Nuclear capacity is expected to rise by 14% by 2030 and surge by 76% to 686 GWe by 2040, the report said

This is only good news if it displaces thermal coal and gas generating stations.

  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t read French well enough to really dig in to your source and the website doesn’t seem to work for Google translate and it’s too much text to copy/paste, sorry, so I can’t really confirm what you say except the fact that I looked on the site and I saw that they didn’t include pumped storage, which seems extremely foolish. I’m guessing that they were bribed by the nuclear power companies in some way.

    • pec@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you go into the detailed explanation (and can read French) they do have some hydraulic pumping included in their “batteries” section.

      In their 100% renewables scénario on a peak consumption (105gw) hour and peak energy production (sun at zenith) they would store the excess production like such:

      • 7.2gw to water pumping
      • 22gw to static batteries
      • 2gw back to the grid (chatting electric vehicles I guess).

      Also even in their most nuclear scenario (50% nuclear, 50% renewables) they still include 7.2gw of water pumping.

      I’m curious of why you put so much value in water pumping? As a Quebecois I have a small notion of how disruptive (flooding of vast areas of land, massive amounts of concrete, dead rivers downstream of the dam ) water reservoirs for hydroelectricity can be and I have a hard time imagining a viable way of relying extensively on that technique.