Archives for posts with tag: Energi

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.

“Western Nuclear” is in deep troubles.

This has been seen again and again.

We must conduct a proper post mortem and find out why.
First the obvious symptoms:
– Cheapest nuclear power from an ‘old system’ (Sweden): € 26/MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea): € 27/MWh
– Most expensive new nuclear power (Hinkley Point C): € 124/MWh
– Russia: “Guarantee” 2017 50 €/MWh
Kina, Russia and Korea are able to follow plans.
Both costs and timetable.

We have to analyze the horrifying symptoms and I have tried to come forward with the following:
– Why it is so expensive:
– How the exaggerated demands for safety undermines the economy:

The Market ?

Is it because we are locked into a capitalistic thinking and will, at all costs, avoid government investments?

From The Energy Collective
Edward Kee, February 23, 2017, I quote, extract and modify:

– – – – However, consolidating, standardizing and scaling require:
– Selection of a “winning vendor” – around which the industry can
– Selection of a “winning design” – around which the industry can
standardize; and
– Large need for new nuclear capacity to facilitate scale.
– Government determination.

– –The examples of where this has been done are limited.
– France until mid-1980s (when N4 designs started construction)
– South Korea
– China
– Russia and
– Probably also Sweden.

– –What these examples have in common are:
– Government ownership of nuclear power industry.
(Easy to decide on vendor and reactor design.)
– Government control of electricity industry.
(Captive customer for nuclear power plants).
– Need for capacity.
(Large and growing demand for power).
– An industry, allowed to getting things done.


– –The market approach to nuclear power, whether in U.S. or elsewhere in the world, involves:
– Vendors competing for market share.
– Reactor designs being developed by these vendors to meet buyer
preferences and/or requirements.
– Ever changing government demands and regulations.
– And, building units as possible (i.e., when buyers make investments.)

To make matters worse

Private investors will obviously be afraid of being treated as in Germany.
It may be difficult to find out:
– Shall we go for the extreme? – Both price and security.
(as in England.)
– Shall we go for something realistic?
(as now in Finland and different East European countries.)
– Shall we just wait and see?
– Will it be possible to find the necessary (private) investment?
(Except for the rich Gulf-states.)
It is trumped, that nuclear (in the west)
will be extinct.


What can be done to get out of the iron-grip of those who, just per automatic, say no No NO as soon as they hear the word nuclear?

Dear unknown reader

I need your input and hopefully constructive comments.
Write to me at

Thorkil Søe


From a long, but interesting article in The Economist Feb. 2017, I quote:
– –Paradoxically, that means:
The more states support renewables, the more they will have to pay for conventional power plants, too, using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency.


Now we ask: Does nuclear has a future in the west (US)

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.
Søren Kjærsgård giver en god opdatering (2019 august)

Resume af ”Danish and European Energy 2018”


It is easy to see that the German Energiewende takes Germany down into a bottomless green hole.

With further development of the ambitious Energiewende, it will be even worse.
During the winter, when there is most demand for power, we have minimum sunshine. Nothing at nighttime.

Contrary to many “Green Dreams”, we must face the facts:
The North European wind is almost synchronized.
Søren Kjærsgård
provides a very comprehensive evaluation of the North European wind.
On page 22 you will see (normalized) data from Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep., Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden and Germany.
Over this enormous area, the wind power varies quite a lot.
Maximum: 269 % of average and minimum 18 % of average (7 % of maximum)

The modern society cannot function without a stable supply of power.
Besides all this, it will be very expensive, if we should have wind-turbines here, there and everywhere – just hoping for something fantastic to turn up.

The German Solution

Germany works hard to avoid black outs as a result of the ambitious Energiewende.
Sometimes you see a little about Dunkelflaute,which means “Dark Windless”.
For the time being the backbone of the supply is based on polluting use of coal, especially brown coal from intensive strip-mining.
There is some help from Poland and especially from France.


Everybody dreams about help from Norway.
Norway has quite a lot of hydro-power, even regulated hydro-power.
Enough for own use.
But it will be a very expensive drip in the ocean if it should satisfy European needs.


In South-Australia, the heavy reliance on energy from renewables (sun and wind) has made it necessary to introduce scheduled black-outs.

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 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 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
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 to lay 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 is not 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 absurd added security.
The trend is clear.

