3 ms·

> Again, you are saying I said thing I did not say. I'm saying that the interference of Germany due to propaganda had negligible effect on the french energetic

by cauch 2y ago

> Again, you are saying I said thing I did not say. I'm saying that the interference of Germany due to propaganda had negligible effect on the french energetic situation. You are pretending that your "reason" that France was impacted by German propaganda is not a bullshit reason. You provide a study that fails to show that there was any impact and that there was any real interference. Just that some foundation is funding some article, something that happens all the time and is not a proof of propaganda. > You voluntarly miss the "it's behind a paywall part" how convenient. I'm reacting to, quote, "the Financial Time is highly biased". Very easy for you, if you can read the article and you don't like what you read, you can just say "yeah but it's biased". > The result of the commission are available here, they show a way more nuanced statement that you The result of the commission says a lot of things that I was already saying, and show that your reasons are at best anecdotical. I've mentioned, for example, QUOTE FROM MY PREVIOUS COMMENT: - "the mess the government made with EDF privatization", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 A 2, and chapter 2, section 2. - "the loss of technical expertise", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 B 2 and chapter 2, section 2 C. A quote from it: "le déclin des compétences dans la filière nucléaire s’inscrit dans le mouvement plus large de la perte du tissu industriel français et de la disparition de nombreux emplois industriels" ("the decline of skills in nuclear is the result of a larger decline in the french industry"). - "the short-term vision where the electricity was sold too cheap and did not create budget for infrastructure maintenance/renewal", discussed in chapter 2, section 1 A 1c and 2b - "the fact that now we are going toward a flexible grid (something that was not expected even 50 years ago) and that the initial strategy was not accounting for that at all", chapter 2, section 1 A 1b and 1c - "the fact that the public/politic opinion is stupidly about "nuclear vs renewable" instead of using the best in specific situations", chapter 2, section 1 A 2c - "the learning in the nuclear sector that things are intrinsically complicated which burst the investment enthusiasm, ...", chapter 2, section 3 B Your reasons (you say three, but then only manage to explicit two) do not appear in the report as main reasons for the decline of French nuclear. QUOTE FROM YOUR COMMENT - "aftermath of the covid, that is now completly recovered only as this year.": the report talk about all the problem that started well before covid. It is said that covid increased the problem and that covid arrived "on top" of the existing problems. - "sabotage of our industry": can you find something about that anywhere? In fact, the whole report is very much closer to my position than yours. The full chapter 2 explains that the problem of the french nuclear is mainly due to stupid short-term vision rather than just anti-nuclear things (there is some, of course, but the majority is about EDF governance (which includes the state) not doing the correct choices) > Principally, they are not blaming EDF direction about this failure. On skill gaps, EDF both says that it's not their responsibility AND that they are building capabilities to properly form new skilled people. So what's the correct one: either they cannot do anything about it and it's not their fault, or they can form people and they failed to start their program when it was needed. In fact, the situation is the following: EDF got the message "we are slowly closing the nuclear", and, at the same time, saw the skill slowly disappearing but did nothing about it thinking they don't care, they will not need these skills in the future. When the government changed its mind (which was stupid, they should never have pushed to close the nuclear in the first place), then EDF said "well, there is no skills anymore" because they failed to maintain the skills that they should have maintained as long as possible instead of betting that they will not need them. On the rest, distinguishing EDF from the state is pretty difficult. Decisions were taken in concordance, especially before 2015 where things were already falling apart. > I suggest to read the report I linked in this comment, which show you are making up shit, the reason are highlighted in it. In the video you posted, the CEO explicitly said that they get their skilled specialists in other countries. > It's funny how you claimed being nuanced and we are down to you claiming that closing down fully working plants, that have history of anti-nuclear activists fighting against, and making political alliance in order to close it as "not anti-nuclear". Did you even read. I've said, I quote: "And of course, the incredible excessive costs have nothing to do with that". I'm not saying that the Green have nothing to do with that, I'm saying that once again, you "forget" to say that Superphénix bad reputation was not just the result of anti-nuclear propaganda, but also of a lot of failures. Not enough to justify the closing of Superphénix according to me. But again, it's not "it's all anti-nuclear's fault".

