Renewable energy = 2x generation nuclear

[RégsB]

Hydraulics is the oldest renewable energy that exists, which is why the vast majority of exploitable sites in industrialized countries are already.

I do not share your opinion and in a large part of the French territory, there were mills on all the rivers sometimes spaced 500 meters in the plain and even spaced less than 2 kilometers in the Landes, department renowned for its lack of relief ...
I was thinking of industrial-sized sites.
Tens of thousands of energy deposits with a power between 5kW and 50kW just waiting to be exploited for the energy autonomy of their operators
Good for them if they live near a good river.
and decentralized supply to the local network, i.e. without the considerable line losses resulting from the excessive centralization of the French network (it is estimated that 1kWh consumed at the outlet in France required 2,54kWh at the outlet of the power plant ) ...
Who is that? RTE announces 2.14% loss on its network in 2013

For the PV, heuuuu, frankly, I would wait for better yields and efficient storage means before installing them on my roof, if I have one, one day.

20m² on my roof produce 3000kWh per year, my electricity bill (household of 4 people) was 4000kWh (excluding gas heating). Between tiles that consume energy to make and do not produce and solar panels that will make 4 or 5 times the amount of energy consumed to make and recycle them during their life cycle, my choice is made ... Waiting better is useless since the prices inflated by subsidies are finally reasonable and at such low levels
It is true ! The financiers are gone and remain the industrialists who held the shock. As I am rather in the north, it seems to me for the moment still that thermal solar has the advantage.
thatin Spain, a "royal decree" prohibits individuals from making their own solar electricity because it is cheaper than electricity sold through the grid... The yield of the tiles is negative, I much prefer the 20m² of panels with the "meager yield" of 15% which gave me 12MWh (yes, MegaWatt hour) in 4 years than the tiles which cost me for their purchase and their maintenance without producing anything ...

In total, around four times more production capacity, for actual production of the same order of magnitude. It is the price of the intermittence of the winds and the sun. And the target of 100% renewable energy has not been reached since this huge fleet of gas power plants remains.

This incompetence seems to be maintained,
Mhmmmm, I don't think the Frauenhofer Institute is incompetent!
but technological solutions exist and go through storage ... This will be the major challenge of the century that has just started.
Absolutely: storage will condition the success of intermittent RES, it is absolutely necessary to intensify research in the field.

Or :
http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/04/29/ ... -une-folie

I just discovered this site which seems to emanate from anti-ecological lobbies.
It seems obvious that the Vice-Chancellor is in the pay of non-renewable energy suppliers ...
Yep, you also have to stop seeing conspiracy theories everywhere.

the imperative to stabilize the electricity network despite the massive and erratic influx of solar and wind power plants that produce energy unrelated to real needs, has pushed operators to their limits. Now, with a combined share of only 13% of total electricity production, the contribution of renewables is unreliable and massively jeopardizes the stability of the electricity network.

When we point the finger at the fluctuating aspect of renewable energies, we must ALSO remember that consumption is fluctuating, even if this consumption is globally predictable.
But consumption does not fluctuate at the same time as supply, hence the need for storage.
We must also admit the MAJOR handicap of nuclear energy which is very difficult and slow to modulate
This is not what is asked of it, nor, moreover, from the powerhouses.
and also requires the addition of energies that are easy to regulate, hydraulics is currently the most reactive energy with an instantaneous response time, unlike thermal power plants ...
Yes, it is absolutely essential to do without a thermal power plant!

I am indeed convinced that even Germany will not bear such an additional cost!

Nor will it be able to bear the additional cost of dismantling nuclear power plants ...
The cost of dismantling is 15 to 20% of the cost of manufacturing; we have already done in France, and the most difficult, and in the USA

As far as I'm concerned, I've been running on electricity for more than 120.000km, and I'm therefore trying to make my own energy transition, for more autonomy and economy ... But I am mocked and criticized by people who don't want to know or are afraid, like I was afraid 6 years ago ...
Now I go for it and railing all the time I have lost listening to others ...