How much should be deposited?

If information from World Nuclear stands to ge 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 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

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
Af grunde der ikke er forstået, bliver energi fra sol og vind er betegnet som “Vedvarende”.
Denne betegnelse bruges i modsætning til energi fra både fossile brændsler og fra kernekraft.
I bedste fald er det sidste en fejltagelse.

Glem ikke
Der er masser af “brændsel” til fremtidens kernekraft

Med tilgængelig teknologi der er nok atomenergi til de næste 100 år.
Ved hjælp af teknologi, der er under udvikling vil der være nok til mere end 1000 år.
Med ny teknologi (Thorium), der er lidt mere ud i fremtiden, vil der være nok til måske 100.000 år.
Hvis / når fusion-energi udnyttes. Så vil være nok indtil jorden opsluges af solen som en rød gigant.

Fortalere for energi fra sol og vind insisterer på at bruge falsk varebetegnelse når de insisterer på at blive kaldt vedvarende.
Ligeledes var det falsk varebetegnelse da det tidligere Østtyskland blev kaldt DDR. (Tyske DEMOKRATISKE Republik.)
I folkemunde: “Det Såkaldte”.

Sol og Wind er IKKE bæredygtigt

I Australien overvejer man at forbyde mere energi fra vind.
Fordi det allerede nu er årsag strømafbrydelser.
“Vi synes allerede at være nået grænser med hensyn til upålidelig elforsyning.”

“De fleste mennesker er begyndt at indse, at den varierende elektricitet ikke er meget værd.
Det kan endda have negativ værdi, når omkostningerne ved alle de nødvendige tilpasninger for at gøre den anvendelig medregnes.”

Stikket trækkes Snart vil det være nødvendigt at afbryde.
Et eller andet sted.
Jeg er sikker på at du ved hvor.

Ja det er realiteterne
Ikke bare i Australien

Duck curve result (2)
Denne graf taler for sig selv.


Grafen nedenfor viser priserne for elektricitet i Europa relateret til installeret kapacitet på strøm fra sund og vind.
Selvom grafen er interessant, skal det bemærkes, at priserne givet synes at være “Forbrugerpriserne” (inkl. skatter og tilskud)
I modsætning til det jeg anser for sagens kerne: “Produktionsomkostninger”.
De lande, der er markeret med rødt er lande med “økonomiske problemer”
Pris for EL versus installed VE.png
Her vil jeg nævne, at udtrykket “Installeret kapacitet” på en eller anden måde er vildledende.
Selv om det bruges meget når man ønsker at glorificere udbytte fra sol og vind, så er det alligevel (groft) vildledende.

Det er nødvendigt at korrigere for “Udnyttelsesgraden”
(Produceret effekt divideret med maksimalt tilgængelige, det man optimistisk kalder “Installeret Kapacitet”.)
Vind Danmark: 25 – 50%
Vind Tyskland: mindre end 30%
Sol Tyskland: ca. 18%

24 – 7 – 365

Efter at have behandlet pris på de såkaldt vedvarende kommer man til følgende:
De sædvanlige betragtninger er i realiteten kun gyldige så længe den varierende og delvis uforudsigelige kraft fra sol og vind holder sig til småtingsafdelingen og ikke overskrider ca. 5 % af belastningen.

Fra de amerikanske æææææææææææææææææææææSolenergi USA påvirker priser
Tysk solkraft variation solskinsstater har man udtrykket ”The Duck Curve”.
Først ser man hvorledes den store andel af øget solenergi har ødelagt de oprindelige store overskud i 2012.
Dernæst spørger man: Hvem sørger for backup i de tidlige nattetimer?
Endeligt ses, hvad vi allerede vidste, at i USA er prisdannelsen (delvis) styret af markedskræfter.

I Tyskland, der hovedsageligt satser på solenergi (PV), er situationen mest en fremtidig udfordring.
MEN med den ønskede udfasning af kulkraft og A-kraft vil det tilsyneladende være umuligt at opretholde forsyningen.

Dette og meget andet rejser spørgsmålet om hvordan forsyningen skal opretholdes med færrest muligt offentlige indgreb og mest mulig brug af markedskræfterne.

Tyskland har viklet sig selv ind i et virvar af forskellige støtteordninger, hvorved der gives mest til de mindst effektive.

I England har man taget skridtet fuldt ud og har i januar 2015 afsluttet en udbuds-runde hvorved der skaffes garanteret backup-kapacitet på 49 GW – Hen imod halvdelen af det totale behov for elektricitet.
Resultatet (The Clearing Price) blev: 24 €/kW/år.
Øvrige detaljer mangler.

Hvordan kan dette passes ind?

I stedet for at komme med forslag vil jeg bede dig, min ukendte læser, om at gå i tænkeboks.

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.
For reasons not understood, energy from sun and wind is labeled as “Permanent” (vedvarende)
At the best it is a mistake.
Using available technology there is enough nuclear energy for
more than 100 years.
Using technology under development, there will be enough for
several 1000 years
If / when fusion-energy is harnessed:
Then there will be enough until the earth is swallowed by the sun as a read giant.

Energy from sun and wind insist to use a false label.
Similar it was a false label, when the old East Germany was called “German DEMOCRATIC Republic”.
Outside DDR the country was often called “The So-called.”

Sun and Wind are not “Permanent” (Vedvarende)

Australia Considers Banning Wind Power Because It’s Causing Blackouts.
“We already seem to be reaching limits with respect to intermittent electricity supply.
The US Energy Information Administration may be reaching the same conclusion.
It was the issue by Steve Kean from Kinder Morgan (a pipeline company) as its keynote speaker at its July 2016 Annual Conference.
He made the following statements about renewable energy.
This view is very similar to mine.
Few people have stopped to realize that intermittent electricity isn’t worth very much.
It may even have negative value, when the cost of all of the adjustments needed to make it useful are considered.”

Stikket trækkesSoon it will be necessary to disconnect.
Sure you know!

The graph below show prices for electricity in Europe related to installed capacity of power from sund and wind.
Although the graph is interesting, it should be noted that the prices given appear to be “Consumer prices” and not “Cost of production”
The countries marked with red are countries with “economic problems”
Pris for EL versus installeret VE.png
Further I want to mention that “Installed Capacity” is somehow misleading if not considering the “Utilization Ratio” (Produced power divided by maximum available)
Wind Denmark: 25 – 50 %
Wind Germany: les than 25 %
Sun Germany: about 18 %

– – – – 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.

Pumped Storage


Ifølge en meget udførlig artikel, Intermittent grid storage (2015), er over
99 % af verdens kapacitet for lagret energi i form af Pumped Storage.

Det kan formodes at gode naturlige muligheder for disse anlæg er udnyttede og tilsyneladende bliver det en dyr følge af det tyske Energiewende.
Anlægs-omkostningerne for nye anlæg er angivet til 100.000 €/MWh lagerkapacitet for det eneste eksempel, hvor der er fundet oplysninger om omkostninger.
Et stort projekt (30 GWh) er foreslået ved Great Glen i Skotland
Selv om 30 GWh lyder dramatisk, svarer det kun til mindre end en times forbrug i England, hvor det forudsættes at udligne for den fluktuerende vindkraft.
Til sammenligning tjener at én af de dyre og forkætrede EPR reaktorer vil have en stabil døgnproduktion, der er større.

Tilsyneladende er den skotske muligheder næsten uudtømmelige:
Et muligt Loch Ness Monster of Energy Storage
– Det forudsættes at man pumper saltvand op i en ferskvandssø.
– Generating kapacitet mellem 132 GW og 264 GW eller
– – 2 til 5 gange UK max. forbrug.
– Kapacitet: 6800 GWh eller omtrent 100 timers frobrug i UK
Der gives:
– Grafisk oversigt over perioder med svag vind.
– Interessant vurdering. Naturligvis med mange forbehold.

På verdensplan kan noget tilsvarende tilsyneladende kun komme på tale tre steder.
Californien kan udnytte en stor hulning i Mexico.
Chile har også et uudnyttet potentiel.
Og som omtalt: Skotland.

Og så April 2019
ser den glade læser hvorledes
“Stort glogalt studie ødelægger argument mod vedvarende energi.”
Det angives at der på verdensplan vil være muligheder for 500.000 nye anlæg for pumped storage med en samlet kapacitet på omkring 22 millioner Gigawatt-hours.
Det lyder drabeligt og det gentages på en tilsvarende net side der, meget betegnende, er dateret første april.
Her forudsættes at behovet for pumped storrage er 1 Gigawatt (GW) per million indbyggere med 20 timers lagring.
20 timer vil være en dråbe i havet når man overvejer værst tænkelige situation med op til 20 dages Dunkelflaute (mørkt vindstille)
Der findes en oversigt over muligheder for forskellige verdensdele.
Her ses at specielt i Europa kniber det gevaldigt med at finde egnede muligheder.
Derudover findes få andre detaljer, udover et kort der viser det vi allerede vidste:
Uden megen dybdeboring vil man vide at der ikke er mange nye muligheder i Europa.
Således er hovedparten af de markerede muligheder i de tæt befolkede områder i Sydøst Asien.
Jeg tillader mig at frygte at djævlen ligger i detaljen.
Som allerede omtalt er lagring for 20 timer urealistisk.
Den elektricitet, der skal lagres, kommer ikke gratis og genvindes med et tab på omtrent 20 %
De mange lagre vil formentligt kræve store investeringer.
Samtidigt skal der være plads. Ikke kun til de store vandmagasiner.
Men også til både vid-møller, solceller, huse og landbrug.

I Japan ser man realiteter. Selv om 30 GW i sammenligning kun er “småting” er det tilsyneladende realistisk.

Når man sammenligner priser må det huskes at der naturligvis er et energitab ved pumped storage. Det angives til at være 30 %
Desuden må det ikke ‘sådan bare’ forbigås at den “grønne elektricitet”, der på en eller anden måde skal gemmes, bestemt ikke kommer gratis.

Udover at henvise til en anden side, hævder jeg at Danmark, og specielt Tyskland, arbejder sig hen mod en håbløs situation.

Naturligvis er det forsøgt mange gange at lagre energi.

Til tider virker det som batterier og pumped storage er den kanin magikeren trækker op af hatten, når han skal forklare at den stærkt varierende energi fra sol og vind ‘sådan bare’ kan indgå på lige fod med den stabile energi fra kernekraft eller fossile brændsler.

Her må det ikke glemmes at der er tale om meget store energimængder.
I hvert fald hvis der skal lagres tilstrækkelig energi til at udjævne mere end døgnvariationer.
I USA foreslår nogle håbefulde grønne at forsyne eksisterende vandkraftanlæg med flere turbiner.
Det lyder forjættende indtil man går i detaljer.
– Det vil være meget svært at ændre på de eksisterende
– – konstruktioner og finde plads til de ekstra turbiner.
– Den skiftende vandføring vil give store problemer nedstrøms.

Reguleret vandkraft er en “Guds Gave”.

Ved at skrue lidt op – eller ned – for hanerne kan man kompensere for vekslende forbrug og endog “gemme” energi fra sol og vind – indenfor grænser.
Udover reguleret vandkraft er der ikke mange realistiske muligheder for at lagre store energimængder.
I Schweitz er der en del reguleret vandkraft og der tjenes lidt ved at udjævne døgnvariationer også i Frankrig.

Tilbage til Emnet

Østrig har allerede i 1956 haft pumped storrage til udjævning af døgnvariationer.
Pumped storage 2I Tyskland har man, naturligvis under protest, opført et meget stort anlæg for pumped stortage.

Anlægs-omkostningerne beløb sig til 51 €/kWh
Dette anlæg betegnes som:
”The largest hydroelectric power plant in Germany and one of largest in Europe.”
Kapaciteten (8.5 GWh) svarer til lidt over et minut af det tyske forbrug af elektricitet.

Tilsyneladende bliver det en dyr følge af det tyske Energiewende.

Omkostningerne afhænger naturligvis af de naturlige forhold på stedet og er andetsteds angivet til mellem 326 og 2000 €/kW (lagerkapacitet).
Tilsyneladende er det uklart hvorledes anlægs-prisen 100 €/kWh er fundet.
Men lige meget hvad, så er det en tredjedel af prisen for at skaffe sig de nødvendige batterier.

I Australien er der mange (teoretiske) muligheder
Et meget stort projekt for pumped storage i Australien omtales her.
Desværre må det konstateres at der er langt mellem behov og kapacitet.

