The future will pass you it with biomass?

[sicetaitsimple]

I prefer to drop out at this stage, not because I don't feel able to argue, but because it just seems useless to me.

Don't let that stop you from telling me (us) about "Florida weave" and other gardening tips!

And I also regularly read your speeches or those of Sen-no-Sen, these are interesting points of view.

With age, I think that is one of the main things that I integrated: do not mix everything, we can agree and share on a certain number of things, and disagree at all on others, that does not prevent living together! 10 or 15 years ago I would have stolen you from the feathers!

Kind regards.

[izentrop]

instead of these wood boilers connected to heating networks, what do you recommend as a solution?

I think that only nuclear will resolve the current decisional errors, whatever we may think.
Not just for biomass. Dixit Jancovici:
"With more wind and solar power, which take the place of nuclear power when they are in operation, the load factor of the reactors decreases. This lowers the operator's revenues, while there is always the same fleet to maintain, to guarantee supplies at night and without wind. Physics devilry! "
https://www.lecho.be/entreprises/auto/E ... 1510098095

[sicetaitsimple]

instead of these wood boilers connected to heating networks, what do you recommend as a solution?

I think that only nuclear will resolve the current decisional errors, whatever we may think.

You will allow me to doubt it, not that I am fundamentally anti-nuclear, but because I think it would just be impossible to develop a new nuclear project in France under economically acceptable conditions. Too long, too expensive, too risky (in terms of "project" risks, I am not talking about "safety" risk).

[izentrop]

Yes for France which is stuck in its http://www.dettepublique.fr/ and his public opinion, but other countries like China, Russia, India have no complexes.
It is the only non-renewable energy that does not emit CO2 and we must ensure the transition to solutions that truly respect the planet.
Fusion is unlikely to be successful, but we know that liquid fission has been going on for a long time and public and private projects are paving the way to thorium with greater certainty.

[Bardal]

The economic argument put forward to refuse to develop nuclear power seems particularly specious to me. Admittedly, it is expensive, but renewable energy alternatives are even more costly in investment; and not just a little: 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive, and they also lead to major adaptations to the electrical network ...

The example of Germany, which has already committed between 300 and 500 billion euros to supply barely a third of its electricity production, should nevertheless shed some light on us; all the more so since the essential reinforcements of its network (widely refused by the populations concerned) are estimated at several tens of billions.

For the record, 500 billion is 50 times Flamanville, which would cover 1,3 or 1,4 times the current nuclear production of France, and in modular energy, without storage device.

What reassures me a little anyway, is the recent declaration by N. Hulot, which proves that a minister, even under constant pressure from the anti-nuclear lobby, can end up agreeing with obvious elementary considerations of common sense.

[dede2002]

Hello,

Regarding this informative article on the CO2 rate of energy production from wood and oil, I wonder how much carbon is left in the ashes?
Or that which remains in the ground in the case of "natural decay" producing CO2, which is in fact the energy use of "other" heterotrophs, biodiversity ... *

Also, the comparison between the percentage of CO2 emitted by the evaporation of residual water from the wood and the "gray CO2" of petroleum relates to conventional oil, while the anticipated reserves are in other forms, which emit a lot. much more CO2 in production!

If we use biomass industrially, in addition to petroleum, while continuing to make more concrete, we will quickly go around ...

In the meantime, I'm warming myself with the wood from the garden

We could define a rate of growth of biodiversity, to compare with that of economic growth, positive or negative ...

[sicetaitsimple]

The economic argument put forward to refuse to develop nuclear power seems particularly specious to me. Admittedly, it is expensive, but renewable energy alternatives are even more costly in investment; and not just a little: 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive, and they also lead to major adaptations to the electrical network ...

The example of Germany, which has already committed between 300 and 500 billion euros to supply barely a third of its electricity production, should nevertheless shed some light on us; all the more so since the essential reinforcements of its network (widely refused by the populations concerned) are estimated at several tens of billions.

For the record, 500 billion is 50 times Flamanville, which would cover 1,3 or 1,4 times the current nuclear production of France, and in modular energy, without storage device.

Hi,

the term "specious" seems a little strong to me, especially since I am only expressing an opinion without "refusing" anything.

The comparison with Germany is perhaps a little more (specious)!

We have the right to think what we want from the Energiewiende, but it is certain that on a strict economic plan it cost a lot of money and German consumers will continue to foot the bill for a number of years with a "renewable" surcharge which today is around € 70 / MWh consumed. Well, you could say it's their business after all.

