The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Germany's Ten Point Energy Plan

Paul Hockenos
August 23, 2012  |  28 Comments

In office now for about 100 days, Germany’s environment minister, Peter Altmaier, has laid out a 10 point plan for the energy transition. This isn’t a “master plan,” he says, which looks deep into the future. That’s impossible, he argues, because technologies and other realities are changing so quickly that we can’t make a master plan today that will be valid in 20 years.

So it’s more of a to-do list, which at least something. Since Altmaier’s first months as minister haven’t been particularly spectacular in terms of the Energiewende — and the fact that the Merkel government in general has been dragging its feet — this agenda has some surprises in it.

For example he proposes strengthening the EU emissions reductions targets for 2020 from their current 20 to 30 percent (in relation to 1990). This could prove very controversial, especially among some of Germany’s neighbors. But good for him.

Also, on the up side, if a bit vague, he spoke of forming a “Club of Energiewende Countries,” namely a group of states that are also undergoing clean energy transitions. He didn’t specify why he wants to do this, but I like the idea. It could help make Germany and its energy revolution appear a little less quirky. Germany’s not all on its own — just look at the Scandinavian countries, for example.

Also good, he will create a department for the Energiewende in the ministry, as well as one for climate protection and citizen participation. But just having offices with new name plates on them won’t mean anything unless the offices possess real competencies and clout. So let’s wait if they’re more than window dressing.

More worrying, he wants to revamp Germany’s Renewable Energy Law (EEG) this year. It is the EEG that, among other things, set the feed-in-tariff rates for renewables. While it has enabled Germany to dramatically increase its share of renewables in the overall energy mix — and ultimately to bring their prices down — it is a bugbear of the administration’s neo-liberals who see it as a superfluous, market-skewing subsidy. A sign of the direction Altmaier’s going, he underscored that the incentives were never meant to be permanent (everybody knows that) and that energy consumers will bear even more of the burden when the cost of reconstructing the energy grid is added to their energy costs. In other words, the tariffs’ gradual reductions are probably going to be sped up.

So, it seems that a full-fledged battle over the EEG is looming. Maybe Altmaier’s proposals on climate protection and his grandiose formulations (“the Energiewende is the biggest undertaking since post-WWII reconstruction”) are just a few bonbons to sweeten the gutting of the EEG come autumn. Seems likely.

See Paul Hockenos's own blog on Germany's energy revolution: Going Renewable.

Lead image: To do list via Shutterstock

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

28 Comments

Register To Comment
Capt D
Capt D
September 8, 2012
And this From Germany about US Green JOBS

Get the Facts Right: Germany has seen a Boom in Green Jobs
http://is.gd/nLlp4v
snip
Is it true that the clean energy industry in Germany has not yielded net job growth?
Over the last ten years, Germany has seen a boom in green jobs. More than 340,000 new jobs have been created in the renewable energy sector. By contrast, Germany's only domestic fossil energy source, lignite coal, employs only 50,000 people along its entire supply chain, from mining to the power plants. Unemployment is a big challenge in Germany, too, but the renewable industry is providing many new jobs. In its German section, the AEI report clearly fails the reality-check.
Capt D
Capt D
September 8, 2012
More on what is happening to the Ocean offshore of CA because of Fukushima:
http://fukushima-diary.com/?p=13743
Capt D
Capt D
September 4, 2012
Great News: Future of fossil fuels: Back-up for renewables
http://wp.me/p26pKF-2Ff
snip
The two largest electricity utilities in Germany – E.ON and RWE – have declared they will build no more fossil fuel generation plants because they are not needed, challenging a widespread belief that the phasing out of nuclear in Europe's most industrialised economy will require more coal-fired generation to be built.
Capt D
Capt D
September 4, 2012
At Pierrot : Capt's Corollary:

Post more comments instead of "wasting" time answering lame ones...
Capt D
Capt D
September 4, 2012
At cliff-claven, you can quote all the Pro nuclear stats you want but one thing remains clear, Fukushima PROVED that nuclear reactors can meltdown and that in itself is reason enough to stop allowing them to be used, especially in land based reactors because Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

As far as your CO2 info goes, what about the effects on the Global Weather that all the radionuclides coming from Fukushima is causing; in my opinion, and I do not have a Ph.D. in Nuclear/Chemistry or Meteorology, but I believe that is having a negative effect on our weather that is being "lumped" into "Global Warming" which is most convenient for the Nuclear Industry...

Now, might be a great time to also mention the damage to the Pacific Ocean that Fukushima is causing which will have an effect on ALL the Planets Oceans and Seas...
Read the comments here:
http://enenews.com/?p=38531
and
http://enenews.com/?p=38516

Regarding the solution to the highly radioactive water in Fukushima:

Because the problem is of Global importance, I suggest that the Japanese Government immediately host a Conference of noted scientists to develop a solution to the pollution to the Pacific Ocean before it is allowed to get any worse! Each day that goes by yet more highly radioactive water is entering the Pacific Ocean at Fukushima and this cannot be allowed to continue!

One solution they might consider is to capture the water and load it aboard large tankers to be slowly pumped overboard as the tanker sails IN A CAREFULLY PLANNED APPROVED route to truly speed up the dilution process by using all the oceans and seas …

As it is now the Fukushima radioactive pollution is creating a dead spot off the coast of Japan due to the concentration of radioactive pollution that continues to be added there and that is far more dangerous to mankind than far, far lower levels spread over the entire Planet.
Capt D
Capt D
August 28, 2012
How would nuclear proponents suggest Germany (or any Country) pay for a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima?

It is time for the Nuclear Industry and all those that depend upon some form of Nuclear Payback* from them to answer that question, Japan's Experts thought they were 100% safe before 3/11/11 but time has PROVEN them wrong...

Almost a year and a half later Japan still has over 100,000 living in Nuclear rufugee housing and having to pay for their meals...

Elderly Evacuees from Futaba-machi Living in School Bldg in Saitama Will Be Made to Pay for Their Boxed Meals, Starting September 1st
http://is.gd/QmifHR
snip
Just remember that this country (Japan) is still the third largest economy in the world. But after more than 17 months since the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear accident, hardly anyone cares that these people are still living in school classrooms. It's worse than not caring, because now they will charge for the bento (meal in a box), which will cost these elderly residents 30,000 to 40,000 yen per person per month (US$381 to 508 per person per month).

Where do they have such money? No one cares. The evacuees from the same town, Futaba-machi, who have moved to temporary housing and other rental properties, have complained that they are not getting free meals, so everyone gotta pay, to be fair.

* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other "costs" are for others.
Gary McCallum
Gary McCallum
August 27, 2012
Diego-matter-155417

Thank you for your input and very well stated
By the way I'm one of those people building that cheap ineficient lousy crap. Unfortunatly if I don't I cannot feed myself. But at least I do a good job of building that crap. Which means it is plum level and square.

If only North Americans knew what thew were doing to themselves.
Yes, good old Romney is going to make America great again by going back in time and repeating more of the mistakes that got them to where they are today. Mean while up here in Canuckistan good old Steve AKA Prime Minister Harper is promoting and excited about global warming so Canada get into the remote Arctic to mine more Oil and natural gas

I do put my money where my mouth is though when I build my own homes. "Building passive solar homes since 1981"
Diego Matter
Diego Matter
August 27, 2012
@Cliff

You know what Cliff, I'm tired to argue against seemingly "correct" numbers on your side claiming that renewable energy is a bad idea. I'm sure you will bring us numbers until we are all dead because of GW.

In the mean time I'm very happy seeing my solar panel system on my roof supplying my house and my Nissan Leaf with free energy.

Your thinking is based on old school thinking where renewables have to support the current demand of energy. Nobody says that's a good idea. But if everybody lives in a Passive House standard house and drives an electric car and works in a efficient office building, your PV power plants will supply energy to 10 times more energy users per the same area, simply because they use ten times less energy. You have to have seen it to believe it, that energy efficiency is that powerful. Unfortunately the US isn't even close to the path needed to go. Highly inefficient cars, highly inefficient (and uncomfortable) homes, highly spread out food production, a highly inefficient life styles (the big bold american way). Nowhere is a switch in the thinking to be seen. And Mitt Romney delivers an energy plan that is full of fossil fuels - the old thinking that will kill the US for good. A US that is dependent on foreign sources of energy and has to fight for the last cheap drop of oil with trillions of dollars for their army.

Travel outside the US and witness the success stories all around the world with efficient homes and renewable energy as the backbone of their economies. What I see in the US is just cheap, lousy build and inefficient crap.

I tell you. If the US is not changing fast they will learn their lesson very soon and hard, if not already today. They can't compete with the world any more because they are so inefficient and wasteful. Your financial system is so greedy and sucks the life blood (money) out of the economy and every man's wallet.

Start saving money, start changing your thinking and become great again.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 27, 2012
No, I have been looking. Since you came back empty-handed, here's some more for you:
If someone wants to claim these numbers are out of date, or cherry-picked they are the data from six solar and wind projects just fast-tracked by Obama this month:
1. Quartzsite Solar (BLM AZ): 3.10 W/m2 = 8.02 MW/mi2 (100 MW / 1675 acre @ .21 CF)
2. Desert Harvest Solar (Riverside CA): 6.49 W/m2 = 16.8 MW/mi2 (150 MW / 1,200 acres @ .21 CF)
3. McCoy Solar (Riverside CA): 7.95 W/m2 = 20.6 MW/mi2 (750 MW / 4,893 acres @ .21 CF)
4. Moapa Paiute Solar (Clark NV): 5.19 W/m2 = 13.4 MW/mi2 (200 MW (PV+CS)/ 2,000 acres @ .21 CF)
5. Silver State South Solar (BLM NV): 1.39 W/m2 = 3.61 MW/mi2 (350 MW / 13,043 acre @ .21 CF)
6. Mojave Wind (Mojave AZ): 0.87 W/m2 = 2.25 MW/mi2 (425 MW / (38,099+8,960) acre @ .39 CF)
7. Chokecherry/Sierra Madre Wind (Carbon WY): 1.26 w/m2 = 3.26 MW/mi2 (3,000 MW / 230,000 acres @.39 CF)
We are wasting our tax dollars and ruining our land for pennies on the dollar. Trying to force a low energy-density, low EROI, highly variable energy source to supply a grid which demands high power-density, high EROI, and high stability energy is the height of folly.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
August 27, 2012
@cliff - the reason you haven't found any better is because you chose not to look. There are several operating solar farms >=100 MWp that work out at 7 to 11 square miles per GW. Even some US projects that use low efficiency modules, come in at under 10 sq mi per GWp. After that, you would apply capacity factor - in that case, what's sauce for the goose... I pick Shoreham nuclear plant as the representative nuclear cherry - infinite land used per GW, based on actual results. BTW, Fukushima data shows that a 30 km radius is inadequate, even as a potential evacuation zone with hot-spots unfit for human contamination reaching much further. Given the populations living within this distance in the US (in some cases millions), one can conclude that this isn't taken seriously resulting in a severely underestimated land use. BTW, the 30 km limit makes the reasonable wind farm set back of 1.5 km look trivial.
What you might have said is that using one carefully selected example of a small solar farm, solar farms might use uses 79 square miles per average GW of power. Take a look at the few operating solar farms at 100+ MW extant so far in order to get a rough idea what large scale solar farms might do -- even then, these represent out of date technology and can only be extrapolated in order to predict the future.
BTW, PVWATTS does not adjust for environment (temperature, windspeed, terrain, etc) very well so it's results are very approximate.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 27, 2012
@gerald. I have often found that the real world delivers far less than the brochure promises. I put my trust in proven performance. Nellis AFB has a 140-acre solar power plant with more than 70,000 panels mounted at maximum practical density on contiguous land on tracking mounts. It was state-of-the-art in 2007. Its panel area equates to 19% of land coverage and in operation has achieved a capacity factor of 22%, which is typical. It's 13MW peak capacity yields a net 5 W/m2 of land area average across a year. 4.9 W/m2 is what you get from NREL's PVWATTS model for a typical installation in San Diego with 20% coverage. 50% coverage is not practical from what I have found in my research. I would appreciate links to information on large-scale PV solar projects that have achieved higher coverage densities and power densities in actual operation.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
August 27, 2012
'1GW of power equates to 79 square miles of PV solar farm ' ... really.
79 sq miles == 204.6 sq km == 204.6 GW of insolation at 1 standard sun. 19% modules at 50% density == 19.4 GW. Your math may vary. Of course, rooftop installation takes up no extra area and our local agricultural installations use less land than one hydro transmission tower per 10 kW. For those who like to throw big numbers around, the US has 9.2 million kilometers of highway occupying over 150,000 square miles which represents ~3.5% of all paved roads. If you plunked down a pole mounted array every 100 meters on average along the right of way, that would easily produce 920 GW.
Of course, the wind power calculation uses a similar bogus estimation scheme. One point of interest is that both wind and solar farms have a greater productive energy capacity per unit area than hydroelectric power by a significant margin, but that didn't seem to deter the builders of hydro dams. If one attributes a land usage to coal power that includes the entire area with air pollution levels above acceptable limits, one can arrive at a much larger land use per GW number - this has never been an impediment to building these plants, either. Or give a nuclear plant a 30 km radius exclusion zone (which in hard practice seems insufficient) and then do the W per unit area math. The US should consider ~113,500 square miles to have been used == 104 sq mi per GW.
ANONYMOUS
August 27, 2012
dear Cliff,

