Display:
Jerome,
Who is right here?
Nuclear power in France:
50%--Sarko
17%--Royal
80%--International Herald Tribune (today)

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on percentage of what. See Jerome's comment above:

Nuclear is (about) 80% of French electricity production;

and about 18% of total energy use.

Royal should have said 17% of energy, not of electricity, but she was a lot righter than Sarkozy who appears to have picked his number on a sort of 50-50 basis, like, I've got half a chance of being right and half of being wrong.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 07:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
seems weird to me that neither candidate knew the answer to this.  both energy and the environment are basic issues, and they can't answer this question?
by wchurchill on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 12:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She had the right information. She just said "electricity" instead of energy, with the right number.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 12:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, she succeeded in making nuclear energy less important in the eyes of the public.  This is a solid effort.  The difference between energy/electricity is probably beyond the capacity of most anyhow and certainly beyond the interest of the vast majority.

I've been particularly fond of Royal's bold efforts against nuclear power.  This is something the French actually did right, has major international implications (her position vis-a-vis Iran) and yet she is willing to oppose, from an ecological standpoint, in order to encourage renewables.

Whatever happened to nuclear waste, anyway?

by paving on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 03:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series