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
interesting idea, though Chernobyl and Fukushima were both gen2s 💀
The reactor that exploded at Chernobyl was an RBMK model, not a PWR. This implies major design differences from French PWRs, including:
Two things to note: the USSR knew about these defects years before the Chernobyl disaster, but the scientists who raised the alarm were neutralized. The other is that the explosion and fire in the reactor were caused by the failure of inexperienced technicians to follow procedures, under pressure from senior management, because the plant was to be visited by a high-ranking official the following day, and therefore the tests they were running at the moment had to be completed at all costs.
Chernobyl exploded because of the USSR's cult of secrecy and appearance, causing incompetence and corruption.
For Fukushima, it should be noted that Fukushima Daini, although closer to the epicenter of the earthquake, but with better safety standards, was only slightly damaged and even served as a refuge for tsunami survivors.
For Daichii, same thing as Chernobyl, we have a very long list of failures and even falsifications by TEPCO dating from 2002, and even more in 2007, with alarms sounded on all sides by seismologists and scientists of all sides, and the government did not react.
We must understand that these are not disasters that happened out of nowhere, that we could never have predicted, and even less that we could never have avoided. It was a very long succession of bad choices by the incompetent and corrupt.
But despite all this, the Fukushima nuclear disaster caused no deaths, and Chernobyl only killed a few thousand people at most. Nuclear power, in its entire history, has killed only a fraction of what coal kills each year.
I guess it could be made more safe cheaply with modern electronics and software (seeing IoT/“AI”/boeing software engineers in a nuclear facility would freak me the fuck out though)
It has already been done, and without AI/IOT or anything of that kind. For the French REPs, this resulted in the implementation of additional testing protocols (I know that they tested accelerated aging over 10-20-30 years of parts like cables, for example), addition of generators, renovation and improvement of industrial parts, etc.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima could’ve been avoided/reduced in effect with good failsafe software imo.
No. Fukushima Daichi's walls were just not meant to handle more than a 5 meters wave. It took a 14 meters high wave right in the face.
I kinda doubt we’d be able to make gen2s cheaper than gen3s (at least in small capacities) though, because their production lines and designs would’ve been long shut down/forgotten
The industrial fabric has been crumbling for a long time, that's for sure, but at least the designs are much simpler, and we have thousands of engineers working on gen IIs and can contribute their expertise. We don't have any of that on the gen IIIs.
Morrowind has never been a pale shadow of Daggerfall. It's just another take on the RPG genre, and a masterful one.
Of course, it's not a RPG sandbox like Daggerfall was and that might put off the early Elder Scrolls fans, but it's superior to its big brother on numerous accounts : story lines, lore, immersion, quests, etc.
Morrowind is a handcrafted marvel with manually placed details everywhere that make the game fascinating and fun to explore, unlike Daggerfall which was big, but repetitive due to its procedural system.
Bigger screen with a constrained form factor. If you don't need a bigger screen, you're just not the target, but that doesn't mean it's totally useless.
"Charcuterie is dead" posts a picture with a box containing at least 3 sorts of charcuterie
Plus ou moins les déchets quand même, non ?
Phénix, Superphénix, les réacteurs gen IV, on a déjà des prototypes éprouvés qui marchent pour réutiliser une bonne partie de nos déchets. Petit topo sur la quantité de déchets qu'on doit gérer et comment.
Et démonter une centrale nucléaire, c'est pas trivial, on sait pas vraiment ce que ça coûte, ...
600 millions pour la centrale de Maine Yankee aux États-Unis, 300 à 400 millions par réacteur selon les USA en 2018. Ça paraît beaucoup, mais pour donner un ordre d'idée, avec les prix actuels, un réacteur va produire pour 1-3 milliards d'euros d'électricité par an pendant plus de 50 ans, donc quelque chose comme 50 à 150 milliards d'euros durant son cycle de vie.
C'est des estimations, mais on a quelque chose, alors qu'avec le solaire et l'éolien, on n'a absolument aucune idée de combien vont nous coûter les infrastructures pour le stockage, parce qu'on n'a aucune idée de ce qu'on peut faire pour stocker ce qu'il faut pour compenser la non-pilotabilité.
L'argument est recevable uniquement si on occulte tout le problème des renouvelables. C'est l'argument favori des anti-nucléaires, qui se base sur des études de LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Energy). Elles consistent grosso modo à tenter d'estimer le coût du cycle de vie d'une centrale électrique d'un certain type (nucléaire, solaire, éolienne, gaz, charbon...) en tenant en compte de plusieurs paramètres, comme le facteur de charge moyen, la durée prévue de fonctionnement moyenne, le coût du démantèlement moyen, etc.
