What Feed-in Tariffs Could Do for Japan's Electricity Shortage

[jpak]

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/what-feed-in-tariffs-could-do-for-japans-electricity-shortage

If Japan adopted an aggressive renewable energy policy like that of Germany, it could, within ten years, generate more than four times the electricity lost at the Fukushima 1 nuclear power plant, cutting the country's reliance on nuclear power by one-half or more.

As Japan expands the evacuation zone around the damaged Fukushima 1 nuclear plant from 20 km to 30 km and Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) skirts the edge of bankruptcy, the country confronts a stark choice: undertake a massive construction program to replace the nuclear reactors with more of the same, or, instead, follow a new, less risky, and potentially more strategic path toward rapid renewable energy development. The stakes are high and the fight is already intense as Japanese elites debate the future of their electricity system, and literally, the future of their country.

However, it is clear now that if Japan were to follow the path blazed by Germany, it could more than replace the electricity generation lost by the damaged plants at Fukushima in less time than it would take to build new reactors.

Germany alone added as much new renewable generation in less than five years as Japan lost at Fukushima. Wind energy alone generates more electricity in Germany than the doomed Japanese reactors once did.

<more>

[FBaggins]

1. How many TWh of solar did Germany create last year?

Compared to just the six plants at Fukushima?

And how much have they spent on the process?

[jpak]

2. Fron the OP

<snip>

Using a system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs, the modern version of feed-in tariffs, Germany added 80 TWh of new generation from wind, solar, and biomass between 2000 and 2010.

The six damaged reactors at Fukushima 1 generated about 30 TWh in 2010, and Japan's fleet of aging nuclear reactors generate a total of about 260 TWh per year.

<more>

[FBaggins]

3. That's 80 TWh over ten years. Not 80 TWh per year.

But you can't just divide the total by ten since it's obviously much greater today than a few years ago.

[kristopher]

11. How do you derive that this is 80TWh over ten years?

It is clearly stated in the paragraph preceding the mention of 80TWh that Gipe is referring to a per/year number:
If Japan were to develop renewable energy at the same pace as Germany has over the past decade, it could add 120 TWh per year of new renewable generation. It could add significantly more, if it kept up with Germany's blistering pace of solar energy development over the past five years.
Using a system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs, the modern version of feed-in tariffs, Germany added 80 TWh of new generation from wind, solar, and biomass between 2000 and 2010.
The six damaged reactors at Fukushima 1 generated about 30 TWh in 2010, and Japan's fleet of aging nuclear reactors generate a total of about 260 TWh per year.

What was your basis for the claim you made?

[FBaggins]

22. Basic reading comprehension... and a little prior knowledge.

It is clearly stated in the paragraph preceding the mention of 80TWh that Gipe is referring to a per/year number:


Nope. It's hard to tell whether the author misunderstood a previous report or intentionally tried to leave the reader with the wrong impression, but "80 TWh of new generation from wind, solar, and biomass between 2000 and 2010" could be read either way.

What was your basis for the claim you made?

1) - Prior knowledge. I remember when Germany doubled their PV production from about 2TWh to a bit over 4 in just three years. That was from about 5-6 years ago to about 2-3 years ago. It was reasonable to assume that they weren't going to increase 20-fold in 2-3 more years. So....

2) - I looked it up. They produced 12 TWh last year. Rather than assume that the author was lying, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

What should you have learned here? You need to stop running off of assumptions rather than facts. The thread fits your standard M.O.

1) Assume anyone who is pro nuclear is necessarily anti-solar
2) Since solar is good thing, anything that appears to contradict a positive claim about solar must be made up of lies.
3) Lies are how pro-nukes live their lives anyway so there's no need to verify the facts... just assume that they're lying.
4) Accuse the person of making up lies for the purpose of hurting renewable energy... because (see #1).

Nothing I posted on this thread was anything but a verified fact. You didn't take the time to check... you just accused me of trying to disrupt the thread with misinformation.

[FBaggins]

4. The number for Fukushima seems a bit high as well.

All six reactors running for the entire year would be about 40 TWh.

75% is reasonable, but #3 must have been down for awhile to switch over to MOX, and if 4,5,&6 were down in March... it's doesn't seem likely that none of them were down late last year (and or refeuling at one of the others). So it's possible, but seems high.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Of course, 2 or 3 of the reactors at Fukushima were offline for at least part of 2010.

