How many nuclear power plant + to ride electric?

[jonule]

still in the quest to take the subject in a realistic way, I propose to take a different thread from the survey "electric car: polluting?" which deals with the nuclear aspect of production, from ore extraction through transformation into fuel, through to waste management, including the inevitable accidents:
link error correcting Jonule

I read the first page of the subject launched by recyclinage which pretty much sums up the subject, and its links:

how many nuclear plants if all electric:
"
The terms "large scale" inevitably arouse curiosity. For intellectual exercise, and assuming all the technical challenges of the electric car solved, DDmagazine has calculated the impact of a large-scale switch to the electric car on the construction of new electric production capacities. We calculate orders of magnitude.
European cars: about 280 million cars (source Quid)
Average distance traveled per car per year: 14 000 km (estimate on the French base)
Consumption in kWh 100 km for an electric car: 15 kWh (see article)

Annual electricity consumption if 100% of the European car fleet was electric: 588 TWH (588 billion kWh); it is about the annual production of electricity in France. (Source EDF)

In terms of capacity, this represents approximately 55 EPR nuclear reactors or to 4 700 km² of solar panels, a little over half of the surface of the Dordogne (see our article for the components of the calculation). That's the calculation. Rest technical discussions, if they had any, would focus on the ability to store solar energy (see article) and the cal nuclear-related denounced by environmentalists.
"
http://www.ddmagazine.com/200905151187/ ... rales.html

So if I take the math to 1 million electric vehicles 10.000 km a day (I'm short of estimates), this is:
1 electric car consuming 15kWh for 100km
10.000 km traveled per year it makes 1500 kWh is 1.5MWh
to 1.000.000 1.5 vehicles it makes TWh (billion kWh 1.5!)
for a car park that would 300.000.000 450 TWh per year but keep 1.000.000 vehicles currently

if we read it is about the current production of EDF (source, 55 reactors) then 300 milllion electric vehicles can recharge at night, without increasing the nuclear fleet?
of course except in winter when it would very cold (which happens to Ascending with climate contrast) ...
and is a little absurd to believe that night, the electricity consumption is zero, which will result in another article later ...
and then, if the vehicles run on the day and want to fill a lack of autonomy, we must build new plants?

this is the electricity consumed, but what would it produce electricity?
if we read this article "Primary energy, final energy, power":
"
hen you consume 1 kWh of electricity from a nuclear power plant, it has spent 3 times as much energy (order of magnitude) to produce it, i.e. 3 kWh. The 2 kWh "lost" heat the water of a river or the sea, or the atmosphere. For a thermal power station with flame (gas, fuel or coal), it is more or less the same thing, the most modern of them managing, however, to spend only twice as much energy as they deliver. on the network (still order of magnitude).

Your consumption of 1 kWh of electricity is called final consumption, while the energy that had to be produced or "burned" in a thermal power station to deliver it to you (3kWh) is called primary energy.
"
http://www.ddmagazine.com/2413-Energie- ... sance.html

3 + production time, it makes both 3 + power plants, it would be 165 100 nuclear plants to be built in +

voila, the calculation is obviously to mature in order to keep a realistic approach of the "problem";

[Christophe]

That's why it would power the future electric cars EXCLUSIVELY with renewable energy sources.

The photovoltaic use in vehicle charging is (very) profitable without state intervention made heavy taxation of petroleum products !!

I had demonstrated in 2009 is now even more profitable since the price of PV has dropped.

I had even made the "plans" for a solar carport!
https://www.econologie.com/forums/projet-pv- ... t8233.html



Project that was never realized for family personal reasons ...

[jean.caissepas]

That's why it would power the future electric cars EXCLUSIVELY with renewable energy sources.

The photovoltaic use in vehicle charging is (very) profitable without state intervention made heavy taxation of petroleum products !!

I agree with you, but in my case and many others, this facility should be carried out my workplace and so my employer because I could recharge my car with panels at home the night!

Given the current economic crisis, few companies are willing to offer it to their employees.

