At this site, when I have written about countries and states seeking to be among the leaders in eliminating fossil fuels from their electricity supply, I have generally focused on the larger jurisdictions, like Germany and the UK in Europe, and California and New York in the U.S. But there is one much smaller country that puts all of those bigger ones to shame: Denmark. With a population of only about 6 million, Denmark has pushed the “renewable” electricity generation thing well beyond what others have been able to accomplish. According to its official statistics, in 2024 Denmark got some 79.5% of its electricity from what it calls “low carbon” sources. The large majority of that came from wind and solar, with only a minimal contribution from nuclear. As to nuclear, Denmark had in fact mandated phasing it out, by a law passed back in 2003.
So then, does it seem like, with just a final little push, Denmark can go over the top and reach the long-sought goal of 100% of generation from “renewables”?
In fact, according to the most recent news from Denmark, it is the opposite. Just during the past week, the lower house of Denmark’s Parliament, by a wide margin (102-8), passed a resolution reversing the nuclear phase out. This will likely lead to retaining the few remaining reactors, and then starting to build new ones. The immediate impetus for the resolution appears to have been the recent blackout in Spain and Portugal, which has been generally attributed to the lack of synchronous generation on the power grids of those countries. The statement by the Danish government announcing the Parliament’s resolution did not explicitly walk back support for the continued build-out of wind and solar generators, but said that this new pro-nuclear approach “pave[s] the way for a realistic and resilient energy model.”
Now that Denmark has recognized the need for some form of high-inertia synchronous generation to make its grid work reliably, it’s hard to see how they can avoid the next inevitable question: Do wind and solar actually serve any real function here? Or are they just a large added cost without any corresponding benefit? It can’t be long before lots of people start pressing this obvious question.
A brief history of how Denmark got to where it is can be found in this May 16 piece from World Nuclear News. Excerpt:
Belgium’s federal parliament has voted by a large majority to repeal a 2003 law for the phase-out of nuclear power and banning the construction of new nuclear generating capacity. Meanwhile, the Danish parliament has approved an analysis of the potential use of nuclear, which has been banned for the past 40 years. Belgium’s federal law of 31 January 2003 [has] require[d] the phase-out of all nuclear electricity generation in the country.
Under the 2003 law, several nuclear plants had been closed, although the closure of the last two had been delayed. Most recently, those last two were scheduled to close in November of this year, but now that is likely to be postponed again.
And meanwhile, up to now Denmark has been the absolute champion of building wind turbines and solar panels to supply its grid. Since the 1990s, Denmark has had a crash program to build out more and more wind and solar generators. According to Danish statistics reported at Low Carbon Power here, in 2024 Denmark got 52.3% of its electricity from wind and 10.2% from solar, for a total of 62.5% from those two sources. Here is a pie chart from Low Carbon Power showing all of the sources of Denmark’s electricity for 2024:
The “low carbon” total comes to 79.5%, after adding an additional 17% from a category they call “biofuels.” Note the leafy branch appearing in the pie chart as the symbol for the “biofuels.” Don’t be fooled. As far as I know, “biofuels” mainly means burning garbage, with some wood pellets from cutting down trees thrown into the mix. Both garbage and wood pellets contain carbon, and thus the energy from the “biofuels” comes from burning the carbon. Exactly why this is in the “low carbon” category is a mystery to me.
But with or without the biofuels, Denmark has well surpassed other de-carbonization “leaders” in getting its electricity from “renewable” sources. Compared to Denmark’s 62.5% of electricity from wind and solar in 2024, Germany in 2024 got a combined 43% of its electricity from those sources (28% wind and 15% solar), while in California the percentage from the two sources was 37.5% (12.5% wind and 25% solar). For their virtue, the Danes got to enjoy average residential electricity prices of 37.63 euro cents per kWh.
