@pquirion1@DecrypteEnergie@lemondelenergie@voixdunucleaire Haha, je l'ai eu comme prof à Centrale effectivement il y a une dizaine d'années. Il est ultra pro-nucléaire, son cours n'était pas inintéressant mais frôlait le prosélytisme.
@philoso_foster@meaning_enjoyer In the EA/longtermism discourse, "existential threat" is usually meant at the scale of humanity - can it threaten the collapse of civilization or extinction of humanity? It's not that other negative impacts like unemployment are ignored, but they don't fit under that umbrella.
#IPCC’s Synthesis Report is out! 👉 https://t.co/zAMzd12lR7
"More than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal & unsustainable energy & land use has led to global warming of 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels," said scientists in the #IPCC report released this week.
🚨RÉVÉLATIONS: pendant des mois, nous avons suivi et tracé l’activité des chalutiers géants qui ravagent l’océan.
Notre bilan est sans appel : le massacre des animaux marins se poursuit dans les eaux françaises dans le silence assourdissant de nos autorités.
Enquête glaçante.
@Modj0r@JLGagnaire@CaronAymericoff@JMJancovici Pour moi le risque c'est qu'investir massivement dans de nouvelles centrales nucléaires empêche d'investir dans les ENR et ralentisse la transition, vu les coûts et délais. Et après lecture du GIEC je pense que la variabilité est un problème gérable. Mais bon. Ca se discute.
@Modj0r@JLGagnaire@CaronAymericoff@JMJancovici Au final la question c'est "surtout du nucléaire" vs "surtout du renouvelable", mais bien sûr probablement pas 100% de l'un ou de l'autre.
@Modj0r@JLGagnaire@CaronAymericoff@JMJancovici Tout à fait. Je pense juste que ce problème est gérable avec de l'effacement, transmission, stockage et oui, du pilotable. Apparemment on peut atteindre un taux d'ENR vraiment élevé avant que cela ne devienne problématique. On en reparle quand on sera à 70% d'ENR ;)
@JLGagnaire@CaronAymericoff@JMJancovici Oui si on parle de maintenir et prolonger les centrales existantes. Mais si on parle d'investir dans de nouvelles centrales, le renouvelable est plus rapide à déployer, moins cher et s'améliore très rapidement (source GIEC).
@JLGagnaire@CaronAymericoff@JMJancovici Je suis loin d'être anti-nuke, mais dire que c'est "la meilleure solution" c'est en désaccord avec le dernier rapport du GIEC. Les renouvelables ont la possibilité de décarboner plus rapidement, à plus grande échelle et pour moins cher. https://t.co/uqr6MRlBS1
I recently wrote a thread about "what the @IPCC_CH says about #nuclear power". It wasn't great, because I'm bad at Twitter - so I turned it into an article! My summary in a much more readable format here: https://t.co/duJntG8SK4
I recently wrote a thread about "what the @IPCC_CH says about #nuclear power". It wasn't great, because I'm bad at Twitter - so I turned it into an article! My summary in a much more readable format here: https://t.co/duJntG8SK4
@MatthewWielicki "Energy density" comes up a lot in this kind of debate, but what matters more is the practical feasibility of delivering electricity quickly and at a large scale with these technologies. And renewables have improved dramatically faster than nuclear there. https://t.co/uqr6MRlBS1
I recently wrote a thread about "what the @IPCC_CH says about #nuclear power". It wasn't great, because I'm bad at Twitter - so I turned it into an article! My summary in a much more readable format here: https://t.co/duJntG8SK4
@nuke_hero@franceculture A noter qu'un mois + tard, Guillaume Erner a suivi le conseil de JMJ et a invité un médecin spécialiste des rayonnement ionisants pour parler des conséquences de Fukushima et Tchernobyl. c'est tout à son honneur
I recently wrote a thread about "what the @IPCC_CH says about #nuclear power". It wasn't great, because I'm bad at Twitter - so I turned it into an article! My summary in a much more readable format here: https://t.co/duJntG8SK4
So where does that leave us? Most importantly: phase out fossil fuels! Current nuclear plants should be maintained. But investing in new plants is viable only with high acceptability, technical maturity and stability and if it doesn't take funding away from renewables.
There's a heated debate around #nuclear power in France, and over the last 24h I've seen people claim "The IPCC recommends developing nuclear power" and others "The IPCC considers that nuclear isn't a good solution". So I checked - what does the IPCC write about nuclear power?
9) Last point of comparison: the political, social, economic and technical feasibility of wind and solar has dramatically improved recently, while nuclear growth has been slower than expected. "Small scale technologies tend to improve faster and be adopted more quickly",
3) In other impact categories, nuclear does pretty well: low land occupation, material use and ecological impacts per kWh. Average impact on human health over the life cycle is comparable to renewables. One potential issue is water scarcity, although some designs can mitigate it.
8) But - "Lifetime extensions are significantly cheaper than new builds and cost competitive with other low-carbon technologies." So overall, it makes sense to maintain existing plants (note again that this is a global takeaway, but countries might differ)