Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050 /Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and Their Respective Costs. ECR and Renew European parliament group Report.

Road to EU Climate Neutrality ECR and Renew European parliament group Report.

https://roadtoclimateneutrality.eu/Energy_Study_Full.pdf

Status of the document  : Peer-Reviewed Publication for ECR Group and Renew Europe, European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium. (: Publication évaluée par des pairs pour ECR Group et Renew Europe, Parlement européen, Bruxelles, Belgique.)

456 pages of response to the current Commission's anti-nuclear policy and in particular to Frans Timmermans.  Concerning the global antinuclear attitude of this Commission,  the report states that this antinuclear attitude was not the rule for previous Commissions :

“While Commissioner Timmermans appears to be focused very much on perceived disadvantages of nuclear energy, a 2016 Commission report succinctly sums up its advantages: Nuclear energy is a source of low-carbon electricity.The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated for example that limiting temperature rise below 2 °C would require a sustained reduction in global energy CO2 emissions (measured as energy-related CO2/GDP), averaging 5.5 % per year between 2030 and 2050. A reduction of this magnitude is ambitious, but has already been achieved in the past in Member States such as France and Sweden thanks to the development of nuclear build programmes”

1 ) Presentation, Direction, Methods

Declaration of intention :

 The ECR Group: “If the EU and its global partners really want to tackle issues such as climate change, recycling, waste, emissions and pollution, food quality and food security, then the EU needs to adopt sensible and sustainable measures which do not place unnecessary and costly burdens on businesses and Member States. Rather than unrealistic targets which will never be fulfilled or properly implemented, the ECR Group supports an ambitious, incremental, and sensible approach that all Member States can support

Renew Europe: “We will invest in a sustainable continent. We do not have a Planet B, so we must make sure that we preserve the one we have for future generations. The Paris climate agreement of 2015 set out the roadmap, now it is time to deliver on the promises made and even go beyond them.”

Purpose and peer review : Stick to  Evidence-Based Analysis: “Do the Numbers” The EU is committed to evidence-based policy-making, also in the areas of energy and climate policies

 “This report presents the results of a study that examines three issues that are key to the EU climate neutrality’s ambition: i. The effect of EU climate neutrality on the average global atmospheric temperature by 2050 and 2100; ii. The spatial (land and sea) requirements for wind and solar energy versus nuclear energy in the Czech Republic and The Netherlands; and iii. The cost of wind/solar energy and of nuclear energy for these two countries. Each of the key chapters has been reviewed by at least two peer reviewers with relevant academic qualifications and professional backgrounds. A list of these peer reviewers is attached to this.”

Holistic, Constructive and Innovative Approach : “There is a lack of integrated, holistic analysis useful to policy makers; specifically, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPMs) prepared by the IPCC do not provide it, and are silent on such critical issues as spatial requirements and costs of power generation technologies. The issues addressed in this report lend themselves very well to an integrated assessment…Further, analysis and advice for policy makers is often colored by a selective or subjective perspective on the relevant issues. Further, much analysis and tools for policy makers incorporate value or normative judgments that remain hidden in the technical details….This applies also to tools, such as the Energy Transition Model (ETM). By generating nuclear variants on the scenarios for the Dutch government in the ETM, however, this study demonstrates that even in a model that is not designed to treat nuclear on equal footing with renewable energy, nuclear energy is not necessarily inferior to wind and solar”

For instance, the team identified the limitations of the so-called ‘levelized cost of electricity’  (LCOE)methodology as applied to nuclear and renewable energy for purposes of policy-making. In addition, it has unraveled the complexities around the market-based weighted cost of capital or ‘WACC”

2) Main Results and Conclusion-Summary

This study analyses and compares two climate neutral power-generating technologies that can result in decarbonization of the electricity system6 -- wind/ solar and nuclear. We assess the amount of space necessary for each technology to deliver the power required, and the costs of the power thus generated. This analysis has been done for two EU member states: The Netherlands, a country along the North Sea with abundant wind, and the Czech Republic, a landlocked country with no access to sea and less wind. This study also assesses the effectiveness of EU climate neutrality.

