Slashdot Mirror
France To Close Four Coal-Fired Power Plants By 2022, 14 Nuclear Reactors By 2035 (cleantechnica.com)
Socguy shares a report from CleanTechnica: French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech on Tuesday in which he announced a raft of new energy policies, including a promise to close the country's remaining four coal-fired power plants by 2022 and 14 of the country's 900 MW first-generation nuclear reactors by 2035. "The generation capacity will be replaced with wind and solar," adds Slashdot reader Socguy. The closure of the 14 nuclear reactors will reduce nuclear's contribution to the energy mix from its current level of 75% to 50% by 2035.
"I would have liked to be able to do it as early as 2025, as provided for by the Energy Transition Law," Macron added, "but it turned out, after pragmatic expertise, that this figure brandished as a political totem was in fact unattainable. We therefore decided to maintain this 50% cap, but by postponing the deadline to 2035."
"I would have liked to be able to do it as early as 2025, as provided for by the Energy Transition Law," Macron added, "but it turned out, after pragmatic expertise, that this figure brandished as a political totem was in fact unattainable. We therefore decided to maintain this 50% cap, but by postponing the deadline to 2035."
LEGAL NOTICE: From now on, I will be posting the following quote whenever there is a discussion here on Slashdot about climate change or renewable energy:
You are welcome on my lawn.
Macron tries to justify himself staying in to power despite deceiving the population.
Macron demission !!
aaaaaaa
And my heart goes out to their glow in the dark guts.
You don't know what you're talking about lol. All nuclear does is spin a turbine.
Less energy and more efficient usage is the key to real environmentally savvy policies.
Renewables and lower prices can lead to higher energy use.
And maybe we'd be less people on the planet. But this is another story.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
France has one of the best, most realistic and cleanest power generation systems on the planet. And they are going to scrap it all to please some uneducated granola eating earthy-crunchies? Friggin nuts.
With every inch of the country covered with solar panels they wouldn't produce as much and then there'd be no place for a ll the toxic batteries to store it.
You have no idea how wrong you are. France consumes 431,000,000,000 kWh/Year. "every inch of the country" is 643,801 km2. The insolation in France ranges from 3 sun hours/day in the north to 5 sun hours/day in the south, take an average of 4 sun hours/day. "covered with cheap 18% solar panels". That generates 463,536,720,000 kWh/Day, you could power the entire France for a year in just one single day. In fact that is enough to power the whole world 8 times over with 169,190,902,800,000 kWh/Year, the world only consumes 21,776,088,770,300 kWh/Year.
Good thing they're delaying the nuclear plant closures rather than the coal plants. Otherwise, Netherlands would have to build a larger sea wall -- and make the ocean pay for it.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Designed in France. Made in China. When China becomes to expensive, try a deal with Indonesia, Laos.
The French population can then read books and be calmed with TV at night under the glow of lights.
Total deindustrialisation.
Metro, work, sleep, zero
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Great so they only have to cover one three hundred and sixty fifths of the entire area of France. No problem I guess.
How/where are you going to store all that electricity? Your 4 sun hours/day is also wildly optimistic. What does the efficiency of those panels look like 5 years from now? 10 years from now?
Shall we consider how many windmills they'd need? Will you also assume 50 mph winds all day every day?
You think Nuclear power is stored somehow by spinning the turbine? Derp
Quite literally: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27...
Refusing to cave in to the demands of a mob is not a threat to democracy.
It is more accurate to say the mob is the threat. The protesters should take their demands to the voters, rather than rioting in the streets.
The guy pushes his big tax increase on carbon fuels for vehicles, and we see riots and fires in Paris. Apparently being gifted with a brain that is denser than lead, he seems to learn no lesson from this and proposes doubling down.
Dumpster fire in the making.
It's a political move, not a pragmatic one. France is bottom of Europe when it comes to CO2 emissions per generated energy specifically because of proliferation of nuclear power across the country. Their eastern neighbour is a great example of what happens when you try to close nuclear plants for wind and solar. You get more fossil fuel burning, and your trend of reducing emissions goes straight toward "miss all the CO2 emissions targets you were previously on track to meet".
