Archives for posts with tag: Fair price

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 attempt at a post is prompted by the inescapable fact that:

Electricity is the most perishable commodity that exists.

We all want a stable and secure supply of El.
Of course we want it as cheaply as reasonably possible.

And we’re all together so roughly agreeing that we must do our utmost to reduce or preferably eliminate our pollution with CO2 and of course other polution.
We can also agree that there are two, almost independent challenges:

  • The instability of supply and demand.
  • How should the supply be established

Maybe we crazy around at each other because we out of bad habit mix those two things together.
Let’s try to look at instability – There is in reality a lot of consensus.
Problems relating to transport comes so almost all alone.
Problems associated with, thankfully extremely rare, sudden onset, with almost catastrophic, outcomes (with the risk of domino effect) is not discussed the following.

Instability in supply and demand.

No matter which system you choose, we must in some way or another act to maintain a stable supply.
This will not be that easy when, in the future it is desired to reduce our CO2 emissions, also from heating, by changing to the use of electricity, of course, in conjunction with heat pumps.
In addition, the goal is that our supply of electricity mainly to be based on sun and wind, which of course is not stable.

In the old days, with coal-fired power plants and the like, it was not so difficult to handle.
But it is no good continuing with our pollution.
Coal, oil, and much else must of course be eliminated.
As a result of the future, very vulnerable system – without all that much CO2 – we are slowly approaching to a situation where we say:
—————— “All hands to the pumps.”
There are many solutions, each of which will be totally inadequate, but in association has been found to work. But of course, can be done better.

We have at least the following “handles to turn on”:

  • International exchange.
  • Reserve Capacity, to be used when necessary.
  • No political limitations on the right to produce El.
  • Flexible pricing.
  • Open Prices: Everyone can see what is best here and now.

The last three are now being called ‘Smart Grit’, but is certainly neither smart or effective before it is implemented.
A Smart Grit can hardly be effective unless the many existing distorting arrangements are settled.

It will be difficult

We have to abandon old stereotypes.
Here we might disagree: Competition or top-down?
One can well. Some 30 years ago it was technically possible to make what we spend so much time speaking so much about, but still will not do – not fully and completely:

Approximately following was outlined:

  • The supply system, it is often called the grid, will at any time set the current price (spot price) for the El traded. (Not only by international trade)
  • Prices vary stepwise by a factor of 1.20 or “20% up or down” for each step (Small enough to avoid sudden ‘shock in the net’)
  • Some prices are very low. Nearly: ‘Just give it away’.
    (Used by overproduction)
  • At other times, prices can be very high.
    (Used only in the case of near disaster)
  • Anyone can buy and sell without political constraints.
  • The network buys El for 80% of what it is to sell.
    (There should be something to cover costs – both maintenance and improvements)
  • Private suppliers and consumers can always see the spot price for the El, and can of course use automatics that exploit variations in the price.
  • The network guarantees, within wide limit,s how much time, on average, the spot prices will be of different levels.
    (Consumers and producers must be able to plan – Partially)
  • The weather forecast disclose the expected price of El

Then, the human ingenuity and resourcefulness will determine what might be done.
Of course everything will be considered on an economic weight that will hatch all the weeds from.

A little more today

Today you’d probably have added:

  • The tax for pollution should be imposed on polluters compared to how much CO2 and other is discharged.
    Thus, for example, coal with CCS (Carbon Capture Storage) could gain a competitive advantage if this ‘Storage’ can be said to be persistent.
    If policymakers want to be “More Green”, it will ‘just’ be enough to increase this tax.
  • As long as the quota system is maintained, quotas for CO2 should not be distributed as a kind of gift to the old established polluters, who ‘smart enough’ can sell and obtain profits based upon old sins.
    Quotas should be purchased on completely equal terms, in a sort of a CO2-pool. (Ideally internationally)
  • Political favoritism of special productions should be abandoned as swiftly as possible. (Existing contracts must obviously be respected)
  • Taxes distributed fairly equally.
    Not per kWh but compared to net payment.
    (Without political favoritism of specific forms of production but favoring the conscious consumer.)
  • Distortion from the old rules should be settled – Not too slowly.
  • International competition is presumably to be countered by offsets, which must not get out of hand.
  • Grants for experimentation and creation of new forms of supply must be limited and must under no circumstances degenerate into an almost permanent pillow for inefficiency.
  • Keep the discussion away from discussing electric vehicles, wind and sun versus nuclear, wave energy, biomass and everything else.
    This is certainly not irrelevant to the discussion. But it should not destroy a meaningful dialogue on this matter.
  • The political situation will determine if ‘society’ or ‘net’ should continue to maintain extra back-up-capacity.

And what can be supposed to be a triviality:

  • Equal conditions for different power sources.
  • No political emphasized taxes. As where Germany and Sweden have special taxes on nuclear power.
  • No politically motivated closure of power plants.
  • Long and irrevocable agreements that enable long-term contracts and predictable private investment.

The human and political inertia has been great and it is perhaps even more.

Cogeneration and Heat Pump

At a very early stage Denmark took the lead and developed the world’s most efficient combined heat and power, so that the waste heat from the many voracious power plants did not go to waste.

And now some 60% of Danish households are equipped with various types of district heating. This figure is on the rise.

But there are indications that the development is overtaking this solution.
Today, heat pumps are so efficient that, without political favoritism, it will be a serious competitor to the district heating.
One major reason for this is that it is much easier to distribute electricity in the wires than heat pipes.
By pure electricity (without heating) it is now possible to ‘squise the last kW out of fuel’ when electricity is generated by combustion in thermal plants. (You can get about 10% more).
But at the same time the waste heat will not be in the form of the nearly 100 degree hot water, which is now used for district heating. Instead, you just get some ‘warm water’ that is not suitable for the old district heating, but still can be used as a heat source for heat pumps, for fish farms or horticulture.
As development progresses, until the old district heating pipe is worn, it will certainly be sensible so that use electricity for heat pumps with what is shown enough will call ‘cold district heating’.

Too much of the good is bad

The above considerations are basically valid as long as the varying and partly unpredictable power from solar and wind sticks to mere bagatelle and do not exceed five, maybe 10% of the load.

German solar variation From the US sunshine states we have the expression “the Duck Curve”.
First we see how the large percentage of new solar power have destroyed the original good profits in 2012.
Then one asks:
Who provides backup in the early hours of the night?
Finally we see, what we already knew, that in the US pricing is (partially) governed by market forces.

In Germany, which mainly focuses on solar energy (PV), the situation is most a future challenge.
BUT with the desired phase out coal and nuclear power would appear to be impossible to maintain the supply.
Germany has reached “The Bureaucracy Monster”:
From Der Spiegel October 2013 quoted:
“And let’s not forget that the German bureaucrats to have come up with more than 4,000 different subsidy categories for renewable energy, apparently adhering til principle att what is particular expensive kill two be lavishly subsidized.”

All beginnings are difficult

It would be naive to think that the ‘smart grid’ just emidiately can change consumption pattern, the ‘ordinary people’.

It will take time and even political courage.
Politicians and officials must free themselves from the last level economic conventional thinking.
Manufacturers must develop automation for management, effective gauges and much more.
Let’s get started.
What the hell are we waiting for?

Yours Thorkil Søe


There are apparently something about to happen: On the island Bornholm a pilot project is underway.
Although little is better than nothing, it has unfortunately been found that it does not become neither fish nor fowl before all manufacturers of EL are subject to market conditions.

The later development

Despite all good intensions, developments strongly suggests that the European energy system is in the process of working itself into a dead end.
I have tried to gather some of the many data and information in a different post.
Unfortunately, it will be difficult to achieve a free market for electricity and heat without making up with decades of opposition to nuclear (nuclear power) and a systematic demonization.

Hostile action

One possible unresolved challenge can be the destruction of the system by means of false signals transmitted in the intention to attack the infrastructure. (Cyberattack)
If this is to be counteracted, it will probably be necessary to exclude immediate major changes in tariffs and thus could not relieve the system by any outcome of larger units.

Thank you

Thanks to Søren Fosberg for words of encouragement and suggestions for changes.
And to Sören Kjärsgaard for his extreemely good work.

Så snart talen kommer til virkningen af ioniserende stråling, ja så mødes man med en mur af fantastiske beretninger.

Fysisk institutt
Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet

i Norge er man ikke bange for at give oplysninger, der i Danmark ville være ”politisk ukorrekte”:
Fra en lang og grundig e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model (52 sider)
Mit uddrag, mine fremhævninger og et par indskud.

Reparasjon – Adaptiv effekt

I 1960 publiserte M.M. Elkind og H. Sutton ved National Institutes of Health i USA et interessant arbeid med bestråling av celler i kultur.
Når de bestrålte cellene med 10 Gy, overlevde ca. 2 promille.
Hvis de derimot delte opp dosen i to like store porsjoner (to doser å 5 Gy) og bestrålte med 2 timers mellomrom overlevde 8 promille.
For kortere hvilepauser ble overlevelsesevnen redusert.
Dette tolket Elkind og Sutton på følgende måte: Den første dosen på 5 Gy drepte mange celler og påførte andre celler skader som de kalte “sublethal damage”.
I hvilepausen kunne disse skadene bli reparert og cellene var igjen “friske” da neste dose ble gitt.

  • Dette kan sammenlignes med en bokser som får en rekke slag, men som reddes av gongongen.
    I hvilepausen arbeider sekundantene for å få bokseren på fote igjen.

Cellene har altså et reparasjonsverksted.
Dette er faktisk nødvendig for at vi skal overleve.
Vi skal ikke gå inn på flere detaljer når det gjelder reparasjonssystemene, men heller nevne noen nyere eksperimenter som viser at stråling kan stimulere reparasjonsprosessene.
Eksperimenter som viser adaptiv effekt startet med kromosomskader i lymfocytter (se foran).
Kromosomskadene ble indusert av en stråledose på 1,5 Gy.
Følgende resultater ble funnet:

  • Når lymfocyttene blir bestrålt med en liten dose før hoveddosen på 1,5 Gy, blir antall skader redusert betydelig (opp til 50%).
    Den lille stimuleringsdosen må helst være i området 10 til 150 mGy.
  • For å oppnå maksimal effekt må stimuleringsdosen gis 4 til 6 timer før den store dosen.
    Effekten holder seg gjennom tre cellesykler.
  • Det er også funnet at antall mutasjoner hos bananfluer reduseres når små stråledoser på ca. 200 mGy gis før en stor dose på 4 Gy.

Det er også de siste årene vist i eksperimenter med mus at en kan stimulere immunapparatet.
Små stråledoser vil danne proteiner som stimulerer celleveksten i milt og tymus.
Dette har en positiv virkning på dannelsen av antistoffer.
Det er også andre parametre som kan stimuleres ved små stråledoser.

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.
Og.klik påb They say Jeppe drinks.
Og.klik påb But you do not say why Jeppe drinks.

Surely this applies when you talk about nuclear energy becoming more expensive.   .

First something, apparently being facts:
When nuclear power was new and France and Sweden, together with other countries started to go nuclear.
Back then, the cost were probably half of what it today will be for the UK to get the new EPR reactors.
At the same time Korea builds and exports nuclear to the UAE at the old low prices.
China claims to be on track with the same prices and e.g. Egypt buys new nuclear power in Russia, probably because the price is lower.

Unfortunately, most players keep their cards close to the chest and it is difficult to get reliable information.
Thus we must be satisfied with the following:
– 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: Offer to Eastern Europe (2017) 50 €/MWh

About Korea:
World Nuclear states that the price is 3,500 €/kW (electrical capacity)
This is almost twice what appears on the graph further down the page.
It can be assumed that the price was relatively lower both because funding was not a problem and because labor is cheap in the Emirates.
But this certainly does not lift the wheel when considering the big difference.
By comparison, it is claimed that China is on its way towards 1,500 €/kW
In spite of the obvious success, the Korean government (2017 July) wants to abandon Nuclear.
About Russia:
As far as this is understood, Russian policy is providing “total offer”, which includes everything, including supply of fuel throughout the life of the plant, which is expected to reach 100 years.
Russian ROSATOM currently builds 8 nuclear power plants in Russia and 33 in other countries.
About China: Chinese nuclear power can be built in 5-6 years, and many are built.
40 until now and 20 more are under construction.
This can be done in a poor country.
About EPR, which will be built, including two in England:
From the outset, the ambitious reactor (EPR) has been a disaster with requirements for safety against near-fictional events, high budget overruns and delays.
More further down.

But still: WHY?

The following is an attempt to summarize what I think are the main reasons.

  • In what we, a bit sketchy, call the West, nuclear power became the object of hate, with never-ending  unjustified claims and demands for ever more security.
    – – – You may remember how, long time ago, it was
    – – – demanded that a man should go with a red flag in front
    – – – of cars to warn the pedestrians.
  • Instead of putting in the heels and explain that what is known and already used, nuclear has an exceptional good safety-record
    Based on operational data.
  • Yes, so they gave in, saying something in the direction of:
    “Well, if it is so important, then we may do this as well”.

In my opinion, this is here you planted the seeds of future catastrophic high price.

  • Before long, the opponents “smelled blood” and continued with new, completely unreasonable demands.
  • In Europe, as opposed to e.g. Korea and to some extent also the US, we have a precautionary principle:
    In such a way that as soon as you can say that something
    might be dangerous
    then it will be prohibited until it is proven that it is not dangerous.
    Except noise from windturbines.
  • This sounds somehow reassuring but can also be used to make exorbitant demands, most about 100% security against purely fictional events.
  • At the same time it puts the burden of proof on the accused and requires “negative proof”, something that, strictly speaking, is impossible.
    Requirements for 100% security are also against the laws of logic.
    But it is often made when “just being” against.
  • Although it can not be said to be relevant to the safety of future European nuclear power, the accidents at Chernobyl and later Fukushima, were highlighted and used as “evidence” that nuclear power will always be dangerous.


France, along with Germany, wanted to show that they were the true leaders and developed the new reactor EPR.
It should be the future reactor – Generation III

Such a single reactor will provide about as much electricity as all the Danish wind turbines TOTAL.

It should be cheaper and better.
It should be able to use
– Burn – waste from previous reactors.

In this way it is hoped to solve one of the many
non-existent problems.
Finland, where they needed more nuclear power, should be what turned out to be a very expensive test case. Olkiluoto-3

  • Soon you see endless delays and allegations of poor work from various subcontractors.
  • Overruns and eventually costs for sharing the responsibilities.
  • Germany had long since pulled out and the French supplier regrets bitterly.
  • In Finland, you become tired of waiting.
    They break the political kollationen with the green and start negotiating with Russia.
    They can supply some of the “old and familiar” (Hanhikivi-1) and would like to get influence.
  • Then:
    As the first green Party in Europe, the Greens in Finland see the realities and are in favor of nuclear (2018)
  • Countries who have just freed themselves from Russian domination, will have to go to Russia to extend their energy supply.
  • Turkey, Bangladesh and several other countries also go to Russia to get help.


  • England began to understand that something had to be done.
    Aparently they were afraid of the usual criticism and did not dare anything, but to go forward with two new reactors:
    EPR also from Areva.
    They will hopefully meet all safety requirements – both real and fictional.
  • Perhaps for fear of being treated like in Germany the supplier required a very high guaranteed price for the electricity to be supplied.
  • Although the price (124 €/MWh) is prohibitively high, it is still less than what is paid for other non-polluting energy.
  • Along with Austria, Greenpeace adopts a case before the European Court and promises to do everything for it to be as expensive and delaied as possible.
  • Due to EU obligations to private capital, China comes into the picture as an investor.

While we wait, so the improper discussion goes on.


  • The disastrous delays in Finland is used as proof that nuclear power (always) will require an inordinate amount of construction time.
  • It is sidestepped that in China and Korea comply with schedules – Five years or less.
  • The long negotiation process before you could begin actual work on the UK EPR is counted as “construction” so that everyone can understand how the time for building will eventually be disastrously long.
  • In the meantime China finish their first EPR reactor after nine years. (From first concrete to first power).
    In China nine years is a long time.

China will take over
While we in the West sit and bite our nails the market is taken over by Russia, Korea and China.
Maybe because they have been able to say to Greenpeace and others something like the following:
“Will you please be quiet when you do not know what you’re talking about.”
As senior engineer Kampman said to the “famous” architect Arne Jakobsen.

I sat in the drawing-office and can attest that everything went up in a mess as Kampman died.


  • There are many indications that this very ambitious design (EPR) was not actually worked out before you started. (Critical Path)
  • Apart from a popular demand, there are not many reasons for the many extra / redundant safety measures.
  • At this stage it is difficult to find technical reasons for the desire to utilize existing waste instead of leaving it until one has better knowledge or have a real need to use it.

But no matter what, you have been able to plan a more regular production in Russia, China and Korea.


If the aim is to make it difficult and expensive, then demolishing after use will be a good item.
The hopeles discussions after the German clousure can be compared to the costs in France.

From the big world

nuclear-costs-against-date-of-construction-start It is seen that Russia and China are missing.
Maybe because in a “state economy”, you can not or will not give information about prices.

A very detailed assessment on Alternative Energy/Nuclear Power
explains the large cost-fluctuations between 1975 and 1985
These are reactors that were under construction at the same time as the hysteria after the accident on the Three Mile Island. (1975)

Some countries like the U.S., Canada, Japan and W Germany responded to the Three Mile Island accident by imposing regulations that pushed construction costs through the roof, while France, S Korea and India did not.

Click at the little square to see how the hysteria influenced the developments in USA but not in France.

zz Kina.png

From the same source, this chart shows that poor countries like Russia, and especially China, have both the resources and the willingness to move forward.

The above about the price development after the accident at Tree Mile Island is confirmed by Vikipedia, which among other things writes:
Large and rapid increases in costs occurred in the 1970s, especially in the United States.
There was no new construction of nuclear reactors between 1979 and 2012 in the United States.

Some loose details

  • The usual rule of thumb for nuclear power is that about two thirds of the generation cost is accounted for by fixed costs: Construction and finansiering.
  • To avoid that an un-planned closure will spread as a domino effect through the network, each device should not have a capacity of more than 10% of what is further online.
  • The average construction period for new reactors starting up in 2015 was 73 months, compared to 127 months of 2014.
  • In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are considerably reduced because of streamlined licensing and certification procedures.
  • Russia has accumulated a large export.
    Probably because they are cheap.
  • From Wikipedia is quoted as follows:
    The price of new plants in China is falling rapidly, approaching
    $ 1500/kW
  • In June 2008 it is estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $ 7000/kW in final cost.
    A little more than four times what you can get by with in China.

From another post, also in Wikipedia, is quoted as follows:
The AP1000 is a pressurized water reactor with two cooling loops, planned two produce a net power output of 1117 MW
A design aim was to be less expensive to build than other Generation III Designs.
Using existing technology, and needing less components than competing designs that have three or four cooling loops.
black[The EPR has four cooling loops.]
The design decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves.
Standardization and type-licensing will also help reducing the time and cost of construction.

Because of its simplified design compared to a Westinghouse PWR generation II, the AP1000 has:
—– • 50% Fewer safety-related valves
—– • 35% Fewer pumps
—– • 80% less safety-related piping
—– • 85% less control cable
—– • 45% less seismic building volume
—– • 80% less concrete and reinforcement
The AP1000 design is considerably more compact in land usage than most existing PWRs. [Pressurized Water Reactors]
According to NRC, [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]
the plants will be orders of magnitude safer than plants in the last study.
The AP1000 will have a maximum core damage frequency of
5 × 10 ^ -7 per plant per year.
Of course, there has been criticism based on alleged safety concerns.
We are waiting for reality / prices.

The highly successful Korean reactor APR 1400 has, like the AP1000, two independent cooling systems and a calculated Core Damage Frequency less than 10 ^ -5 / year
Corresponding to a return period of 100,000 years
This is less than the very expensive EPR to be built in the UK, also less than the above-mentioned AP1000
For the record I repeat that a core meltdown will, in all probability / experience, not result in injuries.

Maybe that’s why

From The Energy Collective I quote as follows:
The current policy, which aims to appease public concern rather than educate / explain the radiation has caused that plans for new nuclear power plants has been stifled by unwarranted law-given obstacles and escalating costs, resulting in non-competitive energy prices and increased emissions of CO2.
The natural reaction has been to improve the physical security of reactors further.
Unfortunately, attempts are desperately to applying the wrong solution and thereby drive costs up.
Absolutely no reason.
This is the story of Hinkley C, maybe, that is designed to be safe beyond the limits of what is buildable, economic / objectively necessary.

My conclusion

In conclusion to the above, I would argue that nuclear power has been tricked / forced into a costly security level that far exceeds what is reasonable and what you see / require from other sources of energy.

To avoid misunderstanding, I emphasize that noise damage from wind turbines naturally shoul be included in an assessment of the damage.
In turn, the potential damage from radiation has been wildly exaggerated.


Before calling for and implementing corresponding costly extra safety of other energy sources, the recurring demands for more security at nuclear power can best be described as redundant or rather:
Conscious Devastating.


It is beyond doubt that these demands for costly redundant safety has contributed to the looming climate catastrophe.

In my opinion, the problem occurred after a rampant and skillful propaganda where everything just smelling of nuclear or radioactive contamination is done to be a major risk.

What then?

It is easy to be wise after the event. But we must urgently do something to pull the chestnuts out of the fire.
We – what is superficial called the West – We must recognize that the expensive and advanced EPR reactor was a mistake with hopelessly many obsolete and very expensive security measures.
——– If you, my unknown reader, are reluctant to accept the term
——– REDUNDANT SAFETY I ask you to go to another page:
——– (Unnecessary) Safety of Nuclear Power.

Western nuclear is in Deep Troubles.


We – England and others – have to bite the bullet and negotiate with Korea, Russia or China and get help to move on.
For the same money you need to pay the two planned EPR reactors, one can get familiar and proven reactors – with a capacity three times as much.

These “Generation II+ reactors”, that have been exported from Korea, will have a security that far surpasses what you see at other energy sources.
The only serious potential accidents will be in connection with a core meltdown.
Return period for this serious accident is calculated to be 100,000 years.
Far more than the 15,000 years that has been experienced with existing reactors.
Despite all talks, the many existing reactors are running fine.
Even such a core meltdown will in all likelihood / experience not be associated with release of radioactive material and will hardly cause injuries.

What the hell are we waiting for ?

Yes we are waiting for the public to understand that we have been mislead by “The Green”.

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.

Desværre må det konstateres at priser for energi er skævvredet således at det tilsyneladende er umuligt at forsyne samfundet med kraft og varme uden tilskud og reguleringer.

IMF citeres således for at ca. 6,5 % af verdens gross domestic product (GDP) bruges til subsidier for fossil energi. $ 10 millioner per minut.


Som en konsekvens af et politisk ønske giver man i Europa meget store tilskud til energi fra sol og vind.

Low hanging fruits.png Al tale om at plukke de lavest hængende frugter først, bliver hurtigt overdøvet af et politisk ønske om at favorisere bestemte energikilder.

Derved bliver spotprisen på elektricitet så lav at eksisterende traditionelle kraftværker ikke bliver rentable selv om de egentligt er velfungerende.
Det omtales sjældent at kernekraft er pålagt en særlig brændsels-skat både i Tyskland og i Sverige.

  • For at opretholde forsyningen har man, specielt i Tyskland, givet store tilskud specielt til solenergi og alligevel været nødt til at udvide brug af brunkul.
    Dette har givet anledning til store miljøskader; både ved den nødvendige strip-mining og på grund af stærkt øget udledning af drivhusgasser.
    Mere, specielt om Tysklands kvaler: Se her.
  • I England diskuteres en urimeligt dyr nyskabelse (EPR)
    Her bliver man chikaneret af Østrig og specielt af Greenpeace, der af principielle grunde er modstandere af kernekraft og har anlagt sag ved EU-domstolen.
    Om ikke andet kan man fordyre og forsinke.
  • Specielt i Danmark gives stadigvæk store, og vel karmuflerede, tilskud til vindkraft i ønsket om at det kan blive det bærende element i den fremtidige forsyning.
  • I de Østeuropæiske lande, der har fået politisk selvstændighed, var det en betingelse for at komme ind i EU at man lukkede flere velfungerende kernekraftværker.
    Alligevel søger man at opbygge en realistisk forsyning, også med kernekraft – Nu med kendt russisk design og tilsyneladende en realistisk pris.

Sol og Vind

Det er stadigvæk urimeligt dyrt. Men den egentlige udfordring er at opretholde en stabil forsyning og lagre den nødvendige energi til brug om natten eller ved vindstille.
Som det ses af ovenstående link er det i realiteten kun reguleret vandkraft der kan lagre de enorme energimængder.

  • I Danmark opretholdes forsyningen ved hjælp fra Sverige og specielt fra Norge.
  • I Tyskland, hvor behovet er meget større, har det foreløbigt vist sig muligt at skaffe tilstrækkeligt ”grøn backup” om vinteren.
    Hvis altså et øget brug af brunkul kan kaldes grøn.


Lige meget hvad, er det umuligt at opretholde det moderne samfund uden en sikker forsyning med kraft og varme.
Med den øgede andel af den uforudsigelige energi fra sol og vind er der nye og store udfordringer.
Det bliver nødvendigt at lagre energi, og der er tale om meget store energimængder.

  • Kun Norge har tilstrækkeligt vandkraft til at klare vinterforbruget.
    I Schweitz, Sverige, Finland og i Østrig er der en del reguleret vandkraft, der kan sættes ind efter behov.

Ud over reguleret vandkraft er der ingen økonomisk set realistiske muligheder for at lagre energi.

  • Uden naturlige muligheder for pumped storage vil prisen blive urimelig høj.
  • Der tales meget om batterier, men det vil være udenfor økonomisk rækkevide at bruge det til andet end “lidt lokalt”.
    Naturligvis også til biler og skibe (færger.)
  • Den megen tale om ‘sådan bare’ at lagre hydrogen er tilsyneladende forstummet.
  • Man er begyndt at træffe aftaler om ”standby forsyning” (England) og ”afbrydelige industrier” (Tyskland).
  • I samarbejde med Siemens i Tyskland arbejdes på at udvikle energilagring i form af “termisk lagring”.
    Desværre vil en lav virkningsgrad sandsynligvis ødelægge økonomien.

De sociale aspekter

Det må ikke glemmes at selv i de rige lande vil halvdelen af befolkningen være på grænsen til at være fattige.
Dette taler imod at bruge høje priser til at regulere forbruget.
Afhængigt af politisk ståsted kan dette tale for den gamle planøkonomi.


