French bill seeks to boost renewable energy, cut nuclear use

French bill seeks to boost renewable energy, cut nuclear use
In this photo taken Friday, April 10, 2015 French President Francois Hollande attends a signature of agreements ceremony by India, and French Minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Segolene Royal, who signs a raft of business deals at the Elysee Palace in Paris. Segolene Royal is the French president's ex-partner and mother of his four children, who is a prominent government minister, and she is increasingly appearing alongside President Hollande during important official functions. (AP Photo/Jacques Brinon/Pool, FILE)

France's lower house of parliament has approved a bill aimed at boosting renewable energy and reducing the country's reliance on nuclear power, among other environment-friendly measures.

The French government wants to be exemplary this year in environmental matters, since Paris is hosting a U.N.-backed conference in December where 196 countries aim to limit to fight .

The bill pushed by Ecology Minister Segolene Royal was approved Tuesday by the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, with 308 votes for and 217 against. It will then go to the Senate for further discussions. At the end of the process —probably over summer— the assembly will have the final say.

Among the more significant changes are the following measures:

___

GAS EMISSIONS

The bill sets a target of lowering greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030, in line with the European Union official target.

___

NUCLEAR POWER

The bill aims to reduce France's dependency on to 50 percent by 2025. Today, France relies more on nuclear power—75 percent of its energy—than any other nation in the world. At the same time, the new bill fixes the goal of increasing the proportion of France uses in power production to reach 40 percent by 2030.

___

FIGHTING FOOD WASTE

One measure would forbid big supermarkets from destroying unsold food, part of a national campaign against . The bill would require big supermarket chains to donate goods no longer fit for sale to charities or to farms for use as animal feed or compost.

___

BANNING PLASTIC BAGS

The new law would ban in all supermarkets and stores on January 1, 2016.

___

GREEN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Under this bill, the state, local and city councils would be required to buy at least 50 percent of when they renew their fleets of buses, starting in 2020.

___

ENERGY SAVINGS

This measure would force all private owners of houses and apartments to renovate their properties if they consume a high amount of energy, one that exceeds a defined threshold.


Explore further

French parliament votes to cut nuclear power reliance

© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: French bill seeks to boost renewable energy, cut nuclear use (2015, May 26) retrieved 19 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-french-bill-boost-renewable-energy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
139 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 26, 2015
France is waking up.

Wait until we get to see what they are hiding behind their National Security laws regarding nuclear power, which requires a Police State to guard.

May 26, 2015
Well, . . lookee here:

http://ecowatch.c...apacity/

May 26, 2015
France is waking up.


They've no intention to remove nuclear power. Only to increase diversity.

The problems start when you ask "how?", because increasing the proportion of renewable energy to 40% of the production would push all the nuclear power off the grid. The peak power from the renewables would match or exceed all the other power on the grid and the reactors can't adjust to that, similiar to how the Norwegian hydroelectric turbines are breaking down from excess load variations.

In other words, to reach the goal on renewable energy, they'd have to replace nuclear power with fossil fuels which can perform the necessary load balancing, which would completely negate any CO2 or emissions targets.

The proposed bill is a political dead duck.

Wait until we get to see what they are hiding behind their National Security laws regarding nuclear power, which requires a Police State to guard.


Propaganda.

May 26, 2015
Even if the reactors could technically cope with the power variations caused by the renewables, it would necessarily decrease their utilization, which increases the cost of power. Any time you can run a reactor full on is cheaper than having to throttle it, and the more you throttle the more expensive it gets, which is why France is 75% nuclear and not 95% nuclear.

They need the rest to be something else that is reasonably cheap to run up and down.

So they can't really reach the targets until the price of both renewables and grid energy storage combined falls down to something manageable. Otherwise they lack the flexibility to run the system.

May 26, 2015
Well, . . lookee here:
http://ecowatch.c...apacity/


wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower combined have provided 84.1 percent of the 1,900 MW of new U.S. electrical generating capacity placed into service during the first third of 2015. This includes 1,170 MW of wind (61.5 percent), 362 MW of solar (19.1 percent), 45 MW of geothermal steam (2.4 percent) and 21 MW of hydropower (1.1 percent). The balance (302 MW) was provided by five units of natural gas.


