Reduce nuclear energy to 50%, a senseless promise

[izentrop]

At the end of the month, the government will release PEP, the multiannual energy program. An expected text, and already controversial, which must write the trajectory by which France will bring back to 50% (against 72% today) the share of nuclear in the production of electricity. Jean-Marc Jancovici, consultant, expert of the sector, expresses his doubts:

He is right, it is sending us faster in the wall and it is contrary to the agreements of Paris.

[sen-no-sen]

Yes the reduction of 50% promised by Holland is only wind (sic!).
In reality and in view of the stakes (RCA and Peak all oil) France will not leave the nuclear, on the contrary it is quite possible for new power stations to see the day and those faster than expected.
The future French will certainly be a renewable / nuclear mix, the renewable being to replace fossil fuels dedicated to transport.

[izentrop]

Yes, but the government seems to be taking the electoral path, so the worst. https://www.gouvernement.fr/des-mesures ... rizon-2025

[Ahmed]

Even assuming that voters or citizens (which is not the same thing) are pure idiots *, is it so absurd to take into account their opinion, insofar as they are directly concerned? ?

* What is implicitly suggested in your message ...

[thibr]

it's a little the principle of democracy, no?

[Ahmed]

This is what should happen instead of a technocracy working for the benefit of those who pay ... with taxpayers' money!

[moinsdewatt]

2035 due date for 50% of nuclear power generation (Rugy)

AFP 18 November 2018

The government is working to reduce the share of nuclear power in 50% by 2035, said Sunday the Minister of Ecological Transition François de Rugy, confirming a horizon mentioned in September by the Prime Minister.

Asked during the Grand rendez-vous Europe 1-CNEWS-Les Echos about the multiannual energy programming (PPE), which will define France's strategy over ten years and must be published before the end of the month, Mr. de Rugy replied that 2035 was "the deadline we are working on".

The 2015 energy transition law provided for this nuclear share to be reduced to 50% "by 2025". But Nicolas Hulot, the predecessor of François de Rugy who resigned at the end of August, had abandoned this objective, considered unrealistic, without setting a new precise date, but evoking a horizon between 2030 and 2035.

"We are within these deadlines, we are obliged to carry out a truth operation," said the minister. "The 2015 law referred to a 2012 promise, and between 2015 and 2017 not much happened. So we wasted time, and so we are going to set the course again."

Currently, nuclear power represents more than 70% of French electricity production, compared to less than 30% on average in Europe.

At the beginning of September, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe had simply mentioned "the 2035 horizon", and Matignon had specified that the arbitration on the precise date would be decided in the PPE.

When François de Rugy was a candidate for the 2017's left-wing primary, he advocated a nuclear exit on the 2040 horizon and the goal of 100% renewable electricity in 2050.

"But I am in a government, appointed by Emmanuel Macron (...) His program was 50/50, so we are in this context," he said on Sunday.

"Our strategy is not stifling the French nuclear industry, but its future is not guaranteed", he added, before mentioning the bankruptcy of Areva and the uncertainties surrounding the new reactors. EPR, in terms of "reliability, safety and competitiveness".

https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org ... ugy-181118

[sen-no-sen]

This announcement is pure delirium ... again it is unfounded announcements aimed at calming the aggressiveness of some anti-nuclear without seriously addressing the socio-economic issues.
Reduce the share of nuclear power in a period where the share of fossils will decrease and simply a shameless lie.
Replaced a predominantly decarbonated (nuclear) source by another (wind) has no ecological sense (it would lead to an increase in GHGs) and even less economic in the sense that such an operation would cost something like 700 billion euro ...
For the candidate of buying power and problem solving by growth it is a loud coffee announcement, to believe that there is no one who advises our ministers!
This type of ad is to be placed in the category fake news!

[julier]

At the end of the month, the government will release PEP, the multiannual energy program. An expected text, and already controversial, which must write the trajectory by which France will bring back to 50% (against 72% today) the share of nuclear in the production of electricity. Jean-Marc Jancovici, consultant, expert of the sector, expresses his doubts:
(VIDEO)
He is right, it is sending us faster in the wall and it is contrary to the agreements of Paris.

As a lobbyist in the nuclear industry, it is quite normal that it opposes the reduction of the place of nuclear energy.
It should be known that even in France, nuclear energy represents only a very small part of the energy consumed in France: it is only on electricity that nuclear occupies a big place.

Janvocivi is a brilliant orator, but as soon as you dig a little, you put him in the face of his contradictions. Jancovici has always claimed that wind turbines do not produce electricity, are useless and very expensive, things that are objectively false. But since wind turbines are the main competitor of nuclear electricity, it is logical that the nuclear industry chooses them as adversary No. 1.

[Gaston]

Yes the reduction of 50% promised by Holland is only wind (sic!).

Attention, he did not promise "a reduction de 50% ", but that" the share of nuclear power would drop à 50% ".

At constant total consumption, it would be equivalent to a fall in 30% of nuclear power production, but ... in the context of increasing consumption, it could just as well mean a constant nuclear output (if total consumption increases of 45%)