The future of nuclear power is good for the economy!

[Christophe]

Oops not seen the message on moinsdewatt Chooz!

[RégsB]

...
No, the most expensive electricity on the continent is not fundamentally a story of subsidizing renewable energies which are already practically competitive, but rather of the fact that the "arrears" will have to be paid sooner or later (dismantling of power plants). + treatment of waste which we do not know what to do), which has not been supplied (included in the invoices since the origin of the nuke) to the French ...... and this without producing any kilowatt of course. ...
...

EDF underestimating the costs of decommissioning and storage, either.
But anti-nuclear are as little accountable when they gesticulate without advancing figures and saying that this will put us on the straw.
Even a doubling of the figures proposed by EDF for storage and decommissioning will increase the price of electricity than 5% (source: Court of Auditors)

http://www.senat.fr/rap/r11-667-1/r11-667-12.html

[Did67]

It all depends on how many years we spread this cost. Otherwise on how much kWh. It's like the credits, or we do tiure length and we pay little but very very long time ... Either we pay much less time but ...

The problem is rather that ce is not one or the other, but both:

a) dismantling, a still unclear cost; one certainty: it will be the end consumer who will pay [even if, contrary to what I read, EdF has provisioned a bit ...]

b) and invest to produce at least as much (because it is difficult to reduce consumption, despite the constant "progress"!): whether in new EPRs or in renewable energies, the slate will be heavy; and it will be the end consumer who will pay ...

[Did67]

No, the most expensive electricity from the mainland is not fundamentally one of regis subsidy story already almost competitive, ...

During the debates around the (German) elections, I stumbled upon a German channel by chance, on a debate where an expert on the "energies" issue of Ms. Merkel's party (dangerous environmentalists as everyone knows! who did not suarait it: it is about the CDU, party say of "Christian right" ...] ...

He explained, unaware that a French watched, thanks to the choice of leaving the nucléiare made by Merkel, his country would have an advantage vis-à-vis competitiveness of its neighbors, with a relatively cheaper energy for the big investment will already be done. I do not remember if it was the 2020 or 2025 horizon ...

The reasoning is simple: renewal is a big investment at the start, then it produces relatively cheap (not quite so, because there is maintenance). So very quickly, once the facilities are amortized, it drops ...

[RégsB]

...
He explained, unaware that a French watched, thanks to the choice of leaving the nucléiare made by Merkel, his country would have an advantage vis-à-vis competitiveness of its neighbors, with a relatively cheaper energy for the big investment will already be done. I do not remember if it was the 2020 or 2025 horizon ...

The reasoning is simple: renewal is a big investment at the start, then it produces relatively cheap (not quite so, because there is maintenance). So very quickly, once the facilities are amortized, it drops ...

This is not say that the Minister of Finance or of Energy German, but it is true they are not the party of Merkel ...

http://www.lopinion.fr/21-janvier-2014/ ... ables-8412

Then, the cost is spread over the expected lifetime of the installation.
If the life of EnRe's installations was doubled (without even integrating a more or less expensive makeover), only the onshore wind would be competitive:

http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/fiche-co ... oduit.html

[Flytox]

http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/fiche-cout-du-mwh-produit/35-fparticles/1623-fiche-cout-du-mwh-produit.html

Some are very hard, they get to talk / "compare" the costs of different energies "to production" forcefully mathematical formulas etc ....., without mentioning the main problem / cost, that of after the dismantling of nuclear power plants and waste management normal ..... they do not speak the dismantling of other regis facilities.

This is a vintage propaganda / disinformation BDF Arhevahh. The key is to pretend that the problem does not exist! If this is you take for credible people !!!!!

The only real interest cost, the overall cost which includes all the full service life, death facilities etc ... (it's true that nucleocrats live only in the present, the problems of security and pollution we do not know what to do (before, during and after), successor (the population) démer..ront we are used, we take the tunes and the others will go to hell with our problems without solutions .. .)

[RégsB]

Flytox, put on your glasses and read to the end ...

No one is more blind than one who does not want to see!

[Flytox]

Flytox, put on your glasses and read to the end ...

No one is more blind than one who does not want to see!

Sure, you could specify which passage (end) you speak? (I have not read all site content ....)

[RégsB]

Hello,

EPR several scenarios are taken as examples, including this one:

...
The additional cost due to waste management and decommissioning is estimated at 2,05 € / MWh. This gives a total cost equal to 59,59 € / MWh including 41,63 for the share investment.
...

The costs of decommissioning and waste management, which are problematic, are taken into account; Moreover unlike the calculations for the new reg ...
The amount in percentage should not yet be completely negligible.

the price of electricity by sector given the previous link are in line with the prices given by the Court of Auditors:

http://tecsol.blogs.com/mon_weblog/2013 ... laire.html

Other interesting data and charts:

http://www.ccomptes.fr/content/download ... bles_2.pdf

[Flytox]

What you advertise above is not attached to the page of presentation of the cost of different energies to the production, and lost some part on the same site?

The costs of decommissioning and waste management, which are problematic, are taken into account; Moreover unlike the calculations for the new reg ...
The amount in percentage should not yet be completely negligible.

The difference is just a few orders of magnitude ..... what to put everything in the same bag!?: Mrgreen:


The real cost of dismantling is unknown to anyone, BDF etc ..., and ... as the court of accounts fishing rare information available .... at its source .... there is little chance that it diverges.

In the link below (a bit long) but to read until the end, there are some interesting discussions that allow to see how this happens.

http://energie.sia-partners.com/2009071 ... yaume-uni/

The case of the United Kingdom is surprising. Indeed, for only 35 nuclear reactors and an installed power of 9 000 MW, the total costs of decommissioning are estimated at 103 billion euros2. , or 2,9 billion euros per plant. These figures are to be compared with those of the United States, where 104 reactors are still in operation, and where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has estimated the cost of decommissioning at 300 million dollars (about 210 million euros) per plant nuclear. This estimate has already been tested on the Yankee Rowe plant in Massachusetts where, after 30 years of work, the cost of dismantling finally amounted to 350 million dollars (about 246 million), or almost 10 times less than for the UK! Nine commercial US reactors of more than 600 MW have thus entered a complete decommissioning process. In the United Kingdom, the main site being dismantled is Sellafield, which the IAEA has described as the "most radioactive in Europe", where the main reactors of England reside. On this site, for the Calder Hall plant, the end of the decommissioning is planned for 2117 in order to amortize the costs, simplify the sanitation steps and evacuate the waste. The United Kingdom therefore opted for a very long-term decommissioning strategy, while the United States, for lower costs, decided to wait thirty years after the MAD of the plants to begin dismantling them. These differences in scenarios may have several explanations: waste management will probably be more difficult for the United Kingdom, which does not have large storage areas like the United States. In addition, newer US nuclear power plants produce less waste and have been decommissioned at the time of construction, which inevitably reduces costs. This experience feedback therefore shows that giving an estimate of dismantling costs simply as a function of the power or the number of reactors is an imprecise indicator. It is important to take into account the history of the country concerned because the capacity of the country to store the waste, to recycle a maximum of materials but also the antiquity of the park will play a key role in this estimation.

Do not miss the answer on the site given above.