real cost of electricity in France - Inquiry

[perplexed]

the problem being to be autonomous and provide for our needs in electricity by being independent



In fact I seek to have an idea with all our type of production available in France what that would give overall by transferring the nuclear
let's say X terrestrial wind turbine + Y marine wind turbine + Z dam i + T biomass + T panel immediately the whole being to support

I'm a bit lost, would someone do it or is there something already?

@obamot
your deserted project looks interesting but we would be addicted too.
but I still prefer being dependent with manageable risks than being independent and having concerns

[Obamot]

the problem being to be autonomous and provide for our needs in electricity by being independent



In fact I seek to have an idea with all our type of production available in France what that would give overall by transferring the nuclear
let's say X terrestrial wind turbine + Y marine wind turbine + Z dam i + T biomass + T panel immediately the whole being to support

I'm a bit lost, would someone do it or is there something already?

@obamot
your deserted project looks interesting but we would be addicted too.
but I still prefer being dependent with manageable risks than being independent and having concerns

Again you contradict yourself: at the beginning of the post you say that you would like an independent mode of energy production, and at the end of the say that you would eventually agree to be dependent "If the risk were ... manageable"!

I happen to want both

However, the risk linked to nuclear power is NOT manageable, because atomic pollution lasts for millennia (and at least in centuries) ... Each disaster therefore adds its dose of poison to the previous one: it is a CUMULATIVE effect, that we cannot afford. Only one example which shows that we are already at the limit of this system: world fishing which was already on the verge of agony BEFORE Fukushima, is even more so now ...

In short, no, it is not contradictory to be INDEPENDENT and without worry ON THE contrary.

But you have to know what kind of society we want to go for future generations ... and in which we want to live today.

Nuclear representing only 5% makes it very marginal! I propose to tackle the remaining 95%, there is the possibility of doing many concrete things:

— Heating of buildings: in light means such as heat storage in giant thermos built inside homes (such as the development of JAUSSI constructions in Switzerland). Zero Co2 emissions, zero heating cost (except the initial investment ...). As also in heavy means: storage at medium depth by drilling at -300m and creation of thermal balloons in the basement ... But it is much more expensive: on the other hand, we will be able to rehabilitate old energy-consuming constructions, because it reigns at this depth, a constant temperature of 20 ° C and without the use of Heat Pumps (or PAC) ...

— Housing, industry: in addition to storage by the above means: photovoltaics is already competitive with nuclear (see performance / yields with new cells). As long as we admit that nuclear is subsidized, and that it stops! One of the reasons why we don't have a figure, no doubt!

— Transport: hydrogen will arrive in force in a few years (release of the new zero-emission Toyota in just over two years). Hydrogen can be stored: in hydrogen fuel cells (see Nissan Leaf, already out), in a new form with this Toyota, in liquid form in formic acid, or in solid form with magnesium pellets. ..

- And finally, in heavy equipment: there is also Désertec.

I have voluntarily left aside wind power and Stirling engines and other marginal means, because even if they exist and will develop. It will not be systems that will offer independence AND consistency AT THE SAME TIME to meet the needs of users. Even if they are not to be overlooked.

I would point out right away that large-scale photovoltaics will also be storable, precisely in the form of hydrogen.

In short, thanks to the exit of two large European countries from nuclear power. We will finally move towards an era where renewable energy will become what fossil fuels were (which will continue but will decrease until they become marginal). The duration will depend on political will, and the increasing increase in the cost of energy, which will lead us essentially and directly to renewable energies.

Finally, when we talk about "independence", we must also see that projects like Désertec, will ensure substantial sources of income for the riparian countries which will not be able to monopolize the production of energy - since it will be largely decentralized , just like the global electricity network ... - on the other hand, this will offer great potential for local development (abundant and cheap energy) and therefore also geopolitical stability ... This is also what "the independence ”thanks to“ energy interdependence ”... Without a doubt, these countries would not cut the tap, at the risk of cutting the electricity supply in their own country (they necessarily need the neighboring countries during consumption peaks, just like the latter need others for their own peaks ...). And so they will never take the risk of mortgaging their own development ...!

It is enough to see what is currently happening in Egypt with water and their lack of energy ... A solar thermal power plant unit would solve their problem, because they could desalinate sea water thanks to electricity (! ) And sell a good part of their production to other countries, which would attract other currencies than those of the tourist sector ...

[perplexed]

I explain what I understood from the videos:

So the purpose of the commission on the choice of energies being mainly:
be independent
have a cheap cost global electricity
supply the national demand

the aim of ecological agreements is also to reduce co2
-------------------------------------
Very hard to reconcile everything

A) Photovoltaic
Photovoltaics if the panels are manufactured in China or in countries which for the moment are not very interested in reducing the number of coal plants: it's screwed up ...
If the panels are made in countries trying to be responsible, this is fine (because the carbon footprint if I'm not mistaken c of the creation of the panel with its transportation to the place of use and after its lifespan
---------------------------------
B) nuclear easily responds to producing the amount of energy but hey, if a glitch is a disaster, if we calculate the treatment price + the price of future insurance as explained by the representative of Greanpeace, it's to proscribe too expensive and too much problem
-----------------------------
So get by with our availability on French soil
biomass dam wind and other enr I find it hard

I try to see for something that meets all the criteria at the same time .. less CO2 + independent + cost all inclusive not too expensive
As a last resort if we can not match everything, so go and ask for energy from an outside country so as not to take the parameter that would sow desolation in the event of large glitches

It's just to see a little what it can give if it's utopian or not and to be able to compare to the speeches of reports or politicians. I'm just looking for information

[Obamot]

And you have the nerve to come back after being fired four times from forum !

