Why the search for alternative solutions does not advance.

Share this article with your friends:

In your reactions or on the forumMany of you are telling us about your misunderstanding of companies' unwillingness to do research and development for alternative energy solutions.

In the article that follows is the former research director of Schneider Electric exposing his reasoning and enlightens us on the blindness that prevails in the labs. Especially tasty: do not care waste, our grandchildren will pass behind us to clean our m ... s.

Calculate the true cost of energy: a headache for all

In terms of power-to-care-cost energy provided by EDF (in 80% nuclear) is the best for home consumption. On the basis of economic reference, wind turbines or solar panels have no interest in highly localized. Their low power compared to conventional energy sources not worth the trouble to invest massively in these 'microénergies'. In essence, this is the conclusion reached after extensive comparisons, Michel Barrault, the consulting firm Guidance and former research director of Schneider Electric. "The speech will focus on energy, while one needs power at a specific time. And there, nothing beats the classic network. This does not prevent enjoying the diversity of situations to use the potential of local resources: wind, geothermal waterfall. And above all, we must save energy where it is most easy to do: in the heating and transport, "adds Michel Barrault. Nuclear power, no rival in the home? That boosted more than a specialist ... "I prefer to consider the use of energy sources that produce little or no waste. Of course, today, the energy supplied by EDF seems most reliable. But what will happen when the electricity market will be fully open to competition? We remember the monster cuts in countries where this is the case ... "asks Bassam Ouaida, the office of Transénergie studies. Another issue raised: what about nuclear waste that can not handle today and whose storage is never taken into account in calculating the cost of this type of energy? From the perspective of Michel Barrault, such an argument can not succeed, "If we do not have today the technology to treat waste from nuclear, our grandchildren will, them. We paralyze us limiting our options for a matter of scientific knowledge at any given time, while looking ahead constantly. "

On energy, the debate on innovation are not objective. Should we continue to invest in conventional solutions, then, to respect the framework of French policy on energy and its three pillars - security of supply, environmental protection, access to all? Again, opinions differ. "Building our environment rather than against it. The Nordic countries give us an example today, building wood, using wind, solar, geothermal or ocean currents to produce energy, "argues Bassam Ouaida. Position opposite to that of Michel Barrault, for whom "the investments must be made where the return in terms of power is the best. The least effective solutions should not be helped ".

Matthew Massip

Source: http://www.brefonline.com/numeroERA_affichearticle.asp?idA=2073


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *