Archives for posts with tag: cost

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
The first part of the following, based on information from World Nuclear.

The cost of removal of installations for nuclear power is very little compared to the value of the power produced at the nuclear power plant.
Still it becomes subject to political plaything.
At least in the discussion.

Broadly, there are four different options.

  • “Now and here”
    Shortly after the shutdown the of the reactor, final demolition will start.
    Of course also, “everything else” such as cooling towers, turbines and administration buildings.
    In this way, the site can be released and it is possible to say that “Everything is forgotten.”
    This solution will naturally be the most expensive.
    How expensive will depend on political decisions about what should be classified as hazardous.
    See further down on this page.
  • “Just, wait a little”
    Of course, the reactor contents (fuel rods and cooling water) will be removed along with anything else that is easy to remove and might find other use.
    In that way: 99% of the radioactive material is removed.
    The radioactivity that remains is mainly due to neutron-activation of steel and others.
    It has a half-life of less than 5 years.
    After some 50 years this radioactivity to be reduced to less than 1/1000 of the initial value and final demolition will only cause political problems.
    Apparently it’s what is done in the United States.

In various media you can see how, with ill-concealed horror, it is reported that the cleanup will take a very long time.
Here, it is likely that this solution is going to be used.

  • “Just let it stay” Reaktor Findland
    The cheapest will obviously be to remove
    “all the loose” and let the reactor containment remain and save costs for demolition, at least for the time being.
    The reactor containment, as seen in the background of the image, will only occupy a very little area.
    But opponents of nuclear power will of course consider this as a symbol of something terrible.
    In order to relate to something else, I note that, in Germany, it has been necessary to destroy huge areas of agricultural land for the strip-mining for brown coal.
  • “Mothballed”
    In the US, several power plants have been (temporarily?) unecunomic.
    Partly by the advent of cheap gas and partly as a result of subsidies for solar and wind.
    Preliminary (2016) it has apparently not been (politically) possible to maintain the power plants for later restart.

In this context, I would mention that, quite a long time ago, I calculated and detailed a parking garage with prestressed concrete.
Shortly later the owner got second thoughts.
He allowed all of it to remain standing.
Because it would be too difficult to demolish.
OK Eventually it has provided space for a residential property.

Ultimately, the choice of strategy will depend on the political climate and the criteria used to specify what will be defined as being dangerous.

Given the above, one is tempted to say that the conditions for demolition should be included in the license for building new plants.
Almost as if it would require an agreement related to a future divorce before you get married.

The confusion is almost total

Here, I quote from World Nuclear.

  • Recycling materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities is constrained by the level of radioactivity in them.
    This is also true for materials from elsewhere, such as gas plants.
    But the levels specified can be very different.
    For example, scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg (0.5 MBq/kg) radioactivity (the exemption level).
    This level however is one thousand times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.

The reactor containment contains thousands of ton of concrete.
If it has to be checked and disposed of as a “dangerous radioactive material”, the costs can easily spiral out of control.

  • There is increasing concern about double standards developing
    in Europe which allow 30 times the dose rate from non-nuclear recycled materials than from those out of the nuclear industry.
    Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards.
    Elsewhere, 0.3 to 1.0 mSv/yr individual dose constraint is applied to workers in the oil and gas industries.
    Compared to 0.01 mSv/yr for workers in the nuclear industry.
    This double standard means that the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, can either be sent to deep disposal or released for use in building materials, depending on where it comes from.
    The 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit for workers in the oil and gas industries is still only one tenth of most natural background levels, and two orders of magnitude lower than those experienced naturally by many people, who suffer no apparent ill effects.

For the record, I would mention that we, all of us carry with us some
4,500 Bq from natural sources and that the natural background radiation that we can not avoid is about 3 mSv/year
Several places considerably more.
BUT In Japan 1 mSv/year is defined as being dangerous.

As can be seen, there is much scope for interpretation and harassment.
All depending og the polical objective.
Especially if the aim is to discredit nuclear power.

From Decommissioning of nuclear power plants (Sweden) I quote:

  • Each year the owners of nuclear power plants pay an agreed sum to a fund that will pay for closure of the power plants.
    The money deposited will stay in the fund’s nuclear waste account with National Debt Office.
    The fee varies between 0.3 and 0.9 öre per kWh (0.1 US cent/kWh)
    Each year payment is fixed by the government.
    It is based on cost estimates from SKB submitted to the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
  • Around SEK 500 million flows into the fund annually in this way.
  • The book value of the fund at the end of 2004 was almost
    32 billion SEK.
  • The costs to close down a reactor is a little more than a billion kronor .
  • Despite the fact that nuclear power plants can have a life of 40-60 years, each plant has paid its share to the fund, after a period of 25 years.

