Why should states invest it's taxpayer money into overpriced and slow technology when there are cheaper and fast improving alternatives?
For EPR, we're almost over the hump, with the latest projects in Finland and France coming online and becoming fully operational in the near future.
Rosatom has continued pumping out reactors at a decent rate.
Solar + storage of 1-6 hrs can be made economical viable as long as the storage can have 365 discharge cycles each year, assuming prices get high enough each such cycle. Each unit of storage get a return on investment each day, and each are used fully at the point in time when the market price is at peak.
Under those precise circumstances the economics of storage is cheaper than nuclear. The only other cheaper alternative to nuclear is to use renewables when the weather is optimal and fossil fuel when the weather is not optimal, or just use fossil fuels (through that is just a waste of money and the climate).
Naturally this advisor firm could be wrong and someone here could start the world first economical viable operation that uses wind for renewables and then charge a reverse hydro operation. It would make for a nice news item.
There's also little incentive to install storage when solar and wind penetration is low, but as higher percentages of the grid is powered by renewables, then storage quickly becomes far more attractive.
Currently, there are 14.5GW of batteries in development across the US, and this is just a tiny nascent industry. Even as a small industry, this is many times the power capacity of nuclear currently in development.
This biggest challenge with batteries right now is low supply, and competing with demand from EV production, which provides higher margins:
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-ba...
This means that hitting the cost peak is really easy for batteries.
As this cheapest form of energy begins to dominate, and the "baseload" generators like coal or combined cycle gas become more expensive than solar, then it becomes less economical to run the "baseload generators because they don't have sufficient price support during the peak solar output times. This will raise the night time prices of energy, as the daytime prices decrease, and eventually storage plus solar becomes cheaper than new "baseload" facilities, and then cheaper than continuing to run existing "baseload" facilities.
I put "baseload" in quotes because on the past baseload meant cheapest energy, in addition to slow and expensive dispatchability. That is all changing.
Yes, if we are talking about hours of capacity then batteries can be very cost competitive to fossil fuels. That is exactly what the financial advisor stated in their report.
In areas where solar + batteries can reliable handle all year round demands for energy, those technologies should just replace fossil fuels. There will likely be some natural gas plants that get subsidies to exist as reserve in case there is a sudden weather change, but nuclear wouldn't be a great option in such places.
Viable locations arent in short supply at all:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...
Edit: I was a bit puzzled as there are already pumped-storage plants in Wales and Scotland with more planned.
We buy sometimes electricity from France on the EEX because it's cheap. Not because we lac electricity. We actually sell more than we buy and that never changed.
France has to sell cheap because they can't shut down their rotting fleet. They HAVE to produce and they HAVE to sell. Even when the price is low. This is just another reason why the company running this hilarious "business" is bankrupt.
Germany has long ago replaced what nuclear has produced.
The only thing we HAVE to buy is gas because we need it for heating. Something nuclear can't replace since we don't even have 5% electrical heating in this country.
According to this MIT study, the cost (LCOE) of doing this today, would be $3000/MWH:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210829-mitei.html
Even if the cost of batteries continue to come down by x4 in price every decade from now on, it will take 30-40 years for prices to come below current energy prices.
If we hit an S-curve before then, it could take much longer.
Generally keeping houses warm with low evergy is solved, well insulated passive houses need little heating energy even in places with long cold winters.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
(probably paywalled)
> Generally keeping houses warm with low evergy is solved, well insulated passive houses need little heating energy even in places with long cold winters.
What is your definition of "places with long cold winters" and how much energy do you think it takes (kwh) to heat a house in such climates during winter?
In practice it seems going much lower than half as much as hot water uses may be wasteful investment as long as water is not heated with local renewables.
Tearing down all old houses and building new ones is obviously not an alternative, so a transition to new standards is likely to take 50 years or more, even though some of the benefit can be realized by modernizing existing housing.
But even $30000-€50000 euros to lower energy consumption is also a big investment for many families, and even WITH that investment, heating prices in Norway and Sweden will be 2-3x historic prices if prices stabilize at current levels, especially if the governments stop subsidies.
I think every country will have trouble bringing their population to accept having to use electricity at prices about €0.1/kwh, even if over a very long term, it is possible to build houses (at extra costs) that bring the consumption down a bit. At such prices, people in Germany, Denmark, Poland, Hungary etc will simply continue burning natural gas indefinitely.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/austr...
