3 ms·

Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? It is not like those will disappear? Then you try to justify enormous nuclea

Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? It is not like those will disappear? Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" when comparing to what we already need to do. You know there are similar costs today in the transportation system. Add up what we pay for fossil fueled ICEs and "it's not too bad!!!". This is quite typical, a complete inability to accept reality calling anything not mindlessly promoting your precious nuclear power "poor".

chickenbig 2y ago
> Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? So Denmark can not change its energy system from intermittents to nuclear because that's impossible, but it can change from fossil fuels to intermittents because it must be done? Given a 20 year lifetime for intermittents it should be possible to manage their phase-out. > Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" I did point out that the nuclear "is a small part of the overall cost of the energy system"; it is unclear how the authors have justified 80% of the system cost and how that varies with intermittency of energy supply and demand (e.g. reduced transmission cost, scope in the summer to use a excess electricity). > a complete inability to accept reality It is unfortunate that the model behind this is not available for peer study; https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft is not a live link and the archive.org version of this does not hold a copy of the scenario files. The results depend critically on the model used (and software used to solve it) so in the absence of further information all I can do is look at the results in the paper and point out obvious issues. I've just spotted the cost modelling of the intermittents; rather than using IAEA LCOE data (or state LCOE directly), table 2 states costs in terms of capital, O&M as a percentage of investment and lifetime. Crunching their numbers (with a 3% interest rate) I come to offshore wind LCOE being 29.75 EUR/MWh, onshore wind 24.41 EUR/MWh and solar 33.44 EUR/MWh. This seems on the low side. Do you believe that this paper is a good example of energy modelling?

chickenbig 2y ago

> Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? So Denmark can not change its energy system from intermittents to nuclear because that's impossible, but it can change from fossil fuels to intermittents because it must be done? Given a 20 year lifetime for intermittents it should be possible to manage their phase-out. > Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" I did point out that the nuclear "is a small part of the overall cost of the energy system"; it is unclear how the authors have justified 80% of the system cost and how that varies with intermittency of energy supply and demand (e.g. reduced transmission cost, scope in the summer to use a excess electricity). > a complete inability to accept reality It is unfortunate that the model behind this is not available for peer study; https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft is not a live link and the archive.org version of this does not hold a copy of the scenario files. The results depend critically on the model used (and software used to solve it) so in the absence of further information all I can do is look at the results in the paper and point out obvious issues. I've just spotted the cost modelling of the intermittents; rather than using IAEA LCOE data (or state LCOE directly), table 2 states costs in terms of capital, O&M as a percentage of investment and lifetime. Crunching their numbers (with a 3% interest rate) I come to offshore wind LCOE being 29.75 EUR/MWh, onshore wind 24.41 EUR/MWh and solar 33.44 EUR/MWh. This seems on the low side. Do you believe that this paper is a good example of energy modelling?