6 ms·

Germany already had the highest electricity prices in the world even when gas was cheap. Green energy has become an ersatz-religion here.

by jansan 4y ago

PinguTS 4y ago
Green energy is in the costs of 8 cents/Wh. Coal is more expansive as gas always was. Only nuclear is calculated with 2 cents/Wh ignoring the costs of the nuclear waste as this paid for by taxes in addition.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Are you missing a 'k' or 'M' on those units? 8 cents per watt-hour is obscenely expensive. A hibernating Mac m1 would cost over a dollar an hour. Just to hibernate.
  - PinguTS 4y ago
    Thanks for correcting.
- netzego 4y ago
  Also ignoring the cost of cooling water they take for free from rivers and habitats. As half of the German water consumption are used for cooling gas, coil and atom facilities. As stated in this article. "In Deutschland zum Beispiel geht etwa die Hälfte des gesamten Wasserverbrauchs für das Kühlen der Atom-, Kohle- und Gaskraftwerke drauf [...]" https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Krisenstab-eingesetzt-Atomdesaster-in-Frankreich-nimmt-seinen-Lauf-7205304.html https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Krisenstab-eingesetzt-Atomd...
- Nimitz14 4y ago
  Pretty sure that's included.
  - netzego 4y ago
    Pretty sure? Like it is gut feeling? If you can read German, here you can find an article from the Linke party. There are several of links to papers from the German government to the cost of that mess. I don't want to offend you, but your comment has really no value and also is wrong. https://www.hubertus-zdebel.de/atommuell-kommt-teuer-offiziell-schon-mehr-als-64-mrd-euro-fuer-abriss-und-lagerung/ https://www.hubertus-zdebel.de/atommuell-kommt-teuer-offizie...
  - PinguTS 4y ago
    Nope, if you want to make a true comparison, then nuclear is in the costs of about 40 Cents/kWh instead of the postulated 2 Cents/kWh. Because as we do not have a final deposit for nuclear waste there are no costs for it. There are only models with suggested costs. But all of this is not priced into it. A German paper produced by the independent "Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages": https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edc...
    - doikor 4y ago
      There is no way storing the spent fuel would cost so much that it would generate 38c/kWh of costs. For example the total lifetime costs of Onkalo (Finlands spent nuclear fuel storage site) is estimated to be 3.5 billion. Lets take the new OL3 reactor as a example. It produces at 1600MW which comes to around 14 million MWh in a year so 14 billion kWh per of electricity produced yearly (slightly less in reality with downtimes for refueling and maintenance). That would mean that if storing the spent fuel would actually cost 38c/kWh just OL3 would generate ~5.3 billion euros worth of fuel storage costs per year which is more then Onkalo lifetime total costs. And OL3 has a planned operational life of 60 years. And Onkalo is supposed to store all of Finlands already produced spent nuclear fuel and the fuel produced in the next 100 years. Even if you add dismantling costs of the plants at the end of their lifetime there is no way to get to such crazy numbers even if it costs 2 or 3 billion euros per reactor to rid of. Lets say with 60 year lifetime of OL3 you get around 840 billion kWh produced and decomissions costs 5 billion it would be ~0,6c/kWh of cost. Yes it costs but not tens of cents. For the older plants that produce less it would be around 1c/kWh. In Finland they started to collect money into a fund for decomissioning and spent fuel storage in the 80s and it currently has a bit over 20 billion euros in assets (the fund invests the money on markets so it fluctuates obviously). So basically they try to do their best to estimate how much money they need to save and collect it during the lifetime. For now it looks like the amount has been roughly correct. And still the for profit companies keep investing into new nuclear plants with this cost already in the price so it doesn't seem to be too much.

Germany already had the highest electricity prices in the world even when gas was cheap. Green energy has become an ersatz-religion here.

by jansan 4y ago

Germany already had the highest electricity prices in the world even when gas was cheap. Green energy has become an ersatz-religion here.

PinguTS 4y ago

Green energy is in the costs of 8 cents/Wh. Coal is more expansive as gas always was. Only nuclear is calculated with 2 cents/Wh ignoring the costs of the nuclear waste as this paid for by taxes in addition.

dahfizz 4y ago
Are you missing a 'k' or 'M' on those units? 8 cents per watt-hour is obscenely expensive. A hibernating Mac m1 would cost over a dollar an hour. Just to hibernate.
- PinguTS 4y ago
  Thanks for correcting.
netzego 4y ago
Also ignoring the cost of cooling water they take for free from rivers and habitats. As half of the German water consumption are used for cooling gas, coil and atom facilities. As stated in this article. "In Deutschland zum Beispiel geht etwa die Hälfte des gesamten Wasserverbrauchs für das Kühlen der Atom-, Kohle- und Gaskraftwerke drauf [...]" https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Krisenstab-eingesetzt-Atomdesaster-in-Frankreich-nimmt-seinen-Lauf-7205304.html https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Krisenstab-eingesetzt-Atomd...
Nimitz14 4y ago
Pretty sure that's included.
- netzego 4y ago
  Pretty sure? Like it is gut feeling? If you can read German, here you can find an article from the Linke party. There are several of links to papers from the German government to the cost of that mess. I don't want to offend you, but your comment has really no value and also is wrong. https://www.hubertus-zdebel.de/atommuell-kommt-teuer-offiziell-schon-mehr-als-64-mrd-euro-fuer-abriss-und-lagerung/ https://www.hubertus-zdebel.de/atommuell-kommt-teuer-offizie...
- PinguTS 4y ago
  Nope, if you want to make a true comparison, then nuclear is in the costs of about 40 Cents/kWh instead of the postulated 2 Cents/kWh. Because as we do not have a final deposit for nuclear waste there are no costs for it. There are only models with suggested costs. But all of this is not priced into it. A German paper produced by the independent "Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages": https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edc...
  - doikor 4y ago
    There is no way storing the spent fuel would cost so much that it would generate 38c/kWh of costs. For example the total lifetime costs of Onkalo (Finlands spent nuclear fuel storage site) is estimated to be 3.5 billion. Lets take the new OL3 reactor as a example. It produces at 1600MW which comes to around 14 million MWh in a year so 14 billion kWh per of electricity produced yearly (slightly less in reality with downtimes for refueling and maintenance). That would mean that if storing the spent fuel would actually cost 38c/kWh just OL3 would generate ~5.3 billion euros worth of fuel storage costs per year which is more then Onkalo lifetime total costs. And OL3 has a planned operational life of 60 years. And Onkalo is supposed to store all of Finlands already produced spent nuclear fuel and the fuel produced in the next 100 years. Even if you add dismantling costs of the plants at the end of their lifetime there is no way to get to such crazy numbers even if it costs 2 or 3 billion euros per reactor to rid of. Lets say with 60 year lifetime of OL3 you get around 840 billion kWh produced and decomissions costs 5 billion it would be ~0,6c/kWh of cost. Yes it costs but not tens of cents. For the older plants that produce less it would be around 1c/kWh. In Finland they started to collect money into a fund for decomissioning and spent fuel storage in the 80s and it currently has a bit over 20 billion euros in assets (the fund invests the money on markets so it fluctuates obviously). So basically they try to do their best to estimate how much money they need to save and collect it during the lifetime. For now it looks like the amount has been roughly correct. And still the for profit companies keep investing into new nuclear plants with this cost already in the price so it doesn't seem to be too much.