today where just starting up our "Energiewende" in Germany.
I think 800GW electical Power will be installed in the North Sea in the next 15years.( they have allready planning permission)
the first installation to produce natural gas from electric power are build sucessfully. So maybe in a few years we can export natural gas back to Russia.
Men like you will not stop the "Energiewende" cause we're tiered of all the problems/lies with nuclear power. Over 20years we're independent from the world's oil and Uranium i promise.
Today electric power from solar plant is cheaper then from convential power plants for privat households! 17-18Cent kw/h to 25Cent

And correct me if i am wrong, but i think america has to import its uranium.
So let me know how's wrong!
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 26, 2012
@Gary: if you read and understand my comments, we are of one mind on consumption efficiency. We both see it advancing and applaud it. However efficiency on the supply side is also critical. Efficiency across a primary energy source's life cycle is EROI. Solar, Wind, and Biofuels, as they are being done right now, are dragging down the net primary energy EROI or the U.S. and Europe, and that offsets the gains in consumption efficiency and results in more emissions per net unit of energy delivered. If we let solar and wind and waste energy work in the niches they are suited for at the capacities that make sense, their EROI will dictate the speed and degree of their adoption. If we push them onto the grid and try to scale them into primary fuels, their poor EROI plummets further and drags everybody down. You simply can't make high power-density energy out of low power-density energy without huge losses. Living conservatively off the grid in a state-of-the-art passive solar home situated in a favorable climate situation can be supportable by low-power density energy, particularly if occasional outages can be tolerated. However, building that state-of-the-art home and the solar panels or wind turbines are high energy-density activities, same as building the Nissan Leaf in its garage. These are all parasitic hits on fossil fuels. If you require fossil fuel plants to balance the variability of solar or wind on the grid, that also wastes those fuels. The truth is that neither wind nor solar are yet beyond break-even if we subtract out the cash subsidies from the feds and states and the energy subsidies from fossil plants on the grid. When solar and wind actually have a greater than 1:1 EROI, they will naturally migrate into the applications to which they are suited without dipping into taxpayer pockets to force the issue. In the meanwhile, this folly hurts the economy and hurts the planet through increased consumption of fossil fuels and increased emissions.
Gary McCallum
Gary McCallum
August 26, 2012
Cliff 80% of India is vegetarian so I dont think meat is high on their list of desireables You missed my statement on increasing efficiency. A passive house uses 1/10 the energy of a standard North American home and a car does not need to weigh a ton. Ask any F1 driver. Good old Henry Fords hemp bodied car should of been made years ago. We can make hemp bodied monocoque car body shells. No need to re roof if you use my solar panel www.orionsolartech.com Barring severe hail storms of course. Consider this, in Sweeden they build houses that produce more energy than they consume. Seems like a good sart to me. The nuclear waste problem is not resolved and how can it be???? May I emphasise eficiency, eficiency, eficiency and efficiency. What are your solutions??? I started building solar homes north of the 49th thirty years ago and still get ridiculed even though they work well and never need air conditioning when properly designed. Where I live we can get 105 degree farenheight days. The cost of removing solar panels for recycling is a deterent but decommissioning a nuclear power plant is not??? When are people going to lay of the Solyndra thing. Talk about beating a dead horse. There are government subsidised successes. We are going to wrap a friends 1950's house with 4 inches of polyiso insulation soon and it will be more than twice as efficient as a new home. WHAT SOLUTIONS ARE YOU WORKING ON ????? cap-d there are decommissioning costs with solar. All aggregates crumble and wash into the sea (Buddha 500 BC). Visit my orion solartech web site also. The panels are mostly aluminum. 80% of all mined aluminum is still in use through recycling. Spent Thoreum fuel has a 200 year half life not 10,000 as is the case for uranium
