France surrenders their energy security to renewables

boom1From the GWPF: French Socialists Follow Germany, Shift Away From Nuclear To Renewables

Via Agency France-Press: France on Wednesday unveiled a much-anticipated bill to reduce the country’s dependency on nuclear energy and fossil fuels, after months of intense debate over one of the Socialist government’s pet projects. Experts estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.

The planned law, presented to the cabinet by energy and environment minister Segolene Royal, seeks to make France a greener country and reduce the nation’s energy bill.

The bill is a chance “to develop new technologies, clean transport, energy efficiency and therefore to improve companies’ competitiveness,” Royal told reporters after the cabinet meeting.

It aims to cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050 and reduce the use of fossil fuels by 30 percent by 2030, in comparison with 2012 when Francois Hollande was elected president.

It also looks to reduce France’s huge dependency on nuclear energy for electricity from 75 percent to 50 percent — one of Hollande’s campaign promises — and to increase the use of renewables.

The bill lays out scores of measures including an obligation to make buildings and houses more energy efficient during renovations and installing seven million charging stations for electric cars over the next 15 years.

The bill, which still has to go through a long parliamentary process, was the subject of an intense nine-month debate as companies, NGOs, lawmakers and unions each fought their corners.

Experts estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.

get the Full story

About these ads
This entry was posted in Energy, nuclear power. Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to France surrenders their energy security to renewables

  1. major says:

    Cheap, reliable nuclear energy is what keeps socialist French economy afloat.

    Looks like the decline of France has started.

  2. Tim says:

    Except isn’t Germany now shying away from renewables by cutting solar subsidies and looking at fracking?

    Look for the competitiveness gap between France and Germany to widen even more as President Hollande’s economy and now energy policy degrade the French economy.

  3. Martin says:

    ‘seeks to make France a greener country and reduce the nation’s energy bill’
    hahahahahahahahahahah
    What they are smoking over there?

  4. Les Johnson says:

    the Green Shift in Canada, and the Carbon Tax in Australia.

    How did the governments that brought these programs in, fare in the next poll?

    Rheotorical question of course. They tanked, and in a most spectacular fashion.

    But, from an investment perspective, coal and gas are where to put your money. Because they will end up replacing the nukes, much as is happening in Germany.

  5. Nuclear energy was the one thing France did right.

    …when they weren’t exporting nuclear technology to islamic whackos that is.

  6. schitzree says:

    One of the only countries in europe that actually did have a low “carbon footprint” while still producing reasonably priced energy. Now they get to pick which TWO of the following they wish to keep.

    1) affordable energy
    2) continues energy
    3) low CO2

    Without Nuclear they can’t have all three

  7. PhilCP says:

    This makes no sense whatsoever, even from an CAGW point of view. Their electricity production is around 85% nuclear and 10% hydro, and so, almost 100% CO2 free. Converting nuclear to wind will only increase CO2 production, as peaking gas plants will need to pick up the slack.

  8. Old England says:

    I hadn’t realised how strongly the EU has been captured by the green lobby with their back-to-the-stone-age designs for Western economies.

    I thought the German abandonment of nuclear was an anomaly caused by momentary panic after the tsunami hit Japanese nuclear reactors. I assumed Obama’s death plan for the US economy was a stupidity brought on by waning popularity and a crude attempt to regain it.

    Now I’m not so sure because there is a pattern of decision-making which will result in severe economic damage. Looking further afield India has active damage being done to its economic growth by Greenpeace and the list goes on.

    From some perspectives it is beginning to look as if the ‘green’ movement is as, if not more, dangerous to western civilisation than al quaeda or Islamic terrorism. How long, I wonder, before we have to begin reacting to it in the same way the Indian government is now doing.

  9. sabretruthtiger says:

    Exactly, reduce the nations energy bill? Slimy words, what they mean is reduce the nations energy consumption because there won’t be enough energy to go round and thus with much less energy to use, the overall bill will be less but per watt used will be greater.

    Of course the public will subsidise the green energy and the cost will be even greater.

  10. techgm says:

    How many nuclear accidents (of any kind that posed a credible health-threatening release of radiation) has France had since the first of its commercial power reactors went online? How many reactors generating electricity are in operation?

  11. Robert W Turner says:

    I say good; sorry France. The more failed experiments we can point to here in the U.S. the more ammo we will have to fight the same policies being enacted here, if it isn’t already too late.

  12. Victoria says:

    Didn’t know it was windy in France.

    /sarc

  13. Max Hugoson says:

    Horray! Since I despise anything and everything FRENCH…watching them commit suicide is NOT really a tragedy for me. You know, when the Moslems in France realize what abject cowards the (dwindling) traditional French population are, they may….just MAY, after they TAKE OVER allow a few “Frenchmen” (or more likely, Women…good for the Polyligamy situation) survive. Just as museum pieces. HAS ANYONE EVER TAKEN THE TIME TO COMPARE THE SHAMEFUL, HIDIOUS FRENCH NATIONAL ANTHEM TO THE NATIONAL ANTHEM OF THE UNITED STATES? That comparison alone, tells you almost everything. “Clutched to our bloody breasts…” compared with “Or’ the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming..” Let’s hope this is just WINDOW DRESSING, for their sakes. A country with 100% nuclear electricity and a complete nuclear fuel cycle, changing to 100% UNCLEAR energy and a complete non-nuclear fool cycle.

  14. Resourceguy says:

    This is the same country that drove off competitive solar firms with an effective made-in-France requirement. And the same country that is still sliding economically and teetering financially in the EU.

  15. Curious George says:

    Vote for Socialists! Guaranteed results!

  16. Manfred says:

    The result ? – as presently seen in the US and elsewhere, the stratospheric escalation of power prices and the expansion of an unterklasse of power impoverished, excluding of course, the Green elite. Whether they’ll still be able to vote by then remains another question.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/price-electricity-hit-record-may

  17. RHS says:

    Good luck reducing their energy usage by 50%! Next thing you know, they’ll be buying gas from Russia and default on the bill!

  18. Tim says:

    Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

    And the idiocy continues.

  19. wolfman says:

    It will be interesting to see how they store the wind to power their cars, since wind/solar electricity has no chance to be available to their 7 MM charging stations. They have also declared war on the conventional auto/truck industry with this initiative.

  20. James Abbott says:

    Old England

    You say that the French move to expand renewables is “back-to-the-stone-age designs”.

    So Germany and France want to expand renewables like all those other backward stone-age countries are doing such as – Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Portugal.

    Get real.

  21. Go Whitecaps! says:

    I hear Spain has a suplus of solar energy. Why not just buy the surplus of sunny Spain?

  22. dccowboy says:

    “It aims to cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050″ …

    I don’t understand that statement, is there possibly a translation problem? I’ve never heard of any nation having a goal of reducing energy consumption by 50%.

  23. Pamela Gray says:

    So how does France think it is going to be able to get her citizens to make “stuff”? You know, to keep its trade balance anywhere near 0, let alone be able to produce and sell more “stuff” than it spends on incoming “stuff”.

    This where GDP and GNP differ. The former is based on what you make on your home soil and sell. The later includes GDP plus return on investments made in companies in other countries to make “stuff” they sell.

    So bottom line, if France doesn’t want to depend on foreign oil, fine. But decreasing its own energy use is putting themselves back in the same corner they want out of. What is the difference between depending on foreign oil to make your OWN stuff you need or want to buy, and depending on FOREIGN made stuff you need or want to buy?

    Idiots.

  24. Go Whitecaps! says:

    Good point James. Denmark has a electrical rate of $.40/kWh (Wikipedia) How much do you pay where you live?

  25. schitzree says:

    This part didn’t really register the fisrt time I read it.
    “It aims to cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050″
    So they are apparently planing on ultra high energy prices and rolling blackouts. What you might call the California model of energy production.

  26. MarkW says:

    Look for those with the ability to leave, start looking for the means to do so.
    Energy costs to skyrocket. Energy reliability to plummet to third world levels.
    What’s not to love.

  27. Man Bearpig says:

    The French are renowned, especially in England as being able to bring the country to a standstill in a fraction of a second. Once the energy costs start soaring and the money they lose providing electricity to the UK and other countries disappears then perhaps the government will listen to their people.

    At the recent EU polls in France, the winners were the right wing National Front.

    A law like this should also make the UK government start to think where they are going to get electricity during high demand when the lights have gone off in Paris.

    The emperor has got no clothes and it wont be long before he realises.

  28. Jonathan Berber says:

    Um, 7 million electic car charging stations? For a poluation of 66 million…

    So that’s a charging point for almost every family. Perhaps they plan to charge their electric cars (which they do not yet possess, and which with current technology would have a range of < 100 miles with their lights and heaters/aircon turned off) at their homes using their domestic mains supply.
    I wonder how they plan to supply all that charging demand on windless nights.

    Can't quite see this working out…

  29. Green Sand says:

    History shows that La Belle does not always do what la Belle says she will do.

    Vive la famme!

  30. Leigh says:

    The UK currently imports approx 12 Billion KwH’s from France each year.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/

    Imagine how this scaling back of reliable French nuke electricy is going to effect their export customers.

    The UK really better get is power generator house in order.

  31. Doug says:

    Good. Unlike Max the Francophobe, I love everything French. I’ve been trying to buy a house there for years. If they can just bring the economy down, I’ll be able to afford it.

  32. MikeUK says:

    Another factor here is that it will create jobs in the short term, something that the French socialist govt needs badly. But watermelons never seem to think about competitiveness, presumably a dirty word at their dinner parties.

    We in the UK can’t crow though, we’ve just had a visit from the Chinese prime minister. Some might have thought that they would be looking to buy high technology from the UK. Think again, the UK needs to buy nuclear reactors from China, and will probably also need training on how to operate them.

  33. Sandi says:

    This:
    “…cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050″

    Coupled with”
    “Experts estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.”

    Makes the entire effort an exercise is stupidity. Not to mention trying to get the power for 7 million charging stations.

  34. John says:

    [snip - your are welcome to resubmit your comment without the hateful language -mod]

  35. JDN says:

    Aren’t French electrical exports making green economies possible in surrounding countries? France may only need half her electricity for domestic purposes.

  36. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Les morons. After all the experience of Spain, Germany and Ontario

  37. Rud Istvan says:

    No wonder GE and MHI want to buy Alstroms nuclear generation assets. The French don’t want them any more. Great socialist plan for further increasing French unemployment.

  38. Col Mosby says:

    Ironic- on the same day that Cameron at 10 Downing Steet welcomed the Chinese nuclear power CEO and signed an agreement for two Chinese built 1.6 GW nuclear plants to be errected at Hinkley Point.
    I’ll guarantee that this 30 year French energy transition program or whatever will never be completed before a change in politics occurs. Less than two years ago, the French announced
    a 30 year program to replace all of their nuclear plants, half with conventional and half with fast reactors(to burn their nuclear wastes). Areva is a French nuclear build/supply/etc company that has been one of the major nuclear players.
    And any attempt to build out electric charging networks at this point had better stop and wait to see what happens with respect to the new Ryden dual core battery technology just unveiled – those batteries promise recharge rates 20 times faster than current technology, which means the chargers should be roughly 20 times more powerful. We in this country have built some govt funded public charger stations (VERY expensive) that are already hopelessly obsolete because of the Tesla supecharger stations, which themselves are probably on the verge of becoming obsolescent because of the Ryden cells. This happens over and over – govts getting ahead of the technology and causing big, unnecessary expenditures – air pollution controls on gas powered cars being a case in point. Govt officials are such children.