One has to remember what is the political environment in which these calls are made. Macron is extremely unpopular in France across the board, after being elected as essentially "that bankster that managed to get to run-off against the woman media called every nasty name they can think of for decades". He was fairly unpopular when he was elected, and since he conducted his policies as would be expected out of a man who's essentially a full on elitist throughout his career, his popularity is worse than Hollande's.
So he's going from scandal to scandal, protest to protest. These loud announcements are just the next step in his game of "make loud declarations to deflect attention from current issues".
He will keep the coal fires burning!
Yours,
Gérard Depardieu
Trump Supporter
But me nukular! Thur takin mu nukular! Me Precious! Me Precious!!!
FREEZE PEACH!!!
That’s one way to put it. Another, less autocratic way, would be to hold a referendum, which he would handily lose, because 77% of the country are against this bullshit. That’d be democracy.
Your 4 sun hours/day is also wildly optimistic.
He included some of the oversea territories in the area figure...
As usual with Macron.
We should not close NR. They'll fall under 50% if we reduce our dependency on fossil energy which is the thing that really matters.
France has the best potential in EU for wind energy
Could someone explain to me why wind and solar are better than *MODERN* nuclear plants, particularly fast breeder reactors, that output very little waste and are relatively safe? Nuclear plants don't vary with the sun and wind and so have no need for expensive/complex energy storage solutions to go along with them. Is the replacement of nuclear purely down to the green lobby not liking the word "nuclear" or is there any justification that has a scientific basis?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
You think nuclear energy is stored in batteries to be used later? Fortunately those turbines run 24/7/365, unlike both solar and wind.
Sinking more green peace boats and killing their crews and rewarding the murderers with medals wont provide them with sufficient power...
What will they do in a cloudy day with no wind?
Actually no, they don't. That's just another indicator that you have zero actual experience with this.
Indeed. Macron only won 24% of the turned out vote in the first round of the elections (it's difficult to know how much he gained in the second as he was against Le Pen, so potentially a lot of protest/fear votes involved). He certainly does not have the majority of the country behind him, not by a long shot.
It's really this weird English idea where you just 'keep calm and carry on' as the Tory's destroy you country, despite them not winning the popular vote in a semi-democratic First-Past-The-Post system. I don't really get it, but it seems to be ingrained into their culture of civil obedience to those with power (and money).
Autocracy doesn't mean what you think it means kid. Hit the bricks back to Petersburg.
No no no. Voters are "the mob", you see. Much better to have the elite rule over us. They know what's best for you, peasant.
>> You get more fossil fuel burning
Nope.
That's wrong.
>> "miss all the CO2 emissions targets you were previously on track to meet"
That's true.
1) This (gradual) tax increase was announced since 2015. The time to protest was then. The entire point of this increase is to level the price of diesel and gas.
2) The needs of the many do not always outweigh the needs of the all/future. In this case (note: I'm partially speculating) if the collected money really goes into other rounds of CO2 reductions, then I'd argue leave the tax.
I honestly don't know how to handle the socio-economic fallout of this. The worst off will be the poorest, who bought a diesel powered car with the promise that it runs cheaper. Now that is no longer true, and they don't have the means to replace their vehicle.
From my layman's perspective, I think that the less painful approach to the energy-constrained future is to have a managed degrowth.
LEGAL NOTICE: From now on, I will be posting the following quote whenever there is a discussion here on Slashdot about climate change or renewable energy:
link
It's a bit dated now, but I recall at the time that a lot of conservatives initially thought the Colbert Report was real. Here is a clip from when he did the White House correspondence dinner. link
Basically Trump is saying, with the apparent intention of conveying he is serious, the same total bullshit Colbert was mocking conservatives with.
You can't make this stuff up... *cries quietly over the loss of sanity and reason.*
That's exactly what King George III said about those pesky colonial revolutionaries!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
No need to store nuclear, when you get lower power demand, adjust the control rods reducing reaction and the heat output and/or shut down a turbine or two on the generation loop. Plant is still safely running 24/7 with years of fuel left in the current fuel rods.
Power produced is reduced as needed and then when needed is quickly and easily increased. You don't have that flexibility with solar or wind. You get what you get, if you don't have battery capacity to store it, it's lost. Your battery storage is depleted you can't order up a few extra hours of sun for the day.
derp.