But there is still a good reason for this, it is, once again on a strictly economic level, that they left too early and too strong, and made a good part of their investments at times when the costs (especially for solar) were just prohibitive.

The 300 to 500 billion (range still a bit wide for my taste, it would be good to have a slightly more precise figure to advance), to do the same program by starting today, it would obviously be much less, if we want to compare to "new nuclear".

On the additional network costs, I agree, I had to write something on it a little while ago I think in the thread on the electric vehicle.

[sicetaitsimple]

complement "network", I copy:

"by sicetaitsimple" 08/10/17, 20:18
lilian07 wrote:

For me it's always the same logic that prevails, production as close as possible to the user, it's service-oriented. Instead of producing a large quantity of energy instantaneously at a given point by transporting it over a large and fragile air network which costs the producer enormously (20 Twh of loss by joules effect without counting the cost of maintaining conditions) especially during harsh climatic events, it is better to produce at the right need without the need for heavy infrastructure.


Yes, but it's just a pipe ... The "local" side of renewable energies only exists when they are not very developed. As soon as they develop even a little, they need, like the others, a strong transport network. This is particularly true for wind power, a little less of course for distributed solar.

Cf. Germany, Denmark, .... where projects for large high voltage lines and interconnections with neighbors are struggling to be built when they are necessary. Yet these are not particularly rounds in terms of electric REC. "

[Ahmed]

Izentrop, you write about nuclear power: "It is the only non-renewable energy that does not emit CO2"; it would be more rigorous to say that it is the one which emits little compared to the others ...

The conventional nuclear solution is a dead end, but the other (bad) choices that have been made in the past and the absence of the will to change it substantially lead irreparably.damned (sic) to its maintenance.

[Bardal]

The economic argument put forward to refuse to develop nuclear power seems particularly specious to me. Admittedly, it is expensive, but renewable energy alternatives are even more costly in investment; and not just a little: 3, 4 or 5 times more expensive, and they also lead to major adaptations to the electrical network ...

The example of Germany, which has already committed between 300 and 500 billion euros to supply barely a third of its electricity production, should nevertheless shed some light on us; all the more so since the essential reinforcements of its network (widely refused by the populations concerned) are estimated at several tens of billions.

For the record, 500 billion is 50 times Flamanville, which would cover 1,3 or 1,4 times the current nuclear production of France, and in modular energy, without storage device.

Hi,

the term "specious" seems a little strong to me, especially since I am only expressing an opinion without "refusing" anything.

The comparison with Germany is perhaps a little more (specious)!

We have the right to think what we want from the Energiewiende, but it is certain that on a strict economic plan it cost a lot of money and German consumers will continue to foot the bill for a number of years with a "renewable" surcharge which today is around € 70 / MWh consumed. Well, you could say it's their business after all.

But there is still a good reason for this, it is, once again on a strictly economic level, that they left too early and too strong, and made a good part of their investments at times when the costs (especially for solar) were just prohibitive.

The 300 to 500 billion (range still a bit wide for my taste, it would be good to have a slightly more precise figure to advance), to do the same program by starting today, it would obviously be much less, if we want to compare to "new nuclear".

On the additional network costs, I agree, I had to write something on it a little while ago I think in the thread on the electric vehicle.

What is specious (and that does not relate to what you say) is to highlight the high cost of nuclear power while forgetting to say that renewable energy costs even more in investment; basically the image of the straw and the beam ...

German RE expenditure is not related to the fact that they "left too early" (in this case, one should see a decrease in these costs); not only do they continue to increase, but above all the essential remains to be done, in their logic: 60% of the means of production remain to be replaced (16% nuclear and more than 40% fossil fuels); this is all the more true as the development of renewable energies has revealed formidable problems of grid stability.

And it is not only "their onions", the European networks being closely connected, and the prices of electricity strongly interdependent. Incidentally, it would be a little stupid not to learn from neighboring experiences ...

Evaluating German expenditure on renewable energy is not an easy exercise, nor is it free from discussion; should it include certain expenses, or not (strengthening the networks for example), certain aids or not, certain related costs or not (nuclear shutdown for example); it is hardly surprising that there is debate. I put the low and high forks there. What seems to be a consensus is an estimate of 25 billion euros annually, over 20 years, or 500 billion, but some say that part of this expenditure is not yet effective, while being certain. Janco assesses this actual expenditure at 300 billion, the France-Stratégie government body assesses it at 500 ... Anyway, it's a huge sum, especially since it only covers 30% of the German electricity production ...