The following will hopefully shed more light on the subject:

  • Some of the components two be disposed of in connection with decommissioning are long-lived and so radioactive that they have two be radiation-shielded.
    Such components mainly include control rods and other reactor internals.
    These components comprise only a very small portion of the total volume of decommissioning waste, but account for nearly all the radioactivity
  • We expect that more than 90% of the total shut-down waste can be released for unrestricted use, either directly or after cleaning.
    The exact percentage can not be given today, as it depends on what the conditions for unrestricted release will be.

Just for the record, I mention that a radioactive material can:
Either be “highly radioactive” (e.g. Iodine-131) or:
It can be “long-lived” (e.g. Thorium).
But it can’t be both.

Unless one turns into conspiracy theories, I think the topic is exhausted.

I can not resist

I quote as follows:
Ideally, local environmentalists would let the plant stand.
Although 300 men for over ten years had been engaged in removing the work into small chunks.
As a kind of practical joke the demolition workers recently sent a sack of ordinary fertilizers through the measuring instruments.
There was measured trace of potassium, uranium and lead.
If bag had come from the plant, it should be deposited as “dangerous material”.
But because it came from an ordinary store, the waste could end up in the fields.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
As the title of this page is on nuclear power, I will start by asking:
—–Is nuclear power worth the risk?
Instantly, I will turn the question to:
—–Is refusal of nuclear power worth the risk?

To put the issue into perspective, I feel it is necessary to start with some examples to show how we react to the concept of risk.

A random bullet

Theoretically it is possible to be hit by a stray bullet from a gang conflict or a terrorist’s desire for death and destruction.
Nevertheless, we regard it as foolish of caution if you use a bulletproof vest before going to the mailbox with a letter.
But you take on the seat belt. Not only because the police require it.

What is security?
How is security perceived ?

Already here I come to ask questions, to which I cannot give an answer.
However, I emphasize that the desire for 100% security is an illusion.

The Illogical Human

I’ll start by showing an example of how we are not able to assess the concept of security – logically.

Vacation in Yugoslavia
In the good old days many German tourists had a good holiday in what was a very peaceful Yugoslavia.
Of course there were those, who home in a coffin.
———- You know: Bad roads and bad drivers.
But one year one man came home with only one leg because the other had been eaten by a shark!
The following year the tourist flow halved.
Of course, the situation soon returned to normal.

Falsified “Information”

For reasons best understood by others, there is almost no end to the erroneous “information” that is flowing out of the media.
Most from the so-called green organizations.

On another page, I have shown how Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth.

Denmark’s Radio
On this page I have shown how Denmark’s Radio presented clearly falcified “information” in connection with the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Despite calls it was not possible to persuade the Danish Radio to retract.
The critical “information” was just deleted from the archives.

The Ocean at Fukushima
Near the end of this page you can follow the outrageous claims made by unnamed sources.

The actual topic:

(Redundant) safety of nuclear

After these initial assessments, I come to what perhaps is the point.

The Dilemma of Western Nuclear

Of course, you will wonder when you look at the following:

– Cheapest nuclear power from ‘old systems’ (Sweden) 26 €/MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea): 27 €/MWh
– Most expensive new nuclear (Hinkley Point C): € 124/MWh
– Russia: Offer to East Europa (2017) 50 €/MWh
A little more and some references. See

The highly publicized reactor EPR

Core Catcher
One of the expensive safety systems in the disastrously expensive reactor EPR is a so-called Core Catcher.

Although the cooling-system, quite naturally, is with a lot of extra security. The design goes one step further and says:

If there is an error on all four independent cooling-systems, there shall be something ‘capturing’ the molten core, which in the nuclear jargon is called the corium.
Only this core catcher together with additional reinforcement of the reactor containment makes EPR 15% more expensive than other reactors.

EPR Core Catcher
This core catcher would have had no meaning and would not have remedied any harm in connection with the more than 15,000 reactor-years, there has been nuclear power in the West.
The four independent systems for cooling, in four different buildings, is in itself a costly (excessive?) security, resulting in increased cost of this design.

If available data are to be believed. Then the return period for a core meltdown in this reactor will be two million years.
Considering that the core-meltdown at Three Mile Island did not result in injuries – Yes, then it feels to be reasonably when reactors from Russia, China and Korea are without this and other (unnecessary?) details.

Fit for the market?
On the net site Energy Post you can find a thorough assessment of the nagging problem:
Is the EPR nuclear reactor fit for the current market?
The following is what I consider the main points.

  • Before the disaster at Fukushima UAE selected a well known and tested design (Generation II +) from Korea instead of the advanced, unproven and expensive EPR
    It is suggested that the choice might have been different if the bidding round had been post-Fukushima.
    ——– “One kan say that EPR’s design was “over-delivering” in ——– terms of safety for 2009 Abu Dhabi (UAE)
    ——– But is seriously well-suited in a post-Fukushima world.”
    I add and modify to write: “In a post-Fukushima hysteria.”
  • In the UK, they are apparently afraid of a very powerful solar storm, can destroy the computer systems.
    (Catastrophic solar storms are extremely rare and will be announced in due time so that you can take necessary precautions.)
    ——- “In addition, new demands from the UK regulator – Such – ——- as the existence of a non-computerized safety system imply ——– that additional costs must be undertaken”.
  • Other countries have other, costly and seemingly unreasonable, demands.
    Also these requirements are in effect a needless and costly desire for more security.
  • It is tempting to blame the national security units for laying down special rules in order to show:
    “See how careful we are”
    – – – “Our work shows that we are not superfluous”.
  • Here it can even be said that the EU lacks harmonized provisions for many details.
    Various demands for safety thus complicates planning and approval.

Filter at Barsebäck

In connection with the reactors at Barsebäck in Sweden, there was a filter with 17,000 tons of granite chippings.
Such a filter was recommended and would have been useful at a place like Fukushima where there was a known danger of earthquakes and tsunami.
But it will hardly be relevant (be superfluous) at the reactors that have been, and will be build in Europe.


Swedish wasteAgain and again we hear that the waste problem has not been solved.

Instead of taking this – obvious fake – claim up to objective discussion:
In my opinion we have jumped on the usual limed twig and ‘just’ increased safety.
Far beyond what is necessary.

Although the costs are small, it is almost ridiculous to see how it goes zik zak deep into the mountain.

In comparison with the value of the energy produced it is pennies.
Still this is an absurd added security.
The trend is clear.

How much should be deposited?

If information from World Nuclear stands to be believed, we find discriminatory and obsolete safety requrements as soon as the case relates to nuclear power:

For example, scrap steel from gas plants can be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg radioactivity (The exceptional level).
This level is a thousand times higher than the permissible levels of material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry.
Here everything above 500 Bq/kg, cannot be released from regulatory control for recycling.

Although the text is a bit vague, it is hardly debatable that this factor of 1000 related to what is being defined as hazardous testifies obsolete or deliberately costly safety requirements for nuclear power.


Almost in an aside Wikipedia writes that one ton of (high ?) radioactive waste is equivalent to a reduction of CO2 emissions of 25 million tons.
Moreover, you will find much other pollution: For example, mercury, arsenic and even radioactive isotopes.
This massive pollution is ‘just’ discharged in the environment, while the radioactive waste from nuclear treated carefully.
The proper treatment of this waste is hardly superfluous.
But sometimes you feel a lack of proportion.

A logical assessment

I will conclude my incoherent assessment of the following:

Combat Cholera
A student in Tanzania should present a thesis.
She had planned a road to bypass a town where the through traffic was a big challenge.
Eventually, she was asked whether she would recommend that this project should be realized.
To everyone’s surprise, she replied:
“If the purpose is to save lives. The money should be used to fight the cholera!”


When is something superfluous?
Actually I should stop here and ask you, my unknown reader, to consider the situation and draw your own conclusion.

Nevertheless, I cannot resist referring to other – more or less relevant details – I, over the years, have accumulated:

Related to this entry:
Why is nuclear power so expensive?
Assessment of risk
Naturally also:
Greenpeace’s credability is a myth
If you are not tired, also:
Injuries from radiation
Deaths at Chernobyl
Radiation and cancer
Damage caused by noise from wind turbines.

Greetings and good reflection
Thorkil Søe

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

Nedenstående er et uddrag af en meget længere side, der generelt prøver at vurdere den Europæiske energisituation.
Naturligvis kom der mere med.
Helt nede, om kulkraft og industriens kamp mod kernekraft.
Måske finder man en rygende pistol.


Typisk er oplysninger fra External costs of coal, hvor tabel 1 indeholder en grundig vurdering af de mange forskellige miljøomkostninger fra brug af kul.
Resultatet, der er baseret på forhold i USA, angives til mellem 87 og 289 €/MWh
Denne store afvigelse kan bedst ses som et resultat af kommunikations-kampen mellem miljø-forkæmpere og industriens lobbyister.