I det man lidt overfladisk kalder ’Vesten’ gik man i panik efter ulykken ved Tree Mile Island.
Kun Frankrig og Korea kunne holde hovedet koldt.
Således har kernekraft ikke bare været inde på en skadelig slingrekurs, men også haft kraftig modstand, der måske kan skyldes et systematisk korstog mod spøgelser.
(Se også Atomkraft hvad er forkert? og Greenpeace og A-kraft.)

  • I hvert fald i Danmark er elektrisk energi blevet et beskatnings-objekt medens udvalgte energiformer modtager rigelige tilskud.

Dette, og meget mere, har uden tvivl sat meget dybe spor i udviklingen.

Lidt overfladisk kan det siges at man ikke kan få det hele:
– Tilfredsstille de tilbagevendende og urimelige krav om ’mere sikkerhed’.
– Fortsætte med det man kendte og således få nye anlæg til en rimelig
– Naturligvis behøver man ikke at gå på kompromis med sikkerheden.

Traditionel Kulkraft

Med untagelse af enkelte lande er kulkraft stadigvæk det bærende element i forsyningen.
I Polen har tilskud til kulkraft udviklet sig til at være en politisk nødvendighed.
Ellers er det specielt udenfor EU at der gives store tilskud til kulkraft.


Det angives at 21 % af Europas elektricitet produceres ved vandkraft.
Enkelte lande har megen vandkraft og kan nyde godt af samarbejde med andre, som fx Danmark, der har brug for reguleret energi, der kan sættes ind efter behov.
Desværre er der mest brug for dette om vinteren når der ikke er så megen regn til at fylde lagrene.


Også her er kulkraft det bærende element i energiforsyningen.

  • I lighed med Europa har der været chikaneagtgie kampagner og urimelige krav så snart der tales om kernekraft.
  • I dag rides der højt på en bølge af skiffergas, der foreløbigt er både billig og rigelig.
    Der tales om miljøskader.
    Hvis man kun ser på udledning af CO2 er det kun halvt så forurenende som fx kulkraft.
  • I modsætning til Europa er energi i USA ikke et beskatnings-objekt og følgeligt er energipriserne væsentligt lavere.

Kernekraft i de nye lande

I Rusland, Kina, Korea, Indien og i andre lande, er der ikke en tradition for at sige NEJ – NEJ – NEJ til alt nyt og hvor man ikke ‘sådan bare’ kommer med evige modsigelser og klager.
Der har det været muligt at begynde en realistisk brug af kernekraft.

I skarp kontrast til de gamle veletablerede lande i Europa og USA arbejdes der verden over på at komme fremad og få billig og stabil energi.
Dette gælder mest for “de østlige lande”, men også for lande der tidligere var under Russisk indflydelse.


Foreløbigt eksporteres fire reaktorer til UAE for en pris langt under halvdelen af det, det betales i England for den omstridte EPR.


Kina er i fuld gang med at forbedre deres energiforsyning, med udbygning af vandkraft og kernekraft. Naturligvis også sol og vind.
I følge egne oplysninger er prisen på ny kernekraft på linie med den fra Korea – måske lavere.
Samtidigt er Kina førende i udvikling at kernekraft med brug af thorium
i forbindelse med smeltet salt.


Udover traditionel kernekraft arbejdes på at udvikle et andet system til udnyttelse af thorium.


Nok på grund af den store modstand, specielt fra Tyskland, er Rusland det sted hvor Østeuropæiske lande måtte ty hen for få hjælp til både teknik og finansiering.


På verdensplan er der 436 reaktorer i drift, og 233 er “under construction” eller “on order or planned”.
Langt hovedparten af disse kommende reaktorer er til det der kaldes “developing countries” eller lande, der fornyligt har fået politisk uafhængighed efter opløsningen af det gamle Soviet.

Anden CO2-fri energi

I stedet for at gå i detaljer henviser jeg til en anden og mere dybtgående post:

Oversigt over fundne data

bla – Billigste ny-opførte landvindmøller: 67 €/MWh
bla – Tyske landvindmøller: 100 €/MWh
bla – Nye store offshore vindmølleparker: 190 €/MWh
bla – Horns Rev lll (Danmark): 103 €/MWh
bla – Tilbud for
bla – Billigste kernekraft fra ’gamle anlæg’ (Sverige): 26 €/MWh
bla – Billigste kernekraft fra nye kraftværker (Korea): 27 €/MWh
bla – Dyreste kernekraft (Hinkley Point C): 124 €/MWh
bla – Solenergi Tyskland: 110 €/MWh
bla – Typisk spotpris på Nordpol El marked: 30 €/MWh
bla – Whole-sale price i England: 66 €/MWh
(Denne store afvigelse kan måske forklares ved at ’gammel svensk kernekraft’ og specielt norsk vandkraft har været billig.)
bla – Og nu (2017), helt anderledes billigt: Kriegers Flak 53 €/MWh
bla Naturligvis plus det vi prøver at glemme: Backup.

2018-08-20 oplyses følgende fra Tyskland
Den netop overståede tredje landvindauktion i år endte med en pris på 61,6 euro per megawatt time mod tidligere auktioner i år, der endte på henholdsvis 57,3 euro per megawatt time i maj og 47,3 euro per megawatt time i februar.

Det hele bliver forkludret af at
bla – Den upålidelige, såkaldt vedvarende, energi er mindre værd.
bla – I Danmark er priserne eksklusivt transformatorstationer
– bla og kabler til landføring.

Energi fra sol og vind har ’prioritet til nettet’ og behøver ikke at sælge til den øjeblikkelige markedspris og vil således yderligere ødelægge økonomien for traditionelle kraftværker, der er bygget til at køre uden mange tilfældige afbrydelser.
Derudover er der udgifter til systemomkostninger (hovedsageligt back up)
Med stor markedsandel for vind og specielt for sol, vil dette blive en stærkt tyngende udgift.
Også her henviser jeg til det, der findes på
I realiteten bliver disse omkostninger ’sådan bare’ betalt af ’de andre’ (Nettet).
Således bliver prisbilledet yderligere skævvredet.

Efter nærlæsning af ovenstående data bliver det lettere at forstå hvorfor det svenske Vattenfall overvejede at førtidspensionere gamle kernekraftværker i stedet for at opgradere og betale ekstra “atomskat”.
Selv om det har været fremhævet at man, efter tilskudsperiodens ophør, vil få billig og konkurrencedygtig strøm, er realiteterne noget andet:
Gode vindmøller nedtages og sælges til andre lande.
Når tilskudsperioden udløber, vil der således blive plads til nyt og nye tilskud.
Nu (2017) er det endog ved at blive noget der prales af.


I et fortvivlet forsøg på at argumentere for fri konkurrence og ærlig prisfastsættelse har jeg prøvet at vurdere muligheder og udfordringer i forbindelse med det der optimistisk kaldes smart grid.

