Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

German Solar Energy May Get a Boost from Japan's Nuclear Disaster

By John Blau, Contributor
March 18, 2011   |   38 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
38 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 38
March 18, 2011
Hi:

One would hope the "ushering in" will not be limited to just Germany. Over $30 billion of promises have already been made in this country, and that is a hard thing to reverse...
The Entities pushing for that don't like Indian givers...

.....Bill
Comment
2 of 38
March 18, 2011
Ah yes... the terror those Germans must feel at the prospect of being hit simultaneously by the 5th largest earthquake and the 3rd largest tsunami in recorded history... which might result in the destruction of hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure and kill thousands!!!! ... ... and might also cause a meltdown of a nuclear reactor which could take the lives of a few workers at the nuclear power plant...

Sometimes perspective is important. If the Germans really are terrified that this type of tragedy might hit them, they simply need to put the backup diesel generators on 10-m high concrete/steel foundations - a cost of ~$100,000/nuclear reactor; and there wouldn't be a problem even with a tsunami greater than the one that hit Japan!

What's that? There's no threat of a tsunami hitting a German nuclear power plant, nor is there a threat of a massive Earthquake? I know that... but they apparently can't figure that out, and if it only costs $100,000/nuclear facility to appease completely irrational panic, that would cost a lot less than shutting the plants down for a single hour.
Comment
3 of 38
March 18, 2011
Hi:

Ah yes, GD speaks...
I think you should start 1-900-prophecy..
After all, you are so smart knowing all that can not possibly happen.
Ever had a car accident, step on a nail, drop a dish or glass, stub your toe??? Of course not, that is not possible for the great GD!! He is way to well prepared mentally and physically to EVER let Murphy catch him off guard....
No arrogance here folks....
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

.....Bill
Comment
4 of 38
March 18, 2011
Bill,

How about this: Let's make a bet! I will happily pay $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00, or every single bit of property that I own if that sum is less than the above, that Germany will not be hit by a tsunami that does more than ten million dollars in damage to Germany proper (this is as high as is listed only because there's an infinitesimal chance that a super-tsunami triggered off of America's eastern coast might theoretically do very minor damage to a few German ports on the North Sea at some point within my lifetime. Any tsunami capable of damaging a nuclear power plant would do several billions worth of damage just in the act of closing the plant down, so this in no way insulates me from paying out if your assertion - that we cannot know if a tsunami will wipe out German nuclear power plants - holds true), payable the instant such an event unfolds.

For your part in the bet, you, and any other person who believes that a tsunami is a legitimate concern for Germany and that this justifies the closure of nuclear power plants, would have to agree to pay me $0.01/hr for every hour that passes that such an event does not occur. If you are interested, please contact me directly so we can set up fund transfers of $87.60/year for every year that I remain alive.

If you do not wish to place such a bet - $87.60/year if tsunamis don't wipe out Germany's nuclear power plants vs 100% of my assets if tsunamis do wipe out Germany's nuclear power plants - then we can assume that you aren't actually stupid enough to believe Germany is facing a threat of a massive tsunami that might damage a nuclear power plant, and your reply here was just contrarionism without any attempt to add something useful to the discussion.
Comment
5 of 38
March 18, 2011
Glenn:

You are denser than depleted Uranium.
Conversation is simply lost on you....

EOL....

.....Bill
Comment
6 of 38
March 18, 2011
We would be better off to pay the cost of clean energy and then get it back in health care savings and fuel savings. The old fossil fuel and nuclear systems only look cheaper because they manage to get taxpayers to pay their bills while they keep the profits. The taxpayers are not as clueless as they think .
No image available
Comment
7 of 38
Anonymous
March 19, 2011
"Aligatorhardt" writes in comment #6: "We would be better off to pay the cost of clean energy and then get it back in health care savings and fuel savings."

Implicit in such a statement is the notion that renewables present a viable alternative. Certainly PART of our electricity generation could be shifted to renewables but--at least in many locations--100% is simply not possible. Given that unfortunate truth our choice is going to come down to nuclear power or fossil fuels and the latter represent a greater risk due to the potential for serious climate change. Consider, for instance, the case of Vermont, which gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power; if you wanted to replace that reactor with renewable power using resources within the region how would you do it?

Steven
Comment
8 of 38
March 19, 2011
To #7

You are completely right. 100%!