IMF citeres for at ca. 6,5 % af verdens gross domestic product (GDP) bruges til subsidier for fossil energi. $ 10 millioner per minut.
Dette enorme beløb er i overensstemmelse med oplysninger fra EurActiv.
Også fra EurActiv haves følgende:
Subsidier til fossile brændstoffer medfører enorme omkostninger, der belaster de almindelige skatteydere.
Rapporten angiver at dette tilskud i G20 i 2015 nåede op til USD 452 billion (milliarder)
Dette omfatter ikke de meget større omkostninger i form af helbredsskader og forurening af miljøet.
For ikke at tale om klimapåvirkningen.

denne side findes detaljer med oplysninger om forskellige lande.
Det angives at EU har en mindre andel i dette.

The Energy Collective giver en oversigt over produktion og subsidier i USA. (2015)
Følgende er et uddrag:

– – Energikilde . . . . Del af forsyningen . . . Tilskud
– – Kul, Gas og lign. . . . . 64 % . . . . . . .. . 1 €/MWh
– – Kernekraft . . . . . . . . . 19 % . . . . . . . . . 2 €/MWh
– – Vandkraft . . .. . . . . . . . 7 % . . . . . . . . . 2 €/MWh
– – Solenergi (PV) . . . . . . .1 % . . . . . . . . 260 €/MWh *)
– – Vindkraft . . . . . . . . . . . 7 % . . . . . . . . . 33 €/MWh
*) Det kan formodes at det lave tal for solenergi (1 % af forsyningen) dækker over at en stor del af solenergien bruges direkte, uden at gå over måleren.

Artiklens tilsyneladende formål er at vise at det ikke vil flytte meget at fjerne tilskud til brug af kul.
For den mere klimabevidste viser tallene, at der er brug for:
– – – Afgifter på forurening.
– – – Ligeværdighed for kernekraft og andre ikke fonurenerene kraftkilder.

For at øge forvirringen cieteres følgende fra IEA:

  • OECD IEA anslår at globalt bidrag til fossile brændstoffer beløb sig til 409 billioner USD i 2010 sammenlignet med omkring 300 billioner USD i 2009.
    Den detaljerede oversigt dækker over 250 mekanismer, der understøtter produktion og anvendelse af fossile brændstoffer.
    Omkring 54% af støtten til fossile brændsler gik til petroleumssektoren.

Disse 409 billioner viser sig at være ca. 8 % af det ovenfor angivne
10 millioner per minut!
Men USD 800.000 per minut er da også penge.

August 2017 får vi tilsvarende oplysninger: 6.5% of global GDP
Selv om forvirringen er stor er der tydelige tegn.
December 2017 læser man følgende, også på netavisen The Energy Collective.
Støttereformen for fossilt brændstof var højt på dagsordenen på parternes klimaændrings konference (COP 23).
Eksperter og politiske ledere sendte gennem, oplysninger om adskillige hændelser, et klart signal om hurtigt at reformere subsidier for fossile brændstoffer.
Noget som lå på over 425 mia. USD i 2015

Det ser ud som om der er ved at ske noget.
En anden skribent, også på The Energy Collective, gentager: (2017)
Reform af subsidier til fossile brændstoffer var højt på dagsordenen på UN Climate Change Conference (COP 23).
Eksperter og politiske ledere sendte et klart signal om hurtigt at reformere subsidier til fossile brændstoffer, som lå på over 425 mia. USD i 2015.

Her, som så ofte, er det tilsyneladende umuligt at nævne det uartige ord kernekraft.

Mere hjemligt er oplysninger fra Subsidies and costs of EU energy. (2014) Også her er man tilsyneladende ærlige og giver oplysninger om spredningen på de mange data.
Først får man følgende oplysninger om .Levelised cost, der er omkostningerne for kraftværket. (side x – romertal 10)
– – – Kul . . . . 75 €/MWh
– – – Gas . . . .95 €/MWh
– – – Olie . . . 260 €/MWh
– – – Sol . . . . 175 €/MWh (meget store variationer)
– – – Vind . . . 100 €/MWh

Side 37 findes, hvad her kaldes Extrenal Costs:
– – – Kul og brunkul . . 90 €/MWh
– – – Gas . . . . . . . . . . 35 €/MWh
– – – Olie . . . . . . . . . . .88 €/MWh
– – – Kernekraft. . . . . . 22 €/MWh
– – – Sol . . . . . . . . . . . 15 €/MWh
– – – Vind . . . . . . . . . . . 4 €/MWh
Her dækker Extrenal Costs miljøudgifter i videste forstand, ikke kun forurening, men også fx ’brug af begrænsede ressourcer’.
Men ikke backup, net-tilslutning og lignende, som er forsøgt behandlet på en anden side:

En tilhænger af kernekraft fremhæver naturligvis at der er næsten uanede reserver af uran og thorium.
Således synes det urimeligt at medtage 16 €/MWh som ’Depletion of Energy Resources’ for kernekraft.
Dette er næsten det samme som angivet for kul og olie, hvor i hvert fald olie er en begrænset resurse.
Denne høje værdi kan kun opfattes som et, af de desværre mange, forsøg på at bringe kernekraft i et dårligt lys.