The renewable power capacity actually compares to approximately 400 MW of natural gas in real production figures, so while the capacity figures suggest 84.1% the real production figures should be about 57%

Capacity does not equal output with renewables.

A bit more than half of the new energy production this year has been renewable energy. Doesn't sound so impressive when you put it that way, and highlights the problem: with wind turbines come gas turbines.

May 26, 2015
It is tremendous bad news for bats and birds, hypocritical environment-friendly measures, a misfortune for wildlife in France too.
"For today's Germany, which has 39 Gigawatts, this would add up to 2,340,000 – 3,900,000 dead birds a year."
"Spain's 18,000 wind turbines kill on average 6 – 18 million birds and bats a year."
These climate-friendly energy technologies are provoking more fatalities and environmental impact per gigawatt generated than nuclear.

May 26, 2015
Anybody want to look up the amount of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, heavy metals, respirable particulates, and radionuclides put out by coal plants last year?

What does that do to birds?

What does that do to people?

May 26, 2015
"Champions of a low-carbon future have yet to wake up to the environmental price Chinese workers and villagers are paying."
http://www.pbs.or...a_12-14/

"In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale"
"This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines..."
http://www.dailym...ale.html

"A lot of metals go into making solar cells and wind turbines, raw materials such as copper, iron, rare earth metals such as indium and others and that involve a lot of greenhouse gases and other pollution when they're mined and processed to make parts for renewable power generators."
http://www.climat...ct-18146

May 26, 2015
Isn't nuclear power technically clean green power?

May 27, 2015
There is nothing "green" about leaving thousands of tons of intensely-radioactive waste for others to figure out how to store.

Look up the fate of Uranium miners. Look into how much energy it takes to calcine the tremendous amounts of concrete and make the steel for nuke plants, how much energy is used to construct them, how to maintain them, then tell me if they produced as much as it took to produce them.

May 27, 2015
It doesn't with fossil fuels either does it? I am guessing that you knew that.


Yes it does. You can choose to run a fossil fuel plant very close to its design output. Wind and solar don't have that choice. We simply have more capacity than absolutely necessary because the load isn't static.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Wind turbine capacity could increase from 40% to 60% with new technologies in the pipeline.


Technology doesn't determine wind turbine capacity factor. The location does.

May 27, 2015
then tell me if they produced as much as it took to produce them.


They require vastly less materials per energy output than wind turbines.

That's the whole point of nuclear energy. One single nuclear powerplant makes as much energy as 1000-2000 modern wind turbines, each of which is sitting on a concrete and rebar slab, with thousands of miles of cable and roads connecting them. Wind power represents between 3-10 times the amount of stuff mined out of the ground per unit energy.

That's the reason why the IPCC continues to evaluate nuclear power as among the lowest environmental impact of all means to produce energy.

May 27, 2015
There is nothing "green" about leaving thousands of tons of intensely-radioactive waste for others to figure out how to store.
Look up the fate of Uranium miners. Look into how much energy it takes to calcine the tremendous amounts of concrete and make the steel for nuke plants, how much energy is used to construct them, how to maintain them, then tell me if they produced as much as it took to produce them.
"Mr. I am an Engineer" seems to have learned nothing about how to do calculations/statistics during his degrees; otherwise, he would figure out that, summing up pros and cons, nuclear power, mainly due to its higher density of energy, is far less impacting on the environment than renewables: less land and offshore areas, more compact and less massive per gigawatt generated, fewer concrete and mined metals, no slaughtering blades.

May 27, 2015
"That's the reason why the IPCC continues to evaluate nuclear power as among the lowest environmental impact of all means to produce energy."
---------------------------------------------

Really? Have they found a way to store the high-level intensely-radioactive nuclear waste?

