Also, one should take into account the fact that Mélenchon was not there when this was said, at 3am. In French: https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/la-limitation-des-mandats-presidentiels-est-une-funeste-connerie-tacle-emmanuel-macron-20230831
Misleading title. From the article itself:
The president was reportedly responding to a proposal by far-right leader Jordan Bardella, who was suggesting France switch to a single seven-year presidential term.
Misleading title. From the article itself:
The president was reportedly responding to a proposal by far-right leader Jordan Bardella, who was suggesting France switch to a single seven-year presidential term.
It might have been simpler to just display a normal calendar. That’s about the same.
You remember these calendars with a famous quote every day? You could do it with nuclear threats.
While the second quote is more telling, the first one is misleading. The only reason Ukraine has a shot at taking Crimea back is because Russia invaded.
There was just no hope for Ukraine to retake it by force, and Russia under putin would never give it back voluntarily. Even not under Putin, the opinion would be such that this would be a difficult politically speaking. That’s what Navalny was commenting on with this quote.
Both of which are irrelevant to france, which sources their uranium primarily from russia and their former colonies.
You should check the sources you are using more carefully.
In the latest data (2020), France was getting its Uranium mostly from Niger (34,7 %), Kazakhstan (28,9 %), Uzbekistan (26,4 %) and Australia (9,9 %). Russia was never really a provider apart from a small recycling operation involving 10tons last year (out a of yearly consumption of 7000 tons). Australia is actually increasing since 2020 then with Uzbekistan decreasing. And 3 out of these 4 countries have not been French colonies.
I am not sure why you are talking about climate variations: none of these projects happen at the surface or close to it. The sites are selected to be geologically stable over millions of years, so climate will have no effect on them.
Also, the 100,000 years is the design requirement for current nuclear waste to reach natural uranium toxicity. There are two important consequences from that: since radioactivity reduces exponentially, this means that at around 10,000 years you are already at ~10x higher than natural uranium (down from 1000x for fresh nuclear waste) and the risk is already much lower as 99% of the process is done already. Also, these values are for the current way the waste has been treated. If you use the DIAMEX process, your 100,000 years becomes 500-1000 years (yes, that’s not a typo).
That’s also part of why these projects move slowly at the moment. The current options work but we are developing solutions that are much better - why build a 100,000 years facility when you can build a 1000 year facility, or even use some of this waste in a 4th gen plant? The main reason these move slowly is that heat management is the biggest issue on the storage, and the first phase for these projects is surface storage for 60-80 years for a first cooling phase.