I underlined the points on which the candidates were wrong or right and put in bold the things of general aspect with regard to the environment which I think important. So I say: Janco candidate in 2012?
Dear journalists,
Those of you who watched the debate last night probably did not miss the little nuclear exchange, where each put forward wrong numbers by accusing their opponent of not knowing the good ones (funny, or worrying, it depends). By the way, no candidate has talked about oil (while a good big oil shock is difficult to exclude with certainty in the next 5 to 10 years, which would result in a large part of the promises "social" candidates would then be left in the locker room), or climate, while the 35 hours and retreats are not very prosperous on Mars or Venus. The environment has been reduced to an extremely small portion, while all our social gains are directly or indirectly linked to the good condition of the substrate on which we thrive, namely the earth system, with its resources, its stable climate and its biosphere. It is time that we forcefully remind ourselves that physics overdetermines our desires, and that it is not enough to stomp on the ground and say "I want" for us to have!
Anyway, this message is mainly intended to remind you of the nuclear figures, hoping that this will be useful for you to inform the elector who must not have understood much about it.
* The share of nuclear in electricity in France is around
80% (in other words 80% of the kWh produced by French power plants come from nuclear power plants), and therefore neither by 50% as Sarko said, nor by 17% as Ségo said (that I am I was sincerely expecting to see the correct figure quoted because she looked so sure of it).
* The share of nuclear power in the world is around
16% -17% (around 16% of the electric kWh consumed worldwide comes from nuclear power), which may explain the confusion on the Ségo side.
* The share of nuclear energy in final energy consumption in France (see this article to understand what final energy is: http://www.x-environnement.org/jr/JR04/jancovici.html ) is 17% (it can also explain the confusion on the Ségo side). But the share of nuclear in primary energy consumption in France (primary energy is that which is "extracted" somewhere from the earth's crust; the same article as the one previously cited also explains what primary energy is , isn't that wonderful?)) is around 35%.
* The share of primary energy consumed in France which is imported with few stocks here (in short, hydrocarbons of all kinds) is around 50% (that may explain the confusion on Sarko's side (note from Christophe: from very far then)). We sometimes speak of "energy independence" to give the share of primary energy consumption obtained without resorting to imports. Strictly speaking, it is very low (we will find 1% of oil and 3% of gas, wood, hydroelectricity, and that's about it). But it is customary to include nuclear as well, because uranium stocks cover several years of operation, and we are therefore "a little more independent" than for hydrocarbons, where we have only a few weeks of normal operation ( a few months in all, but the system is disorganized before reaching the end of stocks, of course),
* The EPR is a 3rd generation reactor (on this point Sarko is therefore wrong and Royal is right). 4th generation reactors: http://www.x-environnement.org/jr/JR04/huffer.html
* The accessible reserves of uranium 235 make it possible to supply several hundred times the annual consumption of the world's nuclear power plants (Ségo is therefore wrong on this point by talking about - from memory - about 20 or 30 years), but it is obviously much less with consumption increasing by 2% per year.
* Finally nuclear actually plays an important role in the fact
that French emissions are on average 25% lower than the European average (characteristic that we share with Switzerland and Sweden, on this point the order of magnitude advanced by Sarko is also the right one). A link is offered at the end of the message for those who want to see the calculations.
* one last point, not nuclear but climatic: Spain's "catching up" over the past 15 years was made possible because this country increased its consumption of hydrocarbons by 50% from 1990 to 2003. I let you meditate on how realistic it makes the promises made on both sides to see Africa "develop" to achieve something close to us, the implicit promise made to the countries entering Europe from Europe. 'Is "catching up" to our level of consumption,
etc. I hope that we will come back to it for the legislative .....
On that, I think that's it! If you could, on occasion,
informing voters of the "real" numbers, I'm sure they
would allow to get an idea of the respective (in) skills on this precise subject, which is never useless ....
Best regards to all
Jean-Marc Jancovici
reminder useful links:
- primary energy consumption and final energy consumption:
http://www.x-environnement.org/jr/JR04/jancovici.html
- energy consumption and "choice of society":
http://www.manicore.com/documentation/a ... i2001.html
- 4th generation nuclear:
http://www.x-environnement.org/jr/JR04/huffer.html
- level of greenhouse gas emissions in France and electricity: http://www.manicore.com/documentation/c ... serre.html (despite its title, you will see!)
It’s just appalling to see that the two candidates are really up for grabs. 
A priori, we would have increased nuclear electricity consumption by 2% in almost two years.
I'm starving...
