Voyons quelques contributions qui ne sont pas antinucléaires, en réponse à l’appel de l’UE :
Green Deal Call – Area 2 – Fournir une énergie propre, abordable et sûre.
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/GreenDealCall2
1) Jean-Luc Salanave
Contribution JLS du 20/05/2020 sur https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/GreenDealCall2:
This « area 2 » approach for the EU Green Deal is based on a double error:1. the priority against climate change is to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal), NOT to increase intermittent production of offshore electricity ! This approach confuses the goal and the means (the goal is CO2 reduction).2. Hydrogen is not an energy source but just an energy vector. It is expensive to produce, the efficiency will never be better than 30% (due to electrolysis losses and H2-fuel cells losses), and much less efficient and practical than electricity (which is anoter energy vector). The only reason why hydrogen is though about is because of the above mistake n°1: you need H2 only if electricity production is intermittent (wind or solar). If the energy production is non-intermittent (nuclear, hydro, geothermal, aerothermal/heat pumps, …) hydogen is useless becouse it is not needed to store energy, it is just produced when needed, without any transformation losses.My recommandation is that the european green deal policy should find its inspiration from proven technologies, which need no or litle subsidies (we are in an economical world crisis !). The best scenario, presenting the best garanty for a factor 4 reduction of CO2 in 2050, according to the scientist community, is NEGATEP: http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/climat-energie/Negatep_V-2017.pdf (ref: https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/fr/base-documentaire/negatep-2017). Financial aspects are here: https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/climat-energie/Negatep-finance.pdf)Best regards.Jean-Luc SalanaveProfessor and expert in low carbon electricity
2) Patrick Michaille
Without producing hydrogen which is the way that intermittent producers can give a value to their production by making it storable, there is no sense to multiply the intermittent production of electricity. The covid-19 crisis demonstrates what will be the instability of the electricity network with a share of intermittent production of 40%, which is proven by negative prices, meaning that the electricity becomes a waste. Whereas the energy transition for protecting the climate requires that decarbonized electricity is developed, there is an urgent need to invest in modern and safe Generation-III nuclear reactors in Europe.
3) Stephan Savarese
Clean energy has to be low-carbon. Rather than picking winners and losers, the EU should adopt a regulatory approach consisting in a progressive ban of high-emission energy sources. For instance, shutting down all power plants with GHG emissions higher than (in gCO2eq/kWh):
2025 : 1000
2030 : 500
2040 : 100
2050 : 50
Removing nuclear power from clean energy makes no sense. There is no harm to ecosystems nor human health in France. If we can do it, what is the rationale for denying other EU member states to do likewise ? France has set an example but Europe wants to invent another one.
How much time is left to save the climate ? 10 years. When will the EU be realistic about climate change ?
With best regards, bien cordialement,Stephan Savarese
4) Michel Simon
« Do you propose changes in the orientation for the area or the approach proposed for the topics?
The first objective – and to day it shoud be the only one!- is to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.
The relevant topic should concentrate on that concern:
How, and by which method/tool should we reduce use of fossil fuels for heat production?
How, and by which method/tool should we reduce use of fossil fuels for transportation?
It seems that the Topic 1 concentrate on electrical renewable energy, which is a non sense regarding the
major objective : reduce fossil fuel! There are other ways to produce electricity at reasonable price, with full
guarantee of availability at any time, and fully respectul of the environnement. Nuclear fission is an example, and with a stratégic long term view, nuclear fusion should be strongly supported.
This comment is made by reason only. I recognize it has a low probability to be taken into account if the
Commission is prisoner of a pre-set ideology. » »
Michel Simon
5) Bernard Tamain
The main concern for energy production and consumption is to strongly decrease fossile energy use because of climate problems. This means that transport have to use mainly low carbon electricity or hydrogen; that heating has to use mainly heat pumps; This means that electricity production has to increase and has to be carbon free : either renewable energy or nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is necessary because wind and solar energies are intermitent. Nuclear energy is needed as long as massive electricity storage is out of reach. Offshore renewable energies with hydrogen production can be part of the solution but it will be very expensive and will hence be competed by electricity production using gas. This would be dramatic for climate.
6) Jean-Pierre Pervès
Why is Europe bent on digging the grave in which it will bury its climate objectives? Because a magic word « green or green » is enough to justify everything, including the lack of serious analysis of the situation, replaced by a “Green deal” catechism. Europe is making little progress, trying to hide its ineffectiveness by switching from coal to Russian gas. Europe dreams of a new colonialist world by preparing to plunder the Third World of its biogas or biomass resources, a relatively ecological activity, even though it is called green.
Our priority should be to decarbonize energy, not to impose a green world. What a mistake when experts, in the service of a juicy green finance paid for by taxes, reject nuclear power and put it at the level of gas in the taxonomy report. Dishonesty of assisted speculators.
Sustainable energy must be low carbon today because there is an emergency. The best method to achieve this will involve, over the next 20 years, massive use of decarbonized and controllable electricity. The « green » headlong rush with marine wind, solar, hydrogen electrolysis, methanation, fuel cells will be dramatically expensive, as have been the rash development of intermittent energies. They must survive to the rhythm of their true competitiveness, and not thanks to the rejection of other low-carbon energies which are truly manageable.
