Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...

[Did67]

there are indeed new coal installations, intended to compensate for major deficiencies coming from a renewable mix.

On the other hand, this installed but little exploited "overcapacity" partly explains the additional cost!

A unit of so and so many MW which turns 100 days and the same unit which turns 350 days per year, the price of kWh at the exit is not the same, just because of the amortization ...

[Remundo]

Renewable suffers from its intermittence, because there are no large, very large and interconnected networks.

Germany, which is quite alone in Europe in its renewable energy policy, which is poor in hydraulics, has turned to Solar + Wind, consolidated by flame thermal which can operate at peak.

[Did67]

Here, what did we say?

See only the title of this article published on the website of the newspaper Le Monde: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2 ... _3244.html

Could we summarize better ???

[Good, with a Medef who threatens, with farmers on the street repeatedly, with the CGT who overbids for internal reasons, with empty boxes, I admit that it is not so easy, d 'have an ecological ambition!]

[Remundo]

yeah but precisely, it might be time to have a little courage ...

in any case, this government is largely made up of branques.

Delphine Batho was not bad, but they fired her because she was against shale gas and had more or less openly contradicted her "superiors" (understand the term strictly administratively ...).

Now, we have Ségolène who wants to make stupid PV routes, 1000 km, just that.

[Did67]

Quite frankly, but it will remain between us: my situation would also be hopeless, I would do strictly as I please !!! But hey, I would never ...

[Obamot]

The panels must be well disposed of at 18% yield, those at 48% may arrive faster than expected ["vip language mode OFF].

It always made me laugh these enarques who meddle in files in which they have almost no competence. Sarkozy was hardly better when he wanted to flood France with charging stations for electric vehicles: he increased the supply without having resolved the supply ... There Ségolène did it at the wrong time by wanting to increase the supply without having given the means to research centers to develop new storage methods!

In short, they never do anything in the right order:
1) study / develop new storage methods (for example by making better use of the CNRS and by making this necessity an absolute priority. France could catch up and become the world leader in renewable energies, precisely because currently it does not "need" so much and so it could initiate the shift to phase out nuclear power, it is an ethical and historical responsibility! Instead, it is lagging behind its neighbors. And during all this time, looming in the shadows the next nuclear disaster that no one can escape, we know!

2) then launch major works by building a belt of solar thermal or photovoltaic power plants of the C-PV type in the South, in collaboration with countries bordering the whole of the Mediterranean, possibly in an offshore platform. And there yes, why not this type of project to cover the roads with C-PV (but currently it's still a bit early and we know how to store too badly) ...

3) simultaneously launch a national program on energy efficiency (in fact this should have started a long time ago).

4) icing on the cake, becoming a leader in these areas could help soften the heavy bill for dismantling aging plants

Of course there would be lots of other measures to be taken, in particular to facilitate the task of the private owners of electricity production installations that the government seems to want to let go ... (like these agricultural producers who have installed PV on their hangars and which are "forgotten" by the administration, either because the State has cut off the tap of incentive aid, or because the price of repurchase of the current produced is no longer at the initial and preferential rate envisaged! Dirty betrayals! Ségolène could put the respect of the commitments of the State before any other priority! Ah but it's true, I forgot, they are "socialists" ... devastated by the crisis of competitiveness ... !)

Poor France, which does not see in the long term, is at the mercy of financial speculators, since it is in debt to the neck!

[Janic]

obamot hello

(like those agricultural producers who have installed PV on their sheds and who are "forgotten" by the administration, either because the State has cut off the tap of the incentive aids, or because the purchase price of the current produced does not is more at the initial and preferential rate planned! Dirty betrayals!)

Without forgetting the increasingly difficult situation of farmers (but this is another problem) The installation of PV with buyout above its sale price, already felt the intellectual scam. Which industrialist would buy a product (which he also manufactures) above the price at which he sells his own. From the start it smelled like a scam and farmers as well as private individuals believed it out of speculative spirit. However EDF is not a philanthropic enterprise and it would have been necessary (and we must continue to ask the question) to ask why such an offer? By policy towards ENr? Obviously the state did not care completely (even now actually)! However, it is the same politico-economic policy which spares the goat and the cabbage and favors the most powerful because the economy prevails over all other considerations. But the spirit of contestation that characterizes ecology must be taken into account when fed up and can endanger politics and the economy. So we pretend to ... to calm the spirits and when the scale increases yesterday's opponents become the hot supporters of today (these are the oldest recipes that work best) This is characteristic with wind turbines where small companies developed technology with their sweat, their faith and their limited means and wiped the plasters and today it is recovered by the large industrialists alone capable of building these immense machines and who alone will be able to take the markets and regulate it, see it slow down to prevent its development.

