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

[Bardal]

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.

Yes, no doubt, but we are also in the media for "incidents" affecting other sectors of activity, and responsible for infinitely more damage, human in particular .... Coal-fired power stations are doing several dozen in Europe. thousands of deaths per year (by air pollution, nanoparticles, NOx, aromatic compounds, tars, etc.); this does not seem to bother anyone among the checkers of failures affecting nuclear power plants, and EDF in general.

What shocks me the most is that it is recognized by all international bodies dealing with our health that the nuclear industry is the least dangerous of all the energy industries (and not only a little, 5 times less deaths by TeraWh produced than wind, 10 times less than photovoltaics,, 100 times less than coal, 150 times less than hydraulics ...), but that all the critics concern nuclear, and only it ... Would there be deaths worthy of interest and others that are less so?

It should be recalled here that according to official and serious studies, on the 3 disasters affecting nuclear power plants:

-Three Miles Island (heart melting) made no victims, neither dead nor sick

- Chernobyl is responsible for 49 deaths in the short term and could be responsible for approximately 4000 premature deaths in total; no incidence of disease is measurable on the populations affected ...

- Fukushima is not responsible, to date, for any death related to radioactivity and any radiation-induced cancer.

Are we finally going to stop playing fearful games, when nothing in the reports authorizes it; isn't this an irrational attitude, difficult to explain in any case, and which masks other dangers, which are far more real?

Let us be clear, I do not in any case defend a drop in nuclear safety ... But the national agency seems to be completely vigilant.
-

[sicetaitsimple]

Yes, no doubt, but we are also in the media for "incidents" affecting other sectors of activity
-

The answer is obviously no, just go to the ASN website to judge the level of control and transparency of French nuclear compared to many other industries.

I specified very recently on another thread (biomass) that I was not fundamentally anti-nuclear, but it is nevertheless certain that the risks attached are unlikely but of a potentially high level of severity (for specialists risk analysis).

Nuclear must therefore be irreproachable, allowing rotting expansion vessels, admittedly technologically very vulgar, is just a serious professional misconduct when it comes to the availability of a safety function.

[Ahmed]

[Remundo]

Returning to less ambitious subjects ...

It will also be necessary to signal to this Hulot that it would not be bad to give an ecological bonus for plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Is Hulot in government to play saltimb (r) anque or to be serious? I have a little esteem for the guy, but I ask myself the question ... it must be said that Macron corrupts everything he touches, except perhaps real men like General De Villiers ... but we're HS.

[Ahmed]

He does not need to play acrobats, since he is one and he is content to continue his show in other places (and in the company of other acrobats) ...

[sen-no-sen]

Nicolas Hulot is a TV presenter, and that’s why he was chosen by E.Macron: disposed of a character with high sympathy potential who reflects an image of an ecologist.
However, its mission is not easy, or even impossible, since it consists in wanting to coexist conflicting notions.
However, let us be in good faith, would a virtuous government manage to change the trend of the moment?
Because there is not only pressure from industrial lobbies, but also from citizens.
The system to implant in the brains of powerful Memes, which it will be very difficult to get rid of, it is for this reason that an increasing number of scientists or more generally of observers as such a little objective alerts us to the imminent of a collapse for lack of being able to influence the forces at work...

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

However, let us be in good faith, would a virtuous government manage to reverse the trend of the moment?
Because there is not only pressure from industrial lobbies, but also from citizens.

Absolutely! Even if the government is not the emanation of the citizens, it is hardly imaginable that virtue is decisive for the accession to power (this would be contradictory, there is only Plato to dream about it).
The sentence which I am quoting above is difficult to understand in its relaxed orthographic form, since it formally takes on another meaning *; I transcribe it correctly:

The system has implanted powerful memes in brains that will be very difficult to get rid of

* Otherwise it wouldn't matter ...

[sen-no-sen]

The sentence which I am quoting above is difficult to understand in its relaxed orthographic form, since it formally takes on another meaning *; I transcribe it correctly:

The system has implanted powerful memes in brains that will be very difficult to get rid of

* Otherwise it wouldn't matter ...

Yes thanks!

[Flytox]

Yes, no doubt, but we are also in the media for "incidents" affecting other sectors of activity, and responsible for infinitely more damage, human in particular .... Coal-fired power stations are doing several dozen in Europe. thousands of deaths per year (by air pollution, nanoparticles, NOx, aromatic compounds, tars, etc.); this does not seem to bother anyone among the checkers of failures affecting nuclear power plants, and EDF in general.

What shocks me the most is that it is recognized by all international bodies dealing with our health that the nuclear industry is the least dangerous of all the energy industries (and not only a little, 5 times less deaths by TeraWh produced than wind, 10 times less than photovoltaics,, 100 times less than coal, 150 times less than hydraulics ...), but that all the critics concern nuclear, and only it ... Would there be deaths worthy of interest and others that are less so?

Should we remember here that according to studies official and serious, on the 3 disasters affecting nuclear power plants:

-Three Miles Island (melting of the heart) did no victim, neither dead nor sick

- Chernobyl is responsible for 49 died within short time and could be responsible for approximately 4000 total premature death; no incidence of disease is measurable on the populations affected ...

- Fukushima is not responsible, to date, no dead linked to radioactivity and no radiation-induced cancer.

Are we finally going to stop playing fearful games, when nothing in the reports authorizes it; isn't this an irrational attitude, difficult to explain in any case, and which masks other dangers, which are far more real?

Let us be clear, I do not in any case defend a drop in nuclear safety ... But the national agency seems to be completely vigilant.
-

Hey, a new one ! in the pay of Arhévah or BDF? Who has been throwing disinformation / lies on Econo, it's been a long time
sorry but your OFFICIAL figures are completely phony. There are several posts on Econo, on the Nuke with many links which demonstrate that your official figures are completely dishonest, very underestimated and adulterated ...
Apart from that, it is true that to put in parallel, the production of energy / devastation of all kinds, with the number of deaths that this implies, shows us how well we walk on our heads.

[Christophe]

Uh silly question: what are the dead of photovoltaic and wind ??? The falls???

And hydraulics that kill more than coal ??? When you know the damage of particles ...

Otherwise yes, it's easy to say that nuclear power does not kill ... when EDF is cheating on the recognition of occupational diseases or takes temporary workers to do jumpers ...

Then if the nuclear does not kill, I advise you to go personally to help Fukushima ... there is still work ...