Ved vindkraft bruges Neodymium i generatorene. Dette er en helt anderledes begrænset reserve.
Derfor kan det undre at vindkraft ikke er pålagt omkostninger for ’Depletion of Energy Resources’.
Samtidigt undrer det at ’Climate Change’ (CO2) for fossile brændsler ikke er sat højere end 40 €/MWh


Hvis man går et skridt videre og vurderer CO2/MWh for hele kraftværks levetid vil det forbavse at kernekraft ligger langt under alle andre kraftkilder.

CO2 per kWh

Når først kernekraftanlægget er færdigt vil det producere en hulens masse energi i mange år.

Dødsfald i Kulminer

Når talen er om dødsfald i forbindelse med uheld i kulminer giver World Nuclear følgende oplysninger.
Kinas samlede dødsfald fra kulminedrift, før 2008, var i gennemsnit godt over 4000 pr. år.
På verdensplan angives følgene:
I 1950’erne var det årlige dødstal i verdens kulminer 70.000, i 1980’erne var det 40.000 og 1990’erne, det var 10.000.
Ukraines kulminde-dødsfald har været over to hundrede om året.
Wikipedia giver en detaljeret opgørelse.

Drag selv konsekvenserne og sammenlign med dødstal fra A-kraft.

Energi og .Helbred

Dette link refererer til en meget grundig vurdering af personskader i Europa. (England)

  • Tabel 2 omhandler person-skader pr TWh for forskellige former for produktion af energi.
  • Længere nede, på Figur 3, inkluderes udledning af drivhusgasser.
  • I begge tilfælde ses hvorledes skader fra atomkraft er relativt meget små.
  • I, hvad næsten er en bisætning, bekræftes hvorledes “the public” har en større frygt for atomkraft og dets virkninger – sammenlignet med eksperter.
  • Selv om det næppe er mere end en påstand nævnes at der i de kulkraft-forurenede områder i Kina er der “fundet” skader på børns DNA

Backup og Forsyningssikkerhed

I stedet for at skrive endnu mere, henviser jeg til en anden side:
Brug søgemaskinen (ctrl + f) og find .backup

Carbon Capture Store (CCS)

Med mellemrum er dette en ny kanin, der trækkes op af hatten når man kryber udenom A-kraft.
Naturligvis prøver man at skaffe aflad med Carbon Capture Storage.
Hvis meget udførlige oplysninger fra The Energy Collective står til troende har det ingen fremtid.
Dette kommer frem igen (august 2017) Carbon Capture Dream Dying.
Men i Norge vil man prøve at komme videre.
I et desperat forsøg på at undgå kernekraft kommer dagbladet Information frem med drømmen om at hive CO2 ud af luften.
Der vil blive brug for meget – et par milliarder ton – Hvis det skal batte noget.
Ikke kun til glæde for grønne journalister, men også for det betrængte klima.
I mellemtiden dør tusinder af Syd Afrikanere af luftforurening.

Mon ikke vi nu skulle være enige med New Scientist

Kulkraft er meget mere skadeligt end kernekraft.

En tilhænger af kernekraft vil naturligvis fremhæve at antal af dødsfald ved Tjernobyl ikke er 9000, men snarere under 50
Et andet tal – 2000 – fås hvis man medtager dødsfald i forbindelse med de store og stort set unødvendige evakueringer.
Hvis evakueringsdødsfald ikke medregnes vil tallet for dødsfald komme under 50

En rygende pistol ?

På netavisen Atomic Insitghts finder man en lang artikel, der tilsyneladende viser at det var kulindustrien, der stod forrest i kampen mod kernekraft.
– – – “De var de første til at fremkomme med modstand mod
– – – brugen af skatteydernes penge til støtte for udviklingen af
– – – atomkraftværker.”
Man kan mene at her har vi “Den rygende pistol”.

Nu, da klimaet er ved at løbe løbsk, ser man, også fra Atomic Insights, at kulindustrien helt tilbage i 1948 arbejdede for at dæmonisere kernekraft.

Samtidigt forklares at det nu er gasleverandørerne, der argumenterer for sol og vind.
Fordi der derved bliver behov for backup.
Jeg citerer fra Reuters
– – – Vil du være overrasket over at lære at
– – – olie- og naturgasselskaberne klart forstod
– – – at sol og vind passede godt ind i deres hovedprodukt?
– – – Derfor er de kun alt for glade for at investere i,
– – – og derved fremme, sol og vind.

