Reduce nuclear energy to 50%, a senseless promise

[Bardal]

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.

A bit easy, and frankly not very credible, to treat those who do not think like you as a nuclear lobbyist; it is usually the "argument" of those who have no argument. Your story of wind turbines is a pure invention on your part, this type of affirmation never having been made by Jancovici… by anyone besides I think, it's too stupid…

[julier]

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.

A bit easy, and frankly not very credible, to treat those who do not think like you as a nuclear lobbyist; it is usually the "argument" of those who have no argument. Your story of wind turbines is a pure invention on your part, this type of affirmation never having been made by Jancovici… by anyone besides I think, it's too stupid…

First, Jancovici never hid that he was a public relations agent, which means lobbyist. He never has for whom, but his speech leaves no doubt about the issue: the only person who may have an interest in funding his work is the nuclear industry.

I had in the past a personal discussion with him who also left no doubt about the lack of objectivity of his positions.

I also bought one of his books, "It's now - 3 years to save the world", co-signed (in 2009) with Alain Grandjean, another former student of the Polytechnic school. In this book, we read astonishing statements, which I return to you (faithful copy from the book):
- "we know how to capture and store CO2"
- "we know how to make nuclear power plants that are non-proliferating and almost waste-free" [NB: a pity then to continue to manufacture boiling or pressurized water plants like the current French plants and like the EPR, which require the same enrichment technique uranium than for uranium bombs, or heavy water plants like the old Brennilis plant or like the Canadian CANDU plants, which mass produce plutonium perfectly suited for plutonium bombs, or prototypes like Superphenix or ASTRID, which are extremely dangerous and whose dismantling requires the construction of a new plant)
- "No, no wind power in our crash program". He proposed to invest a little in photovoltaics (which was however totally ruinous at the time, 10 times more expensive at least than wind power and much more intermittent), and in the storage of CO2 in deep layer, whose feasibility However, it is still not at all demonstrated, neither its overall results, let alone its long-term security.
- "For the capture and sequestration of CO2, it's very simple"
- "freighters propelled by the wind or the swell". The wind, of course, the sailing navy has already demonstrated its relevance. But the swell, I don't know where he ever saw that it was possible to propel a boat by the swell!

I pass you his analysis of the Chernobyl assessment: of the order of 10 dead. Funnily enough, he explains that the few Chernobyl deaths are due to radiation, and that most of them are thyroid cancers. However, thyroid cancer during nuclear accidents is absolutely not caused by its irradiation, but by the contamination the victim by radioactive iodine (especially iodine 131), which is fixed by the thyroid. Because the risks linked to irradiation are actually very low, except for the people who work on the decontamination of the site in NBC uniforms (which protect against contamination but not at all against irradiation). Almost all of the risks for the population are linked to contamination, that is to say the absorption, by air, water, or food, of radioactive isotopes, which bind in the organism and cause cancer, generally with a long incubation period, and to a lesser extent sterility and anomalies in the progeny.

[Christophe]

- "freighters propelled by the wind or the swell". The wind, of course, the sailing navy has already demonstrated its relevance. But the swell, I don't know where he ever saw that it was possible to propel a boat by the swell!

Not bad swell, maybe they were referring to the Amoco Cadiz or the Erika?

For the sailing navy, there are current projects including a Start-up in Toulouse, we talked about it a few days ago: new-transport / cargo unusual-the-met-the-sails-SkySails-t2175.html

[Bardal]

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.

A bit easy, and frankly not very credible, to treat those who do not think like you as a nuclear lobbyist; it is usually the "argument" of those who have no argument. Your story of wind turbines is a pure invention on your part, this type of affirmation never having been made by Jancovici… by anyone besides I think, it's too stupid…

First, Jancovici never hid that he was a public relations agent, which means lobbyist. He never has for whom, but his speech leaves no doubt about the issue: the only person who may have an interest in funding his work is the nuclear industry.

I had in the past a personal discussion with him who also left no doubt about the lack of objectivity of his positions.