So after we agreed that Renewables can not supply 100% lets shake hands on this deal:

In the next 20 years until 2030 all our new energy installations will be renewables, energy efficiency or batteries. The current fossil and nuclear plants will last at least that long with proper maintenance and repair.

You will agree that if we do this we wont make all our energy to come from renewables thus the fear of inability to secure all our energy from renewables is unfound.

What do you say?

P.S. If this deal is exactly what the renewable industry is demanding ... this is a coincidence!
Comment
9 of 38
March 20, 2011
Yes renewable energy is more efficient and cost effective..
I normally write on stocks but this one I hope our reader will like it http://bhavikkshah.blogspot.com/2011/03/renewable-energy-much-better-than.html
No image available
Comment
10 of 38
Anonymous
March 20, 2011
I am from India but I still track some German renewable energy companies stock ...Like Vestas;REpower, GE
http://bhavikkshah.blogspot.com/search/label/SUZLON
No image available
Comment
11 of 38
Anonymous
March 22, 2011
It's a pity that the discussion always has to go between pro and contra. It's even not relevant if 100% renewable energy is possible. In the long run it's the only option. If in the meanwhile we have to rely on excisting plants, ok, so be it. The only thing which is sure is that renewables will win in the long run.

On comment nr 4, I only think it's a pity to only calculate in financial numbers what's going on. The disaster in Japan simply shows us the threat of nuclear plants. It's not only tsunami or earthquake. What about terrorist actions? No one would have believed that the twin towers would go down due to terrorism.
Comment
12 of 38
March 22, 2011
Germany may not be in danger of a Tsunami or a Large scale Earthquake, but torrential flooding has occured in the past
when cities were covered in mud and debris.

This can affect as well the cooling system of a reactor if is placed near a river that is overflowed with Debris.
The excessive short circuits comparing with pumps malfunctions is possible to allow the rods in the reactor exposed for several seconds, which is enough to trigger a meltdown.

Therefore it is a very wise decision to shut down at least the
old reactor technology plants.
Comment
13 of 38
March 22, 2011
Spapadelos,

While there are indeed some floods in Germany, these are well known and were fully considered when the power plants were built - no one built a nuclear (or fossil for that matter) power plant in a flood zone.

The tsunami shut down the diesel backup pumps because that was an area that was never subject to flood, so the builders felt safe building them there.

But every single builder in a first world nation knows exactly where the 100-year flood line is.

As for the threat of terrorism, they take that pretty seriously... and crashing a plane into a nuclear power plant would do little to no damage to the outer containment dome.

Really, there's nothing logical for Germans to fear here... They are just panicking.
Comment
14 of 38
March 22, 2011
Hi:

GD is absolutely right here, no question...
...and please call 1-900-prophecy, the first 30 seconds is free...
...at 1-900-prophecy we know what cannot possibly go wrong with absolute certainty!!
For the children, sleep tight, night, night, don't let the neutrons bite...

.....Bill

PS: If you are having trouble understanding the Nuclear events in Japan, this video will help clear up all those confusing details for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN2hSVxA&feature=player_embedded
Comment
15 of 38
March 22, 2011
Of course, there is also no logic behind William Fitch's animosity... but some people develop VERY STRONG OPINIONS without putting a lot of thought behind them.
Comment
16 of 38
March 22, 2011
Perhaps the main reason the US will not consider the effects of health of it's population in the move to healthier energy sources is that there are huge profits in the medical related industries that benefit from a sick population. It is an established profit scheme with attendant lobying and PAC returns that fund the profiteers in government.(see Michael Moore's movie, "SICKO").
Another less obvious reason may well be that the years of life of our current representative government have been spent while under the physical influence of mercury, lead, arsenic, and a host of air and water poluting chemicals that the human body cannot process from the body and it's mind is severely, although currently without adequate quantification, prevented from mindful and peaceful consideration of long term effects of the health of the people over the short term profits of those who deny the impairment even exists. How could they know, when they exist in a world of threat and competition and conflict which is entirely contrary to the philosophies of all established world spiritual paths.
When I hear national leaders speaking with self avowed righteousness about the "fear" of God I am made aware of the distance between truth and insanity that most of the voting public engenders and openly characterizes by their effects. We really believe, en-mass, that we are an effect of the world we see rather than its cause. The bodies tolerance for pain, however self induced, is very high, but it is not without limit. This may indeed be our saving grace. Perhaps not.
No image available
Comment
17 of 38
Anonymous
March 22, 2011
Flooding is indeed a danger for German reactors. Imagine if in Japan, an earthquake and Tsunami originated country, could not predict The Earthquake and a Modest size Tsunami.

