We can import electricity from the European grids we are connected to.
For example my region has recently brought up a 1.4 GW HVDC underwater cable, which can be used in both directions. It connects North Germany to Hydro power in Norway.
For example my region has recently brought up a 1.4 GW HVDC underwater cable, which can be used in both directions. It connects North Germany to Hydro power in Norway.
As a result last year energy prices shot up and there was nothing to counterbalance energy shortages.
Nuclear has been expensive in Sweden.
Now the price of energy in Sweden quintuples depending on demand: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1271491/sweden-monthly-w... I am just so glad that the expensive energy is out of the picture. (That was sarcasm, I chose to pay for electricity coming from nuclear, and it's not meanigfully more expensive than other types)
[1] https://naringslivets-medieinstitut.se/det-var-marknaden-som...
[1] https://skb.se/det-har-ar-skb/finansiering/
[2] https://www.karnavfallsradet.se/karnavfall-och-slutforvaring...
[1] https://08nytt.se/naringsliv/mp-erkanner-avvecklat-karnkraft...
I wonder where you got this approach from since you've obviously not come up with it by yourself through research.
A poll [1] done in 2008 found that 46% of the German population wanted to keep nuclear power online.
A poll [2] done in 2021 found that 53% of respondents saw a role for nuclear power in the "energiewende" (changeover from fossil to other power sources), 22% of them wanted nuclear to play a major role, 31% a smaller role.
In a poll done [3] in 2022 72% of the respondents wanted to postpone the shutdown of the remaining nuclear plants.
If your claim about that small fascist party holds truth the next Bundeskanzler will come from AfD. I guess this is not the case so either those other parties are not in line with their potential constituents or your claim of only AfD - which I assume is the small fascist party you're referring to - wanting nuclear power "back" (which is true by now, it used to be "wants to keep") is in error. Time will tell but in the meanwhile it is to be hoped that the next winter is a mild one.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/46-percent-of-germans-want-nuclear-pow...
[2] https://yougov.de/topics/technology/articles-reports/2021/12...
[3] https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/special/bayern-monitor/...
Ah yes. The magical grid that will surely have the capacity to supply all of Germany's power if suddenly there's night and no wind just in Germany (and nowhere else in Europe, stopping at the border, apparently).
I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Thus large scale storage will be build up.
This literally happened just 6 days ago.
> we have a diverse mix of electricity production.
Yes, yes we do: coal and biofuel (so more burning), and corn for biofuel is taking up 6% of Germany's land area.
> When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid
So, some magical future
> I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand.
Max capacity means nothing when production is low.
> Thus large scale storage will be build up.
More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies..
> So, some magical future
A nice slogan you have here. It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology.
We heard this twenty years ago. This year the share of renewable energy for electricity production is 50%. In a decade it will be much higher. The prices for deployment are going down. The cost for nuclear is going up, nuclear projects often have huge cost overruns and are slow to deploy. Example: The 'new' Finnish EPR reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned (up from 3 billion to 11 billion Euros) and 13 years late. Without government invention the building company from France (Areva) would have been killed - it had to take a 5 billion Euro loss from building the power plant with a fixed-price contract.
> Max capacity means nothing when production is low.
A high max capacity means that it makes sense to invest in storage and backup technology.
> More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change with more offshore wind farms.
That has nothing to do with 'magical thinking', it has to do with investments into technology and the created market conditions. Grid scale in the future means that there will be a large amount of storage options, backup supplies and diverse forms of demand steering.
This was a regular sping night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that for a lot of the rest of Europe it was also a quite night.
> It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology.
No. It's realistic. Every time you show problems with intermittent generation by renewables, the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot".
> The 'new' finnish reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned
--- start quote ---
Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec...
--- end quote ---
Cost overruns are not unique to nuclear. Especially considering how underinvested nuclera has been for the past 20-30 people who keep spreading FUD.
When there's political will, there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD.
> We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change.
I shudder to think about the future where we depend on whether or not the wind will blow at night.
> it has to do with investments into technology
There are also laws of physics and reality.
Nothing happened. In ten years we have 80% renewable. Again, nothing will happen.
> the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot".
Look at a nuclear power plant. If one starts building today, the reactor could be ready in 5, 10 or twenty years. In Finnland the EPR was 13 years late.
Renewable can be deployed much faster and more reliable.
> Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,
The new Finnish reactor was 3.6 times more expensive than planned. That's a much larger price increase.
> When there's political will,
of a dictatorship
> there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD.
Try to do the same in Western Europe...
Btw, China deploys two large coal power plant blocks every week. -> to quote you: "When there's political will, there are results."
See the share of nuclear in China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/m...
Tiny.
> I shudder to think about the future where we depend on whether or not the wind will blow at night.
I don't.
> There are also laws of physics and reality.
Another slogan. What does it have to do with energy politics and technology?