The only other solution is to have a large storage system, at a very reasonable cost, and with good longevity as the soon offer the company EOS Energy (30 of life, + 10 000 cycles, Zinc-air technology ).

Link : http://www.eosenergystorage.com/products

These batteries just have a defect for cars, for 6 kw stored, it can not be returned by that time.
To have 12 KW (less powerful vehicle), you need a battery 72 KW / h!

But fixed storage is really great!

[I Citro]

I thank you, ChristopheTo reframe the subject.
We are typically in the presence of a disinformation maneuver ...

The electric vehicle anti-Lobbie continues to polish his lies and deceive us as here involving the consumption of 300 Millions of electric vehicles in Europe in electricity production in France, part of which is sold to our European neighbors ...

This did not happen before poura 20 years for several reasons:
- Factory production capacity.
- Pace of renewal of the existing fleet.
- Inertia population before the paradigm shift.
- Strong mobilization lobbies to slow the inevitable transition.
- ...

And of course we brush aside renewable energies to focus on nuclear power and declare peremptorily: "the electric car is nuclear".

Dishonesty or manipulation of the above statement is to say that we should 55 additional nuclear reactors when the equivalent of only 20% of a single reactor would be needed in 20 years according to current estimates with figures relayed by jonule.

It's not a secret, I advocate for responsible mobility and mainly runs on electricity by car and scooter, and I produce more than 50% of this electricity renewably in my little suburban house.

There is no need for nuclear power in addition to electrical roll, instead, and it bothers much the nuclear industry, for electric vehicles, which already carries milion passengers in France each day (trains, trams, Metro , lifts, escalators, ...) and recently, electric bicycles, scooters, cars, buses, ... are a phenomenal opportunity for the development of renewable energy they improve, as you pointed out, considerably pERFORMANCE. ..

Finally, it is still preferable to recycle panels and batteries (which are known to do) than bury nuclear waste.

[Christophe]

I agree with you, but in my case and many others, this facility should be carried out my workplace and so my employer because I could recharge my car with panels at home the night!

Yes or have a buffer battery with the carport which will discharge the night in the car ...

This battery would be static so much cheaper than a car battery because its mass would not matter ...

Y also has the solution to have 2 cars (thus 4 2 because for Madame) but I doubt this is interesting éconologiquement eh!

[raymon]

YAKA replace electric water heaters with solar water heaters and there is no need to build new nuke plant. This is valid for one year not in winter.

[jonule]

We are typically in the presence of a disinformation maneuver ...

citro the contrary, it is easy to get quotes that I try to be realistic, not to the exit at every turn. in addition, the figures are quoted in articles, not by me but by ddmagazine.

actual figures are given for the worst, but it's not beyond the reach and just a vision + realistic, you should participate in it rather than complain, I do not denigrate renewable energy is obvious and I think (some) as Christophe, electric vehicles should be distilled to measure the production of these renewable energy, but holding the information from these figures? they are known, or at least it is calculated? who knows how many% of French production surplus at night, for example?

you can lower 300 million vehicles 1 million is not the problem: the key is to know how long it will be passed to 300, and during that time what the% renewable energy, in my opinion. ..
you can add the number of 80% nuclear energy for 20% renewable, a factor 0.8.

Again it is to have a realistic view, do not lower the debate, citro.

It's not a secret, I advocate for responsible mobility and mainly runs on electricity by car and scooter, and I produce more than 50% of this electricity renewably in my little suburban house.

So you roll 50% nuclear, you have therefore increased this production by your use of électricté, it's a fact!

I ask only one thing: that all these figures are given objectively by both the state as EDF and environmentalists, saying when you exceed X million electric vehicles, Y Wh million will be produced in order non-nuclear, I do not see the harm in that?

