Wind power: for or against the wind?

[sen-no-sen]

The trend towards an antagonism between economic super-blocks therefore revives the question of energy sovereignty.
Countries totally dependent on fossils like Italy could be reduced to nothing in the event of a major oil crisis, the question therefore arises among us as to whether a nuclear / renewable energy mix could not safeguard our "gains".
For my part I consider that it is essentially a belief resulting from fragmented studies rather than a concrete reality, the nation states are now far too connected to each other, and the collapse of some will necessarily lead to collapse others.
I admit, however, that it is very difficult for a manager to make a clear decision on the subject, especially given the astronomical cost of a 100% ENR transition (which has very little to do with the concept of ecology ..) or the maintenance of the electro-nuclear sector.
The right solution would be to move towards a strong decrease, therefore a decrease in the grip of economism on our lives .... something absolutely inaudible politically and socially.

[Ahmed]

We are indeed as dependent on oil as the Italians, since the transport sector (and not that!) Works thus and that our economy supposes multiple displacements ...
You write:

The right solution would be to move towards a strong decrease, therefore a decrease in the grip of economism on our lives .... something absolutely inaudible politically and socially.

The correlation between "standard of living" (I put in brackets because of the particular connotation that this expression usually has) and the quantity of energy used makes hardly audible any content other than that which it is constantly promoted and yet, living better assumes another way of life. Despite this evidence, very few are open to it even within "environmentalists" (a title that I do not claim), for whom the urgency is to find substitute energies, which emit less CO², but just as impacting on the environment. middle and men ...

[izentrop]

The right solution would be to move towards a strong decrease, therefore a decrease in the grip of economism on our lives .... something absolutely inaudible politically and socially.

On the contrary, scientists from all over the world recommend a rapid increase in nuclear exploitation to curb RC Scenario 1.5C!

[sen-no-sen]

On the contrary, scientists from all over the world recommend a rapid increase in nuclear exploitation to curb RC Scenario 1.5C!

Personalized scientists advocate and not the scientists around the world recommend a rapid rise in nuclear power ... nuance!
This report is very unrealistic, not to say that it is part of nuclear idealism .... again, everything is said as if the world economy and stability would be a definite thing .
And then it has nothing to do with the decrease, on the contrary.

[izentrop]

World climate scientists are donkeys, it's well known

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

The only way out, no

My faith if you know another one it is willingly.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

The "kolossal"The disadvantage of nuclear power is that it is based on the premise of a sufficiently stable society (and potentially in continuous progress!) to ensure the high-tech maintenance required by this process. Wind turbines are simpler and could possibly be abandoned without inconvenience.The idea that progress is constantly linear is a pure illusion which owes its success only to the restricted vision offered by the duration of a human life; on the other hand, the idea that 'a collapse can result from the very success of an ideology of success is very counterintuitive, it is therefore not envisaged, "our standard of living is not negotiable" ...

No, the premise is that societies need energy.

Personally the atom I don't care ...

To date with what to run the store apart from that?

Can you explain "the idea that a collapse can result from the very success of an ideology of success is very counter intuitive"?

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

the notion of ecology ..

It was believed that there were ecological energies

I have the impression that we discover that there is none ...

[izentrop]

The only way out, no

My faith if you know another one it is willingly.

For the moment no.
The ENR's, when the batteries based on simple and current elements are ready (sodium, sulfur ...), meanwhile, solar and wind cannot respond effectively to demand.

Phase 3 of nuclear power will make it possible to exploit the fission of thorium, which will ensure for over 1000 years, the transition to another paradigm. Decrease is not for tomorrow

[Ahmed]

Nico239, you write:

No, the premise is that societies need energy.

Of course! This is in no way opposed to my remarks which focused on nuclear energy. WhenAl Gore is moving urgent changes to operate, it is to better proclaim their necessity so that nothing changes! This assumption is certainly the most powerful and therefore the most dangerous line of reasoning.
You then write:

Can you explain "the idea that a collapse can result from the very success of an ideology of success is very counter intuitive"?

In short, this is the story of the bacteria in its petri dish ... When some western countries practiced successfully and on a large scale extractivism against peripheral countries, the model was temporarily tenable, but this ideology has unfortunately spread (mimetic rivalry) to the whole of the globe and certain countries, and not least, have adopted it. Consequently, what was harmful becomes frankly unbearable since extractivisms find themselves in head-on competition. This can only bring systemic contradictions more quickly to their breaking point.

Izentrop, you write:

Phase 3 of nuclear power will make it possible to exploit the fission of thorium, which will ensure for over 1000 years, the transition to another paradigm. Decrease is not for tomorrow

It is indeed possible, but as already seen, energy is not the solution, since it is the problem: abundant, cheap energy will lead us to the same concerns (since it was our energy configuration with the coal, gas, oil ...) and even with a hypothetical reduction in CO², the rapid destruction of living conditions on Earth will ensue: the correlation between energy expenditure and destruction is incontestable, by definition (even if, well of course, this is not the goal!) ... The decrease experienced will result from these considerations.