Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?

[Ahmed]

Christophe, you write:

... since it is a mining energy, therefore fossil and exhaustible ...

You forget to specify that this does not ensure national energy independence either, unless you consider Niger as an overseas territory ...

[Christophe]

It is not really the subject but yes it is good to specify it.

Also civilian nuclear makes "quite a bit" profitable military nuclear ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Christophe, you write:

... since it is a mining energy, therefore fossil and exhaustible ...

You forget to specify that this does not ensure national energy independence either, unless you consider Niger as an overseas territory ...

A colony, yes, and a garbage can "with slaves in it". After having messed everything up and dropping 600 people like old shit in Arlit while fleeing, Orano (ex Areva) will probably do the same thing again in Imouraren. Nuclear power is criminal.

[sen-no-sen]

To use the answer again, yes, we can make the ecological transition without nuclear power ... the other question is how long and in what type of society?
Negawatt's proposal to achieve this in twenty years is more or less feasible from a technical point of view on the only nuclear question, on the other hand it is somewhat dreamlike on the question of fossil fuels, since according to their scenarios we should to do without his last ones too! I'm still looking for the numbers ...
According to Negawatt this transition would cost 370 billion euros (?) ... I think that an order of magnitude is missing!

[yves35]

Hello,

I did not know that nuclear power was simply part of an option in the plan energetic transition... since it is a mining energy therefore fossil and exhaustible ...

not quite fossil fossil fuels (coal, oil gas) result from the decomposition of plants and animals. This is not the case for minerals like copper, iron etc ...

yves

[Ahmed]

There are several definitions of the term "fossil" and, in the strict sense, it is what is mined from a pit, so this is indeed the case with uranium ore.

[ABC2019]

To use the answer again, yes, we can make the ecological transition without nuclear power ... the other question is how long and in what type of society?

It would already be necessary to give a definition of 'ecological transition' which makes everyone agree, which is far from being the case.

The biggest uncertainty is to what extent it involves giving up consumption considered as usual now, but which was not at all 100 years ago, such as taking a vacation more than 50 km (in fact taking a vacation period). !!), live in large and heated houses in all rooms, wash clothes once a week, or have a full freezer.

If you remove the constraint of keeping these comforts, without specifying a minimum level, the transition is - obviously - possible without anything at all, without nuclear power, without RE, and even without electricity. It is enough at worst to return to the standard of living of 100 years ago, or even to the worst of 200 years ago.

If you impose a minimum standard of living, it becomes more complicated, because it depends on this minimum: it is quite possible that maintaining the CURRENT level is in any case impossible, with or without nuclear power. The need for nuclear power could be justified if we want to have minimal constraints on the availability of electricity, its cost, etc ... but we enter into subjective criteria.

In short, a question asked in a simplistic way covers in fact an incredibly complex set of subjective judgments and arbitrations on the necessary "needs".

[Remundo]

indeed the terms are poorly defined and the outlines of the issues poorly defined.

ABC is absolutely right here.

But insofar as solar energy and its derivatives (wind, hydraulic, biomass ...) give around 10 times the current anthropogenic waste ... that we have all the technological means available to properly exploit all this ...

nuclear power is not essential and should temporarily limit itself to supporting the energy transition a little far (to regulate the electricity network, for example).

For me, talking about nuclear as a stakeholder in the energy transition is as stupid as talking about natural gas. They are exhaustible and polluting energies. On these 2 criteria, they are automatically disqualified.

[Ahmed]

This hesitation waltz between "ecological transition" and "economic transition" is quite revealing of the (intended) ambiguity of the situation. Sen-no-sen had however, in his first message, taken care to specify that it was about an energy transition. Ecology, a term that has been preferred because more seller, it's just for the decoration ...

[phil59]

If it's recyclable, who cares?

Usually, to recycle, we consume energy.

Extending the lifespan, "of any device", without relentlessness, however, is undoubtedly better.

It's true, you're right, long live the disposable, but of quality.

It's the complete opposite of what I said!

Why have to recycle, when we can extend the life of many devices?