Germany finds weeds on path to ‘greener’ future

[FBaggins]

Germany’s accelerated shift away from atomic energy to renewable resources will cause a significant power gap over the next few years. The lack of a coherent post-nuclear strategy and bureaucratic hurdles cast doubt over the country’s “green” future. ­Germany’s power grid will be hard-pressed to prevent widespread blackouts in the face of increased energy demand next winter. The country’s new energy regulator Bundesnetzagentur described the situation on Friday as “tight,” following the release of the agency’s report highlighting shortfalls in Germany’s national grid. A high-level meeting of the German government on Wednesday to discuss energy issues revealed that Germany will have a power gap equivalent to the output of 15 power stations by 2020.

"It was agreed that by 2020 there will be a capacity gap of 10 Gigawatts," one source told news agency Reuters following the meeting. Leading government and energy executives have thus far found no solution to the country’s energy deficit. They are scheduled to meet again on May 23 to push for an solution to the shortfall.

...snip...
­
Germany is the world’s third-largest user of wind power, which currently makes up around 8 per cent of the country’s energy needs. It plans to expand on the use of wind energy by constructing 10MW of offshore wind parks by 2020. However, the plans have been dogged by teething problems. There have been disputes over who will finance the offshore parks connection to the mainland, insurance issues and uncertainty over who is responsible for technical glitches.

In addition, Ruth Lea, economic advisor Arbuthnot banking group, told RT that the wind farms will actually incur more costs than expected because of the necessity for backup power supplies. “You have to have backup capacity for when the wind is not blowing” and that usually means coal fired or gas fired stations to compensate. “And having all that capacity lying there waiting for the wind to drop does mean of course extra costs,” she said. Analysts have suggested that stumbling blocks in Germany’s development of its renewable energy infrastructure could backfire and increase the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. This would make Germany subject to outside imports and consequently vulnerable to disruption and cost inflation.

http://rt.com/news/nuclear-energy-renewable-shortage-677/

[intaglio]

1. And you leave out the part that contradicts your opinion

Energy regulator Bundesnetzagentur has said that the power deficit will be under control until 2014, when 12 gigawatts of nuclear plant closures should be matched by newly-constructed plants.

But, hey, nothing should be missed if you are trying to sell radioactive kettles as a "modern", "non-polluting" way of generating electricity. To save myself the trouble of all that typing again, I will quote part of my response to a previous, recent thread of yours.

Now your idea that nuclear would be the cheapest option has a germ of truth; problem is that it is only cheaper if you keep out of date, superannuated plants on line, ignore the extra risks and ignore the subsidy they already receive. The existing plant are, from what I hear, all on the verge of decommission and would need gross deformities in the safety regulations to allow them to continue. Those are risks the Germans are not willing to take.

Why not new plants? Well to begin at the beginning it would be 15 years before a new plant could come on line and that is a conservative estimate. Siting, planning, geological studies, plant design, infrastructure planning, environmental approvals, construction, fueling, commissioning, safety audits, evacuation plans all take time. Let us add in then the decommissioning costs, the loss of land, security costs, the (as yet) unconstructed and unproven reprocessing technologies that would allow the high level waste to be buried and the extensive and unproven construction of safe burial sites for such reprocessed waste. Nuclear was never cheaper and will never be cheaper and that is why Seimens, my employer, is getting out of nuclear.

[FBaggins]

2. Odd that you think there's any contradiction there.

Yes... once they build new coal and gas plants (and keep formerly-retired coal plants running for years) they could get a short breather until they retire more nuclear plants. What a shock!

You really think that's a good thing?