Priser i Europa

Pris for EL versus installed VE.png

På en måde er ovenstående diagram misvisende.
bla – Uden at omtale udnyttelsesgraden er det uden mening at omtale
bla “Installeret kapacitet”, fx for tysk solenergi (PV),
bla der i dette tilfælde er det kun ca. 12%
bla – Uden at omtale skatter og afgifter er det også uden mening at
bla omtale den pris der betales af forbrugerne.

Alligevel noteres følgende:
bla – Tyskland og Danmark, der vil frigøre sig fra A-kraft brillerer med en
bla med en forbrugerpris, der er det dobbelte af gennemsnit for
bla -</span de ti billigste lande.
bla – Ni andre lande ligger tæt op af “de billige.”

En grundig, og tilsyneladende ærlig, vurdering af priser og tilskud i EU findes her:


På en måde kan det siges at al den hurlumhej går tilbage til omkostninger.
Her også CO2/kWh
Nogle sporadiske oplysninger findes i forbindelse med en vurdering af et forfejlet vindeventyr i Syd Australien.
Herfra følgende:
Diesel vil udlede omtrent 0,745kg CO2/kWh.
Dette kan sammenlignes med brunkul: 0,98 kg of CO2/kWh
Naturgas: 0,555kg of CO2/kWh. (Lidt over det halve)
Atomkraft: næsten nul.

Fra The Energy Collective haves data fra 2016:
Tyskland genererede 545 TWh og udledte ca. 0,560 kg of CO2/kWh
Frankrig genererede 530 TWh og udledte ca. 0,058 kg of CO2/kWh

Tilsvarende fås fra en anden kilde:
CO2 per kWh

Reduktion og Kyoto-aftalen

Ofte fremhæves at Frankrig halter bagud med hensyn til Kyoto-aftalen medens Tyskland har reduceret udledningen.
På en måde ligger svaret lige for:
Frankrig havde udbygget med atomkraft og opfylde således kravene i Kyoto-aftalen før reference-året 1990
Naturligvis er det svært at reducere yderligere når man allerede havde reduceret mere end det der stadigvæk er målet.
Andre lande havde en stor forurening at reducere fra.

Det bliver dyrt.

De danske vismænd anslår at Den Grønne Omstilling vil koste 16 mia. kroner.
Desværre er artiklens indhold ikke tilgængeligt.

På spørgsmålet “Hvad det har kostet” har jeg følgende:
Men mon ikke vi nærmer os 200 mia kr – et slag på tasken???

Fra The New York Times dec. 25, 2017 refererer jeg:
Tyskland har brugt 200 milliarder dollar i løbet af de sidste to årtier for at fremme Renere energikilder.

Ordet Renere er fremhævet fordi tysk elektricitet bestemt ikke er renere.


For at undgå misforståelser fremhæver jeg at jeg vil være taknemmelig for kommentarer eller påvisning af faktuelle fejl, der naturligvis vil blive rettet.

Skriv til

Og en tak til Berthel Lohmann Andersen for en god og saglig vurdering af det ømtålelige emne: Fremtidens Strømpris. (2015)

Hilsner og god tænkepause fra
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.

I Danmark er det et politisk ønske at forsyningen med energi hovedsageligt skal baseres på vindkraft.
Således er der ingen tvivl om at Danmark er blevet det førende land når det drejer sig om udvikling of brug af vindkraft.

I forbindelse med dette fremkommer der naturligvis nye udfordringer, der er forsøgt behandlet i det følgende.

Samarbejde mellem sol og vind

Ofte fremhæves at sol og vind supplerer hinanden således at når der er lidt vind, vil der være megen sol.
Et prikdiagram side 48 afliver desværre også denne myte.

Samarbejde mellem sol + vind og kernekraft

I Tyskland, såvel som i Danmark, har sol og vind prioritet til nettet.
Således har der været et ønske om at regulere belastningen på tysk kernekraft, der skulle være backup for den variable sol og vind.
Resultatet blev at en reaktor blev delvis ødelagt.

Men hvis man, som ønsket, ‘sådan bare’ lader kernekraft køre lastfølge for sol og vind – Ja så risikerer man Xenon forgiftning og en kernenedsmeltning, hvor der, i modsætning til Tjernobyl, vil være en reaktorindeslutning til at begrænse skaderne.

På netavisen nuClear News No.105 March 2018, der normalt er imod A-kraft, finder man en interessant artikel:
Load Following with Nuclear Power.
Som næsten altid forudsættes at sol og vind (selvfølgeligt) skal have prioritet til nettet.
Emnet er tilsyneladende at vise det vi alle sammen vidste:
A-kraft er ikke egnet til at virke som backup for sol og vind.
Det ubesvarede spørgsmål er Hvad så ?

Fra netavisen refererer jeg det vi alle sammen ved:
Hvis sol og vind skal arbejde sammen med kernekraft – Ja så bliver der behov for mere forurenende kraftkilder som backup.
Det hævdes og begrundes at specielt gaslobbyen støttede sol og vind fordi der så ville være behov for pålideligt backup.

Backup og Forsyningssikkerhed

Danmark er i den heldige position at vi er et lille land og kan få hjælp fra gode naboer.
Det må dog erindres at både England og Tyskland bejler til norsk vandkraft og at prisen for denne hjælp kan forventes at følge markedsvilkårene.

Men lige meget hvad, så kan Danmark ikke klare problemet uden
massiv hjælp udefra.

På en måde er det kun et spørgsmål om det ikke bliver Tyskland, der
først må smide håndklædet i ringen og opgive de grønne planer.

Der tales meget om at udbygge med mere vandkraft og forbinde Europa med et stærkt net af højspændingsledninger.
I denne sammenhæng må det ikke glemmes at der ikke er mange uudnyttede muligheder for vandkraft.
Specielt ikke hvis det skulle være reguleret, for slet ikke at tale om pumped storage.
Desuden er, i hvert fald den Nordeuropæiske vind, stort set synkroniceret.

Selv om det er mere relevant for Tyskland end for Danmark, nævnes følgende:
Med mindre der er adgang til næsten uendeligt store lagre vil flaskehalsen for lagring af energi være produktionskapaciteten af den ”vedvarende” energi, der skal være så rigelig, at lagrene kan fyldes når der er mulighed.
Også når denne ‘mulighed’ er kortvarig.
Dette behandles af en artikel på The Energy Collective.
Her angives at produktionskapaciteten af VE skal være op til syv gange gennemsnitsbehovet.

Skriften på væggen – The duck curve

Duck curve result (2)
Ovenstående viser udviklingen i det sydlige USA.
Det er nemt at se hvorledes den glade og substituerede investering i solceller har ødelagt priserne.
Umiddelbart vil det naturligvis være glædeligt at se hvorledes CO2 fri energi fortrænger den forurenende energi fra kul og olie.

