It would also produce for many more years

The French Government who seeks by every means to reduce public deficits and to maintain the purchasing power is the same as the French Government has to decide a considerable investment in wind power at sea It is difficult to imagine a more shocking waste. For the same price, may be investing in nuclear two times greater power, an electricity production eight more times, for a longer period of time twice. The cost of these turbines is 20 billion for an installed capacity of 3,000 megawatts. For the same price, can be four EPR power plants, or well over 6,000 megawatts of installed capacity.

Advertising and the lobbies of the wind press releases relate only to the installed capacity of their facilities. But the production of electricity - what we consume in a year - is much more important. It is the product of the power by the number of hours of operation. The wind is unfortunately turn wind turbines as a small part of the hours a year 8.760: 1,500 hours in Germany, 1,700 hours in the Denmark, 2 hours at the United Kingdom, and 1,500 hours in France. Less long for wind energy at sea for wind energy on Earth, whether one believes the English data. A nuclear power plant, she works 7,500 hours per year, i.e. about four times more. Dual power and a quadruple annual operating time are eight times more substantial production. By investing the same amount in the nuclear, it would be eight times more electricity each year. It would produce the KWh at eight times lower cost since the bulk of the cost of these stations there is a cost of capital. It would also produce for many more years. We know now that nuclear power plants had at least fifty years. It is unclear how many will last for the offshore wind, but no one believes that they will last more than 25 years. Still a factor of two to take into account.

The story does not stop there. Eole is not only a sloth, who works only one day out of five, but want a capricieux, which blows that when there. And not necessarily at the time where there need electricity, when it is very cold for example. That is why the concept of wind installed capacity is misleading: it is virtual, random, intermittent, conditional. Cannot add it to the installed capacity of a plant to gas or uranium, which are, roughly always available. Marcel Boiteux expresses the disadvantage of this unpredictability by saying that wind power is lower "quality". It is hard to believe: the investment will we pay ten times more significantly less useful product. No matter, the wind is a commitment of the Grenelle which pleased the anti-nucléaires and the wind lobbies, let wind energy. Policy first, the economy then. Who will pay Brave consumers of electricity. EDF is obliged by law to purchase this energy, and pay a price triple or quadruple the cost of electricity from its nuclear plants. This additional cost is contained in our invoices as discreet and adroit "contribution to the public service of electricity". This "contribution" is in fact a tax, a tax strongly regressive, and rapidly increasing.

The Government discovered this summer that all researchers say has long been that the fiscal cost of solar electricity - funded in the same way as the wind - was going to explode. It gives hastily a small brake to solar power. And at the same time a great blow of Accelerator wind. It was believed that the crisis of the economy and public finances would introduce a bit of reason: it was wrong.