Academic Mockingbird: Sorry but I'm more in agreement with Mr. Dumont.. Nuclear power has a lot of flaws, including the lack of democracy, which is very technical, demanding in terms of security, connivance with military nuclear power, etc. It is still more ecological than all renewable energies, so either you take charge of the subject or others (including the Bolloré family via the dubious acquisition-resale of the Creusot foundries) will take care of it 🤡

Bjr Fine Bison: We can totally disagree, for the credibility card, it will now be necessary to include knowledge of the world, its history and know how to respect it (without the intention of usurpation)/Do you know about self-correction? Wanting to continue learning with those who have demonstrated their enormous capacity for destructive management is extreme! Please, let's learn and respect those who work for solutions, or else goodbye and good luck.

Good for you,

Academic Mockingbird: Let it be said I think that renewables should OBVIOUSLY be financed, I would be crazy not to say that I work in wind energy. But why are you excluding nuclear power from the solutions? Pandora's box has been opened in France and we have to deal with it, it turns out that nuclear power has massively decarbonized our electricity (we agree the intention was not there at the beginning). Germany is leaving nuclear power, for the carbon intensity of their electricity is exploding, we must realize the advantages as well as the disadvantages of nuclear power.

Bon Vent

Fine Bison: I admit that I did not sufficiently express the first of the perceived difficulties, as well as the possible solutions. You are right to specify not to exclude anything (except obvious unconsciousness)/To qualify my words, wanting to show that it is possible without nuclear power does not necessarily mean excluding nuclear power (especially since nuclear options without radiation exist..) But detecting an immaturity in the management of space-time was my first intention by letting people know that the possibility of nuclear free (current) for rational energy consumption exists just as much and it is not a myth. (according to the latest news, territories such as India and perhaps Brazil, if they evolve with people in full consciousness, have a good probability of being the next leading players in the discipline.

Reinventing ourselves in mutual respect or disappearing seem to be the solutions we have left, it seems.

Good for you:)

Academic Mockingbird Hello,

Having left Helios for a while for reasons of banking simplification (without IBAN FR, it didn't help too much), I have come to detail the bottom of my thoughts.

A massive investment in nuclear power is needed to change the generation of reactors. Everyone was able to see how much of an EPR is a gas factory because we lost our past know-how.

Olkiluoto and Flamanville have accumulated enormous delays precisely because of this loss of know-how. As for Taïshan, I am not sure that Chinese construction standards approach those in Europe. Hinkley Point is also behind schedule due to a lack of skilled labour.

It is necessary to set up a complete chain, including specialized subcontracting (special metals, welding, etc.) so that projects fit within the budgets and deadlines announced (or in any case with much less delay than currently).

Beyond that, it is vital to resume projects killed in the bud (especially Astrid) because fast neutron power plants would allow us to manage waste by limiting the part that is (or will be) buried and by increasing the part that can be reused.

The state-strategist compromised by closing Superphénix and abandoning the Astrid project before it was built.

Everything that France cannot produce itself will come from abroad.

You only have to count the fast neutron reactors in the world to see that France is falling behind schedule.

The USA, Russia and China, among others, have fast neutron reactors in commercial operation, in addition to prototypes, while France only has two old prototypes in operation

However, note that I am not an anti-ENR, I am in favor of anything that will provide the energy our country needs by reducing the carbon footprint as much as possible.

Being pro-nuc does not necessarily mean being anti-ENR.

If I was resolutely anti-ENR, I would have chosen another bank.

Good day to you and look forward to discussing the subject again.

Able Amphibian: Davodeau's book was unbunked for peddling a lot of fake news! To be taken with big tweezers in my opinion...

Cyan Pike: Thanks for the info, do you have an article about this debunkage to share? I take this opportunity to bounce back on the initial idea that nuclear power is “necessary” for the energy transition:

An op-ed shows the projected exhaustion of nuclear power in the face of progress and especially the margin of progress in solar energy. (https://reporterre.net/Face-au-solaire-le-nucleaire-est-une-energie-perimee)

I think it's an interesting opening so I'm sharing it:)

Able Amphibian: hello

I have found the debunk that I am showing you! Regarding the forum, it is interesting but it remains a forum, therefore a personal opinion exposed in the media (by a deeply anti-Jewish media, we can ask ourselves the question of substantive sincerity...). Without being really decisive, the near future does not allow us to do without it, in the end I am quite in favor of it, but how can 70% of the mix be replaced in a few years? The work is colossal, the EPRs are a way to make the transition more flexible, the scientific journal Espiloon has written an issue on the nuclear puzzle, really uncommitted, with the + as the-

I recommend it to you!

For the debunk:

Cyan Pike: Thank you so much for sharing that I found interesting.

For the transitional aspect, we don't agree (and that's really not a big deal!) but it allowed me to open my spectrum of thought, thank you:) And thanks to this Espiloon recommendation (thank you!) , maybe I can take a step towards this nuclear transition, who knows?

For the rest, if you judge the sincerity of a forum based on its origin and its distribution channel, the debate cannot exist. I understand that this can affect perception, but prejudging the sincerity of a person in this regard is to assume that because you read this text in a medium that has one or more political ideas different from yours, then the text would have less value?

(or if we tell you after a debate with someone that this person is on this or that political side, should the weight of their arguments change in your perception?)

On the other hand, if it is by giving yourself your personal opinion while crossing sources as you seem to do (and which I think is a recommended reflex for everyone to debate), by crossing opinions, with objectifiable facts as supports, then that's great! And that takes time too... You also present solid arguments:) The debunking less, from what I saw.

Long digression to say that on these debates as on all the others, I think it is just as important to pay attention to HOW we debate, especially online and in writing.

Have a nice day/evening!

Able Amphibian: if only all the debates could be as peaceful as this one... 🙏🏼

I agree with you on the sincerity and the perception, but admit that we will never read a column defending the NUC on Reporterre, and that's a shame! It is such a sensitive subject that I think it will remain difficult to decide forever!

We agree that the political side being known downstream will not change anything in the past discussion.

In any case it's always good to talk, nice evening too!