cephalotus wrote:you can see solar and nuclear (and other) production on http://www.transparency.eex.com .
For example today at 1:00pm
solar: 12,4 GW
nuclear: most likely 10,7GW (data will be available tomorrow)
Cephalotus, thanks for the link, very nice and clear site !
Which got me to look if an equivalent is available for France, and in fact it is :
http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpem ... nergetique
(much longer URL )
As to nuclear, personnally I'm quite ambivalent about it. I would say that in any case the top priority should be in Energy conservation, but even then, I'm very doubtfull about maintaining a modern society without fossile fuels on pure renewables (ie also without nuclear). My prefered reference regarding this is David Mac Kay book "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" :
And clearly he ends up with some nuclear in most of his mix, if no fossile at all. And it also gives a clear idea of the amount of renewables infrastructure needed to be deployed even after having pushed energy conservation quite far.
So somehow I could resume my position as switching between :
1) We haven't seen how peak oil will be impacting us yet by a wide margin, this will basically put the industrial/modern civilization down, so why bother with nuclear added risk anyway, result will be the same.
2) No we should still target keeping a modern society (telecoms networks, high tech medicine, even if transport for instance would be hugely reduced from today's level), but in that case dropping nuclear isn't really realistic.
As to nuclear real costs and waste handling, this is for sure very controversial, and I'm not an expert in it, so would have to dig deeper to have a real position on that (again would be close to MacKay's position regarding these for the time being, for instance on the actual volume of nuclear waste)