sicetaitsimple wrote:The hypotheses:
- carbon intensity France: 118tCO2 / M $ (source PWC LCEI 2016, source having "a reputation for global rigor other than ademe"
according to you a little higher)
- € / $ parity = 1,25
- EPR cost € 12bn
- EPR production: 1650MW, utilization coefficient 80%, over 60 years.
I arrive, unless I am mistaken, at 2,5g / kWh, a little more than half an ass in the SE unit (econologist system).
Thanks for the digital application, I check:
The "gray" CO2 of the EPR is 118 * 12 * 000 = 1,25 M Tons!
Production over 60 years at 80% use will be 1650 * 0,8 * 24 * 365 * 60 = 693 MWh = 792 GWh = 000 TWh
The g / kWh = kg / MWh = T / GWh ... i.e. 1 / 770 = 000g / kWh ... Ok so I validate the 693 g / kWh ...
But it is obviously ONLY gray CO2, a kind of amortization therefore unmistakable ... we must now add the use CO2 ...
If we compare to a car, gray CO2 is 50 to 100 km equivalent according to studies ...
sicetaitsimple wrote:We can then discuss endlessly the method and the hypotheses, again I just wanted to see the order of magnitude we arrived at.
Let us start from the hypothesis, 50 years of technology gap, that gray CO2 is a bit better for the EPR than PWRs ... It is therefore possible that the gray CO2 of current power plants can be in the 4 gr / kWh ... But this is the order of magnitude of the figures "EDF" ALL INCLUSIVE ...
Obviously in nuclear power we will be much lower (Nieme repetition) than in generation of flame electricity ... but advancing such low values discredits the nuclear industry (like those who speak of water injection and decline consumption of 70% ...) ... Well shit here I give pro nuclear arguments!