The non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?

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
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by Did67 » 16/10/19, 23:41

sicetaitsimple wrote:
In short, you have to know what you want. Decarbonize the production of electricity and there it goes through more "decarbonized" electricity (nuclear and / or renewable) but in France the potential is very limited, or really decarbonize by typing in oil and gas and there it goes through much more electricity.

This of course does not prevent reducing energy consumption (whatever its origin) individual or by type of use.


Yes, the equation is difficult and has been bothering me for some time.

I use a little less than 2 kwh of electricity.

I have x times hesitated to buy an EV.

Ladle calculation: 25 km / year at 000 liters per 6 = 100 kWh of oil consumed. With a deplorable efficiency (a car is above all a boiler on wheels). So we are going to say 15 kwh "of movement".

So I would need about 6 kwh of electricity (much better yield, but not 000% either) ...

Or a 6 kwp PV installation! [In Alsace, 1 kwc produces approximately 1 kwh per year] ...

There remains the problem of my long journeys (there, I come back from Belgium; 700 km round trip).

And for me it's fine, because I can often manage and park the car near the signs. But for example my wife, it gets tougher. We can certainly always pool, inject here, recover at work, etc ...

The equation is difficult !!!
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by sicetaitsimple » 17/10/19, 15:03

Did67 wrote:Or a 6 kwp PV installation! [In Alsace, 1 kwc produces approximately 1 kwh per year] ...
There remains the problem of my long journeys (there, I come back from Belgium; 700 km round trip).
And for me it's fine, because I can often manage and park the car near the signs. But for example my wife, it gets tougher. We can certainly always pool, inject here, recover at work, etc ...


I do not really understand why you "smash" from time to time the notion of "'food autonomy" (which I fully agree) and "at the same time" you would like to be almost autonomous in terms of electricity for a possible EV? Your pellets for heating, you buy them .....
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by Did67 » 17/10/19, 16:49

No. I don't want to be autonomous, per se.

On the one hand, I don't want to speak out against nuclear power (that scares me, and for my children - I don't believe in the infallibility of engineers; I don't want to be next to a nuclear power plant and therefore decency wants me not to impose this on others) and at the same time encourage, by demand, electricians to invest in it.

I think that if each of us compresses his demand for 30%, EdF comes out of the nuclear for a simple question of profitability.

Pellets, I buy certified renewable biomass produced nearby, and I create jobs nearby.

I'm more for a smart-grid. So not autonomist in itself.

And calling on a supplier that really invests in non-nuclear energy is also an option. I explained why "green certificates", at this stage, seem to me mainly marketing in the sense of deception by market segmentation.

I just have the feeling that if I "pump", the suppliers will produce, without asking me how! At EdF, this will be the ideal argument for renewing the park. And the government will find that consistent (with Pais' agreement).
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by Did67 » 17/10/19, 16:54

There are other things that bother me, if you want arguments to tickle me: my internet consumption, my videos on Youtube, etc ...

Come on, I'm making a confession: I'm going to retire to the Canaries to finish my book - by plane, therefore !!!

But I make a difference between "one shot" operations and investments that generate significant and long dependency (like an EV without its own production capacity).
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by sicetaitsimple » 17/10/19, 17:20

Did67 wrote:No. I don't want to be autonomous, per se.


Of which act, but the 3 sentences that I had recalled ("Or a 6kW installation .........) might suggest otherwise, that you wanted to be autonomous, at least in volume produced over the year.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by sicetaitsimple » 17/10/19, 17:28

Did67 wrote:There are other things that make me cringe, if you want arguments to tickle me


This is neither the subject nor the intention. It's just your connection between having an EV and the very obvious difficulties in supplying it with "personal" PV which surprised me compared to the usual discourse and which I share on a certain mutualisation of productions compared to needs.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by Janic » 17/10/19, 17:30

I think that if each of us compresses his demand for 30%, EdF comes out of the nuclear for a simple question of profitability.

or he removes the ER!
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: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by Remundo » 17/10/19, 19:16

for a particular vehicle, the "all electric" is not very difficult to supply by a photovoltaic roof for example.

15 000 km x 20 kWh / 100 = 3000 kWh, which is roughly 30 m² of PV in France.

Increasing the electricity consumption is not in itself harmful if it is RE and the overall energy conso primary does not increase or decrease (what you run in electricity, you do not burn it anymore) in fuel, and in primary energy, it is roughly 3 times less (20 kWh elec / 100 km and 60 thermal kWh / 100 km).

the "all electric", and even with miracle batteries, personally I do not believe it, it would be necessary to define categories of vehicles and uses to speak seriously.
0 x
Image
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by sicetaitsimple » 17/10/19, 21:12

Remundo wrote:for a particular vehicle, the "all electric" is not very difficult to supply by a photovoltaic roof for example.
15 000 km x 20 kWh / 100 = 3000 kWh, which is roughly 30 m² of PV in France.


Yes, if we drive a lot in summer and especially at night and we drive very little in winter, again at night, supplying an EV with "personal" PV must be possible. I think that "night watchman" is the ideal profile, or retired.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: non-closure of the Fessenheim plant, where is the scam of the negotiations?




by Did67 » 17/10/19, 21:36

sicetaitsimple wrote:
Of which act, but the 3 sentences that I had recalled ("Or a 6kW installation .........) might suggest otherwise, that you wanted to be autonomous, at least in volume produced over the year.


Let us then clarify the thought:

a) I would not like to "increase" my "imported" electricity consumption, for the reasons indicated - not to give an argument to EdF to increase its nuclear production ...

b) I'm just trying to "compensate" overall for the consumption of a possible EV; the family's electrical balance remains stable if I produce around 6 kwh (these are end of table calculations; if I start, I do it well, with an Excel spreadsheet!); the foreseeable consumption is compensated ...

c) while knowing, as indicated, that the VE will not be parked in front of my PV panels, I think to opt for connection / injection ...
(So ​​I'm not aiming for autonomy ... In accordance with my general philosophy: independence, great attention to balance sheets / cycles, but not autonomy)
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 340 guests