Green energy by EON

[elephant]

heard this morning at RTBF:

EON (German electricity supplier) has focused everything on green energies.

It's good, it's beautiful, we're all happy, we're going to rush to get connected to them, except that:

EON will take care of green energy and have a debt.

the CO2 assets have been transferred to another company, which will have no debt

[Did67]

See the analysis of the newspaper Le Monde here (my post from yesterday):

https://www.econologie.com/forums/post279725.html#279725

[Obamot]

heard this morning at RTBF:

EON (German electricity supplier) has focused everything on green energies.

It's good, it's beautiful, we're all happy, we're going to rush to get connected to them, except that:

EON will take care of green energy and have a debt.

Should stop peddling stupidities, journalists!

E.ON is withdrawing from the nuke because as has been announced here for years, nuclear power costs double - and even worse - than what was "expected" (excerpt from my post from five days):



And this, without even bringing in the cost of dismantling the power plants: it couldn't last forever.
As for the withdrawal of other fossil fuels, they are either in the process of depletion, or with unstable costs, or cause unsustainable political issues.

E.ON also has the support of politicians, who voted to leave nuclear power!
So there would be something to celebrate!

E.ON is also doing precisely that to GET OUT of debt (and not the other way around), moreover they announced that their plan would not result in any layoffs ... It's normal, geothermal energy will be a central issue, and the civil engineering sector will develop: this is a good idea! When it comes to "passivating" real estate constructions, there are 95% of constructions to convert! In other words, a "market" without limit for several centuries ...! And for solar, profitable investments for millennia ...

Mebon, faced with the logic of Elephant and its ad for the E-cat, E.ON has no chance ( )

[Did67]

This is, of course, the consequence of a political decision (gradually shutting down the reactors + promoting renewable energies).

The newspaper Le Monde analyzes it like this:

Renewable energies are indeed always subsidized across the Rhine, even if the law concocted by the Minister of the Economy, Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), aims to reduce state aid.
Above all, they remain a priority for purchase, which continues to stimulate current production.
result: this overcapacity has caused prices on the wholesale markets to fall by more than a quarter since the start of 2013. And the fossil-fired power stations of large groups, particularly gas-fired but also coal-fired, have become less and less profitable.

[Obamot]

This is, of course, the consequence of a political decision (gradually shutting down the reactors + promoting renewable energies).

The blog Le Monde analysis like this:

Renewable energies are indeed still subsidized across the Rhine, even if the law concocted by the Minister of the Economy, Sigmar Gabriel (SPD), aims to reduce state aid.

Not like in Switzerland, why? Because this state absolutely does not want to see emerging that "viable solutions that work and not pseudo continuous infusion solutions from the State ...!
For example it should boost basic research to double the yield of PV to compete with China ...
So for real, I don't think that renewable energy will continue to be so subsidized in the country of Goethe!

We will also have to bring out the "disturbing" patents that were lying around in the double-locked drawers (and I am not talking about the eccentric projects which some people keep shouting that "It's for tomorrow"for fifty years ... I would like to see these people launching into the battle for renewable energies, including solar which is much more than just modestly "surunitaire"... There there is the job until the end of their days, and honestly out of all schizophrenia ...!)

And the fossil-fired power plants of large groups, particularly gas-fired plants but also coal-fired plants, have become less and less profitable

That's what I say ...

[elephant]

Have the Germans not already gone nuclear?

[Obamot]

Which Germans?

1) If you are talking about decisions of the government executive:

- No, it will be over a period of 30 or 40 years, so they have time to prepare for it.

2) If you are talking about the legislative:

- Of course it is yes! (But the power stations will be there for the duration planned until dismantling)

3) If you are talking about operators:

- On the other hand, for the operators which are private companies, I have the feeling that they can do what they want when they want and almost where they want (but to be confirmed, in any case E.ON is in the process of to realize it, so why this question). Yes what they want like selling their assets well before dismantling, as long as a municipal decision or a "Lander"allow them? As long as they respect the security of supply clauses, those of their concession, etc. (if there is any, but I think so.) And as long as all the others possible requirements have been met ... (It should be a bit of a specification like a radio / TV broadcast license, with in addition constraints on the issues of location, access and civil engineering for works and infrastructures, and of course who pays and who will pay what, in the event of [...] ... etc)

And for the rest of my post ... no further questions?

[Did67]

Have the Germans not already gone nuclear?

No.

There was a cascade of decisions: under Schröder (SPD-Greens coalition), an agreement to phase out nuclear power, translated into law; then abandonment, by the CDU / CSU government which followed, of the calendar negotiated with the operators: extension of the nuclear quota + extension of the lifespan of certain power stations (until 2036 ...). And finally, following Fukushima, in 2011, a complete reversal of the same government, with a brutal and unilateral decision to quickly - or accelerated - exit from nuclear power (that is to say: cessation of the last ones by 2022; immediate cessation of 7 or 8 old power plants considered to be the dangerous splus) / strengthening of the energy transition program (started for almost 20 years).

Here is the output program:

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/Transi ... et-si-on-s

Another thing is the "individual" decision, in a way of management, of such and such a distributor to continue to produce and / or distribute nuclear energy.

[In France, nobody does not oblige EdF to build new power plants; it is a choice of the company; we allow it - or not!]