4 ms·

What you wrote is so disingenuous it is unbelievable. So 228B€ for 50 years of 85% of the electricity consumption, and decarbonised. When with the push for ren

• natmaka 7y ago
  > So 228B€ for 50 years of 85% of the electricity consumption Nope. Nuke plant did not provide 85% during those 50 years. It even doesn't today (only about 71%). In 1971 approximatively approx 5% of the French gridpower was produced by nuke plants. Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_France#Le_d%C3%A9ploiement_du_programme_nucl%C3%A9aire_civil https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fr... How exactly do you think it may have produced 85% of the gridpower for 50 years? This is inept and misleading. Moreover 228B€ is an estimation, the report states (folio 270) that the information is not available, mixed up with all other activities of EDF. The real cost may be superior. Everyone is free to interpret such opacity as good or bad sign. Even worse, the report explicitly states that it completely neglects the first batch of R&D, when civilian and military domains where not clearly separated, which was a major effort. Source: (folio 36) https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... Therefore a fair part of fundamental research isn't accounted in those 228B€. Also: nuke energy is not (completely) decarbonised. Fuel extraction, transport... aren't. > When with the push for renewable, it will cost 121B€ for currently 5,1% of wind and 1.9% for solar. This 121B€ budget is not spent, as it starts in... 2018, ending in 2047! Putting it in front of the production right now is at best 'disingenuous', it is in fact a huge lie. You can't read the future, you can't know what renewables will produce in the 2019 to 2047 timeframe and afterwards, therefore there is no conclusion to draw, no way to consider this investment as a bad one. > Currently nuclear electricity is bought 42€/MWh by the useless competitor thanks to the ARENH Only 100TW (about 1/4 of the production), sold by specification at a price equal to the nuke official production price. Given the credits nuke engulfed and the decades of monopoly, this is a very low-key counterbalancing measure. > when wind cost us 89.4€/MWh and solar 294€/MWh and are not dispatchable, uncorrelated with consumption, intermittent, and will also add 30B€ to the grid because of the decentralised organisation. Germany chose this horrible wind/solar/biomass path. Poor Germans, they don't know that those challenges have no solution, that they are doomed to fail. You should inform them. An EPR or two may save them! > Also renewable made us build a gaz plan in Landivisiau because Brittany opposed the Plogoff nuclear plant and renewable are unreliable. A transition costs. At its very beginning nuke was engulfing huge amounts of money without producing anything significant during the 1950-1970 period. After 70 years, right now, nuke isn't a newborn, however new projects are very (very!) overbudget and late (Olkiluoto, Flamanville). > Also you failed to mention, that what droved the rise in French electricity is solely because of the renewable. Source? > Germany didn't solve it's problem its electricity is still heavily carbonated. This is a work in progress. At least do they really search for an elegant (non polluting but also not risk-inducing) solution, instead of raising the risk by letting aging plant run after their planned end-of-life date. French vs. Germany, on an industrial challenge. Lemme try to guess who will win...
  • hokkos 7y ago
    >Nope. Nuke plant did not provide 85% during those 50 years. That's a fair point, but it doesn't change the argument, the cost is over a long period with a big part of the electricity mix. >This 121B€ budget is not spent But locked in with feed in tariff form the pre-2017 poorly functioning 5.1%/1.9% mix. You seems to think that more solar and wind will come with that, no new solar panel and wind turbine will be build with that. https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... >this is a very low-key counterbalancing measure No this is a useless way to create an artificial competition, and a disgusting way to kill a company, when EDF OA is forced to buy solar and wind, uncorrelated with usage, at an expansive price. >Germany chose this horrible wind/solar/biomass path. Poor Germans, they don't know that those challenges have no solution, that they are doomed to fail. You should inform them. An EPR or two may save them! They have coal, lot of coal and only a plan to close them in 2038 and to replace it with russian fossil gas when France will have the latest closed in 2022 and since long barely used them. >Source? Look on your electrical bill the CSPE line, and Turpe because of decentralised renewable. https://www.uarga.org/downloads/Documentation/2019_09_12_Soutien_developpement_electri_verte_G.Petit.pdf https://www.uarga.org/downloads/Documentation/2019_09_12_Sou... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_au_service_public_de_l%27%C3%A9lectricit%C3%A9#%C3%89volution_du_montant_unitaire_de_la_CSPE https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_au_service_public... http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/les-prix-de-l-electricite-vont-encore-augmenter-en-aout-02-07-2019-8107959.php http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/les-prix-de-l-electricite-... > Lemme try to guess who will win... France already won in decarbonising its electricity. Why would Germany win all industrial challenge, what are you a German supremacist ?
    • natmaka 7y ago
      EDF (French power company) enjoyed a monopoly lasting 50 years, massive research paid for by the military sector, no real accounting of the public funds they spent (at the very least 228 10e9 euros), the waste problem is not solved, real decommission (nearly all yet-to-be started) costs are unknown and will probably be vastly superior to the budget, the grand total cost must take into account any boo-boo made by a wandering waste during some 10000's years... and for all this they have to concede 1/4 of their current production at cost price. Granted, this is not a total waste because they did and do provide gridpower (given that its price is average in Europe, absolutely not a bargain). In any case this is a superb gift, many industrialists would kill for such a deal. EDF complains w/o any shame! On a more fundamental viewpoint I think that subsidies are always at best inadequate, especially because they establish such vicious circle (subsidizing leads to a problem apparently solved by... subsidizing). This 121B€ budget will be invested ('till 2046) to dynamise applied renewable energy. It has to offer some benefit to anyone investing and therefore accepting the risk inherent to any new and quickly developing tool, it is about long-term effects. You quote a blog, which is an immediate interpretation, not the intent and even less the (future) result. Yes, Germany chose to kick out the bad nuke habit as fast as possible, maybe indeed too quickly for the short-term sake. On the other hand France tried to act slowly... and now its renewables program, not very ambitious, already is wayyyyyy behind previsions. Yes, establishing new production sites implies new connections, and therefore investments. Connecting a new nuke powerplant also costs. Yes, connecting renewables globally cost more given that nukes needs less sites (intensity). However renewables don't blow up, don't produce hot waste, are easy to decommission, create jobs, create know-how and product which are more and more marketable (much more than nuke plants!)... Total lifecycle cost+risk is key. France is indeed right now more efficient than Germany when it comes to decarbonizing gridpower production. However this is a snapshot, while the whole subject is a process. There is no finish line, and if in a pair of decades may Germany lead on all accounts, free of nukes and continuing to be a leader in a growing renewables market. Then we will once more conclude that they adopted an industrial approach much more adequate than ours, as in many other sectors.