Storage could be a solution, but it is not what politicians are right now putting their weight behind (remember, election here is ongoing and will finish in a few weeks. They are very open about their politics). For example, the platform of the green party writes that thermal power plants are a critical part of the Swedish energy grid in order to enable wind and solar. In debates they said that the oil power plant is a natural part of the energy grid and essential for keeping prices low and the grid stable.
That is the left side of the debate. The other side pushes for nuclear, but there is no actually ongoing construction for that. What is actually being constructed and supported by both side is more thermal power plants.
When you need multiple months worth of capacity to cover the winter, rather than hours to cover a day-night cycle, storage is a very expensive strategy. There are experimental tests, like the one in Finland that will heat a small number of buildings in a small town, but there is no political party that is going to the election on a platform with storage as the solution. The closest you will get is the far future plans in the green party platform that current oil and other plants could (in theory) be switched to burning green hydrogen, but the political capital in that area has been significant decreased in the last decade when cost of infrastructure and production has shown to be prohibitively expensive. The biggest project, intended to produce green steel, has been significantly delayed and costs increased, and is continuously demanding more and more subsidizes. To burn green hydrogen for electricity is about as close to becoming economical as fusion is.
You are indeed right that if we were to ban the construction of new thermal power plants, the result will likely be that private capital will simple not bother to do anything unless significant government capital is put on the table. Everything is simply too expensive and if you allow the market price to spike without limit, citizens will go and vote for government to step in. When electricity market spikes by 100x for a single month, the outcome is not that the market steps in and invest in more expensive power plants. Citizen instead goes to the government and elect one that will provide a stable energy market. That was the outcome of the 2020 energy crisis. That is how the economics of nuclear could become viable, or storage, but it is also why thermal power plants is the thing being built right now.
Comments
Storage could be a solution, but it is not what politicians are right now putting their weight behind (remember, election here is ongoing and will finish in a few weeks. They are very open about their politics). For example, the platform of the green party writes that thermal power plants are a critical part of the Swedish energy grid in order to enable wind and solar. In debates they said that the oil power plant is a natural part of the energy grid and essential for keeping prices low and the grid stable.
That is the left side of the debate. The other side pushes for nuclear, but there is no actually ongoing construction for that. What is actually being constructed and supported by both side is more thermal power plants.
When you need multiple months worth of capacity to cover the winter, rather than hours to cover a day-night cycle, storage is a very expensive strategy. There are experimental tests, like the one in Finland that will heat a small number of buildings in a small town, but there is no political party that is going to the election on a platform with storage as the solution. The closest you will get is the far future plans in the green party platform that current oil and other plants could (in theory) be switched to burning green hydrogen, but the political capital in that area has been significant decreased in the last decade when cost of infrastructure and production has shown to be prohibitively expensive. The biggest project, intended to produce green steel, has been significantly delayed and costs increased, and is continuously demanding more and more subsidizes. To burn green hydrogen for electricity is about as close to becoming economical as fusion is.
You are indeed right that if we were to ban the construction of new thermal power plants, the result will likely be that private capital will simple not bother to do anything unless significant government capital is put on the table. Everything is simply too expensive and if you allow the market price to spike without limit, citizens will go and vote for government to step in. When electricity market spikes by 100x for a single month, the outcome is not that the market steps in and invest in more expensive power plants. Citizen instead goes to the government and elect one that will provide a stable energy market. That was the outcome of the 2020 energy crisis. That is how the economics of nuclear could become viable, or storage, but it is also why thermal power plants is the thing being built right now.