Dishonesty or manipulation of the above statement is to say that we should 55 additional nuclear reactors when the equivalent of only 20% of a single reactor would be needed in 20 years according to current estimates with figures relayed by jonule.

again I am not dishonest and I do not try to manipulate the numbers that I presented are given by the ddmagazine site, but with whom you do not agree:
- An electric vehicle consumes 15kWh for 100km
- An average vehicle made 10.000 km per year
- The electric car fleet will be in 10.000.000 10 years
- To consume 1 kWh output socket, you have to produce at source 3kWh
- There 55 nuclear power plants in France

which one are you going to question: 2.58 instead of 3? where do you get this figure please, the source? I would like that we arrive at a "compromise", a kind of average between the figures coming from different sources, for example.

you see, if I ask you to participate, it is good to be realistic and to advance "a little" on this subject, so stop calling me a mad conspirator who only seeks to manipulate and to be dishonest, because it is turn against you if you play this game!

to reassure you, I don't think either that the "off-peak hours" package decreases with the advent of the rechargeable electric car at night, but I don't hope either, so I raise the point; =)

[dirk pitt]

... when you consume 1 kWh of electricity from a nuclear power plant, it has spent 3 times more energy (order of magnitude) to produce it, i.e. 3 kWh. The 2 kWh "lost" heat the water of a river or the sea, or the atmosphere ....

Your consumption of 1 kWh of electricity is called final consumption, while the energy that had to be produced or "burned" in a thermal power station to deliver it to you (3kWh) is called primary energy.
"

3 + production time, it makes both 3 + power plants, it would be 165 100 nuclear plants to be built in +;

enorme misleading amalgam !!!!
3 the times are thermal energy which is produced by the nuclear reaction.
if one consumes more electric 1Wh must be produced 1Wh of electric +, not 3.
So even in the extreme case that you cite: 300M of electric vehicles or 588Twh, it's not 55 3 reactors times.

more if we talk about numbers, there is talk of vehicles that will never be electrical in 30ans: utilities, vehicles dedicated to long distances, etc.
we can dream of leapfrogging on batteries but the reality will impose itself: only a fraction of the park can become electric and will become only when the fuel is much more expensive than now.
Never so we will not 300M EV in Europe in 30ans to come.
if so you go back to your other example (more realistic) to 1M VE in France on 30M VP (accounts I no utilities), so you get a electric consumption ranges around 1TWh a year (since the average annual kilometric EVs will be lower than the average of the park)
So I repeat here what I said in your first post: Additional 1TWh, it's about 0.2% increase in the French annual production(I was deceived me 10 a factor in my first response).

If we go further and imagine that 10Millions VE in France, it would provided that 2% increase in production.

I think you're wrong target on nuclear cons. the electric heating in France represented approximately annual 60TWh. where there is gain to do.

[Jumpy]

Hello

here is my modest contribution to the debate

1 - the new law in July 2013 on limiting advertising night lighting electricity frees what 400 000 recharge electric vehicles each night like winter. So no immediate panic: EDF will not collapse because of EVs especially with thousands of small VE delivered in France each month (VP and utilities)

2- Germany, in its energiewende, plans the construction over 2012-2030 of 54 Gw of offshore wind turbines (French nuke park = 55 Gw) with a Pmax> 50% and partial or complete production over 363 days / year

in other words, this means that such a park could feed the 280 million European VE

in other words, France as Germany and like any country with coasts on a sea or ocean, or the sun, will have no desire to feed their millions of cars, buses, trucks electricity or hydrogen from electrolysis and thus bring 0 the share of oil in transportation. The offshore wind turbines and PV panels can easily power all those vehicles.

[sen-no-sen]

In terms of capacity, this represents approximately 55 EPR nuclear reactors or to 4 700 km² of solar panels, a little over half of the surface of the Dordogne (see our article for the components of the calculation). That's the calculation. Rest technical discussions, if they had any, would focus on the ability to store solar energy (see article) and the cal nuclear-related denounced by environmentalists.
"
http://www.ddmagazine.com/200905151187/ ... rales.html

Memory is 18 EPR reactors (Based on 1600 Mega Watts by reactors) need to be built to run the entire fleet if it was ... fully electric at a cost of approximate construction 130 billion.
This does not keep account of the nocturnal recovery, it would be possible to reduce this figure.