Viv(r)e la recherche se propose de rassembler des témoignages, réflexions et propositions sur la recherche, le développement, l'innovation et la culture



Rechercher dans ce blog

Affichage des articles dont le libellé est renewable energy. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est renewable energy. Afficher tous les articles

mardi 13 juillet 2021

Opinion of the French Academy of Sciences (8 May 2021): The contribution of nuclear energy in the energy transition, today and tomorrow

 French Academy of Science is the leading scientific authority in France




Texte intégral : https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/20210614_avis_nucleaire.pdf

Extraits

1) The energy transition: "The energy transition, to be implemented to limit our greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming that results from it, must result in:

- a reduction in our energy consumption per person; - a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily coal and oil, and secondly gas;

 - an increase in the share of low-carbon energy sources (renewable energies and nuclear energy); These developments will inevitably lead to a significant increase in the share of electricity in energy production and consumption, reaching a level of around 700 to 900 TWh (terawatts-hour) in 2050, almost double our current electricity production. This electricity must be as decarbonised as possible.

Comment: As the Academy of Technologies had already noticed, this level of 700 to 900 TW.h confirms that the Multiannual Energy Programmation Law  (PPE) must be seriously reviewed. (650 TW.h). As well as all the scenarios, eg @RTE that rely on it.

2) Renewable energies: "Intermittent and variable renewable energies, such as wind and solar photovoltaics, cannot, on their own, supply an electricity grid with power in a stable and controllable way if their random nature is not compensated. This requires massive energy storage capacities and/or controllable backup power generation units. The massive storage of energy, other than that already carried out by means of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, would require capacities that are not seen to exist in the coming decades. Pilotability, in the absence of the latter, can only be ensured by nuclear power stations, if we exclude thermal power stations using fossil fuels..

3) Nuclear and CO2  : "A conventional RNT (Thermal Neutron Reactor) massively injects, 24 hours a day, at least for some 300 days a year, decarbonized electricity into the grid. Nuclear power generation is, in fact, of all sources of electrical energy, the least emitter of greenhouse gases (about 6 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh produced). »

4) Nuclear and environmental impacts :  "A comprehensive life cycle analysis of electrical systems shows that the non-radioactive environmental impacts of nuclear power are most often much lower than those of other systems. As far as radiological impacts are concerned, they remain, in normal working conditions, much lower than those associated with natural radioactivity. On the other hand, those linked to major nuclear accidents have necessitated the evacuation of large areas in order to avoid extraordinary radiological exposures and have had serious social and environmental consequences. Feedback from these accidents has led to successive improvements in reactor safety. Since 2011, EPR-type reactors, third generation pressurized water reactors (EPRs), have been designed to minimize the accidental release of radioactivity into the environment, thanks to technological provisions and more stringent safety regulations

5) Nuclear Waste: "Medium- and high-level waste with a long life, which is the most delicate to manage, has a volume of the order of 1.4 m3/TWh electric for the French fleet (the total volumes of this waste since the beginning of the nuclear era are respectively 42,700 m3 and 4,090 m3). The inventory of all the waste from the French nuclear fleet is regularly updated by the National Agency for the Management of Radioactive Waste (Andra)...

Deep geological storage, under conditions of safety and reversible management, controlled by the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), is well suited to long-lived waste. In this context, the application for the creation of Cigéo (Industrial Center for Geological Storage), after twenty years of research by the national scientific community, is ready to be filed with the Ministry of Ecological Transition to be examined by the ASN "

6) RNRs (breeder reactors): From the beginning of the program, the nuclear power policy aimed at the possibility of installing a fleet of fast neutron reactors (RNR) in order to make better use of uranium resources and thus extend the production of nuclear power... The most mature RNR model is a reactor using liquid sodium as the heat transfer fluid for energy: RNR-Na. The feedback from these reactors is important, especially in France, which operated Phoenix, Superphénix and led for 10 years the Astrid project foreshadowing the fourth generation RNR (RNR GenIV).

The Multiannual Energy Programming (PPE) has recently postponed to the next century a deployment of the RNR, leading to the abandonment of the ASTRID project of the CEA. As a standby strategy, it decided to move towards the multirecycling of plutonium from spent fuel in NTRs, particularly EPR reactors. This strategy is intended to maintain France's R&D expertise to move towards the RNRs. It can stabilize the quantities of spent fuel but does not lead to the energy autonomy as sought with the RNR. 

7) Recommendations:

- to maintain the nuclear power capacity of France's energy mix by extending the reactors in operation, when their operation is ensured under conditions of optimum safety, and by building third-generation reactors, the EPRs, in the immediate future. The latter are based on the best technology currently available and offer the best guarantees of safety;

- initiate and support an ambitious R&D program on the nuclear of the future in order to prepare for the emergence in France of innovative fourth generation fast neutron reactors (RNR), which constitute a solution for the future and whose study is actively continuing abroad;

- to take into account in this programme all the scientific aspects of fuel recycling associated with reactors, including the management of radioactive waste;

- maintain training courses to attract the best young talents in all fields of physics, chemistry, engineering and nuclear technologies to develop national skills at the highest level;

- inform the public in full transparency about the constraints of the various energy sources, the complete analysis of their life cycle and the contribution of nuclear power in the current energy transition.

samedi 21 septembre 2019

Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls(2)


To complete the previous blog:

https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/08/energiewende-nos-chers-amis-allemands.html

And to give a little insight into the Franco-German atmosphere in energy policy:

About Fessenheim:

12 January 2015, letter from Barbara Hendricks, German Minister of the Environment, to Ségolène Royal:

"Dear Colleague, In 2014, on the sidelines of the informal environmental summit in Milan, we talked among other things about the Fessenheim nuclear power plant. I therefore welcome the fact that President Hollande has once again confirmed the decision to close Fessenheim. In this context, and in connection with my letter of September 15, 2014, please inform me of the timetable and procedures you intend to follow for the Fessenheim stop.

As you know, the people living in the border areas are very concerned about the security of the plant. I urge you to take these concerns into account when weighing the pros and cons and in your decisions, and to foresee the Fessenheim shutdown at the nearest possible time. I am of course aware that in this area, the decision is ultimately France's sovereign responsibility. But you certainly won't mind me fighting for the demands of the people who live near the Fessenheim power plant.

Comment: A bit threatening, no!

04/03/2016 , the same Barbara Hendricks: "The French nuclear power plant in Fessenheim, close to the border with Germany, is "too old" and "should be closed as soon as possible," a spokesman for the German minister said on Friday. Barbara Hendricks.  "For us it is very clear that Fessenheim is very old, too old to be still active," the spokesman said, when asked at a regular government press briefing. "The minister is calling for (the plant) to be closed as much as possible."  "Obviously, such an older reactor has a lot of technical problems," he said, and "for us reactors this old pose a security risk." He referred to "the concerns of the inhabitants of the border regions ".

Comment: lies and  lies! In France, nuclear power plants are maintained and regularly modernized. If Fessenheim is closed, it is by a purely political decision, the Nuclear Security Authority having deemed it good for the service!

Fessenheim and Cattenom, or when Nicolas Hulot defended French nuclear power and stuck with the Germans.

"After a two-year shutdown for control, reactor 2 at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant in Upper Rhine is due to restart on Saturday 31 March. This is expected to last only a few months since the government has promised to close the Alsatian power plant at the end of 2018, when the EPR in Flamanville (Manche) has started.
This closure is also an issue for France's European neighbours, such as Germany. Nicolas Hulot, the Minister of Ecological and Solidarity Transition, met his German counterpart, Svenja Schulze, this week and for the first time. During the meeting, the German Minister of Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety recalled that her country's demands had not changed on this issue.

 "I have obviously expressed the concerns of the German people," said Svenja Schulze, "and that is why I really welcome the fact that we are moving towards a quick stop at the Fessenheim power plant."

"Of course I also talked about the Cattenom power plant [in Moselle] and our position that there should be no extra time," said the German minister. We agreed that the topics we are discussing here are also very important for the German population at the border.

Nicolas Hulot's response: the government will close the Fessenheim plant as soon as the EPR starts, either at the end of 2018 or in 2019. On the other hand, for Cattenom, he recalled that EDF was starting maintenance work, in order to continue its production for another 10 years.

The French Minister of Ecological and Solidarity Transition wanted to give the best welcome to his newly appointed counterpart, to show that they also had common ground. "No one has a lesson to teach themselves," said Nicolas Hulot. Our two countries are in unparalleled energy transitions, at least historical, with parameters, constraints, which are not always the same - to say the least - but at least with ambitions that are common

Several German politicians have regularly expressed concern about the safety of some French power plants near the border, in particular the one in Fessenheim, Upper Rhine, which is due to close soon, and that Cattenom (Moselle). The two countries will also continue their discussions in the autumn on the introduction of a carbon floor price, which still lacks a common position."

Comment: yes, our dear German friends are in a much better hurry to shut down our nuclear power plants than to introduce a real carbon tax. It's criminal for pollution and for the fight against climate change!

The obscure role of OFATE (Franco-German Office for Energy Transition)

In the oral question, Senator Anne-Claire Loisier asked what was the merits of the existence of a Franco-German renewable energy lobbyists' office established within the Ministry of Ecology, and named the Franco-German Office for the Energy Transition (OFATE). This office was created by the French and German governments in 2006 with offices in the Ministries of Ecology in Paris and Berlin, and its steering committee consists mainly of renewable energy promoters.

« Anne-Catherine Loisier draws the attention of the Minister of State, Minister of Ecological and Solidarity Transition, to the representation of wind companies in the Franco-German Office for Energy Transition (OFATE).

This body is supposed to coordinate Franco-German policies. To this end, it maintains its offices in the ministry's own premises and is funded by more than a third of the department.  Its steering committee includes the four Franco-German EnR unions and many of the other members have special interests in the sector.  It would appear, therefore, that the wind "lobby" is funded by the department itself.

Moreover, the Franco-German report AGORA IDDRI ("Energywende and energy transition by 2030") states that "[...] if nuclear capabilities are removed from the French mix, the competitiveness of coal-fired power plants maintained in the system in Germany is improved. Germany would therefore have a doubly interest in France strengthening its wind energy production capacity because it has many companies in this sector and the decline in French nuclear capacity would make it more competitive coal-fired power plants and thus their maintenance in Germany.  It therefore asks him for his analysis on these facts in relation to France's energy policy interests. »

Comment: Anne-Claire Loisier is a Senator from the Gold Coast, Centrist Union group. Fortunately, in the old world, there are a few elected officials who do their job!

Here, for a change, the Belgian nuclear power plants

Le Monde, 13 January 2016: "The Minister of the Environment of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, Johannes Remmel, is asking the European Commission to check the safety rules in force in Belgium. In Luxembourg, the Secretary of State for Sustainable Development, Camille Gira, also expressed concern and called for clarification on the situation in Tihange. German officials had previously called for the closure of the unit, located 70 kilometres from the town of Aachen, after microcracks were discovered on the steel tanks of several Belgian reactors..

The government of the German regional state of Rhineland-Palatinate decided on Tuesday to join a complaint by Greenpeace and Benegora, a Belgian-Dutch consultation platform in the Antwerp region, against extending the life of the power plants Tihange 1 and Doel 1 and 2. Rhineland-Palatinate calls for emergency shutdown of these facilities to protect the population. »

Comment : Tihange 1: 962 MWe and Doel 1 and 2 have been extended until 2025 by the Belgian government... with the support of the Netherlands. Well, well....

Conclusion (Huffington Post Blog, 09/25/2017, commenting on a report by France Energy on Energywende):

"In the light of the facts, the increase in intermittent electricity production (wind and photovoltaic) in place of nuclear power has only reinforced the role of coal and gas, the only energies capable of compensating for the variability of wind and sun, and  for lack of viable storage method! Energy efficiency gains were also largely overestimated in relation to the actual behaviour of the population and industry.

Germany has once again acted as a  clandestine passenger of European integration, using the solidarity and stupidity of its partners to its own benefit. The guaranteed supply of French and Austrian electricity has enabled German electricity grids to offset the technical effects of the "fatal" energy of its wind turbines and solar panels unable to keep up with the real needs of consumption.
In short, Germany is flooding markets with electricity when no one needs it and pumps its neighbors when the climate and the production is capricious!

Well, nothing better to add !


Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Fessenheim"

Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls(1)


DIW: almost all wrong!

The German economics institute DIW has released a study on nuclear power, the conclusion of which is that nuclear power is expensive and dangerous
This study  is full of various errors and manipulations.

 Historic nuclear competitiveness: "In recent years, new studies have confirmed that nuclear energy is not competitive."

Comment: false, false, and ultra false for historical nuclear. To stay in a Germany, the Fraunhofer Institute showed in 2018 that the energy generated by nuclear power plants was cheaper in Germany than that obtained from coal, lignite and gas and barely more expensive than from biomass..

A key parameter for calculating the cost of energy production is the lifespan of a given source. And of course, DIW has shortened the life of the nuclear reactors, saying that "nuclear power plants are designed to last 30 to 40 years.”

The initial uncertainty about the lifespan of nuclear power plants was due to a precaution resulting from a lack of knowledge about the effects of long-term irradiation. Today, it is clear that these initial fears were premature and the consensus is rather over 60 or even 80 years; especially since nuclear power plants are constantly maintained and large refit-type renovations like French grand carénage allow for a safe extension of life.

By comparison, the lifespan of wind farms is only 20 to 30 years, and much less for marine wind farms. According to an OECD report, the median cost of electricity generated during the life of an electricity producer is $53/MWh for a nuclear power plant and $175/MWh for an offshore wind farm. !

And if nuclear was not so interesting, why then do the so-called alternative suppliers of french EDF rush to ARENH (regulated access to historic nuclear) and demand more and more?