2a) Space requirement- Netherlands : We found that amount of space required to provide annually 3000 PJ (PetaJoules) of power in The Netherlands by wind and solar power in 2050 would range from 24,538 to 68,482 km2. To put this in perspective: 24,538 km2 is roughly the size of the five largest provinces of The Netherlands combined (Friesland,Gelderland, Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland, and Overijssel); and 68,482 km2 corresponds to about 1.8 times the entire land territory of The Netherlands.

To generate the same amount of energy, nuclear power would require, on average, no more than 120 km2, which is less than half the size of the city of Rotterdam. Thus, due to their low power density, wind energy requires at least 266 (offshore) to 534 (onshore) times more land and space than nuclear. to generate an equal amount of electricity; for solar on land, at least 148 times more land is required (disregarding, in all cases, the additional land required for the necessary network expansion and energy storage or conversion solutions)

(NB :  1 Petajoule = 0.28 TW.h 3000 PJ =  840 TW.h . Electric Consumption in : 2018 : 117 TW.H. Hence,  2018 electric consumption by wind and solar would require 25% of Netherland territory – more details underneath)

Space requirement-Czech Republic : For the Czech Republic, the amount of space required to generate 1,800 PJ by wind and solar would range from 14,630 km2 to 43,758 km2. To put that into perspective, that covers 19 % and 55 % of the Czech Republic’s available land. Achieving the same level of electricity output with nuclear power would require no more than 269km2.

( NB Czech Republic : 1800 PJ= 504 TW.h Electric consumption in 2018 :  74 TW.h en 2018 would cover  15% of territory

Conclusion Space Requirement : While nuclear requires a tiny bit of land to provide a whole lot of power at a low cost, wind and solar require a whole lot of land to provide a tiny bit of power at a high cost.

2b) Cost Study

 The cost of nuclear is generally lower than the cost of wind/solar, in most scenarios by a significant margin. In the best-case scenario for wind/solar, the cost of nuclear is still slightly lower. In the worst-case scenario for wind/solar, nuclear cost only one fourth as much as wind/solar, i.e. wind/solar cost four times as much…In reality, the cost of wind/solar is even higher because these technologies require other expenses to bring the power where it is needed and to maintain the integrity of the electricity system (so-called integration- and system-related costs).

Importantly, as the rate of penetration of wind and solar power increases, the integration and system-related cost increase exponentially, further widening the gap between the low cost of nuclear power and the high cost of renewable power.

Based on ETM modelling for The Netherlands, we found additional integration cost for wind/solar at levels of up to 18 %, further deteriorating the economic case for wind/solar.

Furthermore on methodology : Loss of ENR value :  “We note here too that our model does not discount renewable electricity produced when there is no demand for electricity. Economically, the stochastic nature of renewable electricity generation means that electricity may be produced when there is no demand for such electricity. Of course, such electricity does not have the same value as electricity produced when there is demand; to the contrary, it may even have a negative value. As said, in our model, the value of renewable electricity is not discounted to account for this problem.”

Comment : This is a well known phenomenon sometimes designated as “cannibalization” of Renewable energies and manifested by negative market prices when energy is generated when not needed. There are some recognized  ways of taking this into account, eg; VALCOE ( Value Adjusted LCOE) . This is well explained for example in the report(Possible role of nuclear in the dutch energy mix in the future_see https://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/1-01-0-20-23.pdf#page=2 and https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2020/11/role-possible-du-nucleaire-dans-le.html). It gives this ( this cannibalization effect increases sharply with the % of ENRs)

System costs including VALCOE to add to classical LCOE estimations :

Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050 /Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and Their Respective Costs. ECR and Renew European parliament group Report.

https://roadtoclimateneutrality.eu/Energy_Study_Full.pdf

Status of the document  : Peer-Reviewed Publication for ECR Group and Renew Europe, European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium. (: Publication évaluée par des pairs pour ECR Group et Renew Europe, Parlement européen, Bruxelles, Belgique.)