What I have achieved with few skills (at the start) is achievable by many people, and I do not intend to stop, and even less to let say the nonsense that I read ...

As with electric mobility, the energy transition is an accessible grail which powerful lobbies do not want to see happen ...

I am absolutely convinced that an energy transition is essential quickly and is even inevitable!
But I refuse to be dictated by affect. You seem to have succeeded in your transition in a reasoned way, I admire those who succeed in this. You will still agree that your example cannot be extrapolated for the entity France. The needs are simply not the same.

[moinsdewatt]

..... that is to say without the considerable line losses resulting from the excessive centralization of the French network (it is estimated that 1kWh consumed at the outlet in France required 2,54kWh at the outlet of the power station) .. ......

Whatever.

Line losses is around ten% of electricity production.

The factor 2.54 is the average ratio between the thermal energy at the input and the electric energy produced, by virtue of thermodynamics. (for thermal power plants including nuke)
It obviously does not apply to hydraulics or wind turbines or PV.

[moinsdewatt]

It’s even much less than 10%

Line losses is 2.14% of electrical production known as RTE:
source: http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpem ... -du-reseau

[RégsB]

Hi minus dewatt,

Put your tags in order STP: it is me who indicated the 2.14% and citro who spoke about the trucmuch of I do not know where (sorry citro, but I await your sources)

[Flytox]

The cost of dismantling is 15 to 20% the cost of manufacturing; we have already done in France, and the most difficult, and in the USA

On Wiki they have other figures .... which seem much less optimistic, more realistic, not part of state propaganda ..... Read the whole page very informative ......

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9man ... %C3%A9aire

Various NGOs brought together within the Sortir du nuclear network criticize EDF for having underestimated the dismantling costs which would be counted in hundreds of billions of euros and not in tens of billions as EDF announced.

After meeting the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Special Rapporteur of the National Assembly reiterated in his report in 2011 the observation that "the credits do not cover the financing of the dismantling of power plants", adding that he intended "To analyze soon the extent of the provisions made by EDF to meet its commitments to complete decontamination on some sixty sites (...) The dismantling of CEA facilities provides us with a useful point of comparison to assess the weight of the commitments that weigh on EDF and which will undoubtedly be considerable in financial terms. The "Energy 2050" commission has indeed put forward the figure of 750 euros for fifty-eight power stations ”.

Brennilis power plant

The Court of Auditors estimated in 2005 the cost of the dismantling of the Brennilis power plant at 482 million euros, 20 times more than the estimate of the PEON commission which is behind the current nuclear fleet.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom (35 reactors), the dismantling of the 32 MW Windscale reactor cost 117 million euros. The government announced on Thursday, March 30, 2006, its decision to entrust the dismantling of its nuclear power plants to the private sector, at an estimated cost of 103 billion euros.

The dismantling of two Magnox-type reactors currently underway in Berkeley has been estimated at 800 million euros, which represents twice the cost estimated in 2005. Extrapolating this cost to the nine other reactors of this type as well as Sellafield's reprocessing plant gives a figure of 58 billion euros.

[RégsB]

It is important to cross-check its sources, I probably don't do it enough.

The cost of dismantling is 15 to 20% the cost of manufacturing; we have already done in France, and the most difficult, and in the USA

On Wiki they have other figures .... which seem much less optimistic, more realistic, not part of state propaganda ..... Read the whole page very informative ......

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9man ... %C3%A9aire

Various NGOs brought together within the Sortir du nuclear network criticize EDF for having underestimated the dismantling costs which would be counted in hundreds of billions of euros and not in tens of billions as EDF announced.

I don't believe the anti-nuclear lobby

After meeting the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Special Rapporteur of the National Assembly reiterated in his report in 2011 the observation that "the credits do not cover the financing of the dismantling of power plants", adding that he intended "To analyze soon the extent of the provisions made by EDF to meet its commitments to complete decontamination on some sixty sites (...) The dismantling of CEA facilities provides us with a useful point of comparison to assess the weight of the commitments that weigh on EDF and which will undoubtedly be considerable in financial terms. The "Energy 2050" commission has indeed put forward the figure of 750 euros for fifty-eight power stations ”.