We just need a lot more of it, but it definitely works.
Germany managed to replace almost half of their generation in 2 decades: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe...
When they started out the technology was terrible and managed to do all that despite a just recently retired government which did everything to stop further expansion.
Yes, I agree. If you start today, you’ll be done in decades. The boneheaded move is to start a green energy transition and immediately start decommissioning existing nuclear power plants and stonewall creating new ones by throwing up your hands and saying “well it’ll take forever to build them.” By the way, have you ever considered why it takes so long to build nuclear power plants? It’s a political and environmental special interest problem, not a technical one.
At the end of the day, when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, you still have to generate power somehow. Until the day that problem is solved (that’s the “decades” part), you want something like nuclear power to fall back on.
The idea that it's an "political, environmental and special interest" problem while we're watching several nuclear plants being FAR over budget and over due being constructed in pro-nuclear countries proves that your argument is false.
So basically: everything you wrote there is wrong...why are you doing this?
There is always wind somewhere. But grid capacity is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. Let's say, on a given day, the only place in Europe with reasonable winds would be west of Cadiz, transporting all that power through Spain, Portugal and France to cover the needs of all of Europe, would require immensive grid capacity expansion. And even with super-high-voltage, the losses before the power reaches Estonia would be huge.
Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance, all of Europe could go dark, cold and stop moving (in a time after fossil fuels).
(I can imagine seeing this from space during some cold winter night around 2045, all the lights in Western and Central Europe disappear at once. Only Norway and parts of Sweden can be seen, since they have their hydro power.)
In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too.
Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled.
And yet their sacrifice essentially kick-started the global solar industry. The world owes a round of applause to the German tax payer.
No it's not...as I said several times over: IT'S ALREADY WORKING and has been for years...
> Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance,
This is not the US here. We have the most stable grid on the whole planet. Countries do maintain their networks here.
> In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too.
Sure more storage is nice. Especially if you want to profit locally but it's not something which would make true green energy possible NOW. Because: as I said several times over: IT'S ALREADY WORKING. We have been "pumping" massively energy into storage in the alps. Now with NordLink we do the same in the other direction too. It's all there.
> Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled.
This must seem so if you're completely uninformed or even misinformed as you have shown here. In fact though as g8oz says: you should be thankful for us showing the world that true green future technology can be made to work and power a high tech and densely populated country. We'll keep on showing you and those countries which WASTE taxpayer money on nuclear just that.
I live in Europe. The grid in Europe is not designed to transport 100% of electricity needs from one edge of the continenent to the other. Most energy produced in Europe is still renewable or nuclear, and it is produced relatively close to where it is consumed, for the most part.
> We have been "pumping" massively energy into storage in the alps.
The storage capacity of electricity in the alps is tiny compared to total electricity consumption.
> Now with NordLink we do the same in the other direction too.
Nordlink has is getting seriously unpopular in Norway, even if it is only 1400MW out of a total installed capacity in Norway of 37GW.
What is working in Europe is fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants, oil for transportation and, in most plases, fossil fuels for heating. Wind and solar is still a tiny percentage (around 10%) of total energy consumption in Europe. Maybe in 20 years it will be 25%.
At best.
So what's the scare? You live in a working grid already. It's the most stable one on this planet already and it's improving constantly. Those improvements are also cheaper than nuclear reactors and make the grid more flexible than a constantly running nuclear reactor. What's your argument?
> The storage capacity of electricity in the alps is tiny compared to total electricity consumption.
That's why we don't rely just on it. Just like we don't rely only on PV or only on wind. That's the great thing about it.
> Nordlink has is getting seriously unpopular in Norway
Do you know what's really unpopular in Norway? Nuclear energy. Just as in Germany.
I also don't know how this is supposed to be a valid argument now.
> Wind and solar is still a tiny percentage (around 10%) of total energy consumption in Europe.
Just because certain parts of Europe are ignorant to new technology doesn't mean that it's not working. It's working in Germany pretty well and has been for years while France is embarrassing themselves with their rotting nuclear one-way.
With the load given to it today, it is stable where I live. But the capacity is limited to serve just the current usage + a safety margin. There is not even enough capacity within the country to even out prices from North to South. (Prices in the South is now >15x higher than in the North because of exports.)