  39. Max Hugoson says:

    Doug:

    Good. Unlike Max the Francophobe, I love everything French. I’ve been trying to buy a house there for years. If they can just bring the economy down, I’ll be able to afford it.

    YOU ARE CRUEL, but FUNNY! Vivala De’ Doug!

  40. alexwade says:

    Coming soon, real life Les Miserables in the 21st century.

  41. cedarhill says:

    Now be kind to the French. The US Administration is blissful engineering the elimination of the US energy system(s). Neither nation’s government seems to be concerned what their citizens think is good for the individual. The West has moved beyond social/socialist democracies and now is heading into social/socialists totalitarianists.

  42. Quinx says:

    Orders from Bilderberg.

  43. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Did I miss a story? When did France legalize pot? Or perhaps members of the government have immunity for drug offences? Vivre la folie!

    People who worry France will suffer from this law are a bit premature. All the workers for the companies which are going to build the renewable power plants to replace nuclear will go on strike regularly, drawing out the replacement process for decades.

  44. sinewave says:

    The Chinese aren’t making any “green” energy plans. They will just continue to use their cheap power and dominate the Frances of the world economically.

  45. Eric Worrall says:

    Won’t wash – French enjoy their nightlife too much, all that gorgeous finery needs nuclear powered lighting to show up to full effect…

  46. rabbit says:

    1. France decommissions many of its nuclear power points in favour of solar and wind, destroying a once beautiful countryside.
    2. Energy prices soar, intermittent black outs occur, the economy does a face plant, and people die during particularly cold and hot days.
    3. In a panic, the French build coal and natural gas power plants (because nuclear power plants take too long to build), increasing their CO2 emissions beyond what it was under nuclear power.

    Most of this I didn’t even have to make up. Deja vu…

  47. Titan28 says:

    I read the Al Gore RS piece, linked to above. Thank you, dipchip. It was all assertions and buried assumptions. But can anyone tell me how he can say that today, now, Germany gets 37% of its electricity from wind and solar? Is that even possible?

    As a sidebar, I hope France continues along this sad and misinformed road. Someday all France is going to be is an example of what not to do. We should cheer them on.

  48. Martin says:

    To be fair its not much worse than the U.S. president to regulate CO2 to prevent asthma. Absurd land we live in.

  49. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer country.

  50. stas peterson says:

    I wonder who ghost wrote All Gore’s Rolling Stone diatribe.

    He doesn’t have the mental competency to string two sentences together. And to think this fatuous fool was actually nominated for the Presidency by the political party I grew up in.

    Oy Vey!

  51. save energy says:

    Some facts & figs on French & UK grids, plus ‘Green energy’ figs & costs

    • • According to the wind industry (may 2014), UK has 1,278 Windfarms comprising –
    9,912 Large Industrial Turbines, + approx 18,000 small units,
    Total Capacity = 23 GW
    See – http://www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/index.cfm/maplarge/1

    • • At the moment wind is only contributing (0.51 GW; we are importing 7 x that from France & Holland), a mere 1.4% to our grid demand !! Look here – http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ ; giving wind a production factor of just 2.% (Gas is 70%);.

    • • And this is the French Grid live figs – http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

    Weather systems can be huge, Europe has had high pressure dominating for weeks, so sod all wind from Ireland to Poland, Italy to Scotland.

    • • Live production from your local windfarm – RWEs interactive Euro map- http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/206488/rwe-innogy/sites/production-data-live/rwe-renewable-energy-live/ Notes; 1. Capacity is in MW but output in kW so ÷ 1,000 to compare. 2. A minus fig indicates drawing power from grid to rotate blades.

    • • And this is how much EXTRA we pay per mth for low density intermittent ‘green’ energy – http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/finance/ & yes the figs are £millions/mth.

    • • Lots more info from-
    Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) & Grid figs
    ( Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES)
    http://tinyurl.com/n4k7n8 )

    These are the Billions ££ we give for intermittent ‘green’ energy –
    http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/finance/ – & yes the monthly totals ARE £££ millions.

    To see how little we get for that all that cash, look here – http://www.ukpowergeneration.info/

    It is a very dangerous world, when politics trump science & engineering facts.

  52. dipchip says:

    Titan28 says: June 18, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    According to this actual production, the first 5 months of this year was nearly 17%
    http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/data-nivc-/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-2014.pdf

  53. Well that’s one small step for l’homme, and one giant leap backwards for l’humanité.

  54. John M says:

    The bill is a chance “to develop new technologies, clean transport, energy efficiency and therefore to improve companies’ competitiveness,”

    Amazingly, almost all climate alarmists and green voters believe in the notion that by making energy 3x more expensive your country will be more competitive and more jobs will be created. Even more amazingly, their belief in this notion intensifies when these policies cause companies to go bust or relocate offshore and the unemployment and debt levels subsequently rise.

    Go figure…?

  55. John says:

    @ mods: Apologies, you were right. But his uninformed comment insulting millions of people just rubbed me the wrong way. Let me try again.

    @ Max Hugoson
    I find your comment of 2:04pm distastefull. Did you ever spend some time in France? Have you ever had diner and a good conversation with a French person to get to know him/her? How would you respond when someone wrote such a bigoted and hatefull comment about Americans?

    So you DESPISE anything French huh?

    Antibiotics?
    Aspirin?
    Hypodermic needles?
    Rubber?
    Cinema?
    Roulette?
    Pasteurization?
    Blood transfusion?
    Internal combustion engines?
    Codeine?
    Margarine?
    Champagne?
    Braille?
    Binoculars?
    Hair dryers?

  56. more soylent green! says:

    Reduce energy consumption by 50%? Start by rationing. If they don’t produce enough electricity to meet demand, that will reduce consumption. Consumption will be reduced even more as the population either dies off or emigrates.

  57. DirkH says:

    John says:
    June 18, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    “So you DESPISE anything French huh?

    Antibiotics?
    […}
    Binoculars?
    Hair dryers?”

    You forgot the most important thing… Les Filles…

  58. Anthony says:

    Agenda 21 in all its glorious technicolour. Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you…

  59. ferdberple says:

    ‘seeks to make France a greener country and reduce the nation’s energy bill’
    It aims to cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050
    Experts estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.
    ==========

    by raising the price and cutting consumption in half, the overall bill may be reduced. but the investments (investments are not costs in accounting terminology) required is staggering.

  60. save energy says:

    Leigh says:
    June 18, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    “The UK currently imports approx 12 Billion KwH’s from France each year.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/

    Imagine how this scaling back of reliable French nuke electricy is going to effect their export customers.

    The UK really better get is power generator house in order.”

    Save energy says-
    Ed (dickhead) Davey the UKs Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has cunning plans to keep the lights on…pay industry to stop work – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26819050
    & big dirty diesels to backup his ‘green clean’ wind & solar – Short Term Operating Reserve STOR. – http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/the-insane-cost-of-ed-daveys-green-energy-policy/

  61. Betapug says:

    Gore’s “frightening new math” in the Rolling Stone article is indeed frightening. His statement that Germany is providing 37% of its electrical requirements from solar and wind is truly grotesque. The figures for 2012 from Frauenhofer are 8.4% for wind 5.3% for solar. Biomass (mainly wood) was more than either I think. Brown coal provided by far the largest share.

  62. Betapug says:

    Interesting to see Hollande’s first mistress (and mother of his 3 kids) is back and cracking the whip. Maybe it is her revenge?
    I am sure the wine industry will appreciate the drying effects of forests of windmills sure to be planted in the terroir.

  63. pat says:

    some more detail:

    18 June: Financial Times: France to set nuclear power cap
    By Hugh Carnegy in Paris
    Critics say the government is compromising a vital strategic asset that has allowed France to charge among the lowest prices in Europe for electricity.
    But, under pressure from the left and its Green party allies, the government insists the country needs to rebalance its energy mix to boost its lagging performance in non-nuclear renewables and meet ambitious environmental targets…
    The new law sets a limit on nuclear capacity at today’s level of 63.2 gigawatts. It avoided specific mention of a further election promise by Mr Hollande to close Fessenheim near the German border, the oldest of the existing 58 nuclear plants, by 2016…
    But the cap will force a decision on closures as a new generation 1,630 megawatt European pressurised reactor at Flamanville in Normandy is due to come on stream in 2016, raising the overall capacity of the nuclear fleet…
    A key engine of renewable output will be an increase in offshore wind power installation, currently due to contribute 3,000 megawatts by 2020 – equivalent to four nuclear plants…
    Many reactors, built between the 1970s and early 1990s, are approaching their initial 40-year age limit.
    This can be extended, but the cost of extending their life by 10 or 20 years is variously estimated at up to €100bn or more. But decommissioning costs are also high and the government faces a potential energy shortfall if plants are shut down prematurely.
    EDF recently struck a deal with the UK to build two EPR reactors at Hinkley Point in England.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ac6dc96-f6e4-11e3-8ed6-00144feabdc0.html

  64. more soylent green! says, June 18, 2014 at 4:23 pm:
    “Reduce energy consumption by 50%? Start by rationing. If they don’t produce enough electricity to meet demand, that will reduce consumption. Consumption will be reduced even more as the population either dies off or emigrates.”

    What’s wrong with mandating *available* energy-efficiency improvements for energy-consuming products? Except that not many talk about this here, except in the negative when it came to incandescent lightbulbs. (We now have more efficient incandescent lightbulbs due to a law that was complained against for supposedly banning them outright, and these new incandescents now cost less in combined acquisition and operation cost than the ones they replaced.)

    For example, most indicator lamp LEDs have 1/20 the energy efficiency of ones that cost only a couple cents more. .05-.1 watt per LED (and associated circuitry), multiplied by the billions glowing in USA alone, can take a power plant off the construction schedule by reducing demand – in a way that reduces the price of electricity. Many wallwarts could have been made to consume half a watt less with retail cost only a dollar or two higher. Many computer power supplies could have been made to consume 1-2 watts less when “off” and ~3 watts less when in use for a couple dollars more. Also, a manual automotive transmission controlled by a robot has much better urban fuel economy than a conventional automatic transmission.

  65. ossqss says:

    I remember reading something about France and economic endeavors in December. They were near perfect.

    Obviously the list needs updated now to reflect the new found perfectedness.

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/france-in-review-perfect-track-record.html

  66. thegriss says:

    And once they degrade the energy supply and economy enough, the muslim majority will take over.

