Heat wave: decrease in nuclear production

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 30/07/06, 14:56

Wow,

I do not necessarily agree with you Rulian, and I place myself in the perspective of nuclear coal again.

The Gravelines power station is based by the sea and uses sea water to cool itself.

People are afraid of nuclear power, a fact but not too hot because they do not see the damage, they are diffused and therefore do not pay attention.

If they are told energy saving = less power plant (it works for the Germans maybe not for the French).
I think they will go faster.

With Tchernobil, life is back, with CO2, it's not necessarily sure ...

What do you think about it?
0 x
Rulian
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 686
Registration: 02/02/04, 19:46
Location: Caen




by Rulian » 30/07/06, 19:48

freddau wrote:Wow,
I do not necessarily agree with you Rulian, and I place myself in the perspective of nuclear coal again.

freddau wrote:People are afraid of nuclear power, a fact but not too hot because they do not see the damage, they are diffused and therefore do not pay attention.

But I fully agree with you on the dangers of anthrax, and unfortunately it is quite possible that some countries have recourse to it ... But is that a reason for having to choose between plague and cholera? I refuse! There is still something other than these two options ... Besides, the nuclear risk is a bit out of proportion when we know that nuclear electricity represents less than 20% of the total energy consumed in France, and that the resource does not exceed not 40 years in the best of cases (ie in constant consumption, which is a sweet dream). Knowing this, I do not see how nuclear represents a good bet for the future ... not to mention the real cost of nuclear, higher than that of all other energies.
freddau wrote:The Gravelines power station is based by the sea and uses sea water to cool itself.

Good idea, let's put all the power stations on the coast, so that we will be less bothered by tourists. : Mrgreen:
freddau wrote:If they are told energy saving = less power plant (it works for the Germans maybe not for the French). I think they will go faster.

It is precisely on energy savings that we should put the 3 billion EPR thing ... This is the real way of the future. Just on electricity, there is a way to reduce at ease by 30% ... with political will ...
freddau wrote:With Tchernobil, life is back, with CO2, it's not necessarily sure ...

Life appeared in an Earth saturated with CO2 ... it will adapt as best it can. When in Chernobyl, what remains there is not really what I could call "life". In any case, nuclear power does not prevent the use of fossils, and therefore GHG emissions. So we are good for both ...
freddau wrote:What do you think about it?

I think my troll took it : Lol:

But above all that we must stop dreaming about nuclear power. Electricity represents only a small fifth of our energy consumption and the fissile resource is very limited. So I don’t want to know why it’s good to live sitting on Chernobyl. And don't give me the example of fusion and ITER, otherwise I'm going to laugh so much that I'm going to pee everywhere, and on the keyboard, you will agree, it's disgusting.

Open your eyes ... maintaining our energy consumption and reconciling that with the environment is strictly IMPOSSIBLE. The environment is a priority, the way to the future is obvious. When everyone understands that, especially the decision-makers, we will have done most of the work.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 31/07/06, 15:10

Rulian wrote:[...] Frankly, it is necessary to stop the costs with this bullshit of atom ... The 3 billion € of the EPR, it is for a thing which will not work the summer because too hot? [. ..]
Unless you put it by the sea ...
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 31/07/06, 15:13

Ah damn, already said for the sea ...

Rulian, what do you propose as energy for the future?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79004
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10934




by Christophe » 31/07/06, 16:12

Woodcutter wrote:Rulian, what do you propose as energy for the future?


African animal propulsion and biofuels :)
and it may not please everyone: real development of Africa and lower margins on fuels ...
0 x
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 31/07/06, 20:04

Why does EDF, a major exporter of electricity to European countries (95 TWh in 2005), need to import it during a heat wave? In order to be able to ensure its planned exports and meet consumption up 3% compared to a normal month of July, the group recently announced that it had to preemptively buy 2 MW on the wholesale markets to ensure a good balance between supply and demand. And at high prices: the CEO of EDF, Pierre Gadonneix, has recognized that they range from 000 to 100 euros per MW / h, which is two to three times more expensive than the average of the day-to-day market.


The increase in consumption is mainly due to "the increased use of ventilation and air conditioning systems", explained RTE, the EDF subsidiary responsible for high-voltage lines and the balance between supply and demand.

"For fifteen years, we have passed these peaks without incident. Today, imports reflect the end of over-equipment in power plants, even if EDF continues to be an exporter over the year," explains Bernard Dupraz, deputy general manager responsible for production fleet.

This insufficient capacity is particularly noticeable during peaks in demand (1 hours per year out of a total of 000 hours), in winter as in summer.