I explain what I understood from the videos:

... I just explain what I understood from your post in relation to PB2488:
- the same flood;
- the same way of ignoring the answers given to you;
- the same awkward way of diverting the reader's attention;
- the same way of going about it not even skillfully with several;
- the same subject of controversy;
- the same operating mode, which consists in flooding the forum so-called "questions" to lead us to one and only possible answer "even if you are not for it, you will judge that it is indeed the only solution " thereafter ... and blah-blah-blah It's not even clever your method of self-suggestion.
- and of course, the same way of indignant you then ...

And all because of a beast zapping on the answers given, like a real troll.

Your method is well known: you are unmasked.
You're like a rat! (Uh ... like a troll, it's not an insult, I'm just trying to explain who you are ... and this despite your way of muddying the waters with your posts full of mistakes: it's too huge !)

[Obamot]

"I'm just trying to let readers know who's behind your keyboard ..."

Arf, the coup of "the writing of good quality, interspersed with gross beginner mistakes ..." It was too obvious that it is PB ...

So I continue the list:
- the same way to start your posts;
- the same pragmatism in denial;
- the same way to sink into your contradictions;
- the same fallacies;
- exactly the same argument;
- the same way of bringing these contradictions to the reader;
- the same tenacious way of promoting nuclear power, the air of not touching it;
- the same kidish way of answering;
- the same search for challenging terrain, which is already coming;
- the same intellectual dishonesty ...
- the same identity theft (after "econolo" for éconologie.com, he takes Perplexe with "e" while Perplex already existed ...)
- the same way to disembark in the forum, as if he had already been there for a long time ...
- the same pseudo-polite way of apologizing ...
- in three words: the same base ...

He got noticed from the first post! Maybe he wants us to draw him a drawing?

And I advise him not to answer, because it won't last ...

[perplexed]

@Obamot

no am not pb ...

let's say I'm trying to understand, considering the elections etc

You are completely turned on, and you are the one who is completely stumped
. This is my 1st post here, So for you as soon as we try to search we get flamed ...

denial of what?


and intellectual dishonesty?
So this one is good, you do like some you hide what interests you..While I watched the 2 videos of the representative of greenpeace and consulting engineer and we see where they make omissions
http://videos.senat.fr/video/videos/201 ... 12609.html
http://videos.senat.fr/video/videos/201 ... 12508.html
(in particular on the estimated price at the time of the dismantling of the brenilis reactor which is in reality 4 times are price, but the video is long I find more the figures. In particular the representative of greenpeace spoke of a project studied a sodium reactor which had a lot of drawbacks, especially with maintaining the temperature.
As this week on France 2 or in a report, he showed that on the EPR site, there were shenanigans to make up work accidents as well as in the retention tank where there had been cracks because defective concrete, in the report also showed the lack of electrical outlet in a nuclear power plant for people who subcontract and the rates that they are asked)

I saw a report on arte or the 5 but found it more in replay or it transformed the electricity of eolioene into hydrogen to be able to transport to store and thus to be able to put it back on the network during peaks, unlike us which is annoying because we don't need it all the time.

I try to have a global vision, and here are the comments.

[perplexed]

Link for my argument on the cost of dismantling a nuclear reactor, compared to forecasts ...

Go to the paragraph on Brenilis:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9man ... %C3%A9aire

The Greenpeace representative was talking about an even bigger figure. http://videos.senat.fr/video/videos/201 ... 12609.html

In addition Brennilis was a small reactor.

Another link: http://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/ ... ricite.pdf

[Obamot]

Dslé, but your first posts expressed a blatant ambiguity ...

And we still have the right to be pro-nuclear, with arguments in reinforced concrete, necessarily
(you are not, still ok!).

no am not pb ...

Okay! Damn, a twin repented ?!

NB: we will see the rest, if I got gorged, you will have excuses and I will have my pavement removed. But in the state, am puzzled!

[Obamot]

Ooops, Erratum:

- the storage of heat in thermal balloons inside the building (transformed into thermos), it's Jenni ...> (and not Jaussi) ...

[Obamot]

Cost of nuclear power: the real figures are out!

Now that Germany and Switzerland have decided to phase out nuclear power for a few years, the real costs are no longer hidden! Thus a study shows that in operation, we were at 50% of the real cost in fact.

Thus, nuclear energy has been sold at too low a price and it will be the generations to come who will have to bear the consequences, according to the conclusions of the "Federal Audit Office".

Costs advertised in blue, actual costs in red:


Source: http://www.rts.ch/video/info/journal-19 ... nnees.html

All this why (?) To support the current economic system of "predation" of mineral resources, to encourage nuclear power had several objectives, and in particular to "guarantee" better competitiveness, but also to speculate on the price of ore (buy low cost and then resell the electricity when it was expensive on the market) or to have strategic energy reserves in the event of economic crises or even survive war patterns. So, even with all this Machiavellian strategy, we discover that we were 50% below the real costs: we will now have to pay the bill! All of this has now been proven through the concealment of the real figures for decades: the sciences are right, but what they are sometimes made to say: is false and rigged!

QED.

(not included: the cost of future dismantling ...)