I also bought one of his books, "It's now - 3 years to save the world", co-signed (in 2009) with Alain Grandjean, another former student of the Polytechnic school. In this book, we read astonishing statements, which I return to you (faithful copy from the book):
- "we know how to capture and store CO2"
- "we know how to make nuclear power plants that are non-proliferating and almost waste-free" [NB: a pity then to continue to manufacture boiling or pressurized water plants like the current French plants and like the EPR, which require the same enrichment technique uranium than for uranium bombs, or heavy water plants like the old Brennilis plant or like the Canadian CANDU plants, which mass produce plutonium perfectly suited for plutonium bombs, or prototypes like Superphenix or ASTRID, which are extremely dangerous and whose dismantling requires the construction of a new plant)
- "No, no wind power in our crash program". He proposed to invest a little in photovoltaics (which was however totally ruinous at the time, 10 times more expensive at least than wind power and much more intermittent), and in the storage of CO2 in deep layer, whose feasibility However, it is still not at all demonstrated, neither its overall results, let alone its long-term security.
- "For the capture and sequestration of CO2, it's very simple"
- "freighters propelled by the wind or the swell". The wind, of course, the sailing navy has already demonstrated its relevance. But the swell, I don't know where he ever saw that it was possible to propel a boat by the swell!

I pass you his analysis of the Chernobyl assessment: of the order of 10 dead. Funnily enough, he explains that the few Chernobyl deaths are due to radiation, and that most of them are thyroid cancers. However, thyroid cancer during nuclear accidents is absolutely not caused by its irradiation, but by the contamination the victim by radioactive iodine (especially iodine 131), which is fixed by the thyroid. Because the risks linked to irradiation are actually very low, except for the people who work on the decontamination of the site in NBC uniforms (which protect against contamination but not at all against irradiation). Almost all of the risks for the population are linked to contamination, that is to say the absorption, by air, water, or food, of radioactive isotopes, which bind in the organism and cause cancer, generally with a long incubation period, and to a lesser extent sterility and anomalies in the progeny.

Absolutely anything ... And I'm nice ...

[izentrop]

It is not our national agency ADEME that will save us. Their 2015 energy report is nonsense. https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/11/16 ... -tres-cher

This government agency has striven to make plausible the production of electricity in France mainly from wind (63%) and photovoltaic (17%).

In summary, according to ADEME, France could do without fossil fuels, and at the same time nuclear, with eight "ifs":

1) If the annual electricity consumption decreased to 422 terawatt hours (TWh1) in 2050 (from 470 TWh in 2016), with a population increased by 10% and new electrical uses (electric transport, heating by pump at heat,…).

2) If the demand for electricity could be largely driven downward (postponement, erasure,…) in the absence of wind and / or sun and by counting on imports, or else, on the contrary, “stimulated” on order consume a lot during peak production, when there is sun and wind.

3) If the losses after storage and destocking of surpluses were low.

There are only 45 TWh of losses expected when they will be approximately triple (130 TWh), in particular because of the poor methanation yield.

However, the transformation of electricity into methane (for storage), then again into electricity in a gas power plant (called power to power), is the main means of storage / destocking of electricity chosen by the ADEME which fixed its yield at 33%.

In reality, it is less than 15% (transport of this electricity to electrolysers (efficiency 97%), production of hydrogen (70%), compression (80%), separation and compression of CO2 (60%) and methanation reaction (70%).

Finally, it is necessary to transform this methane in a gas power plant (60% maximum).

As a result, the final yield is less than 15% (13,7%).

In addition, no major achievement exists in this area, and there are always additional losses in reality ...

To recover the 19 TWh envisaged by ADEME, it would therefore be necessary to inject at least 125 TWh, and agree to “lose” (and therefore pay at a loss) more than 100 TWh of electricity each year…

4) If large-scale electricity storage for several weeks existed. This is not the case. Dams (10% of production in France) are not or only slightly expandable. The massive, efficient and economical storage process remains to be invented.