May 27, 2015
Look up the fate of Uranium miners
"In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources."
http://www.newsci...1R89VhBc
Look into how much energy it takes to calcine the tremendous amounts of concrete and make the steel for nuke plants, how much energy is used to construct them, how to maintain them, then tell me if they produced as much as it took to produce them
What makes you think that these costs arent included in overall cost analyses in comparing nuclear to other
forms of energy? Is it because you think that knowing the word 'calcine' gives you power?

Bullshit artists use such words to derail an opponents thought processes.

May 27, 2015
"What makes you think that these costs arent included in overall cost analyses in comparing nuclear to other forms of energy?"
--------------------------------------

Because while at Scientific Service doing studies for NASA, DCPA, and the NRC, we did a back-of-envelope calculation to show they may not provide as much energy as it took to build them. We asked to do a study for the government, but they told us no. Then, they told us if we did it, we would not get another government contract. So we didn't do it.

BTW, look up the amount of energy used in calcining (ever seen a large calciner?),the amount of concrete used on a nuke plant, and do it for yourself. Then, you can add in the energy used to make the large re-bar. Ours came from a three-strand continuous caster fed by a 40 Megawatt arc furnace, . . . now physically replaced by an Ikea store.

May 27, 2015
Here are some typical statistics:

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

May 27, 2015
Because while at Scientific Service doing studies for NASA, DCPA, and the NRC, we did a back-of-envelope calculation to show they may not provide as much energy as it took to build them
Sorry, anecdotal back-of-envelope calcs by lying bullshit artists who think that radioactive stuff contaminates everything it touches, and who do not know the difference between graphene and graphite, do not qualify as valid evidence.

You got some actual refs from real experts?
BTW, look up the amount of energy used in calcining (ever seen a large calciner?)
These costs are of course included in the purchase price that contractors pay, which is included in comparative cost analyses of the different power sources.

Who you trying to bullshit gkam?

May 27, 2015
Yeah, but it is changing, isn't it? Last month all of the additional capacity in the US was alternative energy. Want to build a coal plant? Go ahead.

BTW, I do not see you include any fatalities from the thousands of tons of intensely-radioactive nuclear high-level waste which must be kept from living things for tens of thousands of years. Do you REALLY think that is rational? How about the costs of that "safe" storage for essentially forever, in Human terms?

May 27, 2015
Yeah, but it is changing, isn't it? Last month all of the additional capacity in the US was alternative energy. Want to build a coal plant? Go ahead.

BTW, I do not see you include any fatalities from the thousands of tons of intensely-radioactive nuclear high-level waste which must be kept from living things for tens of thousands of years. Do you REALLY think that is rational? How about the costs of that "safe" storage for essentially forever, in Human terms?
Youve been given descriptions of plenty of existing and forthcoming storage methods but have failed to acknowledge them because thats the only way to maintain the illusion that you know what you are talking about.

So why should anyone repost them? Youve already been proven inadequate... ignorant... insane.
calcining (ever seen a large calciner?)-Case in point; gkam has actually SEEN a calciner and so thinks he is qualified to opine about costs related to comparative analyses.

My god youre fucked up.

May 27, 2015
"Who you trying to bullshit gkam?"
----------------------------------------------

I think otto fancies himself as the hidden Truth Fairy,or something, thinking he is "outing" phonies. But he found a real person in me, one who will not sully my reputation by lying or playing internet "games" in fora. Who here is using a phony name?

Give it up, otto, I gave out my name, my history, sites with my name and pictures on them, copies of the base newspaper for the Air force Flight Test Center, sources for you to read some of my publications, and you still argue using nasty language. By doing so, you negate any credibility you could have earned instead with other less-abusive tone.

Ask real questions, instead, and you can learn something.

May 27, 2015
Poor otto, being in some remote place all his life, and certainly not in any industry. Do you remember what I did for PG&E? Remember we did in-depth analyses of all industrial processes in our 96,000 square mile service territory? That included several calciners and about every other kind of process you can imagine. Geez, otto, I dealt with the highest and lowest technologies in use. Why do you have trouble with that?