456 pages of response to the current Commission's anti-nuclear policy and in particular to Frans Timmermans.  Concerning the global antinuclear attitude of this Commission,  the report states that this antinuclear attitude was not the rule for previous Commissions :

“While Commissioner Timmermans appears to be focused very much on perceived disadvantages of nuclear energy, a 2016 Commission report succinctly sums up its advantages: Nuclear energy is a source of low-carbon electricity.The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated for example that limiting temperature rise below 2 °C would require a sustained reduction in global energy CO2 emissions (measured as energy-related CO2/GDP), averaging 5.5 % per year between 2030 and 2050. A reduction of this magnitude is ambitious, but has already been achieved in the past in Member States such as France and Sweden thanks to the development of nuclear build programmes”

1 ) Presentation, Direction, Methods

Declaration of intention :

 The ECR Group: “If the EU and its global partners really want to tackle issues such as climate change, recycling, waste, emissions and pollution, food quality and food security, then the EU needs to adopt sensible and sustainable measures which do not place unnecessary and costly burdens on businesses and Member States. Rather than unrealistic targets which will never be fulfilled or properly implemented, the ECR Group supports an ambitious, incremental, and sensible approach that all Member States can support

Renew Europe: “We will invest in a sustainable continent. We do not have a Planet B, so we must make sure that we preserve the one we have for future generations. The Paris climate agreement of 2015 set out the roadmap, now it is time to deliver on the promises made and even go beyond them.”

Purpose and peer review : Stick to  Evidence-Based Analysis: “Do the Numbers” The EU is committed to evidence-based policy-making, also in the areas of energy and climate policies

 “This report presents the results of a study that examines three issues that are key to the EU climate neutrality’s ambition: i. The effect of EU climate neutrality on the average global atmospheric temperature by 2050 and 2100; ii. The spatial (land and sea) requirements for wind and solar energy versus nuclear energy in the Czech Republic and The Netherlands; and iii. The cost of wind/solar energy and of nuclear energy for these two countries. Each of the key chapters has been reviewed by at least two peer reviewers with relevant academic qualifications and professional backgrounds. A list of these peer reviewers is attached to this.”

Holistic, Constructive and Innovative Approach : “There is a lack of integrated, holistic analysis useful to policy makers; specifically, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPMs) prepared by the IPCC do not provide it, and are silent on such critical issues as spatial requirements and costs of power generation technologies. The issues addressed in this report lend themselves very well to an integrated assessment…Further, analysis and advice for policy makers is often colored by a selective or subjective perspective on the relevant issues. Further, much analysis and tools for policy makers incorporate value or normative judgments that remain hidden in the technical details….This applies also to tools, such as the Energy Transition Model (ETM). By generating nuclear variants on the scenarios for the Dutch government in the ETM, however, this study demonstrates that even in a model that is not designed to treat nuclear on equal footing with renewable energy, nuclear energy is not necessarily inferior to wind and solar”

For instance, the team identified the limitations of the so-called ‘levelized cost of electricity’  (LCOE)methodology as applied to nuclear and renewable energy for purposes of policy-making. In addition, it has unraveled the complexities around the market-based weighted cost of capital or ‘WACC”

2) Main Results and Conclusion-Summary

This study analyses and compares two climate neutral power-generating technologies that can result in decarbonization of the electricity system6 -- wind/ solar and nuclear. We assess the amount of space necessary for each technology to deliver the power required, and the costs of the power thus generated. This analysis has been done for two EU member states: The Netherlands, a country along the North Sea with abundant wind, and the Czech Republic, a landlocked country with no access to sea and less wind. This study also assesses the effectiveness of EU climate neutrality.