The report predicts that the Pumping Energy Transfer Stations (STEP) will restore a power of 7 gigawatts (GW) for 32 hours straight.

However, currently, only 2 GW can be returned during this time (Grand'Maison and Montézic), and only 5 GW for a maximum of 5 hours…

The maximum storage capacity available today is only 4 GW and the storable energy capacity is only 0,1 TWh.

In comparison, the need for power in France varies from 30 GW to 90 GW and daily consumption varies around 1,3 TWh per day (more in winter, less in summer).

5) If we knew where to install these storage means.

Will we have to build new dams and drown valleys, or dig thousands of lakes on our cliffs along the coasts?

Where will be the suitable sites (for example caves) to store energy by compressing air (second means of storage planned)? This report plans to restore 13 GW of power and 13 TWh of electricity annually.

6) If we knew where to find concentrated CO2 "free" near the methanation plants because the cost of CO2 is not taken into account in the study.

7) If the costs of storage were not outrageously minimized by being at least halved.

They do not take into account investments in electrolysers, which are planned to install a power of 17 GW to supply the hydrogen necessary for the production of methane.

The cost projections for short-term storage are assimilated to the air compression sector (CAES: Compressed Air Energy Storage) whose overall efficiency is 50% and not 81% as this report indicates.

It would therefore be necessary to inject at least 26 TWh to recover the 13 TWh planned.

If batteries (mentioned in the report) are used, then… neither the cost of using this very expensive means, nor the huge quantities of batteries (more than 10 tonnes?) To absorb or restore 000 GW are discussed. power.

Finally, and above all, it would take up to 6 kWh of electricity at 12 c € / kWh (without taxes according to ADEME) to find, after destocking, a kWh ... very expensive. You will have to agree to multiply the price by 6 (more than 72 c € / kWh), without taking into account the depreciation of the installations…

The selling price for the production of electricity on the market is today around 4 c € / kWh… and 15 c € / kWh for individuals with taxes and home transport.

If, if, if ... The song of "if" reigns to supply France with a high proportion of intermittent and fatal renewable energies such as wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. And it is well known that with "if" we would bottle Paris.

But if the French want to mortgage their future and that of their children by making all these senseless bets, they are free to be charmed by the fatal song of if ... (reins) from ADEME. But our politicians would be well advised not to believe blissfully that everything will be resolved as if by magic in the best of all worlds by succumbing to the songs of "ifs".

[thibr]

to reduce consumption it's easy just increase the price

[Exnihiloest]

The Taiwanese are not Taiwanese:

"With 59% of the voters, the Taiwanese rejected in a referendum the policy of stopping nuclear of the government".

[Exnihiloest]

...
- "freighters propelled by the wind or the swell". The wind, of course, the sailing navy has already demonstrated its relevance. But the swell, I don't know where he ever saw that it was possible to propel a boat by the swell!
...

Yet that's what we do when we surf. The energy of the swell is not 100% recoverable, but when the swell is well oriented, and we start to hurtle down its slope, a "perpetual" slope when we succeed in following it, we gain a lot of 'energy. This is sometimes the case even with small passenger catamarans like the one that connects Guyana to Devil's Island, I have experienced it, as well as much more often, in windsurfing. In principle, the idea is not to be rejected.

[Exnihiloest]

to reduce consumption it's easy just increase the price

Yes quite , and therefore to raise taxes, all in a harmonious leveling down lasting, between the unimaginative politician who unable to provide the conditions for wealth creation sees the tax as a panacea, and the unimaginative ecologist either who, unable to provide consumption alternatives, sees their reduction as a panacea.

[Bardal]

to reduce consumption it's easy just increase the price

Not even ... The Germans, who pay their electricity almost twice as much as in France, consume, per capita, roughly the same amount of kWh as the French ...

Yet Ademe, in its brilliant study, did not tackle CO2 emissions at all (the term is not even pronounced); what will it be when, in addition, it will be necessary to replace the energy of transport and heating of the building…