Nuclear is decarbonized and has offered France a real depollution of its atmosphere (counterbalanced by the pollution which is offered to us by Germany and Poland with coal and lignite). And Europe, with a Germany worried about the competitiveness of French electricity, wants to destroy it, thus not respecting the fundamental principle of subsidiarity, on the pretext of a fair concurrence, misled by massive public aid to the so-called « green » industries «
Carbon emissions of cars are drastically cut while no limits are placed on electric companies. They are even allowed to sell electricity called « green », when it comes from coal-fired power plants, by simple writing games (a real European scandal). When will there be an obligation not to exceed 100 g per kWh then 50 in electricity? Let’s have a pragmatic policy, Europe must support nuclear power, which is essential for the balance of networks, in countries that want it and are worried about the stupidity of the abrupt cessation of clean and competitive nuclear power in Germany , then in Belgium, for electoral haggling.
And Europe, ineffective, gargles with big words, with a « green deal », invents an expensive offshore/hydrogen future, with an exceptionally low efficiency, and carrying considerable risks of explosions.
And the European Parliament, with its cohorts of MEPs with a low knowledge of the energy industry (do they have time to work at it?) is being manipulated by minorities, is preparing to waste what is effective today for the benefit of expensive programs that our children will pay dearly for.
A single message: let’s preserve the climate and desecrate a misguided word,” Grünnen, green, vert”, , now the banner of a deadly business, fattened by European and national subsidies, and ultimately paid for by families.
7) Georges Sapy
Consultation publique « call Green Deal » lancée par la Commission européenne Contributions GS
N° 1 – The European Commission rightly supports the production of carbon-free energy in all areas, which is an urgent need. But why refuse nuclear energy, the least carbon energy source of all, capable of permanently meeting massive needs at competitive costs and perfectly dispatchable? Very clearly, nuclear is a major and unavoidable part of the solution to decarbonize the production of electricity in Europe, where it has been perfectly mastered without risk after half a century. Under these conditions, why does it not benefit from taxonomy like all other low carbon energies? This is a totally incomprehensible and incoherent position with the criteria « clean energy » and « affordable energy ».
N° 2 – The exclusive and forced development of wind and photovoltaic systems throughout Europe rightly replaces carbonaceous productions, particularly coal, the worst fossil fuel. However, this cannot be done without precautions because these variables energies must be backed up by dispatchables plants when there is no wind and/or no sun, as long as massive energy storage facilities will not exist at affordable costs. This exclusive policy has the consequence of weakening the possibilities of internal rescue in each European country and moreover between European countries because the wind regimes are strongly correlated in Europe (there is often either a lot of wind everywhere or little wind everywhere). On the other hand, all of Europe is in only 3 time zones and solar energy is therefore present or absent almost at the same time everywhere. This situation greatly increases the risk of a general shortage in Europe in the event of a weak wind at night and heavy consumption in cold winter days or weeks and can lead to heavy load shedding or even extensive blackouts.
This growing risk has been denounced on several occasions, notably during a joint call signed on October 10, 2018 in Berlin during the conference on « Guaranteed capacity in Europe », organized by the German federation of energy companies BDEW with the participation of 8 other professional organizations in the electricity sector from different european countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Nederland, Czech Republic, Sweden, UK) to ensure security of supply in Europe.
Have they been heard? The question is open, as this exclusive general orientation « all wind + photovoltaic » puts in serious risk the criterion « secure energy » if it is pursued without precautions.
N° 3 – Intermittent wind and photovoltaic electricity continues to benefit from exorbitant privileges, out of competition, contrary to general European rules. It benefits from network access privileges in the event of overproduction and, above all, exorbitant subsidies paid by consumers, which makes this electricity terribly expensive for them. It was understandable at first, when these sources of energy were not mature, but they have become, even according to their promoters.
It is therefore incomprehensible that these sources continue to be subsidized, they must be subject to competition like all other mature sources of electricity. In addition to the cost for consumers, this situation precludes any other possibility of investment in other means of electricity production, including in renewable energies such as hydraulics, a very useful source of energy because it is dispatchable unlike wind and photovoltaic sources which only produce when there is wind or sun, but not according to the needs of consumers and also require support from dispatchable means or storage facilities, which again increase their own costs. Intermittent sources therefore absolutely do not meet the « affordable energy » criterion if they continue to be subsidized.
N° 4 – Unusable surpluses of wind and photovoltaic electricity completely destabilize the electricity markets and lead to negative prices at certain times, which are more and more frequent. This ruins the producers of dispatchable electricity, which are nevertheless essential to ensure the stability of the networks and the security of electricity supply. At the same time, producers of intermittent wind and photovoltaic electricity continue to be heavily subsidized and most of them are making « double-digit » indecent profits. It is neither fair nor sustainable, on the verge of a financial scandal for consumers.
This situation is therefore totally contrary to the « affordable energy » criterion (for consumers who pay even more than the market prices are low!). But also to the « secure energy » criterion in the medium and long term because the market no longer gives the signals for essential investments other than in wind and photovoltaic: only the latter currently attract investors because they provide very high income without any risk, unlike investments in all other means to produce electricity that are ”at risk” for investors.
Idées reçues sur l'énergie 