Aller au contenu

Traductions pour Contrepoints, Wikiberal et autres

Nick de Cusa

Par Nick de Cusa,
dans Action !

Messages recommandés

Largo Winch

Largo Winch

Posté
Posté

J'avais posté des propositions d'articles dans ce fil, mais je ne sais pas si c'était l'endroit adéquat vu qu'ils étaient en anglais.

Comment ça se passe en pratique pour proposer un article en anglais?

On les inscrit directement dans le googledoc? Quelqu'un valide l'intérêt pour l'article avant de la mettre à traduire?

Sinon, quand l'auteur n'est pas dans la liste de ceux ayant donné leur accord pour les reprises & traductions, comment procède-t-on?

Par exemple, pour le premier article (un peu ancien...) rien n'est indiqué alors que pour le second il est précisé "Reprinted with the author's permission.".

 

Oui, concernant les articles des sites pour lesquels on a une autorisation de reprise, tu peux mettre directement une proposition de traduction dans googledoc puis faire un petit message d'appel aux bonnes volontés ici.

Dans les autres cas, faire valider l'intérêt d'abord ici puis demander l'autorisation de reproduction au site ou à l'auteur.

Lien vers le commentaire
Citronne

Citronne

Posté
Posté

Hannan ... pour trolls de droite pour changer.

Les conservateurs occidentaux doivent débattre avec les islamistes démocrates. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100201891/western-conservatives-need-to-engage-with-democratic-islam/

 

 

Assez court : Budget UE, les eurodéputés veulent voter à bulletins secrets. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100202139/meps-propose-to-hold-the-eu-budget-vote-by-secret-ballot/

 

Sorry du manque de disponibilites dernierement mais je fais ces deux la aussi vite que possible :)

J'ai fais celui sur le budget de l'UE mais je n'ai juste pas reussi a traduire vraiment la derniere phrase. C'est un peu sur un style Shakespearien et j'avoue ne pas avoir trop idee du style dans lequel traduire...

Je fais celui sur les islamistes democrates aujrd'hui ou demain...

 

Lien vers le commentaire
Citronne

Citronne

Posté
Posté

Ouf merci de me l'avoir precise... heureusement que j'ai commence par l'autre... Je n'ai pas acces au Gdocs de la ou je suis, je verifierai ce soir les autres articles a traduire et j'en prendrais un pour demain.

 

 

Lien vers le commentaire
Citronne

Citronne

Posté
Posté

Un article de Reason : La Chine devient-elle moins autoritaire ?

Merci le capitalisme : la sphère d'autonomie personnelle est désormais nettement plus importante en Chine que du temps des heures sombres de Mao.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/28/is-china-becoming-less-authoritarian

 

 

 

Je prends ces deux là et je vous les envoie demain (j'espère)

Lien vers le commentaire
Citronne

Citronne

Posté
Posté

On devrait envoyer tout le monde là bas pour apprendre à bosser.

 

Les actifs du pays sont parmi les personnes les moins productives au monde quand il s'agit d'administratif. Ce qui sauve le pays, c'est l'industrie et la rapidite d'action une fois le Go donne... Avant ca, je pense qu'un escargot a le temps de faire le tour de la pangee... Deux fois

Lien vers le commentaire
Nick de Cusa

Nick de Cusa

Posté
  • Auteur
Posté

Tu peux, très chère Citronne.

 

A part ça,

 

L'énergie verte ne profite qu'aux éco-millardaires.

 

Huge expenditures achieving no measurable effect

A misnomer scam called energy U-turn

In the field of power generation, an enthusiastic Germany has set itself high stakes. A reality check reveals severe doubts seem justified. Together with the fight against CO2 - dubbed as climate killer- Germany has also decided to renounce using Nuclear Energy, despite the fact that in the 90s of the last century, the technology contributed about 30 % to the country's electricity generation. Looking at the development since 2000, one finds that the energy U-turn has in the meantime absorbed astronomical sums – without any tangible return on investment in the form of reductions in CO2 emissions. But at least, there’s also a positive side to this: Germany now has some new eco-billionaires.

 

To fight climate change, Germany wants to reduce its CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Decisive instrument for this endeavor is the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) introduced in 2000 by the then-ruling red-green coalition. It was meant to provide for a breakthrough for converting the country's electricity generation to allegedly CO2-free renewable energy technologies. The incentive of a twenty-year purchase guarantee for electricity generated from normally unprofitable technologies such as wind and solar or by burning foodstuff (sorry, I meant to say biomass) should motivate private investors to inject capital into related projects. The success was tremendous: related expenses have since risen year on year from initially € 883 million to € 16.763 billion in 2011. But even as impressive as they are, these are not the actual sums at stake. Hidden behind the pure annual amounts lurk total commitments imposed by the 20-year purchase guarantee, which have grown by 2013 to an impressive € 435 billion, picture 1. Even if one would decide to pull the plug with immediate effect by stopping any new installations, the German consumer is liable to continue paying operators of existing facilities for up to 20 years.

