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

[Did67]

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.

It was a form of humor:

a) I try to be clear and transparent, so self-critical

b) and I think it's healthy to be titillated and open to criticism if it's right (it's not insult!).

[Did67]

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!

No, RE is cheaper.

A reactor is profitable, if it is, if it runs all the time (except programmed maintenance).

A wind turbine, you flag it, it's settled!

[Did67]

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.

I explained before a conviction: if everyone goes to the EV, EdF will be encouraged to restart the nuclear. I do not want to give them that pretense.

So individually, for consistency if you want, I will only drive in VE if I compensate myself with RE. I do not trust the energy mafia ...

I was more on 25 000 annual km ?. So 6000 kWh.

What I do not understand, you say it is not difficult and then, the "all electric", you do not believe it. Are you talking about autonomy for long distances? [I plan to cover 80% of our needs - all traffic runs; and keep my Chevrolet on LPG for long raids]

It's just a reflection. Because for now, the Ministry of Finance says niet!

[Did67]

Well, they will do it anyway.

But not with my deposit: https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article ... _3234.html

[sicetaitsimple]

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

OK, it would be very inappropriate of me to give you lessons insofar as I also have a thermal vehicle, but note that our, that of each of us, "imported petroleum consumption" does not pose a lot to us. "argument deliveries" problems.
We can regret it, of course, but we will refuel whenever necessary without "giving an argument" to Saudi Arabia, etc etc etc ....

[Did67]

Well, yes, I have big problems. Like Youtube, which I mentioned, on another plane. I have big contradictions. But try not to become completely jaded and fatalistic. I do what I can, when I can.

From there to ride on horseback!

This is currently the biggest gap in my consumption, between what I would like, and what I am doing.

I make a big compromise, which is a compromise.

But I prefer gas (in my case) to ... nuclear. That's a personal arbitration. It's beliefs, if you want.

For very short distances, in good weather, I tried the electric bike and broke my mouth ... I still have my shoulder which only works at 70%. But I will resume. However, this is anecdotal (both as an "imported" electric consumer and as a reduction in my dependence on oil).

[ENERC]

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

Rather, annual peak consumption justifies these investments. RTE must be able to provide power when it is very cold. So we invested for that.

If we finally take seriously the path of insulation of housing, we would significantly reduce the number of plants.
A ladle, I would say that if the majority of buildings were in BBC, we would spend the annual peak with 60 GW instead of 100 GW currently needed.

[izentrop]

France joins her neighbors by kneeling in front of the merchants of fear, but what a mess.

But what a cliché!

The cliché is to believe that reducing the share of nuclear energy, replacing it with intermittent energies without storage means, we will solve global warming, because the fossil energy part is necessarily a replacement.
We can see it well in Germany where coal consumption has increased. In France the share of electric heating is more important, so we did not leave the brambles.

Farewell the good place in terms of carbon footprint

[Did67]

Rather, annual peak consumption justifies these investments. RTE must be able to provide power when it is very cold. So we invested for that.

If we finally take seriously the path of insulation of housing, we would significantly reduce the number of plants.
A ladle, I would say that if the majority of buildings were in BBC, we would spend the annual peak with 60 GW instead of 100 GW currently needed.

For the electic lines, etc., you're right.

On the other hand, EdF will never invest in nuclear power plants to cover the "peaks". For this, less expensive (investment) and more flexible technologies are used. Gas-fired power stations in particular. Thermal in general. The fleet of nuclear power plants is rather calibrated on low consumption ...

But you're right, it's a real problem in France, with our old mania of electric heating. We are the most sensitive to cold - the biggest increase in power consumption for 1 ° less temperature.

[A.D. 44]

France joins her neighbors by kneeling in front of the merchants of fear, but what a mess.

But what a cliché!

The cliché is to believe that reducing the share of nuclear energy, replacing it with intermittent energies without storage means, we will solve global warming, because the fossil energy part is necessarily a replacement.
We can see it well in Germany where coal consumption has increased. In France the share of electric heating is more important, so we did not leave the brambles.

Farewell the good place in terms of carbon footprint

The emissions of CO2 and other gases are not related only to the production of electricity ...

Associate this table only with our means of electrical production ... ???