[kristopher]

20. The numbers are compatible with Japan's fleet capacity factor I believe. nt

[DCKit]

5. Not the point of the OP.

Different circumstances, different culture, different reasons.

The point is to give the people of Japan an economically viable choice to buy into alternatives by forcing the PTB to pay them for their production. It's going to happen, so get over it.

You can say whatever you want, dissemble all you want, sidetrack the conversation all you want, but Japan is going to become a world model for renewables because of this, and the benefits are going to extend far beyond national and economic security.

[FBaggins]

6. Of course it is.

The point of the OP was that if Japan really hunkers down "like Germany" and goes gangbusters on solar, they could replace (fourfold) all of the electricity lost at Fukushima.

It's perfectly reasonable to compare what Germany's actual results have been and use it as a benchmark for what really is possibe if they "follow the path of Germany"

Let's look at some simple facts.

1 - The article says that Fukushima produced 30 TWh last year. That's about 75% of its peak capacity, so let's assume that this is correct.

2 - Four times that is obviously 120 TWh.

3 - Germany has performed an incredible ramp-up in solar power. Far outstripping the rest of the world as a whole and, likely, any other nation on a per-capita basis. (The last point is my assumption)

4 - Germany produced 12 TWh of electricity from solar last year.

Question - Is it reasonable to assume that Japan can outstrip the most agressive solar expansion in the world by a factor of ten?

And when that's all said and done... this is compared to one nuclear plant. Japan has many more.

Japan has half-again as many people as Germany and far less usable land area (topographically speaking)... so they would have an even harder time implementing such a plan (though both nations are comparatively poor in the solar resource category).

but Japan is going to become a world model for renewables because of this

I doubt it. Renewables will certainly gain there because of their lack of oil/gas/coal options, but the simple fact is that Japan would have been a model years ago if renewables were much of an option for them. If/when tidal/wave generation matures, they probably leap forward at that time, but they are comparatively poor in solar/wind possibilities. They'll also continue to push forward with geothermal, but that's still a bit player at this point.

[kristopher]

7. This thread is a perfect example of you disrupting discussion

Paul Gipe is one of the world's leading experts in renewable energy technologies and resources. You have attempted to dominate the thread with false information and badgering, hectoring behavior DESIGNED to discourage legitimate discussion of a core element of the progressive agenda - the transition to a renewable energy economy.

Ignoring your false statements DUers should read and comment on the excellent article by Paul Gipe at the link in the OP.

[FBaggins]

9. You're not "butting in" are you?

:rofl:

You have attempted to dominate the thread with false information and badgering,

Can you provide an example of that "false information"? Of course we already know that to you, "badgering" means "anything I don't agree with"... so we can safely ignore that one.

[kristopher]

8. A related discussion by Gipe on German renewable and nuclear energy

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010
New Record for German Renewable Energy in 2010
Germany set a new world record installing 7,400 MW of solar PV in one year. The country also reached a renewable energy electricity penetration of more than 30% on February 7th, 2010.

Germany -- As the nuclear reactor accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant continues to dominate the world's attention, Germany has quietly broken more renewable energy records.

The conservative government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, struggling to stay ahead of public attitudes toward nuclear power in the run-up to regional elections, issued its annual report on the contribution of renewable energy to the German energy market in 2010.

Wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, solar cells, and biogas digesters now provide nearly 17% of Germany's electricity.

Meanwhile, the German ...
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010

[FBaggins]

10. "The country also reached a renewable energy electricity penetration of more than 30% on Feb 7th"

Which fell to 18% later in the day.

Sorta makes that variable-source point pretty well, eh?

The conservative government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, struggling to stay ahead of public attitudes toward nuclear power in the run-up to regional elections, issued its annual report on the contribution of renewable energy to the German energy market in 2010.

Don't you just love how they broke coal into two pieces so that it wouldn't be as clear that it dominates their electrical supply?

[kristopher]

12. There is no "variable-source" point to be made.

There is bullshit from those who try to make the Rube Goldberg fission process of boiling water sound good, but there is no legitimate "point" to be made related to functionality, variability and a renewable grid.
A renewable grid composed of wind, solar and a full array of other existing renewable technologies is far, far superior to the present centralized grid. A fact that the Fukushima experience has demonstrated in spades.

