"Clean Power" France needs to import "Dirty Power", power grid about to fail

D

D-Fence

Guest
"Clean Power" France needs to import "Dirty Power", power grid about to fail

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,667570,00.html

Google faillation: http://translate.google.de/translat.../wirtschaft/0,1518,667570,00.html&sl=sl&tl=de



Core points:

- France has only nuclear power (58 reactors) and always plays the CO2 card and blames "Dirty Nations" with coal power or gas power
- 12 Reactors are currently offline due to "overhaul, minor problems and strikes" so they don't produce 63.260 Megawatts but only 53.000 Megawatts
- The network is not planned for low temperatures, when everyone turns on heating and tv in the evening they can't guarantee for enough power nationwide
- On monday they already needed to import German coal-power of 4400 Megawatt (equals ~4 Nuclear reactors)
- On tuesday they needed 5100 Megawatts imported
- Their network can only handle 10.000s Megawatt of import power, and only when injected in equal parts from Belgium, Italy and Germany
- Every more degree of minus temperature adds ~2100s Megawatt demand
- The areas most hit by the power cuts are the border regions, not central France
- they already shut of christmas lights in Rennes, they ask you not to switch on washing machines before 20h and turn down the temperature in your flat
- the weekend will be even colder :)

Adieu les bleux!
 
Well good riddance, was about time to get rid off those cocky bastards. Insulate your houses or buy more pants.
 
Shouldn't that be "Nuclear, work-shy" France? Not that renewable sources would be much more consistent.
 
So why wouldn't you plan a power grid around peak usage in the first place? That's some damn fine French planning right there.
 
Solution is simple, build more reactors.
 
I vote to donate the french 11.000 Megawatts though. Just a little one time pulse from Germany...
 
Nuclear Power even the way the French are doing it is way too expensive. These things are actually off-line because thay are broken in one way or another - can you imaging the Politicians on the blower talking to the CEOs of the companies brow beating them into bringing them back on line when they are dangerously broken?

This is a really stupid way for us to go (On a mountain of Coal surrounded by millions and millions of barrels of oil, blown around by fierce winds from the Atlantic and with some of the highest trides in the world, we should be able to pick something out of that lot) - we are crap at these Nuclear things and we have just cut the funding (Smart Move Broitish Government)for the training of the scientists we are going to be needing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8417365.stm
Any how they will build this laod of crap so why should I worry - it's just my Taxes going down the tubes.
 
Last edited:
^ Am I becoming increasingly stupid or why did I have to read it that three times to understand what you were on about. :blink:

Now I got a bad deja vu too. Oh crap.


Uhm yes. It's all about productivity in the long run and cutting from R&D or education is idiotic.
 
We are also idling our reactors for christmas and importing coalpower from Vattenfall Poland and Germany.
 
I don't see what the agenda of that Spiegel article is.

Are they blaming nuclear power for not producing enough energy? Do they want France to install lots and lots of coal fired plants to supplement their nuclear plants? Which is a dumbass thing to think.

Or are they playing the eco card saying that nuclear power just doesn't work and that France would be better off if they shut off all reactors and go "real" green? Which is an even dumber idea than the first one.
 
Well, as I see it: Nuclear Power has no future. Not because of the risks of the technology itself, but because of some rather banal reasons, including lack of cost effectiveness, lack of trained people and engineers (almost no one starts a career in nuclear technology anymore) and the fact, that nobody built a new nuclear power plant in decades and companies have forgotten how to do it, which again raises the construction costs enormously (look at what happens in Finland at the moment).

So this might be the first problem France had for some time, but it can also be seen as the first one, which will be followed by more, if something fundamental isn't changed.

It's the bitch about early warnings, that almost nobody takes them serious.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely MacGuffin, it has ben successful for some time but there is a big question mark on nuclear waste and more importantly the plants themselves. There are already old unused sites and not only are they not pretty sights but they are obviously potentially dangerous. But these were decisions made in the 60's and unfortunately apart from not building more sites we can't do other than to have to deal with the already existing ones.
Personally I reckon that a country like France (and Europe as a whole) has the resources to produce more alternative energy, providing there don't become an eyesore.
- Wind turbine all across the Atlantic front, from Britanny to Pays Basque
- Dams in the strong torrents of the Gorges du Tarn (for instance, there has to be many other)
- Water turbines on the coast of the Atlantic
- solar panels in the burning Provence and on a European point of view southern Italy and Spain.
And so on.....

There's got to be 1001 spots in Europe where green energy is possible. I wish we could all agree on something like this (by the look of Copenhagen it is not anytime soon), but unfortunately a country like Britain seems to go the Nuclear way (plans announced last month for nuclear plants across the country) for instance.
What's stopping us? Ah yes, money again. <_<
 
You don't need as many specialists on nuclear physics when you're building a NPP as you need common mechanical engineers and others, a NPP is simply a giant steam engine that happens to run on atomic power. That said there are still alot of people who study NEE (but by default not as many as those who study other engineering subjects) otherwise companies like Areva and Westinghouse would not be in business anymore, which they are.

Wind turbines suck compared to all kinds of hydropower. The nifty little waterplanes are very cool and has the potential to generate alot of power. Wind is currently close to it's maximum operating potential but it's puny power output is still rubbish.
 
MacGuffin said:
Well, as I see it: Nuclear Power has no future. Not because of the risks of the technology itself, but because of some rather banal reasons, including lack of cost effectiveness,
Click to expand...
How do you figure? In the US at least, it costs the same as coal.

lack of trained people and engineers (almost no one starts a career in nuclear technology anymore)
Click to expand...
And you don't think that has something to do with new nuclear plants being verboten? I'm sure if we decided to all start building new nuclear plants again, that would change.

and the fact, that nobody built a new nuclear power plant in decades and companies have forgotten how to do it
Click to expand...
Really? "companies have forgotten how to do it"? Someone should have told them.

which again raises the construction cots enormously (look at what happens in Finland at the moment).
Click to expand...
The construction costs are so astronomical because the world hates nuclear power, and as you said, doesn't want anyone to build any new reactors at the moment.
 
Olkiluoto 3 is a pilot plant and not representative of the costs or time involved to build a traditional NPP. It goes without saying there will be unforseen problems when building something that has never been built before.
 
Last edited:
Dogbert said:
How do you figure? In the US at least, it costs the same as coal.


And you don't think that has something to do with new nuclear plants being verboten? I'm sure if we decided to all start building new nuclear plants again, that would change.


Really? "companies have forgotten how to do it"? Someone should have told them.

The construction costs are so astronomical because the world hates nuclear power, and as you said, doesn't want anyone to build any new reactors at the moment.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should read this article first, before we continue discussing.

They surely haven't forgotten how to make the old ones -- but do you really suggest we should keep on building nuclear reactors based on 40-year-old technology?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top