Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap (and will add coal)

[FBaggins]

Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants.

...snip...

Before (the phase-out of nuclear) can happen, however, the country has to find alternate power sources. In fact, amid concerns that supply shortages this winter could result in temporary blackouts, Germany's Federal Network Agency on Tuesday indicated that one of the seven reactors shut down in the immediate wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan could be restarted this winter to fill the gap. "The numbers that we currently have indicate that one of these nuclear energy plants will be needed," said agency head Matthias Kurth on Tuesday in Berlin. He said that ongoing analysis has indicated that fossil fuel-powered plants would not prove to be adequate as a backup.

... snip ...

Filling the Gap with Coal

Citing a statement issued by the Economics Ministry in response to a formal query from the Green Party, the paper reported that over €163 million ($229.3 million) is to go toward subsidizing the construction of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants in both 2013 and 2014. The money, generated by the trade in CO2 emissions certificates, is reportedly to come out of a fund originally earmarked to finance projects aimed at promoting energy efficiency.

... snip ...

Still, Germany's Federal Network Agency insisted on Tuesday that, should a nuclear plant have to be switched back on for this winter and next, it is only a "temporary solution." After that, a spokesperson added, there should be enough coal-fired plants to fill the gap.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,774203,00.html

Less nuclear = more coal

[gateley]

1. EIther way, they're trying - they understand that nuclear is

NOT the "future". As opposed to the US who just keeps approving more plants! :eyes:

More power to them, and they'll surely reach their goal of solar powered almost everything probably decades before we will.

[kristopher]

2. Another propaganda piece by the nuclear industry.

They keep cranking out these dire predictions that are made to sound like policy statements; but when you backtrack to find the source of the information, there is nothing but an individual's opinion.

ETA:
The article referenced in the OP says, "But according to a report in the daily Berliner Zeitung on Wednesday, some of that money has now been earmarked to subsidize the construction of new coal-fired power plants."

In the original Spiegel PL artical, that sentence has a link embedded in it that takes you here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,767900,00.html

That article says absolutely nothing about using funds set aside for renewables to subsidize construction of coal.

What the article does say is telling, however is that the utilities are angry and threatening to "turn their backs" on the German people. It clearly shows the conflict is between the entrenched energy industries and the forces moving the country to green energy.

It also details that there is a study that says the move away from nuclear says that current policies will allow the utilities to do what they want - burn more coal.
"Germany hopes to reduce its emissions of CO2 by 40 percent by 2020 relative to 1990. But a study from Germany's Federal Environment Agency indicates that current measures "will only result in an emissions reduction of 30 to 33 percent.""

Who didn't know that? However, the same forces that have caused the Merkel to abandon her push for nuclear are ALSO arrayed and united against coal. Representatives of this faction withing the Environment Ministry produced a study (without the approval of Merkel's Environment Minister) that shows a pathway to 40% carbon reduction with 5GW of natural gas and no added coal generation, no additional imports from outside the country and very little increase in electricity prices. They also say that they could do this while accelerating the shutdown date of all nuclear reactors to 2017 instead of 2022.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/06/we-can-do-it-says-german-environment-agency-on-nuclear-phase-out?cmpid=WNL-Friday-%20June10-2011


Also take a look at this analysis of the effects of extending the life of the reactors as Merkel and governing coalition wanted to do.

...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]

4. The information came from Germany's Federal Network Agency

That isn't a "prediction" from some analyst.

Strange though that you reject official policy statements and embrace fringe opinions in the case of China.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

25. Interesting stuff! Thanks so much! And as always, it's about the $$$/profit! nt

[FBaggins]

3. Germany has done more to expand solar power than any other country in the world.

Yet in 2010 it made up a tad less than 2% of their electricity generation.

[kristopher]

13. When you plant an orchard it takes time to reap the fruit.

The price of solar electricity is plummeting right now BECAUSE Germany took steps to promote solar over the opposition of the coal/nuclear interests in the utilities. Those stakeholders have been trying to derail the replacement of centralized thermal generation since Day One.

