Military Review

"Alternative" madness of Europe: when the Russian peaceful atom will crush the "green" energy

91



In October, the 2017 of the year during the hurricane "Herwart" in the German power engineering miracle happened. On the energy exchange, the cost of electricity suddenly became negative. That is, the consumer could not only use electricity for free, but he also paid extra for it. Miracle, you say? No, not a miracle, but the highest degree of the transcendent marasmus that swept the countries of Europe.

In fact, nothing strange in this stories not. It’s just that we clearly saw what excesses in the field of the forced introduction of alternative energy in an extreme situation lead to. The fact is that in Germany, as elsewhere in Europe, the "green tariff" is sponsored by the state. The owners of German wind turbines, when there is no demand for their electricity, it is unprofitable to stop the generation. For unworked kilowatts, the state will not pay extra money, and therefore they offered their electricity at a negative cost ...

Light at exorbitant prices

It's no secret that the real cost of "green" electricity is much higher than traditional. As we found out in past materialEnergy is the industry that is most affected by politics.

Passion for alternative sources of electricity in Europe began for a reason. The region has long been a traditional importer of energy, and the problem of depleting its own hydrocarbon reserves, which has become very acute in 1990 — 2000-s, has put the continent in front of the fact: either to become even more dependent on energy imports, or to somehow solve this problem.

And they began to solve it, and at once in two unconventional ways. Firstly, a significant part of energy-intensive production migrated abroad, and secondly, in Europe a real boom began in the development of innovative ways of producing electricity.



But you have to pay for everything. Who really pays for this "holiday of ecology". First, as we already know, a state that subsidizes clean energy producers. Secondly, the population of these countries themselves. Here is an interesting graph showing how the cost of electricity in various European countries depends on the amount of electricity consumed:



As we see, Germany, in which the “alternative” energy sector is the most developed, has the largest variation in electricity prices. First of all, the population overpays for it.

Dead end, which can not be avoided

As we understand, everything cannot work endlessly. Sooner or later, the system will face a situation where producers of traditional electricity and the state will not be able to subsidize "green" freeloaders. And the question will arise: what to do next? And there are exactly two ways out. Either raise the price for the industry (which will immediately make it less competitive), or forget about subsidies, after which it will be meaningless to develop green energy.

Alternative energy advocates disagree with this question. They are sure that sooner or later, new technologies will allow the "green" energy to become sustainable. Yes, in recent years, all this is happening. The cost of equipment falls, and new technologies allow to increase the efficiency of the stations. But all this is not enough to compete in the foreseeable future, for example, with nuclear power plants, about the economic inefficiency of which wind turbine supporters like to talk about today.

At the same time they fall to the level of the usual forgery. Their calculations are taken "from the ceiling." For example, opponents of the construction of the Belarusian NPP call the final cost of electricity at the output from the 8,9 unit and even 10 eurocents per kilowatt-hour.

Honestly, I do not know on which ceiling it is all written, but it is all a lie. I propose to make this simple calculation.

The cost of building a two-unit station with VVER-1200 reactors is already known - 11 billion US dollars. In euros, this is about 10 billion. Moreover, a third of this amount is not the cost of the units themselves and the associated infrastructure, but the construction of a nuclear industry town, that is, that infrastructure, which by and large in calculating the cost of electricity production should not be taken into account.

We go further. VVER-1200 units are designed for 60 years of operation. Their electrical power is 2 400MW. The time of one fuel session 18 months. Taking into account their increased duration, the time of the actual operation of the block will not be 75%, as it is now, but 85-90%. Enough numbers, we can start the calculation.

So, how much electricity will the two units of the Belarusian NPP produce for the entire period of operation?

60 (years) * 365 (days) * 24 (hours) * 2 400 000 (power in kW) * 0,85 (utilization rate) = 1 072 billion kWh

We divide 10 billion euros by the resulting figure and obtain capital expenditures for the construction of 0,93 eurocents per 1 kWh.

If, at the same time, one-third of the cost of untargeted infrastructure is discarded, then we have the construction cost price at the level of 0,62 eurocents per kWh.

If we take into account that the blocks may well work for 90 for years, after a relatively inexpensive extension of service life (at the level of 1 billion euros for a maximum of two blocks), then the final cost of capital expenditures for building blocks will be approximately 0,5-0,7 eurocents on 1 kW of generated electricity.

You also need to consider the cost of fuel and operating costs. We take data from the enemies of nuclear power plants, environmentalists (that is, the maximum possible). For example, Bellona experts (big skeptics, judging by my visit to AtomEco exhibitions) for the 2011 year gave such figures on the cost of purchasing fuel and its further processing: 1,1 US cents per 1 kW * h. That is 1 Eurocent. At the same time, 0,7 eurocenta comes at the expense of other operating costs (without processing SNF).

Total for the circle we have 2,2-2,4 eurocents for 1 kW * h.

And how are things going with “alternative” electricity? There is an excellent schedule as of 2015 year (prepared by apologists for green electricity):

"Alternative" madness of Europe: when the Russian peaceful atom will crush the "green" energy


The first is ground-based windmills. The most profitable form of alternative electricity today. Today, the cost of generating 1 kWh of electricity with their help is "only" 5,7 eurocents. If the technologies do not let you down, then in 2025 there is an opportunity to meet the Eurocent already in 4,1 per 1 kWh.

Already not bad, but still much more expensive than electricity from nuclear power plants.

Other sources of profitability is even worse. For example, the electricity of offshore wind farms, even after 10 years, will still be 4 times more expensive than nuclear generation.

About SES and say nothing. The graph shows data for the world as a whole. As we understand, for Europe, due to its geographical position, indicators will be “somewhat” worse.

