Utilities Plan $79 Billion of Power Plants in Germany, BDEW Says

[FBaggins]

Utilities and investors plan to spend 60 billion euros ($79 billion) to build and modernize power plants in Germany as the country closes its nuclear reactors over the coming decade, the BDEW utility lobby said.

The 84 projects, of which 69 are at least in the permitting stages and scheduled to start operating by 2020, have a combined capacity of 42,056 megawatts, the BDEW said in an e-mailed statement today. They include 23 sea-based wind farms, 29 gas- fired stations, 17 coal generators and 10 hydro-power pump stations, it said.

...snip...

While authorities permitted several of the 29 gas generators in planning, companies haven’t yet committed to the investments amid fears that the generators won’t make money because of fewer operating hours, Mueller said. Renewables get priority access to the grid in Germany, wiping out earnings at gas stations.

Utilities in Germany were losing 12.26 euros a megawatt- hour as of 12:10 p.m. Berlin time, based on so-called clean-dark spreads for next month that take account of gas, power and emissions prices, compared with a profit of 20.95 euros in October 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. U.K. generators earned 1.82 pounds ($2.93) a megawatt-hour, down from a profit of 7.02 pounds in October. Politicians “must tackle” the future design of the power market to by 2015 create conditions facilitating investments in new generators by 2020, Mueller said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-23/utilities-plan-79-billion-of-power-plants-in-germany-bdew-says.html

[kristopher]

1. How does a nuclear plant shut down a coal plant?

It doesn't. But renewables do. The future role of utilities in a distributed grid is going to be very different (and much smaller) than the one they play today.

Earth Day goal: Democratize energy

Today marks the 42nd anniversary of the first observance of Earth Day, and there is much to celebrate.

However, there are dark clouds on the horizon. The Tea Party has essentially declared war on the environment. Sadly, renewable energy is a favorite, and a frequent, target.

...

The opposition to renewable energy programs is particularly unfortunate. Globally, the United States already lags behind other nations, such as Germany, in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources.

...

Renewable energy's potential to localize and democratize energy production can be seen in Germany. An astonishing 51 percent of Germany's renewable energy is generated by private citizens and farms. Moreover, many of Germany's larger-scale renewable projects are locally owned and operated.

Leading voices in the United Kingdom have also recognized the revolutionary potential of locally owned renewable energy. For example, ResPublica, an influential British think-tank, has called for, in the words of Senior Researcher Caroline Julian, "a truly transformative capitalism will place markets back into the hands of the people" by focusing on local energy production rather than simply "greater market efficiency and increased competition amongst the larger energy suppliers""...

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/DG/20120422/OPINION/204220320/Michael-Stafford-Earth-Day-goal-Democratize-energy?odyssey=nav%7Chead

[FBaggins]

2. Easily.

Both fill the same slot in a portfolio... large amounts of baseload power. If the coal plant has to pay anything close to a realistic carbon tax, the reactor replaces it easily.

Wind/Solar can't do this because they don't fill the same slot in the portfolio. Hydro can IF there's room to expand nearby.

And, as you can clearly see, coal plants can also replace nuclear plants... which is just what is happening in Germany, despite months of denial on your part.

[kristopher]

3. If a frog had wings...

We have no carbon tax and the chances of getting one are slim to none. and even if you have a carbon tax it has to be extremely heavy to bring coal above the cost of new nuclear, making the required policy even less likely.

In other words, there is no path for nuclear plants to shut down coal plants, they both solve their economic dilemma by driving increased electricity consumption. This is the reality as opposed to nuclear industry hype, you really should learn to tell the difference if you want to address climate change.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112711888

For renewables to shut them down, all we have to do is build them. Existing economics will take care of the rest.

[FBaggins]

4. Is Germany not the world leader in renewables implementation?

Why then are they un-retiring old coal plants and building new ones?

Is China cutting coal generation or increasing it?

We have no carbon tax and the chances of getting one are slim to none.

What we do have is a growing recognition on the part of many countries that carbon emissions need to be cut. It doesn't matter whether you penalize the carbon emissions or incent the low-carbon generation (or just pass a law saying that a certain percentage of generation much be low-carbon)... the impact it the same. Nuclear and renewables close the gap with coal/gas. Add on expectations that coal/gas will be more expensive 20 years from now and many power companies will look to diversify.

