French microhydraulics in danger! Nuclear lobby and FNE

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 20/06/11, 00:29

Christophe wrote:I only note what is indicated in the article: we currently want to seal the development of micro hydraulics ...

If there is sealing there is that there is a will to do it ... cqfd!

ps: how much is the annual commercial margin 1 TWh at the rate of say (low assumption) 4 cts per kWh?
You are in the right hypothesis (in fact, there is a summer rate and a winter rate).
I bought 3 months ago, a VOLTA electric car to the operator of a hydraulic power plant.
He explained to me that until 2012, EDF had an obligation to buy back its electricity, but that after ... MORE NOTHING.
We made him understand that his production would no longer bring him back, and EDF made him a proposal to buy his facilities from him ... But, not expensive ...

Sorry to have brought water to your mill Christophe. :?
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 20/06/11, 02:25

highflyaddict wrote:Fun conversation ... which shows how much some people can be focused on conflicts of people .... others on eccentric calculations and which shows above all that you ignore the functioning of a river (but not a pipeline) !).

No, rivers are not simple "pipes", they are ecosystems, for the most part already badly banged up and weakened, I really don't see any valid reason to add more!

Ah yes, it's true, we save peanuts by giving ourselves a good conscience (when we only know slab, otherwise ...).

I want living rivers, not a succession of reservoirs and if one day it is voted, you know where you can put your 0,2% : Evil: !

Go a little clue: rivers do not only transport water ...

PS: I can't believe it, I agree with Pb!



You take us all for idiots then explain to us how it destroys the rivers and the ecosystem?

I said that it is the fertilizers that destroy the watercourses and not a dam but I do not speak through my hat!

Since you are on the side of Pb, give us proof that this is it and not something else! : Evil:
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 20/06/11, 02:28

citro wrote:
Christophe wrote:I only note what is indicated in the article: we currently want to seal the development of micro hydraulics ...

If there is sealing there is that there is a will to do it ... cqfd!

ps: how much is the annual commercial margin 1 TWh at the rate of say (low assumption) 4 cts per kWh?
You are in the right hypothesis (in fact, there is a summer rate and a winter rate).
I bought 3 months ago, a VOLTA electric car to the operator of a hydraulic power plant.
He explained to me that until 2012, EDF had an obligation to buy back its electricity, but that after ... MORE NOTHING.
We made him understand that his production would no longer bring him back, and EDF made him a proposal to buy his facilities from him ... But, not expensive ...

Sorry to have brought water to your mill Christophe. :?



This was the case with Hydro-Quebec which was trying to sink the small power stations and no buyout for the small producers but fortunately that has changed because the government has listened to the citizens, which does not seem to be the case in France!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.

Criticism is good if added to some compliments.

Alain
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 20/06/11, 06:14

highflyaddict wrote:Fun conversation ... that shows how focused people can be on person conflicts .... [...]

... lol, nobody, where "personality" ...

Anyway ... Among Econology supporters, I found this:

http://www.birdenergy.fr/EnergieHydroelectrique.htm

We are already doing very well with really very little water ... Already from 15m gradient.

Image
Last edited by Obamot the 20 / 06 / 11, 07: 44, 1 edited once.
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 20/06/11, 07:39

Take it easy !!!

At the beginning, Christophe was based on 35 nuclear reactors. It turns out that this is actually 1 unhappy TWh out of the 488 consumed each year in France, i.e. 0.2% of total consumption: There is nothing to get excited about !!!

In addition, I repeat myself:

There remains a hydroelectric potential of 30TWh (6% of annual consumption), in addition to 70 already operated. It is also in the process of development because nuclear power needs backup and energy needs are increasing. It seems to me that it is around + 3TWh per year until 2020. However, it is not without environmental consequences.
Despite the so-called "nuclear lobby", France is the 2nd European park installed after Norway as well as the 11th hydroelectric producer country in the world, it's not bad, but it is certain that we will never be the 1st. , relief and climate oblige !!!
The hydroelectric potential of a country is calculable and in the case of France, we are already exploiting 70% of this potential, not without environmental consequences also unfortunately ... hell being paved with good intentions.
Reminder of the Swedish energy mix: 45% nuclear, 45% hydroelectric, .... Nuclear is by no means the enemy of hydroelectricity and most countries also exploit their potential. It is a very practical energy.

So I think there is no point in taking the cabbage for 0,2%. I don't see how it will change the energy problem to come.
Cdlt

ps:
Christophe wrote:I leave you a little alone less than 2 hours and I see that it has heated to a rotting of the subject ...
Rare are forums where everyone is of the same opinion or it's not called a "forum". Perhaps we should simply moderate the aggressiveness of some contributors and everything would be fine without slippage ... : Idea:
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 20/06/11, 07:54

I just gave the example of the opposite ... We can do a lot of things, already with 15m, elevation ... (1000W is not illusory) As to power an electric pump for 12 hours, used to power the harms a water reservoir which will then produce more than double electricity during the day during working hours ...