2a) Space requirement- Netherlands : We found that amount of space required to provide annually 3000 PJ (PetaJoules) of power in The Netherlands by wind and solar power in 2050 would range from 24,538 to 68,482 km2. To put this in perspective: 24,538 km2 is roughly the size of the five largest provinces of The Netherlands combined (Friesland,Gelderland, Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland, and Overijssel); and 68,482 km2 corresponds to about 1.8 times the entire land territory of The Netherlands.

To generate the same amount of energy, nuclear power would require, on average, no more than 120 km2, which is less than half the size of the city of Rotterdam. Thus, due to their low power density, wind energy requires at least 266 (offshore) to 534 (onshore) times more land and space than nuclear. to generate an equal amount of electricity; for solar on land, at least 148 times more land is required (disregarding, in all cases, the additional land required for the necessary network expansion and energy storage or conversion solutions)

(NB :  1 Petajoule = 0.28 TW.h 3000 PJ =  840 TW.h . Electric Consumption in : 2018 : 117 TW.H. Hence,  2018 electric consumption by wind and solar would require 25% of Netherland territory – more details underneath)

Space requirement-Czech Republic : For the Czech Republic, the amount of space required to generate 1,800 PJ by wind and solar would range from 14,630 km2 to 43,758 km2. To put that into perspective, that covers 19 % and 55 % of the Czech Republic’s available land. Achieving the same level of electricity output with nuclear power would require no more than 269km2.

( NB Czech Republic : 1800 PJ= 504 TW.h Electric consumption in 2018 :  74 TW.h en 2018 would cover  15% of territory

Conclusion Space Requirement : While nuclear requires a tiny bit of land to provide a whole lot of power at a low cost, wind and solar require a whole lot of land to provide a tiny bit of power at a high cost.

2b) Cost Study

 The cost of nuclear is generally lower than the cost of wind/solar, in most scenarios by a significant margin. In the best-case scenario for wind/solar, the cost of nuclear is still slightly lower. In the worst-case scenario for wind/solar, nuclear cost only one fourth as much as wind/solar, i.e. wind/solar cost four times as much…In reality, the cost of wind/solar is even higher because these technologies require other expenses to bring the power where it is needed and to maintain the integrity of the electricity system (so-called integration- and system-related costs).

Importantly, as the rate of penetration of wind and solar power increases, the integration and system-related cost increase exponentially, further widening the gap between the low cost of nuclear power and the high cost of renewable power.

Based on ETM modelling for The Netherlands, we found additional integration cost for wind/solar at levels of up to 18 %, further deteriorating the economic case for wind/solar.

Furthermore on methodology : Loss of ENR value :  “We note here too that our model does not discount renewable electricity produced when there is no demand for electricity. Economically, the stochastic nature of renewable electricity generation means that electricity may be produced when there is no demand for such electricity. Of course, such electricity does not have the same value as electricity produced when there is demand; to the contrary, it may even have a negative value. As said, in our model, the value of renewable electricity is not discounted to account for this problem.”

Comment : This is a well known phenomenon sometimes designated as “cannibalization” of Renewable energies and manifested by negative market prices when energy is generated when not needed. There are some recognized  ways of taking this into account, eg; VALCOE ( Value Adjusted LCOE) . This is well explained for example in the report(Possible role of nuclear in the dutch energy mix in the future_see https://www.laka.org/docu/boeken/pdf/1-01-0-20-23.pdf#page=2 and https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2020/11/role-possible-du-nucleaire-dans-le.html). It gives this ( this cannibalization effect increases sharply with the % of ENRs)

System costs including VALCOE to add to classical LCOE estimations :

Other externalities : Many solar and wind turbine installation impose negative externalities on surrounding land. Frequently, other land usages become impossible because they would restrict the sun rays or wind flow. Other negative externalities of renewables that are not taken into account include the impact on surrounding nature and the impact on surrounding home values. A report commissioned by the Dutch government found that wind turbines built within 2 km of residential areas resulted in a 2% to 5% reduction in value of home prices, for example.  While this negative externality is not directly borne by the energy producers, households experience a decrease in their asset values, which in turn could negatively impact tax revenues (through, for example, reduced real estate taxes, wealth taxes, etc.). Nuclear power plants also impose negative externalities on the surrounding land, but given their much more limited footprint.

