NegaWatt 2017 Scenario Online

[sicetaitsimple]

I explored a domainne which concerns the future of humanity, and which will allow to leave fossil energy: energy storage has high yield and low cost.

Hop, hop!
Little feedback from this unfortunate accident on a bridge in the Tarn, the deviation for the miraculous energy storage systems is here:
inventions, innovations / motor-generator-liquid-nitrogen-t15588-420.html

Already 43 pages, it would be a shame not to enjoy it.

[Eric DUPONT]

If it was simple just became aware of the heaviness of his mind.

[sicetaitsimple]

If it was simple just became aware of the heaviness of his mind.

See inventions, innovations / motor-generator-liquid-nitrogen-t15588-420.html # p372568

[Christophe]

The problem is related to the fact that this information is not fair. Based on the German experience we come to a nuclear output (in France) for about 2500 3000 billion euros ...

That seems to me huge, an EDF source I presume?

Verification!! Hopla !!

Let's say an investment EnR mix 1 € / Wc ... load factor of mix 25% ... so 1 € invests will produce on 1 year: 1 W * 8750 h * 0.25 = 2,2 kWh ...

Assuming 2500 billion invested we have 2500 * 2,2 billion kWh = 5500 billion kWh = 5,5 billion MWh = 5,5 million GWh = 5500 TWh it is 10 times more than the current French production (about 550 TWh)!

So these figures are bogus and exaggerated complements! Even if we double or triple the price for night storage we do not arrive at a factor of deception of 10!

Or do they include nuclear dismantling? What a joke!

So please source? Calculation methodology?

[sen-no-sen]

That seems to me huge, an EDF source I presume?

Verification!! Hopla !!

Let's say an investment EnR mix 1 € / Wc ... load factor of mix 25% ... so 1 € invests will produce on 1 year: 1 W * 8750 h * 0.25 = 2,2 kWh ...

Assuming 2500 billion invested we have 2500 * 2,2 billion kWh = 5500 billion kWh = 5,5 billion MWh = 5,5 million GWh = 5500 TWh it is 10 times more than the current French production (about 550 TWh)!

So these figures are bogus and exaggerated complements! Even if we double or triple the price for night storage we do not arrive at a factor of deception of 10!

Or do they include nuclear dismantling? What a joke!

So please source? Calculation methodology?

You included the back up I suppose?

[sicetaitsimple]

In my opinion you are not talking about the same thing ....

One (Sen-no-sen) speaks of the total additional cost over 20 or 30 years compared to a "business as usual" scenario based on the German history but which is still weighed down by "enormous" costs of the renewable energies installed. let's say 5 to 15 years ago, it has dropped since then. The 2500 to 3000 Mld seem to me to be largely overestimated.

The other (Christophe) talks about the costs of building a system that would emerge from nowhere but that would not work, there is no 100% EnR system (in France) to 1 € / kW (with a load factor of 25% ...) that would ensure the supply of electricity 24 / 24.It is unfortunately night once a day and there are from time to time periods without wind.And therefore actually back-up needed.

[Eric DUPONT]

30 years is not the duration of a photovoltaic installation but the duration of depreciation for the credit. There is no reason for a photovoltaic instalation to not produce for 60 years as long as the glass retains its transparency. For the cost of photovoltaics on the ground should rather be based on 50 cents the kW seen that one is already 60 cents for some ground power and as so said EDF must be built much to lower costs. so 50 cents would be more just as a basis for calculation. For the wind turbine at sea we arrive at wind turbines with blades of 200 meter of diameter which produce 40% of the time and still these tot of load are not optimized since one tries rather to lower the cost of kW than to increase the the taxes. It is possible to arrive at higher load rates for offshore wind turbines. At the end the BAckup is rather weak and that we have a kw that has almost nothing to listen and well we can not stock.

It is clear that the nuclear loby plays on misinformation of the public to continue to be financed unable to finance itself.No private insurer will not take charge of the risk of terrorism, or of any kind concerning the nuclear . Frankly we are not taken for quiches. it's like a communist regime.

[GuyGadebois]

It is clear that the nuclear loby plays on public misinformation to continue to be financed unable to finance itself.

He is us. And it is true that question opacity and misinformation, the nuclear lobby is here. (Not here, there )

[sicetaitsimple]

At the end the BAckup is rather weak and that we have a kw that has almost nothing to listen and well we can not stock.

Well yes, when you have a kWh which costs "almost" nothing, it can be stored in a system which also costs "almost" nothing. It's unstoppable logic ... Electricity will soon be "almost" free, that's great.

One even wonders, to come back to the subject, why these "oxen" of Negawatt would try to reduce the final consumption of energy?
You should write to them.