And we have to remember that it is impossible to increase the efficiency of wind generators and solar modules to infinity (there is such a “theory” that there is more than 100% in any way, and in fact even less), and therefore sooner or later the reduction in the cost of electricity generation by such systems will cease. And very soon.

In fact, this process has begun now. Today, the cost of electricity from wind power stations can only be reduced due to a sharp increase in their size (to 180 m along the upper edge of the blade). But they cannot grow to infinity either.

And we are silent about the fundamental problem of such a generation - stability of work, which for perfectly understandable reasons can never be compared with atomic.

So, it can be stated that the alternative energy of Europe, with other things being equal, can never compete with traditional generation. As soon as political circumstances change, everyone will begin to forget this inefficient and such expensive kind of energy. When will this happen? As mentioned above, it all depends on the policy ...
Author:
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Chertt
    Chertt 29 November 2017 15: 11 New
    11
    Russia needs to look back to the West as little as possible and go its own way in the energy sector, since we are technologically inferior to no one in this area. And let these "non-traditional" Europeans walk their own rake
    1. dSK
      dSK 30 November 2017 00: 05 New
      +3
      Quote: Chertt
      look less west

      Hello Alexey! And not only in the energy sector, if some Western partners openly call Russia - enemy number 1then listen to their expert advice very carefully. hi
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 30 November 2017 04: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: dsk
        And not only in the energy sector, if some Western partners openly call Russia - enemy No. 1, then one must listen to their expert advice very carefully.

        And do the proverb: "Listen to the woman and do the opposite."
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 December 2017 21: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Chertt
      And let these "non-traditional" Europeans walk their own rake

      In fact, there is the wrong design of alternative power plants.
      For example, windmills do not need to poke poles over a large area. We need to look for a place where constant winds blow, preferably a gorge, cost a tapering structure, a kilometer high (and a width, respectively, and direct an intensified wind to the turbine. And building a lot of small generators is an economic dead end.
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 1 December 2017 22: 04 New
        +5
        Quote: KaPToC
        In fact, there is the wrong design of alternative power plants.

        I’m not a specialist, but I’m always alarmed when someone in the comments points to a mistake made by hundreds of scientists and specialists around the world .... You are either an unrecognized genius, or ..............
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 1 December 2017 22: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: Chertt
          indicates a mistake made by hundreds of scientists and specialists around the world ....

          Firstly, this is not a mistake of scientists, but of financiers who do not want to take risks.
          Secondly, scientists often and massively make mistakes.
          Thirdly, the layman does not have a blind eye.
          Quote: Chertt
          You are either an unrecognized genius, or ..............

          recognized?
  2. Troll
    Troll 29 November 2017 16: 06 New
    +5
    So when? When Russian atom will crush green energy?
    In fact, so far, never. Bo in Russia it is practically absent, and therefore there is no one to crush. After all, crush European Despite the beautiful graphs and figures, European politicians will not give green energy, at least in the near future for sure.
    1. bistrov.
      bistrov. 29 November 2017 18: 06 New
      +3
      When Germany destroys its 10 nuclear power plants, heh heh heh ....
      1. vlad_vlad
        vlad_vlad 29 November 2017 18: 26 New
        +9
        The author is yet another warrior in the strategic struggle of atomic fans with windmill fans. We here in Germany on this topic are fighting all and sundry - professors with doctors and lazy people with unemployed. and all sides have convincing graphics and figures.

        but in this war of arguments, the author added his "patriotic" stream - it was the "Russian peaceful atom" that should destroy the "alternative Western" energy ...
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 29 November 2017 22: 17 New
          24
          Whose else?
          For 2000, three companies built the world's nuclear power plants. French Areva, US Westinghouse and Russian Rosatom.

          Westighhouse went bankrupt, failing to build a reactor in the USA, Areva is on the verge, two long-term buildings without special prospects also hang on it. Today, only Rosatom is building really new nuclear power plants. Only Rosatom has industrial fast neutron reactors and a plant for the processing of spent fuel elements, which means the prospect of implementing a closed nuclear cycle. So no “patriotic stream" is a simple statement of facts.
          1. electrooleg
            electrooleg 29 November 2017 23: 16 New
            0
            So it is necessary to introduce fast neutrons.
          2. Days
            Days 30 November 2017 00: 39 New
            +6
            Not so simple. Of the 19 blocks under construction in China, 11 are being built by Chinese companies (the remaining 8 were divided among themselves by the big three you named, including 2 units - Rosatom).

            The good news is that China has no time for expansion into the foreign market - it would satisfy its own requirements.
          3. vlad_vlad
            vlad_vlad 30 November 2017 11: 25 New
            +1
            You don’t find it interesting that all the former world leaders in the design / construction of nuclear plants are leaving this business? Siemens (one of the big three manufacturers in the West) sold this business for a penny. Most manufacturers in the world think that this business in the future is not profitable and the market is not growing, but rather is narrowing. growth times of 20% or more on the market for nuclear power plants have passed.

            It seems to me that in Russia atomic energy is more than business, it is politics. Therefore, there is such an interest in Russia.
            The Germans are building some kind of "horseradish" building for hydrogen synthesis - can it work out?
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 30 November 2017 18: 46 New
              +5
              "Horseradish"? You are amazingly competent :)

              It’s not the Germans who are building it, but the EU. This is called ITER (ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) for hydrogen synthesis, and Russia takes part in it at least 11 scientific and industrial organizations and carries 1 \ 11 part of the costs. And let it be known, horseradish for hydrogen synthesis requires electrical capacities available only in nuclear energy (or large hydroelectric power stations), the total constant load power of the horseradish will be 114 megawatts. To do this, 250 megawatts of power will be supplied to the input of the system. Therefore, Khrenomak was located in France, a country where 58% of electricity is produced at nuclear power plants, in the territory of the Karadash nuclear research center, in the immediate vicinity of 6 (six) nuclear stations.