Quite literally: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27...
You don't understand the difference between democracy and tyranny of the minority. Quite Literally.
You're right of course but rampaging mobs are part of France's political tradition unlike in say, the United Kingdom. Also consider how frequently the population gets to vote for a French President. It's every five years. He can do whatever he wants during that period, more or less. The only way to prevent a policy going through is to riot. Add in the fact that a lot of French law is made in Brussels, where the Commisioners proposing legislation aren't even elected and you can see why so many European countries are voting for populists. There's not really an escape valve. Even when the population elects to excercise one, as the British did with their Brexit vote, powerful forces do everything they can to prevent its being realised.
This is the state of "democracy" in Europe right now. The system is setup to fail in the longer term. In the short term it's extremely dangerous.
Industry needs power. Innovative new clean energy technology first needs coal and nuclear etc. to create it. We have to grow our way out of this. Eventually clean factories will create even cleaner ones. But alas, that's not what climahox is all about. It's about crushing the West, so freedom and liberty can die.
The French will reject this heap of crap and his 26% approval rating. So none of this matters.
I never knew that King George III was elected!
With every inch of the country covered with solar panels they wouldn't produce as much and then there'd be no place for a ll the toxic batteries to store it.
You have no idea how wrong you are. France consumes 431,000,000,000 kWh/Year. "every inch of the country" is 643,801 km2. The insolation in France ranges from 3 sun hours/day in the north to 5 sun hours/day in the south, take an average of 4 sun hours/day. "covered with cheap 18% solar panels". That generates 463,536,720,000 kWh/Day, you could power the entire France for a year in just one single day. In fact that is enough to power the whole world 8 times over with 169,190,902,800,000 kWh/Year, the world only consumes 21,776,088,770,300 kWh/Year.
I really didn't think someone would be stupid enough to take "every inch of the country" literally, but here we are.
Oh, and keep dismissing that whole storing-the-energy problem, or the battery waste problem. It really makes for a good laugh.
People have become too accustomed to wasting electricity. This will force people to utilize electricity more sparingly. Kudos to France! Hopefully the USA follows suit.
Something many people overlook: France had whole miitary escorted convoys moving like clockwork to supply new nuclear fuel for those reactors. While it might not have been very often, every one of those shipments was a potential threat for a dirty bomb if hijacked.
Moving to wind and solar as primary forms of baseline power, combined with battery storage for peak demand loads, in addition to all the other benefits, helps reduce the number of convoys needed and the risk of nuclear material proliferation to dangerous groups or regimes.
For hydro, you need a big river, a place you can dam that river at a high altitude, and a way you can make a relatively short pipe to a low altitude.
For Norway, a fairly wet country with high mountains and deep fjords, there's lots of opportunities for that. So Norway has lots of hydro power, uses it to cheaply supply energy intensive industry, and exports power to the rest of Europe.
But Norway is not a normal country. Most countries are rather flat and/or rather dry. They exploit what hydro they can, but it is limited.
There's not enough possible hydro to power the world. Wind and solar aren't always available, storage is difficult. We need something that isn't coal to make up the gap, and the only option left is Nuclear.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
That's a nonsensical put-down. What he says is true, but it hasn't been done. The reasons for that are fairly obvious: France doesn't need or want to generate all the world's energy, they don't want to pave over all of France, and the political decision to invest heavily in solar has not been made in the past: that's the bit that's happening right now.
"It would already have been done" is a ludicrously stupid thing to say in this context.
France conquered Libya and claimed ownership of all of ENI's plants. They can now have cheap oil and gas, and they get to humiliate Italy as a bonus. Italy had high stakes in Libya and found itself ousted by another EU nation without even getting to protest.
Yes. Farting in France is big.
One has to remember what is the political environment in which these calls are made. Macron is extremely unpopular in France across the board, after being elected as essentially "that bankster that managed to get to run-off against the woman media called every nasty name they can think of for decades". He was fairly unpopular when he was elected, and since he conducted his policies as would be expected out of a man who's essentially a full on elitist throughout his career, his popularity is worse than Hollande's.
