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.
