Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote: A bit chopped out, for brevity, but I've one question, so I can put all that you wrote in place:
What's "thermic?" keith whaley > The exact figures for 2005 (as has roughly been since the mid 80s) are: > - nuke: 78% > - *thermic*: 11% > - hydraulic: 10% > - wind and solar: 0.2% > (from Electricité de France, > http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/statisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf). [...] > The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this), > is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies, > and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes". > > I'm quite satisfied with this position, as I believe it's the most > ecologically safe (ecologists will brobably burn me alive for writing this). > > I just can't understand some very "ecologist" countries, like Germany, > that shut down nuclear plants to open new coal *thermic* ones, and pour > more CO2 into the atmosphere! [...] > Patrice > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
