There has been a certain amount of online gloating prompted by a report from the Danish Energy Agency (ENS) that no offshore wind operator had responded to their request for proposals for the development of up to 10 GW of offshore wind capacity in 6 blocks.
Excellent commentary, Sir! One point to consider is that the Danish government may hesitate to underwrite projects whose main beneficiaries could be foreign investors or export markets. Explaining to taxpayers why they should shoulder the risk would be politically challenging, especially as the outlook for energy islands / hydrogen economy remains uncertain.
Thank you Gordon! For me this is very informative with a good depth. For what little it's worth, my somewhat superficial prescription for an energy transition would be an acceptance that practical and economic considerations preclude the speed of progress demanded by scientists, a drive away from coal to natural gas (accomplished in the UK), limited and manageable penetration of wind and solar (accomplished in the UK), and a focus on energy density, which means nuclear.
There are many strong arguments for nuclear generation, but I have two reservations. First, the nuclear industry in Western countries (apart from Korea) has yet to prove that it can build anything on time and budget, even in cases where regulatory changes can be taken out of the picture. This damages their case drastically. Second, the attitudes of many green organisations to nuclear power is close to being completely irrational. Their dislike of nuclear outweighs their concerns about climate change. In many countries even very small groups that are unhinged can exercise veto power by being completely obnoxious. Until governments are willing to stand up to such groups the prospects for large scale development of nuclear power may be small.
Nuclear is an expensive not-yet-ready solution to a non-existent problem. Just frack and power the grid with cheap shale gas, which is reliable and dispatchable and has 1/3rd of the CO2 emissions (for those who care) of “renewable” wood, and at least in America manifests at $3/GJ. For reference the last UK wind auction was done at $22/GJ (7 x)
To reinforce your point I have written a study of US generation costs for the National Center of Energy Analytics which should appear in the New Year. It focuses on the PJM market and calculates the annual capacity payment required to meet a standard payback investment hurdle for dispatchable power. Gas generation is by far the cheapest option. Nuclear is considerably cheaper than either wind or solar when you take account of the costs of providing the (gas) backup to meet a guaranteed level of availability.
But there is a separate issue. What are the options if we are willing to accept a trade-off between higher energy costs and reducing the impact of continuing to use gas? Nuclear power may be the best and less expensive way of making that trade-off, subject to the doubts that I have mentioned. But I am pretty sure that more large nuclear plants isn't the way to go. It may be worth funding some serious SMR options, though I don't include RR in that category.
Further to your comment Gordon, what we are observing in the US is a gas turbine boom based on the need to power AI data centres. Although the headlines are taken by nuclear, there’s not enough spare nuclear capacity and SMRs are 5 years away at best which is a lifetime in the AI arms race. So gas and specifically, cheap shale gas will win the day.
You are right. However, the electricity sector has always sought to diversify away from reliance on a single type of generation technology. Even without any pressure for use of low carbon generation, electricity utilities would want to have a reasonable quantity of ultra-reliable generating capacity. For now that is provided by existing nuclear plants but they are old - many are close to 50 years old - so in the 2030s there will be a demand for replacement nuclear capacity. No conventional nuclear plant commissioned in 2025 will come onstream before 2035-36, so the appeal of SMRs is the possibility of being able to build plants with a lead time of 5 years rather than 10+ years.
Excellent commentary, Sir! One point to consider is that the Danish government may hesitate to underwrite projects whose main beneficiaries could be foreign investors or export markets. Explaining to taxpayers why they should shoulder the risk would be politically challenging, especially as the outlook for energy islands / hydrogen economy remains uncertain.
Thank you Gordon! For me this is very informative with a good depth. For what little it's worth, my somewhat superficial prescription for an energy transition would be an acceptance that practical and economic considerations preclude the speed of progress demanded by scientists, a drive away from coal to natural gas (accomplished in the UK), limited and manageable penetration of wind and solar (accomplished in the UK), and a focus on energy density, which means nuclear.
There are many strong arguments for nuclear generation, but I have two reservations. First, the nuclear industry in Western countries (apart from Korea) has yet to prove that it can build anything on time and budget, even in cases where regulatory changes can be taken out of the picture. This damages their case drastically. Second, the attitudes of many green organisations to nuclear power is close to being completely irrational. Their dislike of nuclear outweighs their concerns about climate change. In many countries even very small groups that are unhinged can exercise veto power by being completely obnoxious. Until governments are willing to stand up to such groups the prospects for large scale development of nuclear power may be small.
Nuclear is an expensive not-yet-ready solution to a non-existent problem. Just frack and power the grid with cheap shale gas, which is reliable and dispatchable and has 1/3rd of the CO2 emissions (for those who care) of “renewable” wood, and at least in America manifests at $3/GJ. For reference the last UK wind auction was done at $22/GJ (7 x)
To reinforce your point I have written a study of US generation costs for the National Center of Energy Analytics which should appear in the New Year. It focuses on the PJM market and calculates the annual capacity payment required to meet a standard payback investment hurdle for dispatchable power. Gas generation is by far the cheapest option. Nuclear is considerably cheaper than either wind or solar when you take account of the costs of providing the (gas) backup to meet a guaranteed level of availability.
But there is a separate issue. What are the options if we are willing to accept a trade-off between higher energy costs and reducing the impact of continuing to use gas? Nuclear power may be the best and less expensive way of making that trade-off, subject to the doubts that I have mentioned. But I am pretty sure that more large nuclear plants isn't the way to go. It may be worth funding some serious SMR options, though I don't include RR in that category.
Further to your comment Gordon, what we are observing in the US is a gas turbine boom based on the need to power AI data centres. Although the headlines are taken by nuclear, there’s not enough spare nuclear capacity and SMRs are 5 years away at best which is a lifetime in the AI arms race. So gas and specifically, cheap shale gas will win the day.
You are right. However, the electricity sector has always sought to diversify away from reliance on a single type of generation technology. Even without any pressure for use of low carbon generation, electricity utilities would want to have a reasonable quantity of ultra-reliable generating capacity. For now that is provided by existing nuclear plants but they are old - many are close to 50 years old - so in the 2030s there will be a demand for replacement nuclear capacity. No conventional nuclear plant commissioned in 2025 will come onstream before 2035-36, so the appeal of SMRs is the possibility of being able to build plants with a lead time of 5 years rather than 10+ years.