against global warming ... good ...

- the photovoltaic installation broke its figure (divided by 10) in 2014, following the drop in feed-in tariffs (which says a lot about the real motivations of our famous green buyers); It is true that the European PV industry had already collapsed in the face of Chinese imports (200 jobs lost in Europe, mainly in Germany). Exit therefore the PV…

- new Renewable Energies are now capped at a quarter of German production (hydroelectricity, often added to inflate figures, was funded a long time ago, and is not part of the 500 billion spent); we must also add the famous corn-based biomethane, responsible for the most appalling industrial agriculture ever seen ... but ...

- the so-called "local energy" is concentrated in northern Germany, requiring a few tens of billion € of additional investments and the Germans are fighting against the installation of HT lines crossing their countryside, besides devastated by the exploitations lignite (razed villages, displaced populations - it's not serious, it's not nuk-)

- an excess of electricity when the wind blows (we sell "negatively"), insufficient when it is calm; To crown it all, the stability of the network is entrusted to French nuclear power plants and coal-lignite power plants, otherwise, it collapses ...

Bof, we stop there… But as far as forecasts are concerned, I think we have a little better than the "experts" of Negawatt. RTE for example, which has struggled to abandon plant closures in 2025, has completely different forecasts, a little more credible ...

Well, in this regard, if Negawatt does not know what to do with its 245 TWh in 2035, there will be 25 million premises to be heated other than gas or oil (that's roughly 700 TWh) and 35 million vehicles to roll (it will also be 6 or 700 TWh); but does Negawatt really care about getting out of carbon energies, rather than spouting nonsense on the web ... Vanity of vanities ...

[phil53]

Baradal, what you write is essentially dependent on failing to mention countries that are largely on the way to succeeding in their energy transition such as Spain, for example.
In the article it is not only negawatt which is quoted.
When you are a pronucleaire everything is good not to change and forget the dismantling, the treatment of waste that has no solution other than forecasts. Forget the accident deemed improbable ....

[Bardal]

Yes, I have written against the insane promises of Negawatt and the "green" organizations (not all) who have told us anything; and which continue, on the capacities of renewable energies; this is obviously not an exhaustive assessment, and especially not a plea against new renewable energies. It is simply a warning against predictions that have no chance of being fulfilled.

To be even clearer, I say here loud and clear that everything is betting on a drop in energy consumption in the coming years, in electricity consumption in particular, and to try to orient energy policy towards a reduction in the means of electricity production is totally irresponsible: it is, de facto, to abandon any concrete objective in terms of reducing GHG emissions, it is to abandon any policy of decarbonizing transport means and it is to refer to calendars the exit of hydrocarbons in the heating of the frame. It was, moreover, the policy explicitly chosen by the German Greens, who preferred to leave nuclear power even if it meant increasing the consumption of coal and hydrocarbons (transiently they said)

Everything they promised turned out to be false from experience, and on the other hand conformed to what network operators and energy professionals said. We do not have the means, nor the time, to repeat such mistakes or to follow such chimeras…


Incidentally, Spain includes 22% nuclear energy, 38% fossil energy, 15% hydroelectricity, and 22% wind and photovoltaic energy in its electrical mix; you consider that it is on the way to success, it is a bold and somewhat reckless appreciation. All of the transportation to be replaced and all of the property remains (roughly 2 or 3 times more than electricity); Let us add that Spain sharply reduced its aid for photovoltaics and wind power 4 or 5 years ago, leading to a significant drop in new installations ...

[Janic]

Bardal

Let’s add that Spain sharply reduced its aid for photovoltaics and wind power 4 or 5 years ago, leading to a significant drop in new installations.

you are right in emphasizing this particular point valid for other countries and which is that of aid which distorts industrial reality. But I do not think that the problem is actually there, because it is not, or more, a question of big money (even if it counts), but of noted dangerosity of nuclear power, in the two disasters, which is not than a time bomb that can boom at any time. Of course this is not ideal from an energy point of view, but awareness is always slow and change too and doing nothing is not the right solution either.

[Bardal]

Words have a meaning, even the term "dangerous".

In this case, as far as an energy-producing industry is concerned, it is not always easy to measure, but we have figures that are not disputed. With regard to nuclear power, in all OECD countries, in 40 years and for quantities greater than several million TWh produced, there has been no no dead; no death, when the victims of coal, oil or gas, over the same period number in the hundreds of thousands of deaths.

