Nuclear Energy: all your questions!

[sen-no-sen]

There is a subject "Urbanism of the future" which fits well with the last subjects mentioned above.

https://www.econologie.com/forums/urbanisme-du-futur-la-societe-de-l-apres-petrole-t9883-10.html

[Addrelyn]

This corresponds to an annual consumption of 1044kWh, or 62,64TWh of final consumption for 60 million inhabitants, and adding the losses of 20%, 75TWh to save on domestic consumption: another 6,75 nuclear plants of 1450MW less .

This would be true if all the sanitary water was heated with electricity, but it seems to me that boilers are very rarely electric.
For the rest of the calculation, I agree with you, I checked a little, I think you're right. I was wrong and I took the total electricity produced… My bad!
Why don't we do it like that. Why are there plans to replace existing power plants with EPRs rather than setting up a system? There must be another reason than the costs and the nastiness of the people who work in the nuclear industry.

In addition, taking my little calculation with your values, producing on average 1.25kWh per household would amount to installing 83m² of solar panels per household (approximately)
Edit: I read the rest of your post and you find the same value, perfect!

Keeping centralized production, add 7% of losses and adjustments, reaching 305TWh. With a more distributed production, we can also reduce these losses: let's start on 300TWh, it's simpler :-)

The reason in France is not centralized, there is a lot of loss in the wires but it is the counterpart to have a stability of the networks. If a central unit is loose, no one is cut off, another supports the load without problem. With a decentralized network, you risk having cuts. It's just to present the other side of the thing that I'm playing devil's advocate a bit ... But admit that you would be bored without me.

A 1300MW nuclear power plant is 0,037142km2 or 3,7ha in the South, 0,76470km2 or 7,6ha in the North, and 0,054166km2 or 5,4ha on average.

Are you sure ?

Otherwise very good calculation, very complete (much more than mine).
Now find out why we don't do it! (and if there is no good reason, let's try to change that)

[bernardd]

An average production of 13 TWh over a year can be obtained with one of the following means of production:
Nuclear : 1 EPR unit
Wind: 3 onshore wind turbines with a power of 000 MW or 2 offshore wind turbines with 1 MW
Photovoltaic solar: 13 million installations of 10 m² with a unit power of 1 kW
Flame thermal:
Biomass: 21 million tonnes of wood
Charcoal: 4,6 million tonnes
Oil : 2,9 million tonnes
Natural gas : 2,1 billion m3
This document contains many interesting and well explained things. (Even if it comes from EDF ... and so it's a bit biased)
http://www.debatpublic-penly3.org/docs/dossier-mo/dossier-mo_complet.pdf

With the basic information included in the previous posts, we can now see that this argument of EDF to pass the EPR plant at Penly is false for photovoltaics and for biomass.

In the previous posts, we came to:

In summary, to produce 102/140 / 204kWh corresponding to 1m2 of solar, a nuclear power plant must produce to take into account its losses: 122/168 / 244kWh

13TWh of nuclear production, this then corresponds to 106/77 / 53km2 of photovoltaic panels.

Or 10/8/5 million installations of 10m2 with a unit peak power of 1,4kWp and a total of 15/11 / 7GWp on average.

8 million installations instead of 13, it still makes a big mistake for specialists.

But reduced to the number of dwellings, that makes just 2,6m2 of solar panels per dwelling: rather reasonable, isn't it?

Similarly, an onshore wind turbine has 2 hours of full power equivalent per year according to this footnote 2 page 38, which makes for a small 1kWp wind turbine a production of 2200kWh. This corresponds to a production of 2,64MWh nuclear with the corresponding 20% ​​loss, or 5 million small wind turbines of 1kWp.

A small wind turbine per dwelling in France represents 6 EPR power plants, or 78TWh of nuclear production, or 66TWh of final consumption.

For biomass, 1 t of wood pellets produces 5 MW of heat. To produce 13TWh of heating instead of electric heating, 2,6Mt of wood pellets is enough, or 86kg per unit: rather low.

We are far from the 21Mt indicated by EDF.

Furthermore, it is very surprising that EDF is not talking about solar thermal energy or domestic biomass cogeneration.

Solar thermal energy has an efficiency per m2 which is 4 times greater than photovoltaic panels: 60% for vacuum collectors instead of 14% for photovoltaic panels. To produce 13TWh of solar heating, just 0,7m2 of thermal collectors per housing ...

[Remundo]

Furthermore, it is very surprising that EDF is not talking about solar thermal energy or domestic biomass cogeneration.

Hi Bernard,

Is it really so "amazing"?

[bernardd]

This corresponds to an annual consumption of 1044kWh, or 62,64TWh of final consumption for 60 million inhabitants, and adding the losses of 20%, 75TWh to save on domestic consumption: another 6,75 nuclear plants of 1450MW less .