  67. MikeH says:

    Population of France, 65 million (2012).
    Workforce, 29.62 million (2012 estimate), lets round up to 30 million.
    Projected cost, 15 – 30 BILLION per year, which we all know is a low ball estimate, more like 60 billion. (I always double estimates on government projects)
    Lets see how the French feel when they have an extra 1000 Euros taken from their yearly pay. What they will probably do is demand the employer pay it and go on strike when they balk at that idea. In which it will raise the cost of doing business in France.

    But it’s for the children…

  68. Billy Liar says:

    Doug says:
    June 18, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Doug, you’re a bit slow – you could have acquired a whole village in 2012:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/9097639/French-village-for-sale-for-275000.html

  69. Joseph Murphy says:

    Energy efficient homes and charging stations, brilliant! If only we had thought of it sooner…

  70. nigelf says:

    Anthony says:
    June 18, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Agenda 21 in all its glorious technicolour. Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you…

    I suspect the next French President Marine LePen will put an end to this her first day in office.

    [ note that is a different Anthony than the host of WUWT -mod]

  71. philjourdan says:

    Little wonder – all the French with brains emigrated long ago.

  72. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    June 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer country.

    Steve: let’s be reasonable here. I don’t wish suffering on anyone. France has a long history — some glorious and some not, just like everyone else. We (Americans) should not disparage an entire country and culture because some part of their history is less than glorious. Given the current US administration, our reputation is going to pick up a fair amount of tarnish too.

    On the other hand, I don’t believe in making sacrifices to protect others from the consequences of their own decisions. The new French energy direction as described above is silly (to be charitable, suicidal otherwise), but let’s give the French a chance to make their own corrections before casting stones. If we can’t bring our own teleprompter-impaired Narcissist-in-Chief to heel, we have no right to single out France for ridicule.

  73. catweazle666 says:

    Mad as a box of – er – frogs!

  74. carbon bigfoot says:

    Was Malthus French? Eugenics at work here? Everybody read Climatism by Steve Goreham. Its back to the stone age by these religious fanatics.

  75. Bruce Cobb says:

    C’est tres cuckoo, no?

  76. KevinK says:

    Just remember, the “wise” French Military built the Maginot line with all the guns pointed only towards the Germans. The Germans drove around the end of it and the French couldn’t even shoot at the rear of the German tanks as they headed towards Paris.

    C’est magnifique.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  77. bobl says:

    @John
    Then again John France did produce Fourier, and Laplace, and I remember thinking in university that I wish they were never born !

    But seriously, some of the world greatest inventions came from france, it’s just a pitty that they are currently swirling down that socialist toilet.

  78. davidmhoffer says:

    Experts estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.
    The planned law,

    Seems to me that this law seeks to drag the whole thing out. They’ll need 15 to 30 billion per year…for decades. The first year up, they’ll find some excuse to put things off for that year. After all, spreading that 30 billion over the next 30 years is only an extra billion per year after the first year. Of course they’ll then find some excuse to skip the second year too, and spread that amount over the next 29 years… and so on and so forth until they are out of time and the remaining amount to be spent is all of it over a very short period of time. They’ll decide at that point that they can’t afford it and will repeal the law.

    This is nothing more than a publicity stunt to placate the greens and paint France as progressive on the world stage. I seriously doubt that they’ll ever actually implement this. The one thing that you can bet on in a democracy is that a tanked economy results in a change in government. Like many other governments in the world, my belief is that they are making grand gestures that they will quietly back away from over the long term.

  79. bobl says:

    @Betapug

    Since when does anyone listen to Gore, he incessantly cheats by not taking into account capacity factor which for solar and wind is about 15 %, so that 37% nameplate capacity is in fact 5% real capacity which is about right. You can do miracles if you read nameplate capacities, but those miracles don’t power homes. Perhaps it’s prudent that in Gores neighbourhood we take the nameplate capacity of renewables and deduct it from baseload, and turn off that much coal generation. Appologies to those living next door to good ole Al who will suffer the blackouts along with him.

    Or perhaps our mate Al, would like a smart meter installed so that when renwable generation is less than nameplate his mansion is the first load shedded from the grid. How nice it would be to have power effectively 0% of the time.

  80. Patrick says:

    This is utterly crazy, but not a surprise in the idiotic EU zone. I am not sure the French will put up with this for too long. I recall that small hikes in fuel costs had truck drivers blocking major arterial highways with their trucks after deflating their tyres.

    /sarc on

    To those dissing the French, remember if it wasn’t for the French, America would probably still be a British colony.

    /sarc off

  81. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    June 18, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    June 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer country.

    Steve: let’s be reasonable here.
    ——————————————————
    Alan. I’m taking your advice and trying to be reasonable. I started by actually reading the full story. The French hope to reduce energy use by 50% by 2050 and thereby reduce energy costs by spending 30-50 million Euros per year. I’m already becoming unhinged. Such investments cannot hope to reduce energy use so much unless there is a massive change in society, such as moving away from single family housing, giving up the auto, etc. The French tout the efficiency of their nuclear energy program on one hand, but the current government intends on saving massive amounts of money by reducing it from 75% to 50% on the other hand. This suggests the French now think their version of nuclear energy is massively inefficient.

    This reminds me of the program initiated by the Ontario Provincial government. The promise was greener energy and more green jobs. The strategy was to increase energy prices (doubled in 10-12 years) to pay for it. The result? Higher energy prices.

    When criticized over the result of the green energy initiative, many of the defenders argued that much of the investment was actually needed in the upgrading of aging infrastructure. Ok, so why are our electricity rates permanently higher now that the infrastructure has been upgraded? According to the French, our energy costs should be lower after this “investment”.

    I suspect the same in France. Use the popularity of green energy and green jobs to (effectively) raise taxes within public utilities. By the time people realize it didn’t work, the originators are no longer in power and the new government has no plans to reduce energy costs.

    I think I’m heading for Level 8. In the meantime, it couldn’t happen to a nicer country. They are so proud of their world-leading nuclear energy program, they plan to begin dismantling it to save money. If they mess up Bordeaux or Cotes to Rhone I’m going straight to Level 10.

  82. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 18, 2014 at 4:56 pm
    —————————————————
    Donald, you don’t reduce energy use by 50% by switching to more efficient incandescent light bulbs. Take your own home and try and reduce your energy use by 50% as a thought experiment. For me, living in a cold climate, and in the country where I need a vehicle, it just isn’t possible. I would have to eat the 100% increase in energy costs (which I have done because my own government did this 10 years ago).

    I switched to fluorescent lights (which are basically useless in the cold), I upgraded my windows, bought a new high efficiency furnace and stopped commuting to work. And my energy costs only doubled. Gas used to be $0.70 per litre and now its $1.32. So even though I use my vehicle less frequently my total cost for gas has increased. Propane used to be $0.65 per litre. This winter it went over $1.13 during one of the coldest winters I’ve seen in decades. So more for propane. Electricity rates have gone from $0.08 to $0.16 per kWh (once you add delivery fees, debt reduction payments and taxes). So I pay more for electricity even though it is “more efficient” than ever before. I even have a smart meter (that doesn’t work so the guy has to drive within 10 m of my house to read it).

    This French thing is a tax grab. Take advantage of naive green-leaners, raise the price for electricity and then try and stay in power long enough for full pension. If you need help changing those light bulbs, don’t call me. I’m going geothermal with candle lighting and wood-stove backup.

  83. pat says:

    forget france – closer to home u can save the planet from CAGW by building affordable housing:

    16 June: Reuters Point Carbon: California okays use of carbon market funds to boost mass transit
    SAN FRANCISCO, June 16 (Reuters) – The California state legislature has approved a plan that will build affordable housing near transportation hubs like bus and railroad stations using revenue raised from its carbon market.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.5579517?&ref=searchlist

    or u can save the planet from CAGW in China by letting “a hundred flowers bloom”!

    18 June: Reuters: RPT-PREVIEW-China to launch final CO2 exchange, national scheme uncertain
    By David Stanway and Kathy Chen
    China launches its seventh and final pilot carbon market in the sprawling city of Chongqing on Thursday, but plans to set up a national trading scheme within three years remain shrouded in uncertainty in the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases…
    The ultimate aim of the seven pilot projects, experts had said, was to “let a hundred flowers bloom” in order to find the trading system that suits China the most, which would then form the basis of a national scheme…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/china-carbon-idUKL4N0OZ1UF20140618

  84. TomRude says:

    These idiots are ensuring another revolution is coming sooner than later…

  85. betapug says:

    @bobl The inconvenient truth about Al Gore is that lots of people still swallow his stuff, especially the “click and take action” (forget the thinking) demographic of Rolling Stone.

  86. lee says:

    The Americans should not be so down on the French. The French have supported them, implicitly, since the beginning of their fight, with a certain British king.

  87. SAMURAI says:

    I enjoy visiting Paris. It’s one of the most beautiful cities in the world with incredible architecture, fantastic restaurants and the Louvre is one of the finest museums in the world….

    It’s just too bad, so many French live there…

    During the French Revolution, the French had the opportunity to follow America’s lead and establish a new political system where individual rights were paramount and the sole purpose of the Constitutionally constrained government was to protect and defend the natural rights of the individual. France, unfortunately, decided to establish a different system where individual rights are sacrificed to the State for the of the collective and are at the mercy of unlimited government command and control…

    Amazingly, the French political elites were able to figure out cheap, clean, unlimited, efficient, sustainable, reliable, high-energy density, and safe nuclear energy was a good idea, and miraculously built their electrical grid on this bloody obvious fact…

    Leave it to the French government to screw up the ONE thing they got right in 200 years….

  88. Bill Illis says:

    Why any government would chose to copy policies which have failed so miserably everywhere else is beyond me.

    There are countries which will prosper in the future and countries which will decline. This is no different than what has happened in the past.

    Put France, Spain, the UK, Greece, Germany on your list of declining empires/countries because their governments are making dumb decisions.

  89. pat says:

    good luck!

    18 June: Businessweek: AP: Hope Yen: Big coal company sues over carbon emissions rules
    The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Murray Energy, based in St. Clairsville, Ohio.
    Murray Energy says it’s the nation’s largest privately owned coal company. It employs 7,200 people in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Utah. It calls the EPA regulations illegal and argues they’ll destroy jobs…
    An EPA spokeswoman won’t comment on the lawsuit. But she says the EPA “writes solid rules and they stand up in court.”
    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-06-18/murray-energy-sues-over-carbon-emissions-rules

  90. Mkelley says:

    -The bill is a chance “to develop new technologies…-

    Yeah, right. A (socialist) government is going to invent new power sources that power company engineers hadn’t thought of. That could happen. This will be like the US, where “green energy” is a great way to reward cronies with taxpayer and electricity user money at zero risk to the cronies.

  91. Richard Sharpe says:

    It’s all about appearances … however, in my opinion, it will do damage to France.

  92. pat says:

    ABC, WaPo, then Bloomberg, now WSJ & NBC – all declaring cash-strapped americans thrilled to pay up to defeat CAGW, tho not happy about almost everything else in the WSJ/NBC poll! & if u believee any of these polls, u must be a slave to the MSM:

    sample size equivalent of 71 australians:

    18 June: WSJ: Amy Harder: Obama Carbon Rule Backed by Most Americans — WSJ/NBC Poll
    More than two-thirds of Americans support President Barack Obama’s new climate rule and more than half say the U.S. should address global warming even if it means higher electricity bills, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
    Widespread support for the carbon rule, unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, is a rare bright spot for Mr. Obama, who otherwise received mostly low marks by poll respondents on topics ranging from his overall competence to his administration’s decision to trade five imprisoned Taliban officials in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
    The poll finds that 67% of respondents either strongly or somewhat support EPA’s new rule, while only 29% oppose it. Americans are also increasingly willing to stomach higher electricity costs in order to cut carbon emissions. More than half of poll respondents—57%—said they would support a proposal requiring companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming even if it means higher utility bills. That figure is up 9 percentage points since October 2009…
    The poll, conducted June 11 through 15, surveyed 1,000 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/18/obama-carbon-rule-backed-by-most-americans-wsjnbc-poll/

    just 5 months ago! sample size of 57 australians:

    28 Jan: Climate Depot: New WSJ/NBC Poll: ‘Addressing climate change’ is the dead-last, lowest priority issue for Americans
    The 800 respondents to the survey rank job-creation and deficit-reduction as high priorities, while assigning the lowest priority among 13 foreign and domestic issues to “addressing climate change.” …
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/28/new-wsjnbc-poll-addressing-climate-change-is-the-dead-last-lowest-priority-issue-for-americans/

    it looks like u have to be a SUBSCRIBER to get the questions & full details of the poll!
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-wall-street-journalnbc-news-poll-1378786510?tesla=y

  93. crosspatch says:

    And Putin laughs.

  94. george e. smith says:

    Well this whole renewables donnybrook, is a key element, in my insistence ( for ME personally) that KT’s so-called “Earth ENERGY budget ” , is in fact an Earth POWER budget; except his numbers are quite wrong.

    My computer; this one, is connected to a 2.5 MW/m^2 POWER supply.

    Free clean green renewable energy, from the sun, is available at inhabitable earth locations, (when the sun is actually shining) at the princely rate of roughly 1.0 KW/m^2.

    Well for those of you, who prefer to soak up your renewable solar ENERGY over a full 24 hour day, seven days a week; 365 days per year, there is a totally Ginormous amount of ENERGY available to you from the sun. You can google up info on the US Army’s solar farms. One of them in New Mexico, is the largest of its type in the world. Wow it kicks out an astounding 4.1 MW of peak power capability, nearly double my home computer source.

    But for those of you who are happy with : watt = joule, or henry = lumen, or farad = coulomb, or any other random unit equivalence; I actually don’t care a whit about what YOU personally can live with.

    But the real problem with free clean green renewable ENERGY is not how much is available; that’s an enormous number.

    The problem is the available maximum power is pitiful; maybe nearly as bad as collecting figs, up in the trees, like we used to do.

    Well there are the space fans, who would like to put huge mirrors, or solar-microwave stations up into space, with the aim of increasing the available power density on the surface.

    Just what we need is a way to toast our cities with a mirror run amok.

    Well the French actually seemed to be going places with their nuclear energy. Perhaps they will yet.

  95. pat says:

    it’s a full-out assault now…

    19 June: Australian: AFP: Republican ex-EPA chiefs voice support for new carbon rules
    Four former heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency who served under Republican presidents have urged politicians to stop bickering over whether climate change is real, and start finding solutions…
    The four former EPA administrators who testified at the hearing served under presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush.
    As a group, the quartet penned an op-ed in The New York Times last year that said there was no longer any credible debate over whether humans were causing climate change…
    “The two parties were able to rally around a common purpose in the early days of environmental policy making,” said Christine Todd Whitman, a former New Jersey governor who served as EPA chief under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003.
    “It is urgent that they do so again.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/republican-ex-epa-chiefs-voice-support-for-new-carbon-rules/story-e6frg90f-1226959699024

    Ross Garnaut tells a single truth ***

    19 June: Australian Financial Review: Nassim Khadem: Labor ‘not strong’ on climate change
    Professor Ross Garnaut, a prominent economist whose climate change policy for the former Labor government led to the ­carbon tax, does not expect Labor to have a strong policy for the 2016 ­election, despite a promise by ­Opposition Leader Bill Shorten Labor was bound to an emissions trading scheme…
    ***“It would help the (current Coalition) Treasurer [Joe Hockey] meet his budget objectives. It would keep us in good standing with the President of the United States. It would send signals to our business that we’ve wasted tens of billions on old economic investments since China changed its model of ­economic growth.”…
    He said the Coalition in opposition agreed to targets to cut emissions and had abandoned that. “The government hopes we forget about it. Maybe the Australian people will forget about it, but President Obama won’t, [UK] Prime Minister [David] Cameron won’t, ­[German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel won’t,” he said…
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/labor_not_strong_on_climate_change_05W2EFcAKwMjsEiauQjXrJ

  96. John says: June 18, 2014 at 4:12
    ************
    I took the long suffering Mrs. Jewett to Paris some years ago. We had a great time. We found a bar that my parents had been to in 1948 and we were treated like long lost kin. Also, some of the Paris waiters were every bit as rude as those in New York. Besides, if it weren’t for the Ancien Regime there wouldn’t be the United States. Ok, they did it because they hated the British, still the money they spent on us helped bankrupt them and helped lead to the revolution.

    By the way, on your list of their achievements you left out the invention of the bidet. Two lifetimes ago, I was married to a woman who came from a culture that used the bidet.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  97. Box of Rocks says:

    Time to eliminate NATO and bring the troops home.

    The war has been won.

  98. T-Bird says:

    “Looks like the decline of France has started …”

    When it started is a matter of some debate (I start with Descartes, myself), but it was a full-on bust by the 1800s.

    “The Americans should not be so down on the French. The French have supported them, implicitly, since the beginning of their fight, with a certain British king.”

    I have a love / hate relationship with the French. (Their love of opulent beauty? Check. Their belief that they should be running everything? Pahahaha …..) And I enjoy a good round of Frog Bashing as much as any red blooded American (Describe the French Battle Flag? Sure, it’s a white cross, on a white field.) But one should remember they once blew up a GreenPeace boat because it was going to interfere with a nuke test in the South Pacific.

    Nations do not have friends, they have interests. France supported The American Revolution because it was in their interest to weaken England (I fart in your general direction!) George Washington’s “foreign entanglements” advice was actually about telling Americans not to assume that France would always be our friend, and England our enemy. In fact, we are lock, stock and barrel a part of the Anglosphere, and the differences between us and France are quite vast and can be summed up perfectly by a comparison of our two revolutions, or more simply, by the realization that the two most corrupt political jurisdictions in North America, Quebec and Louisiana, are both French derived. (Yes, I know, DC is giving them a run for their money …)

  99. Dr. Strangelove says:

    I predict by 2050 ITER in France will be in operation. The French will change their energy mix to 50% nuclear fission and 50% nuclear fusion. Renewables will be their standby generators.

  100. Santa Baby says:

    “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001

  101. James the Elder says:

    John says:

    June 18, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    ======================
    I was with you until Margarine, and you forgot Mayonnaise. Double ugh.

  102. mark says:

    It will take people dying and degradation of life style from lack of economical energy before “people” take a hard look at AGW. Right now it’s ‘cool’ to save the planet. Never underestimate the effect of unintended consequences to quickly change opinion.

  103. So the French economy hasn’t tanked enough? The transition from stable cheap reliable concentrated energy sources to expensive intermittent and disperse ones is going to do the trick.

  104. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Victoria on June 18, 2014 at 2:03 pm:

    Didn’t know it was windy in France.

    Have you never had French Onion Soup?

  105. M Simon says:

    dipchip says:
    June 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    The grid does not run on average power. It runs on instantaneous power.

    When no one understood the grid the objective was the lowering of electrical power costs as a boon to mankind.

    Now people THINK they understand the grid and they want to raise electrical prices as a bane to mankind.

  106. Patrick says:

    “Steamboat Jack says:

    June 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    …from a culture that used the bidet.”

    And when the Versailles palace great hall was built it was, effectively, used as a toilet. I am glad times have changed in 200 years.

    “T-Bird says:

    June 18, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    …Louisiana, are both French derived.”

    Yes, but it was a “con-man” who managed to sell Louisiana, sight unseen, to “investors”.

  107. LogosWrench says:

    The decline of France stared after Waterloo and hasn’t stopped.

  108. rogerthesurf says:

    The frogs are not that silly. This has to be pressure under UN Agenda 21.
    The French PM and key officials may have been promised great positions once the installation of Agenda 21 is complete.
    Whatever it is, the normal Joe Blow on the street will suffer.

    Cheers Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com (My Agenda 21 blog)

  109. SandyInLimousin says:

    “It aims to cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050 and reduce the use of fossil fuels by 30 percent by 2030, in comparison with 2012 when Francois Hollande was elected president.”

    “Experts estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.”

    As France is already in dire financial circumstances with a high rate of unemployment throwing that sort of money down the toilet will certainly cut energy use by 50%

  110. The American people will never accept a human carbon unit tax on the CO2 they produce. It’s just too stupid a concept.

  111. old44 says:

    “seeks to make France a greener country and reduce the nation’s energy bill.”

    Wish they would make up their minds.

  112. Patrick says:

    “SandyInLimousin says:

    June 18, 2014 at 11:42 pm”

    True. Apparently the city of Paris cannot afford to keep street lights on at night.

  113. Bertram Felden says:

    I really don’t worry about anything the socialists here in my home country of France say they are going to do. For two reasons. Firstly, they are utterly incompetent, and second, in just under two years there will be a right wing (well for France) government who will chuck everything in the bin that the previous government has done. Incidentally the current socialist regime is the most unpopular government in living memory.

    @ Max 2:04. You might be interested to hear a little epigram we have over here on this side of the pond: it’s this -
    With friends like Americans, you have no need of enemies.

    Think on that.

  114. Mr Green Genes says:

    Patrick says:
    June 18, 2014 at 11:52 pm

    True. Apparently the city of Paris cannot afford to keep street lights on at night.
    ===========================================
    That’s certainly not true of the area around the 11th and 12th Arondissements where my daughter lives.

  115. alleagra says:

    Polite advice to Max Hugoson: please don’t shout! To my mind, it makes you look like an out-of-cotrol ranter at a meeting. Usually I just skip comments which include chunks of capitals because time is precious.

    If the argument or pertinent observation isn’t persuasive in lowecase then it’s hardly going to be improved by putting it in uppercase.

  116. Old Goat says:

    I live in France, and confirm that Hollande and his socialist cronies are totally bonkers, and loathed almost universally. The sooner Marine le Pen kicks them ALL into touch, the better for all of us. The country is going from bad to worse. Why is it that most of our so-called “leaders” in the west are hell-bent upon destroying their own civilisations? Perhaps, deep down, they want an Islamic world, and are preparing the ground.

    My God, I’m glad that I have reached the back end of my life and won’t have to witness the oncoming catastrophe. My condolences to those that will.

  117. DaveF says:

    Bertram Felden June 18th 11:52pm:
    …a little epigram we have over here on this side of the pond: “With friends like Americans, you have no need of enemies.”
    I have never ever heard that deplorable expression before, despite living and working most of my life in various parts of my native UK, but also working in the Netherlands and living for four years in France. I suspect that it’s one you made up yourself.

  118. Perry says:

    The French whore monger’s plan to tax salaries above 1 million euros at 75 percent for two years did not work. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/france-s-75-percent-tax-rate-offers-lesson-revenue-estimating

    Reducing nuclear generated electricity from 75% down to 50% informs me that he has a problem with three quarters of anything. That’s because he is only three quarters of a man; the jumped up, short rsole, with more blubber around his champagne socialist gut than a whale.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171950/Francois-Hollande-mocked-French-looking-like-dwarf-posing-Coldstream-Guards-London.html

    Off with his head!

  119. Old Goat says:

    “SandyInLimousin”

    Also in the Limousin – where are you?

  120. Mr Green Genes says:

    The French economy is in the toilet: unemployment is nearly 3.5 million; taxation levels are driving wealth creators away; the percentage of GDP accounted for by government spending is now over 57%; the public deficit is at 4.3%, against an EU-mandated level of 3% by 2015; and productivity, compared to the rest of Europe, is poor and declining.

    So it will be interesting to see how they can simultaneously reduce the government deficit, reduce unemployment and spend c €15m – €30m each year on its aim to cut the country’s final energy consumption in half by 2050.

    One thing’s for certain – it won’t happen! The French have a propensity to take to the streets whenever things don’t go the way they want. They also have a presidential election in 2 years time and, whilst I’m not at all sure that Marine Le Pen’s FN party will win (thus making her President), they will certainly have a large presence in parliament. It seems likely, at least at the moment, that this crazy plan will not survive for long.

  121. Stephen Richards says:

    I have been writing about this for about 2 years. The french government have a grave problem. 22 of their nucléare central will be obsolete (out or operational time) in the next ten years. Fessenheim is already over time but is being kept alive until 2016. In the meantime, the socialists have taken away the rights of the french citoyen to object, protest against wind turbines and green energy.
    So do the government build several new nucléare, as in the UK, or do they go green? If they want to stay in power they have to go green because the greens hold the balance of power. Hollande has about 2 years left when he will be thrown out and another year after that his goverment will be thrown out. They will run out of money long before they finish this project. They have a pledge registered with the EUSSR to reduce their budget deficit to 3% by 2016. They can only do that by raising taxes which will further cripple our economy and Hollande has had to promise tax cuts already in his attempt to become popular (it’s a standard presidential thing to do in france when you are in the merde). If you think about that within a european economy, which like the socialist USA’s, will stagnate, the outlook is not good. Sometimes you have to have revolution to evolve.
    I have read many objectional and appallingly ill-informed comments here. As in most of europe we have a voting system of proportional representation which makes it difficult to change anything and in the EU it’s worse with 700+ parlimentarians and I don’t know how many commissioners (and I doubt that anyone else knows), making any decisions rests solely with the president of the commission. It is a dictatorship, but sometimes it’s easier to change a dictatorship than a democracy. There is only one person to guillotine
    I am sick of ill-informed Brits and others calling the french people cowards and yellow. If you have never been invaded keep your foul mouths closed and your pens still.
    What would you do if an invading army chose two of your medium sized towns and slaughtered all the men, women and children. Hung the men from lamposts and balconies in front of everyone, including their children. Burned your houses to the ground. In WW1 every village and town in france lost more than half their men only to be followed 11 years later by WW2 when they lost the remaining men and still the old an infirmed fought on in the resistance.
    This is why I become very offensive to our government paid climate liars with their attempts to destroy our economies and our poor and elderly.

    BETTS that’s why I hate you. Compris ?

    Stephen RICHARDS
    Conseiller Municipale ancien.

  122. Stephen Richards says:

    Amazingly, the French political elites were able to figure out cheap, clean, unlimited, efficient, sustainable, reliable, high-energy density, and safe nuclear energy was a good idea, and miraculously built their electrical grid on this bloody obvious fact…

    This was De Gaulle (pronouced De goal, incidently). He drove this farsighted policy and yes it was the only thing he did that was worthy.

  123. Lil Fella from OZ says:

    It will cost them their economy! Simple.

  124. Vince Causey says:

    30 billion euros a year for decades? Like that’s going to happen. In the UK there’s been huge controversy and push back over spending about £70 billion on HS2, but that spread over 15 years!

    Look, I was in France recently, and the French seemed like fairly intelligent people with normal appetites for enjoyment of life. The distinction between the citizenry and the hypocritical lunatics in charge could not be greater. Remind me again, how many republics has France gone through so far?

  125. john says:

    GE is pushing hard for renewables in VFrance.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/ge-ceo-to-hold-meeting-with-french-minister-on-alstom-deal-1403097740

    General Electric Co. GE +0.07% Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt is set to meet French Economy Minister Arnaud Montebourg in Paris on Thursday, the third time the executive has visited the City of Light since GE launched its $17 billion bid for the French engineering firm’s business in late April.

    His mission: to derail the French government’s interest in a competing offer from Germany’s Siemens AG SIE.XE +0.85% and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 7011.TO +1.43% before it gathers too much momentum.

    Mr. Immelt is expected to make a series of concessions, according to people familiar with the matter, giving the government a say in the fate of Alstom products that Paris deems strategic, such as the oversize steam turbines used in nuclear-power plants.
    ===============

    Obama’s job czar will show them….

  126. Ivor Ward says:

    I live in France for good reasons. The people are not stupid. The politicians are. The people are quite happy to guillotine the occasional politician, physically or metaphorically. Hollande like Obarmy needs a “big idea” to save his arse. He has the Climate Jamboree coming up in Paris and wants to put himself on the world stage front and centre. He will be out on his fat little ear in a couple of years, even Julie Gayet cannot save him. Sarkosy is waiting in the wings, he thinks like Napoleon and waits like Napoleon. The socialists have created the worst economy in France for a generation and the people are beginning to squeal. The problem with electricity is the same as in all EU nations, a complete lack of foresight and investment. The Nucs are old and dated and need replacing. The socialists are twisting and turning trying not to be the ones who have to do it. Luckily for them in 2017 they won’t be .

  127. “It also looks to reduce France’s huge dependency on nuclear energy for electricity from 75 percent to 50 percent — one of Hollande’s campaign promises — and to increase the use of renewables.”

    And ze gouvernment will rebuild ze Maginot Line!

  128. Lest anyone think I am insulting the French above, please consider the following.

    My great-uncle is buried in France, killed in battle in 1918 in the very last weeks of WW1.

    My uncle survived the Dieppe raid in 1942 during WW2 – the only officer of his regiment still alive at noon that day.

    My French friends, our family and our friends did not shed our blood for you just so your could fall on your own swords.

    Wind power simply does not work economically or effectively – it is too intermittent and too diffuse and we published these conclusions more than a decade ago.

    The Germans and the Brits have since spent billions and proved that we were correct – danke, thank you.

    Now the French are going to sacrifice the wellbeing of their citizens to the same energy folly.

    L’énergie éolienne – il ne fait pas que souffler, ça craint! (Wind power – it doesn’t just blow, it sucks!)

    Adieu!

  129. Roger Sowell says:

    France chose nuclear power for its nationalized power industry rather than high-priced imported oil or relying on other countries for natural gas. France has, in the intervening years, increased its power prices to about double that of the US, subsidized its power prices, reluctantly privatized only a portion of the electric industry, developed nuclear technology that it desperately subsidizes to sell to other countries, exports low-balled subsidized power to neighboring countries in an attempt to maintain high nuclear plant operating rates, and recently was the object of an investigation for anti-trust by the EU related to power prices. The investigation showed anti-trust activities did occur. Clearly, following France in nuclear is not the way to go. After 50 or more years, no other country has as much nuclear power as does France.

    Q. E. D.

    The truth about France’s nuclear power industry: see
    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part.html

  130. Leigh says:

    It is the people that can least afford these massive energy price increases that are hurt the most.
    Energy poor its been called.
    Those very same people make up the silent majority of those countrys.
    These hypocritical “ruling elite” do nothing but stoke the anger.
    That comes with total helplessness to stop what their elected representatives are doing to them.
    When the socialist governments are unceremoniously dumped and the people get little if any financial respite from the new government.
    Then pressure builds.
    At the next election and faced with prospect of returning to another socialist government, the root of their problem.
    The proverbial will hit the fan.
    It will not be long till the peoples of one of these “civilized” countrys violently kick back against one of these socialist governments.
    Who will it be first, Cananda, Australia or maybe England or America.
    It will happen, gauranted.
    Simply because these socialists have dropped all their eggs in the one basket.
    The basket case that is the fraud of global warming.
    And as we see over the blogasphere, there is a little piece of that fraud exposed every day.

  131. Joseph Murphy says:

    “estimate it will cost the country between 15 and 30 billion euros in investments every year until the so-called “energy transition” is completed.”

    A low end estimate!? Those goverment folks are always kidding around, what a bunch of pranksters!

  132. RossCO says:

    a 50% reduction in energy usage would imply that France is intending that future elected governments live in a “dark age” whilst they live it up on their 75% tax take. – a conveniant plan to lock in hard times for the next elected government – sounds like the greens in OZ!

  133. Resourceguy says:

    Meanwhile the French state-controlled nuclear energy contractor is building super-sized nuclear plants in China and warships for Russia. Never underestimate the French contradictions in the hunt for money.

  134. Robi M Ottawa says:

    The other thing France always had right was termed as “the French Paradox”. How could these people eat so much butter fat and consume so much wine, yet still have low cases of heart disease. I think the next goal of the eco-fascists will be the French diet, as it already happened elsewhere.

    First they came for the nuclear. Then they came for the delicious animal fat and wine. And with that, they were able to remove all soul and humour. (I may be gravely biased, but it seems that eco/activist/vegan-types have an acute lack of humour and self-deprecation, coupled with a maniacal need to control others).

  135. robertmilicevic says:

    The other thing France always had right was termed as “the French Paradox”. How could these people eat so much butter fat and consume so much wine, yet still have low cases of heart disease. I think the next goal of the eco-fascists will be the French diet, as it already happened elsewhere.

    First they came for the nuclear. Then they came for the delicious animal fat and wine. And with that, they were able to remove all soul and humour. (I may be gravely biased, but it seems that eco/activist/vegan-types have an acute lack of humour and self-deprecation, coupled with a maniacal need to control others).

  136. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Roger Sowell on June 19, 2014 at 4:59 am:

    France chose nuclear power for its nationalized power industry rather than high-priced imported oil or relying on other countries for natural gas. France has, in the intervening years, increased its power prices to about double that of the US, subsidized its power prices, reluctantly privatized only a portion of the electric industry, developed nuclear technology that it desperately subsidizes to sell to other countries, exports low-balled subsidized power to neighboring countries in an attempt to maintain high nuclear plant operating rates, and recently was the object of an investigation for anti-trust by the EU related to power prices. The investigation showed anti-trust activities did occur. Clearly, following France in nuclear is not the way to go. (…)

    Exactly. France is definitely socialist. They have labor encumbrances the US does not such as shorter workdays and workweeks, excessive vacation. Numerous other government benefits that are subtly paid for in quiet excessive taxation, recent news has shown the fiscal desperation is leading to making it less subtle and quiet. Their electricity infrastructure is still largely nationalized, and Americans well know how well permanently entrenched government organizations and employees perform compared to private sector counterparts subject to quick dismissal.

    And now as the French model of “civilized socialism” is carried along for the long trudge to history’s dustbin, they jerk and twitch the limbs to give it a semblance of life for the onlookers, and pretend their nuclear industry is still robust and healthy by manipulating their pricing with subsidies.

    Clearly, following the French model of faux capitalism for the growing nuclear industry we will need in the coming decades will obviously be a major fault. That they were able to hold the electricity costs to only about double that of the US is surely testament to the inherent efficiency of nuclear energy. By European norms, it’s still cheap at twice the cost!

  137. mkelly says:

    I suggest the French elected rulers read Bastiat. Best or second best person to come from France.

  138. sarastro92 says:

    Like it or not the majority in Europe have Green on the Brain and want to shut down nuclear. I say: give the people what they want. Let them learn the consequences by trial and error. In the process they may become object-lessons for the rest of the world.

  139. philjourdan says:

    @T-Bird

    Nations do not have friends, they have interests. France supported The American Revolution because it was in their interest to weaken England (I fart in your general direction!) George Washington’s “foreign entanglements” advice was actually about telling Americans not to assume that France would always be our friend, and England our enemy.

    Bingo! Excellent statement.

  140. TomB says:

    John says:
    June 18, 2014 at 4:12 pm ….

    Amen John. If one got their impression of France from a brief visit to Paris, I could almost understand. Paris, like NYC, can be a great place. Centers of culture, cuisine, and entertainment – both cities are a delight if you’ve got tons of money. Another thing they have in common is that the local residents seem to have elevated being rude to an art form.

    Get at least 50km outside of Paris and France is a great country populated by pleasant and interesting people.

  141. physicsgeeky says:

    seeks to make France a greener country and reduce the nation’s energy bill.

    That last part is SO not going to happen.

  142. physicsgeeky says:

    Al Bundy was once in Great Britain speaking in the public square when the following exchange occurred:
    =====================================
    Al: “Am I the only one here who hates the French?”

    ::crowd roars with approval::

    Al:”I thought not.”
    ====================================
    Nuclear power is one of the things that France had done right and now they’re getting ready to stop? Eesh. That reminds of of the old albinoblacksheep webpage that would show up if you entered “french military victories” and clicked “I’m feeling lucky” in Google’s search engine:

    “No results found. Did you mean french military defeats?”

  143. John says:

    This bill will never pass in a million years…and even if it does it will be so watered down as to be meaningless. Not really sure what the point of this article or the comments are.

  144. valmy77 says:

    This bill will never pass in a million years. The nuclear lobby and their Union allies are too strong and Hollande has no political capital to blow…or money to blow on this project. The article mentions that in the last paragraph but it almost gives the impression, and the comments suggest that it did, that this is already a law. It is a joke. Anybody worried this is going to impact anything in France is dreaming.

  145. Max Hugoson says:

    Dear: Stephen RICHARDS Conseiller Municipale .. I do apologize for my “single sided” condemnation of all things French. You have rightly noted some of the suffering you have gone through. It does occur to me, however, as a student of history..that perhaps, considering Napoleon’s invasion of Russia (War of 1812), where he started with almost 500,000 men, and returned with under 50,000 men, perhaps the French are their own worst enemy. And when it comes to the corner on “cowardice”, I would say…without hesitation, that allowing Mssr. Boneapart to be poisoned with Arsenic, by his British Colonel “friend”, rather than executing him outright…well, it’s hard to be that for a matter of cowardice! Can I be allowed to be roundly frustrated in life? My name comes from the officer in the (Royal) French Army, who hot footed his way to Smoleland Sweden, in 1792, rather than lose his head over politics! I myself, left the “nuclear industry” in the USA, 10 plus years ago, as I realized it was dead and dying. I had great respect for FRANCE, obtaining 100% of their power from nuclear (on a rated base of 85%, because they began to use 18 month cores and shortened their outages to < 4 weeks by a very resonable "systems engineering" method) and having a schooled electorate, for whom going to the black board, in "first form" (or 7th grade, USA) and drawing out the complete nuclear power cycle, from ore to reprocessing, to waste vaulting…would be a trivial exercise. Thus, I must be much kinder to France and the "French" per see. It is obvious, they have missed the 200th aniversary of the Russian campaign, by a couple years. Yet, in total, they are planning on repeating the damage done 200 years ago. Perhaps its a way of eliminating the weak? (But Ne Pas, not true..it was the STRONG and the vital young men who were eliminated 200 years ago. Will it be the same now?) I still love all music by Saint Seanes, (Camille) ..however, this period of French life seems more as Berlious "Symphonie Fantastic", as our beloved turns out to be the leader of the "witches Sabboth".

  146. benfrommo says:

    Only the French could look to get rid of carbon free nuclear with carbon intensive wind turbines. Which are made and transported from China with actually polluting standards that ensure that you will ultimately increase the burning of fossil fuels.

    Although I say that and all of our countries are engaged in this welfare for the rich.

  147. Malco says:

    Why all the hateful rhetoric? And has wuwt become some kind of death-wish promoter of nuclear power?

    Some people, including me, can be AGW skeptics without spewing hatred against the French, the opponents of nukes, and supporters of-dare I say it-solar power?

    In case you haven’t heard, nukes are killing people all over the place, and Fukushima is reportedly causing statistically huge increases in children’s thyroid cancer, right here on the West Coast of the USA!

    Carbon bashing sucks, but so does bashing all the other stuff I see getting bashed here lately.

  148. philjourdan says:

    @Bertram Felden – The saying has crossed the pond, unfortunately.

  149. J Martin says:

    If the French economy slides then my summer holidays will get cheaper.

    @ Roger Sowell. So you are no fan of French nuclear power. What do you suggest they do for power then ? mine the coal they don’t have ?

    Perhaps you think that importing coal is cheaper than running nuclear, but is it sensible, it certainly reduces energy security.

  150. @save energy at 3:46 pm
    Some facts & figs on French & UK grids, plus ‘Green energy’ figs & costs
    [UK] Total Capacity = 23 GW

    Bottom left and bottom center graphs of the GridWatch tell the story.

    Wind in the UK is a seasonal operation. It peaks in the late fall-winter. It is becalmed late May-August with utilizations less than 10%. That is an enormous problem and a colossal waste of money.

  151. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    How many windmills would it take to power one French high-speed TGV train a return-trip Paris-Marseille? A continual maximum windmill output assumption will do at this stage.

  152. J Martin says:

    perhaps Hollande is a closet climate sceptic and his aim in reducing French nuclear is to increase the French output of co2 so as to help the continued global increase of co2.
    /sarc

  153. rogerknights says:

    MarkW says:
    June 18, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    Look for those with the ability to leave, start looking for the means to do so.
    Energy costs to skyrocket. Energy reliability to plummet to third world levels.
    What’s not to love.

    There are hundreds of thousands of French émigrés in London now.

  154. leon0112 says:

    A couple of years ago I attended a presentation by an international investment management firm. The presentation discussed the impact of the use of fracking on the US economy. Of course, the impact has been wildly beneficial and the manager was talking about how to make money from the cheap energy source.

    During the presentation, he mentioned that they had some French clients. When they made the presentation to the French clients, they mentioned that France has enough shale oil and natural gas to satisfy all EU demand for decades. The French clients, of course, said we will never allow fracking in France. It just won’t happen.

    Imagine France having a thriving oil and natural gas industry. They could tell the US and Russell to buzz off and pay off the national debt. But, hey, according to the French, fracking is bad.

  155. more soylent green! says:

    Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 18, 2014 at 4:56 pm
    more soylent green! says, June 18, 2014 at 4:23 pm:
    “Reduce energy consumption by 50%? Start by rationing. If they don’t produce enough electricity to meet demand, that will reduce consumption. Consumption will be reduced even more as the population either dies off or emigrates.”

    What’s wrong with mandating *available* energy-efficiency improvements for energy-consuming products? Except that not many talk about this here, except in the negative when it came to incandescent lightbulbs. (We now have more efficient incandescent lightbulbs due to a law that was complained against for supposedly banning them outright, and these new incandescents now cost less in combined acquisition and operation cost than the ones they replaced.)

    For example, most indicator lamp LEDs have 1/20 the energy efficiency of ones that cost only a couple cents more. .05-.1 watt per LED (and associated circuitry), multiplied by the billions glowing in USA alone, can take a power plant off the construction schedule by reducing demand – in a way that reduces the price of electricity. Many wallwarts could have been made to consume half a watt less with retail cost only a dollar or two higher. Many computer power supplies could have been made to consume 1-2 watts less when “off” and ~3 watts less when in use for a couple dollars more. Also, a manual automotive transmission controlled by a robot has much better urban fuel economy than a conventional automatic transmission.

    What’s wrong with top-down, centralized planning? More than I could write about in a year, much less in a simple reply.

    Are you aware of the tremendous energy efficiency improvements that the USA has made without government mandates? It seems these improvements are invisible except when mandated from the top.

    The problem with these mandates, specifically, is nobody can legislate or regulate scientific or engineering breakthroughs into existence. Consumers already want cleaner energy and less energy consumption (within reasonable cost limits). You don’t have to mandate LEDs into use. People will buy them when they calculate a new cost-benefit for their use.

  156. more soylent green! says:

    I’m actually thankful for France. Other countries often do stupid things and can provide great examples of what to do. Unfortunately, our ruling class can’t differentiate between ideological solutions and solutions that work. We’re just as likely to jump on the bandwagon and follow the crowd rather than to look at the successes (if you can find any) and failures of other countries in implementing these policies.

  157. LarryD says:

    RE: Malco

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/16/radioactive-fukushima-waters-arrive-at-west-coast-of-america/ (Italics mine)

    The amount of Fukushima radioactivity in this seawater is miniscule, about a Becquerel per cubic meter of water, or Bq/m3 of short-lived Cs-134, and poses no concern at all. And never will. By comparison, the EPA drinking water standard for its sister radionuclide, Cs-137, is about 7,400 Bq/m3, and for all radioactive materials is almost a million Bq/m3.

    But the Fukushima rad-concentrations are nowhere near as high as that left over from the old bomb tests, which are nowhere near as high as that of natural background. In fact, Fukushima’s rad-signature is so low that we need to separate the Cs-134 from the Cs-137 just to know it’s from Fukushima. Cs-134 has such a short half-life (2.1 years versus 30 years for Cs-137) that it has long decayed away from the old tests. The Cs-137 from Fukushima is so low it’s totally eclipsed by the leftover Cs-137 from the 50s and 60s.

    I think the Greens in Germany have jumped the shark, the French plan should do the same for the French Greens.

  158. T-Bird says:

    “Allan M.R. MacRae says:
    June 19, 2014 at 4:16 am

    …My uncle survived the Dieppe raid in 1942 during WW2 – the only officer of his regiment still alive at noon that day …”

    What a hideous mess that was. Worse than our invasion of Tarawa. I worked in a nursing home for a few summers in college. Among the residents was a retired architect who was Canadian. Found out a week before I went back to school he’d served in WWII. I asked him if he was at Dieppe. “Dieppe!?!” he piped up, getting very animated. “Dieppe!!?? I was up to my ears in it!” Pity his mind was mostly gone. I’d loved to have heard more. But he definitely remembered it.

    “TomB says:
    June 19, 2014 at 9:33 am

    Amen John. If one got their impression of France from a brief visit to Paris, I could almost understand. Paris, like NYC, can be a great place. Centers of culture, cuisine, and entertainment – both cities are a delight if you’ve got tons of money.

    Get at least 50km outside of Paris and France is a great country populated by pleasant and interesting people.”

    Dead on, by my experience anyway. Paris can be awesome (The Louvre, The Sacré-Cœur, Napoleon’s Tomb, the Bridges, the hot German girls showering on either side of me that one morning at the Youth Hostel …oh, erm, sorry, is this a family friendly site? Got carried away there … good times though. That whole co-ed bathrooms thing *was* a terrible shock to the girls in our party. Moving on! Chopin’s apartment, yeah, that was cool. I thought Notre Dame was kind of puny, myself, esp compared to the Cathedral at Rheims.) But Paris is also dirty, expensive and not very hospitable (comely German lasses at youth hostels aside). I can’t believe I had to pay 7 francs (in 1993) to pee in a porta-potty, especially considering how difficult it was to do my business in there without actually touching anything.

    But later on, I stayed with a family in Strasbourg, and “Southern Hospitality” had nothing on them. The father worked at the hydro electric power plant. The son wanted to be a naval aviator. The wife … ah, tout à fait charmant, et la juene fille a volé mon coeur.

    “Another thing they have in common is that the local residents seem to have elevated being rude to an art form.”

    Honestly, I think the rudeness is a matter of deep seated insecurity. They pride themselves on lucidity and I think they’re always worried you’re trying to put something over on them. (Seriously? You Americans eat in your cars? You’re mocking me, aren’t you?)

    “Max Hugoson says:
    June 19, 2014 at 11:22 am

    … It does occur to me, however, as a student of history..that perhaps, considering Napoleon’s invasion of Russia (War of 1812), where he started with almost 500,000 men, and returned with under 50,000 men, perhaps the French are their own worst enemy….”

    IIRC, only half of the 500,000 (I’ve heard estimates as high as 660,000) Grande Armee were French. By this time, Napoleon was almost a prisoner of the monster he’d created. “A Field Marshall’s baton in every rucksack” meant something a bit different than was originally intended by that time. It was now an army of adventurers and freebooters. To maintain his power over it, Napoleon had to use it. That is, he had to use them. He had to keep giving them something to do. (Just ask von Wallenstein about that kind of thing.) Attacking Russia was the only remaining outlet.

    “I had great respect for FRANCE, obtaining 100% of their power from nuclear …”

    Always thought that was pretty smart of them, too. Liberals are always wanting us to be like France. I wish we were on that one.

    “I still love all music by Saint Seanes, (Camille) ..however, this period of French life seems more as Berlious

    Sorry to nitpick, but …
    Saint Seanes = Saint-Saëns, Berlious = Berlioz ;)

    “… “Symphonie Fantastic”, as our beloved turns out to be the leader of the “witches Sabboth” …”

    Nice metaphor! As well, mix in Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre and Dukas’ The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

  159. Roger Sowell says:

    @ J Martin on June 19, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    @ Roger Sowell. So you are no fan of French nuclear power. What do you suggest they do for power then ? mine the coal they don’t have ?”

    The French can and should do what any nation does: assess the available options, give each a ranking from best to worst, and proceed accordingly. What they cannot produce domestically, they can import.

    Or, find ways to reduce demand. Or, find creative ways to increase overall efficiency. Don’t laugh.

    One of the most-overlooked ways to reduce primary fuel requirements is to better utilize the waste heat from a power plant. Even the best coal-fired plant sends 50 percent of the total heat produced from burning the coal into the cooling water where the exhaust steam is condensed. This occurs at all plant rates including peaking periods – which is either the heat of summer for air conditioning, or the dead of winter for running furnaces.

    In summer, the exhaust steam can be used to produce chilled water instead of being wasted against cooling water. This is not a new idea, so no patents can issue for it, as it is described in old engineering manuals. The power plant load decreases as fewer air conditioners are running. The chilled water is piped through insulated lines to the homes and businesses that require cooling.

    In winter, the exhaust steam is used to produce hot water that is also piped to the homes and businesses for space heating.

    Finally, every nation has substantial renewable energy sources – even if they do not know it yet. A recent US patent shows how to make methane from sewage sludge, in the steam hydrogasification reaction. Dr. Chan Park of University of California at Riverside holds the patent. For more information, see

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/bad-news-for-nuclear-natural-gas-from.html

    Every nation also has solid waste (trash) from its cities and towns. Municipal solid waste can be economically converted to electricity in another patented system. The PHREG system, with U.S. utility patent, 7,452,392, was issued in 2008 to Peter A. Nick and his team of Southern California chemical engineers. The system produces a medium-Btu gas from municipal waste, and produces power by burning the gas in a power plant.

    More natural gas is available from cattle raising operations, and from existing landfills.

    Yet another renewable fuel, ethanol, is available from fast-growing trees on marginal land not suitable for crops. Researchers genetically modified the lignin in poplar trees so that more of the cellulose converts to ethanol compared to unmodified trees. The increased yield varied, but some trees showed a 160 percent increase in yield. That is somewhat reduced by the reduction in mass of the trees. Poplar trees grow at 4 to 8 feet per year.

    see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/improved-ethanol-yield-by-cellulosic.html

    Yet another renewable resource for electricity generation is Pressure Retarded Osmosis, PRO, wherein river water at the mouth of the river is used in an osmosis system to produce power as the fresh water is combined with the sea water.

    Wind and solar are not the only renewables that must be considered.

    Plus, it is rumored that France sits atop a huge shale formation that contains massive amounts of shale gas that is available by hydraulic fracturing.

    If France cannot meet its energy needs in some combination of the above processes, then they may want to consider importing coal from their neighbor, Poland.

  160. richardscourtney says:

    Roger Sowell:

    At June 19, 2014 at 7:18 pm you conclude your mostly daft suggestions for how France could pointlessly close its nuclear power stations by saying

    If France cannot meet its energy needs in some combination of the above processes, then they may want to consider importing coal from their neighbor, Poland.

    There has been much debate about who first said of the French poor

    Let them eat cake.

    But we now know it was most recently said by Roger Sowell.

    Richard

  161. Not strictly accurate to say Ségolène is mother of Hollande’s three kids. More accurate to say she is mother of three of his kids. Direct requests for clarification to Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris.

  162. Roger Sowell says:

    @ Richard S Courtney, re eating cake.

    Nice try, Richard. Go sit in the corner and keep grinning. You might study up on thermodynamics while you are sitting in the corner. It is definitely your weak area. Start with an entry level book, and read slowly due to the big words.

    Just step aside and let the engineers show the way.

  163. richardscourtney says:

    Roger Sowell:

    re your post addressed to me at June 20, 2014 at 7:05 am.

    I have much knowledge of thermodynanics but fail to understand its relevance to eating cake.

    Please explain the relevance because at present your post makes as much sense as your earlier post which I commented.

    Richard

  164. Skiphil says:

    Max Hugoson,

    Moliere’s play “Tartuffe” is not only a hilarious contribution to the world’s cultures but also a great sardonic parody of pompous, hypocritical, self-righteous moralism. If one substitutes the Green Religion for Tartuffe’s brand of Christianity, the mentality of activist Greens is illustrated nicely.

    Thus, you should not dare to despise “all things French” before reading or seeing this play. In fact, I think that Al Gore may be our contemporary Tartuffe:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartuffe

  165. Karl Heuer says:

    How you can call moving away from an energy source (Nuclear) that:

    1. Requires fuel from a known unstable FSU nation — namely Kazakhstan that produces 1/3 of the worlds Uranium.

    and

    2. Has a worldwide fuel production infrastructure that cannot meet current demand per their own industry website – http://www.world-nuclear.org/ — search U3O8 production vs need

    surrendering energy security, begs the question — what do you consider energy security?

    If you consider being dependent upon foreign sources of fuel for 80% of your electricity requirements — with said foreign sources known to be geopolitically and economically unstable — or even to be dependent upon ANY foreign source for the fuel to provide 80% of your electricity then I respectfully argue your idea of energy security is quite skewed

  166. T-Bird says:

    “Skiphil says:
    June 20, 2014 at 8:27 am
    Max Hugoson,
    Moliere’s play “Tartuffe” is not only a hilarious contribution to the world’s cultures …”

    Another nice metaphor, although The Misanthrope is my favorite of his.

  167. richardscourtney says:

    Karl Heuer:

    I see that at June 20, 2014 at 11:13 am you are trying to pretend the nonsense that windpower can replace nuclear power and should be done as an act of energy security.

    You assert that impossible fantasy writing

    Has a worldwide fuel production infrastructure that cannot meet current demand per their own industry website – http://www.world-nuclear.org/ — search U3O8 production vs need

    surrendering energy security, begs the question — what do you consider energy security?

    If you consider being dependent upon foreign sources of fuel for 80% of your electricity requirements — with said foreign sources known to be geopolitically and economically unstable — or even to be dependent upon ANY foreign source for the fuel to provide 80% of your electricity then I respectfully argue your idea of energy security is quite skewed

    Windpower has not replaced any thermal power station anywhere, and it cannot because intermittent wind requires continuous backup.

    Windpower propagandists are promoting the fantasy that ‘windpower assists energy security’ because they know the public are discovering windpower’s high costs and lack of advantages.

    Richard

  168. GTR says:

    All those hard limitations on CO2 have a big consequence of ending any chance of industry moving away from China into Europe. If for some reason the industry wanted to move away from China – like a governement getting too harsh or whatever – they just won’t be able to move to Europe, because the artificial limits of emissions (or artifical limits of available power) will have been exhausted. Basically “We want to move in to EU” – “You can’t, there’s no available CO2 limit” scenario.

  169. Roger Sowell says:

    Richard S Courtney states, erroneously, that

    “Windpower has not replaced any thermal power station anywhere, and it cannot because intermittent wind requires continuous backup.”

    In Texas, the electrical grid’s regulating body is ERCOT. Their considered assessment of wind energy plants in Texas is that almost 10 percent of installed wind capacity can be included as dispatchable, what they refer to as ELCC, effective load-carrying capability. This (8.7 percent) is presently (May, 2013) at 920 MW out of an installed base of 12,000 MW wind energy. That 920 MW is non-trivial, roughly equivalent to three gas-fired power plants. See

    http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2013/CapacityDemandandReserveReport-May2013.pdf

    It truly is amusing to read such blatantly false statements from Richard S Courtney, time after time after time…

  170. richardscourtney says:

    Roger Sowell:

    I wrote the true and accurate statement

    Windpower has not replaced any thermal power station anywhere, and it cannot because intermittent wind requires continuous backup.

    At June 22, 2014 at 5:58 am you say that factual statement is made “erroneously”.
    You follow that falsehood with irrelevant twaddle.
    And you add an untrue personal insult.

    But you do not cite any example of windpower having replaced a thermal power station anywhere.

    Roger Sowell, you really need to stand back and allow competent apologists for windfarms to do their job: your contributions only serve to advertise the faults of the expensive, polluting and environmentally damaging subsidy farms.

    Richard

  171. george e. smith says:

    Among the often cited “renewable” or “free clean green” non-fossil energy sources. we repetitively see “Wind farms” , solar PV, and solar “furnace” systems touted as go to options.

    I see Richard S. Courtney, and Roger Sowell having some turbulence about that one.

    Despite its apparent adoption in numerous places, I can’t say that is has demonstrated any great success record, enough to overcome its subsidized stigma.

    Solar PV, although also over subsidized, has seemed more acceptable, that those bird grinders.

    It recently occurred to me, that there might be a fundamental reason, why solar PV seems to enjoy a better reputation than wind farms.

    Now I’m sure of it, so I’m more a supporter of Richard’s point of view than Roger’s.

    There’s that old tale about the cowboy going into the feed store to buy some hay for his horse.

    The feed store proprietor tells him that the hay is $25 per bale; which somewhat takes aback, the cowpoke. “Why that’s outrageous he roars.”

    “Well” says the proprietor, “that’s what it goes for these days, unless you want the cheaper grade stuff”.

    “Well what’s this cheaper grade hay” ? asks the cowboy.

    “Well son, that’s hay that has already been once through the horse !”

    And that it seems is the problem with “renewable” wind energy from the sun, as compared to photo-voltaic solar cells.

    Wind energy, is solar energy that has already been “once through the horse.”

    PV electricity, is virgin solar radiant energy captured and converted at about 20% efficiency into electricity.

    Wind turbines require the virgin solar energy to be run through the horse which converts it to horse-s*** ; AKA …..HEAT…..

    Heat is the crappiest form of energy that exists; it literally is horse-s***.

    Obtained by totally wasting some higher form of energy, and turning it into the chaotic, randomly oriented, disorganized melee of molecules dashing in every direction, completely undisciplined.

    The laws of physics, simply don’t allow us to marshall all that mechanical kinetic energy, and get it all headed in the same direction, to achieve some concerted effect.. We can’t put the tooth paste back into the tube.

    The Carnot efficiency now comes into play, as we endeavor to convert that waste heat into some other useful form of energy.

    Think of a wind turbine, as being a “heat” engine, where the sun supplies the radiant energy, to raise the temperature of the air and the ocean.

    “Heat” is the only form of energy that can change the Temperature, and a wind turbine, operates with a pitiful differential Temperature, between source and sink, so the Carnot efficiency is very low.

    Which is why wind farms require such vast areas of real estate, for the input duct, and the exhaust duct behind the turbine, to get up some kinetic energy in the working fluid (air) to rotate the turbine.

    Now solar furnaces are themselves rather low in power density.

    The trouble is, that each of those large mirrors, in those arrays, can shadow its neighbors, as the sun moves about its track in the sky, so the mirror spacings have to be quite large.

    I believe that you could take the total land area of one of those solar furnaces, and instead, set up a large array of stationary (bi)cycles, and sit down an army of cyclists, and have them pedal their hearts, out driving small alternators to generate electricity.

    I think, they would generate more power density, than the mirror array and solar boiler does.

    Yes, if you want RENEWABLE energy from the sun; running it once (or more) through the horse, is not a productive way to go about collecting it.

  172. george e. smith says:

    The first item discussed is of course wind turbines.

  173. Tonyb says:

    Richard

    Like myself you live close to the ocean. Like myself you will have seen these giant solar farms proliferate on our beautiful devon and cornish landscapes and have noted that at our latitude the amount of power they provide is minuscule and in winter the energy generated is laughable.

    Personally, I think it a great shame that we have wasted so much time and effort on dead end technologies such as wind and solar ( in uk conditions) when the ocean can satisfy much of our energy needs and is never more than seventy miles away from any part of the uk.

    Tonyb

  174. Karl Heuer says:

    @ Richard

    Electricity generation in Denmark in 2006-2012 (TWh) 3

    Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
    Total generation 42.9 37.0 36.6 36.4 38.8 35.2 30.4
    Thermal generation 33.6 29.8 24.6 29.6 31.1 25.4 20.1
    Wind generation 6.1 7.2 6.9 6.7 7.8 9.8 10.3
    Net exports (imports) 6.9 0.96 (1.5) (0.3) 1.1 (1.3) (5.2)

    Thermal generation has dropped by 13.5 TWh over 7 years
    Wind Generation has increased by 4.2 TWh over 7 years

    Exports and imports are not germane to the issue of Danish electricity generation and the change from thermal to wind.

    The metrics are TWh — NOT PERCENTAGE — It therefore follows that wind generation has replaced thermal power generation in Denmark to at least some degree — over the last 7 years

  175. richardscourtney says:

    Karl Heuer:

    Sincere thanks for providing data in your post at June 25, 2014 at 10:29 am .

    You say

    Exports and imports are not germane to the issue of Danish electricity generation and the change from thermal to wind.

    The metrics are TWh — NOT PERCENTAGE — It therefore follows that wind generation has replaced thermal power generation in Denmark to at least some degree — over the last 7 years

    I could dispute the relevance of “Exports and imports” but there is no need because your assertion of “replaced” is either mistaken or deliberately disingenuous.

    There is no dispute that windpower can displace thermal power from the grid. Indeed, it is mandated to do that in many places. The result is the thermal power stations operate either
    (a) at reduced output so reduced efficiency with resulting increase to fuel usage, fuel costs, and emissions
    or
    (b) spinning standby with no reduction to fuel usage, fuel costs, and emissions.

    They operate like that until the wind changes (so the windfarms stop supplying to the grid) when they revert to operating properly.

    Importantly, windfarms only displace power stations off the grid when the wind is strong enough but not too strong. Windpower has not replaced any thermal power station anywhere, and it cannot because intermittent wind requires continuous backup. Windfarms only exist to farm subsidies and a grid supply system only obtains problems from their use.

    Richard

  176. KArl Heuer says:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/danish-power-plant-closing-may-narrow-price-discount-to-germany.html

    Coal fired power plant closed on Denmark — Wind Produced TWh increased — ERGO

    regardless of reason (economics, politics, etc) — Windpower TWh production replaced Thermal TWh electricity production that had been produced by the Dong Energy 670-megawatt Enstedvaerket-3 coal-fed power plant in Aabenra, southern Jutland, Denmark,

    Sorry Richard — but you are mistaken.

  177. richardscourtney says:

    KArl Heuer:

    Your post at June 28, 2014 at 7:50 am is either deliberately disingenuous or plain daft. It is certainly very wrong. It says in total

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/danish-power-plant-closing-may-narrow-price-discount-to-germany.html

    Coal fired power plant closed on Denmark — Wind Produced TWh increased — ERGO

    regardless of reason (economics, politics, etc) — Windpower TWh production replaced Thermal TWh electricity production that had been produced by the Dong Energy 670-megawatt Enstedvaerket-3 coal-fed power plant in Aabenra, southern Jutland, Denmark,

    Sorry Richard — but you are mistaken.

    Sorry, Karl, but I am NOT “mistaken” and you are spouting falsehood.

    Your link says.

    Dong Energy stopped power production at the 670-megawatt Enstedvaerket-3 coal-fed power plant in Aabenra, southern Jutland, Denmark, the company said on Dec. 14. The shutdown will boost Denmark’s dependence on electricity imports during cold snaps and peak demand, narrowing the discount of Danish power prices compared with ones in Germany, said Robin Skoeld, a trader at Bixia, Sweden’s fourth-largest power-trading company.

    In my post you claim to be answering I wrote to you saying

    I could dispute the relevance of “Exports and imports” but there is no need because your assertion of “replaced” is either mistaken or deliberately disingenuous.

    Your link says that IMPORTS replaced a Danish power station: windfarms did not.

    And your “Ergo” is a non sequiter because – as I have repeatedly explained to you – windfarms only displace power stations off the grid when the wind is strong enough but not too strong. Windpower has not replaced any thermal power station anywhere, and it cannot because intermittent wind requires continuous backup. Windfarms only exist to farm subsidies and a grid supply system only obtains problems from their use.

    Richard

  178. Karl Heuer says:

    Less TWh produced by Thermal Domestically by Denmark, More TWh produced by Wind domestically by Denmark — means that domestic wind generation replaced a domestic thermal generation shortfall caused by a closed thermal station.

    The FACT that Danish Domestic electricity production cannot meet total Danish demand and requires imports does not mean what you say — the imported electricity could just as well be stated to be due to a lack of NEW nuclear construction or a lack of new thermal plant construction.

    The fact remains — a domestic thermal plant closed and overal DOMESTIC Danish thermal TWh decreased — Wind Installation increased as Domestic wind provided TWh production increased — my ERGO is correct — you sir are disingenuous.

    I falsified your claim that — no wind power has replaced thermal power.

    Lastly — lets go to maths — even using your import argument — over the years in my previous post there was a shortfall of 12.5TWH in thermal TWh production, and a net increase of 12.1 TWh in imports — leaving a net 0.4 TWh difference between domestic and imports

    As the only source of increasing TWH production was Wind — 0.4 TWh of wind production supplanted thermal production — at the very least — even assuming that all of the 12.1TWh change in net imports was entirely thermal in nature

  179. richardscourtney says:

    Karl Heuer:

    At June 30, 2014 at 8:39 am you state this blatant falsehood to me

    I falsified your claim that — no wind power has replaced thermal power.

    NO! You did not!

    You cited an example of a thermal power station that was replaced by imports and you linked to a report which said it was replaced by imports. The imported electricity which replaced the power station was NOT windpower.

    Windpower has not replaced any thermal power station anywhere, and it cannot because intermittent wind requires continuous backup. Windfarms only exist to farm subsidies and a grid supply system only obtains problems from their use.

    Richard

Comments are closed.