Comment : Estimations in France based on public notary and real estate agencies are more in 20-40% loss of value see eg https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2020/05/les-margoulins-de-leolien-et-leurs-gros.html

And the fact that ENR are certainly not cheaper than uclear, you can already see it :

Conclusion : A European Nuclear renaissance program :  

An unambiguous choice for the nuclear power option would meet the EU policy objectives of energy security, affordability, and social acceptability.  In light of the spatial and economic consequences of renewable energy relative to nuclear energy, the EU is well advised to consider a “Nuclear Renaissance” program. Under this program, the EU would create a level playing field for all electricity generation technologies…The authors hope that this study will be widely distributed and read. The people of Europe deserve it and the energy transition needs it. Brussels, December 2020.

3) Space requirements_detailed study :

If electricity in The Netherlands and the Czech Republic is solely or chiefly provided by wind turbines and solar panels, these renewable energy technologies will take up very significant portions of the available land. This is due to the low power density of wind and solar, which is approximately 150 to 500 times lower than the power density of nuclear power, on average.

Depending on variables such as electricity demand and capacity factors, in realistic scenarios, there is not enough land to meet all power demand if the Czech Republic and The Netherlands were to rely solely or predominantly on wind and solar power. In the Czech case, it is even out of the question that the available land will be sufficient to cover all electricity demand

In The Netherlands, offshore wind may alleviate the pressure on land somewhat, but creates its own issues in terms of marine impacts and costs

If electricity in The Netherlands and the Czech Republic is solely or chiefly provided by nuclear power, nuclear power plants will take up only a minute fraction of the land and space necessary for wind and solar. This is due to the very high power density of nuclear, which is at least 150 up to over 500 times higher than the power density of wind and solar.

Nuclear power plants can be sited at the same sites where fossil fuel-fired power plants are located, and require approximately the same area as such plants, which implies savings on infrastructure to connect to the network. These features greatly reduce pressures on land availability, landscape protection and nature protection, which is a significant advantage, in particular when competition for land increases..

Compared to wind and solar, nuclear power produces approx. 500 and 150 times more electricity per square kilometer. These numbers exclude the additional land and space demand imposed by renewable energy, which increases exponentially as renewable energy expands and makes up a larger share of the power mix. This additional land is required for additional infrastructure necessary for the integration of renewable energy into the electricity system, such as energy storage and conversion facilities.

3a) Scenario Netherlands

3 scenari have been studied :

2019 Baseline” – This resembles the current (2019) make-up of energy demand and electricity mix: 3,000 PJ of annual energy demand, with 15% being met by electricity. In other words, every combination of nuclear and renewables supplies 450 PJ of energy per annum

“2050 H/H” – This represents an extreme scenario that projects 4,000 PJ per annum and a 50% rate of electrification (high/high). Renewable and nuclear power jointly supply 2,000 PJ per annum

“2050 Berenschot” – This resembles Berenschot’s “Regionale sturing” scenario from the CNS Study,with energy demand dropping to 1,750 PJ per annum and 45% of that being met with electricity.In other words, every combination of nuclear and renewables supplies roughly 790 PJ per annum

Main results :

At a low level of power demand (Bereschot), 100% renewable power imposes serious requirements on land and sea space, at 34% and 39%, respectively; these ratios may exceed the amount of space policy makers are willing to allocate to power generation.

In the 2050 H/H scenario, the limits of available space are reached or exceeded. At 100% renewables, 98% of the available sea is utilized and 86% of the available land.

