For 59% of French, we must maintain the share of nuclear

[jean.caissepas]

Seen on enerzine:

Link : http://www.enerzine.com/2/15960+pour-59pct-des-francais-il-faut-maintenir-la-part-du-nucleaire+.html



Apparently, the Fukushima accident is quickly forgotten by a section of the French who look down, towards their wallets ...

[Remundo]

I resume the question ...

Nuclear energy must be maintained because it is what ensures the energy independence of France

FALSE, ARCHI-FALSE

Nuclear ensures a good 75% of the production ofElectricity supply : YES

But 100% of uranium ore and its derivatives are IMPORTED from abroad since no uranium mine is exploited in France.

In addition, when we speak of France's energy independence, we cannot limit ourselves to electricity production ...

Here is the pie chart of primary energy consumption in France


Source Jancovici / The Shift Project

We can see that 50% of the energy consumed in France is of the hydrocarbon type (coal, oil, gas ...), and the hydrocarbons are also almost 100% imported from abroad.

IN SUMMARY : France is almost totally dependent on energy, except for this 9% of renewable energy, and nuclear power has no effect on energy independence...

[sen-no-sen]

As mentioned Remundo the questions in his polls are gone wrong (intentionally?).
It is therefore difficult to answer ...

The share of electricity in France is something between 16% and 37% of the overall energy balance.
The important difference between its two figures comes from the fact that there are different calculation methods, namely a reasoning in produced energy or in available final energy.
The nuclear sector is about 75% of this minority something ... and this part does not absolutely protect us from a future energy shortage, because our society is extremely "petro-dependent", apart from it, it is oil that drives cars, trucks, tractors, boats, planes and a significant part of trains.

It is recognized that nuclear power participates in a certain autonomy, because of the relative ease of obtaining fissile materials.
However, if we consider the recent events in Niger, we have every reason to doubt such an assertion.

What is more, Uranium reserves are relatively limited (60 years at most), it is for this reason that the government is moving towards generation 4 reactors such as ASTRID in order to be able to regenerate fissile materials, even to use thorium, whose reserves are estimated at several centuries.
However, even from this perspective, energy independence is far from being there!

[Christophe]

But 100% of uranium ore and its derivatives are IMPORTED from abroad since no uranium mine is exploited in France.

Quite therefore those who still speak of energy independence thanks to nuclear power are either idiots, liars or manipulators ...

On the other hand, you should have said it is "no longer" exploited in France ... because until the 70s (80?) There were indeed in France. See the subject on the documentary France polluted with Uranium: https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-france- ... t7045.html

But I don't know if one day (well, except at the very beginning, necessarily given the low consumption), the production of French uranium was enough to power all of the power plants ....

The war in Mali (hey we hear more about it ...?!?) May not be foreign to the interests of Areva et Cie ...

[dirk pitt]

from memory, since the mid-90s, there is no longer enough uranium produced in the world to fuel all existing plants.
The difference comes from the recycling of military nuclear materials, mainly that of the Russians.
(for how long.) I edit after checking: it seems that the exhaustion of stocks from military recycling is for around 2015

[Did67]

I think I remember that the duration of known reserves is even shorter for uranium than for oil!

http://actuwiki.fr/environnement/18898

[Janic]

Hello
I do not believe that it is a question of wallet, but rather of a refusal to lose a certain level of comfort that electricity allows in the daily life of the wealthy that we are.

[moinsdewatt]

French not ready to abandon nuclear power according to latest poll

AFPle March 10, 2016

A majority of French people are not in favor of giving up nuclear electricity production, according to an OpinionWay poll for Tilder and LCI, published on Thursday. Nuclear energy must not be abandoned for 62% of those polled, against 37% who say they are ready to give it up.

The desire to maintain nuclear electricity production increases with age, and is more marked among men and among right-wing voters. French support for the atom remains the majority despite the setbacks of Areva, whose rescue will cost the state several billion euros, and of EDF, whose chief financial officer has just resigned, disagreeing on an expensive project new generation EPR reactors in the UK.

This survey was carried out on the Internet on March 9 and 10, on a sample of 1.011 people representative of the French population, aged 18 and over, according to the quota method.

http://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/ ... age-160310

We were sure of it.

[Obamot]

Who is this "on"Are you several Lessdewatt? Do you have another nickname here?

When will a survey "For or against" solar thermal instead of nuclear?
(... and which would be really useful to citizens if it excluded the usual soothing questions from polls ??)
When will a thread from Môssieur Lessdewatt * in favor of massive investment in "solar thermal"?

This survey has no value 5 years after the facts. What I don't like is your hint of irony, don't you have respect for the dead?

It should be remembered that a tiny number of the population is not really capable of appreciating the nuclear risk to its proper extent. That is to say between 2 and 90 million deaths in 70 years would specify a compendium of hundreds of studies carried out on the assessment of Chernobyl and whose results have been reassessed (and this taking into account the low dose irradiation, which would have the unfortunate tendency to lead life to death - all those who have been affected by low doses and whose borderline state will not have resisted, while they would have had a "normal" life until their old age without to have been affected by the aforementioned radiations - what can the average citizen know about it who for lack of memory will declare himself "in favor of nuclear pursuit"?

Another study which speaks of the accumulation of all the attacks on humans caused by nuclear power (including the radioactive fallout from nuclear tests in the open air and the two bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and there it would be a question of 250 mios dead. Figures published after Chernobyl, it would therefore be necessary to more than double this last figure (according to this other statistic) if we wanted it to be compatible with the results of the Fukushima disaster. But even with 500 million deaths over 70 years, that would not represent "which"less than 0.07% of the population of 830 inhabitants of Europe, to which should be added the population basin of China, Japan and North America: the main affected by Fukushima This should drop the figure from half to 000% of the population, which in proportion is not even perceptible in the "background noise" of statistics: we are decidedly few things!

Indeed, if we consider that the Sun (which is also nuclear) is at a distance of 149 km from the Earth and that it can still produce sunburns that can become carcinogenic: we can easily understand the dangerousness of "low dose irradiation".

Since in the same vein, the power of the Sun is such that solar thermal energy + C-PV (and storage solutions) should solve our energetic problems in the future (assuming that the public authorities invest massively in these chains)

So a useless, even irresponsible pick-up of thread and completely missing the point of lucidity of appreciation of the situation. Because it's not because it's been five years since it happened, that "nuclear risk"no longer exists. Finally, should it be remembered that during these five years or the 4 reactors having melted down continue to pee everywhere in nature, that we have come close to a major disaster in Fessenheim!

*)

► View Text

Minusdewatt which would definitely be more and more "pronuclear"? !!!?

Finally, we don't really see how we could be "pro-nuclear" since we are all under the threat of the next catastrophe, which statistically would be inevitable according to the state of dilapidation of the world nuclear park, and should take place in the next five years !!! (If we count in number of reactor fusions.)

[Christophe]

We were sure of it.

Didn't you post this info a few days ago?

Well if: energies-fossil-nuclear / out-of-nuclear-why-how-bad-debat-t10610-370.html # p300686