 

 

Picture 1. Lurking behind the EEG annual payments are total commitments that are likely to reach an impressive total of € 435 billion in 2013 (Graphic: Author)

 

A mountain in labor…

When asking for the return on this investment, one is presented with figures that at first glance look quite impressive. Significant progress has been achieved in increasing the share of electricity generated using "CO2-free" renewable technologies, picture 2. Thanks to the aforementioned € 435 billion, the percentage of electricity generated from wind, solar and food has increased from about 2 % in 2000 to some 17 % in 2012. Not included in these figures is the share of hydropower, which is only marginally affected by the EEG. In the analysis presented here, we will only focus on EEG-related exploits. Neither did we take into account the share of electricity from waste incineration. On the one hand, this share of about 1.5% is more or less negligible, and on the other hand, even this small figure has to be considerably diminished since waste contains many plastics and other components that should not be classified as "renewable".

The conclusion is therefore that € 435 billion had to be spent to convert just 16.5 % of Germany's electricity generation to the three dominant “renewable” technologies. This 16.5 % figure results when one subtracts the 1.2 % share reached before 2000 (i.e. before the EEG was introduced) from the 17.7% reached in 2012. Using these figures as input, one can thus easily deduct that in order to reach the desired final score of 76 % (80 % minus 3.3 % hydro and 0.8 % "biogenic" waste), the energy transition would cost Germany a total of around € 2000 billion. In addition, significant costs in the way of network configuration, power storage and other measures will have to be added. Quite an impressive mountain of money…

 

 

Picture 2. The percentage of electricity generated in Germany from wind, solar and bread has now reached more than 17 % (Graphic: Author)

 

but where’s the return?

Looking at the figures, one should keep in mind that in order to justify these expenditures, the citizen had been told they should ultimately serve the purpose of saving us from global warming by reducing emissions of the "climate killer" CO2. This still remains the decisive argument for promoting the century project "energy revolution", aiming at nothing less than the complete revamp of one of the world's hitherto most reliable power systems. Therefore it makes sense to verify the impact all this had on the generation of electricity from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

A recording of electricity generated from such “dirty” sources in the years since the introduction of the EEG is shown in picture 3. Even at first glance one can immediately detect that the amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels has not decreased since the introduction of the EEG. Apart from a very small dent caused by the global financial and economic crisis in 2009, the level remained largely unchanged from 2000 to 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picture 3. The amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels (given in TWh/y) has not decreased in the 12 years since the introduction of the EEG (Graphic: Author)

 

Not the slightest reduction in CO2 emissions

This sobering picture remains unchanged if instead of looking at the amount of power produced, one accumulates the related CO2 emissions. This approach makes sense because in this respect, the different fuels and power plant technologies have specific characteristics. For example, generating a kWh using an open cycle gas turbine causes significantly lower CO2 emissions than if coal was used instead. Such calculations can be easily carried out on the basis of appropriate characteristics.

After having performed such a conversion to CO2 emissions (picture 4), it becomes obvious that the latter have remained virtually unchanged despite the increased share of electricity from solar, wind and biomass in the last 12 years: While in 2000, German power stations emitted 342 million tons of CO2, this figure was 349 million tons in 2012. In this calculation, all types of power plants - with the exception of biomass and municipal waste - were considered. In the case of biomass, the exclusion was made because burning biomass is considered to be more or less neutral with respect to CO2, while the small amount of household waste can be viewed as negligible here as well. In order to maintain fairness, the calculations also took into account "hidden" CO2 emissions both from nuclear power as well as from water, wind and solar energy.

As can be seen, in spite of the huge investments in “renewable energy” plants made in the past 12 years, not a single ton of CO2 emissions has been saved. The main reason is the "cannibalism" of low-CO2 technologies in German power production: the "renewables" are not making coal, gas and oil redundant, but rather nuclear power. Due to the long-term disregard for this technology cumulating in massive shutdowns of nuclear power plants in 2011, the amount of electricity generated from this source decreased from approximately 169.6 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2000 to just 99 TWh in 2012.

 

Picture 4. Despite the increased contribution of electricity from solar, wind and biomass, the annual CO2 emissions (in million tons CO2) remained virtually unchanged over the last 12 years (Graphic: Author)

 

not even in the next 10 years

From the perspective of CO2 reduction, the real bad news is that this picture will remain more or less unchanged over the next 10 years even if the current pace of installing "renewable" power plants remains unchanged. A significant increase of “renewables” is possible only with respect to wind and solar power. Hydropower will stagnate due to a lack of suited locations. The growth of biomass usage will soon reach limits for two reasons: as long as millions of people die of hunger every year, neither the burning of food nor converting arable land from food to energy crop production will be ethical. Secondly, the available arable areas are limited. Since the remaining nuclear power plants currently still in operation will be shuttered within the next nine years, their contribution of 99 TWh must therefore be almost completely replaced by wind and solar power. Since wind and solar systems installed to date have delivered in 73.5 TWh of electricity in 2012, one would have to increase their capacity again by around 135 % just in order to replace share of nuclear power. In addition to the present cumulative cost of € 435 billion, one would therefore again have to add another estimated € 500 billion, still without being able to present the scalp of even a single fossil fuel plant. By the way, in this context one might note that the hidden CO2 emissions of photovoltaic per generated kWh are about five times higher than in the case of nuclear power.