The Same can happen in Germany, since most of reactors are built within the 100 year flood limit, still has not made any serious prediction for Flooding that is much more than that.

At the other hand, Germany is a Flat Country and eventually The Flood can occur in most of its parts.
Comment
18 of 38
March 22, 2011
Hi:

Good point Phil. After all, there is a bundle to be made in band-aids, not much in cures though...
Again, band-aids are reoccurring, cures are a one shot deal..
better business in the former....

.....Bill
No image available
Comment
19 of 38
Anonymous
March 23, 2011
Why is Germany closing the 7 older plants and by what criteria are they choosing those "older" plants? Is it age or technology used or some other criteria?
Comment
20 of 38
March 23, 2011
Germany's solar program is an expensive joke, supplying a trivial percent of their electric power. And without those nuclear plants, Germany is up one of those flooded creeks without a paddle.
Comment
21 of 38
March 23, 2011
Bill Fitch - Thanks for the youtube on "Nuclear Boy" and his "stinky poo"!

Seriously, considering Germany or any country, imagine what panic a terrorist action, like even a small bomb exploded in or near a nuclear plant, will have on the public and the economy. Compare that to a bomb at a wind farm.
Comment
22 of 38
March 23, 2011
That bomb would do more damage in an oil refinery. And those containment buildings resist bombs or crashing aircraft.
Comment
23 of 38
March 23, 2011
I notice that a lot of responders make fun of Germany's supposed paranoi of nuclear reactors. Is Germany in danger of a tsunami or an earthquake you ask. How about human error in Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. How about terrorists crashing a plane into a reactor. How about any other unforseen catastrophy. All it takes is one to render an area the size of Switzerland forever uninhabitable. Here in the states, we almost rendered Pennsylvania uninhabitable. And then, what do we do with the spent fuel. Virtually all the spent fuel of all our reactors is stored on site. We are makeing a deal with the devil. The Japanese made that deal and lost as did the Russians. Mr. GD, wake up!
Comment
24 of 38
March 23, 2011
Hi:

"That bomb would do more damage in an oil refinery. And those containment buildings resist bombs or crashing aircraft."

Humm, so was the Pentagon, didn't help them much did it...

.....Bill
Comment
25 of 38
March 23, 2011
russell-judge,

I know people who lived within 10 miles of 3-mile island when it melted down. Neither I nor they know a single person that suffered any deleterious effect from it... because there wasn't any.

Chernobyl was a matter of completely unacceptable safety standards and shoddy engineering and maintenance, never to be repeated.

If a plane or a non-nuclear bomb were detonated on a modern containment vessel, nothing would happen.

This is all just paranoia for the sake of indulging in panic. The problem here was the tsunami wiped out the backup coolant generators after the earthquake knocked out the primaries. A few feet of concrete pedistals for the generators and nothing would have happened - RIGHT AFTER THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE NATURAL DISASTER IN HISTORY.

This is relatively safe technology, which means there's no reason to panic.

I have a problem with new nukes due to cost, but there's no valid safety issue, and no valid reason to shut down the reliable power that is already producing.
Comment
26 of 38
March 23, 2011
Mr. G D, I lived in Elizabethtown, about 20 miles from Three Mile Island. Maybe you haven't been reading enough about Three Mile Island, but it came within a hairwidth of a complete meltdown all do to human error in one of our supposedely accident proof modern reactors. We dodged a bullet! Mr. GD, "relative" isn't safe enough! In your one in a million scenario, we have had at least four severe nuclear accidents. Do you even know of the other ones?
Comment
27 of 38
March 23, 2011
Hi:

"I know people who lived within 10 miles of 3-mile island when it melted down. Neither I nor they know a single person that suffered any deleterious effect from it... because there wasn't any."

Now, I know this statement came from 1-900-prophecy, however, I would like to point out an obvious fact. This event lies in the past, so no clairvoyance is required in knowing the real score.

http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2011spring/2011spring_Charman.php

Now, I am sure that all these people who are just regular people with no big corporate accounts to protect, are all just delusional, misinformed about there own bodies and/or crazy.
In light though, of 1-900-prophecy to even get the past right, it gives me serious doubts about you ability in predicting the future, as to what can not possibly happen.
Better use some Windex on that crystal ball...

