Nicolas Hulot postpones the 50% nuclear decline target set for 2025

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 ...
User avatar
Grelinette
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2007
Registration: 27/08/08, 15:42
Location: Provence
x 272

Re: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by Grelinette » 19/11/17, 10:59

It is curious, I have the impression that one finds a lot of similarity in the approach of the choice of oil as dominant energy in the XIXe century (especially for the transports), and one reproduces today with the nuclear one the same scenario as with oil, which has dethroned all other energy, especially electricity. (source: https://www.mobilitytechgreen.com/dossier-lhistoire-de-la-voiture-electrique/).

From the beginning, it seems, we already knew that oil was polluting and that pollution problems would come sooner or later. But for various reasons, oil has still imposed ...

Today, although we are aware of waste that we still do not know how to manage and which will make us eventually reach an unbearable threshold, as for oil, we continue to persevere in this way.

Finally, the history of humanity is a succession of choices and similar and limited orientations that are repeated.
0 x
Project of the horse-drawn-hybrid - The project econology
"The search for progress does not exclude the love of tradition"
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by Bardal » 19/11/17, 12:01

sen-no-sen wrote:... / ...

At first glance yes, but the technological choices stem from an ideological orientation, it seems to me therefore difficult to envisage a society turned towards the decay with nuclear power.
Originally, the choice of the electro-nuclear sector was intended to maintain energy production (and by extension economic growth) in a context of oil crisis.
Evolutionary determinisms do not deceive, large nuclear power plants to produce a lot of energy corresponds to the logic of selection K, in phase of degrowth is the selection r which will impose itself, which means from an industrial point of view, a multiplication of small production units with a high capacity for adaptation, which seems to favor REs in fact.

Continuity in nuclear power in France is a political choice based on a rational but risky working hypothesis: to the extent that peak oil will induce geopolitical and economic tensions on a world scale, maintain our electro-nuclear production capacity coupled ENR development should ensure a very relative * security of supply in times of crisis **.

However, this working hypothesis avoids the possibility of a collapse (in the strict sense of the term) which would then leave us with a fleet of aging plants suffering from maintenance defects or security problems.
On this we can not blame Nicolas Hulot because the choice of the nuclear exit should have been in the early 90 years and not on the eve of Peak oil all.

In conclusion, the question is not whether nuclear power is a solution or not, but rather to determine in which cases it is no longer possible to do without it in view of the situation.




* The development of renewable energy in the industrialized countries remains far below what would be necessary to ensure a future with much less oil.
The same is true of the development of rail networks and road transport, which are still excessively dependent on fossils.

** A lack of supply would quickly induce a national crisis (social, societal economic) and therefore a collapse.


I do not care much about this kind of reasoning, which I find confused, amalgamating and to say a little far-fetched:

- yes, without a doubt, nuclear power has been developed to cope with a crisis situation, and in a context of research and development; this is the case for all the energy sectors of that time, which took into account, more than ideological options, the particular situations of each country and the geographical, sociological, geological constraints ... But we are not going to develop here a concept of "original sin" a little strange in terms of energy, especially since the available alternatives were hardly more brilliant ... As for the size of the power stations, it is more due to the search for savings by size effect than ideological options ...

- I find your use of concepts from the study of the evolution of species absolutely irrelevant as regards the analysis of the situation of humanity; this type of social Darwinism even tends to scare me (history has unfortunately given us some examples), beyond the fact that the simple observation of our realities show us a total mixture of the classical characteristics of the K or r types. . It seemed to me that the evolution of the human species was sufficiently different from that of other living beings (I will not dwell on this subject, which is a subject in its own right) so that we can no longer to deliver what I will call an abuse of concept.
The conclusions you draw from it therefore seem to me completely wrong. I will only give a few examples (which do not constitute a demonstration!)

a- the three gorges dam belongs to the field of renewable energies; Can it illustrate your conclusion of "small production units with a high capacity for adaptation, in fact favoring renewable energies"? I have several other examples if that is not enough, beyond Sivens (not very big)
b- Nuclear power, at the moment, is for the design of micro-power plants (everyone is getting started, China, France, USA, etc.) that can be disseminated everywhere, some operating in cogeneration (production freshwater, for example), for others that can be moved in the absence of being as mobile as a motorhome); would this be an example of "small adaptive production units ..."?

I think especially that this concept of quasi-autonomy of small structures of energy production, widely used from the first hour by certain ecologists, is completely false; we are largely paying the bill for this error: photovoltaic panels come from China, wind turbines come from abroad, national and international electricity networks must be considerably strengthened and the energy independence of small structures is totally dependent on national solidarity and / or international, both for investment and for the sustainability of the supply of energy. All in a situation of interdependence characteristic of the human species; the question is political, it is not a technological problem.

- finally, I do not dare to imagine what would happen in case of collapse linked to a global energy shortage; but I feel more or less that we will have other problems far more serious than the danger of stationary power plants (by the way, it is not very difficult to stop a power plant and secure it; is done very regularly ...). I especially believe that we have everything to do so that such a collapse does not occur, while ensuring that our needs do not harm the planet we inhabit. it is even there the major problem of our time. The task seems to me enormous enough not to be burdened with improbable speculations ...
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: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by sen-no-sen » 19/11/17, 13:08

bardal wrote:I find your use of concepts from the study of the evolution of species absolutely irrelevant as regards the analysis of the situation of humanity; this type of social Darwinism even scares me (...)



Social Darwinism as the name suggests is an ideological recovery of a concept (natural selection) applied to the social sciences.
This concept was intended to legitimize the domination of groups of individuals over others, which of course was not science but propaganda.
I will not go further in the explanation, however I do not see any way in which social Darwinism interests nuclear power plants, this is irrelevant since this is a discussion on a sector of the industry!

You seem to be grasping the concept of r / K selection or self-organization in a way that is far too literal.

It is clear that the latter applies to ENR.
The dams three Gorges or even Itaipu obviously correspond to the selection mode K, Of course!
The Sivens dam project (agricultural water reservoir) also corresponds to the selection K but as part of an intensive agricultural production mode.



Another example, with the solar concentration: some panels used locally figure the selection r while the same panels in a project like that of Desertec become of the selection K.
In addition to the dimensioning of its devices, it is above all the historical framework and the field of application that will determine the structure of the entities that compose it.


As for nuclear it's the same, if the development conditions of this sector become negative, it will necessarily favor small-scale projects (r).
And there is nothing philosophical in it, the investments being low it is logically small production units that will unfold (see the DCNS mini submerged nuclear power plant project).
However, small or no waste reprocessing requires - and by nature - the construction of rare and adapted storage sites, which in a context of decline or worse crisis does not favor this type of investment, so advantage to ENR.

That's why I mentioned:it seems difficult to envisage a society turned towards decay with nuclear energy... I am less affirmative than Ahmed on the impossibility of using nuclear power, particularly when using new generation reactors, but let's say that investment in renewable energies has much lower risk capital than nuclear power, which is why the new electricity distributors are turning first to this one.

beyond the fact that the simple observation of our realities shows us a total mixture of the classical characteristics of types K or r.

Of course evolutionism does not say anything else.
The r / K selection principle to be properly understood must unfold inside domains example: the world of computing to largely favor the startups(r) while this sector exists in a period of economic stability (favoring the K boom), simply because investments are limited for innovative companies that do not offer real guarantees of success, which places the situation in a virtually unfavorable context.
In case of success the evolution does its part and the selection K everyone knows Google, Microsoft and co ...
The different sectors of life oscillate - depending on the domains - between its two main tendencies (there are others like the model CSR initiatives).

It seemed to me that the evolution of the human species was sufficiently different from that of other living beings (I will not dwell on this subject, which is a subject in its own right) so that we can no longer to deliver what I will call an abuse of concept.

The evolution of the human species takes place through nature (gene) and culture (even), but his two tendencies obey, like everything else, the great principles of thermodynamics.
So there is no abuse of concept, if you want to know more I strongly advise you to be interested in the work of François Roddier:
http://www.francois-roddier.fr/?p=49
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by moinsdewatt » 19/11/17, 13:55

Grelinette wrote:It is curious, I have the impression that we find a lot of similarity in the approach of the choice of oil as dominant energy in the 19th century (especially for transport),.


It's amazing what is posted there.

Oil for land transport is at the very beginning of the 20th century.

In the nineteenth century it was horses.

And in maritime transport it is coal that has succeeded to sailing. Not the oil.
The fuel oil boats arrived at the beginning of the 20th century.
1 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by Bardal » 19/11/17, 21:35

sen-no-sen wrote:... / ...
Social Darwinism as the name suggests is an ideological recovery of a concept (natural selection) applied to the social sciences.
This concept was intended to legitimize the domination of groups of individuals over others, which of course was not science but propaganda.
I will not go further in the explanation, however I do not see any way in which social Darwinism interests nuclear power plants, this is irrelevant since this is a discussion on a sector of the industry!

You seem to be grasping the concept of r / K selection or self-organization in a way that is far too literal.

It is clear that the latter applies to ENR.


To my knowledge, social Darwinism concerns all those who have, at least in part, applied Darwin's theories (which is not limited to natural selection) to the social and economic field. And this does not apply only to racist theses (which are rather a perversion of it), but to many authors, theorists and philosophers, from all sides and from all origins; let us quote among others Malthus, Marx, many theoreticians of liberalism ... I thought I seized in your formulation a reference to "evolutionary determinisms" which "do not deceive" ... This is not the case, of which act, it does not concern the human species, but energy choices ...

Note, that does not change much, the energy choices being, most often, made by humans ... But I do not disagree with various proposals of this last post, so ...

I do not know how to do it. On the other hand, let us leave there the principles of thermodynamics, perfectly relevant in physics, but incapable of accounting, even in metaphorical form, of human phenomena; the second principle is even in contradiction with the emergence of life ...
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by moinsdewatt » 16/09/18, 23:57

Édouard Philippe mentions the 2035 horizon for nuclear reduction at 50%

Simon Chodorge Factory New the 06 / 09 / 2018

On September 5, the Prime Minister raised the 2035 horizon to reduce to 50% the share of nuclear power generation in France. This date should be confirmed in October, with the presentation of the Multiannual Energy Program.

Reduce to 50% the share of nuclear power in electricity production, it could be for 2035. The Prime Minister mentioned this objective on Wednesday September 5, at the end of a government seminar. Édouard Philippe thus spoke of "the commitment made by the President of the Republic to allow the constitution of an energy mix by 2035 with 50% nuclear".

In November 2017, the government gave up reaching this share for 2025. This date, decided during the presidency of François Hollande, was also defended by Emmanuel Macron during his campaign. The new deadline has not been specified since November 2017. The then Minister of the Ecological and Solidarity Transition, Nicolas Hulot, was already talking about 2030 or 2035.

Is this a communication error on the part of the government? The Prime Minister's office comments in Le Figaro: "The precise date for reaching the 50% target has not yet been decided." François de Rugy, just named successor to Nicolas Hulot, also did not reveal a precise horizon during an interview with the press on Tuesday, September 4.

This new deadline should be confirmed or reversed with the Multiannual Energy Program (EPP). The government must present it at the end of October. Today, nuclear power represents about 75% of electricity production in France.


https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/e ... 50.N737899
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: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by sen-no-sen » 17/09/18, 22:06

And in 5 years it will be 2045 ... : Lol:
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: Nicolas Hulot postpones 50's nuclear decline target set for 2025




by Remundo » 17/09/18, 22:44

horns !!
0 x
Image

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 318 guests