[Obamot]

Certainly, but a commitment is a commitment. And the state should not run away ...
Because we are in a "market economy" = doubly guilty state! (This is not a personal opinion, it is a statement.)

The purchase of current more expensive than that of the network can be explained in 3 ways:
- the risk which is the responsibility of the investor (eh, if there were "rich" kulaks that would be known ... that's why I took this example).
- from an accounting standpoint, it is necessary to reckon with the depreciation / renewal of the installation. I am not even sure that the game is worth the candle, because a farmer had to borrow to pay for the installation. It could also be understood as "indirect aid".
- the mutualist motive of wanting to decentralize the production of electricity, to (partially) solve the problem of "load factor"of the network (which is the bête noire of electricity suppliers) and obviously through this to support renewable energies that it is better to be decentralized anyway for this reason.

And of course, without forgetting all the arguments you put forward, which must be accepted as admissible!

[Ahmed]

The Spanish state has "escaped" well, since not only has it substantially lowered the repurchase prices unilaterally, but with retroactive effect!
As a result, he demanded the repayment of the overpayment, which has ruined many investors who can no longer repay the loans of their PV panels ...

[Janic]

Certainly, but a commitment is a commitment. And the state should not run away ...

You know the expression: " promises are only binding on those who believe in them! »
Already that giving bonuses to some smells of injustice (because everyone would also like to have their share of the cake) and in addition buying back above the market price, underlined the impossibility of making the system last.
Clearly the first come first served and too bad for the others. It's like the premiums for electric, hybrid or low-emission vehicles (giving rise to inevitable “cheating”) that couldn't last either. It’s self hypocrisy (but in politics it isn’t the case) or more simply playing on a developing market to make people believe that we believe in it or more realistically keeping control of the market and prevent local autonomy independent of the EDF and nuclear lobby.

Because we are in a "market economy" = doubly guilty state! (This is not a personal opinion, it is a statement.)

Not guilty, but responsible (or accomplice) as for contaminated blood!

The purchase of current more expensive than that of the network can be explained in 3 ways:
- the risk which is the responsibility of the investor (eh, if there were "rich" kulaks that would be known ... that's why I took this example).

Some farmers have realized that installing PV or wind power makes their land more profitable and better than cultivating it, even by going into debt (they will probably regret it one day when they will only be paid for with little taps. )

- from an accounting point of view, it is necessary to reckon with the depreciation / renewal of the installation. I am not even sure that the game is worth the candle, because a peasant had to borrow to pay for the installation. Indeed the peasant was made once again with additional debt
It could also be understood as "indirect aid".

Indeed, but to hide a reality that could only manifest itself at one time or another (the municipalities that have done the same will also bite their fingers whatever the inhabitants who will open their wallets once more ! Matter of habit !
Unless they are self-consumed to disengage from the electric lobby! (as for water networks)

- the mutualist motive of wanting to decentralize the production of electricity, to (partially) solve the problem of the "load factor" of the network (which is the bête noire of electricity suppliers) and obviously through this to support renewable energies that it is better anyway to be decentralized for this reason.

This is where the hypocrisy is manifest, the reason invoked resembles that of nuclear power plants for military purposes (the bomb) which served as a pretext to self-justify them by the use of thermal "waste" for peaceful purposes. what is the supply of electricity (without worrying (at the time) about the fate of combustible waste).
This does not call into question all the efforts made for renewable energies, but we are not in the land of bisounours. EDF has a de facto monopoly (by ErDF) and is not about to let go of the piece no matter what the cost it costs. At most, renewable energies will serve (since they are more and more profitable) to reduce, if not mop up, the cost of dismantling end-of-life power plants, but more by paying a high price for the electricity of these renewable energies which, once built, will have to get rid of these kW produced and there at low cost. The fucked you count! Long live the business!