Just use nuclear to charge the batteries for peak demand.
The new generation designs leave almost no waste. What waste is generated can be reused repeatedly until something nearly inert is left.
Manhattan Contrarian ping
“Don’t be fooled. As far as I know, “biofuels” mainly means burning garbage, with some wood pellets from cutting down trees thrown into the mix.”
I think it’s primarily wood pellets from forests being cut down in Estonia and other Eastern European countries.
Talk about DECEPTION!
“For their virtue, the Danes got to enjoy average residential electricity prices of 37.63 euro cents per kWh.”
Roughly 3 times the average price in the US, by the way.
Nuclear actually makes sense. It produces large amounts of electricity and is reliable unlike wind and solar. Its also much cheaper in the long run. Not that I believe in Gaia worship, but it also produces no carbon emissions. Its also a source that is directly under the control of the national government in any country - ie they don’t have imports of fuel anybody could cut off and they don’t need to worry about price spikes for energy.
That is a very good article. Thanks for posting.
It is taking the world a LONG time to wake up to reality of the folly of “renewables.”
The author asked a couple of key questions:
1. “Do wind and solar actually serve any real function here?”
2. “Are they just a large added cost without any corresponding benefit?”
Yes, they allow government and uneducated boobs to convince themselves “we are doing SOMETHING to solve the climate crisis and save the earth.” They get to feel smug and pat themselves on the back.
The author discussed the overall system reliability and why conventional generation is required for reliable, low cost power. He did not touch on the looming environment disasters of “renewables” at the end of their 20-30 year lives or the ridiculous and staggering amounts of scarce materials needed to build them.
You have to see cost to consumers for each. In the USA, gas is still the best way to go.
Makes sense. Doesn’t really get more green than nuclear power.
The immediate impetus for the resolution appears to have been the recent blackout in Spain and Portugal, which has been generally attributed to the lack of synchronous generation on the power grids of those countries.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Denmark has links to Sweden and Norway and of course with Germany since they share a ground border with them. I was curious to see how things shaped up with ‘import and export of electrical energy’ and this data is from 2023….
The numbers are the imported and exported electrical energy in TWh....
Country Imports Exports
Sweden 8.54 1.47
Norway 5.60 (very small/negligible)
Germany 2.45 9.26
Totals 16.89 10.73
Bottom line is that this may have something to do with the recent blackout in Spain/Portugal but up to now, the adjacent countries are what has sufficed for synchronous generation and inertia for Denmark… the advantage of being a small country that is next door to a big country where the neighbors can’t act as a big battery. The problem is that these other countries too have jumped on the UI (unreliable/interruptible) bandwagon. Norway is still fine since almost all of its electrical power is generated by hydro but Sweden is up to nearly 25% wind and Germany is at 60% and therefore are the same type of risk as what took down Spain/Portugal.