Nuclear power: Friend or foe?

Matthieu Morisset wrote:I'm not really into nuclear i have to say. But, i can't imagine a near future without it, in france. There's already to many side subjects that we need to solve. it's clear that nuclear is dangerous but the risk are rather low and it's really economics. I can't imagine people not being against it if there is already a crisis for X centimes taxes on fuel. Just my opinion...

Matthieu I think you are confuse about the subject. Do not mix everything up please. We are not talking about fuel.
Ecology is the main problem today and what you say is what the government want you to say : "ecology cost a lot and we have already so much problems". that is so false.. Problems (fuel, power purchase..) are created by the state. They are manipulating us saying that we cannot do a lot for environnement because we don't have money blabla. In fact we HAVE the money, we just don't invest in a good way I think. We are finding excuses but soon it will be too late for the planet and we will all die.
Our generation and the future one have to fight to save the planet even if it a little bit too late (lol). I don't want my children live without knowing what is a bear. I truly believe lots of solutions can be find, we are just not provides ourselves ressources to make the change. I think it is worring that some people at our age we don't understand the importance of changing our system... Anyway. Sorry if I am mean.

By the way ! I went to "The walk for the climate" in Angoulême !!

Who did it ?!! No one I think... Everybody doesn't care pff

Clémence Giraud wrote:Matthieu I think you are confuse about the subject. Do not mix everything up please. We are not talking about fuel.
Ecology is the main problem today and what you say is what the government want you to say : "ecology cost a lot and we have already so much problems". that is so false.. Problems (fuel, power purchase..) are created by the state. They are manipulating us saying that we cannot do a lot for environnement because we don't have money blabla. In fact we HAVE the money, we just don't invest in a good way I think. We are finding excuses but soon it will be too late for the planet and we will all die.
Our generation and the future one have to fight to save the planet even if it a little bit too late (lol). I don't want my children live without knowing what is a bear. I truly believe lots of solutions can be find, we are just not provides ourselves ressources to make the change. I think it is worring that some people at our age we don't understand the importance of changing our system... Anyway. Sorry if I am mean.

I don't think i'm confused about this subject. I did a realistic comparison which is: Can we really imagine our country without nuclear in a near future ? Answer is obviously NO, because first, it will be really expensive (yes, you are the one paying for it whatever you can say about it cause we are in a dumb system). Second, technologies can't provide enough energies without nuclear for everyone and cost much, another point where people will cry wherever it's better for environment. Whatever, nuclear is obviously a foe, but it's a truth we don't have money because we are in system that is dying and no one know how to make up for it. Your statement is real and i agree with you on the basis but you are naive, in my opinion (not mean at all) if you think you can change something by saying "Hey, we need to change the system." It's obvious that we need to change the system, but my question is: Who can and How ? Us ? Investing on others energies is likely to be a dead end, atleast in a near future.

I understand my point of view is unlikely to please anyone here and you will all see me as a devil, but atleast, it's rather realistic about the world we are living in. But anyway, i'm not defending our system believe me. Just sayin, shouting stuffs without proper ideas behind it is a bit unfair and too easy, don't you think ?

We need to change a lot of thing, question is how ? It's not as easy as saying it. I don't want to be mean but i hate free and easy statements so i think i was a bit . I also wanna change things and I think about environment. The thing is introducing changes and still have a sustainable system need a lot efforts and can't be made by a country alone. It's why it's so tough to change things because we are dependants of others, changing things alone is near to be impossible. So ecology is, for me, not a country matter but at the very least an European matter that need to be tough at this level and applicable for all of the Europeans countries with taking every problematic in consideration. Problematic that all the Europeans countries don't obviously shares. Being aware of the need to change things is not everything. Still as easy as you think it is ?

My last point, more related to my previous message, is that even if you change things is the good way (ecologic blablabla) people won't see further that their nose. Will it cost me ? Yes? Ok, i'm against. It's a reality and a shame at the same time.

Matthieu Morisset wrote:

My last point, more related to my previous message, is that even if you change things is the good way (ecologic blablabla) people won't see further that their nose. Will it cost me ? Yes? Ok, i'm against. It's a reality and a shame at the same time.

Exactly.

Ask the revolutionary yeelow jackets if they want to pay extra taxes to save the world.

In my opinion nuclear is good but not good ( I will explain myself). I'm aware that nuclear is more ecological than extraction of coal so maybe in a way it is better. Also, I agree to say that nuclear are providing a lot of energy so if we wouldn't have nuclear how we could provide energy enough to all the people ?
However, I don't know how think people who's working in the nuclear area. If you look at Fukushima this nuclear power plant was based in Japan near to the ocean. But as you know (or not ) Japan is the most seismic country in the world so such a catastrophe was to be expected!!

My last point, more related to my previous message, is that even if you change things is the good way (ecologic blablabla) people won't see further that their nose. Will it cost me ? Yes? Ok, i'm against. It's a reality and a shame at the same time.

This is so french...... "small minded" aha

Matthieu Morisset wrote:

Clémence Giraud wrote:Matthieu I think you are confuse about the subject. Do not mix everything up please. We are not talking about fuel.
Ecology is the main problem today and what you say is what the government want you to say : "ecology cost a lot and we have already so much problems". that is so false.. Problems (fuel, power purchase..) are created by the state. They are manipulating us saying that we cannot do a lot for environnement because we don't have money blabla. In fact we HAVE the money, we just don't invest in a good way I think. We are finding excuses but soon it will be too late for the planet and we will all die.
Our generation and the future one have to fight to save the planet even if it a little bit too late (lol). I don't want my children live without knowing what is a bear. I truly believe lots of solutions can be find, we are just not provides ourselves ressources to make the change. I think it is worring that some people at our age we don't understand the importance of changing our system... Anyway. Sorry if I am mean.