This would be true if all the sanitary water was heated with electricity, but it seems to me that boilers are very rarely electric.

You're right, badly awake and gone on my way, I forgot to make a quota. You found an error: 1 point :-) I wouldn't say that boilers are rarely electric, it's the norm in town and for all subscribers with a nightly rate, don't know where to find the information.

However, this gives an idea of ​​the losses due to the fact that we throw out the hot water: we get tired of doing CMV for much less ...

Why don't we do it like that. Why are there plans to replace existing power plants with EPRs rather than setting up a system? There must be another reason than the costs and the nastiness of the people who work in the nuclear industry.

There are more people who follow than people who reflect on the consequences of their daily choices. Much more. Really more!

Keeping centralized production, add 7% of losses and adjustments, reaching 305TWh. With a more distributed production, we can also reduce these losses: let's start on 300TWh, it's simpler :-)

The reason in France is not centralized, there is a lot of loss in the wires but it is the counterpart to have a stability of the networks.

This is why I did not speak of "centralized network", but of "centralized production" :-)

A 1300MW nuclear power plant is 0,037142km2 or 3,7ha in the South, 0,76470km2 or 7,6ha in the North, and 0,054166km2 or 5,4ha on average.

Are you sure ?

I'm tired, there may be an error there.

I had reached a production of 7,44TWh per power plant on average, and an equivalent production of 122/168 / 244kWh per m2 of photovoltaic energy. It's been 61/44 / 30km2: actually I made a mistake on this point. I just had to go wrong with a little thousand :-(

I will edit to correct.

Otherwise very good calculation, very complete (much more than mine).

Thank you

Now find out why we don't do it! (and if there is no good reason, let's try to change that)

That's kind of the goal

[bernardd]

Furthermore, it is very surprising that EDF is not talking about solar thermal energy or domestic biomass cogeneration.

Hi Bernard,

Is it really so "amazing"?

Always the word to laugh

[Remundo]

I think it's cracking

[Addrelyn]

With the basic information included in the previous posts, we can now see that this argument of EDF to pass the EPR plant at Penly is false for photovoltaics and for biomass.

There on the other hand I do not agree, the error that you find comes from the method to obtain the figures and not from a calculation error.
Your calculations are order of magnitude calculations, extremely interesting to get an idea and study the feasibility. EDF's figures which are in fact the figures of the environment ministry quite stupidly put iso EPR (1 EPR instead of 9/10 rep) are not calculations but comparisons from measurements (from what I understand). After, the measurements have an uncertainties, your calculations too, the important thing for us is that the order of magnitude is the same.

So some parts of your (edit: penultimate) last post do not make sense.

[bernardd]

With the basic information included in the previous posts, we can now see that this argument of EDF to pass the EPR plant at Penly is false for photovoltaics and for biomass.

There on the other hand I do not agree, the error that you find comes from the method to obtain the figures and not from a calculation error.

Did I say it is a miscalculation?

What is even more serious, because it is mainly a question of taking into account 2 important factors which are the self-consumption of the power stations and the treatment of waste, and the losses of network.

Furthermore, EDF does not even take into account the own figures of its renewable energy subsidiary for photovoltaics, by indicating 1kWp / m2 instead of 1,4.

Finally, a factor of 10 on biomass is starting to do, right?

Your calculations are order of magnitude calculations, extremely interesting to get an idea and study the feasibility. EDF's figures which are in fact the figures of the environment ministry quite stupidly put iso EPR (1 EPR instead of 9/10 rep) are not calculations but comparisons from measurements (from what I understand).

When to throw the error on the ministry, it is at the level of the schoolyard: if they are unable to verify such simple figures, how to trust them for the security plan of their central?

It is also serious because the ministry's general public brochure makes these errors and omissions, while the real figures are sparingly indicated in less accessible documents: a coincidence?

Another concern is the complete silence on the possibilities of substitution by thermal solar, by domestic cogeneration or by small wind turbines.

Finally, the presentation of big figures is clearly made to impress, while the systemic gains due to the distribution of production are overlooked.

After, the measurements have an uncertainties, your calculations too, the important thing for us is that the order of magnitude is the same.

Between self-consumption and the error on the photovoltaic, there is a 60% error ...

As for biomass, it is only 1000% error: it is precisely because the orders of magnitude are wrong that it is serious!

The engineering technique is only 20% error :-) But it is above all the inventory of existing influence factors with their quantification.

[Addrelyn]

A country where Bernard would be happy:

http://www.stuk.fi/sateilytietoa/sateilytilanne/en_GB/sateilytilanne/

Day-to-day radioactive dose in cities ...