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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The source is at the bottom of my comment, you can refer to it. It’s only in french unfortunately but nothing an online translator can’t help with.

    On the other hand you are welcome to provide your sources too.

    • Blake [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      01 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        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.