Now we have you trying to help them. Way to go Baggins.

[fascisthunter]

5. um... is this to argue in favor of Nuclear Energy?

[FBaggins]

7. Sure.

More specifically, to demonstrate the consequences of unwisely moving away from it due to excess paranoia and insufficient wisdom.

[fascisthunter]

8. unwise is to argue against alternatives

it's mind boggling to see anyone make this argument after Fukishima... In time alternatives WILL take over, but it will take time and I think it will happen. Nobody expects it to happen overnight but keeping nuclear is insane.... go speak to the many victims in Japan.

PS - your statement that folks are being excessively paranoid is HYPERBOLE. People have every right to worry about nuclear technology.

[FBaggins]

10. Why argue against alternatives?

The key is "alternative to WHAT?"

The correct answer is coal.

go speak to the many victims in Japan.

Not a one of which has died due to radiation... while millions die from coal power.

Irrational paranoia allows people to remain blind to that simple fact. And no... that's not hyperbole.

[fascisthunter]

12. lol... good luck on your crusade to save the nuke industry

like I said, alternatives are the way out of this mess, but it won't happen over-night, and NOBODY stated it would. Overtime, nukes will be fazed out and that will be a good thing as we find cleaner and safer alternatives.

[FBaggins]

14. It doesn't need "saving".

Sorry.

[SpoonFed]

34. Why haven't you bothered to read the memo? I sent it months ago. n/t

[WatsonT]

6. Turns out good intentions are not a substitute for nuclear power

Close nuclear and you have to replace it with something.

Solar/wind/geothermal/hydro aren't up to the task.

That leaves coal.

This was obvious to anyone paying attention.

[kristopher]

11. That is a claim from the nuclear industry, nothing more.

I will guarantee you cannot support the statement, "Solar/wind/geothermal/hydro aren't up to the task."

Guaranteed.

[WatsonT]

15. Ok, how about

the fact that although Germany has dedicated billions towards renewables in an earnest effort they still make up about 2% of their total energy use?

[kristopher]

16. I see you've been getting your information from the nuclear industry.

2% isn't even close. They went from 0 to 17% renewable supplied electricity in a decade.

[FBaggins]

17. He obviously misread my #3... but your post is way off too.

So should we question where you're getting your information?

Unlike any other poster I can think of in E/E, you have pre-packaged replies spamed without thought (and often without relevance).

They went from 0 to 17% renewable supplied electricity in a decade

Nope. They went from more like 6-7% to about 17% in a decade.

[WatsonT]

18. You're thinking about the amount they produce

not what they consume.

They import a lot of electricity from abroad (like nuclear powered France).

According to their own government: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rREpQ0Rz01EJ:ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_de_en.pdf+german+energy+consumption+by+source&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiZA8N4A5cyYR28q11Udrn2_ikrk6-Soyb7IxQ7lwajFCpM6acJ-K8SQqO6z0Kkg-CiP96JddjRFLndrF4qj_rLeC8MTDzuzEaivkRbQ4ht0RnZ6zBjwEE75MU-vBEQkg8QilFK&sig=AHIEtbQu0y4-rlsfupiLAEMgLSyKUFAARg&pli=1

So it was 4% of the total not 2, my mistake. But far closer than 17%.

[kristopher]

19. Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

They are exceeding all goals for deploying renewables and improving energy efficiency, and their current goal is to hit 35% of generation from renewables by 2020.

[WatsonT]

20. Well that's one opinion, but I prefer the facts:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Germany-net-energy-importer-apf-1665949417.html?x=0

[kristopher]

21. That's good information. Thanks

It doesn't alter the basic dynamic we were discussing however. Prior to the unplanned shut down of the 7 reactors they were net exporters. The Envirnoment Ministry plan calls for an additional 5 GW of natural gas generation - which can be brought on line rapidly and works well as the build out of renewables continues.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/06/we-can-do-it-says-german-environment-agency-on-nuclear-phase-out?cmpid=WNL-Friday-%20June10-2011

Critics of the reversal have charged that:
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 analysis by the German environment agency was undertaken to specifically examine these questions. They concluded 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

The agency says that Germany can close the nuclear plants by faster development of its renewable sources of energy and the construction of 5,000 MW of new gas-fired generation. The new gas-fired generation will give the grid the necessary flexibility to meet demand while also preserving Germany's commitment to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions.