.....Bill
Comment
28 of 38
March 23, 2011
Russell,

I note that you used the words "it came within an hairwidth of complete meltdown"... not "it melted down and breached the containment vessel".

So, human error (in a job that has long since become automated) led to a problem, but no damage was done other than the early shut-down of the plant because the safety measures held. (unless you believe Bill's tabloid stories).

I hold coal to be far more dangerous than nuclear, according to any valid risk assessment. Therefore, if you're forcing the nuclear plants to close, only to increase coal power production... I think that is a poorly thought through policy.

I don't support new nuclear only because it's too expensive, but unless there's problems found with the old units, let them continue to provide power at extremely low marginal costs.
Comment
29 of 38
March 23, 2011
GD,

I really don't understand the way you really want to be right about nuclear posing no threat whatsoever. We don't have such a long history of nuclear and the past has proven that problems occur and accidents happen. It's typical that one can think 'now we're further evolved, now we're beyond this problem' in the sence you mention (a job that lon since become automated). For sure there has never happened something wrong to automated systems! Your vision about coal is completely wrong in the vision of this discussion. First of all i do not know of coal reactors that exploded (might be) nor do i know about big problems with them. Nucldear has given all these problems. Still some people like you like to ignore all these facts.
Comment
30 of 38
March 23, 2011
Jan,

First, I have never stated that there is no threat whatsoever concerning nuclear energy. I have stated that there is no threat of a tsunami threatening German reactors and the Germans are therefore acting like idiots.

Second, coal kills roughly 20,000 Americans every year. Nuclear power: 0. I don't know exactly WHY you believe that 0 is somehow more than 20,000... but there it is.

Third, I have no desire or need to be right. I just happen to have not heard any argument voiced within this thread that shows a credible reason for me to change my mind. I am very well informed on these matters, so if a person makes an argument that I know to be false or irrational then I can and will disregard that argument. That doesn't mean I am disuadable.. I started out anti-nuclear, then became better informed (my position changed due to me gathering more information).

Unfortunately, costs in the U.S. will be too high to justify new nuclear reactors, so we will see the industry fade. But while the old nukes are still producing, it's better to leave them running than to turn them off and deliver an additional 800 TWhs of electricity from coal-based sources.
Comment
31 of 38
March 23, 2011
GD,

Although I'm 100% pro of renewable energy, i agree that for the time being, letting run the nuclear installations is probably the best option. About nr and risk and so, I'm pretty much informed myself, and with numbers you can prove almost anything.
I agree that the risk of flooding and tsunami in Germany is negligable. Though this doesn't mean that the risk of nuclear is. Put some smart terrorists together and this can pose real threat. Not by flying against a reactor. The weak point of every reactor is it's need for cooling (as has become very clear). There are ways this can be achieved. The consequences are always immense if something wrong happens. To me that's the main reason to be against nuclear. The threats may be very very small, but in the case something happens the consequences are hugh. There isn't a single nuclear plant that's got insurance, because this is a risk nobodey can insure. This is a statement on its own
Comment
32 of 38
March 23, 2011
Jan,

It seems we have some common ground. We are both stating that the risk to current plants is sufficiently low that it's far more logical to keep them running then to turn them off and produce the same energy from coal.

The vulnerability to terrorism is quite clear (now that the tsunami has shown any interested terrorists the way... historically terrorists have had little nuclear engineering in their background), and as you state, that's the coolant. However, these pumps are EXTREMELY hard to access. While the news crews show mock security tests wherein trained special forces teams can get past the fence, and in some cases even into the building... no security test ever came close to getting through to either the control room or the pumps. The campus for a nuclear power station is large... but THESE areas are damn well protected.

Even if one (or two, or three) of the pumps are compromised there is sufficient redundancy in the system that this will not be a problem. It would take a simultaneous attack against a multi-redundant system with isolated redundancies - ALL of which are extremely well guarded.