[kristopher]

5. There is no path for nuclear to shut down coal plants, Baggins.

All you do when you build more nuclear plants is to further entrench the system built on the economics of large-scale centralized thermal generation - which means you enhance the role of coal. Building new nuclear guarantees expansion of energy consumption and in the process it crowds out renewable deployment.
You still can't show any mechanism for nuclear to shut down coal. In exchange for the nearly $1 Trillion that the nuclear industry hopes to extract from the new energy deployment market all we get is empty rhetoric about carbon policies no one can pass, waste disposal that doesn't exist, new technologies that are 40 years away IF they work and international protocols that ensure nuclear weapons proliferation; or as the pro-nuclear squad here used to be fond of saying about renewables, you are selling "unicorn farts".

“...a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

When Germany decided to continue down the path of shutting down their nuclear fleet instead of extending its life as the right-leaning Merkel government had attempted to do, we heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the nuclear fan club. One of the most oft heard refrains was how it was counterproductive to global efforts against carbon emissions.

That I disagree is no secret as I've often referred to the interchangeable nature of nuclear and coal, and how a fundamental obstacle against shutting down coal is the perpetuation of the system of centralized thermal generation by false promises that nuclear will save us. These promises not only routinely misrepresent basic central facts like GHG abatement efficacy, but they ignore the heavy external baggage and myriad unsolved problems related to cost, waste, proliferation and safety that plague the industry; thereby only serving to aid in retaining the centralized coal/nuclear system, not actually solving the climate crisis.

This 2010 paper was written to examine the consequences of Merkel's stated intention to change long standing policy and extend the life of the nation's nuclear fleet well beyond the designated shut down date of 2022. The policy had not yet been finalized at the time of publication. It obviously predates the Fukushima meltdowns and the consequent reversal of Merkel's first reversal of nuclear policy. "Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency & Renewables?" is by Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider collaborating.

This paper makes the point that far from aiding our response to carbon emissions, an "all of the above" energy policy fails to provide a planning clarity that is essential to effecting a rapid build-out of a sustainable, renewable global energy infrastructure. The fundamental economic incompatibility of nuclear and renewable systems is (like so many other inconvenient truths) something the nuclear industry routinely tries to sweep under the rug.

...Many systemic issues have not been thoroughly investigated yet when it comes to compatibility or incompatibility of the centralized nuclear approach versus the decentralized efficiency+renewables strategy. What are the consequences for grid development or how do choices on grid characteristics influence power-generation investment strategies? To what extent is the unit size co-responsible for structural overcapacities and thus a lack of incentives for efficiency? How do government grants/ subsidies stimulate long-term decision-making? Will large renewable power plants reproduce the same system effects as large coal/nuclear plants?

The present report presents the basic situation and raises questions that urgently need to be addressed. Successful energy policy will have to address the energy service needs of people in a much more efficient way than has been done in the past, as increased competition for ultimately finite fossil fuel leads to higher energy prices for all. For too long, energy policies have aimed at “supply security” of oil, gas and kilowatt-hours, rather than general access to affordable, reliable and sustainable services like cooked food, heat and cold; light ; communication; mobility; and motor torque...

You can download it with this link: http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

[FBaggins]

6. Repeating spam doesn't make it any more realistic.

You claim that renewables alone can shut down coal plants... yet the most sucessful expansion of renewables in the history of the world has not accomplished this... yet shutting down nuclear plants resulted in lots of new coal (and more to come).

China has exhibited an at-least-equally-agressive expansion of renewables... yet they aren't shutting down coal plants (they are in fact building lots more). This is simply because while you desperately need to pretend that growing demand is a fiction created by power companies to sell more of their product... that simply isn't the case. Growing populations and growing economies frequently need more power... often LOTS of it.