May 27, 2015
"outing" phonies. But he found a real person in me
GEORGE. You have asserted that:

Fallout is the MAIN cause of lung cancer

Dried manure is called volatile solids and is a MAJOR polluter of the 'high atmosphere' (??) in CA

H2 explosions can cause dirty molten Pu puddles to fission and throw imaginary reactor parts 130 km

HIGH ENERGY alpha cannot penetrate the skin

Its ok to double the number and intensity of earthquakes for effect

Graphene and graphite are the same things

Merely standing in a facility can tell you how it works and how it was designed

Etcetcetcetc

-which everybody KNOWS is WRONG. Just WHO do you think youre fooling???
That included several calciners
-Assuming this isnt just more bullshit (it probably is), you still think that it means you KNOW that the costs of concrete manufacture arent included in comparative energy source cost analyses.

They obviously ARE.

Cant you see how sick you are?

May 27, 2015
Who are you? How many pseudonyms do you have? I guess it is time to just dig out your previous posts, and play them back for you.

Do you want that, otto?

May 27, 2015
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
gkam, are you hating the real statistics that Otto has provided? Be honest, confess!

May 27, 2015
Uh, . . no. You apparently do not understand we have shipped our troubles and most of the fatalities to our kids, grandkids, and every Human Being from now on, when we played with the devil and nuclear power. How many folk will be killed and injured in the next 240,000 years from the residue of our folly?

You want to make more intensely-radioactive high-level nuclear waste, yet cannot deal with the messes you have already made.

May 27, 2015
...we have shipped our troubles and most of the fatalities to our kids, grandkids, and every Human Being from now on, when we played with the devil and nuclear power. How many folk will be killed and injured in the next 240,000 years...
death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04
world: Nuclear 5.9%, Wind 1.6%, Solar 0.2%

"No one has died from radiation at Fukushima"
The anti-science public relations campaign against nuclear power is more myths than data. Most of the people became ill in ways that had nothing to do with radiation; but it does not matter, dishonest engineers always put in charge of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
You want to make more intensely-radioactive high-level nuclear waste, yet cannot deal with the messes you have already made.
"Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes."
http://www.world-...agement/

May 27, 2015
Willie, if the World Nuclear Society told the truth, there would be no nuclear power. Why don't THEY take the waste?

May 27, 2015
Those are immediate deaths.

The ones from nuclear waste will go on forever, from just what we have done so far.

May 27, 2015
Those are immediate deaths.
The ones from nuclear waste will go on forever, from just what we have done so far.
More myths than data.

May 27, 2015
if the World Nuclear Society told the truth, there would be no nuclear power. Why don't THEY take the waste?
Some truth: Nearby Fukushima 20mSv/a, Earth's natural radioactivity up to 800mSv/a.
5 mSv City of Pripyat (near Chernobyl)
35 mSv Kerala Beach, India
700 mSv Ramsar, Iran
800 mSv Guarapari Beach, Brazil
http://resources....ces.html
leave the Earth, gkam.

May 27, 2015
Well it is comforting to know that Chernobyl was no more harmful than the beach sand in India - thanks for that reassurance Willie.
http://www.cherno...byl.html
Even so, death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04
It is astonishing, wind and solar kill much more people, as well birds, bats, and other wildlife creatures, per unit of energy generated than nuclear, even taking into account your "Chernobyl Disaster".

May 27, 2015
gkam, renewable kills engineers too, take care.
"Two engineers hug before they died atop a fiery wind turbine."
http://i.imgur.com/YHoiqz7.jpg
http://www.smithv...hazards/
http://www.bebivi...41o.dpbs
http://www.livele...83772851
http://i.imgur.com/xHyOoc9.jpg


May 27, 2015
I'm retired, Willie.

Did you ever work?

May 27, 2015
"In a real nuclear reactor core meltdown, such as occurred at both the Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai'ichi plants, the molten uranium dioxide melts and reacts with the zirconium metal cladding on the fuel rods, and with the surrounding steel and concrete structure, forming a lava which scientists have called corium.

These corium lavas are often referred to as Medusa because it would be fatal to be close enough to see them."

Nice stuff, Willie. Where are you going to put it?