I don't think i'm confused about this subject. I did a realistic comparison which is: Can we really imagine our country without nuclear in a near future ? Answer is obviously NO, because first, it will be really expensive (yes, you are the one paying for it whatever you can say about it cause we are in a dumb system). Second, technologies can't provide enough energies without nuclear for everyone and cost much, another point where people will cry wherever it's better for environment. Whatever, nuclear is obviously a foe, but it's a truth we don't have money because we are in system that is dying and no one know how to make up for it. Your statement is real and i agree with you on the basis but you are naive, in my opinion (not mean at all) if you think you can change something by saying "Hey, we need to change the system." It's obvious that we need to change the system, but my question is: Who can  and How ? Us ? Investing on others energies is likely to be a dead end, atleast in a near future.

I understand my point of view is unlikely to please anyone here and you will all see me as a devil, but atleast, it's rather realistic about the world we are living in. But anyway, i'm not defending our system believe me. Just sayin, shouting stuffs without proper ideas behind it is a bit unfair and too easy, don't you think ?

We need to change a lot of thing, question is how ? It's not as easy as saying it. I don't want to be mean but i hate free and easy statements so i think i was a bit   . I also wanna change things and I think about environment. The thing is introducing changes and still have a sustainable system need a lot efforts and can't be made by a country alone. It's why it's so tough to change things because we are dependants of others, changing things alone is near to be impossible. So ecology is, for me, not a country matter but at the very least an European matter that need to be tough at this level and applicable for all of the Europeans countries with taking every problematic in consideration. Problematic that all the Europeans countries don't obviously shares. Being aware of the need to change things is not everything. Still as easy as you think it is ?

My last point, more related to my previous message, is that even if you change things is the good way (ecologic blablabla) people won't see further that their nose. Will it cost me ? Yes? Ok, i'm against. It's a reality and a shame at the same time.

I understand your point of view too. I know poeple doesn't want somenone to say that things goes wrong because everything is already too bad and I understand it in a certain way. However, I don't think I am naive, I just think we can't change things if we let the system goes. If no one is utopic then how the world can change ? Do you think racism goes naturally ? No. Utopic people fought for that. Do you think women right have been improved by the holy spirit ? I don't think so ! We the people have a voice, we are not just sheeps! We have arms, so we can act ! (I am not talking only about nuclear sorry aha)

Yes we can use less the nuclear energy little by little with a lot of alternatives that comes to our behaviour.
Some actions are really easy to apply, as stopping electricity in shop at night (loose of energy as says Clemence)..or don't use electricity one hour per year (http://earthhour.fr/). But to stop stop it definitively i don't know.. Because we are too much people, who need electricity. Then, can we find something else to be enough efficient ?..I don't really know

And for me, Nuclear is not the only subject to improve our life.

Bill Gates supports MORE Nuclear:

https://www.sciencealert.com/bill-gates-says-us-leaders-should-embrace-nuclear-energy

"If - or, hopefully, when - they do succeed, we'll have a near-limitless source of clean energy that we can create from hydrogen, which is far more accessible than uranium, and the only byproduct would be a small amount of helium." Bill Gates Just Published a Letter Urging US Leaders to Embrace Nuclear Energy,, Science Alert, KRISTIN HOUSER, 5 jan 2019.
That is an intereting idea, the energy made by fusion can be better. If we find how stabilizated the hydrogene. With this production of electricity, there will be less waste material.

So made the advanced nuclear (by fusion of hydrogene) could be the solution ! isn't that right ?

This are the advantages of the Fusion energy :
-No carbon emissions, a small amounts of helium, which is an inert gas that will not add to atmospheric pollution.
-Abundant fuels : we need Deuterium and Lithium. Deuterium can be extracted from water and tritium is produced from lithium, which is found in the earth's crust. So this fuels last for millions of years.
-Efficiency : One kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel.
-No long-lived radioactive waste : the factory components become radioactive and these will recyclated or eliminated and be safe conventionally within 100 years.
-Safety : a large-scale nuclear accident is not possible.
-Reliable : costs will be broadly similar to other energy sources.

Admin wrote:

Matthieu Morisset wrote:

My last point, more related to my previous message, is that even if you change things is the good way (ecologic blablabla) people won't see further that their nose. Will it cost me ? Yes? Ok, i'm against. It's a reality and a shame at the same time.

Exactly.

Ask the revolutionary yeelow jackets if they want to pay extra taxes to save the world.

Ask the revolutionary yeelow jackets and "breakers" if they want to pay extra taxes to repair buildings and motorway they are damaged and road signs they have burned ?

Hi,
I don't know if we have to be for or against nuclear. Could we give enough energy for 67 186 640 people in France without nuclear power ?

The only things I know it's :
- people wants energy for smartphones, tablets computer and computers everywhere and anytime with the best internet connexion but no nuclear energy because it's bad.
- people want to" stuff themself like a pig", drink alcohol and don't want to practice sport but staying slim and living long time because it's better.
- people wants exotics fruits and strawberries all the year but only biologic because it's good.
- People wants milk but without contributed to the just wage for a farmer
- ....

So many example.....