4 ms·

> A mix of renewables, coupled with battery and hydrogen-from-seawater energy storage technologies, will be cheaper, less capital-intensive, easier to maintain,

> A mix of renewables, coupled with battery and hydrogen-from-seawater energy storage technologies, will be cheaper, less capital-intensive, easier to maintain, and far easier to sell politically. What will make it cheaper than nuclear power? Right now, it's more expensive than French nuclear power. And Germany doesn't even have storage technologies and has mostly concentrated on the low-hanging fruits. Off-shore wind and tiny solar installations on every residential root will be far more expensive that what has been done so far.

marmarama 5y ago
Siemens is currently building a pilot offshore wind-to-hydrogen plant, with an estimated in-service date of 2024. They're not the first to get a plant into service, but that's a lot quicker than a new nuclear plant. Is Siemens German enough? There are several other European energy and engineering companies also racing to do it, Shell and Total for example, and quite a few in the US and China. Offshore wind is currently modelled as more expensive per kWh over its lifetime (LCOE) than nuclear, but solar PVs and onshore wind are considerably cheaper. All three (especially PVs!) are reducing in price over time, whereas nuclear is becoming more expensive, primarily due to changes in safety requirements post-Fukushima. Importing nuclear power from France is especially cheap because the French reactors are already paid off - what Germany is paying is the marginal costs of generation, plus profit margin. New nuclear capacity is far (5-10 times!) more expensive, because nuclear requires such huge capital investments. France's reactors are beginning to come to the end of their lifespan, and as they are shut down, excess capacity will decrease and the price of importing French nuclear energy will increase substantially. France, like everywhere else in the western world, doesn't seem all that keen on replacing the reactors, and even if they do, energy from new reactors would need to be priced to pay off the capital costs.
- tjansen 5y ago
  > All three (especially PVs!) are reducing in price over time, whereas nuclear is becoming more expensive That's speculation. Nuclear could become much cheaper over time if standardized reactor designs are used. Also, I don't believe that PVs will become cheaper over time. The hardware itself certainly, but installation and maintenance is already more expensive than the panels themselves. > Importing nuclear power from France is especially cheap because the French reactors are already paid off That's a weird argument. Do they offer discounts because their reactors are paid off?

marmarama 5y ago

Siemens is currently building a pilot offshore wind-to-hydrogen plant, with an estimated in-service date of 2024. They're not the first to get a plant into service, but that's a lot quicker than a new nuclear plant. Is Siemens German enough? There are several other European energy and engineering companies also racing to do it, Shell and Total for example, and quite a few in the US and China. Offshore wind is currently modelled as more expensive per kWh over its lifetime (LCOE) than nuclear, but solar PVs and onshore wind are considerably cheaper. All three (especially PVs!) are reducing in price over time, whereas nuclear is becoming more expensive, primarily due to changes in safety requirements post-Fukushima. Importing nuclear power from France is especially cheap because the French reactors are already paid off - what Germany is paying is the marginal costs of generation, plus profit margin. New nuclear capacity is far (5-10 times!) more expensive, because nuclear requires such huge capital investments. France's reactors are beginning to come to the end of their lifespan, and as they are shut down, excess capacity will decrease and the price of importing French nuclear energy will increase substantially. France, like everywhere else in the western world, doesn't seem all that keen on replacing the reactors, and even if they do, energy from new reactors would need to be priced to pay off the capital costs.

tjansen 5y ago
> All three (especially PVs!) are reducing in price over time, whereas nuclear is becoming more expensive That's speculation. Nuclear could become much cheaper over time if standardized reactor designs are used. Also, I don't believe that PVs will become cheaper over time. The hardware itself certainly, but installation and maintenance is already more expensive than the panels themselves. > Importing nuclear power from France is especially cheap because the French reactors are already paid off That's a weird argument. Do they offer discounts because their reactors are paid off?