              Well, you yourself understand, after the "horseradish" your discussions about "growth times ... have passed on the market of nuclear power plants" do not look worthy of attention.

              But the fact that the "former world leaders" who world the leaders were only in your imagination, were not wealthy in the matter of building new stations. At some point, US auto builders were the absolute market leaders, Apple dominated the PC market, and in Poland, ocean-class ships were built. The world has changed.

              Westighhouse was able all his life, was even one of the leaders -> and here BAM! and failed, went bankrupt ... what do you really think so? or is it a rush of pride over the Rosat that knows everything better than adversaries?


              Not "bam!" The problems at Westinghouse started back in 1990 and not from nuclear power. Already in 1996, Westighhouse sold all nuclear plants to the British, and those in 2006 to Toshibe. Before you object, you would study the issue, otherwise I feel like a teacher in elementary school, I have to explain the basics.
              1. vlad_vlad
                vlad_vlad 30 November 2017 18: 58 New
                0
                and what is there to be modest - well, yes, competent. to the poetry and enlightenment of you:
                "horseradish" is in Germany. It is called Wendelstein 7-X and unlike you described ITER in France has already been built.
                read the tat [media = https: //lenta.ru/articles/2015/12/11/wende
                lstein7x]
                in a language you know, and the grace of competence may come down on you, mister teacher in elementary school.
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 1 December 2017 03: 46 New
                  +2
                  :) That's when the first industrial current is received from the stellator in the “horseradish”, then there will be a reason to mention it in the energy dispute. So far, they have only learned how to get plasma. Even, EMNIP synthesis was not. This installation is related to energy exclusively as a consumer.

                  By the way, I do not advise to continue to provide links to the "Ribbon". So-so source.
                  1. vlad_vlad
                    vlad_vlad 1 December 2017 10: 57 New
                    +1
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    :) That's when the first industrial current is received from the stellator in the “horseradish”, then there will be a reason to mention it in the energy dispute. So far, they have only learned how to get plasma. Even, EMNIP synthesis was not. This installation is related to energy exclusively as a consumer.

                    By the way, I do not advise to continue to provide links to the "Ribbon". So-so source.


                    That's when from ITER receive the first industrial current, and then there will be a reason to mention it in a dispute about energy. Bye there not even learned to get plasma. Even, EMNIP synthesis was not. To power this installation not is relevant.

                    about the Ribbon - maybe, but this is what I found in Russian. if you speak German, you will find a lot of things in the original.
                    1. abc_alex
                      abc_alex 2 December 2017 15: 28 New
                      +3
                      That's when the first industrial current is received from ITER, then there will be a reason to mention it in the energy dispute. Until they even learned how to get plasma. Even, EMNIP synthesis was not. This installation is not related to energy.


                      ITER is the installation for generation. Her design provides for current generation systems. Until it is built. A "horseradish" - an experimental setup for studying the properties of plasma. There is nothing in the structure that could generate electricity. hrnomak is an experiment tool, not a generator. Is this really necessary to explain? Even if it succeeds in obtaining a stable high-temperature plasma, "horseradish" will remain a consumer of energy, it cannot generate electricity by definition. It is just part of a fusion station. ONE PART. Well, be puzzled by a reduction in ignorance - you look at the ITERA scheme, replace Tokamak with "horseradish" and see for yourself how absurd your objections are.




                      That's the only difference.

                      about the Ribbon - maybe, but this is what I found in Russian. if you speak German, you will find a lot of things in the original.


                      Yes, there is full about this installation in Russian. Enter in Google "Wendelstein 7-X stellarator" and read. And the "writers" from the Tape are so competent that it makes no difference to them to write "experimental setup" or "thermonuclear reactor." The main thing for them is to make a sensation.
            2. KaPToC
              KaPToC 1 December 2017 21: 43 New
              0
              Quote: vlad_vlad
              The Germans are building some kind of "horseradish" building for hydrogen synthesis - can it work out?

              Then the custodians and not the Germans.
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 2 December 2017 15: 32 New
                0
                He had in mind the experimental setup of the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator, which for some reason he considers an alternative to nuclear power plants.
          4. vlad_vlad
            vlad_vlad 30 November 2017 11: 28 New
            +2
            Westighhouse went bankrupt, failing to build a reactor in the USA, Areva is on the verge, two long-term buildings without special prospects also hang on it. Today, only Rosatom is building really new nuclear power plants.


            Westighhouse was able all his life, was even one of the leaders -> and here BAM! and failed, went bankrupt ... what do you really think so? or is it a rush of pride over the Rosat that knows everything better than adversaries?
          5. Reklastik
            Reklastik 30 November 2017 18: 13 New
            0
            Yopt, in the yard almost 2018 ....
      2. Troll
        Troll 29 November 2017 19: 23 New
        +4
        Why?
        ---
        The fact that after the termination of support by the government, the German renewable energy industry is in a fever is a known fact. But where does it Russian atom crush. As long as Russia and Germany live in different economic systems, never.
    2. Mih1974
      Mih1974 29 November 2017 19: 04 New
      19
      You have not heard the main words. )) And the key here is "to reduce the cost of lipustricism, the EU is moving energy-intensive industries to other countries." And here the main feint comes with the ears - you can’t always “remove” energy-intensive technologies and “collect cream” from high-tech production. Because such an option would be available in the absence of competition - the collapse of the USSR, and China has not yet risen. Now, on the contrary, there are fewer and fewer people who want to "dirty pour ingots" of aluminum, for example, and change them to "foil" in a ratio of 1 to 100 (conditionally). In Russia, this is gradually ending, China itself is already withdrawing “grassroots” production, and the EU has essentially nothing to offer “expensive”. Moreover, on the other side of the "puddle" the Americans themselves want to "exchange expensive beads for cheap gold." That is, in the EU it will soon be impossible to rub something out of the "extra" money. Look WHAT the EU offers such an “expensive” innovation: software - gradually everyone is riveting their analogues, cars - yes read even a car assembled in the EU is already "made in China" then "why pay more?" lol , electronics - Asia rivets it and gradually their developments (and often the design bureaus are brought there) are better than the EU, aviation - so far, but China is trying to "cross" our "brains" and their "hands" and thereby squeeze from their own and many " cheap "boigne and watermelon" markets. I understand that in the EU there is still much that is up-to-date, but the tendency to replace them with “local” ones or simply to withdraw production from the EU is undeniable and everything is growing. The most striking example is England !! belay . Remember - the industrial revolution, English steam locomotives, aglitskoy cloth, etc. good This rose "Empire over which the sun does not set", but recently England flew out of the five most economic countries. tongue And all because production was “withdrawn” and lived on finances and “divorce of suckers”.
      But the real economy consists of - Real industry. Therefore, forever, Really cheap electricity from a nuclear power plant will win until it is replaced by a cheaper one - for example, thermonuclear fusion or something we cannot even fantasize about (like in the early 20th century about nuclear power plants).
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 29 November 2017 19: 42 New
        +4
        Now in most electronic devices there are processors / controllers from an English company, which receives money for this.

        Even our craftsmen from Elbrus have already launched processors based on English architecture.

        Architecture is ARM.

        Our overseas friends and girlfriends earn their dollars and all sorts of bitcoins.

        That is, speaking simply, they are in a different technological structure and it is incorrect to compare them with third world countries.
        1. oops
          oops 30 November 2017 06: 01 New
          +8
          ARM is a big company, but not really. RISC processors appeared about 35 years ago so that a lot of money ARM on licenses will not work. Processors with ARM architecture have their own niche and there are many of them, but can you name at least one British cell phone? The British no longer own a single automobile brand, they cannot do their aircraft, shipbuilding is in the anus, etc., etc., etc. The British are now known only as architectural designers and drunk football fans with loose beer belly.
          About your overseas friends. Every year, industrial production in the United States falls and falls, and no one there knows how to stop it. As a contender, Trump threatened to turn back the clock and return industry and industrial growth, but with his "America First" only stupidly quarreled with ALL trading partners. Even a faithful British poodle was frightened so that he went under himself ...
          The USA is becoming more and more like big Cyprus - financial services + tourism! High-tech American industry was supported by the importation of highly educated foreigners in the hundreds of thousands. Even the machinists were imported! If Trump fulfills his promise to drastically reduce the immigration of specialists, the United States will certainly quickly reach the level of Cyprus.
          1. Krabik
            Krabik 30 November 2017 14: 52 New
            0
            This is the trick of the next technological structure of no dirty production, only goods and services with a maximum extra cost.
            1. kuznec
              kuznec 30 November 2017 16: 24 New
              +5
              Those. actually a financial pyramid. Good way of life)) But what about the economic security of the state?
              You confuse subsequent technological modes with the activities of Ostap Bender. Subsequent structures do not at all exclude material production, they take them one step higher in terms of economy, environmental friendliness, robotics, digitalization, engineering approaches, etc. Do you plan to eat, dress, heat up, travel? Or just wrap green wrappers and eat them?
              1. Krabik
                Krabik 30 November 2017 17: 37 New
                +1
                For some it’s a financial pyramid, and for some it’s an information age.

                More advanced countries make money by selling patents, software, management systems, brands, and money.
                Countries at a lower level of development use production.
                At the very bottom of the country, suppliers of raw materials and human resources.

