Nuclear Phaseout? To do what? Bad debate ...
published: 17/03/11, 16:00
Following the news, all the media and political groups embark on the debate of for or against nuclear ...
Should we get out of nuclear power?
Can we do without nuclear?
What are the alternatives to nuclear?
...
Well if this debate is surely necessary to "reassure" and so popular, I think we is mistaken for a debate, and here is a much less popular one!
I think the question is rather why did we come to nuclear power? Why do we need so much energy? What does nuclear bring?
If we reduce our needs, our consumption, in short if we become less "electro-consuming" we could do without, more easily, or even automatically, nuclear ...
As janco said yesterday on JT FR2: the only thing that really influences is the price! Under understood; the rest is blah ...
I couldn't agree more: the cost regulates everything!
Now nuclear energy allows (at least apparently for the customer) a reduced cost of energy to the consumer. To see the comparison of electricity prices in Europe
So to say: "can we do without nuclear power" is to say "are you ready to pay 2 or 3 times more for your electricity from tomorrow?" In other words: "for the same bill, are you ready to divide your electricity consumption by 2 or 3?"
Well I bet that said like that, there would immediately be a lot less anti nuclear in France ... When we see like the French slow down as soon as there is an increase of 2 or 3% of electricity. ..so 100 or 200%?
With us we pay 0.25 € / kWh, you read correctly! Nobody heats with electricity (except extra).
With a fuel oil at 0.60 € / kWh, diesel cogeneration would make a kWh cheaper than grid electricity, excluding heat gain!
Message to understand: the low price of energy does not encourage to change ...
Sunday I was about to go into green electricity contract but when i see the quality of green electricity that only looks like greenwashing, I'm going to think about it twice ... apparently it's just as difficult in France to really finance renewable energies (waiting list at EnerCoop) ... neon green electricity doesn't interest me.
In short, the message that I hardly try to get across is the following: the low cost of nuclear power is its best argument for staying in place and the conscientious consumer has very few possibilities to stop funding it.
There are other ideas to develop around this ...
For example, it would be interesting to have, for Europe, the annual electricity consumption in mWh / inhabitant, I don't know pkoi but I'm almost sure that France is in the TOP 3 ...
The title of this topic is deliberately provocative ...
And sorry for the confusion of ideas in this post. It is not easy to explain.
ps: read also energies-fossil-nuclear / letter-am-besson-and-nkm-new-way-of-consumer-t10597.html
Should we get out of nuclear power?
Can we do without nuclear?
What are the alternatives to nuclear?
...
Well if this debate is surely necessary to "reassure" and so popular, I think we is mistaken for a debate, and here is a much less popular one!
I think the question is rather why did we come to nuclear power? Why do we need so much energy? What does nuclear bring?
If we reduce our needs, our consumption, in short if we become less "electro-consuming" we could do without, more easily, or even automatically, nuclear ...
As janco said yesterday on JT FR2: the only thing that really influences is the price! Under understood; the rest is blah ...
I couldn't agree more: the cost regulates everything!
Now nuclear energy allows (at least apparently for the customer) a reduced cost of energy to the consumer. To see the comparison of electricity prices in Europe
So to say: "can we do without nuclear power" is to say "are you ready to pay 2 or 3 times more for your electricity from tomorrow?" In other words: "for the same bill, are you ready to divide your electricity consumption by 2 or 3?"
Well I bet that said like that, there would immediately be a lot less anti nuclear in France ... When we see like the French slow down as soon as there is an increase of 2 or 3% of electricity. ..so 100 or 200%?
With us we pay 0.25 € / kWh, you read correctly! Nobody heats with electricity (except extra).
With a fuel oil at 0.60 € / kWh, diesel cogeneration would make a kWh cheaper than grid electricity, excluding heat gain!
Message to understand: the low price of energy does not encourage to change ...
Sunday I was about to go into green electricity contract but when i see the quality of green electricity that only looks like greenwashing, I'm going to think about it twice ... apparently it's just as difficult in France to really finance renewable energies (waiting list at EnerCoop) ... neon green electricity doesn't interest me.
In short, the message that I hardly try to get across is the following: the low cost of nuclear power is its best argument for staying in place and the conscientious consumer has very few possibilities to stop funding it.
There are other ideas to develop around this ...
For example, it would be interesting to have, for Europe, the annual electricity consumption in mWh / inhabitant, I don't know pkoi but I'm almost sure that France is in the TOP 3 ...
The title of this topic is deliberately provocative ...
And sorry for the confusion of ideas in this post. It is not easy to explain.
ps: read also energies-fossil-nuclear / letter-am-besson-and-nkm-new-way-of-consumer-t10597.html