Electronuclear flexibility (excluding subject wind)

[Remundo]

Then we do what we want: what I'm saying is simply that it makes me "c .. r" if the fuel is imported gas.

Well, why ? Do you support uranium better?

[sicetaitsimple]

Then we do what we want: what I'm saying is simply that it makes me "c .. r" if the fuel is imported gas.

Well, why ? Do you support uranium better?

Yes, because to use the figures quoted much higher the night of January 1, it was he who did the job by going below 34000MW, while these brave cogen gas remained impertubable at 2300MW ...

At € 127 / MWh in average price, we can't really blame them .....

[Did67]

This is what is completely false, and which confuses the debate on gas cogeneration: a gas boiler has an efficiency at least as good, or even better than a gas cogeneration, costs much less and is much more reliable. If the need is for warmth, this is (collectively) the best choice. The heat which arrives at the inlet of the boiler of a cogeneration is neither free nor "free" of CO2.

There is no "free lunch" in a gas cogeneration such as those which are currently delivering their 2500MW on the network, there are just some who pay for the meals of others.

Then we do what we want: what I'm saying is simply that it makes me "c .. r" if the fuel is imported gas.

My opinion will be different (or at least more nuanced!) If it is biomass.

Explain to me.

For biogas I know. I do not know the "industrial machines" of Engie or EdF.

When we produce electricity in a gas turbine, we certainly arrive at better yields than with cogeneration by motor [the Schnell group of the "Dual-fuel" type which is used on the project I spoke about arrives at 42% - still out of memory]. I think I remember reading that the best turbines are 60%.

So 40% of the fatal heat remains.

Part of which can be recovered for heating, or drying, or hot water, right? Otherwise, it's not co-generation, right (in co-generation, there is "co")?

This is how I understand co-generation.

So either you turbines 100 to recover 60 electricity and you throw 40. And next to it, you have a boiler to produce 30 heat. So you "burn" 130.

Or you cogenerate. And you recover 30 of heat in the 40 "throws". And you have the same "service" [60 electricity and 30 heat] with 100 ...

If it does not work like that, then it is not cogeneration and indeed it is theft.

For anaerobic digestion units, that's how it is.

Some units, isolated, "throw in" engine cooling calories. There is then an "air-cooler" on the roof of the box. In short, like a car, a huge ventilated "radiator" [cars are also above all boilers!]

Others, like ours, send the cooling water into a heat exchanger which heats a large cumulus of hot water. As a result, the partner company no longer runs its boiler to produce its hot water. The balance sheet C of the two units combined is much better, since the boiler of the company does not turn more than in the event of shutdown.

In Ribeauvillé, the pool-spa group of a Hotel-Casino is heated (in it and instead of a gas boiler).

For metha, I am formal. For the cogeneration of the industrialists of electricity, I am only guessing, by comparison.

[Did67]

And as the subject is flexibility and I would not want to be scolded again by Remundo, note the exceptional flexibility of these gas cogenerations:

- almost nothing, before October 30.
- it starts on 31/10, to check that everything is going well, the prices starting on 1/11.
- it works fully until 31/03, the date when the rates stop, whatever the electricity needs between 1/11 and 31/03.
- and it starts again the following year.

The whole being of course verifiable by everyone on ECO2MIX.

Indeed, it seems to me that there is an "opportunity" - as in the past the first PV installations.

The contracts had to be made for 15 or 20 years. Either, and this is not uncommon, the subsidized prices are too favorable - because initially there were only a few installations, so we wanted to encourage them. This weighed peanuts in the budget. A little more lobbying, and presto, it's the jackpot for the manufacturers in question. If in addition there is a technological advance in the meantime (as it seems to me that this was the case on the last generation of turbines), it is all beneficial!

Let it be clear: I defend the idea of ​​a bonus to cover additional costs and encourage cogeneration and the recovery of fatal heat [because there is really an additional cost, which the operator would not bear]. I absolutely do not defend this kind of "legal scams"!

Always to stay on what I know: cogenerators operate 24 hours a day almost 24 days a year (the operating rate of the unit I am talking about is 365% - energy injected over possible theoretical energy: nominal power X 97 days X 365 h), first and foremost for electricity. If, in addition, they can offload a few boilers here and there, it is cogeneration and that improves the C balance sheet well.

It is clear that this type of behavior by the operators makes a "calm debate" even more confused.

[Remundo]

Then we do what we want: what I'm saying is simply that it makes me "c .. r" if the fuel is imported gas.

Well, why ? Do you support uranium better?

Yes, because to use the figures quoted much higher the night of January 1, it was he who did the job by going below 34000MW, while these brave cogen gas remained impertubable at 2300MW ...

At € 127 / MWh in average price, we can't really blame them .....

their contract is like that ...

The State could have made another contract to respond to spikes for a super remuneration ... But the State does not really have an industrial and energy vision apart from all petroleum and all nuclear ...

[sicetaitsimple]

At € 127 / MWh in average price, we can't really blame them .....

their contract is like that ...

The State could have made another contract to respond to spikes for a super remuneration ... But the State does not really have an industrial and energy vision apart from all petroleum and all nuclear ...

Yes, their contract is like this, stupid. We burn imported gas, we emit CO2, no flexibility, we (electricity consumers) pay 400M € of additional cost per year ....

I never said it was illegal, I just said it made me "c ... r".

