Grenelle 2: green light for nuclear contamination!

Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ... short thermal comfort. Insulation, wood energy, heat pumps but also electricity, gas or oil, VMC ... Help in choosing and implementation, problem solving, optimization, tips and tricks ...
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10

Grenelle 2: green light for nuclear contamination!




by dedeleco » 20/04/10, 18:43

startling, hypocritical
A government amendment in the Grenelle 2 bill proposes to simply abolish the public inquiry procedure for all requests to increase radioactive and chemical discharges and water withdrawals from nuclear installations.

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/ta ... 449-a0.asp
Article 94c

(Unchanged)

After the II of article 29 of the law n ° 2006-686 of June 13, 2006 relating to the transparency and the security in nuclear matter, a II bis is inserted as follows:

"IIa. - A project to modify the installation or its operating conditions subject to the agreement of the Nuclear Safety Authority which, without constituting a significant modification to the installation, is likely to cause a significant increase in its withdrawals of water or its discharges into the environment is made available to the public according to the methods defined in article L. 122-1-1 of the environment code. "

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/ta ... 449-a0.asp
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index. ... age=index#
If this amendment were voted, a simple administrative authorization would suffice to increase polluting and toxic discharges and withdrawals from the aquatic resource instead of a restrictive and lengthy procedure today: the public inquiry.
this amendment would trivialize nuclear pollution. It would constitute a veritable blank check given to the nuclear industry to discreetly increase damage to the environment and living beings, pollution of natural environments and the endangerment of the biodiversity of aquatic environments.
In both cases, it is therefore a question of giving priority to the profitability of nuclear installations to the detriment of the health of populations and the protection of the environment.

The fact that this amendment is part of the Grenelle 2 bill shows that the French executive has moved from the stage of the green electoral promise to the total regression of environmental law. Since the Grenelle announcement, the executive has unilaterally announced the construction of two nuclear reactors, while the development of wind energy will be hampered by the recommendations of the Ollier report. It is now a question of significantly reducing the regulatory constraint in order to grant the nuclear industry a right to contaminate the environment and humans.

This amendment confirms once again that the "Grenelle de l'Environnement" favors the interests of the nuclear industry, in complete contradiction with the declared ecological ambitions.


Only effective reaction, to inform, to protest against hypocrisy repeatedly and to insist with our respective deputies and senators whatever their political position !!

For Xynthia, danger of death over 200 years, we demolish, but for nuclear power cannot be infallible over 100 years, because no man is infallible, we will have a Chernobyl in France sooner or later, with certainty, with evacuation of an entire region in one night to never, return there for centuries and centuries, (uncultivable, uninhabitable!) and therefore saw the danger of death unless 100Km from a nuclear power plant houses must be destroyed preventively as for Xynthia and moved before the safe and certain disaster over 100 years !!!
What do you do during such a disaster?
I leave at 90 ° without believing, the soothing lies either towards my other second home at 900Km, or I leave France by recovering all my money, if possible, considering the million who will do the same !!
Send this kind of real concern to your MPs, far superior to a flood behind poorly maintained dikes, ithis is a badly controlled nuclear power plant, sooner or later !!
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 20/04/10, 18:52

Hello!

Like the floods, if it were necessary to destroy the houses located in a perimeter of theoretical danger around nuclear power plants, it would be necessary to evacuate a large part of the country! Remember that France is the most nuclearised country in the world!

The "nucleo-liberal" measures are in line with the evolution of the French nuclear fleet, which should develop over time, with the emergence of Super Phoenix type breeder reactors .... those in the absence of any democratic debate of course!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 20/04/10, 19:06

Freezer = 5000 tonnes of sodium ready to burn with the slightest water leak, on Superphénix, happily arrested !!
Technocratic madness !!
Have you seen 1 gram of sodium spontaneously burning in water, to take to Koh Lanta to light the fire !! !!
So 5000 tonnes !!
Our technocrats consider themselves more infallible than god with nuclear, the French formation very different from the rest of the world, drives this arrogant technocracy by selecting apart from the grandes écoles !!

And we talk about insecurity and thugs!
Nuclear is inevitable insecurity.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 20/04/10, 21:00

The "nucleocrats" and other politicians (left and right, as well as some scientists) are absolutely unaware of the risks associated with nuclear power.
For example, there are 4 nuclear power plants on the Rhône !!!
Located in the valley of the same name, a major accident in one of them would quickly lead to a major economic crisis for our country.
Remember that the Rhône valley is the main artery of France in terms of transport (axis Paris Lyon Marseille, road / train / oil pipeline).
Do not forget that our country is number 1 in tourism, an accident would cause an unprecedented loss of image.

Concerning waste, the (unacceptable) law to "diffuse" weakly radioactive elements in construction materials (see the subject on this subject) perfectly expresses the inability of the nuclear sector to treat its waste.
As for the "ultimate" waste, it is sent to Russia and represents an incredible regulatory trick.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 20/04/10, 21:29

sen-no-sen wrote:The "nucleocrats" and other politicians (left and right, as well as some scientists) are absolutely unaware of the risks associated with nuclear power.

http://www.manicore.com/documentation/articles/idee_nucleaire.html
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 20/04/10, 23:18

I have already read Mr Jancovici's arguments about nuclear power, I admit that they are very disappointing, he brushes aside renewable energies, citing only those which, "politically correct" do not does not represent a real alternative for the future.
In addition if we take the point by point arguments linked, there are many inaccuracies and shortcuts.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 21/04/10, 00:27

pb2448 reports:
About some frequent objections on civil nuclear
But that in 2000 we reject any idea of ​​civilian nuclear power to fight against threats much more boring (climate change, geopolitical unrest linked to fossil energy) than those linked to waste or the possibility of a major power plant accident. , it now seems to me to be a sentimental choice and not to result from "rational" reasoning. It is of course not illegitimate to make purely sentimental choices (I make them every day: I have never tried to justify my love of the color blue or of my children by rational choices), but it is so honest to admit it and say it, which is rarely the case for the subject mentioned above.

A new Chernobyl will occur sooner or later (2 already in the USSR in 40 years and many others grazed elsewhere), inevitable, like a devastating earthquake, long before a dramatic climate change which does not need CO2 to be produce, like 15000 years ago without the slightest human CO2, with a rise in sea level of 120 meters ten times faster per year than what worries us now !!
Finally I advise those who write this kind of affirmation to go and live urgently around Chernobyl or Chelyabinsk to show us that it is a "sentimental" refusal, of a very livable and pleasant boredom and much less dangerous that global warming almost inevitable in the long term, like many others that have occurred in the past without human intervention with CO2 !!
If we had had a Chernobyl 15000 years ago around Lyon, wrongly accusing CO2 of the warming of this time, to generalize nuclear, radioactivity still strong, 15000 years later, (Plutonium 30000 XNUMX years of radioactive period, etc.) , would still prevent us from cultivating and living there normally today.
Nuclear is the surest way to sink France economically as for the USSR, well before a major global warming.
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 21/04/10, 00:49

I have already read Mr Jancovici's arguments about nuclear power, I admit that they are very disappointing, he brushes aside renewable energies, citing only those which, "politically correct" do not does not represent a real alternative for the future.
In addition if we take the point by point arguments linked, there are many inaccuracies and shortcuts.

His CV perfectly matches:
Our technocrats consider themselves more infallible than god with nuclear power, the French formation very different from the rest of the world, drives this arrogant technocracy by selecting apart from the grandes écoles

and he participates in that contemptuous upper elite group that runs France where it is forbidden to "spit in the soup", like me, by telling indisputable truths against the Lobby, under penalty of being rejected, suffocated and sunk.
France is trapped until the major disaster when it will be too late !!
0 x
User avatar
Napo dwarf
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 180
Registration: 04/03/10, 10:43
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow




by Napo dwarf » 22/04/10, 08:43

all of his arguments have value but as long as we always consume as much electricity the problem will persist

we have to reduce our consumption and keep a public company that controls nuclear power plants

therefore for this increase in the price of kWh electricity and investment in the remaining power plants for security

and above all to do information with figures!! X € / day, 30X € / month and 365X € / year. Here! it talks about !
How many computers stay on at night? How many printers? How much TV watch? how many lights on during the day? .....
Take example from less than a week ago
I arrive at the taf underground parking and as the door is 4 m further than the road lighting is mandatory, it is the regulation!
it's been years since HS, no one has ever complained!
there they come to repair and guess what it is a halogen that works 12 h or 24 hours a day (I do not know since I arrive at 8 am and at 18 pm I leave ^^)

I reported it but I don't understand! it should be a reflex, I made a quick calculation that makes X € / year to support my remark and immediately they captured and hop it will be changed within 15 days

Sad to say, but an increase in the kWh electricity rate would largely solve the problem, the wallet is nothing more efficient
0 x
Of all those who have nothing to say, the nicest are those who are silent
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh




by bamboo » 22/04/10, 11:39

Napo dwarf wrote:Sad to say, but an increase in the kWh electricity rate would largely solve the problem, the wallet is nothing more efficient


++ I am 100% more! ++

All energies (and raw materials) must increase so that people pay attention to their consumption!
0 x
Solar Production + VE + VAE = short cycle electricity

Back to "Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Bing [Bot] and 299 guests