Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...

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
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Remundo » 28/04/16, 23:43

Scuse me ... to tell you that you are comparing apples and oranges ...

paying a renewable kWh more expensive than the "market prices" is perfectly acceptable,

and thanks to all maintained facilities that PV factories were created and are now able to produce at low cost because large volumes have been called by subsidized rates, and that the solar PV competition even now the dumping of energy such as nuclear, but also gas, coal etc ...

the rates of return on investment are far from being exceptional in a PV installation, whatever the date of its realization, they are correct. And those who have borrowed to do their installation win the banker who collects roughly half of their profits ...
0 x
Image
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Janic » 30/04/16, 08:27

remondo hello
Scuse me ... to tell you that you are comparing apples and oranges ...
paying a renewable kWh more expensive than the "market prices" is perfectly acceptable,
No industrial company can afford it without risking to put the key under the mat.
The fact that the State (that is to say we!) Favors certain schemes is a political, not economic.
and thanks to all maintained facilities that PV plants were created
Chinese people basically!
And are now able to produce at low cost because large volumes have been called by subsidized rates, and that the solar PV competition now even the dumping of energy such as nuclear, but also gas, coal etc ...
This is actually dumping distorts the same set of the traditional economy. Other sectors have less need for assistance and are not taken into account either. So the question is: why they, rather than others? This is also close to the dumping made to farmers with multiple subsidies that distort demand and supply which, at the right price, (asked by these same farmers) should be without such aid in question . Here the state is there for something while playing this wicked game to not dissatisfy a lower price at any price policy (in fact it is the community that pays nevertheless indirectly to farmers, rather than directly by a price just)
Investment return rates are far from exceptional in installed PV, regardless of the date of realization, they are correct.
They would be truly correct if the economic game was followed by a traditional commercial profit: profit = sales price less cost.
And those who borrowed for their installation are winning the banker who picks up roughly half of their profits ...
Eh yes! That's the market economy to the French who wants it as is the case for all unsubsidized loans.
PS: You have developed a (the) engine (s) very individual (s), but where are the grants, aid on which you can count to ask international patents, making prototypes and industrialize it as the USA? Shit! Yet, if it were up to your expectations, it would be widely PV in terms of CO2 economy! (Division hoped by 4 memory?)
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Remundo » 30/04/16, 10:18

Janic wrote:remondo hello
Scuse me ... to tell you that you are comparing apples and oranges ...
paying a renewable kWh more expensive than the "market prices" is perfectly acceptable,
No industrial company can afford it without risking to put the key under the mat.
The fact that the State (that is to say we!) Favors certain schemes is a political, not economic.

But of course it is possible in a liberal economy to produce with top quality for a higher price ... eg organic products sell more expensive, to demanding customers. Enercoop also sells electricity more expensive, but guarantee renewables.
and thanks to all maintained facilities that PV plants were created
Chinese essentially! [/ quote]
At first, not every PV leaders were German. But then, Europe has no applied tariff on Chinese products that are put on the same technical level ... many bankruptcies occurred. But the final advantage is that you can buy PV within 1 € / Wp when there 10 years 10 was € / Wp.
And are now able to produce at low cost because large volumes have been called by subsidized rates, and that the solar PV competition now even the dumping of energy such as nuclear, but also gas, coal etc ...
This is actually dumping distorts the same set of the traditional economy. Other sectors have less need for assistance and are not taken into account either. So the question is: why they, rather than others? This is also close to the dumping made to farmers with multiple subsidies that distort demand and supply which, at the right price, (asked by these same farmers) should be without such aid in question . Here the state is there for something while playing this wicked game to not dissatisfy a lower price at any price policy (in fact it is the community that pays nevertheless indirectly to farmers, rather than directly by a price just)

Nuclear power is subsidized more than the PV, and besides it's beginning to be more and more. Who will cover the debts of EDF and Areva to you? Who supported a policy since nucléariste 50 years? The French state...
es payback rates are far from exceptional in installed PV, regardless of the date of realization, they are correct.
They would be truly correct if the economic game was followed by a traditional commercial profit: profit = selling price less price revien.

It's the case. The install PV are amortized over ten years. By the way, your equation is wrong: profit = Turnover - expenses - depreciation ...
And those who borrowed for their installation are winning the banker who picks up roughly half of their profits ...
Eh yes! That's the market economy to the French who wants it as is the case for all unsubsidized loans.
PS: You have developed a (the) engine (s) very individual (s), but where are the grants, aid on which you can count to ask international patents, making prototypes and industrialize it as the USA? Shit! Yet, if it were up to your expectations, it would be widely PV in terms of CO2 economy! (Division hoped by 4 memory?)

Yeah, about that, I have other things in the pipeline. But I do not think the USA are a paradise either.
0 x
Image
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Obamot » 30/04/16, 10:37

QED. The system (or the systems of the company nested in each other) can not function without inequalities. And the self-regulation of the market leads to a race to the bottom of production costs. The system is biting its tail. On the one hand we look for hyperspeculative returns and on the other, the law of the market puts everything flat. It is a system of phagocytic predation and cannibalistic!

On the other hand, if the systems work well, what would it have been so pernicious to create better conditions for renewable energy?
The fact is that margins are no longer sufficient to produce PV in Europe WITH PROFIT is known, attended the debacle plants and closures according to the conditions mentioned by Remundo: What has surprised more than one (bah it should not make protectionism under capitalism, then the disaster is only at the beginning?). Besides, in all areas that makes a face! Banks are not lending because they are largely out of their role for speculative returns - that he has a regulatory effect? Whether it gets stuck on the other side, China dismisses - anyway, sectors with little margin can hardly offer bargains for speculators and after dividends to shareholders (thin?)!