[kristopher]

7. Prove it.

You make a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. I've provided in another thread the long term plans of the 5 utilities that are currently trying to build new reactors in the US. Growing populations need more goods and services, but those goods and services can either be produced in an energy efficient manner or in a manner that wastes energy by design. There is a huge body of literature in the field of energy efficiency that documents what I'm saying Baggins - centralized thermal has an absolute perverse incentive to drive demand growth. If you can find a paper that contradicts those decades of findings I'd love to see it.
Here is the real world as opposed to nuclear hype:

Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers, says Watchdog Group

See the report, New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCW-NuclearClimate_web.pdf

Listen to the audio from the press conference
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCWARN-Conference-Call-10-5-11.mp3

Read Clinging to Dirty Energy in the South – a by-the-numbers look from the Institute of Southern Studies
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/institute-index-clinging-to-dirty-energy-in-the-south.html

[FBaggins]

8. Oh... so sorry. I'm afraid I can't accomodate you.

You see... the topic of this thread is the impact of shutting down reactors in Germany. They haven't considered building new ones, so a debate about whether or not new ones would results in shutting down coal plants is really off-topic.

And I know how strong your feelings are about that.

[kristopher]

9. "a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

Post 5 is precisely about that Baggins. The same forces are at work whether the reactors are old or new.

"a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

You use the dodge there of calling it "spam" now you are trying to hide yet again.

It is obvious that your position has no merit.

[FBaggins]

10. Less nuclear = more coal

You're the one hiding.

The article is pretty clear. The "lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts" BS is being tested right now in Germany. They're cutting back on Nuclear and ramping up "eco(sic)-electricity"...

...and the result has been lots more coal and now we see that it will continue to be lots more coal, along with retarded economic growth.

Turn the reactors back on and the need for that coal entirely goes away. Turn the reactors back on and still build out the gas/pumped-hydro mentioned in the article and you can cut back coal much farther.

[kristopher]

11. You are cherry picking the data in at least two ways

One is that this article shows a shapshot in time and is not related to trends at all. Second, the article reports the intentions of the same group that stand to lose as the amount of distributed energy continues to increase. Those same people who are trying to turn to coal are the same ones that wanted to continue using nuclear.

They are being forced to abandon both. If you don't like the order, that is too bad; it is still the only path to shutting down all fossil fuels.

Earth Day goal: Democratize energy
5:15 AM, Apr. 22, 2012
Written by Michael Stafford


Today marks the 42nd anniversary of the first observance of Earth Day, and there is much to celebrate.

However, there are dark clouds on the horizon. The Tea Party has essentially declared war on the environment. Sadly, renewable energy is a favorite, and a frequent, target.


...

Renewable energy's potential to localize and democratize energy production can be seen in Germany. An astonishing 51 percent of Germany's renewable energy is generated by private citizens and farms. Moreover, many of Germany's larger-scale renewable projects are locally owned and operated.

Leading voices in the United Kingdom have also recognized the revolutionary potential of locally owned renewable energy. For example, ResPublica, an influential British think-tank, has called for, in the words of Senior Researcher Caroline Julian, "a truly transformative capitalism will place markets back into the hands of the people" by focusing on local energy production rather than simply "greater market efficiency and increased competition amongst the larger energy suppliers".

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/DG/20120422/OPINION/204220320/Michael-Stafford-Earth-Day-goal-Democratize-energy?odyssey=nav%7Chead

[FBaggins]

12. Same spin, different day.

When they build an offshore wind facility they're forward-thinking... when the inevitable impact of shutting down cheap baseload power hits theire decisions, they're the right-wing popping their heads up.

Those same people who are trying to turn to coal are the same ones that wanted to continue using nuclear

They're also the "same people" who produce most of the renewables generation in Germany. So next week they'll be the good guys again.

It's an awfully convenient spin. You can claim that the future will go a particular path and when (yet again) you are proven wrong... it isn't the fault of your projection, it's just the evil empire has foiled the plans of heaven.

[kristopher]

13. Your position is proven to be without merit.

Obviously you can't admit it, but calling it spin doesn't change the facts.

When you have to drag someone to do the right thing it doesn't wipe out the fact that their kicking and screaming is because the *want* to do the *wrong* thing for *selfish* reasons.
ETA: You ignore a lot of content, "An astonishing 51 percent of Germany's renewable energy is generated by private citizens and farms."- post 11.

BTW, Japan looks to be getting ready to implement a $0.51/kwh solar FiT (subsidy). The numbers for other renewables haven't been publicized yet.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Figures in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712819