I'll just leave these facts here: In the runoff, Macron got twice as many votes as his opponent, who only managed to win in two departments. In the subsequent legislative elections, En Marche won an absolute majority in the National Assembly (308 to 8 for the National Front). In America, we would say, "Macron ate Le Pen's lunch." Macron's popularity is no worse than that of Hollande, Sarkozy, or Chirac at the same point in their terms, and he's actually doing slightly better than Hollande.
Even if your obvious hate-boner for Macron didn't make your bias evident, your portrayal of the fascist Mme Le Pen as some sort of victim of the media certainly does.
Why are you so reluctant to name her or her party, BTW?
And, yes, my current sig is a quote ("There is no planet B") from the man. Why not? It's true.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So many Slashdot posters with years of experience managing a national energy grid and therefore can use their gut feeling to decide what is right for a whole country, who'd have thought it?
Slashdot has become "uninformed shit talking" like the rest of the internet, there's no longer any value here.
But power consumption is not constant 24/7/365. So you're going to need storage anyway.
Great so they only have to cover one three hundred and sixty fifths of the entire area of France. No problem I guess.
0.3%. I know it is a huge investment, but take into account, that 52% of area of France is used for agriculture. Having half of land area used for food is normal, but using 0.3% of land area for energy needs is already outrageous? I think that if that would be as simple as giving up 1% of your land to never have to worry about electricity again with zero pollution, every country in the world would jump on it. There are many other serious issues, but I don't think that area needed for solar farms is the showstopper.
I want to point out that in this long complaint, never once have you addressed any of my points. You avoided them like a plague.
That if anything should tell anyone reading this thread just how much you agree with me on my points. When you opponent cannot even begin to address your actual points, and has to instead go "french woman bad", you know that he has nothing.
Make French tax payers pay for many battery packs.
A battery pack for every chateaux and household.
A set of solar-panel options for roofs.
Build really big grid battery for the grid.
Th lights stay on at night.
Industrialization becomes part of French history as power gets too expensive to use in France.
French exports become uncompetitive.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Emissions are rising in EU. In 2017: https://planetsave.com/2018/05... and will again in 2018: https://www.thedailystar.net/w...
Europe talks a good game, but has very little action. They do like to sign fancy "accords" and have meetings about it though.
And when it doesn't come to pass (remember, blackouts hve happened before, so you need to prove this was due to going green, not due to what alays happens in an electric grid) will we be able to then point to your post and proclami that all AGW denial is wrong because one person who disagrees with the IPCC projections as being "too high" made a prediction that didn't turn out, even though the majority of scientists (such as they are) in denial of AGW never mentioned that prediction, it was only some random fringe prediction, just like deniers do to climate science?
Yes?
Cool.
The headline is BS. It's the opposite of the announcement. Here's what the announcement actually said:
We had planned on getting to 50% by 2025, but our new target is 2035.
In other words, they announced that wind and solar are NOT. going to work out like they had previously said. By 2035 Macron will be long out of office and it will be somebody else's problem to explain why the new target is 2055.
Did he claim, like trump, he would increase taxes for the rich and not follow through? If not, then it was not a deception, was it.
Learn the words.
In 2017 in France:
Transportation generate 130Mt CO2 - stable since 2000
Building heating gives 80Mt CO2 - stable since 2000
Industry is about the same (70Mt) - decreasing every year
Energy Industry is 40Mt CO2 - decreasing since 1976 (thanks nuclear)
There is a relatively "easy" target here: make buildings burn less energy. This would give:
1/ rapid benefits in CO2 emission
2/ more cash to people living in those buildings (energy is really expensive those days)
3/ a great deal of business
Guess what: that's the only one we are not actively fighting today !
Increasing gas price using tax is somehow coherent (but very unfair) as long as we *use* the money for something useful, such as reducing heating needs
Not the case obviously... we need that for nation budget (if only tax evasion was lower...)
Well done guys, keep going.
You have to know if the one correct positive is more than 99 times more relevant than the 99 false positive. How many times has your life been saved by a "gut instinct"? Never? Pretty much everyone. And remember, even if you take that GPP incorrectly as a true scenario, for sake of argument, it doesn't say if any of the other 99 false positives could have killed you, just like the one correct positive situation could have killed you (but did not)..
