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

[sen-no-sen]

In Japan there is still a caste of untouchables which are called the burakumin("hamlet people"), traditionally devoted to off-putting spots and those since feudal times.
During the events of Fukushima, a large number of them were used as "liquidators" (we are talking about nearly 1500 people).
Suffice to say right away that his last will not make a big press if they were to fall ill ...

[Christophe]

[Fall into it like flies?

Will we talk about it in 5 to 10 years?

As a reminder, the director of the power station in post in 2011 is already dead ... from lightning cancer ... But obviously this one had RIEEEEEENNNN to do with the disaster ... We know the song ...

[Bardal]

Remundo do not speak of conspiracy, only of partisanship, which has nothing to do with it. As for the other hypothesis, he only mentioned it in order to dismiss it immediately. Branding conspiracy and attack ad hominem is a classic of the controversial response ...

The term lobbyist has a fairly specific meaning, which is not one of partisan spirit; as for the term imbecile ...

I'm still waiting for some serious argument, other than "I think ...".

In the same way for Fukushima, it would be good to give some references concerning the current workers and the risks which they run, as well as for this director who would have developed a lightning cancer in a few days; that would be more serious than to suggest I do not know what guilty silence on terrible consequences ...

In Fukushima, on the other hand, there were nearly 20 deaths from the tsunami; those seem to interest nobody here ...

[sen-no-sen]

In Fukushima, on the other hand, there were nearly 20 deaths from the tsunami; those seem to interest nobody here ...

Insofar as a tsunami is a natural phenomenon and the subject was that of the electro-nuclear sector, your remarks are somewhat of the same level as a Claude Allègre... unless you are a solution to stop earthquakes?
Now, and it should not be taken badly, if you receive some scathing remarks on the part of the econologists, it is that your attitude on the subject seems to suggest that you would come to try to change mentalities on nuclear within the framework of a lobbying operation.
Is that the case?

For my part I am not "nucleophobic", I think that one way or another the exit from nuclear power is no longer possible in the current frame in France because of the coming of the Peak oil (conventional + unconventional) is that it will have to do with.
However I consider that this sector is a mistake and corresponds to the technocratic response of a society turned towards exponential growth.
Now answer this question: given the very small share of nuclear power in the global energy balance, do you think it is wise to continue in this field of application? Do you think this sector can be extrapolated to developing countries in view of the situation to come ???

[Bardal]

Well, we change a little bit of direction, but ... in order:

1 - a tsunami is a natural phenomenon, but it was possible to predict it, at least statistically; in this case, to establish human activities on a place known for its tsunamis (at regular intervals of around thirty years), where this warning had been materialized by the ancients, on the hillside, by the installation of marked markers showing the risk, this no longer concerns a natural risk (not to be confused with the natural phenomenon), but culpable unconsciousness ... also install there a plant unprotected against this risk - known much of an irresponsible will, which it is not difficult to attribute to the owners of this powerhouse, attracted by the greed for profit. We do not lend to a form of energy which is the responsibility of men ... And this does not excuse the fact that some are relentless in the vain search for an improbable death linked to radioactivity while they are counterfeit 20 dead having nothing to do with the plant; the name of Fukushima induces a thousand articles on the power plant and nuclear power, and 000, perhaps 1, on the damage of the tsunami ... Humanism is in this case suspect, and this fight is completely off the mark.

2 - lobbying is the pressure exerted by economic interests interested in such or such political decision; I am not linked, either directly or indirectly, to any economic interest. On the other hand, I am tired of seeing some of us go astray towards sad dead ends by using any argument, even chosen among the most false. And I claim the term ecologist ...

3 - I take note of the fact that your positioning is different from that of nucleophobes, even if I do not share all your options ...

More

4 - I am not one of those who advocate everything nuclear; I am simply saying that it is impossible to do without such energy in the current phase, and that it is wise to reflect on this question on rational grounds, and not dogmatic, by seeking (as for all sources of 'energy) the means of overcoming the disadvantages and optimizing the advantages. The fact that nuclear power is a minority in the world is unimportant (hydropower is at the same level, renewable energy is even lower), the important thing being to develop all the alternative energies to carbonaceous energies. And the fact that it is rather reserved for developed countries is not unacceptable, they are the ones who consume the most (for the moment at least).

5 - all this is not contradictory with a drastic policy of energy savings, nor with a freely agreed limitation of the development of the human species and a frantic defense of natural balances. It is still necessary to place this fight at the level of rational mobilizations and not exacerbations of unreasonable fears ...

Two years after the law on energy transition, "we" have just noticed that the objectives set were aberrant; it is now a question of postponing the same deadlines for 5 years, while maintaining contradictory options (end of hydrocarbons, electric cars for all, carbon tax, etc.); I bet today that it will not be possible, and 5 years, it quickly happened.

ps: please leave Allegre aside, I've been around him enough to know the character's inanity ...