If terrorists were that good you might as well worry about them breaking into NORAD and launching. Remember the last big thing that a terrorist got right involved the deadly use of BOXCUTTERS... they just aren't that sophisticated. They got lucky and caught us sleeping - once. That made the difficult job of them compromising security at a nuclear power facility completely implausible.
Comment
33 of 38
March 24, 2011
Earthquakes and Tsunamis are certainly a large part of the historical record in Japan, as the former (earthquakes) are in California. Insofar as human error, that too has a long, worldwide "tradition," and in all areas . . . So . . . when we humans deal with such long-lasting, health endangering substances as radioactive materials, why are we so intrepid and careless? Why, for example, was the Browns-Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama constructed with flammable insulation on its controlling cables? And why was the worker who held the candle to check for air leaks not given an anemometer to use instead?

These and other questions about the cost, operation, construction, oversight of nuclear power plants around the world - as well as the storage of its fuel - vex rational people everywhere, but remain comfortably remote to those who aren't as rational.
Comment
34 of 38
March 25, 2011
Glen Doty, the reason Germans are very scared is that a reasonable amount of their NPP's are built along the Rhine river, for reactor cooling reasons. The Rhine passes through the Ruhr valley, who is the industrial heartland of Germany. That's also why there are several NPP's built there. Upstream the Rhine river towards the Alps, there are a lot of hydro power dams. If one collapses (earthquake), the tsunami in Japan will look like child's play compared to the wave streaming down the Rhine valley towards the humming NPP. The same risk exist in France North East region, where a NPP is built next to a canal that has a 10m high levy for rainfall overflow protection, and an hydro power dam 20km upstream to further control the water flow. A problem with the levy or the hydr power dam (overflow valves broken e.g.) and you face a Japan like scenario. As such NPP's as they were built in the 1980's in part of Germany and France aren't fail safe anymore since this Japan accident. How many NPP failures does it tale to render an accident a catastrophy ? Yes human hubris coupled with radioactive matter makes a potent risk.
Comment
35 of 38
March 25, 2011
a-b,

The irony here is that you are speculating on the chance that a dam collapses, wrecking untold havoc and tragedy... and this might lead to a meltdown in a nuclear power facility?

So what you are saying here is that the hydroelectric dam is unsafe, and threatens to destroy billions upon billions of dollars worth of infrastructure!!! Surely the only safe thing to do is to drain the lakes behind every dam so that this potential travesty can be averted!!!!

After all, in the scenario you present, it's the collapsing of the dam that serves as a threat to multiple nuclear power plants, which provide more energy than the dam does... There is also the certainty that rushing waters from the collapsed dam will do much more damage in infrastructure and lives than a possible meltdown...

So that means Germany MUST, for the good of its people, start draining the lakes behind dams, and start ripping the dams out returning the river to a natural state!!! They can make up the lost power by burning more coal.

If this reaction seems silly to you, you should be able to see how the "we have to shut all the nukes off since Japan got hit by a tsunami!" nonsense seems to me.
Comment
36 of 38
March 25, 2011
@ Glenn Dotty

Damns are not collapsing but to avoid collapse allow the release of excess water due to excessive rainfall.
The immediate release of water due to extreme weather behaviour can have an immediate effect on Rhine river level, where flooding has occured several times in the past. And that was the reason that these reactors were the first to be given the closure date, apart from their age.

The nuclear technology is used for producing heat, steam then drive a turbine to produce power,which is the most primitive use for it. By allowing so many low tech, highly expensive, nuclear plants we limit the development of this technology to boiling standards.

Another example of how an advanced technology can be manipulate in the simplest form to offer excessive profit for the involved consortium.
Comment
37 of 38
March 25, 2011
@ Astos,

Please read the post before responding. I was NOT advocating the idea that there was a crisis and we should shut down dams. I was responding to a-b-24958, who defended Germany's panic-driven insanity by stating that at any time an earthquake could cause a dam to collapse and thus threaten the nuclear power plants... so they should shut down the nuclear power plants.

Of course, a-b might have posted his drivel in a tongue-in-cheek manner that I missed. This entire thread is based on something that is just too crazy to take anything seriously. (Japan had a tsunami, therefore Germany closes all of its plants to review if the plants are safe...)

Sorry if my extreme sarcasm was misinterpreted. I certainly don't support something as stupid as shutting down or decommissioning hydropower dams based on no known threat.
Comment
38 of 38
July 31, 2011
READ AN INTERESTING FACTS IN INDIAN ENERGY SECTOR

http://bhavikkshah.blogspot.com/2011/03/renewable-energy-much-better-than.html
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Solar Power International 2012 AEG Power Solutions REC Solar SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc. Rolls Battery Engineering Trojan Battery Company Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine 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 India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters