Note that I do not defend China, there are huge criticisms in some respects, but in these areas the figures show relatively the opposite of conventional wisdom: sweep already in front of OUR doors! France and nuclear ... hum ...
If you would like to talk about "
new reactors" in China ("
you"in the general sense, several have talked about nuclear in this thread), it seems to me that those they are building are among the most"
reliable"to the world! (The kind of reactor that has the ability to shut down on its own and can't get carried away as it seems, if Lessdewatt goes through it and can confirm?)
Damn, am I "selling" nuclear power there? And damn, everyone here knows how much I am "
pros"nuclear (lol).
No I do not agree at all, of course! But then if we criticize China for its atomic energy, we must do it fairly, relatively with all those who have it, everywhere in the world! You can't just point the finger at them and say "it's wrong" just because they're Chinese.
Here too we could (and must) count the number of reactors relative to their population. Since there are 1 power plant per million inhabitant in the West (I mean in relation to needs), they would need 1 power plants! While China has 300 operational reactors and more than twenty under construction "only" ... for 27 billion inhabitants!
I put "
only "in quotes, since:
- "only" in France there are 19 power stations ...
- 149 in Europe which counts half of the population of China ...
- ideally, one more is already one too ...) so yes, there I am disappointed, but it is a disappointment that is at the slim height of the little central they have .. .
(Figures, EDF 2013 source)
Ahmed wrote:One should be extremely cautious when it comes to Chinese figures and also consider the criteria on which these figures are based ...
Admit, but I have not provided ANY personal figures, these are all internationally recognized sources (if at all possible) at least organizations (UNDP, World Bank, UN, etc.) whose figures are widely taken, weighted, cross-checked, put in parallel on long-term statistics to check their consistency, etc.) I do not believe that we can dispute these figures, or else we must give others and comment on them. Otherwise be careful, it can become "the rogue argument"
and Ahmed we know very well, do not eat this bread there;)
Ahmed wrote:You write:
moreover, China is contributing through its low production costs and its sacrifices, to the recovery of the faltering world economy, and in ways unimaginable for the "average" Westerner that I am.
It is true, China has constituted and remains the ultimate event of the Western model and prolongs the survival of the system by temporarily postponing its collapse, but its logic is turning against its zealous admirer.
I didn't say I liked it, but also think about the "redistribution" they made of it over 20 years (it's just remarkable).
Then there is the pilosophical, humanistic, epistemological debate, etc. (which in fact should be upstream) ... But this is another debate and I agree that it takes place without reservation. Again we must keep a fair treatment of those whose thinking is the subject (China), agree ...
Ahmed wrote:Further:
Nearly 3x fewer emissions (CO2) than the US, who would have thought?
This is not surprising, since this figure is related to the number of inhabitants: with constant pollution, in a given country, it would decrease with a demographic expansion. It is not difficult to choose the most favorable formulation ...
There is no risk of population growth in a country that gives a strict limit to one child per family, I do not understand where you are coming from?
If that is to say that the USA is one of the countries that pulse the most the planet by pickaxe, there agree (12e rank in the production of Co2 per capita, China 59 rank
>>> ), but that doesn't make it a "favorable" or "unfavorable" formulation (or whatever), it just does
what it is in the facts. Or if we do not agree, we would have to explain in more detail where the wolf is, but I do not see and if so, it's not intentional.
If it is for "zeal", if possibly you see it like that, there is no more to re-establish the truth than to give a totally erroneous panorama, it is the figures which say it. We can comment on the figures but not suggest partiality ex nihilo.
RTDC.