In this price there is the dismantling, reprocessing and storage of waste and the construction of a new power plant

Brennilis power plant

The Court of Auditors estimated in 2005 the cost of the dismantling of the Brennilis power plant at 482 million euros, 20 times more than the estimate of the PEON commission which is behind the current nuclear fleet.

I do not believe the pro-nuclear lobby like the PEON commission

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom (35 reactors), the dismantling of the 32 MW Windscale reactor cost 117 million euros. The government announced on Thursday, March 30, 2006, its decision to entrust the dismantling of its nuclear power plants to the private sector, at an estimated cost of 103 billion euros.

The private sector wants to be full of excavations.

The dismantling of two Magnox-type reactors currently underway in Berkeley has been estimated at 800 million euros, which represents twice the cost estimated in 2005. Extrapolating this cost to the nine other reactors of this type as well as Sellafield's reprocessing plant gives a figure of 58 billion euros.

Surely the price is high and will continue to climb according to the new safety recommendations.

I want to clarify my thoughts: current nuclear does not suit me, I just find it a lesser evil.
The planet no longer has the luxury of letting us do anything and we no longer have the means (€ or $) to make many mistakes, we have to rationalize locally (France is local) our possibilities of actions at best.

[I Citro]

and decentralized supply to the local network, i.e. without the considerable line losses resulting from the excessive centralization of the French network (it is estimated that 1kWh consumed at the outlet in France required 2,54kWh at the outlet of the power plant ) ...
Who is that? RTE announces 2.14% loss on its network in 2013

The number stuck in my mind, I have remembered it for several years ... find the source, perhaps I have already cited it on the forum...
I just found a link with the same number... so I didn't invent it.
On the other hand, I confess to have expressed myself badly, it is the ratio between primary energy and final energy ... which by nature and very unfavorable to thermal power plants, including nuclear ...
Cogeneration would improve performance in winter, but the logical remoteness of nuclear power plants from a city center condemns this solution ...

All your other answers disappoint me;
Thinking only of industrial-scale production sites is just one thought ... My mother saw the power line arrive at her parents' home in the 40s, so we knew how to live without electricity 70 years ago ... We can live perfectly by producing it yourself today and in reasonable quantity if you don't waste it or even store it a little ...
Since Fukushima, the Japanese have done a lot of work on the issue and they have above all demonstrated in a few months that they were able to provide all the productivity of the country again despite the shutdown of all nuclear power plants, simply by organizing themselves and driving out unnecessary consumption ... They also calculated that if they covered the entire surface of the American military base in Okinawa with photovoltaic panels, this would cover the missing consumption ...

There are many people who live near a good river, 1 meter in elevation (the 2 km that I mentioned in the Landes) is enough to produce energy. When the flow, a river one meter wide generally provides enough to produce 15kW, this is the case of one of my acquaintances who renovated a mill in the Landes Girondines ... But I know others .

The Germans have long been the first producers of photovoltaic energy, yet their country is more northerly and less sunny than France ...

Before seeking to intensify any research whatsoever, we must already use the knowledge and techniques available to us ... If we do not do so, it is because we have unspeakable interests to defend.

Thank you for reminding me that lobbies do not exist and that we live in the world of Care Bears where States and manufacturers only work for our happiness, and that, thanks to them, there is no more war on the ground...

the additional cost of dismantling nuclear power plants ...
The cost of dismantling is 15 to 20% of the cost of manufacturing; we have already done in France, and the most difficult, and in the USA

It's up to me to ask you for your sources.
To my knowledge, the first power plant that we started to dismantle was that of Brennilis in 1985, and we still do not know when it will be completed ... So which "we have already done" ...
A site that has been going on for 30 years is bound to have a pharaonic cost ...

