Activity

Even in France, which, unlike any other country in the world produces 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are four times too high to reach the climatic objectives. In 2014, fossil fuels still accounted for more than half of the country’s primary energy consumption.

75% of GHG emissions worldwide occur in sectors that have no link whatsoever to producing electricity (farming, deforestation), that are so far weakly electrified (transportation), or that use electricity wastefully (home heating, certain industrial processes).

As I said. Hydrogen.  For what can’t run on LiPo.  Generated by nuclear backbone electricity.  The logic here is head shaking isn’t it?  No more nuclear because we don’t use enough electricity and homes are badly insulated.

Got any disinterested sources for any of these claims?

Oh and

Emissions worldwide should reach their peak within the next 5 years before declining drastically.

how’s that then?  In the 3/4s of GHG emission above?  And that has what to do with CO2 levels for the next century?

MORE NUCLEAR DANGERS TO AVOID DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE ?
Radioactivity and nuclear waste: more and more pollution …

Major accidents: a disaster is possible …

Proliferation: radiological terrorism, nuclear war …

What pollution?  With what quantified impact?  You know, evidence.

Major accidents.  Like what?  Again, with what quantified impact.  Ever?  Excluding Soviet idiocy of course.  Got any stats for Three Mile Island?  Fukushima?  Evidence.

Proliferation.  Again, what about it?  What evidence do you have?  Nuclear weapons make war between nuclear armed powers impossible and no nuclear power can use nuclear weapons on any non-nuclear enemy either, not unless they face extinction.  Unless you have historical examples to the contrary.

100% renewables eh?  When?  To give 10 bn people your lifestyle?  When?

As for Germany.