Wind power: for or against the wind?

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Nuclear power will for a long time remain the safest and least dangerous solution.

Ah well, it's been a long time since I had not read something so realistic ...

I still did not understand how one could think otherwise except by putting one's head in the sand not to see that the level of demand left no other REALISTIC alternative than to work at the bottom to ENHANCE all that nuclear potential and its derivatives can offer us.

Reasoning in terms of micro consumptions (solar, wind ... etc) it's just good to feed the counter briefs but surely not our homes and factories.

[izentrop]

Nuclear power will for a long time remain the safest and least dangerous solution.

Reasoning in terms of micro consumptions (solar, wind ... etc) it's just good to feed the counter briefs but surely not our homes and factories.

I understood the irony of your answer, but my point was about cold winter weather where your solutions do not work.
The climate change is also a climate sawtooth. See recent episodes in the US and Canada.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Nuclear power will for a long time remain the safest and least dangerous solution.

Reasoning in terms of micro consumptions (solar, wind ... etc) it's just good to feed the counter briefs but surely not our homes and factories.

I understood the irony of your answer, but my point was about cold winter weather where your solutions do not work.
The climate change is also a climate sawtooth. See recent episodes in the US and Canada.

Oh no I'm serious Izentrop .... the smiley was misleading I agree ...

You're right and I totally agree with you.

Let's boss in every conceivable way on the atom ... it's the only way out.

Everything else is literature which does not prevent to try to make the most of the energies of the wind and the sun (as Pierre Groscolas would have said) ...

But as it is the ecologists who are most often against wind turbines and solar panel fields it is doomed to fail from the start.

[izentrop]

Hello,

Let's boss in every conceivable way on the atom ... it's the only way out.

The only way out, no, but to abandon it, as Germany and Sweden do, is not reasonable, being the least energy source of CO2 is to give reason to the activists who react only on the emotional makeup stats or lying by omission.

Currently, the only energy producing energies used to pass periods of negative temperatures are nuclear or thermal.
No nuclear = coal or gas = more than CO2 Bravo It's really ironic

Nuclear power is more and more safe, unless we make an accumulation of errors of beginners as in Chernobyl, or if we install power plants on a seismic fault like the Japanese, but they have a reputation of kamikazes
Besides, they are in a hurry to restart.
After the reactivation of 9 reactors, the use of nuclear power is once again openly envisaged by the public authorities, as well as the possible construction of new reactors. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201806280047.html

[Ahmed]

The "kolossal"The disadvantage of nuclear power is that it is based on the premise of a sufficiently stable society (and potentially in continuous progress!) to ensure the high-tech maintenance required by this process. Wind turbines are simpler and could possibly be abandoned without inconvenience.The idea that progress is constantly linear is a pure illusion which owes its success only to the restricted vision offered by the duration of a human life; on the other hand, the idea that 'a collapse can result from the very success of an ideology of success is very counterintuitive, it is therefore not envisaged, "our standard of living is not negotiable" ...

[Gaston]

The "kolossal"The disadvantage of nuclear power is that it is based on the premise of a sufficiently stable society (and potentially in continuous progress!) to ensure the high-tech maintenance required by this process.

And even if we shut down the power plants "properly" before the collapse of the company,the question arises for waste et site signage.

[izentrop]

Ahmed, the issue of winter peaks is a purely arithmetic problem and do not make a fixette on the waste. The most dangerous represent only 0.2% of the volume http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/quant ... usion4.htm

Let's not stop progress towards a more sustainable nuclear energy with irrational fears http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pag ... tionIV.htm

[Ahmed]

I do not speak of winter peaks; you must have read badly ... no more than rubbish ...

[sen-no-sen]

The only way out, no, but to abandon it, as Germany and Sweden do, is not reasonable, being the least energy source of CO2 is to give reason to the activists who react only on the emotional makeup stats or lying by omission.

It is somewhat doubtful to put forward the relative neutrality of the nuclear sector with regard to greenhouse gases.
The nuclear sector is far too small globally for impact to be able to correct the gigantic emissions from fossil sectors.
The question of whether or not the nuclear sector is maintained is not ecological, but economic.
The real question is: Should we get out of nuclear power at the dawn of all oil spike?
The maintenance of nuclear power coupled with renewable energies would enable us to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while maintaining a stable economy.
The problem is that in such a case we would only perpetuate a model breathless ... but otherwise we risk an economic and social collapse, the question remains full and full.

[Ahmed]

Either way, "the stability of our economy" depends on the world economy. Success at the Pirro the Western model and its spin-off in the large, temporarily emerging countries will quickly prove its long-term non-generalization ... The appetites of China and India are facing head-on those of the USA; why do you think that the project of the new Silk Road is of such interest in the Middle Kingdom?