Vous n'êtes pas encore inscrit au service newsletter ?

S'inscrire

Login

Forgot password? Reset it!

×

AB 2000 studies

Alain Boublil Blog

 

40%: The thermal power plants production increase in November in France

The stoppage, for diverse reasons, of around ten nuclear power plants and a colder autumn have been enough to disrupt the energy mix in France in November. Consumption increased by  near 9%, compared to November 2015, but the net electricity production fell by 3.7%, which has provoked a slump of exports. The trade balance has been divided by 10 with just a 0.64 TWh surplus. Nuclear production has fallen by 12.7% and its share of the power production, which usually is close to 75%, was reduced to 68%. Thanks to a good level of the water in the dams, hydraulic power production has partly compensated losses coming from nuclear plants, with an 18.6% increase, and represented 9% of the total production. On the other hand, other renewable didn’t help because the most important one, wind turbines, has fallen by 5%. Energy generated by solar panels, which contributes by less than 1% to the total production, even if it strongly rose (+15.6%), was too small to bring a significant contribution. So, it was thermal power plants which use fossil fuels, natural gas and also coal, which permitted to satisfy demand. There was no power cut, as it was feared but that provoked a strong rebound of CO2 emissions by France, for the first time in many years.

So, in that circumstance, it was possible to measure the consequences of a reduction of nuclear production. The current situation will certainly last several more months with the cold snap occurred since the end of last year and in spite of the restart of some nuclear power plants. It gives the opportunity to understand why the objective, included in the energy transition bill, to go back to a share of nuclear production equal to 50% is unrealistic and dangerous for the environment. This provision is, in fact, deeply in opposition with the purpose of a text which intends, rightly, to reduce CO2 emissions in order to fight against climate change. It is now proved that, in France, fossil fuels are the only alternative to nuclear power plants. Hydro resources are limited by the capacity of our dams and they fluctuate along with rainfalls. Wind energy cannot reach a level of production big enough to offset the reduction of nuclear power plants and offers no guarantee of availability. During November, when it was needed, the fall of their production has increased tensions on the market. Regarding solar energy, in despite of the huge subventions it got, it has stayed at a marginal level with less than 1% of the production (0.37TWh) when total consumption rose to 44,4 TWh and its availability in winter, when energy is needed, will always be under the average of the year..

The frequently mentioned answer to cope with the disadvantages of renewable source of energy irregularity, storage, is far from being up to being operational. It will necessitate, regarding the needed storage capacities, such a level of investments that it will not be able,  before a very long time, to meet expectations. It is not a reason to abandon the current efforts to make progress. Some specific applications can be operational in the midterm but they cannot give a global response as some are trying to pretend. At the end, there is a major contradiction between the will to strengthen the competitiveness of the enterprises, which need an available and as cheap as possible energy, to protect purchasing power of middle classes who would be the first victims of a increase in electricity prices and the project of reducing the number of nuclear power plants, and even closing all of them, as for instance, it is included, in a totally irresponsible way, by Jean Luc Mélenchon in his presidential program.

The position of the left, as a whole, about nuclear industry, is not inspired by rationality or by social justice but by politician maneuvers. The purpose is to have a message compatible with ecologists. It is not new. Lionel Jospin used this strategy but it didn’t protect him against two ecologist candidates in 2002 presidential election and he was eliminated after the first round. Martine Aubry also followed that path but François Hollande softened it. He nevertheless kept, in his program the proposal of the closure of the Fessenheim nuclear plant, which is as absurd as costly and difficult to put in practice.

The energy transition bill follows the same logic. Its proposals related to the share of nuclear power which should be reduced to 50%, will be unavoidably abrogated, since if the future president decided to continue on this way, it would mean, as we have just recorded it, that France CO2 emissions would rise rapidly. In that case it would be difficult to explain to the world that we have renounced to fulfill the commitments we have taken during COP 21 and included in the Paris Agreements.   

Comments

No comments yet.

Vous devez vous inscrire pour poster un commentaire : se connecter