It’s still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You’ll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.
Building way more renewable generation than needed at peak, plus elasticity brought by batteries (hello V2G cars) plus HVDC lines to transport power between regions will be faster and cheaper than deploying the most expensive form of power generation.
Yet, it’s the power companies that don’t want this. As it’s threatening their business model of central generation and metering every kWh going to the consumer.
This is the reason why these discussions keep popping up. Right wing parties are fully aligned with the centralised thinking of traditional power companies.
Denmark is a small country. Transmission losses are much lower in high voltage DC lines. Battery storages get cheaper consistently. Denmark is close to Norway, where pump storage plants exist and can be built easily.
Sources? Anyway, to get a good sized grid to smooth out intermittency, you’ll need to connect all Europe or more. I think there’s already some of that, but the longer distances you go, the more loss. I agree pumped hydro is a good option, but the promising sites tend to be quite limited when you try to scale up to a full grid. Plus the ecological concerns that come with dams need to be weighed too.
Renewables and batteries have steady output and can be built much faster and cheaper than nuclear. It’s why 94% of all new power generation globally in 2024 was renewables.
Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It’s when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.
Denmark is surrounded by sea. Offshore wind power is pretty reliable and it is a lie that solar and batteries would be more expensive than building nuclear power plant. Plenty of households theses days buy solar with battery and safe money with it comparing to buying from the grid. And nuclear power is the most expensive in the grid. For Europe nuclear is at around 20 cents/kWh, coal around 8-10, lignite around 5, and solar is down to less then 5 cents/kWh.
Furthermore nuclear power will get more expensive the more demand is there as Uranium is a finite resource. And the most likely trading partner will be Russia or countries under Russias influence.
Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.
Agree on offshore wind, but it’s also got intermittency.
You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn’t have representative grid loads overnight.
The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.
Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You’ll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I’m sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.
Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It’s less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?
Nuclear power plants are not amortized. Every year they invest around 300 million Euro. Nuclear generation is currently incurring losses due to a disproportionate, discriminatory and confiscatory taxation.
The amortization of nuclear power plants is not complete. In fact, from this time to the end of its operation it will be necessary to invest around €3 billion to maintain the plants in optimal safety and reliability conditions.
Bei neugebauten Kernkraftwerken in Deutschland werden laut dem Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz Gestehungskosten zwischen 14 und 19 Cent pro Kilowattstunde erwartet. Das Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft gibt in einer Studie für Greenpeace Energy an, dass die gesamtgesellschaftlichen Kosten in Deutschland im Jahr 2021 zwischen 26 und 38 Cent pro Kilowattstunde lagen.
Allerdings geraten auch abgeschriebene Kernkraftwerke in Märkten, in denen die Strompreise infolge aktueller wirtschaftlicher Entwicklungen wie des Schiefergasbooms in den USA sowie des Ausbaus von erneuerbaren Energien in vielen Staaten der Welt gefallen sind, wirtschaftlich unter Druck. In den USA wurden deshalb in den letzten Jahren mehrere Kernkraftwerke lange vor ihrem genehmigten Laufzeitende außer Betrieb genommen.
So nuclear power at best only generates profits if the market is arbitrarily restricted and the power plants are protected against low energy prices, which in turn means to stifle economic growth and competitiveness in everything else.
More realistically new nuclear power plants are a mass grave of capital. See UKs hinkley point now at more than 50 billion € for 3.2 GW. That is a whooping 15,625 €/kW.
It helps in 30 years. Which is much better than never.
But literally any other form of energy generation can be deployed quicker and is cheaper and most are also less centralized.
It’s still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You’ll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.
Building way more renewable generation than needed at peak, plus elasticity brought by batteries (hello V2G cars) plus HVDC lines to transport power between regions will be faster and cheaper than deploying the most expensive form of power generation.
Yet, it’s the power companies that don’t want this. As it’s threatening their business model of central generation and metering every kWh going to the consumer.
This is the reason why these discussions keep popping up. Right wing parties are fully aligned with the centralised thinking of traditional power companies.
I’ll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.
Denmark is a small country. Transmission losses are much lower in high voltage DC lines. Battery storages get cheaper consistently. Denmark is close to Norway, where pump storage plants exist and can be built easily.
I’ve seen an article about submerged concrete spheres being used as pump energy storage. Here’s the relevant press release.
75% efficiency seems pretty decent considering you’re not as reliant on geographical locations (or at least get a lot more options)
Sources? Anyway, to get a good sized grid to smooth out intermittency, you’ll need to connect all Europe or more. I think there’s already some of that, but the longer distances you go, the more loss. I agree pumped hydro is a good option, but the promising sites tend to be quite limited when you try to scale up to a full grid. Plus the ecological concerns that come with dams need to be weighed too.
https://www.cencepower.com/blog-posts/line-losses-power-transmission-3-types
2 to 3 percent.
We need to modernize and further integrate the European grid anyway.
We can do both.
Energy diversity is important for national security.
Well, then why not put all that money into technology that helps people in a couple of months already?
Like what?
They are already doing renewables, which don’t have steady output. This is to provide a steady baseline.
Renewables and batteries have steady output and can be built much faster and cheaper than nuclear. It’s why 94% of all new power generation globally in 2024 was renewables.
Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It’s when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.
Denmark is surrounded by sea. Offshore wind power is pretty reliable and it is a lie that solar and batteries would be more expensive than building nuclear power plant. Plenty of households theses days buy solar with battery and safe money with it comparing to buying from the grid. And nuclear power is the most expensive in the grid. For Europe nuclear is at around 20 cents/kWh, coal around 8-10, lignite around 5, and solar is down to less then 5 cents/kWh.
Furthermore nuclear power will get more expensive the more demand is there as Uranium is a finite resource. And the most likely trading partner will be Russia or countries under Russias influence.
Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.
Agree on offshore wind, but it’s also got intermittency.
You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn’t have representative grid loads overnight.
The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.
Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You’ll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I’m sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.
Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It’s less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45596
So we are looking at much lower numbers in a few years as the trend has continued.
That is false.
Example for US around 7.5 years with tax credit -> pessimistically 15 years
Example for Germany 7 years w.o., 12.5 years with battery storage. -> pessimistically 20 years.
That is false. Take the spanish nuclear industry for example
Take Germany for an example
So nuclear power at best only generates profits if the market is arbitrarily restricted and the power plants are protected against low energy prices, which in turn means to stifle economic growth and competitiveness in everything else.
More realistically new nuclear power plants are a mass grave of capital. See UKs hinkley point now at more than 50 billion € for 3.2 GW. That is a whooping 15,625 €/kW.
deleted by creator
Creating a new legal framework with examples to copy and compare is a lot easier than improving an existing one.