Neue Kennzahl zeigt, dass erneuerbare Energien 53 % billiger sind als Atomkraft
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
Von lotec4
Neue Kennzahl zeigt, dass erneuerbare Energien 53 % billiger sind als Atomkraft
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
Von lotec4
31 Kommentare
Yes, but not as reliable, the sun shines for 8 hours a day, in summer, the wind is very variable.
Is that with or without battery cost ? I’ll make a bet.
EDIT: so the title is a bit misleading. It should read: Adding as much renewables as possible + others to the electric grid is cheaper then using nuclear.
Here we go again.
I haven’t noticed any difference in my electricity bills.
As always, someone is profiting from this, except the people.
If you need to change the thermometer… it means you’re not taking the temperature.
Another study shows solar doesn’t work at night
That is good to hear. The cheaper the energy, the lower the bills, the more we can invest in heavy manufacturing, data centres, supercomputers, etc. What matters most.
I dream one day we, as a united can best utilise terrain of whole EU, not just a country. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands would be amazing for wind. Spain, Italy amazing for solar. Poland and France are amazing for nuclear. Switzerland and Austria are amazing for energy storage in water (artificial lakes).
We all need to work together to best utilise all things we have. In Poland we have good capacity for Solar, okay for wind, great for Nuclear but storage? Zero, no way. We will lose easily against Bhutan or Nepal on that front
No need for a „new metric“ – this has been the case for ages. And since battery (and other) storage is becoming increasingly cheap and pretty much abundant (especially now that new cells types don’t even need Lithium), renewables are even more attractive.
It’s even possible for the average house owner to achieve a high degree of energy autarky these days without spending an arm and leg.
The German and Austrian mafia in the comments.
> _The least-cost mix of offshore wind and PV reaches about €46/MWh_
Nuclear energy resold to competitors cost €42/MWh in France.
The study seems to have several flaws
– Doesn’t take into account government backed loans (mandatory for nuclear due to the time span)
– Doesn’t seriously take storage into account (good luck storing a complete day of energy with batteries)
– Doesn’t take into account the massive material and space required for solar energy (nor the humongous collect system)
No country has ever achieved purely intermittent energy production as baseload. When I see it, I will believe.
Interesting how the conclusion changes once you include system-level costs instead of just
generation costs. That context seems to matter a lot.
Nuclear is important as a hedge against war. IMO, same as space exploration…
Yeah, no shit.
Nobody argues that nuclear is cheaper, everyone knows it’s crazy expensive.
What people argue is that it’s way more reliable and space efficient. And it’s hard to beat that argument.
You mean, cheap enough to run a full country on renewable energy ? Or
cheap only if you expect nuclear to be running idle and losing money to fill the gaps ?
Even if it was 10x cheaper, if you still need to pay for a full nuclear plant to be idling, it doesn’t make much sense… and please let’s stop about the all gaz is green talks.
Both would be best solution, or fusion if that ever works out
Well, after all we fucked the nuclear market for something that happened in FUCKING JAPAN.
Truth is both should exist and be balanced. Infrastructure is too delicate and expensive to think of it as shit has been hitting the fan for 5 years now.
Sorry, but nuclear is king.
If renewables are only half the cost of nuclear, it’s an absolute nobrainer – build nuclear
Funny, pretty sure that i read the exact reverse in pro-nuclear reviews..
Anyway. This both-way gatekeeping is dumb af: we need the best mix possible in term of efficiency when we touch at our go’old Earth resources. Period.
Yeah? What if I built my NPP in the 1960, for military purposes mostly and never had to count the build cost?!
no shit.
nuclear might be clean, reliable, and very space efficient compared to renewables, but cheap is something that it isn’t for sure.
Source: a magazine for renewable energy sources 🤡
They make it sound like a global breakthrough, but it’s actually just a study for one specific case: Denmark.
Not only does the headline overpromise, but the logic behind it relies on some pretty shaky assumptions that wouldn’t hold up in most other countries. The 53% savings figure is based on a very narrow set of circumstances that are unique to the Danish energy market.
The biggest issue is that the study assumes everyone has Denmark’s geography. They have world-class wind resources and are already plugged into a massive European grid that helps them balance out when the wind isn’t blowing. Most countries simply don’t have that luxury. The study also depends entirely on something called „sector coupling.“ This is the idea that we can perfectly turn every excess bit of wind and solar power into hydrogen or heating. It sounds good on paper, but this technology isn’t proven at scale yet. If that integration doesn’t work perfectly, the cost of the system would actually skyrocket.
Then there’s the cost comparison itself. The researchers used rock-bottom price estimates for solar and wind while using the absolute highest, most delayed costs for nuclear projects. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. They’re looking at the failures of the past for one technology and the idealized future of another. They also conveniently ignore the costs of maintaining grid stability and the massive battery storage needed for „dark doldrums“—those weeks in winter with no sun or wind.
Finally, you have to look at the source. PV Magazine is a trade publication for the solar industry. They have a clear interest in pushing a narrative where renewables are always the cheapest option. While renewables are definitely getting cheaper, claims that they’re 53% more efficient for an entire national system are usually based on these kinds of narrow, „perfect world“ scenarios that ignore the harsh realities of keeping a grid stable 24/7.
So why is Europes energy bills so much higher than the rest of the industrialized world? Even with government subsidies
But only because decades of anti-nuclear rhetoric made it expensive because there are very few companies and experts who can build and maintain a nuclear reactor.
An energy source with massive industry behind it is cheaper than a pretty much abandoned one. More news at 5.
Yet another propaganda article that omits reality.
First, system costs: grid modernization, long-distance transmission, and reactive power compensation are real expenses that intermittent sources impose but nuclear doesn’t.
Second, the subsidy asymmetry, renewables get production tax credits, feed-in tariffs, and priority dispatch that nuclear has never received on comparable terms.
Third base power stability. When there is insufficient sun, wind and your batteries run out of reserves, system that’s cheap 90% of the time becomes ruinous during remaining 10% as prices go to infinity, no serious industry can work with that. The best example of this is Germany with frequent reduction of production volume in factories and frequent outrages.
Here we say GAC, the renable are heavily subsidized by government, now everyone know the we need a mix of the two where the percentage change for eich nation, the renuvable usage now is to stupid it need to be distributed.
Well, I knew what this comment section would look like ahead of time and was not disappointed.
No no and no. Solar and Wind is simply stupid, its supplement at best. To run a real country you need real on demand power, converting wind/solar back and forth between dc and ac -> battery -> back to 50hz grid power is never gonna be viable. Nuclear is backbone and gas/coal can do on demand. Hydro can also do on-demand if big enough and built for it. Current fantasy pricing on wind/solar is based on using neighboring countries real on demand power plants when needed, it will fail hard if everyone tried to switch to wind/solar.
If we really want to go the battery, wind and solar route, we might as well start learning mandarin in schools, since that is where we will end up.
Come up with a better idea, or come to term with that the climate goals will fail and make real plans, while trying to come up with a real solution.
Ça coûte combien d’acheminer tout ça de chine ? Cher.
Et aucune traçabilité des matières premières