WHAT TO CHOOSE? Calculator problem with the electric car

[Did67]

Just one point, however: in terms of vehicles, the substitution of petroleum by electric is ipso facto a significant reduction in the final energy consumed, by a factor of about 4 ... And on this point, no alternative choice ...

Yes, insofar as the thermal car, as its name suggests, is above all a boiler on wheels!

That said, it is the entire sector that must be considered. Hence the debate on how the electricity consumed (final consumption, much more efficient) is produced ... Thunderstorms are not frequent enough for it to "fall from the sky"! Because if we upstream, we burn heavy fuel oil in a thermal power plant, overall, it's the same ...

[Ahmed]

Yes, Did, there are many possibilities for local niches, but from there to be able to extrapolate their generalization, there is a step that it is better to avoid taking. The question of the scale chosen is at least as important as the basic principle.

[Bardal]

And why therefore EDF (not RTE which does not sell electricity, it transports it) SHOULD be "necessarily" a supplier whatever the price?

Because sometimes there are occasional surpluses that cannot be destroyed - hence, in tiny quantities, sometimes ... negative prices! The producer pays to get rid of the electricity. Attention: these are the "spot" markets, at the margin. The bulk of the trade is contractual, therefore negotiated in advance.

There are sometimes "local" surpluses, yes, in particular wind power in northern Germany, which produces almost all negative price episodes in Europe.

When our German friends have solved this problem via on the one hand the closure of their nuclear power and also the finalization of the strengthening of their THT network from north to south, the two arriving around 2022, we will no longer talk about negative prices.

Negative prices are an aberration only linked to bad programming. We do not massively reinforce production capacities in an area without providing the transport capacities that go with it.

I disagree with this explanation.

Overproduction of electricity regularly returns with a large fleet of "fatal", non-controllable production; for a very simple reason, it is that the average production of fatal energy being much lower than its installed capacity, it is necessary to envisage a park covering more than the maximum consumption of a country.

Inevitably, under such conditions, episodes will regularly occur where production will exceed demand; this happens very frequently in Denmark (the only country where wind power theoretically covers the maximum power demand). This will be all the more important and all the more regular as the total installed power will be close to the peak demand.

There are only two solutions to solve this problem:

- disconnect the means of production, but that contradicts the dogma of the priority and systematic purchase of ENR electricity, and we drop an already very low charge rate.

- or store this energy (this is what Denmark does by relying on the huge hydroelectric park of neighboring Norway) or sell it elsewhere.

In the current absence of mass storage resources, countries with a high level of renewable energy rely on their neighbors to regulate these problems; it can only work if these neighbors are not themselves very equipped with renewable energy, otherwise the problem becomes general.

The arrival of a large fleet of electric vehicles would provide the beginning of a solution to this storage problem, with fairly narrow limits, however, linked to the fact that the inhabitants of a country cannot be immobilized on the pretext that there is no there is no wind for several days ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Because sometimes there are occasional surpluses that cannot be destroyed - hence, in tiny quantities, sometimes ... negative prices! The producer pays to get rid of the electricity. Attention: these are the "spot" markets, at the margin. The bulk of the trade is contractual, therefore negotiated in advance.

There are sometimes "local" surpluses, yes, in particular wind power in northern Germany, which produces almost all negative price episodes in Europe.

When our German friends have solved this problem via on the one hand the closure of their nuclear power and also the finalization of the strengthening of their THT network from north to south, the two arriving around 2022, we will no longer talk about negative prices.

Negative prices are an aberration only linked to bad programming. We do not massively reinforce production capacities in an area without providing the transport capacities that go with it.

I disagree with this explanation.

I don't see why you disagree, because I agree with what you say.

When you talk about Denmark, it has considerably strengthened its interconnections with its neighbors over the past ten years, that's what I say.

As for the voluntary shutdown of renewable means of production (curtailment), it happens today and even with a very good network of course it will happen more and more in the future. One cannot remain indefinitely a "stowaway" of the electrical system with all rights and no duties.

On the other hand, I think that the episodes of "negative prices", all now originating from German wind power, will calm down given the changes in the network and in the production fleet.

[RIAZ]

I thought I explained it to you simply.

To be sure that you understand your simple explanation, should we consider that EDF currently regularly has 20% of nuclear production under the elbow? This 20%, which would cost almost nothing to produce, could be sold and even at a low price, this would generate revenue which EDF is depriving itself of.

During slack periods, all fossil production is not stopped in Europe and there should be "customers" ...

Michel

[sicetaitsimple]

To be sure that you understand your simple explanation, should we consider that EDF currently regularly has 20% of nuclear production under the elbow? This 20%, which would cost almost nothing to produce, could be sold and even at a low price, this would generate revenue which EDF is depriving itself of.

Even if the question is not addressed to me, I can bring it to the beginning of an answer.


No, EDF does not regularly have 20% nuclear power "under the elbow", but a few% yes, especially at night and weekends (except perhaps during cold periods like we are going through one).