                Where we think in this chain will guess yourself;)
                1. kuznec
                  kuznec 1 December 2017 04: 13 New
                  +3
                  "Make America Great Again!" Trump shouted, and from the heights of the new technological order he rushed to return industrial production to the state and oust Russia and Saudi Arabia from the oil and gas markets of Europe and Asia.
                  Where in this chain the US elite wants to be, I think you will guess;)
                  The only drawback of financial pyramids is that they eventually burst.
                  1. Krabik
                    Krabik 1 December 2017 16: 24 New
                    0
                    To talk about Donald Trump at the beginning, analyze his name, and then read his biography.
    3. dSK
      dSK 30 November 2017 01: 35 New
      +2
      it all depends on politics
      In relation to Germany, then Yes. As far as is known, Germany refused to build new nuclear power plants after Fokusima. Probably pragmatic Germans, not only do not trust further measures for the safety of new nuclear power plants, but are considering options for developing a worsening international situation in recent years. In the last century, Germany rebuilt the country twice. In the event of a major conflict in the center of densely populated Europe, the inevitable destruction of several nuclear power plants will create a huge infected zone for many years, and there is simply nowhere to evacuate tens of millions of refugees. Therefore, Germany relies on cheap Russian gas and green energy. Germany is Gazprom's main stakeholder and the second phase of the Nord Stream will push through, despite all the efforts of the States to block it.
      1. turbris
        turbris 30 November 2017 10: 46 New
        0
        That's for sure! They say that green energy, almost 47% of all energy in Germany reaches, and every year increase the volume of purchases of gas and coal.
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 30 November 2017 19: 12 New
        0
        Germany had a very large surplus in generation. She has always been a net exporter of electricity. Even after the shutdown of the reactors in 2011, the total generating capacity there amounted to 100 megawatts, and the maximum demand was 000 megawatts per year. An increase in the price of electricity in the German domestic market due to subsidies for green energy makes it easy to buy electricity from neighbors, where a reduction in industry has led to an excess of generation. Germany now has a unique situation: there is an excess of cheap generation from traditional sources and a very expensive domestic market. Therefore, the Germans sell a lot and at the same time buy a lot of electricity.
        Well, in the event of a major conflict, no wind energy will save Germany. With so many state bases on their territory, they are inevitably glazed. And according to Ramstein it will tumble 100%.
  3. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 29 November 2017 16: 26 New
    +2
    Let's ask a simple question: why is our state, or the oligarchs, so preoccupied with alternative energy issues, and even in Germany? Maybe because this is a threat to these oligarchs in the West and at home? The article is paid. There is no point in reading.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 29 November 2017 18: 06 New
      +4
      the oligarchs generally don’t give a damn about the atom or the windmills, they are ready to put it into production if only the customers pay grandmas ...
      And in Russia, alternative energy is also actively sponsored and developed, but it is REASONABLE for us to do this, that is, where it is FAVORABLE ...
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov 29 November 2017 18: 19 New
        10
        Develop? Come on! In the best case, they put windmills and SES in places where there is no other generation and it is not profitable to build it! That’s all development. I, as a consumer, are not satisfied with the cost of a kilowatt-hour of 5 rubles, and I am ready to transfer my household to alternative sources of electricity and give part of the electricity for general needs. Do you think the state will be ready to compensate me for this transition? Now when you are ready to answer this question in the affirmative, then it will be called development, but for now all the actions of the authorities are Pavlov’s dog reflexes to external stimuli. Power and the oligarchs are not interested in any kind of autonomy of the people. Otherwise, it will be difficult to rob.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 29 November 2017 19: 27 New
          +3
          Andrew, in the store near me the potato 20p does not suit me as a consumer, so I’ll go buy another potato 40p each and offer my neighbors my potatoes, and I’ll ask you to reimburse me for 20p which I overpaid. hi
          1. andrej-shironov
            andrej-shironov 29 November 2017 19: 38 New
            +5
            Dear Damned Pirate! When the price of potatoes ceased to suit me, I began to grow it myself, like many other vegetables. You are trying to get away from the answer. In Germany, the state compensates costs to households and not private owners. Therefore, your comparison is not correct hi
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 29 November 2017 20: 10 New
              +2
              that is, should other people pay your electricity bills through their taxes? Yes? then why don't you want to pay me potatoes?
              1. andrej-shironov
                andrej-shironov 29 November 2017 20: 18 New
                +1
                smile Pirate, as I understand it, you consciously shy away from the answer, pretending that you do not understand. To subsidize, and not pay, and not bills, but my transfer to alternative sources of electricity, the excess of which I am ready to give to general generation. Subsidizing is carried out once wink What's not clear? I wonder how you will now get off the topic? wink
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 29 November 2017 21: 36 New
                  +2
                  but I don’t get down from it, do you want me to sell you potatoes at 40r when in the store 20? you will buy? I understand that you will lol
                  1. andrej-shironov
                    andrej-shironov 29 November 2017 21: 51 New
                    +2
                    wink Clearly, you are one of those who deliberately stupid not knowing how to admit their wrong.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 30 November 2017 01: 11 New
                      +1
                      but I now understand that you are fixated on your power plant and do not notice your mistake point-blank. And even if my sarcasm has not reached you, I am writing directly.
                      I, your neighbor, you offer me to buy from you electric power the construction of which you subsidized, your price is higher than that of the state electricity supplier, but you still insist on buying from you. I have a question, should I send you? that way, amicably, next door, with a three-story house, or just in the face give?
                      1. andrej-shironov
                        andrej-shironov 30 November 2017 09: 39 New
                        0
                        wink If you master, it is better to try right in the face. Well, I would at least do that. To subsidize a pirate, this also means guaranteed to buy surplus capacity at the price that exists in the region. And by the way, for some reason you are surely sure that the difference in the cost of generation will be exactly 2 times? You know, in the whole world small hydropower is actively developing, except for Russia, which gives that autonomy to a citizen who was not so dear to the oligarchs in Russia.
        2. kuznec
          kuznec 30 November 2017 05: 53 New
          +5
          Andrey, you’re trying to translate your farm. Unless you live on the coast of a sea or a large reservoir. I tried to count. There are few places with relatively stable winds in our country. Half of the territory - an average annual speed of less than 4 m / s, another third - from 4 to 5 m / s. At these speeds, the windmill should be very good. large, you need a serious controller with a large buffer battery. If supplemented by solar panels, this is generally an unbearable amount. Do you want to use a vacuum cleaner, a quick-boiling kettle, a refrigerator? And this is at the peak of several kilowatts. And per month at least 300-500 kW / h. The amount for the equipment goes such that with this money you can buy electricity for 50 years at current tariffs. A windmill must be installed for revision once a year, and batteries should be replaced once a couple of years ...
          So if you want your electricity, it will turn out not by 5 rubles, but by 25, or rather, by 50. Therefore, an alternative should be set only where there are no other sources of electric power. And no one in their right mind will compensate you for anything. So buy by wire until room thermonuclear generators appear on sale))
  4. Heinrich ruppert
    Heinrich ruppert 29 November 2017 16: 33 New
    +3
    The author made a mistake from the very beginning
    The fact is that in Germany, as elsewhere in Europe, the "green tariff" is sponsored by the state
    .