Now I understand that in your case, exploiting 41kWp of PV for some time I think, you can (possibly?) Be satisfied with the sustainability of "stupid" contracts. You just need to know how to put yourself in the position of the one who pays. But you don't emit CO2 or anything and you don't burn gas, it still makes a big difference!

[sicetaitsimple]

[
It is clear that this type of behavior by the operators makes a "calm debate" even more confused.

No, there is no "action", there is a contract, we cannot blame the operators for maximizing their production even if they are not really useful at certain times in the sense of the community.

For questions from your previous post, I'm trying to give you an answer tomorrow.

Good night, not in your deckchair but in your bed!

[dede2002]

@ dede2002 cooling towers avoid a rise in temperature of rivers used for cooling thermal power plants (all thermal power plants, not just nuclear). Thermal pollution then becomes very marginal ... The heat is discharged into the atmosphere (this corresponds, in order of magnitude, roughly to what is brought by the sun on the surface of the plant) ...
It is clear that it is a waste of energy; in some countries, this energy is recovered for industrial and domestic heating needs.

Hello,

it seems inaccurate to me.

Eg. the Bugey power station dissipates 50 billion kWh / year over an area of ​​100 ha, which makes 50 kWh / year per square meter.

The average solar irradiation is around 1500 kWh / year per square meter.

Am I wrong?

Regarding the rise in the temperature of the Rhône, I found this on Wikipedia.

7.5 ° is a lot, especially if it is on an annual average.
It is well marked rise in the temperature of the watercourse, not only that of the water withdrawn and discharged.

"Regulatory limit (prefectural decree) of the heating of the watercourse and of temperatures:

Heating: + 7,5 ° C (reduced to + 5,5 ° C between 01/07 and 15/09)

Note: the heating is mainly due to units 2 and 3 which are not cooled by the air coolers.

Downstream temperature (calculated): 24 ° C (raised to 26 ° C for 35 days between 01/06 and 30/09)

Discharged water temperature: 30 ° C

The water withdrawals in the Rhône are as follows: (order of magnitude)

Units 2 and 3: 154 m800 / h per unit which is returned downstream
Units 4 and 5: 7 m200 / h per unit, of which 3 m1 / h are evaporated in the 800 towers. "

a+

[Bardal]

These 50 kWh / m000 / year represent all of the thermal energy potentially dissipated in the atmosphere or in the water of the Rhône; the use of cooling towers means that 2% of this potential energy is dissipated in the form of water vapor, and not in thermal form. It therefore remains to dissipate in thermal form 97,5%, or about 2,5 kWh / m1250 / year, or of the same order of magnitude as the insolation of the site. Thermal pollution is therefore very marginal.

For your calculations, then I would point out to you that, if they were correct, and the Rhone cooling three other power plants downstream from Bugey, the water from this river should arrive in Arles at a temperature above 35 ° or even 40 ° C ... This does not seem to me to be the case (too bad, the Arlésiens could heat themselves for free) ... Beware of the internet, there is sometimes anything there.

[sicetaitsimple]

For questions from your previous post, I'm trying to give you an answer tomorrow.

Hello Didier, promised thing thing due.

It may be a little complicated, it may take a few iterations. In the following I do not speak of gas (imported)

First of all, let's be clear that I have nothing technically against cogeneration. I am just trying to place myself from the point of view of the collectivity "France". For example, if a large industrialist (food industry, automobile, etc.) who has significant and relatively constant heat needs decides to equip himself with a cogen and he self-consumes his electricity production without asking anyone for anything, it's his business, that's up to him. To my knowledge, it is quite widespread in Germany because of the rather high electricity prices.

Where it gets complicated is when there are two customers, the industrial or other for heat and "the community of electricity consumers" for electricity (because even if it goes commercially through EDF under the terms of the contract purchase obligation, it is this community which will be the end customer and which will therefore pay via its invoice and the CSPE).

On your figures:
-a good cogen, for 100 at the entrance, say 40 in elec, 40 in heat, 20 in losses. 80% of total yield is in practice already a very good figure.
- for the production of pure electricity, let's say 60 percent, not in a TAC, but in a combined cycle. And the remaining 100 go to small birds or small fish.
Our industrialist needs 40 heat all year round. It is therefore necessary, in the case without cogen, to install a boiler which will consume 45 (approximately 10% of losses).

Year in review:
for Cogen: 100 consumed, 40 products in heat, 40 products in electricity.

For combined cycle and boiler:

Boiler: 45 consumed and 40 of heat produced
for the combined cycle: the difference is that it will only run when there is a need for electricity, in practice it is about 1/3 of the hours of the year.
And therefore 33 consumed (100/3) and 20 products in electricity (60/3).

Balance in gas consumption:
cogen 100
boiler + cc: 45 + 33 = 78

Heat balance: 40 in both cases

Electricity balance:

Cogen 40
CC 20

So to respond to needs, for the case CC more boiler:

- less gas consumption
- but also less electricity production

The problem is that the electricity production (excess compared to needs) of Cogen will cost the community 125 € / MWh produced (2017 figure, see source above) and that as it is surplus it will be exported at the market price of around 40 € / MWh on average at the moment. The great deal for the French!

We will also have imported more gas and emitted more CO2 (which I grant you will not be emitted from the neighbor who bought us the electricity).

Here. I hope to have been clear!