France is poorly placed to go solar and wind power

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
MB
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 16
Registration: 27/06/13, 10:14

France is poorly placed to go solar and wind power




by MB » 27/06/13, 10:46

The nuclear poses 2 types of problems to renewable energies:

1. Obviously, as it does not emit CO2, its replacement by solar and wind does not have a favorable impact on the climate.

2. What is more interesting is that nuclear has the same defect as solar and wind: we can not control production to stick to consumption. For nuclear power, it is because we can not start or stop plants quickly and we can not vary their production. For solar and wind, the problem is that the level of production depends on the weather, not consumption. Nuclear, solar and wind energy therefore all need more flexible complements (eg gas plants).

A country whose electricity would come mainly from oil or coal-fired power plants would be better placed than a country with a large nucleus to switch to solar and / or wind power.
0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33

Re: France badly placed to switch to solar and wind




by Philippe Schutt » 27/05/20, 17:36

Here is a reasoning which seems to me a little too simplified.
As long as the non-modular fleet corresponds to the minimum consumption power, I don't see any problem. However, let's take the day of 27/05/20 where the heating consumption is probably close to 0: we go down to 35 MW for a maximum of 000 MW. The non-modular fleet can represent 50% of production.
On the other hand, nuclear power plants are also modular, even if it is more complicated and slower than for a gas power plant. see the article on wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suivi_de_charge
The sun producing the day, it would even tend to reduce the need for diet changes.
In France, nuclear power represents 75% of production, the problem seems minimal, if there is a problem.
1 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88

Re: France badly placed to switch to solar and wind




by Gaston » 27/05/20, 17:42

On the other hand, the fact that the nuclear kWh is (officially) much cheaper than that produced with gas or coal effectively places France in a more complicated position for the deployment of solar or wind which have more difficulty in be economically competitive.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: France badly placed to switch to solar and wind




by GuyGadebois » 27/05/20, 17:46

Gaston wrote:However, the fact that nuclear kWh is (officially) much cheaper than that produced with gas or coal actually places France in a more complicated position for the deployment of solar or wind which have a harder time being economically competitive.

You do well to specify it!
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: France badly placed to switch to solar and wind




by sicetaitsimple » 27/05/20, 20:44

MB wrote:The nuclear poses 2 types of problems to renewable energies:

1. Obviously, as it does not emit CO2, its replacement by solar and wind does not have a favorable impact on the climate.

2. What is more interesting is that nuclear has the same defect as solar and wind: we can not control production to stick to consumption. For nuclear power, it is because we can not start or stop plants quickly and we can not vary their production. For solar and wind, the problem is that the level of production depends on the weather, not consumption. Nuclear, solar and wind energy therefore all need more flexible complements (eg gas plants).

A country whose electricity would come mainly from oil or coal-fired power plants would be better placed than a country with a large nucleus to switch to solar and / or wind power.


This post is old (2013), it is basically pretty accurate except on " nuclear has the same defect as solar and wind: we cannot control production to stick to consumption. For nuclear power, it is because we cannot quickly start or stop the plants and we cannot vary their production. , Which is completely false.

But on the fact that there is more interest, in terms of electricity production, in concentrating wind or solar renewable in countries with a high proportion of production of coal origin, there is no doubt.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: France badly placed to switch to solar and wind




by Exnihiloest » 27/05/20, 21:32

MB wrote:... is that nuclear has the same defect as solar and wind: we cannot control production to stick to consumption. .

It is false, we can. It's the wind that you can't control, or it comes at a high price.
In Angelettre, when there is wind and not enough demand, we subsidize wind producers so that they stop producing. This is what happened for example on May 22, they received 9,3 million pounds sterling!
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 217 guests