The summary is wrong, first gen reactors were closed long ago and were more geared to producing plutonium for nuclear weapons yet they were used in power plants still. They were graphite-moderated gas-cooled.
What matter and constitutes the entire park is second generation reactors from the 70s and 80s (a few of them came online in the 90s). afaik we never decommissioned a single one yet.
The way to deliver solar power when and where you need it is the real problem, but at 50% nuclear they may actually have a better solution than many other countries.
Btw. Mainland France has between 1500 and 2800 hours of sun per year (4 to 8 per day). So 3 to 5 hours is a conservative estimate based on insolation.
https://www.currentresults.com...
Efficiency of the panels will drop by rougly 1% per year over 20 years.
https://www.engineering.com/De...
For windmills the issues are similar, but they may actually help a little (more wind on cloudy days).
"Politician promises politically popular thing, to happen in the politically indefinite future."
Those 14 nuclear plants will require 4200 3MW turbines to replace them, and that's when they're operating at maximum output.
Once you factor in the actual real world output that number rises to 17500, and that's assuming someone has cracked the grid scale storage problem.
I am sorry, but did I miss where the French got to vote on any of Marcon's energy policies? Yeah, when people didn't vote on it ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY
He can't admit when he's wrong, that's for sure (modded as Informative despite the fact he was corrected by at least 2 people with actual knowledge of the subject).
Why the fuck would they do it if they thought it was "cleaner"??? Got any actual evidence other than your asspull?
For my assertion, look at all the times cost went down and usage went up, and vice versa, in the past.
Your 4 sun hours/day is also wildly optimistic.
He included some of the oversea territories in the area figure...
Interesting. French Kerguelen is the windiest place I’m the world. The cabling is going to be a bitch, though.
So is everyone just ignoring the riots from the last set of regulations that is crippling the poorer people of France? And did I really see someone post about democracy when these regulations were forced down the throats of French citizens?? Hey maybe we can sell them all that "excess" energy we all heard California and Arizona is producing that is "free" that has seemed to disappear.
France export at night when it's cheap or when they overproduce and must dump it or shut down power plants, and need to import when it's daytime and prices are high.
Look at the french government balance sheets.
Unfortunately with all you liberals, you seem to be deluding yourselves into thinking you would be one of the 0.1% saved, for sucking up or being a useful idiot. I can assure you this is not the case. If you don't already know if there is a place for you in the 0.1 % it's because there isn't a place for you in the 0.1%
Hydro messes with a few large areas where it's possible to use it. Nuclear can be installed anywhere including in really foolish locations and by dangerous parties.
Hydro does some long term harm to relatively small local ecosystems; but it's not that big of a deal even if the physical space impacted is relatively large. Nature very slowly does a lot more changes to the landscape... a volcano or a massive fire... they have big quick natural impacts too... but nuclear fall out, political cover for weapons, unnaturally strong concentrations of super toxic waste that lasts longer than our civilization will is a bigger problem.
Furthermore the corruption involved around nuclear power companies seems to me to be more than hydro power. Needing new fuel all the time and dealing with waste, I think is a big factor.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
A solution to calm and clouds may involve storage devices like what Tesla has been prototyping at Hornsdale, South Australia.
There are many price increase steps planned, like they did to cigarettes.
We don't have a culture of "this tax pays for this feature". Everyone knows this goes to the national treasury so people easily have the "weakness" to think this will pay for tax cuts to the rich while numbers of teachers, nurses and public servants are decreased.
A higher up minister mocked the "beauf" who smoke their cigarette and drive their diesel (this doesn't mean quite a redneck or a joe-six-pack, but it's around these and insulting)
Macron had his devastating "let them eat cake" moment not too long ago when visiting citizens in the streets outdoor somewhere. His reply to an unemployed was that he could find a job by crossing the street. In France this requires the specific and validated skills for the jobs, a car, or both. For minimum wage.
because 77% of the country are against this bullshit
But not against it enough to take part in a tiny mob?
despite them not winning the popular vote in a semi-democratic First-Past-The-Post system.
That's interesting. I think I'm reading praise for FPTP systems. In the mean time countries who have this system often wish they didn't because there's nothing democratic about the natural stable end result of FPTP: A 2 party system.
