Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out, Renewable Energy Plans Are Clear

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 08:21 PM
Original message
In Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out, Renewable Energy Plans Are Clear
In Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out, Renewable Energy Plans Are Clear
"Jennifer Morgan analyzes the steps the country is taking to move to a low-carbon, non-nuclear future."

...With the focus on the nuclear phase-out, there has been less attention paid to the fact that Germany’s new energy plan is also an accelerated phase-in of renewable energy and energy efficiency. It is wise to take a closer look at the decision to understand how the world’s fourth largest economy plans to succeed with this new energy plan while at the same time sticking to its ambitious climate change goals and laws.

Far from a short-sighted political reaction to the nuclear crisis, Germany has put in place the laws, infrastructure and has the public support to make this transition happen.

...Against this background of detailed feasibility studies for different energy futures, the German government approved an energy concept in the fall of 2010. It set Germany on the track to achieve 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions and a share of 35 percent renewable energy by 2020 and 80 percent greenhouse gas reductions with 80 percent renewable energy in 2050. The accelerated nuclear phase-out modifies this energy concept, but keeps these targets intact.

...This has also been an economic success story: In the last five years, investments in Germany’s clean energy sector grew by over 75 percent, creating a dynamic industry that supports 367,000 jobs. In 2009, Germany was third in installed renewable energy capacity and has invested more in future capacity than any other country.

... more at: http://www.wri.org/stories/2011/06/germanys-nuclear-phase-out-renewable-energy-plans-are-clear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Springer9 Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. So you scoff at a previous post because it
Quoted statements having to do with the added burden of pinwheels from the British power company Centrica.

But then you site something called WRI.org, written by someone called Jennifer Morgan, who BTW has a Bachelor of Arts from Indiana University in Political Science and Germanic Studies and a Masters of Art from the School of International Service, The American University in International Affairs.

A real scientist that one.

Oh BTW the President of WRI, Jonathan Lash, is a lawyer with no scientific background either.

Of course I'm sure you knew all that.

How about some peer reviewed, published, scientific papers to back up your position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Aside from the apples and oranges nature of your attempted parallel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. What a stupid post
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Springer9 Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-11 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I know huh...But I tried to be nice to the guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Your post is the stupid one, not Kristopher's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I'm so bored with these types of posts...

either find something right or wrong to discuss with the article, scientific or otherwise or give it a rest.

Your comments simply reflect that you believe every legitimate idea need be cloaked in a veil of the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy. Some toothless bum on the street of Detroit could tell me the time of day, and they wouldn't be wrong or right simply because of your perception of their education or social status.

Good thing you chimed in with a last sentence demand for "cite!".
Maybe RTFA might solve that, dunno.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Here is something with some meat on the bones.
Edited on Fri Jul-08-11 05:48 PM by kristopher
“...a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"


...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...


"Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency & Renewables?"
Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider

You can download it with this link: http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. The article ignores the declarations to also add fossil fuel plants to their national grid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You mean the article isn't following the nuclear industry's narrative spin.
No, it isn't. It is following the plans actually laid down to guide the move to a 100% renewable grid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Actually it is not acknowledging the statements by the current German government
which has nothing to do with nuclear spin, your specious strawman to the contrary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The government handing the utilities a windfall by extending the life of the nuclear plants?
Edited on Fri Jul-08-11 10:36 PM by kristopher
Is that the government that you mean?

Oh wait, my bad. That pro-corporate, antirenewable policy fell flat, didn't it? The Merkel government isn't having a lot of luck pushing the country's energy policy to the right, are they?

No one on my side of this discussion claims they are going to stop using fossil fuels immediately, but their path has been clearly charted for a decade and they are AHEAD of schedule in results. And yet, against all evidence provided by German planning you keep harping on the nuclear industry meme that the shutdown of the nuclear fleet means increased carbon emissions in Germany - that they are going to have a massive build-out of coal and natural gas BECAUSE they are shutting down nuclear.

Prove it.

You call yourself a "professor" so I assume you know how to make a legitimate valid argument, use that knowledge you profess having and prove your claim.

On my side, here is a paper that I already posted elsewhere. It specifically explains why the reasoning of the utilities and nuclear industry that you are parroting is invalid.

***********************

“...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 interchangable 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 bassic 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 consequnt 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 enhancing our response to carbon emissions, an "all of the above" energy policy is a real hinderance because it fails to provide the planning clarity that is essential to effecting a rapid build-out of a sustainable, renewable 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Why do you keep pushing nuclear power?
The Merkel government to the surprise of many of us has announced new fossil fueled power plants are part of their plan to move away from nuclear power generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Besides making no sense whatsoever....
Edited on Sat Jul-09-11 05:44 PM by kristopher
You have avoided the challenge - prove your assertion that the phase out of nuclear power in Germany is going to lead to a massive build out of coal generation and increase their carbon emissions.