And it won't bother the fish : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

Furthermore, there is no doubt that energy efficiency will probably solve half of the problems in terms of electricity consumption, or currently there must be close to 60% of waste (and even up to 80%, if we count the electric heating which should be banished and replaced by solar thermal installations with energy storage in the ground).

This will be unprecedented, but the increase in demand will not come without a period of “major work” to respond to it, in the field of renewable energies. And it will be, as soon as it has already started!

This thread affects only a minimal aspect of the solutions to be implemented. But it is far from negligible. The new potential of mountain and higher plateau hydraulics is completely undervalued in the figures given above.
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 20/06/11, 09:09

Alain G wrote:
highflyaddict wrote:Fun conversation ... which shows how much some people can be focused on conflicts of people .... others on eccentric calculations and which shows above all that you ignore the functioning of a river (but not a pipeline) !).

No, rivers are not simple "pipes", they are ecosystems, for the most part already badly banged up and weakened, I really don't see any valid reason to add more!

Ah yes, it's true, we save peanuts by giving ourselves a good conscience (when we only know slab, otherwise ...).

I want living rivers, not a succession of reservoirs and if one day it is voted, you know where you can put your 0,2% : Evil: !

Go a little clue: rivers do not only transport water ...

PS: I can't believe it, I agree with Pb!



You take us all for idiots then explain to us how it destroys the rivers and the ecosystem?

I said that it is the fertilizers that destroy the watercourses and not a dam but I do not speak through my hat!

Since you are on the side of Pb, give us proof that this is it and not something else! : Evil:


You should read again ... I never wrote that the dams and mills destroyed the rivers, I just wrote that it was not worth adding more (especially in Europe!).

There are unfortunately many factors that endanger the health of rivers, fertilizers are ONE, very far from being the only one, at least here.

In addition, harnessing the energy of a river to a large extent amounts to transforming it into a succession of water bodies: modification of the water tables, no more initial solid flow (what does it become in your opinion?), no more rheophilic or demanding species on water quality, eutrophication, ..... and all that for 0,2%!?! Should see where we put our priorities, that's all and it's really not worth getting carried away!

Edit: for the record, subject already mentionedHERE hydroelectricity, the wrong good idea?
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET
"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 20/06/11, 12:41

highflyaddict wrote:You should read again ... I never wrote that the dams and mills destroyed the rivers, I just wrote that it was not worth adding more (especially in Europe!).

There are unfortunately many factors that endanger the health of rivers, fertilizers are ONE, very far from being the only one, at least here.


a) the idea (for the moment and it would already be good to get there) is not to build new ones but to put the 30 abandoned into operation !! Civil engineering has been done for decades, centuries for some, the impact on biodiversity would be zero from zero !!!

b) as I said above I am very skeptical about the impact on fish: as confirmed by Remundo there are diversion bays, discharge channels ... which pose no problem for wildlife! Must stop taking man as the only species capable of adapting to its environment, it may be even the one that adapts less well (greenhouse effect ...)

A small mill impacts infinitely less than a high pressure dam several tens of meters high which floods one or more valleys, we must stop masturbating intellectually there !!! As luck would have it, these people, who belong to EdF, have never been worried or accused of anti biodiversity! FNE thinks what?

c) What annoys EdF and the State on this point, stop hypocrisy is decentralization and the loss of control (taxation) of energy. Nothing else... then we can find excuses ...

This is why they have been pipotating, for example, every 2 the price of solar panels for years ... There is a very interesting curve in the last S&V on this subject ... the current customer price in France is way too high ...

highflyaddict wrote:In addition, harnessing the energy of a river to a large extent amounts to transforming it into a succession of water bodies: modification of the water tables, no more initial solid flow (what does it become in your opinion?), no more rheophilic or demanding species on water quality, eutrophication, .....


d) it's already done, see a)

e) according to the weak hydrological experience that I have: provided that the water remains of constant chemical quality, making a dam attracts species !! In addition, a mill, unlike a high pressure EDF dam, never blocks 100% of the flow, it is a permanent turbine over the water! The rise in water is very reduced, or even zero (if it is not raised upstream, it is lowered downstream)
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 20/06/11, 13:40

Alain G wrote:... It was the case with Hydro-Quebec which was trying to sink the small power stations and no buyout for the small producers but fortunately that changed because the government listened to the citizens, which does not seem to be the case in France!
:? Ah ... You too, you noticed. : Lol:
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 20/06/11, 17:13

highflyaddict

First my apologies for being carried away!


I do not know what is done in Europe but here great efforts are made to minimize the impact on rivers and fish, migratory passes are constructed so as not to disturb the fish and the breeders too. butcher's animal must now have settling tanks to limit runoff to watercourses, lakes contaminated by algae have also been restored, Quebec is a vast laboratory with its thousands of lakes and fortunately our Government (Quebec) devotes part of the budget to research and improvements, which is unfortunately not the case for the Government of Canada under the power of Sephan Harper more interested in subsidizing the oil lobby!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.

Criticism is good if added to some compliments.

Alain

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 248 guests