7 € / month per human being on 20 years for green energy

[bamboo]

For desertec, there are already similar things that are being set up here:
http://www.20minutes.fr/article/388480/ ... rraine.php

Désertec is thermodynamic.
In Lorraine, it seems to me that it is classic photo-voltaic.

Quick tour on wikipedia:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet_Desertec

A priori desertec is the conjunction of all techniques.
So the project in Lorraine, I can see it fitting into this framework.

Edit:
Addition of the econo desertec link
https://www.econologie.com/forums/desertec-e ... 38-50.html

Precisely, your Wiki link only presents photovoltaics as an alternative to Desertec, which only uses thermodynamics.

[dedeleco]

The world's largest solar power plant soon to be built in Lorraine
http://www.20minutes.fr/article/388480/ ... rraine.php
The Lorraine project is 2 times cheaper at 3000 € per KW (430/143 = 3!)

But journalists often have problems with the numbers:

À
A solar power plant that will be "the biggest in France, or even in the world", must be built in Toul-Rosières (Meurthe-et-Moselle) for commissioning from 2012, announced EDF - Energies nouvelles (EDF -IN). "The investment will be around 430 million for a park of 415 hectares ", told AFP Jean-Marc Dall'Aglio, in charge of mission to the president of EDF-EN.

term, the energy produced that will be 143 megawatts, the equivalent of the consumption of a city of 62.000 inhabitants, will be sold to EDF. By way of comparison, the EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville will be 1.000 times more powerful (1.600 megawatts) for an invoice between 4 and 5 billions of euros.

1600 / 143 does not give 1000 but 11 !!
and the power plants in operation are rather 1300 to 1450 MWe, so real factor 10 and not 1000 (effect of the lobby on the reporter !!) and EPR will see its price explode to respect the security !!!!!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_nucl%C3%A9aire
And the price report 5 billion on 0,430 gives 11, the same ratio and so nuclear power is as expensive as this solar power plant !!!
But no waste, no radioactivity for 10000 years, no operating costs left to future generations, no specter and fear of a new Chernobyl, almost inevitable, since man is not infallible, like 'demands nuclear !!!!!!!

EPR at least 5,2 billion € !!

New provisions in perspective on the Finnish EPR at Areva

(AOF) - Areva has finalized the sale of its Transmission and Distribution (T&D) activities to Alstom and Schneider Electric. The sale of the T&D activity was decided on June 30, 2009 by the Supervisory Board of Areva as part of the group's development plan. In addition, following additional delays on the site, the group is preparing to spend new provisions between 300 and 450 million euros in the first half, reports this morning "Les Echos". Gold the bill has already exceeded by 2,3 billion euros the estimate originally planned for 3 billion euros.

http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites ... eva-507440

The solar is more profitable than the nuclear even forgetting the waste and the certain risk of a Chernobyl !!
French, we are crazy !!

[bamboo]

1600 / 143 does not give 1000 but 11 !!
and the power plants in operation are rather 1300 to 1450 MWe, so real factor 10 and not 1000 (effect of the lobby on the reporter !!) and EPR will see its price explode to respect the security !!!!!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_nucl%C3%A9aire
And the price report 5 billion on 0,430 gives 11, the same ratio and so nuclear power is as expensive as this solar power plant !!!
But no waste, no radioactivity for 10000 years, no operating costs left to future generations, no specter and fear of a new Chernobyl, almost inevitable, since man is not infallible, like 'demands nuclear !!!!!!!

EPR at least 5,2 billion € !!

New provisions in perspective on the Finnish EPR at Areva

(AOF) - Areva has finalized the sale of its Transmission and Distribution (T&D) activities to Alstom and Schneider Electric. The sale of the T&D activity was decided on June 30, 2009 by the Supervisory Board of Areva as part of the group's development plan. In addition, following additional delays on the site, the group is preparing to spend new provisions between 300 and 450 million euros in the first half, reports this morning "Les Echos". Gold the bill has already exceeded by 2,3 billion euros the estimate originally planned for 3 billion euros.

http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites ... eva-507440

The solar is more profitable than the nuclear even forgetting the waste and the certain risk of a Chernobyl !!
French, we are crazy !!

Very interesting your calculations! If that's really it (and I don't see where the error would be), it's amazing that they persevere in nuclear power !! ??

[dedeleco]

I also have the same reaction !!
Unless the journalist got stuck in the solar figures !!
To check in my calculations and sources, carefully !!

The KWh at a factor of 2 seems in the current prices of the individual market !!

[bamboo]

I also have the same reaction !!
Unless the journalist got stuck in the solar figures !!
To check in my calculations and sources, carefully !!

The KWh at a factor of 2 seems in the current prices of the individual market !!

This is normal: they have an economy of scale and manpower.
The only solution I see is that it is the prototype of the EPR which will be expensive, but they hope to be able to reduce the costs later. But hey ... that's still without long-term waste management

[sen-no-sen]

indy49 wrote:

This is normal: they have an economy of scale and manpower.
The only solution I see is that it is the prototype of the EPR which will be expensive, but they hope to be able to reduce the costs later. But hey ... that's still without long-term waste management

Whether the Finnish or French EPR, both are over budget (at level there, the word overshoot is low !!!).
In all cases, nuclear is the most expensive solution, the manipulation consists in making bear the cost to the taxpayer through State subsidies!
In fact we pay twice our electricity bill, once in the receipt, and the second time through taxes, VAT etc ...
To say that solar is more expensive is a shameless lie!
With the solar power plant you only pay for construction and maintenance, the rest is free!
With nuclear power, you have to pay: construction (power plant, storage site, etc.) + dismantling of its last ones, + rehabilitation of sites + storage of waste.

[Ahmed]

What is expensive for some is what brings a lot to others ...

[Did67]

1600 / 143 does not give 1000 but 11 !!!!

Usually a number of regulars of this forum were more insightful on the units:

- what is this bazaar, "the energy produced will be 143 Megawatts" ??? As far as I know, megawatts is a power; ditto for the EPR ...

- so we compare powers? Or are we comparing quantities of energy produced? And then, which period? With what availability rates? And then too, with what operating costs?

In short, compare powers in relation to investments is anything ... As far as I know, the sun does not shine day and night, even in Lorraine (by the way, what an idea to put this in Lorraine?).

And compare energy production and investment, it is also impoetq uoi. Because operating costs are not at all the same! Moreover, without specifying for how long.

In short, we are again in the purely "emotional" (I'm talking about the article). "make noise" seems to be what "inform" boils down to today ...

[sen-no-sen]

Developed from large photovoltaic solar power plants is, I think, nonsense, photovoltaics are by nature a device that must be decentralized ...
If EDF really wanted to do their part, it would develop South region concentration of solar and solar would implant islands in the Mediterranean ...
The idea for them is to make renewable energy that do not compromise the nuclear sector.

[Obamot]

You probably meant: "decentralized"?