You claim to be a professor, but your writing is barely high-school level. If your screen name isn't just false advertising, then you can certainly do a lot better than what you've offered to date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. He's right, you know
Edited on Sat Jul-09-11 07:45 PM by Yo_Mama
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/german-minister-put-fossil-fuel-plants-on-old-nuke-sites/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06/angela-merkel-germany-needs-20gw-fossil-fuel-power-plants.php

It's not a huge build - it is basically to cover the nuclear contribution lost from the earlier shutdowns.

The basic plan hasn't changed - it is just that they have no way to cover the interim. All the stuff about increased CO2 is because they are going to build new coal and gas plants to replace the fission electricity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375154034042070.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-11 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. All you have is evidence that two political factions in Germany have been trying to alter...
...a long established plan that the overwhelming majority of the public supports. They tried to move policy right with nuclear, and failed. Now they are trying to move right with fossil fuels. They will have no more success with that than they did with nuclear.

You are right about one thing - the basic plan hasn't changed. Your claim that they have no way to cover the interim is just that - a claim. A claim, I might add, made by the people who are being economically damaged by this transition.

Refute the case that is made in the paper linked to in post 11 if you want to actually make a meaningful contribution to DU understanding of the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. There is quite a bit more than that but you are unwilling acknowledge it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. I read the paper
Actually, it makes the case why Germany would indeed build new fossil fuel plants to be able to use their wind. The NG rapid-response plants are inefficient, but they do allow incorporation of fluctuating power sources. And that's exactly what the paper says is needed for Germany.

Because the bottom line is that Germany has reached, with its current grid, nearly the upper limit on its ability to incorporate power from the wind it already has in place. That's why the paper discussed the negative pricing - they have to dump power.

You want to insist that Germany can run off wind and solar, and they can't. Without an ability to store masses of wind power, the net contribution to the grid from the new wind plants planned is going to be less than the older contribution.

Germany's household power bills are jacking up hugely. They have shielded their industries from the costs of their initiatives, but look at the relative costs. Those costs are rising very rapidly:
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/12/20/germanys-renewable-energy-costs-threaten-public-support-zew-center-says/
These costs are already close to Denmark's costs:
http://www.energy.eu/#Domestic

Kristopher, you have a problem dealing with facts. Sheer bombast can not obscure the net effect of trying to incorporate large amounts of wind.

Scotland now is in the same boat, with their net average contributions to grid dropping. After much searching, I discovered that they too are having to drop wind power. And of course their electricity rates are jacking up as well.

Nobody, Kristopher, can run an economy relying on a power source that produces over 50% of its net output in 15% of the time, whether it is needed then or not. The more you build, the less of the net output you can use, and that's why Germany is going to build those fossil fuel plants. They have to.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews10/100718-wind.html

So the Brits are talking about building 17 gas plants to deal with their wind issues:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2008055/Energy-giants-want-billions-windfarms.html

Get a grip. Wind hasn't worked in any country as a primary source, so all the countries using it in high quantities will be adding a lot of fossil fuel plants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. You don't cite the part of the paper you claim supports you.
Then there is the way you've built a strawman - no one said that "Germany can run off wind and solar"; which is what you have mostly argued to disprove.

Next, you'rre non-specific and ambiguous throughout your reply. What is "grid dropping"? What are "those fossil plants" that you classert Germany is going to build?

Your post is also riddled with factual errors related to adding wind. I won't go into detail, but suffice to say that IF there is a solid piece of legitimate information that has found its way into your post, it is purely by accident. And really, is it really necessary for you to resort to astroturf antiwind sites for support? Please, spare us.
I'll take the word of the people responsible for making this happen over that of an anonymous someone that continually promotes nuclear power on the internet.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x299548
Is the scaremongering you hear from the agents of nuclear power true?
The scaremongering you hear from the agents of nuclear are focused on three claims that they used first on Germany and now on Italy:
-Germany will suffer power outages
-Germany will import nuclear power from other countries, notably France
-Germany will build massive new coal plants to make up the shortfall

The German Environment Ministry has looked at that for them and the truth is that "Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity"




"We Can Do It" Says German Environment Agency on Nuclear Phase Out
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/06/we-can-do-it-says-german-environment-agency-on-nuclear-phase-out?cmpid=WNL-Friday-June10-2011


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
16.  I have posted multiple citations in the past
You and your sycophants continue to disregard them as inconvenient but new fossil fueled plants are the current policy of the German government.

I write in a simple style for you because it is all you seem to be able to handle. Your claims to be an alternative energy analyst of some sort are transparent lies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. In other words you're not capable of properly supporting your claims.
All you have the ability to do is echo the propaganda put out by the nuclear industry and attach a label of "professor" to it in order to make a false appeal to authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The citations offered by myself and others fully support what I have said...
specifically that the current German plan to shutdown their domestic reactors includes new fossil fuel plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. All that shows is that you refuse to face the reality of the current German plan
and make the same false claims about others as you make about me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. What current plan?
The German Environment Ministry:
"Germany can close the reactors within five years and do so:
-Without power outages
-Without importing nuclear power from other countries
-Without building new coal plants
-With only a modest increase in the cost of electricity"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. The one passed by their Parliament this week
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. That is a plan to close nuclear plants, it has nothing about coal in it.
The line about coal is speculation on the part of the author of the linked article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC