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.
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.
We need to modernize and further integrate the European grid anyway.
https://www.cencepower.com/blog-posts/line-losses-power-transmission-3-types
2 to 3 percent.
We can do both.
Energy diversity is important for national security.