In full heat wave, while the demand increased, the exploitation of part of the 58 nuclear reactors was slowed down by the drought: some of the 44 reactors located at the edge of the rivers had to turn more slowly or to stop, obliging EDF to further mobilize the 14 seaside reactors. "For several days, there have been 9 MW of shortfall," calculated Mr. Dupraz.

Because to protect the flora and fauna that already suffer from the lack of flow in rivers, the power stations located at the edge of rivers do not have the right to reject water from the cooling circuits so as not to increase an already high temperature. However, the government authorized EDF - "temporarily and exceptionally" - to withdraw and return the cooling water from three power stations at temperatures slightly above the standards in force. The group ensures, Monday, July 31, that it has not yet used this right.

This "tense" situation had already occurred during the drought of 2003 and the power stations had been able to discharge water a little warmer than usual in the rivers. Without damage, ensures EDF.

"We have permanent monitoring systems for fauna and flora. They are reinforced in the event of high heat, says Dupraz. In 2003, a scientific committee set up by the Ministry of Ecology concluded that there was no impact on the environment. "

For the Sortir du nuclear network, EDF is in fact "unable to provide an exact assessment of the consequences of the exemptions given during the 2003 heat wave".

An incapacity due, according to the movement, "to a strategy which consists in making inappropriate or insufficient studies, in order to ... find nothing problematic". These difficulties of EDF, he insists, especially sound the death knell for nuclear power, which would be "condemned by global warming". The nuclear fleet "will be more and more often put in great difficulty".

Greenpeace judges for its part that the nuclear policy (80% of French electricity production) "has created a colossus with feet of clay". According to the association, it is time to "diversify our sources of energy" and "develop energy efficiency and sobriety". The two movements took the opportunity to reiterate their hostility to the EPR at Flamanville (Manche) in 2012, and to the international thermonuclear fusion reactor ITER project.

For EDF managers, these peaks in demand first raise the question of adapting the production system and securing the supply of electricity. "France is the country in Europe that has the highest sensitivity to climatic differences, whether temperatures are rising or falling. Hence difficulties during extreme weather phenomena", notes Philippe de Ladoucette, the president of the Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE).

EDF had to import current from Switzerland, but also from Italy. Since the blackout in September 2003, this country has invested a lot, in particular in coal and gas units, more suitable than nuclear power plants to pass peak periods. EDF, which had not invested in new plants for fifteen years, wants to catch up on all types of production.

"But the priority of our investments goes to peak production", explains Mr. Dupraz, asserting that "it is better to produce ourselves than to buy". Between now and 2008, EDF will restart three plants and build a fourth to increase its installed capacity by 3 MW. Next is a large gas power plant project (100 MW) at Martigues (Bouches-du-Rhône), which is scheduled to come into service in 900. Two years before that of the EPR (2010 MW).

France is not isolated. To meet growing demand for electricity, Europe (of the Fifteen) will have to invest 500 billion euros over the next fifteen years. The equivalent of a 400 MW gas power plant per week or an EPR of 1 MW each month!

Article by Jean-Michel Bezat

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 ... 882,0.html
0 x
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 31/07/06, 20:19

One plant per week: amazing
: Shock:
: Shock:
: Shock:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79004
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10934




by Christophe » 31/07/06, 20:48

The equivalent of a 400 MW gas power plant per week or an EPR of 1 MW each month!


It still seems exaggerated to me!

For the world ok but nothing but Europe I find this much too high ... as the article says we have not built a power plant in France for a long time!

Unless, of course, this takes into account the aging of the fleet and therefore its renewal, but in no case is it significant for the increase in energy demand!

In all cases: economic behavior would aim to reduce demand! Let's say that to GreenPeace and the activists to get out of nuclear power ... I bet that a good part is heated with electricity!
0 x
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 31/07/06, 21:21

Yes,
in fact it should be seen in more detail
0 x
freddau
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 641
Registration: 19/09/05, 20:08
x 1




by freddau » 01/08/06, 09:47

Econology wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:Rulian, what do you propose as energy for the future?


African animal propulsion and biofuels :)
and it may not please everyone: real development of Africa and lower margins on fuels ...


Our parents were faced with the same concern of reducing the oil supply (crises of the 70s) without much overheating.

One solution mentioned at the time was to install a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert by the ocean and to produce hydrogen there.

Having too many natural resources is not necessarily good news and I would cite as an example:
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Russia, Algeria (I have read a not-so-good news again).

The only ones who have managed to combine democracy and significant resources are in my opinion the Norwegians.

The Brazilians themselves are plmobés by their resource because their currency appreciates and prevents exports slowly, which we know with the strong euro, and thus decreases the industrial installations of Brazil.
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 192 guests