4 ms·

> We've had numerous examples now of how pseudo-environmental policies destroyed economies and energy infrastructure in europe ... france leaving its nuclear in

by cauch 4y ago

> We've had numerous examples now of how pseudo-environmental policies destroyed economies and energy infrastructure in europe ... france leaving its nuclear infrastructure to rust I'm the first one to criticize pseudo-environmental policies, and Germany was indeed a mess due to pseudo-environmental policies. But the state of french nuclear infrastructure is not due to ecologists, it is very stupid to think it is, because it does not make any sense. The different french government were all way more pro-nuclear than than in other countries, and french nuclear technology was always considered by them as a source of pride. The state of the nuclear infrastructure is a mix of plenty of things: short-term vision from the french politicians (as usual: results of investment take time and they will not be in power when they will come, so what's the point), overconfidence ("we have the best tech, I'm sure it will still be the case in 10 years, let's invest in other stuffs instead"), privatization (the picture would not be as it is today if EDF was not struggling economically because of the shoe-horned privatization that forced them to sell at loss), loss of know-how, ... One example of how ridiculous it is to blame it on ecologists is when we talk about running nuclear plants. Their situation is very dire. Yet, how can it be the results of ecologists? If they were able to influence the decisions regarding the power plant, they would close it, not pass laws that say "let's decrease checks, let stuffs get corroded, let make the worker condition even worse". Obviously, if the ecologists were able to influence things that led to the situation of running power plants, they would have done things totally differently in order to reach their goal way faster.

bsaul 4y ago
it's a very famous fact that the fesseinhem nucleae power plant, for example, was an electoral deal between socialist party and the green one. But more importantly, the idea that the "renewable energies" had to be pushed forward aggressively, despite all data showing it couldn't replace nuclear or fossile, is a general gospel spread by green activists throughout the world. Political parties saw that the population were becoming brainwashed by this ideology and adapted, as a way to gain election.
- cauch 4y ago
  Fessenheim is the proof that the state of the other nuclear plants is not the result of the greens: Fessenheim only does not explain why the other nuclear plants are in disarray. The situation for Fessenheim is in fact more complicated (the condition to close Fessenheim was to open Flamanville, proof that the government was pushing to maintain nuclear and was not at all anti-nuclear). Well, you seem to not know the data. I'm a pro-nuclear, and yet, nowadays, nuclear is just too expensive (you cannot do a small project, you can only invest very huge amount for project that will take years) and is sometimes not the solution (increasing the nuclear share is really the exception in scientific studies, not because of "green brainwashing", just because nuclear is just way more complicated to put in place than solar and wind. Solar and wind have the problem of variability of production, but this problem is not as big as other pragmatical problem with nuclear). Not all the decisions that imply choosing something else than nuclear means it's "pseudo-environmental policies", sometimes, it's just the result of science. I also remember that in France, pseudo-science and incorrect data was used to pretend that solar was bad for nuclear. These data were bullshit at the time, but now are even less credible as the facts demonstrate it was not the case. There are stupidity in the side of the greens, but trust me, brainwashing is as important from the pro-nuclear who just refuse every scientific facts that don't go their way. And there is pro-nuclear brainwashed people in France for a long time, as long as the brainwashed greens. It's very sad to see those people thinking they are smarter when they are just as stupid and bad for the environment.
  - bsaul 4y ago
    I'm not sure how you can justify destroying our existing working nuclear infrastructure with science. Solar and wind projects were made interesting only through a high level of market-rigging legislation, forcing edf to buy back electricity produced at a much higher cost than nuclear. Our current abysmal state of energy infrastructure is the result of very politically oriented policies. not science. Hard facts never showed one could replace nuclear power plants with anything else. We actively made ourselves a net importer of electricity.
    - cauch 4y ago

by cauch 4y ago

bsaul 4y ago

it's a very famous fact that the fesseinhem nucleae power plant, for example, was an electoral deal between socialist party and the green one. But more importantly, the idea that the "renewable energies" had to be pushed forward aggressively, despite all data showing it couldn't replace nuclear or fossile, is a general gospel spread by green activists throughout the world. Political parties saw that the population were becoming brainwashed by this ideology and adapted, as a way to gain election.

cauch 4y ago
Fessenheim is the proof that the state of the other nuclear plants is not the result of the greens: Fessenheim only does not explain why the other nuclear plants are in disarray. The situation for Fessenheim is in fact more complicated (the condition to close Fessenheim was to open Flamanville, proof that the government was pushing to maintain nuclear and was not at all anti-nuclear). Well, you seem to not know the data. I'm a pro-nuclear, and yet, nowadays, nuclear is just too expensive (you cannot do a small project, you can only invest very huge amount for project that will take years) and is sometimes not the solution (increasing the nuclear share is really the exception in scientific studies, not because of "green brainwashing", just because nuclear is just way more complicated to put in place than solar and wind. Solar and wind have the problem of variability of production, but this problem is not as big as other pragmatical problem with nuclear). Not all the decisions that imply choosing something else than nuclear means it's "pseudo-environmental policies", sometimes, it's just the result of science. I also remember that in France, pseudo-science and incorrect data was used to pretend that solar was bad for nuclear. These data were bullshit at the time, but now are even less credible as the facts demonstrate it was not the case. There are stupidity in the side of the greens, but trust me, brainwashing is as important from the pro-nuclear who just refuse every scientific facts that don't go their way. And there is pro-nuclear brainwashed people in France for a long time, as long as the brainwashed greens. It's very sad to see those people thinking they are smarter when they are just as stupid and bad for the environment.
- bsaul 4y ago
  I'm not sure how you can justify destroying our existing working nuclear infrastructure with science. Solar and wind projects were made interesting only through a high level of market-rigging legislation, forcing edf to buy back electricity produced at a much higher cost than nuclear. Our current abysmal state of energy infrastructure is the result of very politically oriented policies. not science. Hard facts never showed one could replace nuclear power plants with anything else. We actively made ourselves a net importer of electricity.
  - cauch 4y ago