Being green and pronuclear?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 27/06/08, 11:31

Moué except that there is a "slight" snag ... in their reasoning!

It is that currently (and it will be the case as long as the majority of consumers do not choose to take more EXPENSIVE green electricity contracts), the profitability of renewable energies, and therefore the sustainability of the 10 jobs mentioned in the report, are directly linked to a State subsidy policy ... therefore indirectly by EdF and its nuclear villain.

And the loop is closed ... the system well tied and locked ... : Evil:

Or do we not have the same definition of "perennial"?

Then I do not understand the disproportion in terms of employment between renewable energies and energy savings ... there is so much more to be gained in savings (but it is true that it is not necessarily sustainable, it is "one" shot market ") ...
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 27/06/08, 11:42

Christophe wrote:Toutafé ... and let's not talk about pure Sino-Chinese air conditioning, for the most part sold for a few hundred euros and installed by Mr. Everyone !!

Besides, we break power records every year now ...

In the end, you are completely wrong about this ...


no, but it is safe to reason like that, and without counting electric vehicles, but that's not the problem Christophe:

for me it is necessary to make the difference between electrical equipment consuming a lot and not expensive (currently) like electric radiator and one which is more expensive to purchase but which works with solar for example!
like what the alternatives exist, we cannot say it enough.

when a power plant goes wrong we will laugh less, but it will be like Techernobyl: nobody will know or too late ...



even if we need wind turbines that are more expensive than nuclear power, we must invest outside nuclear power, that is sustainability.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 27/06/08, 12:15

Unless there is a major crisis (the reactors without human control are happening there after a while ????) there will be NO Chernobyl in France ...

I'm not saying who will not have accidents or incidents but there is very, very little risk of a reactor explosion happening in France ...

So stop your paranoid Chernobylist, it's been useless for 20 years.

Waiting coal, oil and pollution kill thousands of people around the world ... EVERY DAY. (50 per year just for France !!!)
Last edited by Christophe the 27 / 06 / 08, 12: 35, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 27/06/08, 12:34

+1

Let's fight against particles, Nox and CO which are at the origin of many adult and childhood pulmonary diseases, allergies and others.

wondering why it's not a priority
I'm sure the financial impact is gigantic
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 27/06/08, 12:38

Well let's not forget that many labs make billions of turnover on chronic diseases ... and others resulting from various pollution: 2000 € per day for a patient in chemo. Here are the figures for a lab ...

So, a bit of paranoid justified her: when it is the same holding companies which own on the one hand the polluting companies and on the other hand the companies which take care of people ... I do not see how that could change. This was the case with Vivendi ...

It's like this American trust that sells mines and prostheses ...
He is sure to win every time ...
Last edited by Christophe the 27 / 06 / 08, 13: 31, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 27/06/08, 13:28

Christophe wrote:Unless there is a major crisis (the reactors without human control are happening there after a while ????) there will be NO Chernobyl in France ...

I'm not saying who will not have accidents or incidents but there is very, very little risk of a reactor explosion happening in France ...

So stop your paranoid Chernobylist, it's been useless for 20 years.

Waiting coal, oil and pollution kill thousands of people around the world ... EVERY DAY. (50 per year just for France !!!)

Well spoken, it puts some ideas in place ... 8)

Moreover, it is currently the only massive energy that is not indexed to oil. In France, we would not have sold our shirts for a long time without nuclear power : Idea:

Obviously, renewables efforts have been stifled by the EDF / Areva lobby, which is totally devoted to Uranium.
0 x
Image
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 27/06/08, 13:44

no no, short memory, the precautionary principle is not paranoid; There have been accidents, only 2 or 3 in 2 years, considered serious, and saved at the last minute.

recent nuclear accidents:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_accidents_nucl%C3%A9aires#Ann.C3.A9es_2000_2

so yes the big explosion was stopped, but each time everyone held their breath, and most of the French reactors are not 100% compliant according to ASN;

well that's not the subject, but ...

we can compare particle pollution ... petroleum and nuclear, there is one which is a thousand times more dangerous than the other, may be less present (at present) but whose ailments are not at all the same!

not to mention that it is a fossil NRJ like oil, which will experience its price increase etc ...

polluting less with oil we know how to do it (water injection, lower consumption, better combustion / injection pressure, particle filters, EGR, running on vegetable oil) but not with nuclear power.

in any case to get back to the subject:
remundo wrote:Obviously, renewables efforts have been stifled by the EDF / Areva lobby, which is totally devoted to Uranium.


and There you go ...
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 27/06/08, 13:47

in fact we have forgotten the scientific reports which demonstrate the increase in cancer and leukemia for those who live near power plants?

and electric pylons?

what is the difference between lung cancer by cigarette, diesel particle, and irradiation?
Is there an identified map of these diseases, such as thyroid cancer?

Why ?
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 215 guests