May 28, 2015
...such as occurred at both the Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai'ichi plants...
...inherent safety features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures."
"Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors"
http://www.world-...eactors/

"If pumps cannot run due to lack of power, gravity must be relied upon, ..."
http://www.world-...eactors/

"Nuclear Safety Technology"
http://large.stan...chultz1/

"This is in contrast to older-yet-common reactor designs..."
http://en.wikiped...r_safety

May 28, 2015
I think Willie is an auto responder in the World Nuclear Society. All he does is repeat the same nonsense.

This thread is about how the French are backing away from nuclear power. They have good reason.

Nukers will lose this battle, like they deserve, after all their lies.

May 28, 2015
...does not care about people, or dolphins, or pelicans, - just the cute little birdies that are killed by turbines.
wind turbines, as well solar, has killed much more people and wildlife animals than nuclear per unit of energy generated; statistics don't lie, death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Nuclear 0.04

May 28, 2015
...is an auto responder in the World Nuclear Society. All he does is repeat the same nonsense.
Just hateful words from a frustrated engineer; some kind of irrational anti-corporate activism; renewable industries are also big corporations; I dream a day the activists protesting beneath huge solar and wind farms too.

This thread is about how the French are backing away from nuclear power. They have good reason.
Nukers will lose this battle, like they deserve...
Then our beloved Earth can only lament, for such environmentally hypocritical means of energy production that kills more and causes more impact than nuclear per gigawatt generated.


May 28, 2015
Most of the environmentalists believe they have good intentions, or just presumption/arrogance.
"Thousands upon thousands of bats and birds -- including bald eagles and other protected species -- slaughtered. Desert floor disturbed and paved over with concrete pilings and unsightly, noisy fans by the thousands of acres."
Well,
"Hell is paved with good intentions." ― Samuel Johnson


May 28, 2015
I am in support of having nuclear as a part of our energy future. Why wont you address the issue of the overwhelming destruction that is caused by fossil fuels - that to me is the real question.
Fossil fuels will not last forever; maybe 4ºC to 6ºC as inheritance to combat future glaciations.
However, the ever-growing worldwide demand for energy cannot be satisfied by renewables without large lands and offshore areas, disturbance on wildlife's habitats, enormous quantities of concrete and mined metals. Nuclear power is not so bad after all if it is unbiasedly compared with other sources of energy.

May 28, 2015
"But the real health and environmental impacts from the Fukushima reactors are nothing compared to the tsunami."
"No one will die from Fukushima radiation, there will be no increased cancer rates, ..."
"It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers from exposure to radiation following the leaks and explosions at the earthquake-damaged power plant in March of 2011."
"Fukushima children have no more thyroid cancer rates than any other regions in Japan, and are actually lower than many."
"Unfortunately, some very unethical and greedy people knowingly reported the wrong data sets and claimed that thyroid cancers have exploded in Japan and Japanese children are dying by the thousands"
"Radiation in most of the Evacuation Zone around Fukushima is low enough for people to move back."
http://www.forbes...astrous/


May 28, 2015
what is wrong with offshore wind?
Common environmental concerns associated with offshore wind developments include:
- The risk of seabirds being struck by wind turbine blades or being displaced from critical habitats;
- The underwater noise associated with the installation process of driving monopile turbines into the seabed;
- The physical presence of offshore wind farms altering the behavior of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds with attraction or avoidance;
- The potential disruption of the nearfield and farfield marine environment from large offshore wind projects.
http://en.wikiped...l_Impact

May 28, 2015
You still will not mention the massive environmental cost, and also lives being lost to fossil fuels
Unquestionable "death/Twh: Coal 161, Oil 36, gas 4, solar 0.44, Wind 0.15, Hydro 0.1, nuclear 0.04"; just contestable its legacy "4ºC to 6ºC to face future glaciations".
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Energy from coal, gas and oil makes possible the current human progress.

No hypocrisies: fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear, when weighted impartially their pros and cons, nuclear has the lowest environmental cost, even putting into account Chernobyl and Fukushima.
http://www.power-...4583904/


May 28, 2015
Sorry Willie, but anything by Conca is irrelevant. He is just a pimp for nukes.