On the other hand, with its nuclear power, EDF manages a stock, the fuel in the reactor. Why would you want him to "sell off" by selling to our neighbors for example at 20 € / MWh a WE or a slightly windy day when 48 hours later, when the windy episode and / or the WE have passed, he can sell for example 50 € / MWh?

[Bardal]

I thought I explained it to you simply.

To be sure that you understand your simple explanation, should we consider that EDF currently regularly has 20% of nuclear production under the elbow? This 20%, which would cost almost nothing to produce, could be sold and even at a low price, this would generate revenue which EDF is depriving itself of.

During slack periods, all fossil production is not stopped in Europe and there should be "customers" ...

Michel

Almost every night, for a few hours, yes EDF has about 20% of available power "under the elbow"; it's more summer and mid-season. All because there is no buyer; why is there no customer? Because everyone is in "off-peak hours", it is expensive to shut down thermal power stations for a few hours, because coal is not expensive either, because the commercial interests of the various countries are divergent. ..

In priority, these off-peak hours are used to heat the electric cumulus and to fill the WWTP if they are available, to serve the foreign countries which need it, etc ... But there remain about sixty TeraWh, so we slow down the power plants . The situation is most surplus in summer, of course. It must be seen that the dimensioning factor of an electric mix is ​​the maximum consumption peak, and the dimensioning of the various elements of the mix will necessarily be a complex compromise, and not easy to optimize, between daily variations, variations seasonal and technological and economic constraints. France chose in the 70s to dimension nuclear power at nearly 70% of the maximum peak, hydroelectricity taking 12%; the rest was entrusted to fossil fuels ... This brought a nuclear load rate of around 75%. Spain had made a different choice, sizing nuclear at around 40% of maximum power, that is to say at the level of minimum average power. The nuclear load factor in Spain is therefore very close to the availability rate (around 95%), which leaves no margin to recover, but this implies a high consumption of fossil fuels ...


Incidentally, electricity exports are also limited by the capacity of electricity transmission lines ...


For the subject that concerns us, powering EV charging during off-peak hours is as simple as turning on electric water heaters; the means of production will adapt automatically, and there is an almost absolute guarantee of benefiting from carbon-free electricity (with the exception of Corsica and the French overseas departments and territories).

[RIAZ]

No, EDF does not regularly have 20% nuclear power "under the elbow", but a few% yes, especially at night and weekends (except perhaps during cold periods like we are going through one).

Almost every night, for a few hours, yes EDF has about 20% of available power "under the elbow"; it's more summer and mid-season. All because there is no buyer; why is there no customer? Because everyone is in "off-peak hours", it is expensive to shut down thermal power stations for a few hours, because coal is not expensive either, because the commercial interests of the various countries are divergent. ..

I do not know who to believe of the two, which one is more "intimate" with EDF?

It would be interesting to know if this situation is old or recent and caused by the rise of RES at home and abroad. The purchasing priority that is given to renewables could explain this.

But if that's what it says Bardal, this means that EDF has every reason to push for the electrification of the French car fleet. EDF would therefore need nuclear cars! Yes yes, nuclear cars, there were drills
http://www.culturepub.fr/videos/edf-la-perceuse/

Let’s not spread the word, the ecologists will not appreciate ...

In priority, these off-peak hours are used to heat the electric cumulus and to fill the WWTP if they are available, to serve the foreign countries which need it, etc ... But there remain about sixty TeraWh, so we slow down the power plants . The situation is most surplus in summer, of course.

And unless there is a calculation error, 60 TWh is 20 million VE (at 20 kWh / 100 and 15.000 km / year). Not bad to start! If we think about the future, we say that by being cheap to make our old nuclear power plants last, they will have to be replaced and with as many EVs (very greedy) in circulation, how to do without a 2nd EPR ????? To begin.

It is often said that history never repeats the same dishes, but that is a bit quick to say.

France chose in the 70s to size nuclear at nearly 70% of the maximum peak, hydroelectricity taking 12%; the rest was entrusted to fossil fuels ... This brought a nuclear load rate of around 75%.

It turns out that I was born in the 70s and I was even of age and vaccinated. I absolutely do not remember that FRANCE chose anything for the good reason that nothing was asked of FRANCE. A small handful of "decision-makers" have chosen for her and have not asked her, in FRANCE, to think about the long-term or even very long-term consequences of this choice.

And at the time of this non-choice another was made, that of the absolute thermodynamic aberration (and unique in the world) consisting in using electricity, "noble" energy par excellence, for heating.
And these two non-choices went very well together (as the song said of the same era) and it would not be surprising if it was the same handful of individuals who decided for FRANCE .....

And if I understand the explanations of Bardal, EDF is going to do the same thing to us with electric cars ..... But maybe I misunderstand and that it's just a conspiracy theory .....

Michel

[Gaston]

And at the time of this non-choice another was made, that of the absolute thermodynamic aberration (and unique in the world) consisting in using electricity, "noble" energy par excellence, for heating.

No, not "unique in the world": in Quebec, nearly 70% of homes are heated by electricity.

[Ahmed]

Of course, but in a very different context from an abundant hydromotive energy ...