Slashdot Mirror
France To Reduce Reliance On Nuclear Power
AmiMoJo writes: French lawmakers have approved a bill to reduce the country's reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% by 2025. The policy was one of President Francois Hollande's campaign pledges. The legislation also includes a target of reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to the level in 1990. The new law aims to eventually halve France's energy consumption by 2050 from the 2012 level. The ambitious goal came in the lead-up to the COP 21 climate change conference in Paris later this year. France will chair the meeting.
Note that Nuclear is not going to shrink, the idea is just that most new capacity will be non nuclear.
What a bunch of idiots.
They can keep the plants going, build more capacity and export the rest, reducing the "reliance" on nuclear power.
A cynical way to fulfill a keepable promise.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
France is one of the world's biggest energy exporters, selling electricity to most of Western Europe. They aren't going to build too many more nuclear plants, but they sure as hell aren't going to be tearing down the ones the have already. They are going to run them as hard as they can as they add capacity with wind, solar, and hydro.
Yes, nuclear will be a smaller fraction of the portfolio, but total nuclear generation isn't going away any time soon. The wording of Hollande's "promise" was crafted to sound good to the anti-nuke crowd, but the folks in the power sector who can actually do fractional arithmetic know what the actual intent is.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
... Poland will be building more coal power plants to export more electricty to western europe so that idiot evironementalists can be duped by corrupt politicians into thinking that CO2 consumption has been reduced when all that happened was they started importing electricity instead of directly producing it themselves.
The same thing is going on all over europe and it is very common in the US as well. California for example has dramatically lowered their statistical carbon foot print by shutting down power plants in the state and then importing the power from Arizona and I think even mexico. I'm not sure about mexico... I vaguely remember something about that but I'm not sure.
Point is the whole carbon thing is supposed to be global so where it is actually emitted is not relevant. And thus they really need to do proper third party accounting on the carbon emissions of imported electricity.
The germans have some statistics on that but they're not third party and thus given all the gaslighting and obfuscation on the issue its not credible to accept the statistics from the people that are already on record cooking the books.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Also note that reducing domestic consumption by 50% means that France can sell more electricity with the same installed capacity. It's all about GDP.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Nuclear power is one of the most efficient sources of energy that we use, what is the reason for lowering the dependency on it if the plants are properly maintained? What kind of alternative energy source are they planning on relying on? These are legitimate questions, I'm sincerely confused about this.
not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
Which makes not a lick of sense since you just end up using the appliance for longer to get the same fuckin' result. Carbon footprint remains the same.
These would be the same tools who mandated the use of CCFL lights which contain mercury and white phosphorous, over incandescants which contain a chemically inert gas and a chemically inert filament inside a chemically inert container.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
So we are reaching a point where fossil fuels are becoming harder to harvest, climate change is becoming more evident, and people are using more electricity than ever. Instead of researching safer nuclear, which would provide us enough energy to last us millennia even with increasing usage, they are simply turning their backs on the idea, and reaching for what? Solar? Windfarms? I'm as hardcore left as one can get, I support alternative energy, and whatnot, and yet I feel like I'm one of the few rational ones that look at things like verifiable science, statistics, and research to direct my views rather than blind ideology and common opinion.
From what I've read, the only viable alternative that is right now available that can fulfill our needs is primarily nuclear with other alternatives merely supplementing those needs. If I'm wrong I'd like to see some evidence, preferably from less biased sources.
A Republican says hate. HATE! Hate! Hate says the Republican. HATE! YOU REPUBLICANS!!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
The EU is a shrine to bureaucracy. I guess after more than a thousand years of war, and you pile the weather on top of that, people are just to tired to resist.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There are also things like design efficiency in the rest of the unit as well as in the electric motor itself. How much energy the product uses versus how much of that energy actual is expressed in it's useful function. Placing limits on energy consumption forces better design to make better use of that energy limit, why, because FUCKING GREED. Lazy greedy fuckers will just up the engine energy consumption to make up for poor design but hey its FUCKING CHEAPER that way. Also up the warranty requirements to substantially reduce energy used to produce goods that fail shortly after the 90 fucking day warranty. How about mandated 10 YEAR warranties, a decade of product reliability, it will certainly cost more but the energy used to replace a product 40 fucking times versus one product that lasts a decade will be substantially reduced. Why does it have to be legislated because of psychopathic corporate greed.