On a world scale, thus integrating the Chernobyl figures, the mortality due to nuclear power, compared to the TWh produced, is several orders of magnitude lower than other means of electricity production; even with the pessimistic figures of the scientific consensus on Chernobyl (not confirmed by current epidemiological studies), mortality and morbidity are several tens of times lower than coal and hydrocarbons, and even hydroelectricity and renewable energies ...

If nuclear power is "dangerous", then explain what other types of electricity production are… I am tired of hearing this nonsense lying around in the media and on forums...

[Janic]

Words have a meaning, even the term "dangerous".

Exactly!

In this case, as far as an energy-producing industry is concerned, it is not always easy to measure, but we have figures which are hardly disputed.

. By those who are judges and parties at the same time?

With regard to nuclear power, in all OECD countries, in 40 years and for quantities greater than several million TWh produced, there has been no no deaths; no dead, when the victims of coal, oil or gas over the same period number in the hundreds of thousands of deaths.

No dead and you believe them? A bit near Chernobyl could have been part of it, but we escaped it beautifully thanks to the radioactive cloud that stopped right at the border. Phew!

On a world scale, thus integrating the Chernobyl figures, the mortality due to nuclear power, compared to the TWh produced, is several orders of magnitude lower than other means of electricity production; even with the pessimistic figures of the scientific consensus on Chernobyl (not confirmed by current epidemiological studies), mortality and morbidity are several dozen times lower than coal and hydrocarbons, and even hydropower and renewable energy...

Except that these victims will cease when these fossil fuels come to an end, while for thousands of years the waste will continue to poison humanity (not uranium itself whose stocks are limited like the rest)
But even the sidewalks are dangerous and if we counted the number of victims of boiling pans, pots of paint fallen from scaffolding and victims of the flu, it certainly has, to date, made fewer victims counted by the pronuk, not the others obviously.
Thus the Minister of Health affirmed that there were no serious victims of the vaccines, if she sticks to what her services tell her which constantly cheat with the truth. It's the same thing, WHATEVER THE “SENSITIVE” SUBJECTS ARE, and the good public who wants to be reassured (and worse those who work for the nuk: you?) Pretends to believe it.
You should read the book "the crime of Chernobyl", at the heart of the drama, which describes the real situation and not what some (the nuk and its politicians) want to make believe and who arrange the story according to their needs.

If nuclear power is "dangerous", explain what other types of electricity are ...

The mistake you make is to confuse the immediate danger like coal with the potential danger that will eventually occur in the short, medium or long term. The terrorists of September 11 were not dangerous until the towers were struck and there, in one day, it claimed more victims than the coal mines in a year, even years. Neither Chernobyl until a bad move, nor Fukushima before the tsunami. An anti-personal mine is no more dangerous until a child steps on it, either. Same thing again with our nuclear warheads which, apart from the plutonium which they contain, are not more dangerous as long as an imbecile does not press the button, and there everyone shouts on what happens and then, s 'They survive, they will say "never again" ... until the next. So more dangerous than coal, oil or nuk, it is the human being the real danger!

[Exnihiloest]

The mistake you make is to confuse the immediate danger like coal with the potential danger that will eventually occur in the short, medium or long term. The September 11 terrorists ...

bardal is right, it is you who understand nothing. Janic of the 19th century had uttered loud, the cities were going to be covered with several inches of droppings because of the drastic increase in horse-drawn traffic, it was absolutely necessary to stop this. Did it happen? No, of course, the automobile has arrived. What is potential does not necessarily end up happening. Just as new technologies arrive, and it already has in its sights, such as the merger.

[Bardal]

Words have a meaning, even the term "dangerous".

Exactly!

... / ...

it is the human being the real danger!

Is that all you find to answer me, a nth conspiracy theory, embellished with Mamère's old lie which has been condemned 4 times?

And would you like me to believe an Italian journalist, paid by an anti-nuclear association and having no competence on the subject? And that I leave aside the conclusions of dozens of epidemiologists who have conducted studies and work on the subject for 30 years?

But you’re kidding I hope.

As for your definitions of the dangers mixing pears, dirty socks and a few raccoons, do you think that can have any credibility?

Finally, the only thing that I can agree with in your jumble is your last proposition "it is the human being the real danger!", But that does not help us much ...

[Janic]

Bardal

Is that all you find to answer me, a nth conspiracy theory, embellished with Mamère's old lie which has been condemned 4 times?

Oh the blunt arguments!
On 11 April 2003, Noël Mamère seized the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a judgment of November 7, 2006, the courtyard considers that Mamère's comments are "a caricature of the situation" and are exaggerated, but "within the limits allowed", she also judges UNANIMOUSLY that article 10 has been violated, Mamère's conviction not being "necessary [...] in a democratic society [...] for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" so he won on the trials that were made to him!
for the record Pellerin had indeed affirmed, in the archive audio documents, that the cloud would not cross the border.
You must have zapped the end of the intent process. And then the conspiracy theory thing starts to wear down.

And would you like me to believe an Italian journalist, paid by an anti-nuclear association and having no competence on the subject? And that I leave aside the conclusions of dozens of epidemiologists who have conducted studies and work on the subject for 30 years?

You have to choose in life between a journalist (I don't see how being Italian, Russian or Chinese plays any role in this subject?) Paid by an association, ANTInuclear or other, or another individual paid by the nuclear industry . It is a question of freedom of choice and credibility!
When do the dozens of epidemiologists who paid them, none work for plums and fame? [*]

But you’re kidding I hope.

like you!

As for your definitions of the dangers mixing pears, dirty socks and a few raccoons, do you think that can have any credibility?

No, it's not more credible than your speech!

Finally, the only thing that I can agree with in your jumble is your last proposition "it is the human being the real danger!", But that does not help us much ...

Well you see that, finally, outside of philosophical approaches (if not really scientific) we can agree, and it is true that it does not advance more than the controversies on the subject, but it furnishes the long winter evenings, it barely changes from the TV and his head stuff too.

[*] by comparison it took 100 years for asbestos (and other dangerous products then withdrawn from the market) to be recognized for its real dangerousness, despite epidemiologists who had claimed the opposite, which is close to surrender of ALU for biological use. and it’s also been 30 years. Hear the minister said that this product is not dangerous despite all the studies that come out in the world.

[izentrop]

Finally, a little common sense!

Voters around the world vote for nuclear power https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/12/04 ... -nucleaire

The growing support for nuclear power comes from both those concerned about climate change and those concerned about the cost of electricity.

In the United States, Asia and Europe, voters are increasingly favoring nuclear energy due to the rise in electricity prices mainly due to the need to manage the costly intermittent production of renewable energy, such as solar panels and wind turbines, and their inability to meet demand on time.

UNITED STATES
On November 6, 2018, 70% of the voters of Arizona rejected proposal 127 which would have led to the closure of the state's nuclear power plant and the massive deployment of solar and wind energy.

Arizona wanted to avoid the mistakes made by California, where electricity prices rose three times faster than in the rest of the country mainly due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants and the rapid deployment of solar panels.

In 2016, the governments of the states of Illinois and New York have taken steps to prevent the closure of nuclear plants.

Other actions took place in Connecticut and New Jersey to support their nuclear power plants.

Today, as a result of growing public support for nuclear power, the Union of Concerned Scientists (long opposed to nuclear power in the United States), has changed its view on this technology. It now states that existing US nuclear power plants should continue to operate for "climate protection".

TAIWAN
In Taiwan, momentum is growing against the elimination of nuclear energy in this country. In August, former Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou supported a nuclear campaign that collected more than 3 signatures so that voters could have the right to vote directly on this issue.

On November 24, 2018, in a referendum held in conjunction with a national election, the people of Taiwan voted against the government's anti-nuclear policy to phase out the use of nuclear energy by 2025

The environmental, economic and energy security have prompted voters to overcome their fears about nuclear power. This country, which imports 98% of its energy, suffered a devastating blackout last year that killed a man, and threatened the domestic semiconductor industry. Former President Ma Ying-jeou said: "Opposition to nuclear energy is now obsolete. The trend is now to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in the fight against global warming. "

GERMANY
In Germany, a demonstration took place in October in Munich against the closure of nuclear power plants. The media coverage of this event in Europe led a majority of Dutch voters (64%) to declare their support for the construction of new nuclear reactors.
...