Competitiveness of the new nuclear :  "Additional investments in nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident will be made in a new economic environment that could affect their level of profitability."

Comment: Oh yes, really? In Germany, the government takes more than 20 billion euros from the pockets of citizens each year to allocate to the renewable energy sector. According to Peter Altmeier, German Economy Minister, total support for energy Germany reaches 680 billion euros. This amount enough to build 61 nuclear power plants of Olkiluoto-3  type(EPR), despite all the slippages and difficulties of this second prototype of the EPR

Dear German friends, you better think! (sur l’intérêt de l’EPR, cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/01/un-nucleaire-nouveau-est-necessaire.html)

In addition, the experts in the DIW report made a series of biased errors, notably neglecting the quality of the energy (fatal or controllable, it's not the same!), failed to translate the installed capacity into the amount of energy actually generated and ignored external costs, such as not at all negligible costs of network extension and management, which are high when operating dispersed and intermittent sources !!

Decarbonised energy or not? "There is still no reason for the private economy to invest in commercial nuclear energy today"

Comment: yes, especially if you  do not want to fight global warming and do not put in place a carbon tax essential and adapted for this purpose!

The imposition of meaningful taxes on CO2 emissions makes nuclear competitive with coal-fired production in all fuel price scenarios and with CCGT technology (combined cycle power plant, the top of the gas) when gas prices are at moderate or high levels. At a price of $25 per tonne of CO2, in a moderate coal price scenario, nuclear would be competitive with coal. With a higher royalty of $50 per tonne of CO2, nuclear costs less than gas in moderate and high gas price scenarios.

However, the carbon credits generated by the Kyoto Protocol are no longer available and manufacturers have now exhausted their total quota. According to a carbon tracker study, the price of carbon could reach between 35 and 40 euros per ton over the next five years and this is far from enough if we are to meet our climate targets.
The Quinet report of France Strategy (Feb 2019) estimated the necessary value of CO2 at 250 euros/tonne of CO2 in 2030. Realistic, the authors do not ask for a carbon tax of 250 euros by this time, but their study means this: "Any action to reduce emissions that cost less than 250 euros/tonne of CO2 makes sense for the community and must therefore be undertaken »

So priviledge nuclear power over gas, and of course, coal. Which is the exact opposite of what Germany is doing with its Energiewende !

And the DIW study has a meaning that we would do well to understand: Germany will fight like a bulldog to avoid the increase in the CO2 tax and to deter nuclear financing, which it has beautifully succeeded in bringing out the taxonomy of green funding proposed by the EU.
We are warned: Germany is determined to continue to behave like a climate criminal!

Acceptance of nuclear power: "The main determinants of the future operation of existing nuclear power plants and investments in new nuclear power plants remain economic considerations, safety considerations energy, environmental considerations and public acceptance"

Comment: Having grossly falsified the figures on economic considerations, not being able to say anything about energy security (if it is security of supply, the US and Russia are fighting fiercely about who Europe will be vassal for gas, about  safety at all, . WHO estimates, globally, that nuclear has spared 3.8 million premature deaths from carbon pollution

And there, surprise: "researchers are surprised that the public's acceptance of atomic energy has not been more shaken by the Fukushima accident." It was expected that countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Japan would be significantly affected in their support for nuclear energy. In practice, these forecasts have been proven for Germany alone, with the German Parliament declaring its intention to close nuclear power plants by 2022. Meanwhile, Japan is gradually restarting nuclear power plants that closed after 2011, while Switzerland allows its existing reactors to remain in operation. Not to mention nuclear investments in China, Russia, India or Saudi Arabia ...

Climate: and now the big big lie! : "Nuclear energy is not an option for a climate-friendly energy mix."

Comment: Well, precisey !, nuclear energy is much better than wind or solar that’s has to be necessarily backed by an equivalent power either gas or, much worse, coal, or, much worse than worse, lignite, as our dear friends have done in Germany ; this is what emerges from the IPCC's latest climate report of October 2018, for which keeping global warming below 1.5°C requires a sharp increase in nuclear energy production.

In summary: dishonest selectivity of sources, omission of any study contrary to the position of the German government (and even the IPCC documents), erroneous conclusions of the analyses cited, cost-effectiveness analysis of nuclear completely and deliberately falsified,  the DIW report is clearly biased, written to support the German government's thesis that it is necessary to move away quickly from nuclear energy. 

The fact that such an unreliable study, a shameless propaganda tool, is taken up without criticism by some media is just another example of Fake Science and manipulation in the energy sector.

Germany is determined to do everything it can to continue to behave like a climate criminal!

And after all, crime against humanity is a local specialty !

 On this subject, see also



Image