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 26, 2012
@CaptD: "Cheap solar?" Nellis Air Force Base's 13MW power plant has a payback of 100 years (but the federal taxpayers and Nevada Power customers paid for it, so that's okay). Folks with solar panels on their homes are going to come looking for you when they have to pay to get the panels removed and recycled at the end of their lives or they have to re-roof their home and the contractor adds the cost to pull the panels. They are probably also not happy to find out there are extra expenses for mounting in high-wind areas (like all coastlines) and getting insurance for hail also hits the pocket book pretty hard (if they can even get it at all). And if they want to live off the grid, there's the cost of batteries or fuel cells or generators to cover the times when the sun and wind decide to take a break. Solar in the U.S. is currently subsidized by the federal government at $.035 per kWh, and it still requires additional subsidies and cost-shifting at the state level to be viable. Time to kill all the subsidies for all forms of energy and let them stand or fall on their own.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 26, 2012
@Diego: Not making this stuff up. Germany's CO2 emissions are rising. (http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/germany_returns_to_coal ; many other similar stories). The poor economy for the past several years has reduced the overal demand for power and the demand for CO2 credits. With these cheaper penalties, European countries have been increasing the fraction of power produced from coal. With Germany also having shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear plants, it is now generating more CO2. Also, solar in Germany and wind in the Netherlands have not reduced fossil fuel consumption. Their fossil plants are still being run at the same pace (as predicted by those who understand the true nature of primary energy) as spinning reserve to back up variable wind and solar, and because the peak power that solar and wind create do not necessarily coincide with peak demand, and because of the crazy energy rate subsidy schemes that have these countries generating excess power and exporting it at a loss to their neighbors. This is all government-subsidized insanity. Just like Cello and Solyndra and Range Fuels . . . .
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 26, 2012
@Gary: We absolutely cannot stop the increase in man-made CO2. Period. The rate is currently increasing at 2.2% a year. 400 million people in India alone have never yet had electricity in their homes and they are going to get it, as are hundreds of millions in China and Africa and the rest of the world. These same people want to add more meat to their diet, which requires 10X the agriculture to support. Most of them are going to get both of these from fossil fuels because they are fast and cheap and energy-dense and power-dense and have high EROI. Just to stop the 2.2% annual increase in CO2 would require a magic wand to convert 1GW of coal powerplant to nuclear powerplant instantaneously every week, and that is doing it miraculously without emitting any CO2 upfront in building the new plant or decommissioning the old one. Not one government has the political will to convert to nuclear at that pace (Germany and Japan are fleeing, as you know). If you claim this can be done with renewables, you are gravely mistaken. 1GW of power equates to 79 square miles of PV solar farm or 341 square miles of wind farm every week at current NREL power density and capacity factor averages for recent large U.S. installations, and this would have to continue from now until the whole world is up to the economic level of development as the west. And, don't forget we still need the old plants for backup power for variable wind and solar. Even if we had this magic wand, the GCM models predict that temperatures will continue to rise for at least 100 years beyond the stabilization of the CO2 ppm. Biofuels, by releasing 4% of their ammonia fertilizer as N2O like all other cultivated crops (a GHG 298 times worse than CO2), are causing more global warming than fossil fuels on a lifecycle basis--2.7 times worse for corn ethanol. No help there either. If global warming is all man-made, we need to work on strategies to mitigate it, because we can't prevent it--short of nuclear winter.
Capt D
Capt D
August 26, 2012
At gary-mccallum-153526
Thorium is Borium...