Endnu en konspirationsteori går ud på at kampen mod atomkraft også støttes af stålindustrien, der ser en god forretning i produktion af tårne til de mange vindmøller. (2018)

EU prøver men er for svag.

Der er for mange smuthuller.

Nu kan det næppe fortsætte med at være en hemmelighed.
August 17 2017, ser man en artikel i the Guardian.
Her angives at fossilt brændstof globalt modtager omkring $5 milliarder årligt som skjulte tilskud.
Dette skulle modsvare 6,5 % af globalt GMP.
Hvis skader fra luftforurening medtages, vil dette tal formentligt blive højere.

Der skelnes mellem
– – “Pre-tax subsidies” og
– – “Post-tax subsidies”

Nu, når det kommer nærmere os

Fra Information 2017 aug. 28
Ved siden af CO2-udslippet koster brunkulkraftens giftige emissioner ifølge en forskningsrapport fra Universität Stuttgart op mod 20.000 menneskeliv i Europa – Årligt.

z-kirkeTyskland forurener med afbrænding af kul.
Men drømmer om at blive mere grøn.
I mellemtiden ødelægger men både landsbysamfund og en historisk kirke.
For at få mere brunkul.

Der tales meget, men vi mangler virkelighed.
Jeg har prøvet at behandle den tyske virkelighed på en anden side.


På netavisen The Energy Post omtales eventuel hjælp til Polen i form af kernekraft fra Ukraine.
Her læser man:

  • I juni 2017 fremlagde det polske øverste revisionsorgan imidlertid en rapport, der viste, at kulsektoren havde modtaget subsidier på 15,4 mia. Euro mellem 2007 og 2015.
    Dette er ca. 17 000 EUR om året pr. Kulminearbejder.
    Dette kan synes en rimelig pris at betale for at vinde et valg.
    Hr. Tusk mente det, det mente PiS-partiet også.

Hvad den polske samfunds ikke-kulmineringsparti mener er ukendt.

Også på grundlag af dette hævder jeg at energipolitik alt for ofte ikke er bestemt af logik, men et ønske om vælgertilslutning.

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

Verdens kendte reserver

z- Fossile Reserver.png
Klik på tabellen for at få fuld størrelse.

Historisk udvikling af jordens temperatur

Global temperatur
Det er fristende at skyde skylden på vores brug af fossile brændstoffer.

Der tales meget om smarte løsninger.
En tilhænger af kernekraft savner realiteter.

2018 Oktober ser man at Greenpeace Japan er imod de mange nye kulkraftværker.
Japans kulfyrede kraftværker beskyldes “for at forårsage tusindvis af tidlige dødsfald”

Tro det, eller ej:
2018 cirkulerer rygter om at Greenpeace overvejer at gå ind for kernekraft som “et mindre onde”.
Senere: (2020) må man nøjes med at vente.

Og så November 2018 kommer der mere – mest i forbindelse med Californiens grønne bestræbelser.
Her er det der skriver:
I 2016 modtog vedvarende energikilder 94 gange mere i amerikanske føderale subsidier end atomkraft og 46 gange mere end fossile brændstoffer pr. enhed produceret energi.
I mellemtiden indrømmer et stigende antal analytikere, at et elnettet, der er afhængig af atomkraft, ikke har brug for sol og vind.

  • Mest foruroligende, tilføjes det at sol og vind, som bidrag til et nukleart net ville kræve afbrænding af mere fossile brændstoffer, normalt naturgas, som nødvendig backupkraft.

Det bliver mere og mere tydeligt, at Tyskland ikke vil kunne opfylde sine klimamål.
Således kommer det under kritik fra ledende “grønne” energimedlemmer.
De frygter at Tysklands dårlige resultat på klimaforandringer diskrimerer vedvarende energi som en løsning for klimaændringerne.

Fra netavisen får man følgende:
Alle har hørt om CO2-emissionerne fra forskellige energikilder.
Kuldkraften giver det største fodaftryk.
For hver kWh produceret energi efterlades ca. 900 gram CO2.
Således efterlades hvert år, fra afbrænding af kul over 14 mia. tons kuldioxid.

På netsiden finder du følgende forfærdelige spørgsmål:
Hvor dødbringende er din kW?
Fra dette link citerer jeg.
Det faktiske antal dødsfald i Kina fra kulbrug oversteg sidste år 300.000

År 2020, under Corona krisen, læser man at den renere luft i forbindelse med kinesiske ned-lukninger har sparet flere menneskeliv.
I sammenligning med dem der døde af corona.