Yes, it is absolutely essential to do without a thermal power plant!

But what do you suggest if you discard the photovoltaic solution and decree that the hydraulic potential is saturated.

"My affect" told me not to enter the photovoltaic subsidy system which, like any subsidy system, perverts the market by creating speculative price distortions which have no relation to the real cost of things ... Ma woman decided otherwise, and I thank her, without her I would still ignore that 20m² of solar panels cover the consumption of her electric car to travel 15.000km / year and it will soon be 25.000km covered by the same panels simply because his new car is more economical.

I have not yet succeeded in my energy transition, I still consume a lot of fossil gas (the so-called "natural" gas), but I continue to work to reduce my footprint and my dependence. It gives me a lot of satisfaction, such as refueling my vehicles at home or seeing my energy bills go down.

[jlt22]

Citro wrote:

I do not share your opinion and in a large part of the French territory, there were mills on all the rivers sometimes spaced 500 meters in the plain and even spaced less than 2 kilometers in the Landes, department renowned for its lack of relief ... Tens of thousands of energy deposits with a power between 5kW and 50kW just waiting to be exploited for the energy autonomy of their operators and decentralized supply to the local network, i.e. without the considerable line losses resulting from the excessive centralization of the French network (it is estimated that 1kWh consumed at the outlet in France required 2,54kWh at the outlet of the power plant) ...

Alas to the great despair of the defenders of the mills, from the Grenelle of the environment, it is necessary to restore the ecological continuity of the rivers. This involves the destruction of all hydraulic structures that have been abandoned.
http://www.onema.fr/-Restaurer-la-continuite-ecologique-
http://www.centre.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/la-continuite-ecologique-des-cours-r228.html
http://www.sagehuisne.org/dossiers-thematiques-continuite-ecologique-cours-eau_223_fr.html

It therefore becomes almost impossible to rehabilitate a mill in electrical production. As for creating new sites, you shouldn't count on them.

Migratory fish have good backs in the business, because when I was young, we caught quantities of eels in small streams and my parents said that before the last war, farmers were forbidden to serve more salmon twice a week to their workers (the rivers were full of them); however, the Breton mills are over 2 years old.
Today there are no more eels and salmon are scarce
As the waters were not polluted, the migratory fish were undoubtedly more robust to overcome obstacles.

[RégsB]

Hello,

I agree, it really looks a lot like monopoly protection as was elsewhere at the time, the installation of running water.

Everyone should be able to self-consume the energy they produce if they want to.

[RégsB]

and decentralized supply to the local network, i.e. without the considerable line losses resulting from the excessive centralization of the French network (it is estimated that 1kWh consumed at the outlet in France required 2,54kWh at the outlet of the power plant ) ...
Who is that? RTE announces 2.14% loss on its network in 2013

The number stuck in my mind, I have remembered it for several years ... find the source, perhaps I have already cited it on the forum...
I just found a link with the same number... so I didn't invent it.
On the other hand, I confess to have expressed myself badly, it is the ratio between primary energy and final energy ... which by nature and very unfavorable to thermal power plants, including nuclear ...
Your figure seems consistent to me given the low yields from thermal power plants.
Cogeneration would improve performance in winter, but the logical remoteness of nuclear power plants from a city center condemns this solution ...
Condemned, I am not sure: the ANCHOR report takes up this solution without indicating any blocking point. There will be losses but we know how to isolate now.

All your other answers disappoint me;
Thinking only of industrial-scale production sites is just one thought ... My mother saw the power line arrive at her parents' home in the 40s, so we knew how to live without electricity 70 years ago ... We can live perfectly by producing it yourself today and in reasonable quantity if you don't waste it or even store it a little ...
Since Fukushima, the Japanese have done a lot of work on the issue and they have above all demonstrated in a few months that they were able to provide all the productivity of the country again despite the shutdown of all nuclear power plants, simply by organizing themselves and driving out unnecessary consumption ... They also calculated that if they covered the entire surface of the American military base in Okinawa with photovoltaic panels, this would cover the missing consumption ...
I am convinced that the main axis of sustainable development must be energy savings

There are many people who live near a good river, 1 meter in elevation (the 2 km that I mentioned in the Landes) is enough to produce energy. When the flow, a river one meter wide generally provides enough to produce 15kW, this is the case of one of my acquaintances who renovated a mill in the Landes Girondines ... But I know others .
But yes, it is good to exploit the renewable resources at its disposal, but many, it is relative, how much compared to the French population?