Kuinox 2y ago
> I'm saying No no, for the 8th time now, you wrote down something saying I said something, that I did not say.
- cauch 2y ago
  Then explain me then. Either you are pretending that German propaganda has an impact or you are not. If you say it has, then, it means you say that indeed the simple facts around the Heinrich Böll Foundation imply it is propaganda. But enough bullshit, during this whole conversation, all you provided show me that your initial claims are misleading. Even the last report confirms that these so-called-three-but-in-fact-two reasons are in fact at best negligible in impact and that the most important reasons are due to governance failure as I was explaining. Thanks for once again wasting my time and proving that indeed, as said in the initial article, there are people like you: everything is the fault of anti-nuclear, and they make up crazy stories, like German propaganda and covid, to pretend that the situation would be significantly different without these. The failure of the nuclear situation in France are all due to external things, but at the same time, the failure of the renewable situation in Germany are all due to the fact that renewable will never work. Everything you say is framed in a biased ridiculous "pro-nuclear vs anti-nuclear" view. You were totally unable to even conceive that some problems were not the result of some sort of anti-nuclear propaganda. It's incorrect, even the document you yourself are providing is explaining the situation, and, oh surprise, is re-explaining some of the elements I've explained to you and you were saying were incorrect. Sorry, there is not much more to say, you just have 0 credibility after having provided documents that show that I was indeed pretty on point and that your reasons don't even appear in the document.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    For this whole conversation, you refused the claim I brought, and I never said it was the single reason, as wrong because there are other factors in. The loss of heavy industry did play a role yes, but not investing in building plants for almost 2 decades also play a major role. Every of your response are like this, I say something and you claim that I says it's the single reason. From the beginning of this conversation you have been manipulative (like your 5th paragraph) in this discussion. Your manipulation even present logic flaw, you blame that i reject everything on anti nuclear and covid, and 2 paragraph later, "You were totally unable to even conceive that some problems were not the result of some sort of anti-nuclear propaganda." > Then explain me then. The things I claim are a part of the whole problem, and I never said that something was the whole cause. From the beginning when I pointed at A cause you said the cause was the symptom, or alternatively, you said another problem was THE cause. I'm not the one saying most of the problems are due to the directions of EDF

by cauch 2y ago

Kuinox 2y ago

> I'm saying No no, for the 8th time now, you wrote down something saying I said something, that I did not say.

cauch 2y ago
Then explain me then. Either you are pretending that German propaganda has an impact or you are not. If you say it has, then, it means you say that indeed the simple facts around the Heinrich Böll Foundation imply it is propaganda. But enough bullshit, during this whole conversation, all you provided show me that your initial claims are misleading. Even the last report confirms that these so-called-three-but-in-fact-two reasons are in fact at best negligible in impact and that the most important reasons are due to governance failure as I was explaining. Thanks for once again wasting my time and proving that indeed, as said in the initial article, there are people like you: everything is the fault of anti-nuclear, and they make up crazy stories, like German propaganda and covid, to pretend that the situation would be significantly different without these. The failure of the nuclear situation in France are all due to external things, but at the same time, the failure of the renewable situation in Germany are all due to the fact that renewable will never work. Everything you say is framed in a biased ridiculous "pro-nuclear vs anti-nuclear" view. You were totally unable to even conceive that some problems were not the result of some sort of anti-nuclear propaganda. It's incorrect, even the document you yourself are providing is explaining the situation, and, oh surprise, is re-explaining some of the elements I've explained to you and you were saying were incorrect. Sorry, there is not much more to say, you just have 0 credibility after having provided documents that show that I was indeed pretty on point and that your reasons don't even appear in the document.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  For this whole conversation, you refused the claim I brought, and I never said it was the single reason, as wrong because there are other factors in. The loss of heavy industry did play a role yes, but not investing in building plants for almost 2 decades also play a major role. Every of your response are like this, I say something and you claim that I says it's the single reason. From the beginning of this conversation you have been manipulative (like your 5th paragraph) in this discussion. Your manipulation even present logic flaw, you blame that i reject everything on anti nuclear and covid, and 2 paragraph later, "You were totally unable to even conceive that some problems were not the result of some sort of anti-nuclear propaganda." > Then explain me then. The things I claim are a part of the whole problem, and I never said that something was the whole cause. From the beginning when I pointed at A cause you said the cause was the symptom, or alternatively, you said another problem was THE cause. I'm not the one saying most of the problems are due to the directions of EDF