And yet, having surpassed the 60% threshold of electricity from wind and solar, Denmark has now recognized that 100% is not feasible, and wind and solar alone cannot be the only sources to power their grid. Even if the intermittency problem can be overcome, the problems of lack of sychronization and inertia cannot be solved with only wind and solar. Some amount of timed spinning generation is necessary, and nuclear is the proposed low-carbon solution. Some amount of nuclear is going to get built. Let’s assume the amount of nuclear to be built will be sufficient to supply 50% of average demand (the exact percentage is not important).
Once you have nuclear to supply half of average demand, here’s the key question: should you run it all the time, or should you turn it on and off, or ramp it up and down, as wind and solar generation may be available to meet the same demand? This is not a difficult question. Nuclear reactors are expensive, and the cost of the capital needed to build them (e.g., interest on bonds) accrues 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. To minimize the cost of capital per unit of electricity produced, you want to run your nuclear plant all the time. Yes, there is a cost of fuel involved in a nuclear plant, but it is minimal compared to the cost of capital.
Instead of running your new nuclear plant at full capacity all the time, you could choose to have it ramp up and down as intermittent wind and solar generation are randomly available. Assume that (like Denmark) you have sufficient wind and solar generation to supply 62.5% of demand. This means that your new nuclear plant, operating in backup mode, will only be selling power 38.5% of the time. But the bondholders who financed it must be paid 100% of the time. After some (relatively small) adjustments for costs of fuel and operations, the bottom line is that the cost per unit of electricity from your new nuclear plant will be close to triple what the cost per unit would have been if you had chosen to run the plant all of the time. But if you run the nuclear plant all the time, you don’t need the wind and the solar. They are just a useless extra cost.
The real world cost calculations would be somewhat more complex than what I have outlined, but not much. The fact is that once you have nuclear plants to cover a given level of electricity demand, wind and solar generators serve no useful function.
It shouldn’t take the Danes too long to figure this out. I will enjoy watching the process unfold.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Weather dependent sources are a drain on the grid.
The producers should be required to pay for disposal of un-needed energy instead of being paid for it.
This is good news, even if only a small gain against the wind and solar delusions.
Speaking of Denmark and the core misconception of danger from slowly diminishing glaciers, here is the latest from the Greenland ice sheet. See the blue line. “I’ve have extra icing on my Danish today, please!”
Very nice Francis. The financers for wind and solar face the same problem as nuclear when they aren’t producing. Why on earth have we allowed them to be built?
The financers generally are government tax revenues being spent and politicians do not worry about amortization of costs, just spending.
THE UK, GERMANY, SPAIN, FRANCE, DENMARK, ETC., ARE IN DEEP DO-DO, BECAUSE WIND/SOLAR SYSTEMS PROVIDE ZERO SYNCHRONOUS INERTIA TO THE GRID
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-uk-germany-spain-france-etc-in-deep-wind-solar-do-do
.
The UK Conservative and Labor elites, using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media, brainwashed the people to vote for them for decades.
Those voters ended up having the highest electric bills, i.e., total bill divided by consumed electricity, c/kWh, while the elites are laughing all the way to the bank.
.
Any energy systems analyst would know Spain/Portugal-like blackout problems would eventually happen, before a single wind/solar system were connected to the grid, but naive, woke, non-technical enviros do not want to listen to the pros.
Full speed ahead over the cliff, you go, unless all this wind/solar/battery nonsense is stopped dead by taking away the overly generous subsidies.
.
Expensive Wind and Solar Systems
The over-taxed, over-regulated taxpayers and ratepayers are paying at very high c/kWh for electricity and Heat Pump heating/cooling and for EV driving.
.
They pay for:
.
1) highly subsidized, expensive wind/solar systems that disturb the grid with weather-dependent, variable, intermittent electricity, which has caused expensive brownouts/blackouts, as in Spain/Portugal, and many other places, over the years.
2) grid expansion to connect all these far-flung wind/solar systems to the grid,
3) grid reinforcements to ensure the grids do not crash during periods with higher levels of wind/solar power
.
In cases of too much wind/solar power, it needs to be curtailed; Owners still get paid for what they could have produced.
In cases of too little wind/solar power, other generators need to increase outputs to meet demand, 24/7/365.
Synchronous Inertia Serves to Stabilize the Grid
Closing down traditional plants (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro), with rotating generators that provide SYNCHRONOUS inertia, de-stabilizes the grid; a death sentence for the grid.
.
Wind/solar systems provide ZERO SYNCHRONOUS inertia to help stabilize the grid, because their variable outputs are digitized, then reconstituted into an artificial sine wave with the same phase and frequency as the grid.
.
Connections Between Grids
Almost all grids have connections to other grids for import and export purposes.
Those connections usually are high-voltage, direct-current lines, HVDC
Such connections transfer power, but do not transfer SYNCHRONOUS inertia to other grids.
.
Reactive Power
No AC grid can function without reactive power
Wind/solar systems take reactive power FROM the grid
All traditional power plants provide reactive power TO the grid
.
Synchronous Condenser Systems
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, wind/solar feed-ins to the grid often create transmission faults.
Those faults can be minimized with synchronous condenser systems to provide reactive power TO the grid.
.
Net Zero to reduce CO2 by 2050 is a very expensive suicide pact.
We need higher CO2 ppm in the atmosphere for increased greening of the world, to support abundant fauna, and to increase crop yields to feed 8 billion people.
There is no particular difficulty in weather dependent generators providing reactive power
https://www.esig.energy/wiki-main-page/reactive-power-capability-and-interconnection-requirements-for-pv-and-wind-plants/
Also the latest battery systems have frequency control AND synthetic inertia
https://reneweconomy.com.au/biggest-solar-battery-hybrid-project-with-grid-forming-inverters-in-australia-wins-grid-approval/
The big batteries installed in Australia get about half their income from the 5 second FRAS component because they respond faster to energy demand than steam plant governors.
Because there was no real system planning for intermittent generation on the grid, the requirements for these aspects were not built into early grid scale WDGs and batteries but that is changing. The only material issue is the HUMUNGOUS cost of cobbling all the expensive stuff together to match what simple rotating machines have been doing for over a century.. Also most of that stuff is now made in China so the world power generation industry is increasingly reliant on China to make it all work.
Sort of. The rotors are governed to say, 3000 rpm. Because the power station is converting stored solar energy (say fossil fuels or hydropower), or mass (nuclear) to electricity, electricity production is limited by motive power.
When ongoing demand is too high, rpm drop, and insufficient power is available to maintain rpm. The only solution is load shedding, allowing rpm to pick up again. A momentary overload is OK, as the stored energy in the rotor as it slows is converted to extra electricity. It has to be replaced, or the rotor continues to slow. Slowing rotor, slower frequency, lower voltage.
The rotors can spin at 3000 rpm with no load at all. Various control mechanisms tied to an accurate time source are used. If control fails, disconnect from the grid, and cut the steam, gas, or water supply driving the rotors.
Generators try to keep rpm within about 1% because of hysteresis delays in slowing down or speeding up – big rotating masses cannot react instantaneously.
Stability of frequency and voltage depends on time source accuracy, and control mechanisms.
Wind and solar inputs to a grid are pointless. Undependable and intermittent. Niche applications only. Baseload supplies have to be capable of supplying total grid demand anyway. Same number of staff, same equipment, same buildings – regardless of power output, pretty much. Fuel consumption varies, but is always there – unlike wind and solar.
If people want wind and solar, let them buy it. Charge them extra if they want to use the normal grid as back up. A lot extra, to compensate the grid operator for the inconvenience of coping with both unexpected demand when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and the problems of coping with unneeded power when it doesn’t shine.
/rant off
Good rant.
I have been travelling the North of Spain this weekend for 2000 km in my diesel car and I noted that a lot of the windmills had their blades not moving and not because of no wind blowing.
“For their virtue, the Danes got to enjoy average residential electricity prices of 37.63 euro cents per kWh.”
But half of that is tax. Without tax, it is 19.28 c/kWh. You may take issue with their decision to tax it, but it doesn’t reflect on the cost of generation.
You are lying again Nick. The cost of the network is not a tax. Without a transmission and distribution network there would be no point generating power.
The ever increasing cost of WDGs is all the add ons to make it work without continuously running rotating machines. Big batteries, big inverters; ever more transmission lines; more interconnectors to other jurisdictions; higher management cost faced with ever increasing complexity and risk of total blackout.
Some of the high taxes will no doubt be going to prop up the wind industry that Denmark has been promoting but is now collapsing. Denmark can never compete with China’s coal based economy.
“You are lying again Nick.”
Menton’s figures, not mine:
So you are happy to repeat a lie without checking what gets lumped into the “tax”. Blackout Bowen is working on the same financial trick to lump all the costs above the wholesale energy price into general revenue and just add it to the tax base so the burden of WDGs falls more equitably to tax payers rather than electricity consumers.
So all the additional costs get called “taxes” rather than showing what the true cost of electricity has become.
“to repeat a lie”
So was Menton repeating a lie? It’s his source. Or does “lie” just mean you don’t like the number?
Is Menton a politician?
Are his lips moving?
Similarly Nick, the cost to consumers is significantly lowered by taxpayer-provided rebates & subsidies on real high-cost renewables generation, storage and distribution.
Bullshit is the most effective fuel ever used for renewables generation, storage & distribution.
Apologies, I posted before I had read your comment. You are correct, of course.
The money for the subsidies paid to wind farm operators has to come from somewhere, hence the tax on electricity in Denmark.
Price, retail or wholesale, isn’t a proper indicator, because it is so influenced by government actions including taxation and subsidies.
The right indicator is the total cost of supplying dispatchable power to the point of need, and the right measure of it is the NPV of all of the associated cash flows over the life of the systems.
Would the generation cost be the same without government subsidies? And if the government has to tax such a fundamental need as energy so heavily, than something is rotten in Denmark. It is cheap, reliable and abundant energy that grows an economy and the welfare of the people.
Ok. It does not reflect the actual cost of generation.
But the consumers still pay it.
And what, pray tell, are the taxes about, what are they for?
“German electricity taxes are high primarily due to the EEG levy, which funds the transition to renewable energy, and grid charges for expanding and maintaining the electricity grid. These charges, along with taxes and other levies, can account for a significant portion of an average electricity bill.”
I don’t believe any of those numbers.
It is made to seem that kWhrs are continuous at fixed capacity. They can’t be..night, clouds, storms, high wind, low wind, wind changing direction.
To illustrate..a 4MW nameplate capacity wind turbine could generate 4MW each minute for 60 minutes and produce 4MWhrs. More likely, it produces 4 MWs for 20 non-continuous minutes and 3,2,1, 0 MW for 40 minutes…so, 1 MWhr and some more non-continuous minutes.
No way 4MW in each hour is produced without a stable grid with fulltime capacity and a lot of peaking, dispatchable generators to fill in the gaps.
Try isolating Denmark from the rest of Europe’s grids…see how that works.
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com They have built a reactor – need approval for fuel.
Super interesting company. Molten Salt reactors are far superior to water cooled reactor. Much safer, much more efficient, much cheaper.
But so corrosive there isn’t an NRC approved metallurgy for the reactor, only the lower temperature storage.
Two prototypes have been built and soon to come a non-fission prototype.
They need a lot more than approval for fuel. Non-functioning prototypes are easy to design and build.
All along people on this forum have been saying it will take major blackouts before the people realize the down side of renewables and go nuclear or back to fossil fuels. The worm has turned for renewables and there’s no getting it back on track. We can also expect more power blackouts to seal the deal. Once again the MSM has proven to be a false prophet supporting a cabal bent on One World Government.
Pandora’s Box comes to mind.
Scientists say the earth has a solid iron core which revolves at a speed different from the surface speed and is somewhat variable – it slows sometimes and speeds up at times. Could this affect climate?
EVERYTHING affects climates these days.
Even a solitary old cow trying to subtly squeeze out a pressing fart in the far corner of the bottom paddock is a threat to life as we know it, because – climate crisis!!