The Germans have long been the first producers of photovoltaic energy, yet their country is more northerly and less sunny than France ...
Yes, and they pay the price.

Before seeking to intensify any research whatsoever, we must already use the knowledge and techniques available to us ... If we do not do so, it is because we have unspeakable interests to defend.
Yes, I just think that we have to measure the limits of these techniques, advantages and disadvantages, and work to reduce the disadvantages.


Thank you for reminding me that lobbies do not exist and that we live in the world of Care Bears where States and manufacturers only work for our happiness, and that, thanks to them, there is no more war on the ground...

Rhoooo, don't make me say what I didn't say. The manufacturers of wind turbines and PV are also lobbying, everyone does it ...

the additional cost of dismantling nuclear power plants ...
The cost of dismantling is 15 to 20% of the cost of manufacturing; we have already done in France, and the most difficult, and in the USA

It's up to me to ask you for your sources.
To my knowledge, the first power plant that we started to dismantle was that of Brennilis in 1985, and we still do not know when it will be completed ... So which "we have already done" ...
A site that has been going on for 30 years is bound to have a pharaonic cost ...
As much for me, the Court of Accounts announced this figure of 15%, but taking again the calculations of EDF. She specifies that doubling this figure would result in an increase of 0.05 € per KWh, which is not nothing, but not that much either.

Yes, it is absolutely essential to do without a thermal power plant!

But what do you suggest if you discard the photovoltaic solution and decree that the hydraulic potential is saturated.

"My affect" told me not to enter the photovoltaic subsidy system which, like any subsidy system, perverts the market by creating speculative price distortions which have no relation to the real cost of things ... Ma woman decided otherwise, and I thank her, without her I would still ignore that 20m² of solar panels cover the consumption of her electric car to travel 15.000km / year and it will soon be 25.000km covered by the same panels simply because his new car is more economical.

I have not yet succeeded in my energy transition, I still consume a lot of fossil gas (the so-called "natural" gas), but I continue to work to reduce my footprint and my dependence. It gives me a lot of satisfaction, such as refueling my vehicles at home or seeing my energy bills go down.

I do not decree anything, I just point out that hydraulics has a limited development, but it is part of the solution, and I do not rule out photovoltaics.

Wind and PV are part of the solution and we must continue to develop these technologies, but they are also part of the problem because of their intermittence and their low energy intensity per m².
As said above, I am for the self-consumption of renewable.
It is the impact of industrial production sites on the network that must be measured. For now, it is still manageable in France, it is no longer in Germany.

http://www.ecoco2.com/blog/1551-allemag ... lectricite

Either, it is a country where the production of electricity is more decentralized than in France and where each one draws the cover to oneself. But this example can indicate to us limits not to be exceeded.
That is why I say that research on storage must be intensified.

What to replace thermal power plants? I misspoke (dsl): I was thinking of power stations emitting CO². For me, the effort must above all focus on energy savings (I am a tenant, gas heating and I heat to 16 ° in winter (each his way)) on old buildings (thermal insulation) and transport (transfer ver the railways) (for the moment I do less than 150km by car per month) as well as on recycling. It is indeed a reduction in CO², and others, and a reduction in energy consumption, and others, that I am advocating. We are in a finite world; resources are not inexhaustible.
I come back to nuclear power plants. They are far from perfect and everyone is aware of their flaws. They nevertheless allow us to obtain stable electricity production without CO² emissions; they should not be thrown away too quickly.
A way to improve nuclear power:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/thorium-l- ... 13084.html