In the 2019 Baseline scenario, 368 of the roughly 3,000 PJ in total energy demand, about 232 PJ came from renewables, just below 8%. This suggests that if policies were to move towards 100% renewables, we would need to increase the area currently covered by renewable energy sources by a factor of 12, both on sea and on land (then coming close to 80% available land/sea space)

A  perfectly equal power mix implies that the space demand of onshore water and roof space could exceed the available space. Thus, this mix might not be feasible.

Additional remark : In the case of offshore wind, the seabed space necessary for cabling may not be included; in the case of solar and wind on land, the underground space demand for cabling is typically ignored. In the UK, this additional space demand has been shown to be substantial; for three offshore wind farms up to 66% of additional seabed space is needed for the cable corridors. There is no reason as to why this would be any different in The Netherlands

3b) Scenario Czech Republic

Energy demand was roughly 1,800 PJ in 2018 and is expected by the government to decline to around 1,000 PJ in 2050, with electrification rates of 20 and 27%, respectively. For our sensitivity analysis, we model energy demand between 1,000 and 3,000 PJ and electrification rates of 10% to 100%.

3 Scenarios have been considered

“2019 Baseline” – This resembles the current (2019) make-up of energy demand and electricity mix: 1,800 PJ of annual energy demand, with 20% being met by electricity. In other words, every combination of nuclear and renewables supplies 360 PJ of energy per annum

“2030 Target” – This represents the Czech Republic’s official target for 2030 that projects 1,600 PJ per annum and a 25% rate of electrification. Renewable and nuclear power jointly supply 400 PJ per annum.

• “Conservative Scenario” – This represents a more conservative scenario in which energy demand increases to 2,000 PJ per annum as does the electrification to 30%. Renewable and nuclear power jointly supply 600 PJ per annum.

 At the extremes, it shows that 100% renewable power requires more than the available space and, as such, is not a realistic scenario for the Czech Republic.

 The 2019 Baseline scenario begins to show what increasing shares of renewable power will mean for space utilization. Even at constant levels of demand, relatively modest levels of renewable energy impose serious requirements on land space (50% mix would occupy 50% of available land) 

e.g; The expected electricity production if we use 100% of the available space for renewable would be about 670 PJ per annum. For context, the Czech Republic’s primary energy demand for 2019 was just over 1,800 PJ, and hence renewable would generate no more than 40% of its energy demand

 In the 2030 Target scenario, the limits of available space are reached or exceeded even earlier. At 90% renewables, there is not enough land available.

In the Conservative scenario, the pressure on land usage becomes clearer. Hence, if there is some modest growth in energy demand and electrification increases, renewables would occupy all the available space at just over 50% of the energy mix.

The model output confirms that the spatial requirements of wind/solar are such that these technologies cannot be the main sources of power in the Czech Republic. While wind/solar would use up all available space quickly and still provide power output that may be insufficient to meet the demand, nuclear power would have much smaller spatial impacts and provide much more power. Indeed, the results of our modelling demonstrate also that the Czech government’s plans for the electricity sector, with a modest role for wind/solar and a significant role for nuclear power, are sensible from a spatial perspective.

The Czech NECP, however, warns that the renewable target may appear to be unachievable without continued subsidies and that the high share of renewable energy contemplated in 2030 may cause blackouts

4) Cost studies- detailed

Conclusion : In virtually all realistic scenarios, nuclear power is cheaper than wind and solar power in terms of € per MWh in both the Czech Republic and The Netherlands, both at market-based interest rates and at a zero interest rate

Additional remarks :

1) Other costs : those figures only consider the costs of generating the electricity (LCOE) and not  the costs of transmission, distribution, storage and conversion (integration and system-related cost). The integration- and system-related cost of nuclear energy is much lower than that of intermittent renewable energy, which, moreover, increases exponentially as the penetration rate of renewable increases.

