bagua wrote:but we are talking about industrialized countries with huge financial potential
when i made the comparison between the risk of mortality due to a famine and the risk of nuclear contamination you answered me that in any case the poor cannot pa build nuclear power plants
you see pa that you contradict yourself on the one hand they are not even able to invest in the cheapest energy on the other hand they will invest in a renewable energy which is x times more expensive
That's the big problem
a true sustainable development policy cannot exist in an economic environment where exaggerated inequality is supposed to be the engine of society
look at the green parties in europe they are in fact neo cons capitalists disguised in green and who have no more reliable technical solution of professional agitators neither more nor less
sorry but it's a fabric of bullshit, which goes far beyond demagoguery;
ah yes they can trap tritium but don't do it, I see it's like the rest ...
you want an alternative? let them do it! not profitable? well they stop nuclear!
There are plenty of alternatives: stop distributing lousy heat pumps in efficiency, ditto for 3000 W radiators at 10 € etc: all solutions exist, sun thermal panels, wind turbines, tidal turbines etc!
everything exists do not use it as a pretext: "therefore it is up to you French citizens to impose this obligation of investment"
I ask you how to do it, the lobby is blocking the debate which could nevertheless be successful, finally already taking off.
so tritium is not trapped, so where is it ultimately trapped? in the environment, and therefore in our organism (water table, air we breathe, mist clouds, etc.).
- + -----
you question the fact that the study relates to 5km in diameter and not 50km, I will ask you your source?
ditto on your so-called terrorist green: term most falacious with respect to the citizen, because they are their only defenders!
if not who else is defending them?
so why accuse them of terrorist? it is to place oneself immediately in a party, which I do not find very Christian;
yet they did not pollute the environment and the people as the nuclear industry and its dementors did.
Finally, the depleted urnaium is one of the waste of nuclear activity, unresolved, and which pollutes the environment, which has polluted it and which will continue to do so, you can not say anything.
nuclear cogeneration cannot therefore work, for the reason you said, loss by joule effect, the bottom hurts! the natural and human dimension means that this should have remained a theory, rather than a pretext as a weapon of industrial and political domination, of mass destruction in my sense of responsible citizen. (and wham)
by the way, what do you think of my theory which tends to say that the clouds which leave the power stations in this beginning of winter mix with the mist and other mists, which are therefore inhaled by all the population (and their children) who ignites its radiators because it's cold?
therefore, those who are nearby, come on we can make a ratio of distances, I myself live 60km from a power plant, I can take you pictures of clouds, how would you like it?
could we thus explore a concrete dimension which is also lacking in this technology?
seen that you seem to want to deepen the subject, we can see where it leads us, the confrontation of 2 different points of view?
but maybe you would like to broaden these points of view by making a debate vote?
express yourself I don't understand;