Pretty soon we'll be mining coal and dumping into a big hole at taxpayer's expense due to a lack of market. Thanks T-Rump!
The protesters are voters. And since when is peaceful protest (I didn't read the whole thing but I think if it had turned violent that would have been at the top) a threat to democracy? Letting the government know you disapprove of something they're doing is at the core of democracy.
It is base load. Renewable are not, until a major tech advance is not. That alone relegate renewable to side load.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Most the wind is indirectly solar powered.
Hydro only works because water moves by air blowing it around.
Now if you store a million years of solar and you get fossil fuels... Nuclear is the only non-solar power source. (massive space explosions etc are not solar even if they involve stars.)
Just thought I'd point out a little less obvious facts given how some fool is always talking down to the rest of us by reminding us that the sun sets at night or the wind doesn't always blow... with a smug "checkmate" look on their face.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Bigmouth strikes again.
Exactly.
Being loud and obnoxious does not make you the majority. Thank goodness for that, too.
I tend to rant.
Buys power from France!
France shuts power plants down!
Buys power from????
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Even if your obvious hate-boner for Macron didn't make your bias evident, your portrayal of the fascist Mme Le Pen as some sort of victim of the media certainly does.
Here's the beef with it. Yes, media did call Le Pen every name when she ran against Macron. But this would be an extremely short-sighted account due to how the election works.
Media gave considerable coverage to Le Pen over months/years and so did even and foremost the "socialists" (I would put triple quotes around them if that character existed). Her father created and ran the party for decades but never had any real chance as most people associated him with the nazis and decolonization wars. Back when every retired person had lived through WW2.
She's the wolf, the black sheep, the scarecrow but this time presented as a real threat or an acceptable option - the word "dediabolized" was created for this.
Why do this? Give attention, air time, credit - just speaking of her and her party. Because, any candidate who gets to face her on the second round is sure to win in a landslide. The "socialist party" really counted on this strategy (defeat is likely against a second round candidate from the regular right wing, for reasons).
It allows an easy, cop out position : I'm the reasonable one, the democrat, progressist, enlightened and the others are fascists or extremists.
It also allows to depict the low class masses as unwashed racists uneducated and vile.
Macron has coopted all of this and now pretends protesters are far right, lunatics, fascists, extremists, violent. [by the way the "riots" aren't even riots at all. It's just people booing and getting tear gassed with a few things thrown and set on fire]
We've also learned the entire rationale we have for voting for him at the European elections is : "progressists" against "populists".
[Meanwhile, certain political opponents on his left, labor rights movements and environmentalist have been or are getting criminalized]
Let's go back to Le Pen. Right after the first round and till the second round (that's two weeks, sunday to sunday) every media rallied against her like round clock. It's expected and in fact, maybe 75% people are ok with that and think it's deserved.
What's most important is the first round of elections (and the months before it), even more so in cases like these ; that'll be lost on outsiders who fixate on the second round.
Macron did get a shit ton of press coverage, for reasons (a decade before Sarkozy was the one raking in dozens of magazine and newspaper covers), probably looks and youth was in it but more prosaicly the ownership of press and TV has got extremely concentrated. So, the millionaire in his 30s and EU champion whose nobody had heard of before 2014 and got to know and work with a few top elites was a media sensation, but we totally don't know why is that.
If you say gigawatt is more kilowatt, so the "plan" makes no sense, that's just because you hate nature and want everybody to die.
The audience for this stuff thinks about "should" and "want", not "how". How it's supposed to work is totally irrelevant, and doesn't even enter the minds of the people he's pandering to.
It's not that they actually think declaring / wishing something will make it magically happen like it does in the eco-cartoons. They don't think that saying "the government should give everyone free _____" will make stuff magically appear. It's that how, what the cost is, and unintended affects simply aren't relevant and never enter their mind. All that matters is what you want.
I think this part of the world looks like an always on polar vortex!
Technically, it was the CIA handbook figure, so this includes territories in overseas "regions" : French Guyana is in, Caribbean, the useful ones in Indian Ocean, Polynesia.
But Kerguelen and New Caledonia and a few other things aren't in.
Every schoolchildren learns in school : 550,000 km2.
Kerguelen is very little known except maybe a joke in one cultural reference about sending you there if you fucked up.