Sauf qu'une centrale nucléaire, tu la construis sur un terrain vague, tu la branche au réseau, tu l'alimentes, tu l'entretiens, tu la démontes à la fin et finit. C'est simple à estimer les coûts, déjà parce qu'on en a déjà fait plein, et ensuite parce que la majorité du coût total, tu l'investis pour la construction.
Sauf que pour l'éolien ou du solaire, déjà le facteur de charge va changer selon où tu les places, ensuite plus on investit dedans plus ça risque de coûter plus cher que prévu en terrain et en ressources (surtout si pénurie) étant donné leur très faible densité énergétique.
Mais la plus grosse arnaque, c'est que les LCOE ne tiennent pas compte de la non-pilotabilité de l'éolien et le solaire :
Alors la réponse habituelle à ce genre de critique, c'est "Oui mais on peut faire de la redondance, oui mais on peut faire des STEPs, oui mais on peut faire des batteries".
Ok, mais tout ça, d'une part c'est pas compté dans les LCOE, donc au final l'éolien et le solaire vont coûter plus cher que ce qui est prétendu, et ensuite on n'a tout simplement aucune idée de la faisabilité à l'échelle de nations, voire de continents, que ce soit en termes de ressources, d'espace utilisé, etc.
En conclusion, le nucléaire ce n'est pas simple, mais au moins on a la preuve que ça marche très bien, et on sait ce dans quoi on s'embarque.
It's too expensive
Nuclear power isn't expensive. It's launching a cutting-edge industry with a lot of inertia and not giving it the time and means to pay for itself that's expensive.
And don't even get me started on the Levelized Cost of Energy. These studies give a big advantage to renewable energies, since they only take into account the cost of building, maintaining and dismantling a given energy plant.
That's roughly 100% of the cost of a nuclear power plant, whereas most of the cost of solar and wind power will be found in the solutions that need to be put in place to compensate for their lack of controllability, such as redundant power plants, dams and other forms of storage of considerable size, which are therefore never counted in these cost estimates.
At present, we don't even have the technical means to have enough storage to afford 100% wind + solar in a country, so we're completely unable to estimate how much it would actually cost.
with less carbon-free energy in the end for the money spent and more fossil fuels being used as a consequence
The reality is exactly the opposite: France has been producing most of its electricity with nuclear power since the 70s and 80s, and has had its electricity almost entirely decarbonized since the 90s, for a total cost of less than 150 billion euros for the nuclear industry between 1960 and 2010, according to a report by the Cour des Comptes.
Germany, on the other hand, which has been anti-nuclear and pro-renewables for 20 years, with 40% RE, produces 9 times more carbon with its electricity mix.
And still produces nuclear waste.
Just develop batteries, hydrogen and the likes for storage
You can see the contradiction here: how can we claim that renewable energies are cheaper when we have yet to develop solutions to make them work on a national scale?
We're still a long way from having the technology for batteries that can power entire countries for hours or days on end, and hydrogen means we'll have to oversize our power plants several times over to make up for its inefficiency.
Thanks to French nuclear power, we have proof that it is possible to produce safe, inexpensive nuclear power that can be deployed in two decades. Almost all of France's current nuclear fleet was built between 1970 and 1990, providing 70%-80% of French electricity production for almost 40 years, at a rate of 2 reactors completed per year at a cost of 1 billion per 1000MW unit.
We're still waiting for a working example of a country that runs on wind and solar power without huge hydroelectric capacity or nuclear power for backup.
I'm curious, what is missing from Firefox compared to Vivaldi according to you?
On coupe la poire en deux pour les heures, disons qu'un médecin gagne 63,5k pour 56h par semaine. Si on rapporte à du 35h, ça ne fait que du 39 600€ brut annuel.
Moins de 40k brut annuel aux 35h, alors qu'ils font un Bac+8 absolument atroce, à la limite de l'esclavage pendant plusieurs années lorsqu'ils font de l'internat dans les hôpitaux, pour faire un métier absolument essentiel avec des responsabilités colossales puisque la vie de leurs patients est en jeu.
Un développeur avec un Bac+5 quelconque sans grande responsabilité gagne presque autant et sans s'user la santé.
It's so out of context it's almost untrue.
Bitwarden can't find or change your password, and their admins absolutely can't see them either.
You're talking about the "admin password reset" feature offered to organizations (and which doesn't concern lambdas users at all), which must be explicitly activated and which allows admins not to see our password, but to trigger a password reset with notification to the user.
Once the password has been reset, all you have to do is change it, and nobody else has access to it.
Guess dutch people are stupid, but at least they have way less death per kilometer while cycling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