Energy Transition: Nuclear 75% to 50 2025% in?

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13625
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1499
Contact :

Re: Energy Transition: Nuclear 75% to 50% 2025?




by izentrop » 15/10/18, 19:01

The Négatep scenario of "Save the climate" is much more realistic to hold: https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/fr/base ... gatep-2017

Save energy.
“Decarbonize” the energy used, by reducing the share of fossil fuels.
Develop renewable energies.
Maintain nuclear power for electricity production.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12294
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2957

Re: Energy Transition: Nuclear 75% to 50% 2025?




by Ahmed » 15/10/18, 19:29

This is the usual reasoning by "drawers" which avoids thinking of the problem in its entirety and especially to select the aspect that it is possible to divert in favor of obsolescence of the equipment in place and therefore of an investment. massive in this famous "energy transition" which counts both on the ignorance of the majority and on their legitimate fears. On another related subject which is the frightening rise in inequalities, we do not see such a media deployment and no need to be a great scholar to imagine the reason; however, regardless of ethical considerations, putting an end to this absurdity is objectively a necessary (but not sufficient) prerequisite for the cooperation of all which requires effective action on the control of CO² emissions.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13625
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1499
Contact :

Re: Energy Transition: Nuclear 75% to 50% 2025?




by izentrop » 15/10/18, 20:11

Ahmed, your plea is indeed an ethical consideration, until proven otherwise.
Given the inability of intermittent electricity to provide guaranteed power during these periods
critical, the shutdown of 16 GW of nuclear would be all the more problematic as the attrition of the thermal park to
fossil fuels will lose 8 GW by 2022 compared to the situation of the last winters (5 GW from
oil-fired plants, of which only 0,7 GW remains until April 2018, then 3 GW of coal-fired plants from here
2022).
It would therefore be necessary to urgently build 20 GW of gas backup means to avoid putting part of
France in the dark 3 to 4 times a winter, an obviously totally unacceptable prospect. It's a subject
major: recklessly shutting down nuclear capacity in the coming years would run risks
extremely important to the country's food security.

* Extremely heavy additional investments (from 52 to 63 billion € depending on the options of the PPE)
should be agreed to build wind, photovoltaic and gas backup resources,
* Despite their importance, these investments would not allow the production of 16 GW to be restored
nuclear: there would be between 9 and 12% (depending on PPE option) of annual production. Which would end
net annual electricity exports (around 10% of annual production). Hence a loss of income
for foreign trade in the range of € 1 to 1,5 billion / year,
* If we add the import of the "noble" parts of onshore wind turbines and photovoltaics, all
built abroad due to the absence of a national industrial base, and additional gas imports
to supply the support / relief means, the overall imbalance of the country's trade balance would be
worsened by around € 5 billion / year during all the years of investment in compensation means,
* The very large investments cited above would result in very expensive electricity production,
exceeding € 100 / MWh (backup / rescue costs included) compared to € 33 / MWh for extended nuclear ...

Continuation of the Georges Sapy impact study October 23, 2017 https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/ ... leaire.pdf
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12294
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2957

Re: Energy Transition: Nuclear 75% to 50% 2025?




by Ahmed » 15/10/18, 20:58

Ethics is certainly not indifferent to me, but you have probably read me wrong. I raise two arguments: 1- if the media financed by the big economic interests speak abundantly about the question of CO², it is that its treatment offers important lucrative opportunities, since the public opinion (which finances these new expenses) will have become favorable to it. 2- The question of growing social inequalities which is ignored for the reasons opposite to the previous ones, all the more since these new profits will be made precisely for the benefit of the richest.
My conclusions are, for their part, ethical, since I consider it abnormal to instrumentalize public opinion for ends which are unfavorable to it, contrary to all its interests and will make even more difficult a real fight for a new global issue.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

 


  • 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 130 guests