As mentioned above, the dismantling of the current nuclear fleet should amount to around 150 billion euros, it is a high range which takes into account any unforeseen events.
It is not only a question of dismantling structures that are only slightly irradiated, but hearts as well, which does not seem to have been achieved yet and can cost crazy amounts except to bury them as for the dumping of our consumer waste.
This is a bad calculation because it implies a current maintenance of consumption, even more with the absurdity of electric cars with high power and autonomy, when they should have been reserved for cities to reduce air pollution .
As I mentioned the 3000 billion euros only concerns the consumption of domestic and industrial electricity,
Where does this figure come from that I haven't found anywhere?
it does not take into account the replacement of fossil fuels by electricity to propel automobiles.
That is to say that even by greatly reducing our energy consumption *, investments will still have to reach such an order of magnitude.
When you wait for the house to burn completely it costs more than putting fire alarms and fire extinguishers. Unfortunately, for 50 years we have let the house burn. But continuing to live in the middle of a burnt building is not the solution either and rebuilding, it actually costs a lot, except to become homeless!
https://www.greenpeace.fr/dechets-nucle ... dioactifs/Hence the need to change consumption patterns (to be compared to food consumption or drugs and vaccines that border on consumer madness!)
We agree, but who will make the decision and who will have the power to reverse this trend? Person...
It is the crisis phase that we are going through that will set the record straight, not political decisions.
Proof that if!
https://www.euractiv.fr/section/energie ... -isolated/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.
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.
But the historical truth consists in recalling that the "all electric" houses were the first to be insulated and consumed about half as much as the other houses of the time, heated with fuel or gas ... Incidentally, all countries developed (Germany first) have a per capita electricity consumption roughly identical to that of the French, with nuclear or not ...
It's just! except that it was to compete with the cost of heating by fossil fuels, but at a much higher cost by its insulation. The same insulation would have drastically reduced the bill with fossil fuels, as is the case with so-called passive over-insulated houses, reducing the cost of necessary heating to almost nothing.
It does not therefore credit the nuclear as a better solution.
Indeed there would be a "limiting factor", but that will mean essential a situation of dramatic shortage, which I dare not even consider, except if you show us the example by depriving yourself of all heating and all comfort, as well as of any movement other than the strength of your muscles ...
she is good this one, but a little and even a lot worn ... knees
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 ...
The example of Remondo (even if everyone can not or will not do it) shows the possibility and more and more eco-friendly means develop individually:
small streams always end up filling the sea!
"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