Heat wave: decrease in nuclear production

[Targol]

Why does EDF, a major exporter of electricity to European countries (95 TWh in 2005), need to import it during a heat wave?

In fact, to summarize (in a very crude way) the book of JM Chevalier "the battles of energy", it is necessary to consider the following explanations:
EDF is indeed in surplus. It sells its supernumerary electricity in futures markets (expiration one year) and must supply, for a negotiated price a year, its export customers.

During consumption peaks, EDF cannot use its production overcapacity since it must honor its contracts on the futures markets. She is then forced to buy the missing electricity from the European electricity "exchange" where prices fluctuate according to the supply / demand law and where she buys from one week (or even one day) to the next.


This is why EDF is pooling us to build the EPR: it is not for lack of production capacity but for lack of foresight on demand. In fact, we are approaching the phenomenon of overbooking on planes.

[Rulian]

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

I do not propose any for the simple reason that the sacrosanct energy of the future is a pipe dream. No energy, and no energy mix can compensate for oil and hydrocarbons at the beginning of decline. For all the resources envisaged, either the possible production capacity is very insufficient, or the duration of the resource is very limited (cf. nuclear). In fact, the energy of the future is the energy that we will not consume.

I can only invite you to read Jancovici's book, "The full please", it explains very well and supporting figures that the magic solution does not exist and will not exist. You have to admit it, because that's how it is. It is not because we hope that an emergency energy will come out of a hat that it will appear. It comes back to believing in Santa Claus. Morality, the only option is energy decrease.

[Woodcutter]

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

I do not propose any for the simple reason that the sacrosanct energy of the future is a pipe dream.
[...]
the only option is energy decrease.

Not at all agree with the beginning (you kick in touch ...), agree with the end, it is not incompatible.

[freddau]

Why does EDF, a major exporter of electricity to European countries (95 TWh in 2005), need to import it during a heat wave?

In fact, to summarize (in a very crude way) the book of JM Chevalier "the battles of energy", it is necessary to consider the following explanations:
EDF is indeed in surplus. It sells its supernumerary electricity in futures markets (expiration one year) and must supply, for a negotiated price a year, its export customers.

During consumption peaks, EDF cannot use its production overcapacity since it must honor its contracts on the futures markets. She is then forced to buy the missing electricity from the European electricity "exchange" where prices fluctuate according to the supply / demand law and where she buys from one week (or even one day) to the next.


This is why EDF is pooling us to build the EPR: it is not for lack of production capacity but for lack of foresight on demand. In fact, we are approaching the phenomenon of overbooking on planes.

So what I understand is the search for Porfit by EDF subject to market rules which leads to this Situation: lower costs = little investment, closing sites too expensive and increasing prices by product scarcity.
In fact I would like it in Brussels, even if an article contradicted me, asked to push more in the recommended way.

In Edf, the city lacks all of this "beautiful" coal and gas power stations which enable it to respond to peaks thanks to their rapid start-up. (I put aside the ecological aspects of these solutions).
I find it completely crazy that we can then blame the fact that EDF does not have enough CO2 plants.

[Rulian]

Not at all agree with the beginning (you kick in touch ...),

No I don't kick in touch. You ask me something impossible. What good is it to know which chimney Santa Claus will go down first ... since it does not exist. Then if you really want to, I think that renewables have a bright future ahead of them, but let's not say, it will be very insufficient in terms of our current consumption.

[pollux]

Hello,

I do not entirely agree with you Rulian, solar energy could provide current global consumption if 5% of the planet was used for solar collection. the best way to do this would be to cover half the Sahara with thermal panels and to transport and store energy. it is of course a utopia for reasons as much geopolitical as of storage and transport of energy, but that remains theoretically feasible.

renewable energies, if managed on a global level, can provide the energy we need, especially if we play on the complementarity of solar-biomass-wind-turbine.

if the man calms down and realizes that energy decrease is a necessity, this utopia could become a reality. the question is whether we still have enough time to sufficiently mitigate the effects of the big catfish that is falling on us.


Pollux.

PS: sorry for the off topic ... we will have to get out of nuclear as much as oil without falling into the coal, and EDF will not help us.

[Targol]

Completely agree with you, Pollux.

I would add that if, indeed, energy management must be carried out on a global (global) level, its production should tend towards the local (small individual units or supplying a city, a village) for the reasons that you cite: storage and transport difficulties.

[Rulian]

Hello,

I do not entirely agree with you Rulian, solar energy could provide current global consumption if 5% of the planet was used for solar collection. the best way to do this would be to cover half the Sahara with thermal panels and to transport and store energy. it is of course a utopia for reasons as much geopolitical as of storage and transport of energy, but that remains theoretically feasible.

In theory it may be possible but in practice it is impractical. The materials required for the infrastructure represent an enormous quantity that is almost impossible to find. The massive transport of heat over long distances is a sweet utopia. I'm not even talking about storage. AND do you think that covering 5% of the planet panel will be harmless from an environmental point of view? I doubt. As for photovoltaic solar, it is very expensive, uses materials which are not very available and presents a very doubtful overall energy and environmental balance.

So we agree, in "theory" anything is possible, but in practice should not dream. Given the energy situation in the world, we must stop with speculation "in theory". A little pragmatism please.

renewable energies, if managed on a global level, can provide the energy we need, especially if we play on the complementarity of solar-biomass-wind-turbine.

if the man calms down and realizes that energy decrease is a necessity, this utopia could become a reality. the question is whether we still have enough time to sufficiently mitigate the effects of the big catfish that is falling on us.

But we totally agree, renewable can be enough for our NEEDS, but certainly not for our consumption as we practice them today. The nuances are very important. Energy decrease is the watchword but it is an idea that people do not want to admit that it calls into question their way of life. Believe in my experience of "apocalypse crier", few are those who accept to open their eyes, most prefer to remain blind, the truth is too scary even if it is obvious.

PS: sorry for the off topic ... we will have to get out of nuclear as much as oil without falling into the coal, and EDF will not help us.

This is the main risk hanging in our face, I agree with you, it would be dramatic.

I find that we tend to agree, in fact, I'm just talking a little more bluntly about the thing. It is a habit that I took to shock my interlocutors a little who always answer me "We will find a solution" (of course a gadget which will exempt us from reducing our consumption).

[Targol]

I find that we tend to agree, in fact, I'm just talking a little more bluntly about the thing. It is a habit that I took to shock my interlocutors a little who always answer me "We will find a solution" (of course a gadget which will exempt us from reducing our consumption).

And yes, it is the characteristic of the technological society such as it describes it Ellul: When a technological process or a machine poses some problem, rather than to do without it, one invents another machine or another process to correct . And if the fix brings other problems, we will invent something to fix them .... and so on.
At no time does the critical eye have a say. It's technical, so it's progress, so it's good !!!

["Badger" mode]
Anyway, Rulian, if we listened to people like you, we would all go back to the cave age !!!
[/ "Badger" mode]

[Rulian]

Oulalaaaaa ... if you knew the number of times that I heard that ... Even a guy from IFP, who was perfectly in agreement on the imminent peak oil ended up reacting like that ... yet he already knew everything about the problem ... mind-blowing!