Some of the things you mention are not memes are complete narratives and even myths.
You forget the support among some scientists, even of the left liberal kind.
I considered myself an enviromentalist but I support strongly the replacements of the old nuclear reactors for new.
I know not a lot of people thinks in this terms in the general frame of things. But supporitng a replacement but not expansion of present nuclear reactors have subset of narratives that are not present in a typical debate:
-They are more secure than the ones working now. -The level of nuclear waste would manageable -Nuclear fuel would indeed last more than 200 years at present U consumption -It would not force out renewables since all new capactity should be made with renewable..giving it time to catch upon capacity. -It provides the margin we need to change the grid/router and make the big jump, without going to coal, from a central to a central-disperse system (I would not promote a completely disperse system, it is not a very good idea as far as I understand network theory)
Of course, reaplcemente implies that if you do nto have nuclear you will need other sources of energy...and it will.. and it will be coal now...the cheapest.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
She doesn't - remember what she wrote regarding megaprojects and people involved when discussing the Three Gorges Dam.
Regarding your points:
can you obtained the increase in demand in energy (slow increase thanks to saving measures) and the input of nuclears with renewables in a 10 years frame?
I think is physically impossible. If I would think it to be possible I would think like you.
I do not, I think it is not possible. At least for the case I know the best: Spain (not even talking about France).
We can not substitute coal and nuclear with renewables in a 10-15 years frame.
If we work hard, and exploit all possibilities, and invest hugely we can substitute most of the coal in a 15 years frame (and this is even a wild dream...a more realistic would be half coal or just cover the increase in demand). No way if we add the 20% of nuclear.
That said. We can substitute nuclear with renewable investing heavily in 15 years.. but then coal should be untouched.
I prefer to increase renewable and phase-out coal power as renewable improve.
The day I see a realistic proposal about how to change nuclear and coal in Spain in a 15 years frame with renewable I will cahnge my mind. And you know I am very very very open minded.. and I would love to see it.
I added this option to the poll :-) The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