Stadig dør ca. 10.000 fra kulbrug i USA – hvert år – og et andet tusinde fra naturgas.
Hvis luftvejssygdomme medtages vil ovenstående tal nok blive ti gange så meget.
Rædslerne er ikke beskrevet før man omtaler den lurende klimakatastrofe.

Allerede dette er alt for meget.
Alligevel finder man mere på

Endeligt er det, der skriver:
I 2016 modtog vedvarende energikilder
bla– 94 gange mere i amerikanske føderale subsidier end atomkraft.
bla– 46 gange mere end fossile brændstoffer pr. produceret enhed.


hober sig op og er et begyndende problem ved risiko for katastrofer, men også forurening af grudvand.


1979/1980 udsendte OOA, en pjece på 12 sider i farver.
Den havde overskriften:
”OOA’s FOLKEPJECE: Danmark uden atomkraft.”
I pjecen hedder det: ”Danmark har masser af olie og naturgas”, og ”Kul til flere hundrede år”.
– – – ”For at kunne dække mere end 1/3 af strømforbruget med vindkraft, må man kunne oplagre energien.
Det kan man bl.a. gøre med trykluftlagre, som vi kender allerede i dag. Eller med svinghjulslagre, som nu er under udvikling.”

Nu, 40 år senere, må vi indse at teknologi til lagring af vindkraft i stor skala stadigvæk ikke er lige om hjørnet.

Men nu 2020

Måske er der nogle, der begynder at forstå.
Carbon pricing?
Metering carbon not kilowatts?

2020 fortæller BBC om overgang fra kul til bio med den malende overskrift
The giant coal plant converting to green energy.
Normalt er det rigtigt når BBC skriver:
bla“We believe in truth, facts, and science.
blaWe take the time to think. And we don’t accept — we ask why”
Men her “glemmer” man tilsyneladende meget.
Fx at forureningen med specielt skadelige mikro partikler forøges.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

This post is an attempt to summarize the information collected in a different and much longer post (in the Danish language).

I must apolobieze for the slightly improoved Google-translation from the original post (

Unfortunately, it must be noted that prices for energy are skewed so that it is almost impossible to supply the community with power and warmth without subsidies and regulations.

IMF has found, that approximately 6.5% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is used to subsidies for fossil energy. $ 10 million per minute.
This huge amount is consistent with information from the EurActiv.


As a result of a political desire, European countries give very big subsidies for energy from sun and wind.

  • Thus the spot price of electricity is so low that existing conventional power plants do not become profitable even though they actually are well functioning.
    However, in order to balance the economic, electric energy i heavily taxed.
  • It is rarely mentioned that nuclear power is subject to a special fuel tax in both Germany and  Sweden.
  • In order to maintain the supply it has been necessary, particularly in Germany, to give huge grants, especially for solar energy.
    Still it has been necessary to expand the use of lignite.
    This has given rise to serious environmental damage; both from the required strip-mining and from the increase in greenhouse gases.
  • In England discussions are concentrated on a prohibitively expensive nuclear novelty (EPR)
    This has been harassed by Austria and especially Greenpeace, who for reasons of principle are opposed to nuclear energy and have taken court action by the EC.
    If nothing else, you can delay and increase the cost.
  • Especially in Denmark wind-power get subsidies in the hope that it can be the cornerstone of future supplies.
  • In the Eastern European countries which have attained political independence, it was a condition for joining the EU that well-functioning nuclear power plants should be closed.
    Now the aim is to build a realistic supply, with nuclear power.
    Now with known Russian design and hopefully a realistic price.

Sun and Wind

Still it is unreasonably expensive.
With more marketshare it will be a serious challenge to maintain stability of supply and store the necessary energy for use at night or in windless periods.

  • In Denmark the supply is maintained through help from Sweden and especially Norway.
  • In Germany, where the demand is much greater, it will probably be impossible to obtain sufficient “green backup” in the winter.

Security of supply

No matter what, it is impossible to maintain the modern society without a secure supply of power and heat.
With the increased share of the unpredictable energy from sun and wind, there are new challenges.
It will be necessary to store energy, and it is very large amounts of energy.

  • Only Norway has enough hydroelectricity to cope with winter consumption.
    Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Austria have quite a lot of regulated hydroelectric power, which can be deployed as needed.

In addition to regulated hydroelectric power, there are no economically viable alternatives for storing energy.