    This is not true. For this, consumers consume. And even more private consumers.
    They raised the price of email. energy 2 times. Explaining this by the fact that "need to support" alternative energy sources for the benefit of posterity.
  5. Lnglr
    Lnglr 29 November 2017 16: 55 New
    0
    Um .... Like BE .... What a nuclear power plant, what a green "alternative" - ​​all against oil / gas energy. The same Belarusians say that with the launch of the Belarusian nuclear power plant they will be able to buy at least a quarter less Russian gas.
    Statements that
    that alternative energy in Europe, ceteris paribus, can never compete with traditional generation.
    it seems true, but at the same time it is worth noting that with the development of any energy sources, except oil and gas, Russia will suffer losses.
  6. magadan72
    magadan72 29 November 2017 17: 33 New
    +4
    Well, what to do! WELL, THEY LOVE ALL NON-TRADITIONAL !!!!
  7. Scopolamine
    Scopolamine 29 November 2017 17: 41 New
    +3
    In Canada, green energy is also sponsored, but in general, the cheapest are nuclear plants. Windmills are expensive to maintain, strong winds they do not work, weak too. Huge screws generate disastrous health for infrasound, many are already worried about this.
    Solar panels were promoted for installation on the roofs of private houses with the ability to sell excess energy back to the network many times more expensive than the real price of electro. It didn’t go to the masses because insurance companies refuse to insure houses with solar panels due to the alleged increased fire hazard. In our world, without insurance, the bank does not give credit and such a house becomes unsaleable.
    In general, the process is proceeding but very slowly and keeps only on state subsidies. Now only somewhere on an island or in a distant lonely village does it make financial sense.
    1. turbris
      turbris 29 November 2017 17: 55 New
      +3
      Green energy is beneficial where there are suitable geographical conditions for this (wind rose, the number of sunny days per year, etc.), but in the first there are not so many such areas, and in the second, green energy can never meet the needs of large energy-intensive enterprises and densely populated cities. A city with a population of more than 1 million people will never be fully supplied with energy by any green energy, therefore there are no alternatives to nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations and thermal power plants, just in Europe someone gets good money for promoting green energy.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 29 November 2017 18: 01 New
        +1
        Oh well
        The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that the total capacity of solar panels installed in China in 2016 exceeded 34 GW. This is almost half of all additional capacity produced last year. In the first quarter of 2017 alone, China added another 8 GW of renewable energy sources to its network.
    2. gromovanton
      gromovanton 30 November 2017 21: 15 New
      0
      The cheapest electricity from coal stations!
      The question is not whether the future lies with renewable energy sources or non-renewable ones. Of course, the future lies with renewable energy sources. And it will be thermonuclear, the energy of the sun, the energy of the bowels of the earth is a purely technological issue. The EU, USA, and China are moving towards the development of renewable energy technologies. The fact that at the current level of technology development can not do without atomic energy, probably yes, here I am not an expert.
  8. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 29 November 2017 17: 45 New
    +2
    After Chernobyl and Fukushima, most likely never. Additional safety precautions make atomic becoming too expensive

    Cost of atomic and solar energy per kilowatt hour in the USA by years, in US cents
    1. Scopolamine
      Scopolamine 29 November 2017 18: 53 New
      +2
      According to Ontario, the price is completely different.


      Nuclear energy is still 2 times cheaper than wind turbines and 7 times cheaper than solar panels. Cheaper than an atom is only a hydroelectric power station.
  9. Plate
    Plate 29 November 2017 17: 58 New
    +3
    I agree with the article, what is called "unconventional" energy today is unlikely to be able to live long. Moreover, nuclear power plants do not emit any pollutants into the atmosphere (do not talk about what happens during accidents, otherwise I’ll start talking about the high toxicity of solar panel production), for which green and praise alternative energy so actively. With the start of operation of fast-neutron reactors on an industrial scale, according to Rosatom, it will be possible to return to the earth as much “radiation” as they took. And now we have learned how to cope with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
    Thus, in case of improvement of NPP technologies (and it is already underway), the price of electricity, allowing the plant to self-repay, will be superimposed on environmental cleanliness and the meaning in all these wind farms and solar power plants will disappear. The future belongs to the atom.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 29 November 2017 17: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Plate
      With the start of operation of fast neutron reactors on an industrial scale, according to Rosatom, it will be possible to return as much "radiation" to the earth as they took.

      Perpetual motion machine invented?
      1. Plate
        Plate 29 November 2017 18: 07 New
        +1
        No, just these reactors are allowed to get rid of the most long-lived radioactive isotopes in nuclear fuel.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 29 November 2017 18: 13 New
          0
          Here let's go without fiction. The goal of fast-neutron rectors is to use depleted uranium, as ordinary finishes. And do not solve the problem of radioactive shit, they will be no less.
          1. Plate
            Plate 29 November 2017 18: 18 New
            +1
            I did not say that their goal is to reduce the danger of radioactive waste. This is just a byproduct.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 29 November 2017 18: 41 New
              0
              So, from the introduction of depleted uranium into fuel reserves, less waste will not become.
          2. vadimtt
            vadimtt 30 November 2017 12: 30 New
            +1
            You are very wrong with the goal. The goal is a closed fuel cycle, when VVER makes fuel for BN, and BN makes fuel for VVER and almost nothing needs to be disposed of.
            1. Plate
              Plate 30 November 2017 14: 11 New
              0
              I was about to try to say this. The message is this: waste will cease to be such a serious problem.
    2. Alex_
      Alex_ 1 December 2017 08: 05 New
      0
      Is the production of all components of a nuclear power plant pure and harmless? You said some nonsense. And where to put the waste materials? Also probably self-utilizing?
      Without leaving a trace.
  10. Vladimir Smirnov_3
    Vladimir Smirnov_3 29 November 2017 22: 02 New
    +2
    In the near foreseeable future, wind and solar, and whatever energy they have there, is called green, not only they will not be equal, but even in the same row they will not stand up to atomic generation, neither in terms of cost nor in terms of environmental impact. According to this and other indicators, atomic energy exceeds all of the above, and in fact, it is also green, because it does not have any impact on the environment.
  11. the same doctor
    the same doctor 29 November 2017 22: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: "... 60 (years) * 365 (days) * 24 (hours) * 2 (power in kW) * 400 (utilization factor) = 0,85 billion kWh ...."
    .
    no one noticed the error a thousand times? Power is 2400 gigawatts, not kilowatts. According to this calculation, the kW * hour will be ten euros, not 1-2 cents, as it should.
    1. Xaron-a
      Xaron-a 30 November 2017 12: 06 New
      0
      It is calculated correctly, and in units of measurement the typo is 2400 MW, or 2400000 kW
    2. forty-eighth
      forty-eighth 30 November 2017 12: 18 New
      0
      Quote: also a doctor
      2400 gigawatts