16 x 900 MW, hmmm .. that's 96 square kilometers of solar panels.
The solar panels being 300 Watt and 2 x 1 m = 2 square meters.
ofc that's just to be able to say the same capacity has been installed. realistically it would need to be about 4 times that size, so 384 square kilometers.
96 km^2 is a square ~9.8 km on the side. 384 km^2 ~ 19.6 km side.
all totally doable. 48'000'000 (14.4 GW) panels in 3 years or 1095 days (incl. sat and sun, stop bitching) = 43'836 panels per day.
-or-
for 4 x 14.4 GW that's 175'344 panels per day.
i would totally suggest, to add 2 years and use those extra 2 years to build a solarpanel factory in france that can output that 43'836 panels per day.
it will totally hilarious to have trains that run 50% on pure sunshine and go @ "grand vitess" : ]
One issue is that wind and solar make it very easy and inexpensive to start small and rather smoothly ramp up.
Consider the situation where you want to install a rather small amount of generation capacity. Start at say 1 kW. That's easy to do with renewables. What about 10 kW? Still easy with renewables, but it's a nightmare for nuclear. What about 100 kW? You are needing more approvals, better engineering, more consideration for siting but all that is ramping up rather smoothly and predictably with renewables. Considering your budget you'd not be surprised or daunted by any of this.
With nuclear, what is the smallest installation you can reasonably start with, to justify all the work and the engineering and capital requirements? And no, I don't want to talk about micronuclear, those are low volume production runs that are barely out of the proof-of-concept stage. When you talk about a conventional nuclear installation, you're in the range of practical starting around 300 MW. I expect to be corrected on the specifics but the general point remains: You can't do nuclear small, not without becoming a pioneer. And most customers aren't interested in being pioneers.
Seriously, they are headed in the right direction. Shutting down ALL of their coal plants first is a huge issue. We need other nations to follow this example.
In particular, America needs to get Nuclear SMRs going to replace coal AND Nat Gas. With trump's allowing the export of nat gas and unprocessed oil.
And of course, China needs to quit adding new plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The direction they are heading in, coupled with your insistence that per GDP is some sensible measurement, means China with GDP growth of 6.5% could grow their emissions 6% a year. You would be praising them for heading in the right direction !!
Per person is what counts, and where America is far far worse than Europe. You would have to head in the right direction for another 50 years and you still wouldn't be as green as they are.
Youâ(TM)d never know it from TFA, but there are literally riots in the streets of France over the fallout from these same energy policies.
It's so cute when you answer yourself and congratulate yourself on having a tiny echo chamber of science denialists.
No need to store nuclear, when you get lower power demand, adjust the control rods reducing reaction and the heat output and/or shut down a turbine or two on the generation loop.
At which point you Xenon poison the reaction and you have to completely shut down the reactor - or blow it up.
derp.
so happy happy happy in you false assertions.
I really didn't think
No you don't. You're every inch the idiot.
Completely wrong. There are much less scandal with Macron than with the previous president. He was elected with a lot more voices than the previous president.
I did not vote for him, but I admit he's doing what he promised in his program, unlike the previous president.
The main issue is that people do not read the program of their candidate, they just watch them dispute on TV and set their mind from these.
So, I'd say the French people have what they voted for, just like US people is having Trump. Don't be fooled when what was announced is realized, when at the time you were thinking "Bah, that's not possible, he's just exaggerating here"
We have some cheap, almost new, nuclear reactor for sale for 1$ each.
They are certified working since the last 30 years by independent experts.
* No delivery, you'll have to pick them up on site. Please clean the place after pick up
"Much less scandal". Right. Riiiiiiiiiiight. In other news, pigs fly, Sun rises from the West and Moon is made of cheese.
As for "elected with more voices", he got elected with a hell of a lot fewer than anyone before him in the first round. Second round, only his core was voting for him. Everyone else was voting against "French woman bad". In this regard, you're correct that they got what they deserved.
It still doesn't address any of my points.
Well, maybe the French looked across the channel and saw how well democracy has worked for the Brits who voted for Brexit, and decided mass protests would be more effective.
It's 26 square meters per capita. Is that such a huge deal? Even population density in French cities is way lower than that.
Ezekiel 23:20