So how much energy would be saved with mandated decade long warranties on all applicable products. Boy could you imagine the complaints from psychopathic corporations who would demand the right to produce crap products that would be replaced 40 fucking times in that decade long time period. You want a real look at psychopathic planet destroying greed, look no further than a 90 fucking day warranty.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
Which makes not a lick of sense since you just end up using the appliance for longer to get the same fuckin' result. Carbon footprint remains the same.
These would be the same tools who mandated the use of CCFL lights which contain mercury and white phosphorous, over incandescants which contain a chemically inert gas and a chemically inert filament inside a chemically inert container.
Don't forget the low flow toilet you have to flush three times.
The polarization of this debate makes it difficult to discuss even the most benign criticism of the Nuclear industry. No doubt I'll be modded down for that however if the Nuclear industry wasn't so fragile perhaps it could tolerate the criticism and overcome many of the issues it has.
The peer reviewed science shows that Nuclear power provides no net energetic return and is not viable in its current form. Perhaps France has identified that and the vote will identify how well understood that is, unfortunately the political cycle is a lot shorter than the long range planning and oversight the Nuclear Industry requires.
The Nuclear industry has serious structural issues and the only way they can be solved is by looking at the facts in a realistic, analytic and pragmatic way. I welcome facts and a debate on this free of the general dogmatic skepticism and ad-hom attacks from nuclear fanbois, after all I am trying to learn as much as I can like any normal person about this important and complex subject.
I am not anti nuclear, I am Responsible Nuclear which is different from being pro or anti nuclear. Please understand the difference in that perspective before you test my radiation suit.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
When I went to France I noticed a lot of people use resistive heating because the electricity is cheap. If a lot of people switched to central heating the country could probably be more energetically efficient. Somehow I suspect once they close the nuclear power plants the electricity prices will go up. A lot.
If a lot of people switched to central heating the country could probably be more energetically efficient.
Why central? Retro-fitting to old buildings would be unnecessarily expensive. (except perhaps single-storey homes, but they are not common.)
Just replace the electric radiators with split-system reverse-cycle air-conditioners. Modern systems can use a quarter the energy, or less.
And the next time a summer heatwave hits, the French won't be dying en-masse from heat exhaustion.
I live in Australia, we have had drought for many years at one stage prompting our government to change all the water saving ratings making all the best devices 1 star to promote even further water reduction, and restricting water usage to 120L /person /day. We have water free chemical urinals, water saving devices on all faucets and the local council even reduced the mains water pressure.
I have never had to flush the ceramic throne more than once.
Get yourself a better toilet.
These would be the same tools who mandated the use of CCFL lights which contain mercury and white phosphorous, over incandescants which contain a chemically inert gas and a chemically inert filament inside a chemically inert container.
And did so with the understanding that the generation of dirty power is an order of magnitude worse for the environment and that CCFLs can be a relatively quick change (life of a bulb) vs mandating clean energy (massive changes in power generation industry, massive changes in energy pricing, etc).
This rating system explains half of the situation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_stool_scale
I'm guessing you are normally a 5, 6, or 7.
I'm normally 1, 2, or 3.
There is more to it than just that though. There is also length and diameter. I can produce one that is 16 inches (40 cm) long. It's pretty thick too, just a bit less than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. Sometimes they have tar-like parts that stick to the bowl.