Men det ses også, at den nødvendige backup er under hårdt præs således at investeringerne skal tjenes ind i de korte tidsrum, hvor der er ikke er solskin og alligevel behov for energi.
Næsten al denne nødvendige backup vil blive baseret på naturgas, der er billig og ikke kræver store investeringer.
Men til gengæld ikke er “grøn” – men med forurening fra drivhusgasser.

Fra The Economist (2017) citerer jeg:
Paradoksalt nok betyder det, at jo mere stater støtter vedvarende energi, des mere betaler de også til konventionelle kraftværker, der får hjælp i form af “kapacitetsbetalinger” for at undgå “black outs”.

Syd Australien

Måske kommer det best frem med det følgende.
South Australia’s green dream, or its nightmare?
Priser både stiger og fluktuerer, helt op til 6.800 €/MWh
Samtidigt besværliggør den store andel af vind kontrol af spænding og frekvens.
Industrien finder andre græsgange.
For at undgå “black outs” har man pludseligt (Marts 2016) fået travlt med at købe diesel-generatorer før det kommende valg.

Med fanfarer refererer BBC (2017) at Tesla vil opføre et batteri med 100 MW ydeevne og en kapacitet på 129 MWh
Det lyder imponerende og er næsten fem gange større end tidligere batterier fra Tesla.
Der findes intet om prisen, men fremtidige langvarige blackouts vil have en stor politisk pris for det grønne flertal.
En tilhænger af kernekraft vil naturligvis fremhæve at 129 MWh kun dækker en time og tyve minutter med 100 MW belastning.
Og at 100 MW, selv om det lyder af meget, vil det i realiteten kun være en dråbe i havet.
For at gnide mere salt i såret nævnes at de opreklamerede 100 MW er mindre end en tiendedel af det der produceres 24-7-365 på et moderne kernekraftværk.

Naturligvis er der kritiske indlæg.
Fra The Energy Collective citerer jeg:
– – – Mennesker falder over hinanden for at lovprise den magiske
– – – mand Elon Musk og hans batteriers absurditet.
– – – Han er den sidste redningsplanke for at få det grønne lys fra
– – – øko-fanatikere.

Men også optimisme.
På dette lange indlæg vises hvorledes verdens energiforsyning kan klares uden kernekraft og (næsten) uden forurening.
Her behandles verdens behov for Litium.


I England gives en speciel støtte til “pålidelig energi”, der omfatter kernekraft men ikke fx sol og vind.
Som det kan forventes er “De Grønne” imod.

Hvis man ser det med de negative briller, så vil man betegne den stigende andel af solenergi som en Gøgeunge, der først får hjælp til at skubbe de andre ud af reden, men så senere ikke kan klare sig uden hjælp fra de andre, dem der i mellemtiden er døde af sult.

En lang vurdering om solenerg:

Netavisen The Energy Collective skriver (2017 feb) at privat solenergi er for dyrt til at måles!
Denne kryptiske udtalelse dækker over et gavmildt og vel karmufleret system af tilskud.
Men der skrives meget.

Hvor meget drejer det sig om?

Fra en lang og grundig artikel med den malende titel
“Forskere har underestimeret omkostningerne ved sol og vind”
haves nedenstående.wind-and-solar-as-pct-of-total-electricity-supply
De lave værdier overrasker, men forklares med at andel af sol og vind normalt angives som “Installeret Effekt”, der ikke tager hensyn til at
fx solen kun giver energi mindre end 8 timer om dagen.

En optimistisk side giver 2018 følgende, der viser at på verdensplan er “De Vedvarende” trods alt en mindre del af forsyningen.
Vind: 5% Sol: 2%

Specielt for Danmark har Paul-Frederik Bach givet en grundig oversigt.

De skjulte udgifter

Lige meget hvordan det vendes og drejes kan samfundet ikke ‘sådan bare’ lade stå til og negligere ”Alt det løse” (backup, net-tilslutning og andet)
Hvis man exterpolerer på data fra OECD, og tager gennemsnittet for flere lande fås følgende:
Ved 60 % andel af vindkraft vil dette beløbe sig til ca. 25 €/MWh
Ved 30 % andel af solenergi vil dette beløbe sig til ca. 30 €/MWh
Danmark har gode naboer og foreløbigt bliver dette nok mere aktuelt for Tyskland.

For Danmark, der gerne vil have indtægter fra turister, er følgende måske alarmerende:
Selv om vindmøller er ti km fra kysten betyder det tab af indtægter ved udlejning af sommerhuse i USA


Når man taler om kernekraft bliver man ofte mødt med den forargede udtalelse: Men hvad med affaldsproblemet?
Ved nærmere eftersyn viser det sig at solceller efterlader 300 gange mere affald end kernekraft.
De udtjente solceller hober sig “sådan bare” op.
Til gengæld behandles “Atomaffald” forsvarligt og bliver oftest genbrugt.

Tilpasning til forbrug

Så længe energi fra sol og vind ikke er dominerende, eller snarende hvis der er tilstrækkeligt med regulerbar grundlast – hovedsageligt vandkraft – kan energi fra sol og vind gnidningsfrit indgå som del af systemet.
Dette er til en vis grad gældende for Danmark, hvor vi nyder godt, specielt af norsk vandkraft.

Støj og plads for landbaserede vindmøller

Uden at udsætte flere uskyldige mennesker for alvorlige og veldokumenterede skader, vil der næppe blive plads til en egentlig forøgelse af antallet af landbaserede vindmøller.
Desværre har dette meget alvorlige problem ikke den nødvendige politiske interesse.

Havbaserede Vindmøller

Selv om der ikke skal tages hensyn til nabogener, er det svært at se hvorledes der skal blive plads til de mange møller, der bliver nødvendige hvis de grønne planer skal realiseres.
Der skal naturligvis gives plads til både olieudvinding og skibsfart.
Selv om der tales om flydende møller vil den egentlige udfordring vil være vanddybder og bundforhold.
På en anden side har jeg forsøgt at vurdere udfordringerne vedrørende priser og behov for plads.


På trods af mange fugle, der ikke engang er på taget, er vindkraft stadigvæk dyr.
Produktionspriser er forsøgt behandlet på en anden side.
Efter min mening søges dette karmufleret, nok mest ved at de store tilskud betegnes som værende nødvendige for det der stadigvæk betegnes som “Den Store Grønne Omstilling”, der hel klart har udviklet sig til at blive Permanent.

Selv om der ikke er tale om de helt store udgifter, bliver “alt det løse” betalt udover den officielle støtteordning (PSO)


Der håbes meget og skrives endnu mere om bioethanol eller andet, kan produceres ved at udnytte den overskydende elektricitet.
Foreløbigt må det konstateres at der stadigvæk er lang vej at gå før produktion af bioethanol kan blive økonomisk bæredygtig
Maj 2016 er der kommet beregninger, der viser at CO2-regnskabet for bioethanol er katastrofalt negativt.
Naturligvis kommer der et modsvar.


