Waryle

Ctrl + F "nucléaire" -> Pas de mention de sortie, juste l’arrêt de la fusion de l’ASN et de l’IRSN qui est une évidence

Ctrl + F "Ukraine" -> Rien

Putain ils l’ont fait les cons, ils ont réussi à faire un programme en sortant les points vraiment clivants. Je vais pouvoir voter sans un seul petit remord, enfin

Ah oui les fameux gens de gauche qui votent Le Pen uniquement parcequ’ils n’aiment pas la personnalité de Mélenchon. A moins que tu ne parles maintenant plus des gens qui veulent voter à gauche mais de la population générale ? Je ne suis pas sûr de te suivre mais je crois que tu changes de sujet.

J'ai pas dit "gens de gauche", j'ai dit, je me cite : « Pour tous ceux qui ne sont pas des partisans LFI et qui cherchent qui voter à gauche »

J'ai fait exprès de choisir soigneusement mes termes, merci de ne pas les déformer. Et si tu doutes qu'ils existent, je rappellerai qu'il y a eu 17% de report de voix depuis LFI vers le RN au deuxième tour de 2022, donc des gens qui hésitaient entre Mélenchon et Le Pen au premier tour, ça doit bien exister.

Ton sondage montre juste que les gens dans cet échantillon ont d’abord choisi sur 1) le programme et 2) Les chances de passer au second tour. Il demande les motivations principales de leur vote, pas si ils aiment Mélenchon.

La ligne qui nous intéresse, c'est « La personnalité du candidat », et Mélenchon est avant-dernier ex-æquo avec Hidalgo, et à peine au-dessus de Jadot. Ça veut dire que même parmi ses propres votants, Mélenchon n'est pas populaire, alors maintenant imagine sa popularité chez les votants d'autres partis et les abstentionnistes.

Et puis bon, c’est gentil les concours de popularité mais à ce jeu là Roussel serait devant tout le monde à gauche. Ce qui nous intéresse les plus c’est les élections et, en l’occurrence, le constat est clair : les électeurs de gauche on massivement voté Mélenchon, par adhésion à ses idées.

Bah oui, c'est exactement ça, ils ont voté massivement Mélenchon, par adhésion aux idées de LFI (bon score sur la première ligne), par vote utile (bon score sur la troisième ligne), mais malgré le candidat (mauvais score sur la deuxième ligne).

comme la sortie du nucléaire ou “le refus de l’escalade de la guerre en Ukraine”

Mais au secours putain

T'as un gros problème de logique là, être le premier parti de gauche ça ne prouve pas que LFI n'aurait pas pu faire mieux sans Mélenchon (= qu'il n'est pas un repoussoir), et ça ne prouve absolument pas que tous la quasi-totalité des non-partisans de LFI qui cherchent un candidat valable à gauche ont voté pour lui.

Dans ton raisonnement, tu occultes tous les votants qui ont voté dans d'autres partis par dépit, dont un nombre significatifs se reportent même à l'extrême droite, et tu occultes les abstentionnistes qui ne se sont pas déplacés faute de candidat valable.

Regarde la gueule de certains sondages, c'est flagrant que beaucoup votent LFI malgré Mélenchon, il a la même popularité que Hidalgo parmi leurs votants respectifs.

Je veux bien que tu m'expliques le rapport là. La seule chose que ces chiffres montrent, c'est que LFI a eu le plus de votes parmi les partis de gauche, et ce n'est pas ce que tu as prétendu.

Source ?

Pour tous ceux qui ne sont pas des partisans LFI et qui cherchent qui voter à gauche

Come on, even the comment above it specifically mention waste generated by nuclear power and its management

I did not berated you, I corrected you. If being corrected feel like being berated to you, maybe fact check yourself before commenting

I brush it off because nuclear has exactly the same problem. Worse, actually. We know what happens when you build solar, wind, and storage: on average, things get built on time and in budget. We also know what happens when we build nuclear: it doubles its schedule and budget and makes companies go bankrupt. One is way easier to scale up than the other.

No, just no.

We know what happens when we build nuclear:

• We invest 140 billion.
• We build more than two reactors a year for 25 years.
• By building up skills and an industry with projects, you can even put 1 plant and 4 reactors in the same place in less than 7 years from a vacant lot (Blayais power plant) .
• We decarbonize almost all of its electricity in two decades.
• It runs smoothly for more than 50 years.
• You don’t rely on fossils and the dictatorships that sit on it anymore.

It's called France.

We also know what happens when we want to do without nuclear when we don't have hydro-electricity:

• We invest two trillion of euros.
• 25 years later we have 60% renewables, but we're still burning coal and gas.
• so we are still one of the most polluting electricity in Europe
• We're always at least six years old to get out of coal.
• We don't have a date to get out of the gas because we have no idea how we're going to do it without seeing that we still don't know how to store massive amounts of electricity

It's called Germany.

Take this [map] (https://app.electricitymaps.com/map)

• On the top right corner, click on "Country"
• On the bottom left corner, click on "Yearly"

Can you tell me how much green countries do you see which does not rely on hydro and/or nuclear?

The answer is: >!not. A. Single. One. Even after trillions of euros invested in it worldwide, not one country managed to reduce their electricity carbon print without nuclear or hydro.!<

If all the paperwork was done and signed off today, there wouldn't be a single GW of new nuclear produced in the US before 2030. Even optimistic schedules are running up against that limit.

Why this arbitrary date? In five and a half years, there would be no power plant, but if you launch 15 1GW projects in parallel, maybe it will take 15 years to build because of legal recourse as well as a shortage of engineers/technicians because people have been told for 30 years that nuclear is Satan and we want to stop. But after 15 years you have 15GW of nuclear.

But how long before we find a solution for storage? How much will it cost? Is it even possible to store so much energy with our space constraints and physical resources?

The debates and even this thread are filled with "we could totally go 100% renewables with political will and investments". No you could not, that’s called wishful thinking. In reality you can’t force your way through technological innovation by throwing money and gathering political will, or else we would skip renewables and go straight to nuclear fusion.

On thing that money and political will can help with, on the other hand, is to speed up and reducing costs to build nuclear. But somehow, you act like nuclear is inherently too slow to build, before an arbitrary date that you forget conveniently when we're talking about renewable storage. It's called hypocrisy and double standards.

React to demand in minutes? Cute. Because most energy storage works by being pulled by demand directly rather than reacting to it, things change almost instantly.

I just proved that your theory is wrong by bringing up empirical data gathered over a whole country, why do you keep insisting?

France made a record year last year, with 320TWh of nuclear power produced for a total of 434 TWh of electricity, while being the top exporter of electricity of Europe.

I don't know how they got to 1000TWh of nuclear a year, I suspect weed.

In Germany, we've got a location with 47,000 cubic meters: https://www.bge.de/en/asse/

Read your link: 47 000m³ of low and intermediate radioactive waste.

Low radioactive waste is objects (paper, clothing, etc...) which contain a small amount of short-lived radioactivity, and it mostly comes from the medical fields, not nuclear plants, so even if you phase out of nuclear, you'll have to deal with it anyway.

This waste makes up for the vast majority (94% in UK for example) of the nuclear waste produced, and you can just leave it that way a few years, then dispose of it as any other waste.

Intermediate radioactivity waste is irradiated components of nuclear power plants. They are in solid form and do not require any special arrangement to store them as they do not heat up. This includes shorts and long-lived waste and represents only a small part of the volume of radioactive waste produced (4% in UK).

So you're mostly dealing with your medical nuclear waste right here, and you can thank your anti-nuclear folks for blocking most of your infrastructure construction projects to store this kind of waste.