Flat storage

Hvis der, som både i Danmark og i Tyskland, ikke er tilstrækkeligt med nye egnede naturforhold bliver det nødvendigt at bruge “flat storage”.
Så bliver prisen noget helt andet.
Flat storageFlat storage, der er den eneste mulighed for Danmark, er beskrevet her.
Der er tale om et planlagt projekt og tallene kan formodes at være optimistiske.

Hvis de givne data er pålidige og jeg har forstået det rigtigt, vil anlægsprisen være 200 €/kWh
For at sætte dette tal i perspektiv kan det anslås at det tyske behov for backup mindst vil være 10^9 kWh (Svarende til 10% af ti dages frobrug, der et anslået til ti gange det danske forbrug.)

Med den angivne (optimistiske) pris 200 €/kWh bliver anlægsomkostningerne 200×10^9 €
Dette kan bedst sammenlignes med prisen 10×10^9 €, (including financing costs) for hver af de to meget dyre EPR reaktorer, der planlægges i England.

Det må naturligvis ikke glemmes at den strøm, der skal lagres ikke er gratis og at virkningsgraden for sådanne anlæg er omtrent 80 %

Hvis jeg ikke har regnet forkert og mine kilder er troværdige vil de tyske anlægsomkostninger for backup med pumped storage modsvare prisen for tyve af disse meget dyre reaktorer.
Hvis man derimod vælger de reaktorer, der ikke er helt så overforsigtige.
Nogle som dem der eksporteres fra Rusland og fra Korea.
Ja så ville der ikke blive brug for meget andet for at levere den nødvendige energi til Tyskland.
Tysk solkraft variationUden hverken sol og vind.
Slet ikke kul eller brunkul.

Alt dette omfatter ikke årstidsvariationer.
For Tyskland, der satser på solenergi, vil back up for årstidsvariationer være udenfor mulighedernes rækkevide.
Her hjælper det ikke at henvise til norsk vandkraft, der trods alt er begrænset og udnyttes til at udjævne egne årstidsvariationer.

For Danmark, der satser på energi fra vind, er der, teoretisk set, håb for at klare årstidsvariationer – Med (lejligheds) hjælp fra norsk vandkraft og svensk atomkraft.

Som det kan forventes af alt dette giver man i Tyskland store tilskud til lagring af energi.

Marts 2016 skriver netavisen Altinget følgende:
“For at skabe en stabil leverance af alternativ energi, er man nødsaget til at have en lagringsteknologi.
Ifølge IFO vil det i Tyskland kræve 3300 pumpekraftanlæg, eller hvad der svarer til en 100-dobling af eksisterende kapacitet, for at opnå en stabil leverance fra sol og vind.”

Samme sted angives at
Det ville kræve 164 mio. batteripakker af typen brugt i BMW3i el-biler.
Og at
De 1 mio. elektriske biler, som forventet vil være på vejen i Tyskland i 2020, og som kan bruges som distribueret lagring, ville kun levere en batterikapacitet svarende til 0,6 procent.
Uden at det er angivet i artiklen kan det forudsættes at der kun er tale om døgnvariationer.

Det engelske behov for kapacitet er angivet til 1.000 GWh
(Baseret på en 25 dages “typisk cyklus”)
Der er ikke taget hensyn til årstids-variationer og den angivne 25 dages cyklus vil næppe være “verst tænkelige”.
Desuden indeholder artiklen meget hård kritik af den Europæiske politik, specielt det tyske Energiwende.

Samme sted gives oplysninger om anlægs-omkostninger:
—-– Flat Land Storage, der er det eneste mulige i Danmark,
—— angives til 200 €/kWh.

Med halvdelen af prisen for pumped storage i Tyskland: (100 €/kWh), ville de engelske anlægs-omkostninger blive 100.000 millioner €. Det vil svare til 10 nye atom-reaktorer, magen til dem der forhandles om. Eller tre gange så mange, hvis man vil bruge noget magen til det, der nu eksporteres fra Korea til UEA

Naturligvis er der et energitab ved pumped storage. Det angives til at være 30 %
Desuden må det ikke ‘sådan bare’ glemmes at den “grønne elektricitet”, der på en eller anden måde skal gemmes, bestemt ikke kommer gratis.

Mon ikke dette er tilstrækkeligt til at putte den magiske kanin
Tilbage i Hatten.

Og dog. Der er også optimistiske vurderinger.
En lang forklaring, der løser verdens VE-problem.