It meant oil, gas, coal, tar ;-) and all kinds of fossil matter that one can burn...
Sorry for my poor english :-) Patrice keith_w a écrit : > 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