2) Warning about WAAC (weighted average cost of capital) :  the main drivers of the LCOE for both wind/solar and nuclear are, in order of importance 1)  (WACC), 2) capacity factor 3) capital costs, 4) fixed O&M cost

The WACC is the most influential, but also the most controversial factor. Based on thorough analysis of this debate, our approach estimates the WACC for policy makers by separating government risk(which policy makers control) from project risk (which operators control to a great extent). In standard LCOE calculations, non-intermittent nuclear electricity is discounted more heavily than intermittent renewable

In part because the WACC is also used as discount rate, the WACC to be applied in planning decisions is not a given for policy makers. The choice of a WACC/discount rate is a value-laden decision, not a technical matter to be decided by experts. Deciding the appropriate discount rate for policy purposes involves political and moral debates as much as economic and technical issues. Given that policy making can influence WACCs directly, policy makers should scrutinize the WACCs used in any LCOE.

Using a policy-neutral WACC of 3 % for The Netherlands and 4.2 % for the Czech Republic, we find that in most plausible scenarios nuclear power is cheaper than all types of renewable energy (offshore wind, onshore wind, solar) or any combinations thereof in both the Czech Republic and The Netherlands. Only if all or most variables turn out to be in favor of renewable and to the detriment of nuclear, some renewable power might have a lower LCOE, although not necessarily a lower total cost.

 Note that this cost comparison is based merely on LCOE and, thus, does not take into account integration and system-related costs, which are much higher for renewable power than for nuclear (see further below).

 In most plausible scenarios nuclear power is cheaper than all types of renewable energy (offshore wind, onshore wind, solar) in both the Czech Republic and The Netherlands, even before integration- and system-related cost is added, which is much higher for renewables.

Based on modelling with the ETM, for The Netherlands, total energy system costs could be reduced by as much as 18% by replacing renewable generation with nuclear generation, with more cost savings for those scenarios that initially had more renewables in the energy mix. Importantly, grid connection costs, only one part of the integration costs, were reduced by over 60 % in one scenario, which would save the Dutch government almost EUR 10 billion per year.

We further adapted the LCOE method by developing a synchronized lifetime analysis as an additional point of reference. A synchronized lifetime analysis is the preferred method for comparing various power generating technologies, because it avoids the distorting effects of discounting projects with different lifetimes and different production schedules. This method confirms that nuclear power is a more cost-efficient solution to meet chosen levels of electricity production over a given period of time, even before integration- and system-related costs are added.

Importantly, as the rate of penetration of wind and solar power increases, the integration and system-related cost increase exponentially, further widening the gap between the low cost of nuclear power and the high cost of renewable power.

3) Most of  the existing  scenarios treat both energy demand and energy production as an endogenous variable; each has their own, specific level of energy. As discussed in Part 5 of this report, we have decided not to do so, and treat power demand as an exogenous variable. This decision is based on the fact that the 2050 power demand is highly uncertain and depends on unknown variables, such as further energy efficiency gains that may be realized, the level of power usage by citizens in 2050, the level of power-intensive industries, innovations that may affect power demand (upwards or downwards), the general level of wealth….

5) Policy Recommendations

Because current EU policies favour renewable energy over nuclear energy, assessment of the relative cost of both technologies can easily be led astray.. This had the effect of reducing the price of renewable energy, but it has also had a relative inflating effect on the cost of nuclear power and of the deployment thereof in the EU.

Under the current EU and member state policies, the following benefits are extended to renewable energy, which are not (or only to a much more limited extent) available to nuclear power:  follow list of more than 15 financing device favorizing  renewables, including :  direct subsidies (grants) for research and development, Direct subsidies (investments grants, loan guarantees, soft loans) for actual renewable power projects, Mandatory, guaranteed minimum shares for renewable energy, Priority and privileged access to the energy market.. Quota obligations with tradable green certificates, Tax incentives, Tendering schemes that favor renewable power generators over other decarbonized power generators; Expedient permitting and regulatory procedures, Lack of obligation for renewable power generators to compensate property owners that suffer damage, No internalization of negative externalities (e.g.adverse environmental impacts) into the price of renewable power generation; Free riding on other technologies that keep the power system stable and flexible, such as base load generators and flexibility providers .