To handle these, my toilet would need to operate like a blender: close the lid, push the "milkshake" or "frappe" or "puree" button, and the blades make quick work of the situation. I've yet to see anybody selling a toilet with blades.
Actually, it is very possible by focusing on increasing efficiency. For example, we are almost pure LED lighting at our house. In addition, in the near future, when I replace the furnace, we will go to a heat pump that makes use of 9 KW solar cells.
That is how you lower your energy use.
Now, with that said, I think that France would be much smarter getting rid of their fossil fuel plants, which they have.
At the same time, they really need to push electric vehicles so as to quit importing oil/nat gas from Russia, Iran, Libya, etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
One issue is that the French nuclear reactors are badly designed. Areva, the French manufacturer, makes HUGE reactors that require extremely large construction equipment. The size of the reactors creates vendor lock-in. Failures can be far more dangerous.
Construction and maintenance is much easier when there are multiple smaller reactors. See, for example, Small Nuclear Power Reactors.
Approximately 96% of "spent" fuel rod is fissile material. The reason it's considered "spent" is mechanics of the process which make it less economic to use at that point.
In much of the world, a mix of anti-nuclear lobby and anti-proliferation lobby declare this 96% spent fuel "waste". In France, they recycle it into fuel.
It's pulled out, enriched back to normal levels and put back into the reactor. Remaining 3-4% are the generated impurities. The portion of this that is "high grade" is actually fairly easy to deal with - you just let it sit and break itself down. The more radioactive it is, the shorter half life it has and the faster it destroys itself. It's the low grade stuff that is problematic, as you can't just wait for it to break itself up, you need to actually store it somewhere. That's what most of the nuclear waste storage brouhaha is about.
Electric heating is 100% efficient once the electricity enters your house, whether it's central or not (and central suggests heating areas of your home you don't need to). Google entropy, or basic thermodynamics.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
In Europe, central heating means that you have radiators in every room or underfloor heating or wall heating. And you can regulate it in every room. Central heating means that you have one energy source in the building heating the water for these radiators. Nowadays these systems work with lower temperatures (e.g., 40 C) which is quite efficient. In addition in larger buildings central heating is installed separately in every apartment.
Why are you insulting the French? This reduction is possible. And it is already happening in the EU. As the same laws of physics apply to the US, it would be possible in the US too. It would be even easier because you waste so much more then Europeans. Instead of using SUVs as city vehicle you could use smaller cars. By that you could reduce CO2 emissions in the car sector by 50% or more. And you could insulate your homes which would require less heating in the winter and less cooling in the summer. Ah yes and you could place solar panels on your roof and collectors for electricity and water heating.
And hey the French will do exactly that (beside the SUV thingy, because they do not use them that much).
You should do that. Because 1kJ of of electricity is *not* the same as 1kJ of heat. A heat pump, pumps heat from outside into the house and for 1kJ of electricity you can easily pump 4kJ of heat from outside cold to inside hot giving a total of 5kJ of heat. ie 5x better.
So you really should study your basic thermodynamics and entropy because you don't know it. You want to look at a carnot efficiency and heat engines/refrigeration.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Numbers?
Current EDF tarrifs are 0.144 EUR/kWh (flat rate, or you can go for the night rate deal, 0.1572 daytime, 0.1096 off peak).
I've seen claims that average US prices are around 12.64 cents/kWh, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm which is more or less exactly the same amount.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
What other features do you need in a toilet apart from a bowl, water and a way of flushing it?
The way British toilets flush is very wasteful. If you look at Japanese toilets they accelerate the water and make it rush around the bowl, which seems to clean it out better. It also eliminates the overhanging lip so it is easier to clean, you don't need one of those "duck" shaped bottles to squirt bleach up from underneath.
Soft close seats, heated seats for the winter, odour elimination, built in bidet, auto-flush... And for really saving water, some have a basin attached. When you flush the water comes out of a tap and into the basin, so you can wash your hands with it before it goes into the tank to be used for the next flush.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC