Nicolas Hulot postpones the 50% nuclear decline target set for 2025

[sicetaitsimple]

No, there is a much easier position, not to be in charge and to moan .....

Those who would like to be in charge are logically evacuated from the chain of command, normal that they moan!

Not really sure what you mean by that ... I still have some doubts about the fact that professional complainers one day really want to be in control .... It's so much easier to complain!

[Christophe]

Uh bin uh seriously: Did an econologist (be careful I did not say ecologist ...) really believe in this announcement ???

A trivial corner table calculation * showed its utopia... except to divide French electricity consumption by almost 2 in a few years but there too it is utopian ...

We talked about it I don't know where ... can be here: media / hulot minister-a-100-liter-hour al-t15213.html

* the triviality of the reasoning is even "scary" (that some believed in it but especially that the pignoufs relayed the info without checking anything)

Decrease in electro-nuclear capacity announced by 2025 >>> new annual electricity production capacities in France * 8 years ...

(>>> = very very superior)

[Christophe]

Ah no, excuse me, there may be ultimately a frankly viable solution to lower the share of nuclear power by 2025 ...forced nuclear obsolescence !!

Not to be confused with planned obsolescence since in the case of nuclear power we have continuously increased the lifespan initially planned ...

The world is talking about it again today: http://www.lemonde.fr/energies/article/ ... 53054.html

A "significant" incident at the Paluel nuclear power plant

EDF states that it replaced the equipment in question, which had suffered from corrosion.

EDF announced Thursday, November 9, an incident “significant safety” concerning two of the reactors of the Paluel nuclear power plant (Seine-Maritime). The group states that it replaced the equipment in question, which had suffered from corrosion. On the INES scale, which has seven levels ranging from an anomaly to a major accident, this incident corresponds to level two.

The Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) had alerted on June 20 of a level 2 incident for twenty reactors on the territory. Following these problems, EDF had extended its control plan to additional equipment, and it was at this point that it discovered the problem in Paluel.

A “globally satisfactory” level of safety

"These checks highlighted local corrosion faults on the expansion tanks of the two backup diesels in production units 1 and 2 at the Paluel nuclear power plant," explains EDF. These expansion tanks contain the coolant necessary for the operation of the emergency diesel. Their replacement was carried out by the group, which states that it has not changed its forecast for nuclear electricity production.

Despite a series of level 2 incidents in several nuclear power plants in recent months, the President of ASN, Pierre-Franck Chevet, deemed the level of safety of nuclear installations in France to be "generally satisfactory".

ps: in this case it will be necessary to make some savings of more or less forced electricity ... The Japanese arrived there well after Fukushima ...

[sen-no-sen]

Not really sure what you mean by that ... I still have some doubts about the fact that professional complainers one day really want to be in control .... It's so much easier to complain!

The system is based on the concept of exponential economic growth, all people * likely to undermine this ideology are systematically evacuated from politics and more widely from the media sphere.
We also note that this purge worked very well since today no dissonant path is really heard.
All of the criticism, particularly the complainers, is part of a perspective of superficial criticism of the system.




* Degrowth is considered in the political chessboard as a forbidden term.

[sen-no-sen]

A trivial corner table calculation * showed its utopia... except to divide French electricity consumption by almost 2 in a few years but there too it is utopian ...

This announcement was a residue of the trauma caused by the Fukushima disaster, it was above all a political promise like so many others based on the wind.
The exit from nuclear power should have been decided in 1995 as the last deadline, wait until 2017 and the day before the peak of the world oil market to make this kind of promise is to take people for idiots, this announcement was therefore the most shameless lie itself. ..
The mainstream media is very talkative on the question of peak oil ... except we will have to quickly convert our economy to this one, especially if we want to organize the Olympics in joy and good humor in 2024!

[Bardal]

We can notice that Jancovici has said nothing else for several years, either for the utopian drop in electricity consumption, or for the imminence of the peak oil ... These calculations have been made since for a long time, and the inanity of government commitments on this subject has been demonstrated ... But it is not easy to be heard in such irrational periods ...

And that continues besides, since the replacement of vulgar expansion vessels on diesel groups becomes "A" significant "incident at the Paluel nuclear power station"; soon, the replacement of the tires of the Fessenheim service van will become the "sign of the historical obsolescence of nuclear power" ... Are we sure that we are not going on our heads?

But there is still more annoyance, in my humble opinion. The very issue of GHG emissions seems to be forgotten in this debate, as if it were only a very secondary problem; Yet it is this criterion that Nicolas Hulot put forward - in a very relevant way it seems to me - to justify his postponement of the schedule. It is not the question of "peak oil" (moreover there will remain gas and coal, as our neighbors say), it is indeed the urgent obligation to stop burning CO2-emitting energies which constitutes the priority of priorities.

Is this the same priority for everyone here? Or would there be another one?

[sen-no-sen]

But there is still more annoyance, in my humble opinion. The very issue of GHG emissions seems to be forgotten in this debate, as if it were only a very secondary problem; Yet it is this criterion that Nicolas Hulot put forward - in a very relevant way it seems to me - to justify his postponement of the schedule. It is not the question of "peak oil" (moreover there will remain gas and coal, as our neighbors say), it is indeed the urgent obligation to stop burning CO2-emitting energies which constitutes the priority of priorities.

Is this the same priority for everyone here? Or would there be another one?

The preservation of the biosphere is obscured by the concept of global warming, it is a subtlety to grasp in the sense that the question of RCA * is reduced to a question solely accounting.
We speak of "emission rights", "emission reductions" etc ... this approach which may appear to some as pragmatic in reality hides a fundamental problem of a philosophical order which is that of transformation of the world and of humanity's role in preserving life on earth.

It is therefore quite strange that a government like ours (which aims to revive growth) does not address issues like peak oil, which seems more in line with the aim pursued.
Le RCA thus plays a role of "moral guarantee" for our industrialized societies, by using a disaster to come as a lever for a new industrial impetus aimed at perpetuating whatever the cost of the growth effort.


To take up your remark, the priority of priority is to slow down the flow of energy through our society.
Reaching our fears on fossil fuels alone it is costly to orient us when the time comes towards other forms of destruction.


*CAR = anthropogenic global warming

[chatelot16]

what is the use of reducing the number of nuclear power plants?

is the danger of nuclear power plant accident proportional to the number of power plants?

I rather believe that the danger is proportional to the load on the power plants that remain ... if we reduce the number, the one that remains will have to work harder ... and the risk of accident increases when you have to turn cost that cost because we have nothing else

so the right way to reduce nuclear power is not to reduce the number of power plants, but to generate electricity otherwise to reduce the load on nuclear power plants

[sicetaitsimple]

And that continues besides, since the replacement of vulgar expansion vessels on diesel groups becomes "A" significant "incident at the Paluel nuclear power station"; soon, the replacement of the tires of the Fessenheim service van will become the "sign of the historical obsolescence of nuclear power" ... Are we sure that we are not going on our heads?

Are you in charge of ranking security events? It is not, I imagine, the "replacement" which is a significant event, it is that their state (before replacement), whether they are vulgar or not, could have led to the loss of the function " emergency power supply "if needed.

[ENERC]

Until we get a real boost on renewables, the deadline will fall by one year each year.

It's as simple as that.