To the surprise of many critics of Germany's renewable energy program, the country is not a net importer of electricity. In recent years, Germany has been a net exporter of generation...

[WatsonT]

29. So with nuclear they were net exporters

without it they are net importers.

That proves the case that nuclear is without value because . . . .?

[Nihil]

30. I predict either silence or an explosion of spam ...

... no doubt incorporating the usual cut & paste photo-library of images
unrelated to the subject that we've all seen dozens of times before along
with the several hundredth "expansion of one paragraph into three screens
worth of opinion piece" to accompany it.

> So with nuclear they were net exporters
> without it they are net importers.

Sometimes the simple truth is just too painful to accept and the only
apparent option for the black-or-white folk is denial.

:shrug:


Never mind, now that the nuclear industry has shot itself in the foot
one time too many, maybe some of the renewables supporters will start
to realise that with no bogey-man to blame/insult/attack, they'd really
better get going on their own positive activities before they give the
game back to fossil fuels ...

[WatsonT]

31. Seems like silence won out

The cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain this belief is somewhat amazing: we can't have nuclear power because look at germany! They banned it and now they don't have enough power! Nuclear must be the problem!

Just like if you burn down peoples farms and they starve the farms were the root problem.

[kristopher]

32. WatsonT, have you read this thread?

If you think you've somehow defended nuclear power you are mistaken.

You've done a good job of promoting the interest of those who want to continue using nuclear while ALSO building more coal, however.

[WatsonT]

33. I have read the thread

the opponents of nuclear power did not present any facts to support their case.

Indeed, one inadvertently proved that without nuclear power Germany must import electricity (often from the nuclear powered France).

[SpoonFed]

35. Uh...

it's spelled Nukushima. When the risk/value proposition is calculated... nuclear is shit.

[kristopher]

22. in 2008 renewables provided 14% of electricity final energy consumption.

http://www.eds-destatis.de/en/publications/select.php?th=8&k=2

German office of statistics, go to 2010 file and open file number 0056 | "Renewable energy statistics"

Figure 1 shows the percent of total energy consumed which includes petroleum for transportation.

Figure 2 shows Share of electricity from renewable sources in gross electricity consumption


I'm pretty sure the current number is 17% of their electricity is from renewables.

[fascisthunter]

23. Thank you for posting info

[WatsonT]

24. Thank you,

it looks like about 10% for germany which considering the amount of money they've put in to it is not that impressive.

Additionally 60% of all renewable energy is coming from hydro. Which is great, but limited. You can't simply put in new hydro plants anywhere or ramp up river output. So that seems to be maxed out, in fact it doesn't appear to have much changed in the last 20 years or so. So let's say hydro is fixed at that amount or about 6% of the total. Wind/solar/bio/etc account for the other 4% leaving about 90% from conventional sources.

To get wind/solar/etc up to 45% (so that over half comes from renewable) you would have to increase power generated from all those sources 9 fold.

To which I have to ask, how?

No one can deny that these things have a use. But replacing conventional sources is not likely any time in the near future.

[kristopher]

26. The Germans disagree with you.

[WatsonT]

27. Ah ze germans disagree!

A) prove it.
B) it's a large country, I doubt 100% of all germanic peoples agree that solar/wind can account for over half of germanys energy needs.
C) even if you could somehow find this consensus which would be unprecedented in human history that would have little effect on physics.

You see scientists have found that the basic laws of physics respond poorly to polling.

[FBaggins]

28. Germany WAS a net exporter of electricity.

That's no longer the case.