[FBaggins]

13. 30% down to 18% in the same day sure seems variable to me.

You can go to their site and look at any day you like. Sometimes it's a lot more variable.

A renewable grid composed of wind, solar and a full array of other existing renewable technologies

They can't handle a constant percentage of demand even at 20% renewable... but you think 100% would be better?

If any of that stuff you're smoking is left over when you're done... don't forget to share.

Looks like we'll find out soon enough. They plan to get up around 40% and cut their reliance on nuclear. We'll see how often they have to buy power from other nations.

[kristopher]

14. Why do you keep pushing rightwing coal/nuclear industry memes on a progressive site?

Every generating source is variable, or do you think Fukushima is now producing? You've been shown with a wide array of authoritative sources any number of times that this is a coal/nuclear industry canard. Why do you keep pushing right wing memes on a progressive site?

[FBaggins]

15. Why do you keep dishonestly referring to anyone who disagrees with you as RW?

That too is against DU rules.

When did France become right-wing? How many countries produce fewer greenhouse gases?

Every generating source is variable,

Incredibly disingenuous spin. They are not variable to at all the same degree.

or do you think Fukushima is now producing?

You think disaster is a variability issue? The caribility issue that wind/solar suffers from is that even when the plant has nothing at all wrong with it, there are times when you get no power at all.

been shown with a wide array of authoritative sources any number of times that this is a coal/nuclear industry canard.

Nope. I most certainly have not. You have made ridiculous claims like "if x percent support coal and the same percent support nuclear... it must be the same people supporting both". That may constitute "proof" to someone who doesn't care about facts... but not to the rest of us.

[kristopher]

16. You are pushing a proven false rightwing coal/nuclear industry meme

I asked you why?

There is zero, none, zip support for your claim. None. A distributed grid based on renewable energy is acknowledged by every expert in the world as a viable solution to our energy issues. The only place where your position finds support is in right wing and nuclear/coal industry blogs.

So I ask again, why are you pushing right wing memes on a progressive site?

[FBaggins]

17. Asked and answered.

The fact that YOU disagree with something does NOT make it rightwing. Nor does convincing yourself of a position mean that it's been proven. If anything... we've demonstrated just the opposite over the months. Just yesterday you were provided clear proof of your errors and we BOTH know that you went looking for support and couldn't find a SINGLE source. But you bluster on.

There is zero, none, zip support for your claim. None. A distributed grid based on renewable energy is acknowledged by every expert in the world as a viable solution to our energy issues.

That's nothing but the purest form of BS. "Every expert in the world" includes only Jacobsen, Gundersen and half a dozen of their friends? Do you ever wonder WHY, if that were true, nobody is actually going there? Oh wait... of course... the nuclear industry works with the illuminati and the aliens to make sure it happens that way.

The only place where your position finds support is in right wing and nuclear/coal industry blogs.

That's been proven wrong over and over and OVER yet you keep up with that BS? Have you no shame at all? Is France entirely populated by the right-wing?

Your problem is that you can't debate honestly. You rely on straw men, circular reasoning and ad-hominem attacks. What I don't see is why you think that would persuade the object of your attacks.

[kristopher]

19. You are using a false right wing argument.

Show me one categorical statement in a peer reviewed document that says a renewable grid is not workable because of variability.

I can give you lots of sources that aren't peer reviewed but they will all be from places like the Heritage Foundation, the Nuclear Energy Institute or some other Kochsucking rightwing site.

No reputable scientist will put their name to the claims you make about renewables on behalf of the nuclear industry.

[FBaggins]

21. If only a double negative was actually a rebuttal in real life.

Instead... you're just twice as wrong.

Show me one categorical statement in a peer reviewed document that says a renewable grid is not workable because of variability.


Have I said that somewhere? Nope. What I have said is that variability forces you to dramatically overbuild and requires massive amounts of storage.

Both are easy to find sources for... since I've been using YOUR sources to point it out to you for many months.

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. SHort term they need inverters to supply power from the southern grid

According to the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum. The shortage stems from the split 60Hz grid in the south and the 50Hz grid that Fukushima supplied. With only three inverter stations to convert and supply power between the two grids. The surplus power in the south can't be fed to the northern grid.