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.
And you think that just because they have something to help in 30 years they’ll sit there with a thumb up their ass and wait before doing anything else?
Never get involved in politics or management of any sort, thank you.
Because resources are limited. Committing to one technology over others means binding resources that cannot be used in other technologies. And nuclear power has pretty much the highest investment per power ratio. So instead of getting 20 GW of offshore wind power in 5 years, they get 1 GW of nuclear in 20 years.
The people building those wind turbines wouldn’t be the same as the ones building the nuclear reactor though and they don’t use all the same resources to build either. You’re talking like they’re building those things by only using local resources. All the pieces of those wind turbines could come from various European countries (guess you’ve never seen a blade being transported) and only the concrete ground anchor would be made locally. In the meantime you’ve got completely different contractors providing the parts necessary for the nuclear reactor and workers with different training assembling/building the thing.
People can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, crazy right?
Financial resources are resources. Also there are markets for project management, engineers, construction work… The concrete for the foundations is made in the same plants, imported material has to be transported on the same roads/railways/waterways…
All these resources that are not strictly specific to either industry will be competed over, driving the prices and also limiting how fast things can be done.
You can try eating and drinking at the same time and chewing bubble gum on top. Good luck keeping it separated while swallowing.
Are you building your powerplant offshore as well? Financial resources are one thing (although loans are a thing), but let’s not pretend that both things employ the same human resources and are built in the same place, there would be very little competition as the specializations aren’t the same.
Do they use concrete? They compete in the concrete industry. Do they use steel? They compete in the steel industry. Do they need structural planning and approval? They compete over structural designers and inspectors. Do they need project management? They compete over project managers. Do they need logistics? They compete over logistics. Do they need electric wiring? They compete over electric wiring. Do they need controls and automation? They compete over controls and automation. Do they need electrical engineers? They compete over electrical engineers. Do they need construction site managers? They compete over those too. Do all of the companies involved need IT, accountants, attorneys, HR, managers, offices…? yes they do, so they compete there too.
Offshore wind plants need onshore buildings too, where there is control structures, converters, grid access… Denmark is a flat and island rich country. It is likely that a nuclear power plant would be built by the sea, so you also need maritime engineers…
Finally, if loans are a thing why don’t all countries just take on infinite loans and solve all their infrastructure needs at once? Denmark has its own currency still and is a relatively small country. What do you think happens if Denmark goes from a national debt of around 2-3 billion € to a national debt of 50 billion € to finance a mayor new nuclear plant? Just buying all those Euros will deflate the DKK into worthlessness.
But literally any other form of energy generation can be deployed quicker and is cheaper and most are also less centralized.
We can do both.
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.
Energy diversity is important for national security.
And you think that just because they have something to help in 30 years they’ll sit there with a thumb up their ass and wait before doing anything else?
Never get involved in politics or management of any sort, thank you.
Because resources are limited. Committing to one technology over others means binding resources that cannot be used in other technologies. And nuclear power has pretty much the highest investment per power ratio. So instead of getting 20 GW of offshore wind power in 5 years, they get 1 GW of nuclear in 20 years.
The people building those wind turbines wouldn’t be the same as the ones building the nuclear reactor though and they don’t use all the same resources to build either. You’re talking like they’re building those things by only using local resources. All the pieces of those wind turbines could come from various European countries (guess you’ve never seen a blade being transported) and only the concrete ground anchor would be made locally. In the meantime you’ve got completely different contractors providing the parts necessary for the nuclear reactor and workers with different training assembling/building the thing.
People can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, crazy right?
Financial resources are resources. Also there are markets for project management, engineers, construction work… The concrete for the foundations is made in the same plants, imported material has to be transported on the same roads/railways/waterways…
All these resources that are not strictly specific to either industry will be competed over, driving the prices and also limiting how fast things can be done.
You can try eating and drinking at the same time and chewing bubble gum on top. Good luck keeping it separated while swallowing.
Are you building your powerplant offshore as well? Financial resources are one thing (although loans are a thing), but let’s not pretend that both things employ the same human resources and are built in the same place, there would be very little competition as the specializations aren’t the same.
Do they use concrete? They compete in the concrete industry. Do they use steel? They compete in the steel industry. Do they need structural planning and approval? They compete over structural designers and inspectors. Do they need project management? They compete over project managers. Do they need logistics? They compete over logistics. Do they need electric wiring? They compete over electric wiring. Do they need controls and automation? They compete over controls and automation. Do they need electrical engineers? They compete over electrical engineers. Do they need construction site managers? They compete over those too. Do all of the companies involved need IT, accountants, attorneys, HR, managers, offices…? yes they do, so they compete there too.
Offshore wind plants need onshore buildings too, where there is control structures, converters, grid access… Denmark is a flat and island rich country. It is likely that a nuclear power plant would be built by the sea, so you also need maritime engineers…
Finally, if loans are a thing why don’t all countries just take on infinite loans and solve all their infrastructure needs at once? Denmark has its own currency still and is a relatively small country. What do you think happens if Denmark goes from a national debt of around 2-3 billion € to a national debt of 50 billion € to finance a mayor new nuclear plant? Just buying all those Euros will deflate the DKK into worthlessness.