The EU's energy independence through the North Sea

[Janic]

For that, nuclear power is not ready to be stopped. With the advent of runaway reactors, high reactivity and thorium, he still has a bright future ahead of him, but that's another subject.

That's right, but the nuclear rejection is not linked to a specific production index, but to the risks revealed by Chernobyl and Fukushima as well as to the reprocessing of waste and storage which will last for thousands of years , inevitable dismantling in the short or medium term and the cost of the whole. Same thing the use of Thorium on an industrial scale is not the top
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/Le-rea ... le-impasse

[Meszigues3]

You insist on instant consumption. Since RTE provides the interface, what matters is the actual production balance.
...

Of course I'm only talking about the snapshot.
I do want 402 MW of installed wind power to produce 173 MW (402 x 43%), which will average 173000 / 400000 = 432 watts per household.
432 W x 365 days x 24 h = 3786 kWh or only 79% of the average annual consumption, 21% missing.
But these are only grocer's calculations that hide two big problems:

1) The inconsistency of the wind, even at sea.
A website : https://www.windytv.com/?2017-03-16-06,49.115,6.176,5,m:e2yagkB
(drag the date / time slider down);

2) The impossibility of storing the energy produced at night to use it at the peak of consumption at 19 p.m. of course that RTE can do for the moment. The foreseeable problems will worsen when the proportion of fleeting energies is increased.

[izentrop]

I do want 402 MW of installed wind power to produce 173 MW (402 x 43%), which will average 173000 / 400000 = 432 watts per household.
432 W x 365 days x 24 h = 3786 kWh or only 79% of the average annual consumption, missing 21%.

I had taken this reference for my calculation. The recalculated load factor is 54%, a generous example in fact.
No source found on the results of recent parks, I agree with you that it is not the solution for the future.

[Janic]

I agree with you that this is not the solution for the future.

no solution is for the future, no more renewable than nuclear. It is a mix of RE that can better meet the needs of populations and industry. But the first and best solution remains to avoid waste when you know that all devices on standby consume, it seems, a slice of nuclear production. The other questionable aspect which tends to perpetuate nuclear power is to go towards electric vehicles which, produced in large series, will draw a breath of air towards this dangerous mode of production.

[Meszigues3]

It is a mix of RE that can better meet the needs of populations and industry.

Perhaps.
What mix? At the end of January and last Tuesday, German wind and solar power (89 GW installed) produced less than 1 GW between them at the break of the evening. Which ER will fill the hole?

Check on Fraunhofer: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

[Meszigues3]

But the first and best solution remains to avoid waste when you know that all devices on standby consume, it seems, a slice of nuclear production.

A slice ! How much is it ?

On the site https://www.lenergieenquestions.fr/quest-ce-quune-tranche-nucleaire/ we read :
EDF's nuclear fleet includes 19 nuclear power plants or 58 units (34 units of 900 MW, 20 units of 1300 MW and 4 units of 1450 MW). The thermal park has 15 flame thermal power stations or 23 flame thermal units.

So that's 81 slices. Plus other sources not cited.
Losing a slice (if it's true) it's a shame, but it goes much less than what we are led to believe.
Switching off devices on standby is a good reflex; we gain 4 times nothing in summer and 2 times nothing in heating period. It doesn't go very far either.
A website : https://www.withouthotair.com/translations.html#french

[izentrop]

It is a mix of RE that can better meet the needs of populations and industry.

Perhaps.

Whether we like it or not, nuclear power will gradually take hold, to be the main source in a century or two.
The waste is not the appliances on standby, it is first the heating to 20 ° and more premises not or badly insulated or too big, the artificial lighting which harms moreover the wild fauna (insects).

[Janic]

Whether we like it or not, nuclear power will gradually take hold, to be the main source in a century or two.

This is a hypothetical view based solely on the energy aspect. However, the rejection of nuclear power is not linked to its significant production capacity, but to the risks that this presents and which may increase in the coming years and not even measurable in hundreds of years. Our earth has experienced 2 nuclear bombings, 2 power plants which have boomed in just 70 years. In addition, the problem of waste, which would be more significant than at present, would not be resolved.

The waste is not the appliances on standby, it is first the heating to 20 ° and more premises not or badly insulated or too big, the artificial lighting which harms moreover the wild fauna (insects).

of course! Hence the need to reduce our industrial electricity consumption as in homes.

Switching off devices on standby is a good reflex; we gain 4 times nothing in summer and 2 times nothing in heating period. It doesn't go very far either.

To answer, rather express a point of view, we must not look at the present moment, but in the long term, not only for our heavy consuming countries, but also for the rest of the earth and its inhabitants who want to imitate us and it is not even conceivable to multiply N. power plants all over the world in politically, economically or geologically unstable countries.

[Meszigues3]

...
To answer, rather express a point of view, we must not look at the present moment, but in the long term, not only for our heavy consuming countries, but also for the rest of the earth and its inhabitants who want to imitate us and it is not even conceivable to multiply N. power plants all over the world in politically, economically or geologically unstable countries.

I answered exactly what you said: " But the first and best solution remains to avoid waste when you know that all devices on standby consume, it seems, a slice of nuclear production. »
You raised a very specific case; I answer you that it is easy to verify that this waste is largely overvalued.

Now you say it's anecdotal and you go into very general philosophical considerations by showing me thatyou should not look at the present moment, etc.

There, I don't mind, but you weren't talking about that.
I will not comment, even if I agree; but there is enough to pick up on gross factual errors.

[Janic]

Now you say that it is anecdotal and you go into very general philosophical considerations by showing me that we should not look at the present moment, etc.

there is nothing anecdotal about the future of life on this earth. If with much delay, we are worried about the greenhouse effect now, it is that it concerns us not only but the other countries too because, despite our energy waste in fossil energy, we (France) could waste as much as you want without a big influence on the climate. But we are not alone, selfishly, and it must be taken into account.
Then without asking philosophical questions, so wisdom in the face of the situation, we could multiply nuclear power plants without worrying about what will happen (this is what happened for our current 58)
Finally, the present moment is certainly important, but it's like eating all your provisions today without worrying that there won't be any for tomorrow, the two go together. However if a wind turbine breaks, if a solar panel breaks down, if even a dam collapses, the impact on a country remains very localized, but if a reactor breaks and pollutes its environment, it is on thousands of km2 , over tens (if not hundreds) of years, over thousands of deaths, that the impact will take place: is it worth the effort?