4 Responses

  1. Matt 3 February 2021 at 16:08 | | Reply

    Interesting analysis.
    One thing you did not take into account ist availability.
    Solar energy is only available during the day and production is a lot lower in winter compared to summer.
    Wind energy also has a non-constant output.

    So if you want to replace a nuclear power plant solely with solar and wind energy you need short and long time storage infrastucture to adjust the energy output to the demand.

    To compare these two energy sources to the continuous and planable output of a nuclear power plant you would have to include storage costs and storage losses into your calculations.

  2. Femi 6 February 2021 at 07:10 | | Reply

    Well said.

  3. Mads Leonard Holvik 1 July 2021 at 11:28 | | Reply

    You mention nothing about the heavy impact of wind mills on untouched nature. For example along the coast of Norway beautiful nature is being removed to build wind mill parks. They pose a constant risk to birdlife and nature is lost in the building of them. If they are to replace coal and gas we will lose huge areas of nature.

    You also do not mention next generation nuclear power or fusion energy. It seems to me nuclear is a better alternative. You seem to see a huge wind mill park as a salvation, yet for people in Norway who lose their prestine nature, its a disaster, especially since Norway has all the hydro power it needs while foreign investors come in to build wind mill industrial areas for Norway to sacrifice it’s heritage for what?

  4. Erik Mulder 8 July 2021 at 07:14 | | Reply

    You can store energy in the ground for months with practically no loss. Check out polar night energy. And of course battery storage. I can leave my Tesla at the airport for a month with practically no loss of battery charge.

Leave a Reply