Why the search for alternative solutions does not advance.

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

In the following article, it is the former research director of Schneider Electric who explains his reasoning and sheds light on the blindness that reigns in the labs. Particularly tasty: do not worry about waste, our grandchildren will pass behind us to clean our m… s.


Calculate the true cost of energy: a puzzle for everyone

In terms of power-maintenance-cost ratio, the energy supplied by EDF (80% nuclear) is the best for domestic consumption. On this economic reference basis, wind turbines or solar panels are only of interest in very localized cases. Their low power compared to conventional sources of energy is not worth the trouble of investing massively in these 'microenergies'. In essence, this is the conclusion to which, after in-depth comparisons, Michel Barrault, of the consultancy firm Guidance and former research director of Schneider Electric. “The discourse focuses on energy, when we need power at a specific time. And there, nothing beats the traditional network. This does not prevent taking advantage of the diversity of situations to use the potential of local resources: wind, geothermal energy, waterfall. And, above all, energy must be saved where it is the easiest to do: in heating and transport, ”adds Michel Barrault. Nuclear, without rival in housing? This is what makes more than one specialist jump… “I prefer to consider the use of inexhaustible sources of energy producing little or no waste. Of course, today, the energy supplied by EDF seems the most reliable. But what will happen when the electricity market is completely subject to competition? We remember the monster cuts in countries where this is already the case… ”, wonders Bassam Ouaida, from the research firm Transergie. Another question raised: what about nuclear waste that we do not know how to treat today and whose storage is never taken into account in the calculation of the costs of this type of energy? In Michel Barrault's view, such an argument cannot be accepted: “If we don't have the technology today to treat nuclear waste, our grandchildren will have it. We paralyze ourselves by limiting our options to a question of scientific knowledge at any given time, as research continues to advance. "

Read also: Self-construction water doping training near Nancy

In the energy field, the debates on innovation are not objective. Should we continue to invest in conventional solutions, then, to respect the framework of French energy policy and its three pillars - security of supply, preservation of the environment, access to all? There too, opinions differ. “Let's build with our environment rather than against it. The Nordic countries are setting an example for us today, by building in wood, using the wind, the sun, geothermal energy, or even the ocean currents to produce energy, ”pleads Bassam Ouaida. Position opposite to that of Michel Barrault, for whom “investments must be made where the return in terms of power is the best. The least effective solutions should not be helped. ”

Matthieu 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 *