Multi-annual energy program 2019-2028

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Multi-annual energy program 2019-2028




by sicetaitsimple » 21/01/20, 13:58

For those interested, the summary of the PPE as it has just been put online for final consultation.

It's rich, 44 pages for the summary!

synthesis_finale_projet_de_ppe2020_vf.pdf
PPE
(1.27 million) Downloaded times 463
1 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by sen-no-sen » 21/01/20, 15:25

What you must remember:

Final energy consumption: drop 7,6% in 2023 and 16,5% in 2028 compared to 2012 A reduction of 6,3% in 2023 and 15,4% in 2028 compared to 2018 Primary consumption

Primary consumption of fossil fuels: drop 20% of primary fossil fuel consumption in 2023 and 35% in 2028 compared to 2012

Nuclear power generation capacities: 4 to 6 nuclear reactors closed by 2028 including those at Fessenheim. Adjustable velcro closure 14 nuclear reactors by 2035, when 50% of nuclear electricity will be reached in the electricity mix


Economic growth :Rise 1,3 point of GDP in 2023 compared to the trend scenario, and 2,1 point in 2028

Gross household disposable income
:Rise household purchasing power of 1 point in 2023, compared to the trend scenario and 2,2 points in 2028


Basically the government wants to succeed in decrease overall energy consumption,decrease the share of fossils and nuclear and succeed in increase purchasing power and growth, we are clearly in the doctrine of the firm Mac kinsey of decoupling growth from fossil fuels (and even nuclear!).
It's nice to dream!
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide#

Image
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
plasmanu
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2847
Registration: 21/11/04, 06:05
Location: The 07170 Lavilledieu viaduct
x 180

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by plasmanu » 21/01/20, 15:27

0 x
"Not to see Evil, not to hear Evil, not to speak Evil" 3 little monkeys Mizaru
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by sicetaitsimple » 21/01/20, 18:20

sen-no-sen wrote: Economic growth :Rise 1,3 point of GDP in 2023 compared to the trend scenario, and 2,1 point in 2028

Gross household disposable income
:Rise household purchasing power of 1 point in 2023, compared to the trend scenario and 2,2 points in 2028


Basically the government wants to succeed in decrease overall energy consumption,decrease the share of fossils and nuclear and succeed in increase purchasing power and growth, we are clearly in the doctrine of the firm Mac kinsey of decoupling growth from fossil fuels (and even nuclear!).
It's nice to dream!
[


No, at least I don't read like that. What is written is that compared to a baseline trend scenario based on a model, the effect of all the measures provided for by the PPE (there is a lot of investment) would lead to an increase in GDP of 2,1 points in 2028, or on average 0,2 points / year over the period.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by Christophe » 21/01/20, 18:33

I think like sen-no-sen ... this document is paved with good intentions! : Cheesy:

Regarding growth, we do not understand if it is a condition or a consequence ... in my opinion it is a condition.

And since we will not reach these growth objectives, this plan will fall apart. When we read that the State wants to invest 1 GW = around 1 billion / year in PV plants alone, I think I am dreaming: we are already unable to make ends meet the current budgets ... and EDF has always slowed down renewable energy ( A proof: the offer of escrology of "Moi Toit et Moi" of EdF EnR) ...

If renewable energy and reduced energy consumption were a real source of growth for politicians, there would not be 10 million precarious people in France ... Kyoto dates from 1997: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocole_de_Kyoto

Sorry to be realistic! Or rather realistic!
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by sicetaitsimple » 21/01/20, 18:45

Christophe wrote:I think like sen-no-sen ... this document is paved with good intentions! : Cheesy:


Think who you want! : Lol:
But Sen-no-Sen's reading of it is wrong. I only put the summary, will read the PPE itself (396 pages!).

On the rest, of course, the result in 2023 and 2028 will necessarily be different from what is written. Would it be best to write nothing and let the market fend for itself? In terms of energy, I don't think so .....

And it is "planned for", it deals with two successive periods of 5 years, after the first 5 years (in 2023) we take stock, we reset on the true values ​​obtained, we reset the objectives of the following period (2023/2028), and we write the scenario for in 5 to 10 years (2028/2033). At least it gives a little visibility to the different actors.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by Christophe » 21/01/20, 18:54

sicetaitsimple wrote:will read the PPE itself (396 pages!).


I leave this pleasure to those who are (handsomely) paid for ... the summary is enough for me ...

sicetaitsimple wrote:Would it be best to write nothing and let the market fend for itself? In terms of energy, I don't think so .....


Well I think the opposite: the PV solar market has largely recovered after the cessation or reduction of state aid ...

sicetaitsimple wrote:And it is "planned for", it deals with two successive periods of 5 years, at the end of the first 5 years we take stock, we reset on the true values ​​obtained, we reset the objectives of the following period, and we write the scenario for in 5 to 10 years. At least it gives a little visibility to the different actors.


Only 3 years to wait ... : Cheesy:
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by sicetaitsimple » 21/01/20, 19:20

Christophe wrote:Only 3 years to wait ... : Cheesy:


In 5 years, all Belgian nuclear power will close (6000MW), at least that's what is expected. What have the Belgians planned? Even a little flawed PEP might not hurt them : Lol: !
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by sen-no-sen » 21/01/20, 20:53

sicetaitsimple wrote:
No, at least I don't read like that. What is written is that compared to a baseline trend scenario based on a model, the effect of all the measures provided for by the PPE (there is a lot of investment) would lead to an increase in GDP of 2,1 points in 2028, or on average 0,2 points / year over the period.


What I'm reading is that less less less equals more for the writers of this report.
In physics less more less equals even less.
We are very far from the account compared to what is desired, because it comes from the wish (developed piggyback, the river) and the falcon yaka.
Likewise, there is talk of lowering the nuclear share by 25% while increasing the number of electric vehicles, all while the government orders 6 EPRs ... or not ... France has not decided to build - or not - new EPR reactors, and the debate is still open. Emmanuel Macron simply asked EDF to present, in mid-2021, a complete dossier, in order to be able to make a decision on this thorny subject.
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/10/15/la-piste-de-six-nouveaux-epr-il-est-troublant-de-constater-que-la-feuille-de-route-envoyee-au-pdg-d-edf-n-etudie-qu-un-seul-scenario_6015596_3234.html

Before embarking on a multi-year plan, it would already be good to define a clear direction in terms of energy production.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Multi-annual energy programming 2019-2028




by sicetaitsimple » 21/01/20, 21:23

sen-no-sen wrote:Before embarking on a multi-year plan, it would already be good to define a clear direction in terms of energy production.


I think that there is a real confusion between what one thinks on the substance of the PPE (and I never said it seems to me that his directions satisfied me personally in all areas) and the fact to have a PEP which gives objectives, which one could perhaps judge unrealistic or on the contrary timid, but which gives at least a course to 5 or 10 years, which will guide public policies and the initiatives of the various actors.

If we go wrong then too bad, we will readjust 5 years later, that's life .... In the meantime the price of oil or gas may have been multiplied by 4, or on the contrary divided by two, which will have disturbed everything, but that we can hardly blame our elected officials (current and past) for being able to do much.

I don't know what you mean by "setting a clear direction for energy production." For me, that's what a PPE is, it's "clear" but with a necessarily limited time horizon.

Now the GEN4 for everyone that we decide now and we don't move until it works, you need to talk about it with Eclectron!
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google Adsense [Bot] and 216 guests