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
http://gu.com/p/3v4p3

Solar (of all flavors):
... Is faster to install,
... Costs less to install
... Is ready for 24/7 power
... Requires no decommissioning costs
... And has no Nuclear RISK...
Gary McCallum
Gary McCallum
August 26, 2012
Hi Cliff You stated 'There are many paths of possible climate change, why are people so focused on just one?' Gee Cliff, because of the 'many paths' we can only prevent the 'one' we are responsable for.
Diego Matter
Diego Matter
August 26, 2012
Cliff. If you are pro nuclear that's fine, but don't state that the CO2 emissions from Germany are skyrocketing because of Germany going green. The opposite is true. The emissions were the lowest for 2011 since 2009. See page 13 in http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf Also, the production of wind and solar equipment is producing C02, but the energy payback is now a low 1 to 2 years for solar, see http://www.motherearthnews.com/energy-matters/dispelling-the-myths-of-solar-electricity-energy-payback.aspx For wind it is even lower. Reference Vestas: 'For wind turbines the breakeven time of for instance a V80-2.0MW wind power plant is 8.6 months for low wind conditions. Over the life cycle of a V80-2.0MW wind power plant it will return 28 times more energy back to society than it consumed over its life cycle. So when 1 kWh is invested in a wind energy solution you get 28 kWh in return. Whereas if you invest 1kWh in coal you get 0.42 kWh in return.' I agree that biomass agriculture is C02 emission intensiv. You also write: "Then, because of the variability of wind and solar, fossil fuel power plants again must be kept on-line in 'spinning reserve' ready to jump in when the cloud passes in front of the sun or their is a lull in the breeze." I invite you to have a look at the "Combined Power Plant" Project, where different renewable technologies are used together to balance out times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. More at http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/en/electricity/combined-power-plant.html
Gary McCallum
Gary McCallum
August 26, 2012
Drastically increase efficiency 6 to 10 fold, promote district generated solar and use thoreum for nuclear reactors. Nothing else needs to be done and most other things are foolish
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
August 25, 2012
Obviously, wind and solar power are not adding to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anywhere, that is just insulting. All of the above doomsday scenarios mentioned have been important warnings to our society. I am very concerned about global warming, enough so to invest a large chunk of savings into clean energy technology for my home. For what its worth, I would agree that biomass agriculture is wasteful.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 25, 2012
@Capt d: 'Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.' -Will Durant Not only can an individual power plant of any type be destroyed by nature, so can all of civilization. When the next large asteroid hits or the next super-volcano blows or Pakistan and India exchange nuclear missiles and the sky darkens with ash and dust from the raging fires and blots out the sun and freezes the crops overnight, those not incinerated directly or drowned in tsunamis or starved to death will be glad to have old-fashioned fossil fuel or nuclear power plants to keep islands of civilization alive. There are many paths of possible climate change, why are people so focused on just one? Why should we weaken our civilization and chances of survival by downshifting our primary energy sources in a futile attempt to mitigate the most inexorable and least damaging variant--gradual warming? Alarmists love to distract people with a faddish Fear of the Day to to sell books and generate government grants. Before global warming, it was Nuclear Winter. Before NW it was the Ozone Hole. Before OH it was the Oil Crisis (that was the third one, we are now in the fourth one (see 1934 and 1919). Before OC III it was the Red Scare, etc. A wise nation would consider the broad array of natural and man-made threats and focus on being the strongest and fittest, not the weakest.
Capt D
Capt D
August 25, 2012
I wonder when the folks that are still (living in the past) PRO Nuclear will wake up and admit they are in Nuclear Denial*?

