The transition to them would be a lot cheaper if the opposition from the incumbent energy suppliers was not so stiff.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Lazard and co conveniently ignore this aspect when claiming that wind and solar are as cheap as they make them out to be. To be clear, wind and solar are cheap but that may or may not hold true in the future.
There is currently no gigawatt scale power grid anywhere that runs on renewable energy for more than minutes at a time. Renewables are very far from being able to provide energy 24/7 and cheaply.
Why should there not be zero fuel cost?
Your second argument is supposed to be a variable? Since with a wider grid, the volatility falls ("there is always wind somewhere"). I also don't think the size of the whole grid should be priced into a single power source. Why not price that into other non-green sources too if the local grid doesn't support the whole country?
Put this in practice: Solar costs $5 per watt hour, and comprises 25% of the grid. Fossil fuels cost $10 per watt hour and comprise 100% of the grid. Solar is cheaper than fossil fuels in a zero fuel cost model. But you can't just change the remaining 75% of the grid to solar and save a bunch of money. Solar produces energy in a sine wave (in the short term, there's also weather fluctuations in the longer term). You'd end up with a huge energy surplus at noon, and energy shortages from dusk to dawn.
In this sense the actual price of renewables is heavily dependent on the price of fossil fuels. Because wind and solar are really "gas supplemented by wind and solar". You can't have the latter without the former. Hence why Germany is in such a bind right now.
So the more workable idea would be to have a percentage of nuclear for the critical always on load, and to provide some industrial overcapacity at time.
The whole "criticism" (more like: meddling) of Lazard grew from the fans of nuclear. It doesn't make any sense but to make nuclear look better. However it backfires spectacularly these days.
Climate change is changing the playing field fast and unexpectedly, but let’s not forget that e.g. solar panels don’t work better in huge heat either - it affects everything. And even so, nuclear plants will go back to producing a shitton of energy once the weather cools a bit.
I did and Germany has been exporting more than they buy for decades.
Considering that just like France it is part of a single market and France HAS to run their fleet all the time and so is selling "cheap" on the EEX it's quite surprising that Germany doesn't buy more cheap nuclear energy from France throughout the year. But it doesn't ant that's not only because of the failures of the French fleet in summer and winter but also because it's not really cheap. It's only "cheap" for the French consumers because there is a fixed price and they pay for the real price with their taxes.
> And even so, nuclear plants will go back to producing a shitton of energy once the weather cools a bit.
Let's hope so for the not self sufficient country of France so the rest of Europe with their diversified power sources won't have to safe their ass again.
PS. it is not "just" the heat which has wrecked their nuclear fleet. Look it up. It's a massive fuckup and they need to be done by winter when all those electric heaters in French homes will come on line.
The difference is that most of France's exports are carbon-free energy.
They HAVE to export because they can't regulate and they have to sell so the dishonest hidden price scheme they drive with their tax payer doesn't get too bad. In the end they still need dirty power from countries like Germany. Something which is not carbon-free but also doesn't appear in all those fancy graphics the radioactive Astro-Turf hands out to their followers.
Today's state of their fleet shows: they missed the train on renewables. Would they have them, they wouldn't have to buy so much dirty power from abroad. Also: others wouldn't have to produce so much dirt because those dirty reactors can be shut down fast.
I mean seriously...they have so much nuclear because they needed the technology for military use. They never did it for the environment or something. It's also not like this is some green energy source. Their failure to diversify costs the rest of Europe money today and will cost it for months. There is absolutely nothing to cherish there. It's not an example for anyone since money is better invested in renewables today already. So what's the point?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290216/carbon-intensity...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity...
Germany releases over 5 times as much CO2 for the same amount of electricity as France. Would France have had cheaper electricity if they used coal, gas like Germany? Sure. But they'd be emitting way more carbon dioxide. The amounts of renewables Germany has deployed is nowhere near enough to offset the amount of fossil fuels they use. Germany doesn't have a renewable grid. They have a fossil fuel grid supplemented by renewables.
I do care if someone desperately tries to sell nuclear as green/sustainable or even wants my taxpayer money to fuel this kind of crap (EU).
> Germany releases over 5 times as much CO2 for the same amount of electricity as France. Would France have had cheaper electricity if they used coal, gas like Germany? Sure.
This is a straw man. I never said they should have build more coal or gas.
I even said that they should have gone with renewables.
> The amounts of renewables Germany has deployed is nowhere near enough to offset the amount of fossil fuels they use.
This is a lie.
They have replaced nuclear years ago https://i.imgur.com/i0n83xM.png
Renewables make almost half of the whole energy generation in Germany https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
Germany has actually a LAW to phase out coal completely.
The German taxpayer made renewables a product people can buy all over the world and generate power for small amounts of money. This ridiculous Astro-Turf campaign against Germany only shows where the wind truly comes from: climate change deniers and haters of renewable energy. And yes, yes you can assure me that YOU are different that it's just for the environment etc. etc. However the fact remains: nuclear is out. Money is better invested in renewables.
Face it and don't try to meddle with numbers only because you don't like them (Lazard).
I live in a small apartment with district heating and my electricity bill is consequently low. I don't want to subsidize nuclear power just so that those who live in large electricity-heated villas should get lower electricity bills.
Open your eyes and look outside your apartment. What you call a subsidy I call an investment in maintaining our industrial base. Or would you prefer to see the rest of our manufacturing industry move to China, where they can obtain cheap and reliable power from coal and nuclear plants?
But it's unfair: what is the marginal cost of solar or wind at a fully depreciated solar or wind plant?
Also: they have the cost of PV+storage on the last page.
Perhaps you meant to contextualize your claim a bit.
It might possible depending on how much land you have, but is certainly impractical. I mean you could theoretically do it with a large enough area and your own storage system, but it would sure cost a lot.
>And natural gas?
It's completely impossible without the natural gas grid (and electric grid). Unless.. do you have a natural gas well on your property?