I modsætning til Danmark arbejder man i Tyskland på at gøre solenergi til det bærende element i den grønne omstilling. (Energiewende)
Foreløbigt har man et par gange haft så megen produktion at spotprisen blev negativ.
Tysk solkraft variation
Dette viser at den kommende, meget alvorlige, udfordring  vil blive at hvis man fortsat ønsker at bruge solenergi til at dække en væsentlig del af behovet om vinteren.
Ja så vil der uvægerligt være katastrofal overproduktion om sommeren.
Derudover er det svært at forestille sig hvorledes man i Tyskland kan finde den nødvendige backup til forsyning om natten.


Selv om der tales meget om “Smart Gid” og fri prisdannelse, er det svært at se realiteterne.
Således bliver næsten al den stærkt varierende, såkaldt vedvarende, energi afregnet til faste og stærkt substituerede priser.
Dette gøres helt uafhængigt af den øjeblikkelige markedspris, der til tider er negativ.
I Tyskland har man valgt at betale vindmølleejere for at standse driften, når der, med mellemrum, er for meget af det gode.

Dette skal ses i sammenhæng med at det stiltiende forudsættes at de traditionelle kraftværker ‘sådan bare’ skal stå til rådighed og “rage kastanjerne ud af ilden” for de andre.
Til tider skal der således skrues ned for produktionen, for nogle gange at ligge helt stille.
For så, på et senere tidspunkt – Ja så forudsættes det stiltiende at de kan levere den nødvendige lastfølge. Naturligvis uden subsidier.

Tænk engang hvis det var omvendt.

Udover de oplagte økonomiske hensyn må det ikke glemmes at traditionelle kulkraftværker ikke “sådan bare” kan skrue op og ned for belastningen uden at kraftværket slides unødigt.
For atomkraft gælder det desuden at Xenon-forgiftning gør det umuligt at genstarte indtil et par dage efter en ned-lukning.
– – Meget tyder på, at da det gik galt ved Tjernobyl, så var det fordi
– – dette blev ignoreret da den politisk ansvarlige gennemtrumfede
– – en test.

Energy Return on Energy Investment
or a sort of a “benefit / cost”

En meget lang og grundig artikel behandler det ømtålelige emne:
Hvad er den reelle værdi af den varierende “vedvarende” energi?
Artiklens titel er Researchers have been underestimating the cost of wind and solar.
Udtrykket Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) er emnet for vurderingen.
Det forsøges at vurdere muligheder og omkostninger forbundet med at gøre den varierende energi brugbar.

Fra denne artikel gengives nedenstående to ‘slides’.
wind-and-solar-as-pct-of-total-electricity-supply.pngDe fleste vil undres over de meget lave værdier.
Det skyldes at når der angives (optimistiske) værdier for sol og vind, vil det oftest være den installerede effekt der opgives.
Normalt “glemmer” man at oplyse om kapacitets-faktoren, der for dansk vind sjældent når op på 50 % og for sol i Tyskland ligger omkring 10 %
In the US, wind has a median capacity factor of 31%. In California’s Mohave Desert, solar PV has a capacity factor of 23%.
Intermittent grid storage

Energy Return Of Investment - Theory

100 % Vindkraft i Europa

Net siden, der stråler af begejstring for vindkraft, giver en oversigt over den Europæiske vind.
Bearbejder man artiklens data får man imidlertid et helt anderledes dystert billede.

Efter min mening er tiden ved at løbe ud for den varierede energi.

Men tilskuddene løber videre
Solcelleparken ved Nees blev i foråret 2016 godkendt til at få statslig støtte under den tidligere 60/40-ordning, hvor solcelleprojekter er støttet med
60 øre/kWh i de første 10 år og 40 øre/kWh de næste 10 år.

Til sammenligning tjener at svensk kernekraft produceres for under 40 øre/kWh
Kernekraft er naturligvis tilgængelig 24-7-365

Hvis du er kommer så langt. Mon ikke du har brug for lidt andet.

Drøm eller Virkelighed ?

Der var engang et kongerige, der godt nok havde en dronning.
Alle de fine mænd og kvinder i landet tænkte kun på et:
”Vi skal være verdens bedste land med forureningsfri energi”.

Nogle ihærdige mennesker, og efterhånden også andre forstod hvorledes de havde fundet frem til det helt rigtige, de blev ved med at forklare at hvis man bare – – – – –
Ja så ville alt blive grønt og godt.

Disse dygtige profeter, de lukkede sig inde som en sluttet skare og skrev mange lange forklaringer, med mange tal, om deres drømmesyn sammen med fine hensigtserklæringer og flot illustrerede hjemmesider.
Og alle, der ikke kunne forstå disse geniale tanker, de var ikke egnede til at føre sig frem i den offentlige debat.

Naturligvis. Sådanne drømmesyn er ikke gratis.
De mange skiftende regeringer, de ville jo ikke stå frem som uegnede til deres høje embede, så de støttede med store bidrag, som gik til mange glorværdige projekter.

Nu en dag, det var vist kort efter nytår, skulle en ny stor handlingsplan fremlægges, og derfor var alle de kloge mennesker mødt frem for at vise hvordan de forstod det hele og hvordan alt snart skulle blive Åh så godt, så godt, så godt.
Disse mange mennesker klappede og råbte Hurra Hurra. For det skal man jo gøre.

Indtil en gammel afdanket ingeniør, der måtte støtte sig til sine stokke, spurgte: ”Hvad med pris og forsyningssikkerhed?”
Straks blev der tavshed. Men så var der en ung mand, der sagde – nej han næsten råbte – ”Der er ikke sammenhæng i de mange fine forklaringer”.

Langsomt, meget langsomt, begyndte folk at synge – først meget stille.

Hvem har lavet Hvem har lavet alt det der?
Hvem har lavet Det skal vi betale
Hvem har lavet Har man råd til det?

Til sidst var der en lille pige – måske var hun ikke helt så lille – hun spurgte spagfærdigt om noget, der var meget uartigt.
Dette kan naturligvis ikke siges højt i det pæne selskab – det kan kun hviskes: A***kraft.

Men andre begyndte at sige at man da ikke kunne komme nu og sådan sige at vi har taget fejl i 40 år – ”Det er jo længe før jeg blev født.”
Det var dog svært at høre for nu var alt blevet et stort virvar, stole og borde blev lavet til pejsebrænde og computere skulle genstartes.

Men den kloge mand, han blev ved med at tale om bæredygtighed og læse højt af de mange tal, som han nok ikke engang selv forstod.
De gode tilhørere, de kunne ikke mere høre hvad der blev sagt, men skulle alligevel gerne vise hvor dygtige man var, så de fortsatte med at nikke og klappe.

Selv dette fine pejsebrænde kan bruges som træpiller – bæredygtigt genbrug, for det var begyndt at blive koldt.

Uden copyright
Thorkil Søe

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