[sen-no-sen]

Well it's clearer, whose act.

1) Okay, but that's another subject.

4) The fact that nuclear power is a minority is precisely not unimportant. Given their small role, it is therefore rational to ask the question of the relevance of such a sector. The Germans and the Swiss followed this reasoning and put an end to it.
On the scale of developing countries it is clear that renewable energies have a much greater possibility of development than nuclear, especially in a climate of geopolitical instability.
A world supplied with 50% of ENR is possible, for nuclear (fission) even 20% seem surreal.

5 - all this is not contradictory with a drastic policy of energy savings, nor with a freely agreed limitation of the development of the human species and a frantic defense of natural balances. It is still necessary to place this fight at the level of rational mobilizations and not exacerbations of unreasonable fears ...

At first glance yes, but the technological choices stem from an ideological orientation, it seems to me therefore difficult to envisage a society turned towards the decay with nuclear power.
Originally, the choice of the electro-nuclear sector was intended to maintain energy production (and by extension economic growth) in a context of oil crisis.
Evolutionary determinisms do not deceive, large nuclear power plants to produce a lot of energy corresponds to the logic of selection K, in phase of degrowth is the selection r which will impose itself, which means from an industrial point of view, a multiplication of small production units with a high capacity for adaptation, which seems to favor REs in fact.

Continuity in nuclear power in France is a political choice based on a rational but risky working hypothesis: to the extent that peak oil will induce geopolitical and economic tensions on a world scale, maintain our electro-nuclear production capacity coupled ENR development should ensure a very relative * security of supply in times of crisis **.

However, this working hypothesis avoids the possibility of a collapse (in the strict sense of the term) which would then leave us with a fleet of aging plants suffering from maintenance defects or security problems.
On this we can not blame Nicolas Hulot because the choice of the nuclear exit should have been in the early 90 years and not on the eve of Peak oil all.

In conclusion, the question is not whether nuclear power is a solution or not, but rather to determine in which cases it is no longer possible to do without it in view of the situation.




* The development of renewable energy in the industrialized countries remains far below what would be necessary to ensure a future with much less oil.
The same is true of the development of rail networks and road transport, which are still excessively dependent on fossils.

** A lack of supply would quickly induce a national crisis (social, societal economic) and therefore a collapse.

[Ahmed]

At first glance, yes, but the technological choices stem from an ideological orientation, it seems to me therefore difficult to envisage a society turned towards decay with nuclear ...

It is even downright impossible, to put it plainly.

The rationality of which you speak, Bardal is only instrumental, because in the service of irrational ends (here, mainly, an economic determinism), this is what emphasizes Sen-no-sen in the quote above.

[Remundo]

Bardal, you only take into account direct deaths from acute nuclear radiation, with precise estimates,

and for coal, you take indirect deaths into account with rough estimates.

Why not do the opposite? The problem with cancer is to demonstrate that it is radio-induced. But radioactive atoms do not always leave their address ... what a good deal for the nuclear minimalists.

[Bardal]

Bardal, you only take into account direct deaths from acute nuclear radiation, with precise estimates,

and for coal, you take indirect deaths into account with rough estimates.

Why not do the opposite? The problem with cancer is to demonstrate that it is radio-induced. But radioactive atoms do not always leave their address ... what a good deal for the nuclear minimalists.

No, no, epidemiological studies take into account all deaths (and more generally pathologies) linked to radioactivity. So read this report "scientific consensus on Chernobyl (note, it is in English); everything is listed and quantified, including the increase in thyroid cancers in children and the different types of cancer. And when there is doubt, the effects are calculated in excess (which explains the 4000 premature deaths counted although not noted).

Do not take the epidemiology specialists for altar boys ...

I also remind you that personally, I take nothing into account, having no competence to conduct such an investigation (especially difficult); but I have more confidence in the results of teams of recognized experts who have really carried out an investigation rather than in ideologues without any particular expertise in this area and who have carried out absolutely no field study; this is the difference between a rational approach, and a dogmatic approach where the "results" are known in advance.

[Bardal]

At first glance, yes, but the technological choices stem from an ideological orientation, it seems to me therefore difficult to envisage a society turned towards decay with nuclear ...

It is even downright impossible, to put it plainly.

The rationality of which you speak, Bardal is only instrumental, because in the service of irrational ends (here, mainly, an economic determinism), this is what emphasizes Sen-no-sen in the quote above.

Strange reasoning, Ahmed ... which quickly leads to a finding of impossibility for just about everything ...

What can it be, these technologies "turned towards the degrowth"? And those that would not (apart from nuclear, obviously)? Yes, strange, this new philosophical paradigm ... it can take us far, very far ...