It is unwise to compare countries without taking into account a number of disparities.
Portugal is a country with 10 million inhabitants against 66 million in France, and whose GDP per capita is about 16000 euros against 29900 euros at home is almost half as much ... we are not quite in the same order of magnitude!
I leave you therefore the care to invite the French to divide by two their wages and thus their purchasing powers (1) and have re-spoken ...
I do not see how the political and industrial decision of Portugal would not be adaptable to our country. Thus the lower Portuguese income should instead curb investments in ENR! what does Ahmed say?
This simply confirms the idea that renewable energy is only possible in a low-energy society, which is not our case.
Of course we are not sober, influenced by the American model. But we must not only think about the current model, which must change willingly or forcefully by the global situation, which can not and will not adopt our model of waste. (as the food and health model indicated previously).
Indeed, it is the popular pressure that will change things, especially if a French power plant explodes or leaking enough to set the record straight.
There is nothing to expect from a possible popular pressure and even less politicians since it is much more of opinion based on emotions than serious analysis.
Only to a certain extent. Chernobyl as Fukushima have made more than one think and these "ones" in question vote!
Do this little test around you, and ask your entourage how many wind turbines would be needed to replace a nuclear power plant, you're gonna laugh! (2)
Same thing you should not think about wind power only! The share of renewable energy is steadily increasing and diversifying too. Thus the share of hydroelectric power over water could greatly increase.
In the same way around you ask how many "wind turbines" will remain dangerous for thousands of years and that will become all this waste buried away from the eyes, but in the ignorance of what they will become in a few years, not even on 24.000 years, as we see that forecasters are struggling to see beyond a few decades.
For now, the fears instilled by the authorities and the media have focused on global warming and the influence of the consumption of fossil fuels, like a tree hiding the forest from the risks of nuclear, invisible, without colors, nor smells.
Yes and rightly so, even if the hidden implications are far from being as ecological, however the RCA threatens all complex life forms, which fortunately is not the case of the electro-nuclear sector.
Indeed, what matters to the majority of people and politics is the present moment, not a future even close ... unless it's boouuummmm!
Assuming that our GLOBAL consumption of fossil fuels is decreasing per capita, it is already too late to prevent the packaged machine from continuing, if only because of the population explosion and the desire of the non-affluent countries to access the same energy privileges as us.
For your government, about fifteen power stations have been completely dismantled in the US, including the heart of course, for amounts corresponding to provisions, and very close to EDF estimates ... In any case, it will cost less than for build them, below 100 Mds ...
and launching a bomb on a power station is even cheaper; but at what cost in human lives!
What the nuclear dismantling hides
Nobody knows today how to evaluate the cost of dismantling-reprocessing. "This projection does not come from an environmental activist, but from Emmanuel Macron. The dismantling of reactors and waste management are indeed the big unknown in the nuclear industry. There are 450 reactors in operation worldwide and 110 at a standstill. Only twenty units have been deconstructed, half of them in the United States. None in France. A paradox. Our country has the second largest nuclear park on the planet. But it fails to dismantle the nine first-generation power stations today shut down. https://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/en ... ire_477559And we must stop agitating the bogeyman of "nuclear power plant explosions"; for the moment, and after 50 years of experience, nuclear is the safest of the energy industries, by far ...
Fortunately given the dangerousness of the product, which does not prevent a few failures ... until the disaster "impossible to predict".
In Fukushima, it is the "instilled fear" of a nuclear risk who has not had any victims so far who managed to hide the forest of 20 000 dead from the tsunami, very real them.
It is the same pronuclear speech that was held for Chernobyl and obviously false.
The wolf, the bogeyman, the bogeyman and the wicked fairies, it's for little children; you are exempt from shaking them here, we have passed the age ...
no better for those who still believe in Santa Claus!
Possible insulation of homes would have been better if it had been otherwise, but for now, our legacy of roughly insulated homes is electric.
The same insulation policy could have been maintained for the other heating methods, but the surcharge was not within the reach of all stock exchanges, which is less the case today with the performance of the materials and their lower cost. .
For the future, we have above all 30 million buildings "thermal strainers" to take over, so that if we wait for new constructions of passive houses, we have a hundred years to wait at the current rate (I'm kind).
It is a fact that the building stock was not designed to cope with global warming that optimists of the time did not consider urgent, despite warnings from whistleblowers.
Be careful though, everyone is used to it,
I know the world, in France, had become used to waste and will have to review its copy.
and will not do the opposite way ...
Of course, probably not! But France, like the other wealthy countries, will have to align with a world-wide consumption
for each of its inhabitantsThe question Remundo deserves a whole thread; I would simply say that the best intentions of the world lead very easily to hell ...
For proof you have, it seems, the best intentions of the world vis-à-vis the nuclear that leads to an inevitable hell!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
the linking factor is also valid for the materials extracted from the soil and therefore we have no national source and the tap can also close, maybe even before the fossil energies. But nobody talks about a sudden cessation, because almost impossible, including the dismantling of the power stations in question. But many savings can be made by ceasing many wastes to start with the eve of electrical appliances, the decrease of domestic appliances like household robots without much use like electric boxes and other mixers like a whole host of others products and that does not bring us back to the Neanderthal! The state has encouraged the use of lighting economizer, decreased unnecessary public lighting in the middle of the night, etc ...