May 28, 2015
...but anything by Conca is irrelevant.
For you, the scaremonger sources, like enenews website, are more relevant (even with more myths than verified data).

May 28, 2015
Know what, Willie?

I am going to trust my education and experience with these devices over your strident cut-and-pastes.

May 29, 2015
Huge hypocricies...
Every energy source has it's environmental hazards
And the environmental hazards of renewables is much more than nuclear per terawatt-hour. Isn't it ironic? The renewable energy that environmentalists furiously/vehemently defend, and try to shove it all way down our throats, is proven statistically worse than nuclear energy that most of them irrationally hate with all their faith and arrogance.
...and never acknowledge that coal, oil and gas are far more destructive envirnomentally
Unquestionable "death/Twh: Coal 161, Oil 36, gas 4, solar 0.44, Wind 0.15, Hydro 0.1, nuclear 0.04"
They are undeniably polluting, but most of the nowadays human demographic explosion (much more births than deaths) is thanks to fossil fuels (energy, fertilizers, vibrant economy, petrochemicals, medicines, etc.) and not thanks to solar and wind.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Energy from coal, gas and oil makes possible the current human progress.

May 29, 2015
We have outgrown Filthy Fuels. That includes the Faustian Folly of Nuclear Madness.

Sorry about you folk.

Can we send out old high-level waste to you folk who still think it is okay?

May 29, 2015
We have outgrown Filthy Fuels. That includes the Faustian Folly of Nuclear Madness.
Sorry about you folk.
Can we send out old high-level waste to you folk who still think it is okay?
It seems just hateful words from a frustrated fake-expert in anything, stuck on his own irrational fear.
"Why Is There An Irrational Fear of Radiation?"
http://en.wikiped...iophobia
http://nuclearact...diation/
Earth's nucleus and crust are radioactive: uranium-238, uranium-235, thorium-232, carbon-14, potassium-40, radium-226/228, radon-222, are everywhere on Earth. Earth's natural radioactivity up to 800mSv/a while nearby Fukushima 20mSv/a.

Otto is right, call him "engineer" is an insult to engineers.


May 29, 2015
You did not answer my question,Willie.

Can we send our high-level waste to you nuke lovers?

May 29, 2015
Green, show me. You are reading stuff by those charged with doing it, but they have failed, given only 60 years so far.

Have you looked into what is happening at Hanford? At WIPP? We have no facilities like those for spent fuel rods, so we are even farther behind than the weapons folks, who have failed continuously.

May 29, 2015
No, you are glossing over the tremendous nature of the problem. We will leave nasty stuff, intensely-radioactive stuff for others to deal with, since we have not found a way to do so.

It will remain deadly for quarter-million years! How are you going to guarantee safety, when no society has survived for anywhere near that long? How are you going to warn others in a hundred-thousand years how deadly this stuff is? And in what language?

Do you know we have not found a way to safely store it at all? I think most folk are completely unaware, like Willie, of what we have done to ourselves and the Earth.

May 29, 2015
You have not reduced my concern. i have been watching and watching this for decades now. Do not listen to the theorists who tell you they can do it. Look for the practical folk who have actually done it, . . . and there are none.

May 29, 2015
"that millenials are the least religious generation (here in the U.S. - ever)"
------------------------------------

Europe is ahead of us, having shed their silly religions and other superstitions long ago.

May 29, 2015
Know what, Willie?

I am going to trust my education and experience with these devices over your strident cut-and-pastes.
But you have no relevant education and little relevant experience. For instance your supposed MS in Environmental Appreciation did not tell you that SF6 is a greenhouse gas and thus bad for your health.

This is what happens when you educate yourself by reading websites composed by anti-nuke pimp hypochondriac jap expats living in romanian basements.

"I seriously think I would have died if I stayed there. Yes, I found a thyroid nodule in July of 2011 too."

Here he is giving you the finger.
http://fukushima-...chizuki/

-His thyroid looks ok to me.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more