 

Immense costs without any CO2 reduction

So if after 12 years of EEG law application, one is asked to provide an initial assessment, it can be stated that German politicians have played with marked cards. In reality, nothing has been done with respect to stopping climate change. If the trend remains unchanged, the German population will by 2022 have been subjected to a financial burden of over € 1000 billion without achieving any noteworthy reductions in CO2 emissions. Instead, the whole enormous effort will virtually exclusively result in the abolishment of nuclear energy.

Given the enormous sums at issue here, one might certainly be allowed to qualify this as the most expensive misnomer scam of all times. While the EEG and the energy U-Turn policy are labeled "climate salvation ", the box itself only contains 100 % "Nuke-Ex-spray". For this sole purpose, every German citizen has been and will be charged with € 10,000,- altogether, or more then € 40.000,- for the typical 4-person household. But this rather hefty grain of salt comes with a small solace, for a good purpose was achieved in all cases: Germany's new eco-billionaires can jauntily pursue their hobbies such as the collection of luxury castles.

Fred F. Mueller

Lien vers le commentaire
Citronne

Citronne

Posté
Posté

 

J'ai fini les deux au dessus, je commence celui la.

 

C, berserk de la trad

Lien vers le commentaire
Barem

Barem

Posté
Posté

Les membres du parlement européen (MPEs) répugnent la proposition de coupe budgétaire, mais ils seront trop peureux pour faire quoique ce soit.

 

Mon impression est que les MPEs sont en train de perdre pied. Ils veulent voter pour un budget européen plus élevé, mais ils leur manquent les cojones pour faire face à leurs leaders de partis nationaux. De façon générale, vous ne trouverez pas de groupe au sein de la population plus servile et insinuant dans la vie publique. Pour être tout à fait juste, c'est en grande partie à cause de la façon dont ils sont choisis : sauf dans un petit nombre de parties, le dirigeant peut classer ses euro-candidats plus ou moins à sa guise. Puisque, dans la plupart des pays de l'UE, les Eurodéputés gagnent plus que leurs premiers ministres, cette reconnaissance focalise leurs esprits.

 

Je l'ai vu encore et encore. Les députés s'adonnent sans mesure sur les prérogatives de leur institution et l'indépendance de leur mandat. Puis ils obtiennent un coup de téléphone de l'assistant de l'adjoint au chef de leur parti et, tout d'un coup, ils méditent sur ​​eux-mêmes puis font ce qu'on leur dit.

 

C'est pour contourner ce problème que le Président du Parlement européen, un socialiste allemand nommé Martin Schulz , a proposé que le vote du budget ait lieu en scrutin secret. Mon sentiment, cependant, est que la plupart des députés reculent devant cette idée. Plusieurs grandes délégations nationales, dont certaines socialistes, ont déclaré leur opposition. Ils savent que, en plus de défaire de leurs dirigeants de parti, ils s’attireront les foudres de leurs électeurs, dont la plupart ont mit en place les mesures d’austérité en leurs pays, et ne sont pas d’humeur à envoyer leurs économies à Bruxelles. Mon pari porte sur un compromis selon lequel les députés acceptent la réduction du budget en échange d'une certaine mesure pour se sauver la face: un nouvel euro-plan pour reconvertir les chômeurs ou quelque chose du genre.

 

Il est toujours possible, bien sûr, que M. Schulz refusera de signer. Il nous a assuré la semaine dernière que, même si les députés ont voté pour la proposition de leurs gouvernements, il ne l'aurait pas approuver. Que se passera t'il après n'est pas clair. Il s'agit de la première utilisation par le Parlement européen des pouvoirs budgétaires, acquise dans le cadre du traité constitutionnel européen de Lisbonne. En théorie, en l'absence d'un accord, le budget 2013 devrait être prolongé d'un mois à la fois, mais personne ne veut vraiment ce résultat.

 

Ce qui est vraiment fascinant ici, c'est à quel point les députés européens ont perdu le contact avec leurs électeurs. Dans la plupart des pays, le rôle de l'Assemblée nationale est de contrôler l’exécutif. En Europe, comme en Grande-Bretagne, les parlements se voient devenir des représentants des contribuables. Pourtant, à Strasbourg, on voit le spectacle bizarre de parlementaires conspirer contre leurs électeurs à la cause de l'augmentation des dépenses. Tant pis pour la démocratie.

 

Vérifiez le texte avant de le publier svp.

Lien vers le commentaire

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant
Aller sur la liste des sujets
×
×
  • Créer...