The Sun has 10 to 20 times more variation in output than the total power that works its way up through the crust of the Earth. There are spectacular events on Earth due to geological activity but that is more to do with molten part than solid part and has limited duration. The solar activity, driven by gravitation torque on the Sun, changes the output of the Sun by a few W/m^2, which is a lot of energy variation given the size of the Sun.
The gravitational torque variation on Earth is probably why the whole planet has not solidified.
The orbital torque variation due to gravity exhibits as the orbital eccentricity. Earth eccentricity is 0.017. About 2.5X Venus at 0.007. Venus does not experience much variation in orbital torque and is believed to have no molten zone. Mars has orbit eccentricity of 0.094 and has a molten zone. Neptune has vey low eccentricity and a solid core with no molten zone.
Variation in the gravity field has a lot of impact on climate – past, present and future. It is why Earth has been heating up since 1700 and will heat for a long time before the snowfall again overtakes the snow melt in the NH..
No it hasn’t. Maybe you are confused by thermometers responding to heat. More people, more energy production and use, more heat.
Have you a better explanation (supported by fact)?
The 1700 comes from the incoming solar EMR on a seasonal basis. Explained here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/04/high-resolution-earth-orbital-precession-relative-to-climate-weather/
There is only one temperature record that goes back that far and it has shown a continual increase:
?ssl=1
Then there are all the tide gauges that show a steady increase due to ocean expansion from temperature and water input from melting ice: He is a file that is based on long records:
And details of sources here:
https://psmsl.org/data/longrecords/
Rick, none of your records indicate “the Earth has been heating up” at all. Some thermometers showing temperature increases does not mean that the Earth is getting “hotter”.
Likewise, tide gauges (attached to rising and falling land) don’t show anything much, and the assertion that the ocean is “expanding” due to anything at all, is just speculation.
Sorry, but the Earth is losing about 44 TW currently. More energy out than in – cooling.
The oceans are heated from below – that’s why oceans don’t freeze, and thick glaciers are hotter on the bottom.
No GHE.
No GHE. Concur.
The 44 TW energy escape from the core comes with a qualification. Thermal energy transfer (aka heat) goes from a high temp to a low temp. There are times when the surface is hotter than the rocks/soils below and the heat flow reverses. That needs to be a factor in the equation.
Throughout its long and beautiful existence, the earth has cooled. However, in present time, the sun is offsetting the energy loss from the core in a very complex, dynamic, chaotic, coupled manner.
The sun does not prevent the Earth from cooling as a whole in any manner. Four and a half billion years of history shows that. As Fourier said, the surface loses all the heat it receives from the Sun, plus a bit of its own heat.
The influence of the Sun extends to maybe 10m or so, beyond which its influence is immeasurable. The 44 TW or so heat loss continues unabated, at night, and after insolation reaches its peak. The Sun has no influence over this cooling of the Earth system as a whole.
That’s my worthless assessment of the facts as I understand them.
At least we seem to agree – no GHE.
More people, more energy production and use, more heat.
Definitely a generally ignored factor. But that does not account for all of it.
There is no single, simple answer, except all of the above.
in my view, it does – unless someone can come up with other reasons backed up by experimental data, and quantify the contribution. I accept that chaos may cause ice to accumulate, and melt,here and there, but I am referring to “surface” heat – and nobody can really define it, anyway.
One thing I totally discount is the idea that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter. Experiment shows the opposite.
Scientists say the earth’s core is very hot but solid due to the pressure.
The earth’s core has a solid center surrounded by liquid.
Pressure is the known factor, but we have not visited so we really can only guess by indirect measurements.
No. don’t be silly.
The only thing that affects the climate is
carboncarbon dioxideman-made carbon dioxidePlease, if you are not serious, add a sarcasm notation. Even if it should be obvious.
🙂
The basic question revolves around a fundamental. How much of the variation in core rotation affect the earth’s protective magnetic field. If the magnetic field weakens, less solar energy, particularly high energy particles (alpha, beta, gamma, primarily alpha) enter the earth energy system.
I read an article a while back the the earth’s core rotation reverses on a relatively predicable periodic basis. What creates skepticism is that reversing the rotation should reverse the magnetic field it generates. We do not see the magnetic field flip north-south on an 11 year (or whatever) basis. So the jury is still out on this one.
Two points about Denmark:
It operates its system on the basis of being a transmission hub between Sweden and Norway, and Germany. When its wind is generating a lot of power it is in export mode (now enabled further with Viking Link to the UK). When the wind doesn’t blow, it imports. On average it is a net importer, and a through route for supply from Scandinavia to Germany. These flows are vital to the operation of its grid. You can see how it has fitted in to the European picture in these excellent maps of flows from P-F Bach:
http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/news_2023_1_e.htm
More analysis here:
http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/references/pfb_france_consolidated_its_role_as_eruropes_main_exporter_of_electricity_in_2024_2024_02_04.pdf
and here including the values of exports and imports:
http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/references/pfb_danish_flow_of_electricity_and_money_in_2024_2025_03_07.pdf
Discussion of the poor economics of renewables and the failure of the wind auction:
http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/references/pfb_new_danish_wind_and_solar_projects_abandoned_in_2024_2025_02_08.pdf
Yet what’s this? a plan to offer subsidies of up to $8.3bn in subsidies for 3GW of new wind that didn’t happen in 2024!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/denmark-plans-offshore-wind-tender-with-up-to-8-3-billion-subsidy/ar-AA1F4gis
It appears they have learned nothing.
Denmark closed a reactor during the 1990-in Sweden!
It was to close to the border they said.
So now they rely on Sweden and Norway when the wind is not giving them abundance of energy.
(And we Swedes are paying the Danish price in the south )
Yes, that was the two-unit Barsebaeck station. Unit 1 was closed in 1999. Unit 2 was closed in 2005. The plant was about 7 km away from Copenhagen across the Kategatte. Danes disliked Swedish nuclear plants being so very visible across the water from their capital.
Like the rest of Sweden’s nuclear plants, Barsebaeck had a fine record of both safety and electricity production. It was forced shut at a time in Sweden when antinuclear socialist Greens controlled the governing coalition. If you want to blame someone, you can pin the tail on the donkey named Goran Persson who was the surrender monkey who gave in to the Danish Pastries.
“But if you run the nuclear plant all the time, you don’t need the wind and the solar. They are just a useless extra cost.”
This has been perfectly clear for decades, but now New York State is cleared for subsidy by the Trump Administration to waste yet another 5 $Billion on offshore wind.
First hurricane and there will be a wind junk pile. It happened in PR back in 2017. Gov. Hochul is a typical moron in power who learns nothing. Trump should know better.
Trump was making a deal to get the natural gas pipeline back on the table.
The best source of renewable energy to ‘save the planet’ is a compost pile. Another good idea is the broom, leaf rake, and close line. Not hard to figure out.
I like steam steam when to making electricity. It is hard to figure out but only a few of us need to figure it out.
What I cannot figure out is why those who did not want to do the hard work to make electricity insist on tell people how to do it.
When it comes to saving the planet, solar is a terrible idea.
I happen to be in a place where a good wind resource is balanced by hydro and fossil fuel is imported. The one nuclear plant where I worked will not keep people from dying on a bad winter day in a drought year.
We came very close one year but at the time we had two large coal plants.
One other reason for limiting the amount of load following with nuclear plants is dealing with 135Xenon. When reactor power is decreased, the amount will start to increase causing an increased fraction of neutrons absorbed by 135Xenon. Reducing generation to 70% of full power is the safe limit for load following. One way to get around this is providing some sort of electric energy storage such as pumped hydro or batteries – the difference between nuclear and renewables is nuclear generation is more reliable and predictable.
Yes. Current reactors can only be effectively throttled over a narrow range. In practice France does this, and also takes reactors out for service and refuelling in summer when demand is lower. They tend to use freshly fuelled reactors for load following since they haven’t been poisoned yet…
Ultra short term fluctuations in demand are met through inertial storage, medium term (daily) are met by throttling, and annual servicing helps match long term demand fluctuations.
The Natrium reactors in which molten salt is used as a heatbank should vastly help avoid throttling, but the economics of them remain to be seen.
In all case things are easier if there is hydro on the grid, especially pumped storage.
In every case ‘renewables’ are a pointless waste of time money and valuable land area.
Ontario also does this with its fleet of 18 reactors. CANDUs have a wider operating range than PWRs or BWRs and can be used for load following. This is generally wasteful because it adds to maintenance costs.
Denmark’s wind is supported by Norway’s large hydro electric plants.That, in part, is how Denmark’s non CO2 emitting figures are so high, not due to any inherent value of wind.
Norwegians, however are getting tired of their exports adversely impacting domestic electrcity prices so there is talk now of limiting exports. Perhaps that is a reason for Denmark to look at nuclear again?
Two comments.
The first is that price, doesn’t matter if its retail or wholesale, is not a valid indicator. It results from government policy choices on subsidies and taxation, which can be very difficult to disentangle for any given country. The difficulty is shown for the UK in the recent work by Kathryn Porter
https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/
Once you start looking hard you find subsidies and taxes all over the place, in general taxation, in electricity bills, in purchase obligations, in renewable costs imposed on electricity generating and transmission companies.
The only way to assess the costs of renewables is the NPV of the total costs required to deliver dispatchable power to the point of need over the life of the installation..
The second is that Denmark aplears to be doubling down on wind:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/05/19/denmark-goes-full-miliband/
Which I don’t know how to reconcile with this report.
Good work by Katherine Porter.
She shows that Net Zero policies added £17bn to UK electricity bills in 2023/24 and are projected to rise to £20bn by 2029/30 and that if the UK had continued with its legacy gas based system since 2006 consumers would have been £220bn better off in 2025 money even taking into account the recent supposed ‘gas crisis’
She notes that the Climate Change Committee themselves say the move to renewables will only produce savings from net zero by 2038-40 but that this still requires unrealistic cost assumptions and the chances of such savings are remote.
…And then you can claim nuclear power is too expensive, and justify building more weather dependent sources.
In 2022 the Dutch University of Groningen published research (CEER Policy Paper 12)
“We explore the economics of an investment in a nuclear power plant of 1000MW in a Dutch electricity market where there is already a large installed capacity of renewables”
“We analyse the profitability of an investment in a 1000MW nuclear plant as well as investments in similar amounts of solar PV, on shore wind and offshore wind controlling for difference in capacity factors”
“when there is a large installed capacity of renewables, investing in a nuclear plant is more efficient than extending the renewable capacity.”
https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/economic-value-of-nuclear-power-in-future-energy-systems-required/
Money speaks and it is time for people to listen.
Denmark’s total electricity consumption in 2025 is estimated to be around 35-40 TWh (terawatt-hours), which is equivalent to approximately 126-144 PJ (petajoules). This aligns with Denmark’s ongoing transition toward 100% renewable energy by 2027.
In 2021, Denmark had net electricity imports 22.3 PJ coming from Norway and 17.5 PJ from Sweden
40 PJ is approximately 29.6% of 135 PJ
Denmark’s grid would collapse without flexible hydro electricity from Norway and Sweden, so yes, they better quit the sunshine and breezes stupidity and start building SMR’s ASAP. It’s not complicated.
I notice that the chart says “net imports”. It is a misleading, virtue signalling chart.
I have read previously that Denmark cannot use most of its wind output due to grid issues and pays Norway to take it. They then buy back hydro power from Norway to cover high demand periods. Total imports are probably much higher than the net figure shown.
Apparently they have a number of fairly small generators that are not easily throttled up and down to accommodate renewables.
I have no first hand knowledge.
Easy peasy: within 15 years much of Denmark’s wind turbines and solar panels will reach their end-of-life. The economics to replace them won’t be equal to additional nuclear power, either by daily power rate or by % of time at full power. Without new subsidies, the solar-wind romance will be over.
Once established, the incremental cost of increasing output or increasing percentage of total contribution from nuclear power will kill new or reworked solar and wind. Assuming the Green Blob doesn’t conspire to limit nuclear power to a small faceplate rate or total national potential contribution.