> What's your argument?
My argument is that LCOE of renewables, when including the necessary storage/and or grid expansion to make it profitable, still is much higher than nuclear (even at European prices of nuclear).
> Do you know what's really unpopular in Norway? Nuclear energy. Just as in Germany.
I know what's unpopular in Norway, because I live here. Nuclear is pretty irrelevant here, as we still have more hydro than needed to meet our supply. But because we consumpe a LOT more electricity than most countries (do to prices historically having been very low), the population is also very sensitive to price fluctuations.
One aspect of that, is that many Norwegians actually hare highly critical of Germany shutting down their last nuclear plants this year. There is a growing sentiment that Norway needs to limit net exports of electricy to make sure prices return to historic levels. I don't think the government will survive if they don't manage that by next winter.
> It's working in Germany pretty well and has been for years while France is embarrassing themselves with their rotting nuclear one-way.
To me, as an outsider who's neither French nor German, it seems like it is Germany embarrassing themselves. I suppose opinions may vary.
Still, only 16% of Germany's total energy consumption comes from renewables:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
If Germany wants to replace all uses of fossil fuels for heating, transportation, industrial use, etc, with renewables, HUGE investments remain.
In particular, giving up the ability to smooth out variations in production without the use of fossil fuels will be extremely costly, unless the cost comes down by at least a factor or 50.
Sure but this has nothing to do with nuclear.
Germany heats with gas and oil. We don't even have 5% electrical heating here.
> In particular, giving up the ability to smooth out variations in production without the use of fossil fuels will be extremely costly,
It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS.
Germany is connected to the most stable continental grid on this planet. Something other "developed" countries like the US can only dream of. Germany has been expanding their national grid and will continue to do so. Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Paying for it. So don't worry. We'll manage. It's the rest of the world you have to worry about since they're stuck in the past. Especially France with their single source which is a rotting fleet run by a bankrupt state company eating up taxpayer money with no end in sight.
> It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS.
Modern nuclear plants are designed to last for a minimum of 60 years, and can be renewed to last another 40.
Modern wind turbines as well as most solar panels have an expected lifetime of around 25 years.
> Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Paying for it.
Germany even pays Denmark to shut down their wind power on days when production is high, to make the statistics of German renewable production look prettier.
Germany is still using fossil fuels for most of their energy.
> Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world.
Norway has been on 100% renewable electricity since forever, and unlike Germany, Norway actually uses electricity for heating. Fossil fuel heating was banned in Norway i 2020. So Norway uses electricity for everything, meaning the population is not willing to pay German prices for much longer. Most likely, the Norwegian government will have to strangle exports through Nordlink and similar cables in the coming winter, if prices remain high.
Norway did NOT need German help for that.
On the other hand, Norway also provides Germany with a large percentage of Germany's fossil fuel needs, both natural gas and oil (most of the imports not coming from Russia comes from Norway).
This has also nothing to do with nuclear.
The reason we have so much dirt is in the name of the commission which is responsible for the COMPLETE phaseout of coal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structur...
> Modern nuclear plants are designed to last for a minimum of 60 years, and can be renewed to last another 40. Modern wind turbines as well as most solar panels have an expected lifetime of around 25 years.
What does that have to do with the sentence you've quoted? They don't leave us with radioactive waste, we have no space to put away. "Modern" is also relative in this case since before you have one of those "new" reactors running, renewable tech made several technological jumps and most of "new" is still in development and/or of questionable use/improvement like SMRs: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
> Germany even pays Denmark to shut down their wind power
Why do you even bother quoting me when you're not answering to this?
> Norway has been on 100% renewable electricity since forever, and unlike Germany, Norway actually uses electricity for heating.
Good for Norway. What do you suppose? Give an electric heater to 95% of all German households? I mean seriously...what is this?
Btw: while Norway runs green, they dig for oil and gas and sell it to others making all the good on the environment bad again.
> Norway did NOT need German help for that.
Nobody said they need it. It's one of the batteries for the rest of the grid. This is how the grid works.
> This has also nothing to do with nuclear.
When comparing to France, it has EVERYTHING to do with France using Nuclear, where Germany still uses a lot of gas and coal.
> They don't leave us with radioactive waste, we have no space to put away.
Don't believe the propaganda about nuclear waste. The volume of high grade waste is tiny, and it remains super-dangerous for much less time than people realize. And low-grade waste is mostly less dangerous than car-exhaust.
> "Modern" is also relative in this case
Gen3 reactors are safe enough, if not already over-engineered for safety in many cases.
>> Germany even pays Denmark to shut down their wind power
> Why do you even bother quoting me when you're not answering to this?
You were bragging of Germany paying, I confirmed that Germany was paying.
> What do you suppose? Give an electric heater to 95% of all German households?
If Germany is serious about getting rid of fossil fuel based heating/cooking etc, they could do like Norway, gradually ramp up taxes of natural gas for heating to a level just above the price of electricity. After 10 years at that level, switching becomes easy. Norway started this 20 years ago, and when fossil fuels were banned in 2020, most had already transitioned.
> Btw: while Norway runs green, they dig for oil and gas and sell it to others making all the good on the environment bad again.
That's one way to see it. If the environmentalist movement in Norway gets their way, Norway will shut down the oil and gas production asap. Realists would say that as long as Europe depends on fossil fuels, it's better that they get it from Norway, than being even more dependent on dictatorships in OPEC+Russia.
Anyway, Germany is in a similar situation with its car industry. Is Germany responsible for the polution generated by German-produced cars? Or do you put all the blame on the oil-producer?
> Nobody said they need it. It's one of the batteries for the rest of the grid. This is how the grid works.
Actually, Norway has very little capacity for pumped storage. If Europe can sell us power on windy days, we can temporarily shut down our hydro plants on those days, and export a similar amount when there is less wind in the North Sea.
But with Europe currently being so low on production capacity, this balance has turned into significant net exports for Norway. The effect of that to the average Norwegian is similar to what it would be if Germany simply banned natural gas heating overnight. Electrical ovens cost almost nothing compared to the electricity itself.
As long as the price differenc between Germany and Norway remains as high as it is, there is no way Norwegian consumers will be willing to pay German prices. Switching back to fossil fuels for heating is not an option here, so consumers are stuck with consumption that is 2-4x higher than most countries.
So be careful about depending on Norway to be part of the grid for much longer. It's simply not in the best interests of the Norwegian population anymore.
This means that most of the costs that will be caused by operating a nuclear power plant are not included in the costs of operations, and therefore not in the "price per MWh" or similar numbers. We don't know what this number is but we do know it's a very large number, and by removing it from the resposibility of the plant operators it represents a very large hidden subsidy for nuclear power.
Chernobyl and Fukushima are the familiar elephants in this particular room of course with he most recent estimate for Chernobyl passing 600bn usd in 2016 (and counting still of course and for the forseeable future) but I like to use the Asse II salt mine in Germany as a more digestable example.
This mine was used to store nuclear waste in the 70s which turned out to be a very bad mistake that has to be fixed in the coming few decades. The cost of this project, (estimated to be at least several bn euros) is not added to the cost of nuclear, it's just charged to the current taxpayers. The power plants that generated the waste stored in this mine are closed long ago but they keep costing money decades later.
Nuclear seems cheap because we're paying for it with credit cards issued to our grandchildren.
(I'm not sure what the actually LFP cell wholesale costs are these days; I get the impression that historically they've been a lot cheaper in China due to patents, but the last of the major patents expired about a month ago so maybe low cost cells will show up everywhere if production can keep up with demand. As a retail customer though in the U.S. it's really hard to find anything under about $300 a kw/h -- if utilities are paying a similar price, I can understand them not wanting to go all-in on battery storage. There's no reason for them to continue to be that expensive.)
https://energypost.eu/interview-steve-holliday-ceo-national-...
The article certainly dismisses the need for storage way too easily, imo. It claims that consumption can be adjusted to match supply. There are not that many uses of electricity where you can simply lower your consumption when the supply is low.
There are some cases, like car batteries that can, sort of, be seen as consumption, but unless your car has some extreme storage capacity, you typically want to be able to recharge it when YOU need to have that range, instead of when the power company has additional supply.
And if you don't want to use fossil fuels for heating, the power saved by not charging your car is NOT enough to keep your house warm for a few cold days with no winds (unless you live in a place with no real winter).