  • Without natural options, pumped storage will be excessively expencive.
    More than 100,000 €/MWh – Probably the double.
  • There is much talk about batteries, but it will be outside the financial reach to use for anything more than “a little local”.
    Of course also for cars and ships.
  • All talk about ‘just’ to store hydrogen has apparently been silenced.
  • Some countries have started to come to an agreement on “standby supply” (England) and “interruptible industries” (Germany).
  • In cooperation with Siemens in Germany green entusiasts are working to develop energy storage in the form of “thermal storage”.
    Unfortunately, a low efficiency will probably destroy the economy.


In what a bit sketchy is called ‘The West’, nuclear power has not only been on a harmful erratic course, but has also suffered from strong opposition that may be seen as a systematic crusade against goasts.
(See also Nuclear what is wrong? And Greenpeace and nuclear power.)

  • At least in Denmark’s electrical energy is a taxation object while some forms of energy get abundant subsidies.

This, and more, has undoubtedly left very deep marks on the development.

Whatever is the reason. In the West the nuclear industry has hesitated for 15 years while ‘we just sat on your hands’ and could not figure out what to do.
Slightly shallow it can be said that one can not have it all:
– Satisfy the endless and unreasonable demands ‘more security’.
– Continue with what is known and thus get new facilities at a reasonable price.

Traditional Coal

With Exception of few countries, coal is still the main element of the supply.


Few countries have much hydropower and can benefit from others, such as Denmark, when they require regulated energy that can be deployed as needed.
Unfortunately, there is most need for this in the winter when there is not so much rain to fill the reservoirs.


Also here is the coal is the bearing element in energy supply.

  • Not as much as in Europe, but there has been campaigns and unreasonable demands as soon as we talk about nuclear power.
  • Today USA rides high on a wave of shale gas, provisionally both cheap and plentiful.
    There is talks about environmental damage. Furthermore, it is only half as polluting greenhouse gases.
  • In contrast to Europe, energy in the US is not a taxation object and consequently, energy prices are significantly lower, somehow distorting the international competition.

Nuclear power in the new countries

In Russia, China, Korea, India and other countries, there is not the same tradition of saying NO – NO – NO to everything new and where you do not ‘just’ come with endless contradictions and complaints. There, it has been possible to begin a realistic use of nuclear energy.

In sharp contrast to the old-established countries in Europe and the US the new countries are working worldwide to come up and try to get cheap and reliable energy.
This applies to most to the “Asian countries”, but also countries which previously was under Russian influence.


Korea exports four reactors to the UAE at a price less than half of what is paid in England for the disputed EPR.


China is working hard to improve the energy supply, with the expansion of hydropower and nuclear power. Of course, also solar and wind.
According to its own data, the price of new nuclear power is on par with that of Korea.
At the same time, China is leading in developing nuclear power with the use of thorium molten salt.


In addition to traditional nuclear, work is going on to develop a different system for utilization of thorium.


Probably due to the strong resistance, especially from Germany, Russia is the place where Eastern European countries could turn for help to both engineering and finance.


Worldwide there are 436 reactors in operation and 233 “under construction” or “on order or planned”.
The vast majority of these new reactors are from what is called “developing countries” or countries which have recently attained political independence after the dissolution of the old Soviet.

Other CO2-free energy

Instead of going into details, I refer to another, more detailed post:

Overview of data

– Cheapest new-built onshore wind turbines: € 67 / MWh
– German onshore wind turbines: 100 € / MWh
– New large offshore wind farms: € 190 / MWh
– Horns Rev lll (Denmark): € 103 / MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from ‘old plants’ (Sweden) 26 € / MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea) : 27 € / MWh
– Most expensive nuclear power (Hinkley Point C): € 124 / MWh
– Solar Germany: € 110 / MWh
– Typically, the spot price of North Pole El market: 30 € / MWh
– Whole-sale price in England: € 66 / MWh
(This large discrepancy may be explained by ‘old Swedish nuclear power’ and especially Norwegian hydropower has been cheap.)

Energy from the sun and wind have ‘priority to the network’ and does not need to sell at the current market price and will thus further destroy the economy of traditional power plants that are built to run without many random interruptions.
In addition there is the “system costs” (primarily back up) something, which with large market share for wind and especially for sun will become a highly burdensome expense.
Again, I refer to what is found on
In reality, these costs ‘just’ paid by ‘the other’ (The Net).
Thus, the price discovery further skewed.

After close examination of the above data, it becomes easier to understand why the Swedish Vattenfall consider early retirement for old nuclear power plants rather than upgrade and pay the incresed special taxes.

Spot prices

In a desperate attempt to argue for open competition and honest pricing, I have tried to assess the opportunities and challenges associated with what is optimistically called smart grid.
See: (in the Danish language)


To avoid misunderstanding, I emphasize that I will be grateful for any comments or detection of factual errors, which of course, will be corrected.

Write to