Your document (Jancovici) analyzes current production of the very incomplete fleets of neighboring nations while the pertinent studies take into account wind regimes of geographic zones where wind turbines can be deployed and which are far appart. Conclusions of adequate scientific (J.-M. Jancovici expertise isn't about wind regimes) in reviewed and published studies (J.-M. Jancovici isn't) are quite different (please find some pointers in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41397343 )
The last part of your answer is mostly devoid of sources, and I don't want to write about mere opinions.
> if it had worked, the nuclear program wouldn't have been brought back from the dead
> France already tried ambitious renewable investments to replace the nuclear fleet during a whole decade and it failed
Those industrial renewables are very new tech, they evolve very quickly, France missed its own objectives on renewables (sole nation in the UE to do so), France isn't rich anymore (during its nuclearization it benefited from the '30 Glorieuses' and from an intense and expensive R&D at home and in the US)...
https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
You completely forgot that there's companies using electricity and we live in a world where individuals are on the top of that electricity chain.
Your figures are completly wrong and do not include the whole electricity chain.
France produces close to 500TWh/year.
So yeah, I confirm what I said, the whole europan fleet of battery which you thought was impressive can only last half a day of a single country.
Also assuming that nobody want to use their car in Europe of course for that particular half day.
> Not true in some parts of Europe (North, esp Scandinavia, Balkans...)
That's not going to revolutionize anything, the biggest spots in the EU are already taken.
> Conclusions of adequate scientific (J.-M. Jancovici expertise isn't about wind regimes) in reviewed and published studies (J.-M. Jancovici isn't) are quite different
That's amamazing, you are plain denying reality, I'll do it once again, right now:
There you have it. The reality is in front of your eyes, the statistics confirm that the wind patterns are matching and even the real-time data that you refuse to look also does!
Sure there's some existing differences in some regions and some outliers but not nearly enough change the fact that relying on neighbors when the wind isn't blowing is a dead idea.
> Determining which project delivers a 'mediocre result' is easy.
Yeah sure it's easy, the new renewables took half the cost of the nuclear fleet for 10% of the production.
You can't put any lipstick on that sorry, you can try to tweak it the way you want, it's so bad that France had to restart its program back from the dead.
And those figures aren't even including the adaptations to the grid and the gas plants which I think they should.
> The French nuclear program was never killed. When was it killed, according to you, by who and how?
It was killed in 2012 by president Hollande and even written officially in the law in 2015 with a maximum of 50% nuclear production. The idea was to do maintenance while renewables took over. The nuclear program only got brought back from the dead in 2023, because of the Russian war and the failure of renewables to take over.
> You completely forgot that there's companies using electricity
Do you really believe that 'per capita' only takes into account electricity produced for industrial applications? It doesn't.
The subtitle ("Annual average electricity generation per person") seems clear to me.
Your "a single French person is using 2.5GWh/year" assertion is not backed up and clearly wrong. As the referenced graph ( https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-electricity-ge... ) shows its around 8MWh/year (France is a net electricity exporter), which is more than 300 times more.
> France produces close to 500TWh/year.
Indeed.
France has approx 68 millions inhabitants.
Let's consider
(* 68M 8MWh): 544TWh
Bingo, I was right, isn't it? How much with 2.5GWh instead of 8MWh?
> The reality is in front of your eyes, the statistics
Don't you understand that in order to know if a continental 'renewable' mix will alleviate a fair part of the effect of 'intermittency' on production, we have to take into account all potential wind-turbine sites on the whole continent, NOT the very weak existing fleet (especially at the time of this document) of a few neighboring nations?
I won't answer to your mere opinions (assertions provided without any source).
According to you the French nuclear program was "killed in 2012 by president Hollande and even written officially in the law in 2015 with a maximum of 50% nuclear production."
This is complete BS: as showed in my previous answer everything ran as usual, this law didn't change anything. A law is not magically effective. What did it cause? The only theoretical effect of this law was the shutdown of the "Fessenheim" nuclear plant, the oldest one, exposed to seismic risk (Germany and Switzerland owned part of the plant and wanted it closed). This plant was only 2,8% of the fleet capacity!
Even at this date it would be moot because approximately 60% of France final energy is provided by fossil fuels, which have to be booted, implying a massive electrification and therefore a real need to produce more electricity... creating space for nuclear inside those 50%.
Source? Fact: France generates ~8kWh/inhabitant/year and is a net electricity exporter. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-electricity-ge...
"Lol"?!
> There's also pretty much no new place where you can build one in a developped country
Not true in some parts of Europe (North, esp Scandinavia, Balkans...)
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2024/02/15/10971...
Moreover, esp on the generation side, new approaches (small hydro) is ramping up https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffopperman/2018/08/10/the-une...
> The wind production is synchronized right now
Your document (Jancovici) analyzes current production of the very incomplete fleets of neighboring nations while the pertinent studies take into account wind regimes of geographic zones where wind turbines can be deployed and which are far appart. Conclusions of adequate scientific (J.-M. Jancovici expertise isn't about wind regimes) in reviewed and published studies (J.-M. Jancovici isn't) are quite different (please find some pointers in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41397343 )
The last part of your answer is mostly devoid of sources, and I don't want to write about mere opinions.
> if it had worked, the nuclear program wouldn't have been brought back from the dead
The French nuclear program was never killed. When was it killed, according to you, by who and how? Facts: EPR programme, EPR ordered and exported, Grand Carénage, R&D budgets ( https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/energie-re... )...
> France already tried ambitious renewable investments to replace the nuclear fleet during a whole decade and it failed
Those industrial renewables are very new tech, they evolve very quickly, France missed its own objectives on renewables (sole nation in the UE to do so), France isn't rich anymore (during its nuclearization it benefited from the '30 Glorieuses' and from an intense and expensive R&D at home and in the US)... https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
Even in such a context the result is very promising and there is no plan to dump renewables: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
> mediocre results for the price paid
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi...
Determining which project delivers a 'mediocre result' is easy.