http://videos.senat.fr/video/videos/201 ... 12508.html
I like it.
I tried the other videos and I had more trouble
Jancovici the Senate (actual cost of French nuclear kWh)
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
Thank you for this video!
91 minutes all the same, uh can you give us a summary? What is the real cost then?
I had made a subject on this Senate commission a few weeks ago: https://www.econologie.com/forums/cout-reel- ... 11681.html
91 minutes all the same, uh can you give us a summary? What is the real cost then?
I had made a subject on this Senate commission a few weeks ago: https://www.econologie.com/forums/cout-reel- ... 11681.html
Last edited by Christophe the 20 / 04 / 12, 21: 35, 1 edited once.
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Yes, I can do it .
It does not respond directly to the real cost, but it is in its arguments for the gradual and regular increase in an energy tax until 2050 to allow players (energy companies and individuals) to prepare.
It is 95% pro Nuke, with the arguments that it still avoids unbalancing the trade balance, that uranium is storable unlike oil (3 months of inventory) and gas ....
It drops the wind turbine taking the leaders as an example
* Spanish: for 20 MW of wind power, they had to install 15 MW of gas to make up for the lack of consistency
* German: gas is to be replaced by coal
* Danish: who sell the surplus at prices close to zero and buy from the Norwegians at a high price
other questions?
His intervention is I find it really good
you have his ppt here:
http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Senat_ ... ricite.pdf
but nothing beats his verve and his intelligence before senators ...
It does not respond directly to the real cost, but it is in its arguments for the gradual and regular increase in an energy tax until 2050 to allow players (energy companies and individuals) to prepare.
It is 95% pro Nuke, with the arguments that it still avoids unbalancing the trade balance, that uranium is storable unlike oil (3 months of inventory) and gas ....
It drops the wind turbine taking the leaders as an example
* Spanish: for 20 MW of wind power, they had to install 15 MW of gas to make up for the lack of consistency
* German: gas is to be replaced by coal
* Danish: who sell the surplus at prices close to zero and buy from the Norwegians at a high price
other questions?
His intervention is I find it really good
you have his ppt here:
http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Senat_ ... ricite.pdf
but nothing beats his verve and his intelligence before senators ...
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
Ah yes I see ... Thank you you saved us 1h30 of life (to do something else)
Its .pdf is good but (nothing new nonetheless) but it does not answer the question at all ... the price of real electricity in France ...
Anyway, nothing new under the sun ... but what about the cost? Doesn't he talk about it orally?
Its .pdf is good but (nothing new nonetheless) but it does not answer the question at all ... the price of real electricity in France ...
Anyway, nothing new under the sun ... but what about the cost? Doesn't he talk about it orally?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
- nonoLeRobot
- Master Kyot'Home
- posts: 790
- Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
- Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
- x 13
- Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
freddau wrote:Jancovici in the Senate [...]
He is 95% pro Nuke, with the arguments that it still avoids unbalancing the trade balance, that uranium is storable unlike petroleum (3 months of stocks) and gas ...
Bah! What does it mean to be 95% "for" such dangerous energy, which ultimately only corresponds to 5% of the total energy consumed on the planet ... (620 Mtoe, 2008 figures according to Wikipedia)
Even though we already know that the "FULL NEED»(The 100% of the energy consumed ...) could be provided by thermal solar power stations arranged in the deserts, for an equivalent surface hardly larger than Portugal ... Negligible on their scale ...!
Mébon, is defending atomic energy probably profitable?
But defending it for ecological reasons is now completely off the mark.
Priority to hydrogen and all types of solar and all types of energy storage!
It would be better for it to be 100%, for sustainable, non-polluting, almost unlimited and free energy ...
0 x
- Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
... and? ...so what ?
Swiss people are knowledgeable in hydroelectricity, and have chosen to leave nuclear power.
Whether we take the problem by one end or another nuclear is only:
5% of all energy produced worldwide.
7% of all electrical energy produced, according to this thread ...>
If this is just what needs to be replaced to get out: then it will be done quickly since we are only at the very beginning of RES ... And now that the German mamouth has started, it is to be feared that in the next fifteen years, the French will remain with their power plants - at exorbitant cost of electricity (in view of the real PR) - on their hands.
Who has a cat in the throat?
(And this, although the official figures are carefully concealed by the pro-nuclear lobby ...)
Swiss people are knowledgeable in hydroelectricity, and have chosen to leave nuclear power.
Whether we take the problem by one end or another nuclear is only:
5% of all energy produced worldwide.
7% of all electrical energy produced, according to this thread ...>
If this is just what needs to be replaced to get out: then it will be done quickly since we are only at the very beginning of RES ... And now that the German mamouth has started, it is to be feared that in the next fifteen years, the French will remain with their power plants - at exorbitant cost of electricity (in view of the real PR) - on their hands.
Who has a cat in the throat?
(And this, although the official figures are carefully concealed by the pro-nuclear lobby ...)
0 x
He answers questions from the Senate in the sense that he was asked (among other things), whether energy should be subsidized.
There he said loudly and clearly "no".
And fortunately !
=> and he says it for _all_ energies
=> His argument is to say that we must learn to save money and I agree.
Where it is a shame is that it devalues the solar / wind power by saying that it is intermittent and not storable. However there is a means of storage: water tanks.
These tanks are inexpensive and, as he says, a water supply is the most flexible source there is (power immediately available).
He also says that global warming induces a lack of precipitation and therefore a future
- lack of production for dams
- cooling problem for all thermal power plants (nuke, coal, fuel)
There he said loudly and clearly "no".
And fortunately !
=> and he says it for _all_ energies
=> His argument is to say that we must learn to save money and I agree.
Where it is a shame is that it devalues the solar / wind power by saying that it is intermittent and not storable. However there is a means of storage: water tanks.
These tanks are inexpensive and, as he says, a water supply is the most flexible source there is (power immediately available).
He also says that global warming induces a lack of precipitation and therefore a future
- lack of production for dams
- cooling problem for all thermal power plants (nuke, coal, fuel)
0 x
Solar Production + VE + VAE = short cycle electricity
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 0 Replies
- 2603 views
-
Last message by nonoLeRobot
View the latest post
31/03/07, 17:25A subject posted in the forum : Media and news: TV shows, reports, books, news ...
Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 192 guests