Politicians can hardly do politics (to the chagrin of Hollande who had wanted to make a career out of it instead of dealing with "governing", it shouldn't be sad to go and see what is happening in the ministries. . "the change is now", no, but the change of government soon ... for even worse?) the policies have long been abandoned, under the pretext of liberalism they did not take care of the youth and did not see the cohort of things happening which went with it, such as relocations, unemployment, then the crisis in the suburbs, foreign interference up to D∂ech and an exported state of war which does not mean its name (between east and west to better keep one's distance Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhd should not do business with Russia, it would be far too profitable, Washington perhaps takes a very bad view ...) Tomorrow? Currently, everything is going badly and policies do nothing but try to keep the key sectors in "adjustment variables" at best, the inertial tracking of the boat on its momentum, is a kind of maintenance in a state of survival on a drip ... Therapeutic relentlessness Ahmed would say? Even Podemos in Spain or SYRIZA in Greece, are facing harsh challenges. bedridden by the legacy of bankrupt countries with indebtedness and unemployment with the key in the form of blackmail, the reprisals of the IMF or Brussels at the "exit of the turn"!

Of course, these are suppositions. Am I far from reality? Not too and I think in this context, nuclear power is still unavoidable in the current state and the shift to renewable energies even more than desired and at any price?!? Yes because competitiveness and central security are incompatible. We are just waiting for the next disaster (as inevitable as systemic crises!) So all this shocking enumeration, the renewables subsidy system does not scares me too. Perhaps it was not far enough for my taste. Highly panels to 48% yield (yes they exist, it is not fiction, but the same low-cost manufactured with recyclable materials: hope, perhaps, but a form of hope stopgap since nothing has been set to the background ...)
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by moinsdewatt » 27/11/16, 19:27

The Swiss vote 'no' for an accelerated nuclear exit

The issue was not about the future of nuclear power in Switzerland, but only on a closing schedule of five reactors that produce about a third of the country's electricity.

The Swiss electorate voted Sunday 27 November against an accelerated exit from nuclear power, which included the closure of three of the five reactors in this country next year.

"The nuclear withdrawal initiative", championed by the Greens and backed by the left-wing parties, proposed to limit the lifetime of a reactor to 45 years. It was rejected by 54,23% of votes against 45,77% and by 20 cantons on 26. The voters of the city of Basel were the most numerous to support the initiative, with a score of 60,48%. The Canton of Geneva, with a strong antinuclear tradition, voted "yes" to almost 59%, as did the neighboring canton of Vaud (54,57%).


http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/20 ... _3214.html
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by chatelot16 » 28/11/16, 13:42

there who wanted to close fessenhiem by pure ideology ... the result asn requires stopping the plant that it has faiblaesse of repair, and not fesenheim that stopped ... it would have been an absurdity stop more which could continue to produce

the right solution to stop the nuclear is not to stop anyhow without solution is to build as much as possible other source of energy!
1 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Christophe » 28/11/16, 13:51

Bin yes but will explain this to the engineers of Mines, the Ecole Polytechnique and other énarques?

Many are still in a psychological elitism considering France as a great power and the nuclear power is a sign of power ...

Yet the current financial woes of Areva and EDF should open their eyes ... at least a little no ???

About this: I came across the ARTE series: In the France of Service

Very good little sarcastic series on "the greatness of France" (past greatness, it takes place in the 60s) .... would greatness have turned into slacker? : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUcr1VVmeO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXW2nyRZF80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVNkF2KwAFY

The French arrogance still exists ... the nuclear option is part ... still do we have the means? :?:
1 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by moinsdewatt » 09/03/19, 23:12

The Japanese now have 9 reactors in operation.
This year it is question of reviving 2 other reactors.

Japan's Nuclear Restarts Lowers Natural Gas

ImportsBrian Wang | March 5, 2019

In 2018, Japan restarted five nuclear reactors that were shut down after the 2011 Fukushima accident. Japan is operating nine of 39 nuclear reactors. The nine operating nuclear units generate 8.7 gigawatts of electricity.
Japan's oil, coal and natural gas after their nuclear reactors. Japan spent about $ 30 billion each year for additional fossil fuel imports in the three years following the Fukushima accident. In 2010 and before, Japan is about 30% of its power from nuclear energy. Japan plans to get back to 20-22% energy from nuclear power by 2030. This would require having 30 operating nuclear reactors.

Japan could have two more restarts in 2019, two more in 2020 and another two by 2022. The outlook beyond that is less certain. * Onagawa 2 reactor should restart in 2019. * Takahama 1 has been upgraded. It should restart in 2019. * Mihama 3 has cleared and has had lifetime extension upgrades. It should be restarted late in March 2020. * Takahama 2 safety reviews and has had lifetime extension upgrades. It should restart late in May 2020. * Shimane 2 safety reviews are going smoothly and has strong local support. * Higashidori will finish up safety upgrades around 2021-2022 and then restart * There are more and more political or technical issues


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/03/j ... ports.html
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by izentrop » 10/03/19, 02:28

The Chinese are not at rest either. Now that they have piqued the technology, they manufacture in others https://www.letemps.ch/monde/lidylle-chine-nucleaire
0 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: Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...




by Bardal » 10/03/19, 04:45

Let us add that as the Chinese also invest in the IVth generation, including the very promising Thorium-molten salts, they can sell us as soon as it is industrialized ... Happiness!

In exchange we can always try to sell them our local glories, and their famous victories against the greenhouse gases (which have further increased in 2018, despite an economy at half-mast), the petulant Lepage, the heroic Hulot, the extraordinary Ségolène ... At least we will not have lost everything. But not sure they let themselves be ...
0 x

 


  • 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 225 guests