| |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction: without them France would have burnt more fossil fuels. Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels => France must electrify (replace fossil fuel by electricity) => produce more gridpower => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. Upon an economic viewpoint electrifying is facilitated by the sheer availability of low-priced electricity. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | It feels like you've got your answer and are looking for a way to find the fit problem. > Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. > Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels Yeah, that's my point. France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. > => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, with electricity usage going down for two decades, and a significant share of its power being exported currently. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | >> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction > The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. Source? > France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. I disagree: Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. Producing more electricity enables us to contain its price, boosting electrification. Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants (on average) seems adequate to me. New nuclear (Flamanville-3 EPR) isn't adequate (6x times overcostly, at least 12 years late). > France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production, Electrification has to ramp up, therefore if everything goes as planned it will soon be over. Waiting is dangerous. > with electricity usage going down for two decades Production nearly-flat from 2004 until COVID: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption > a significant share of its power being exported currently. The challenge (getting rid of fossil fuels and the necessary powergrid, see ENTSO-e) is at continental-scale. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here. > A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is. > Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck about CO2, all you care about is for renewables to replace nuclear, another clean energy source. All of your discourse is warped and dishonest because you want to pretend that you care about catbon emissions when, in fact, you don't. If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Why the hell would you show me the same graph I quoted it 4 days ago (see above). I propose my interpretation of it, for the objective reader to make his mind. Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. >> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. > As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is. If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying let's say we live in distinct universes. > Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck No arguments, therefore you rant about what (in your opinion) I think. This is moot. > If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying. I already explained, above, why deploying electricity-producing plants is just as important and urgent. You didn't even try to counter-argument. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows. > If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottleneck is money. We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project. > You didn't even try to counter-argument. Why would I try when we're at the point where you don't even acknowledge raw data? | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > the declining share is nuclear OMG, is it a joke? Consumption is stable, OK? Nuclear produced less, OK?
Therefore renewables compensated for nuclear declining production, OK?
Therefore burning more fossil fuels was not necessary, OK?
Therefore renewables replaced them, OK? > the bottleneck is money My point is solid even given this perspective: the way public money is used is of paramount importance: government recently ordered new nuclear reactors, and also subsidizes renewables in order to compensate past huge subsides to nuclear. More money here, less money there. > We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project. Read above. > you don't even acknowledge raw data Raw data, as explained, shows that renewables enabled France to avoid burning more fossil fuel. This is a fact, like it or not. | | |
| ▲ | pyrale 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Nuclear is not down for intrinsic reasons, it is down because it comes after renewables in merit order, and therefore when renewables are available, it is scaled down. In low renewables availability episodes, there isn’t more fossil production, we simply ramp nuclear up. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
