7 ms·
1. It's slightly less than 2x, not 10x. 2. Countries like the Netherlands that don't have the space for sufficient on-shore wind have to go to off-shore wind,
by Aachen 6y ago
1. It's slightly less than 2x, not 10x.
2. Countries like the Netherlands that don't have the space for sufficient on-shore wind have to go to off-shore wind, which is actually more expensive than nuclear energy.
3. We'd be making actual progress instead of fighting residents and nature preservation for every plot of land again and again, auctioning land leases for every few megawatts, and it all just taking forever (basically how the rollout is going in most countries right now). But in the end it's cheaper yeah! Just that we can take more than a decade to build a few plants and we'll still be faster than with only wind and solar (exception: if you're in a country with water and significant height differences, by all means choose that over nuclear). Let's first get CO2-neutral, which is an asap job, with any means not more expensive than off-shore wind (we're building that anyway so apparently anything cheaper will do) and then worry about how to get to a final, perfect state.
- avar 6y agoThe Netherlands has plenty of space for on-shore wind, what it doesn't have is sufficient space for them to get away from the NIMBY's. Hence building them off-shore.
- GekkePrutser 6y agoOff-shore is of course a great way to have the benefits without the drawbacks. The Netherlands is quite full already and we should be careful with the small amounts of nature we have left. The added cost isn't a huge thing when your factor in it's clean energy without long term waste like nuclear.
- avar 6y agoOf course it has a huge drawback: opportunity cost. If you look at two recently constructed wind farms in The Netherlands[1][2] then by a conservative estimate the offshore one costs around 5 million/MW compared to 2.5 million/MW for the (mostly) on-shore one. That conservatively gives you a cost difference of around 1.5 billion for building it offshore. Or around 1 million EUR per the 150 turbines that make up Gemini. So yes, I agree with you about the importance of preserving nature. I just think it's a better investment to place 150 relatively low-footprint turbines around the country and use the 1 million leftover EUR for each one to expand the public land around them into a park or outdoor area. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Noordoostpolder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Noordoostpolder 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_Wind_Farm
- cedilla 6y agoI'm very sceptical about the claim that offshore wind is more expensive than nuclear. Licenses to operate offshore wind parks are auctioned in Germany, with interested parties bidding on the amount of subsidies they'll receive. Those subsidies are now usually negative, i.e. the companies pay extra to be allowed to build there. Meanwhile, even just running nuclear reactors is barely profitable, to the point that the federal government had to bail energy companies out twice by limiting liability and taking over most of the costs of demolishing old plants.
- wazoox 6y agoThe Netherlands are thinking of building 10 nuclear reactors. https://fr.businessam.be/les-pays-bas-songent-a-construire-10-nouvelles-centrales-nucleaires-objectif-2025-pour-le-premier-coup-de-pelle https://fr.businessam.be/les-pays-bas-songent-a-construire-1...