Comment : do not also forget the ery French ARENH, which requires EDR to finance its competitors by giving them access to nuclear powet at low price and when they want.

To meet the public demand for nuclear power, the EU should place renewable and nuclear on equal footing and endorse a ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ program. This program would comprise twelve key elements:

Equal treatment: All decarbonized power generation technologies (wind, solar, nuclear)receive equal treatment by the EU and member state governments

Generator pays principle: Based on the principles of cost internalization and “polluter pays,” all EU policies ensure that the fully loaded costs, including integration- and system-related costs as well as relevant externalities, are taken into account in policy making with respect to both renewable and nuclear power.

No discriminatory subsidies: All open and hidden subsidies, direct and indirect, in cash or in kind, and other advantages for renewable^energy (e.g. targets, priority rules, higher or guaranteed feed-in tariffs, subsidized infrastructure necessary for wind on sea, deflated land use prices, etc.) are eliminated, so that nuclear can compete on a level playing field.Other EU policies are not skewed to providebenefits to renewable energy.

Total system cost rules: The electricity market is redesigned so that total system costs, rather than marginal cost of subsidized power generation technology, drives carbon-neutral investments.

Differentiated electricity products: Based on the idea that unequal cases are not treated the same way, the concept of ‘energy only’ is no longer construed in a way that favors the marginal cost of stochastic, demand unresponsive electricity generation, but recognizes the fundamentally different nature of constant, on demand electricity supply, and demand-unresponsive electricity supply.

Holistic assessment: The extent to which power generation technology, whether wind, solar, or nuclear, has favorable or adverse effects on other EU interests and policies (such as habitat and species protection, toxic-free environment, agricultural policy, energy policy, etc.) and causes other externalities, is identified and objectively assessed in connection with policy making at EU and member state levels.

Expedient regulatory procedures: Like renewable energy, nuclear power equally benefits from expedited, efficient permitting and regulatory procedures

Legal and policy certainty: To encourage investment in the best power generation technology and keep the finance cost down, legal and policy certainty is guaranteed to both renewable and nuclear power.

Adequate compensation of damage:

Access to finance on the merits: Access to private and public finance is a function of the merits of power generation technologies. Privileges and discrimination in this area are eliminated.

EU nuclear energy regulation for the new era: EU nuclear energy regulations are reviewed and updated, as necessary, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and for the new era in power generation. Nuclear regulation is effective and efficient.

The EU’s 2050 climate neutrality strategy involves a high risk of policy failure. The anticipated energy transition, however, can hedge against this risk by deploying ‘no regrets’ solutions that are good investments, bring down emissions, and have little adverse impact. Nuclear power is such a solution

6) Other interesting data figures :

EROI (Energy return on investment : (Buffered : including storage costs)

Power Density

We have a problem we should take seriously :

We are not on the right track :

Externalization is not part of the game , nor of the solution !

Do not forget  : It is a whole world problem !

“EU climate neutrality, even if achieved, may have very little effect on the average global temperature increase. Other, non-EU nations have no obligation to reduce their emissions, and the EU has no way to force them to do so. Developing nations have a right to develop their economies. Thus, the EU’s efforts run a substantial risk of not achieving their objective….– If the EU is serious, it should purchase all world reserves of fossil fuels and retire them indefinitely. At current market price levels, the total cost will be at least €109,000,000,000,000, which is approximately 7 times the entire EU’s annual GDP and equals €560,000 per EU household.

Comment :More realistically,  this could be use as a  plead to compensate for very high price, technically difficult actions in Europe by subsidizing much more technically and cost efficient actions in other countries, eg replacing obligation of very high level isolation of old building by financing electrification of Africa.