      2400 megawatts. But the difference is really 1000 times, you correctly noted that.
    3. Shukhov
      Shukhov 30 November 2017 12: 23 New
      0
      There really is a mistake, a valuable comment is that only Rosenergoatom Concern has developed a VVER-1200 standard reactor with 1150 MW of electric power. Despite the fact that there are two units in the Belarusian NPP. Thus, the calculation will be as follows:
      60 (years) * 365 (days) * 24 (hours) * 1150000 (power in kW) * 2 * 0,85 (utilization factor) = 1024,5 billion kW * h The correct result will be capital expenditures less than 1 cent per kilowatt * hour of electricity.
    4. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 December 2017 22: 00 New
      0
      Quote: also a doctor
      According to this calculation, the kW * hour will be ten euros, not 1-2 cents, as it should.

      If you believe your amendment, one kW is a thousand times cheaper, and not more expensive.
  12. tolancop
    tolancop 29 November 2017 23: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: andrej-shironov
    Dear Damned Pirate! When the price of potatoes ceased to suit me, I began to grow it myself, like many other vegetables. You are trying to get away from the answer. In Germany, the state compensates costs to households and not private owners. Therefore, your comparison is not correct hi

    And I ceased to grow potatoes myself, when its cost began to noticeably exceed that acquired in the market.
  13. Old26
    Old26 29 November 2017 23: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: andrej-shironov
    Develop? Come on! In the best case, they put windmills and SES in places where there is no other generation and it is not profitable to build it! That's all development ..

    Not certainly in that way. We also have generation, and at the same time, 2 wind farms should be built in the next 3-9 years. With solar, of course, not everything is so good. We are very far from the level of Turkey, but in certain areas of the region, where there are a very large number of sunny days in a year, there is some work. Although I will be honest - it is more likely to be experimental work. But with windmills - is another matter. We have such a region that they will be in demand
  14. polpot
    polpot 29 November 2017 23: 40 New
    +1
    There are many methods for European citizens to use budget money, green energy is one of them, moreover, helping refugees from Africa, toilets for highways is an ordinary cut of money, and how they bought our gas they buy it if the industry needs it
  15. oops
    oops 30 November 2017 10: 42 New
    +1
    andrej-shironov,
    If someone is hit on the brain by environmental mythology, then he completely loses the ability to think logically and to count primitively.
    To subsidize does not mean to buy excess capacity. Subsidy - an additional payment to the manufacturer for the production of unprofitable goods.
    There is no boom in small hydropower - wherever possible, there are hydroelectric power stations there for a long time. In the USSR, for example, on small rivers in the foothills, hydroelectric power plants were installed eighty years ago.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 1 December 2017 11: 16 New
      0
      The state is the same private investor, its interest is always the profit of capital (financial, human, scientific, etc.), it subsidizes only where there will be an increase in such capital. If there is a profit from your small business, there will be a subsidy, but how can you be interesting at the macro level? Look at the layout of prices in Russia by consumer groups, small business pays the most. And you rolled your lip and shout out the window "freebie, come!" ... well, except that like Elon Musk, launch a project to colonize Mars cheaper than Roskosmos ....)))))))))
  16. turbris
    turbris 30 November 2017 10: 56 New
    0
    andrej-shironov,
    For all questions, regardless of the topic, do you attract power? Do you even know how many small hydropower plants are in Russia? However, this is not important, the main thing is that power is bad! If you do not write a piece of paper, then explain what kind of power they would like in modern conditions, without imagination. I do not consider the existing government to be ideal, but in a real situation there are oligarchs and officials, politics and economics, the social sphere and defense, a people who of course want to live better. Are you sure that some other power will instantly improve everything? If not, then stop shaking the air, otherwise it may turn out that you will recall this existing power as the best.
  17. demiurg
    demiurg 30 November 2017 15: 30 New
    +1
    Relatively recently, I read an article about the possibility of providing Germany with alternative energy sources. The conclusion was simple: Regardless of the price of a kilowatt, this is impossible from the word at all. And it is impossible even if the efficiency of solar panels is 100%. It's just that in Europe in general, and in Germany in particular, there is no corny free space. Plus, the question arises of providing electricity at night.
    This is my free space in France measured in Western Siberia. And in Europe, 73 people live, work, breed and rest on every square kilometer. Cross out the mountains, reserves and other inaccessible territories, and it will become completely sad.
    Here in Australia I believe in the possibility of solar panels. A huge pile of sunny days and huge free territories + heat, heating is not necessary.
    A backfill question, what would happen to Europe in a cold, calm and cloudy winter?
    There are productions which, after stopping the continuous process, are easier to rebuild.
  18. cockatoo
    cockatoo 30 November 2017 17: 16 New
    0
    and nuclear waste was buried throughout
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 December 2017 22: 03 New
      0
      Quote: kakadu
      and nuclear waste was buried throughout

      Waste from you is buried all over the moon
  19. Antares
    Antares 30 November 2017 23: 53 New
    0
    to compare the first steps of alternative energy with the cost of the cheapest electricity (NPP) is somehow strange. However, NPPs themselves are not just expensive facilities, they require a lot, which they do not indicate in the calculations (disposal, training of specialists, and investments are quite significant). They brought the cost of construction, and then, as in the game, the cream is removed? No. A nuclear power plant is a very expensive facility. It is difficult for private owners of nuclear power plants to pull.
    Alternative electricity is not so ecological. But thanks to subsidies, it has a chance to develop and reduce its cost. The EU is a political process.
    By the way for the author. The interests of Rosatom are also the interests of the Russian Federation. And the voices that the bid for green electricity in the EU is also a type of war for the resource market (gas, electricity, nuclear power plants)
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 December 2017 22: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Antares
      However, NPPs themselves are not just expensive facilities, they require a lot, which they do not indicate in the calculations

      They are expensive - because they are large-scale, and alternative energy, if it wants to compare with conventional energy, should be built on a large scale.
  20. Alex_
    Alex_ 1 December 2017 07: 56 New
    +1
    Not an article - but complete nonsense. Germany is a leader in the production of windmills. And these are hundreds of enterprises and tens of thousands of people, which means tens of various taxes from the legal entities and individuals. So donations go up to a certain point, after this topic becomes self-sustaining.
    For example, Obama, for the sake of political interests, bought 2000 windmills from the Germans for California. When flying over the coast of Holland and Belgium, the number of windmills is simply amazing, like mushrooms.
    As for the "peaceful atom", the Europeans are not fools. An example of Chernobyl and Fukushima on the face. Results too. Where is the guarantee that tomorrow somewhere in the center of Europe EVERYTHING will not shy away.
    So leave stories about the "peaceful atom" for idiots. It is better to develop alternative energy, but here we have lost the market for centuries.
    The only option, by analogy with Alaska. To give bribes to European officials and lobby for interests to push through this topic. Alaska was sold by the way.
  21. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 1 December 2017 11: 07 New
    0
    andrej-shironov, your surplus will cost no higher than the price of the energy market. You will simply be compelled, by analogy with German wind turbines, to sell surplus with minus cost, because otherwise the State will politely ask you to give the subsidy you received in another way.
    To subsidize an alternative for free is a way to nowhere. It is more profitable for the state to invest in science in order to find an alternative to the atom. The existing types of alternatives today look like private small aircraft next to the main wide-body - they satisfy private interest, but they are not able to replace industrial volumes, at least be subsidized.
  22. UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 2 December 2017 10: 22 New
    0
    And how much will the liquidation of the next Long Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima cost? Let's take the risk of such disasters (and if there were at least three of them, then they will continue to happen) we will put in the cost of generation. The author modestly omitted the problem of transportation and disposal of nuclear waste, as did the problems with the disposal of the station itself, at least after 60, even after 90 years. It’s easier to cut a windmill into scrap metal.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 2 December 2017 15: 48 New
      0
      And how do you imagine the work of, say, an aluminum plant in windmills? What will you come up with for regions with weak winds?
      The issue of waste management is solved by creating a closed nuclear cycle.
      And most importantly, "green energy" is not profitable otherwise than as a superstructure over classical energy.

      Germany can afford "green energy" because it has an excess of generating capacities of the classical type, it can export electricity and import it, and the balance is positive. That is, this is a unique situation similar to the “American shale”. If tomorrow the whole of Europe goes into windmills, half of the EU will be left without electricity, and the second half will “turn on the light” only when the wind blows. By the way, sitting without heating. And Germany as well.
      1. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 2 December 2017 21: 12 New
        0
        The problem of the instability of the generation of "green" energy is not hidden by anyone. And work in this direction has not stopped and does not stop. Energy storage technologies are developing, and so far have not run into some insurmountable barrier. So it is not worth presenting the technological problems of today as some existential, fundamentally unsolvable.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 4 December 2017 00: 12 New
          0
          Even now, there is no problem creating a “battery farm” that can store megawatts / hours of electricity. You just need a lot of batteries. There are no technological problems here even today. Hundreds of batteries, controllers, converters. All this is on the market right now. But the final price of a kilowatt will then be prohibitive.

          I read an article whose author shared his personal experience installing a solar panel on a country house. He checked the scheme for profitability. So, even a preliminary calculation made him immediately abandon the scheme with the accumulator, since it was completely unprofitable. By the way, even without a drive, the circuit turned out to be unprofitable, since the payback cycle was longer than the battery life before it needed to be replaced, taking into account the installation costs. And he considered the price of purchased electricity for an ordinary household user.


          But I'm not even talking about that. I talked about “generation density”. One modern nuclear power plant can provide current to a powerful energy-intensive enterprise and a city nearby. Thermal stations will provide daily surges in consumption. And how many tens of hectares need to be poked with windmills for the same purpose? How many battery farms to build? One of the largest wind farms, Lynn and Inner Dowsing, has a combined capacity of all wind turbines of 194,4 MW. One unit of new Rosatom nuclear power plants - 1150 MW.
  23. Ionov
    Ionov 2 December 2017 15: 37 New
    0
    You will be surprised, but atom and fusion, unfortunately, have no future. The future, unfortunately some, is for RES.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 2 December 2017 16: 08 New
      0
      Quote: Ionov
      The future, unfortunately some, is for RES.

      You are joking? Any energy in our solar system is a derivative of thermonuclear energy, for which there is a future.
  24. Ivan Medvedev
    Ivan Medvedev 3 December 2017 12: 38 New
    0
    Would deal with gas prices. I think the citizens of the Russian Federation will be more interesting.
  25. Istist
    Istist 5 December 2017 11: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Chertt
    Quote: KaPToC
    In fact, there is the wrong design of alternative power plants.

    I’m not a specialist, but I’m always alarmed when someone in the comments points to a mistake made by hundreds of scientists and specialists around the world .... You are either an unrecognized genius, or ..............

    I completely agree, although there is a rational grain in his words.