China is NOW using "climate change" in a sleight of hand as they corner the market on all the required materials to go Green... Germany would be smart to increase the rate at which they "go Green" before resources become either very hard to acquire or wholly owned by the Chinese...

Then What Will All The Other Countries Do... BEG?


* http://is.gd/XPjMd0

The illogical belief that Nature cannot destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 25, 2012
Interesting that the consequence of Germany going 'green' is skyrocketing CO2 emissions. How could that be? The answer is that solar and wind and biofuels are parasites of fossil fuel energy. The low EROI and power density of these 'renewables' restrict them to providing energy within their niche constraints. Meanwhile, the manufacture of the panels and turbines and the biomass agriculture are fossil-fuel-intensive activities that release huge amounts of CO2 (and N2O from fertilizer, a GHG 298 times worse than CO2) up front that should be charged to 'renewables.' Then, because of the variability of wind and solar, fossil fuel power plants again must be kept on-line in 'spinning reserve' ready to jump in when the cloud passes in front of the sun or their is a lull in the breeze. The fossil fuel use for Germany and Denmark and the U.S. has been increasing even as the fraction of 'renewables.' The recent 'green' decision by the STEM-challenged politicians to shutdown Germany's nuclear reactors and just highlights the irony. The facts of actual emissions contradict the myth that the politicians and media have embraced. The German Academy of Sciences has finally taken a stand and condemned biofuels. Perhaps they will follow up with a report on wind and solar. (references: 1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shift-forces-germany-to-burn-more-coal-energy.html ; 2. Bioenergy - Chances and Limits. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften - Leopoldina, 2012. http://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/?publication[publication]=433 ; 3. 'Danish Fairy Tales – What Can We Learn?' BraveNewClimate, http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/ ; 4. 'Nuclear down, CO2 up in Japan, Germany.' Smart Planet, March 12, 2012. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/nuclear-down-co2-up-in-japan-germany/13924 ).
Capt D
Capt D
August 24, 2012
Why not salute Germany, they are going GREEN and NON Nuclear, if they can do it so can the rest of the Planet... IF (and it is a BIG IF) We start doing it ASAP, before China buys up all the Copper, Silver, Gold and rare earths we need to do it with... Think what could mean to not only the USA and Europe but the Planet... Read 'Red Alert' for more on what delaying our conversion to Solar (of all flavors) will mean to the Planet. ---> Nuclear 'foot dragging' just ties US to the past and prevents US from LEAPING forward, and that is if everything goes OK and there are NO MORE Fukushima's in the USA or anywhere else...
Capt D
Capt D
August 24, 2012
With the price of Solar (of all flavors) dropping monthly and the cost of Nuclear Reactors (construction , repairs and decommissioning) spiraling ever upward by the time many of these NEW reactors get finished, their energy will have to be subsidized by the Government!

?China, India and the US better start doing some future cost analysis or they will be digging a nuclear "hole" for themselves at the very time other major Countries are shifting to Solar (of all flavors) as THE modern safe Energy Alternative!

?If China, India, Russia, Japan and the US wanted to become true World Leaders instead of just Military Powers, they would all work together to Champion Solar from Space and then lead the World toward a safe new future. Until we start getting our energy from Solar (of all flavors) and especially from Space we will continue to have Energy Wars and civil strife on Earth. Here are several books that describe how to "save" the Earth from it's nuclear folly:

?The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill,
Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheim­er.
The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine
The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris
Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Paul Hockenos

Paul Hockenos

Paul Hockenos is a Berlin-based author who has written about Europe since 1989. Paul is the author of three major books on European politics: Free to Hate: The Rise of the Right in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, Homeland Calling: Exile...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Create a free account and start adding your blogs.

Create an Account

Most Commented

  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets
  • 1
    Goldman Sachs to Invest $486 Million in Japan Renewable Energy
  • 1
    Outlook for US Energy Independence Gaining Confidence

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Rotork plc
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information