Germany Continues Exporting Electricity: Renewables Driving Down Prices Despite Closing Reactors

(...continued)

Now to the volume of contamination. Suggest you look at an aerial view of one coal plant's ash-disposal 'lake'. That ash is far larger in volume for our operating coal plants than all the soil even slightly contaminated by TEPCO. That ash is what's left after unregulated emission by those plants of mercury, radon (radioactive), & so on into our air. That's why >10000 Americans die/year just breathing. That ash also contains more Uranium than U ore -- German ash?

And for the 'renewables' crowd, Germany had fully half of all solar cells installed in the world just a few years ago -- their weather didn't let them generate near 1/2 the power. Their extreme subsidies, however, did make a few good $, but much of the installed solar was CdTe, which wastes 90% of what sun comes in & adds to global warming -- who's in charge?

Now that Denmark is disallowing onshore wind & Minke whales are beaching near European wind 'farms' because of their vibrations, & because wind farms waste much power in transmission, idling & unpredictability (1ft/sec off a prediction costs turning on/off a 300MW fossil station), & because they consume ~700 tons/MW of fossil-fuel-prepared material (coal, steel, limestone, oil/gas...) & because they can't be moved as winds change with climate (ask the Chinese), wind power is yet another subsidized land/sea hog -- <1/2MW peak per acre, sometimes.

So our descendents will be thinking of us as they tear down decrepit 'green' installations, much as we still have from the '70s in the US.

There are real renewables: efficiency, local solar on structures, & nuclear, as described to JFK, but never completed: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

And, China is now doing what we almost did, because they like facts: www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/

We may catch up: http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbP5KZQ5yso

And be truly green, as we were told in 1962 how to be by 2000.

So many opinions! So little data. Let's start with saving energy: very good and necessary. We need get the world down to 1ton of CO2 emission/capita/year by 2050, just to avoid about 160 million folks losing land, food and life. The 2009 Copenhagen conference punted with that info. Where was everyone here when that happened? Does Germany evidence concern for those millions outside it -- typically poor & contributing few emissions?

Germany may become more efficient, great. But burning coal moves it to the class of irresponsible world citizen.

On Fukushima: it's been known for decades that TEPCO & NISA built a defective plant, despite foreign engineers advising them differently. Where were all you anti-nukes when TEPCO's management was kicked out for fraud?

Where were you when geologists publicly warned of clear evidence that a tsunami as large as just occurred did so about 1000 years ago? There're far more "where were you?"s.

The Seaborg Commission told JFK & Congress how to convert to safer nuclear power in 1962? Where was our Congress? Well, we know where they usually are.

Fukushima was an improperly-designed plant with 5 ancient reactors, all shut properly after the largest quake in Japanese history, but made vulnerable by culpable management. Let's just say Fukushima Dai-Ichi is to nuclear power as Ford's Pinto was to automobiles. Were you anti-nukes happy when Pinto gas tanks killed folks? Are you sad no Japanese have yet died from the sad-sack TEPCO's radioactive emissions?
(continued...)

After everyone weighs in with their own opinion on the virtues or evils of nuclear power,whether or not Germany will import energy or export it ,the advantages or disadvantages of various technologies,and let's not forget silly comments on proper grammar, what's the conclusion?
It's been my conclusion for years that efforts to create and maintain some level of sustainability in advanced societies such as Germany may just be an effort in futility. It seems for each so called solution ,we generate a corresponding and perhaps increased severity of technological and societal problem.The 'plastic island' in the north pacific,depletion and pollution of water resources including destruction of our oceans,non sustainable chemical agriculture,to name just a few,are massive problems generated by a planet reaching far beyond its limits of support regardless of any magic energy solutions. Any support of an antique and highly toxic nuclear 'solution' simply illustrates another real shortage. That being a shortage of creative thinking coupled with the reality of physical limits.

A factor not much considered so far in the thread is that Germany is a doing well with conservation through insulation. It does well in the competition on the mall in D.C. partly because it uses passive-haus technology. So the question as to whether it will import or export also will have to consider this variable, sometimes referred to as the low-hanging fruit.

David writes in comment #21:
"They do not seem to be aware that mining uranium and processingf it to fuel rods contributes vast amounts of CO2 and makes a mess."

CO2 generated by uranium mining is trivial in comparison to the amount generated in a coal-fired generator producing the same energy as a nuclear reactor.

We generate small amounts of CO2 mining the resources needed (not to mention the manufacturing of the products themselves) to make wind turbines and solar PV panels too. Why is it that David does not include a quibble about that as well?
Steven

I'm not so much concerned if Germany will be an energy importer or exporter. Let's say they will import energy. What really counts is what they do with that energy: they turn it in value added products and their trade balance will be positive all the time. We should not forget Germany is the largest economy of Europe and the most efficient and innovative. Their investment in PV is like no other. What other technology offers free energy after a few years from installation? And what other technology other than PV can be deployed so fast?
One may lose the bigger picture when looking at some numbers.
Germany's energy strategy is sound. Lights will stay on in Germany while most of us will go back to candles.

Our slow transition to renewables seems to come from multiple sources -
1- the cost of purchasing equipment to produce the energy (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.)
2 - the loss of income and value to those who own , make a living from or utilize sources of energy that we are saying we should abandon (produce - oil, coal, gas companies - both workers and stockholders; utilize - power companies, equipment manufacturers including engine makers, car companies, people and businesses who own vehicles
3 - the myriad voices and choices of which direction we should be headed in - nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, solar, wind, biomass, alcohol based fuels, algae, hydrogen, geothermal, conservation, fuel cells, electric vehicles, more public transportation...
4 - the unsettled state of current technology - every technology seems to have all kinds of potential to be improved upon, and many need to be improved upon
5 - the potential that a bet on any given technology will be knocked out by something else that is better makes everything seem risky
6 - a lack of political will and consensus to put serious resources into making transitions
7 - confusion amongst people about the relative risks and gains and any given technology
8 - worldwide recession

Given all of these factors, it does seem like a pretty exciting time for energy with all of the research, all the drama, all of the politics and all of the potential.

As usual, all the supporters of nuclear fission clain it provides no pollution. They do not seem to be aware that mining uranium and processingf it to fuel rods contributes vast amounts of CO2 and makes a mess. Even worse nobody has yet devised a certain safe way of looking after waste for thousands of years. If the Romans had had fission power we would only just be starting to maintain safe storage for their waste. To bequeath such a responsibility to our successors is in my view irresponsible. Germany is taking a responsible action in my view.

Response to comment 4 above "clean nuclear generation":

Steven, we just received the news today that the disaster in Fukushima (and this information proves that it was a disaster) has produced 90 million cubic meters of radioactive waste including contaminated soil, vegetation, pieces from various structures etc. and other waste.

90 mio m3 is a lot of stuff! If you convert that to a cube, it would be about 450m (1500 feet) on each side. Imagine a cube that is 5 American football fields long on each edge. The Japanese description was "72 baseball stadiums."

To be honest, it is difficult for me to imagine this much waste of any kind!

It also makes me wonder what the real total volume of contaminated waste (on the same basis) would be for Tchernobyl? My guess is maybe 100 times that!

I need to research the coal plant issue in Germany more apparently, however, I note that new coal plants are far more efficient and relatively cleaner then older ones, which is why my local power company seems to be replacing two old ones for one new one.

Given the cost they pay for energy, I am not surprised it is lower energy costs. However, right now the dip in prices for future energy is because of the adding of apparently 7,000 MW of renewable energy, which is turn is indeed heavily subsidized, so the overall cost to Germany is not going down right now, but after the solar and wind is in place it does not cost a whole lot to maintain (or at least solar requires very little maintenance) and no fuel costs, so future costs will be far lower then current costs because of what they are doing now. And thus the market for future energy went down recently because of the added renewable. As it should.

As Sam Clemens said: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

This piece seems to qualify for all 3. To quote someone with knowledge...

You still have 9 nuclear power plants running that provided 98 TWhrs in 2010. So the 4 TWh exported for the first half of this year will turn to 46 TWhrs imported every six months when these get turned off.

Further, the 8 reactors that were shut down were operating for Jan, Feb, and Mar so your period includes the power from them which would be something around 14 TWhrs.

So, yes Germany managed to export 4 TWhrs but this includes 60 TWhrs worth of nuclear power!

The observation by Deutsche Bank stands. Germany is headed to be a major electricity importer, they get 40% of their electricity from coal and are planning on installing another 10 GWe worth of coal-fired plants. While I understand shutting down nuclear power is [currently] popular in Germany, the price will be lots of coal power [and respiratory illness].

German scientists, not under political control, estimate that the result will be 50 megatons of added CO2 emissions/year and that by the time Germany shuts all its nukes, they will have erased the total of all emissions reductions Germany has ever achieved.

So, the real question is, will Germany pay the carbon tax to everyone else that its politically expedient plan owes us?

Hmmm, ja or nein, ja or nein...

The notion that solar and wind are reducing German power costs is absurd. They are growing in Germany because of massive subsidies, and they have no chance of replacing nuclear. Germany will have to increase coal and gas to replace base load power from nuclear.

Longwatcher,
Regarding comment #13, I have not forgotten about German renewables in wind, hydro, and biomass. However, new hydro generation is nearly negligible, and new wind generation capacity has been added at a relatively tepid pace in recent years (less that 2 GW of new generation capacity in each of the last 5 years, leading to a growth rate that is significantly below that of the rest of the world). Their forays into biomass generation have had better success recently but I wonder how well this will scale in the future. Including all sources their percentage of electricity from renewable generation increased by 0.5% last year and about 10% in the last decade. With nuclear power accounting for 20+% of total generation it looks like they will need more than a decade to replace this energy source even with a significant acceleration in renewable generation growth. Additionally, it will get harder to accommodate intermittent capacity as the percentage of renewables grows. If they spend a decade (and likely more) replacing nuclear generation that means they will be able to do nothing about coal-fired generation for quite some time. Apparently they are not as concerned about climate change as they should be....
Steven

Larry,
You complained that I had not addressed all of your remarks, but much of what you had written was so incoherent I found it difficult to determine what your meaning was. You seem to vaguely grasp, based on part of comment #12, that ad hominem attacks make for weak arguments (although, pointing out that something was so poorly written as to be incomprehensible does not fall into that category) yet you engage in rampant speculation about my political affiliation (although being concerned about coal-fired generation is hardly tantamount to being a card-carrying member of the Republican party), my publication record, and whether or not I subscribe to the notion of American exceptionalism. Why don't you try focusing on the actual topic of this thread? If you ramble less you will have more time to proofread....
Steven

Don't forget to add wind and hydro into the mix.
36,500 GWh of Wind
19,700 GWh of Hydro
12,000 GWh of Solar PV
Total: 67,000 GWh of non-Bio renewables. or around 14% of their total power 17% with bio.

All of the above is 2010 data. They have apparently added almost twice as much solar PV so far this year as all of last year. They have apparently been doubling their solar installation every year since 2006, keep that up and it won't take long to max out what solar can do for them.

And Germany is not exactly a bright sunny place, so why is solar growing so fast, probably because they have found like I did that rainy places are not as bad as they were made out to be. All the ratings and estimates are based on hours of sun, but ignore that the data set was using a dusty place that gets little rain and thus drops the power 10-20% by not getting frequent rain keeping the panels clean and the colder weather.

So Germany is probably doing better then you might thing they should. But I suspect they are catching on.

Larry,
"Your precise points are possibly obscured by your failure to use proper sentence structure"
Sorry I was not aware that I was putting together a dissertation or a best selling novel. Do you type 50 words per minute and think faster than you type? Didn't think so. Ever been a published author or feature editor for two magazines? I have. How about you. Typically when a persons stance is weak and not based on solid evidence it's best to attack some perceived deficiency that has no reflection on the real focus of the arguments.
Let me guess. Your either a Republican or at the least call yourself a conservative.

Germany produced 12,000 GWh from PV in 2010, which amounted to 1.9% of their total electricity consumption. Generation from nuclear power is in the ballpark of 20+%, so clearly they are not going to promptly be able to replace nuclear power with solar PV. Given their decision to abandon nuclear power, they won't be able to cut back on fossil fuels at all.
Steven

I have to say this about the Germans, It is OBVIOUS when you visit Germany, they are big into solar PV and wind systems. All over the place. Meanwhile in the US, the only place they I ever saw solar or wind was in California. I can find it around me only because I have been told where it is, with one exception Canon Factory in Newport News, VA has an obvious solar array.

Heck my solar panels, while obvious on Google maps are nearly invisible on the ground if you don't know to look. Germany, they are just there, all over the place.

Given how well my PV system is doing, I suspect Germany is noticeably cutting back on their fossil fuel energy use. They may still need coal and nuc plants for awhile, but they are heading for a country that only need Natural Gas plants for rare occasions, that amount can be stored easily.

And although it will be a small amount even the Chinese recognize renewable energy is essential for the future.

We in the USA apparently don't. we will just panic later. And the more I learn about Nuclear plants, the more nervous it makes me. North Anna plant should have been good for a 7.2 earthquake, not a 6.3 at best. They and we got lucky. The Japanese didn't.

Larry,
Your precise points are possibly obscured by your failure to use proper sentence structure. For example: "High cost energy and still they out produce us and second only to really cheap China." taken from your post #5, does not strike me as a well expressed thought.

Germany has spent lots of money on renewable energy of late. You seem to conflate this with having achieved a lot; this is where I would disagree with you--the amount of renewable energy they have installed in quite modest given what they have spent. Furthermore, the FIT policies for PV that Germany has introduced have led to boom and bust cycles in the industry which has caused lots of bankruptcies. The current sharp price declines for PV, which are partly the result of a short term glut in modules because of inconsistent European intervention in the PV market, is also causing havoc for the development of solar thermal technologies. If solar thermal is given time to mature it probably would be superior to PV in certain markets (mirrors should be cheaper to produce than PV modules, steam turbines have a higher efficiency than PV, and thermal storage should be cheaper than battery storage) but massive government subsidies for PV are skewing the playing field.

You spew hyperbolic nonsense such as "In the US, where our government is a slave to the fossil fuel masters" but in the US coal usage is on the decline (albeit only slightly) whereas Germany has decided to retain coal instead for quite some time. We don't live in a utopian world where we can rapidly displace both coal and nuclear generation and in deciding which of the two should go first Germany has chosen poorly. We can only hope other countries do NOT follow their lead.
Steven

YOUR points are quite clear. Yes! Made them twice now. Obviously you are not reading my posts clearly or your avoiding my comment.
'Germany is so far ahead of the curve on so many things'
THINGS is the operative word here. Again I spoke in generalities. I could have been including their great breads or beer. More specifically I was referring to the fact that Germany actually puts some real 'horsepower' behind advancing RE unlike the US where the bulk of the incentives go to creating an illusion of real advancement while the fossil and nuke industry continues to call all the shots.
In regard to Germany's so called high energy costs due to their incentives for PV systems (those costs are not distributed in a vacuum as most of these funds stay within the German economy to further RE development. In the US,where our government is a slave to the fossil fuel masters most of the wealth goes outside the country)any time you increase the cost of something you get less of it. IT being the consumption of finite energy. That's a bad thing?? The other thing that gets advanced in the face of high energy costs is a search for a lower cost replacement. NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION. Keep subsidizing coal,nukes and oil and drive down the price (not true cost) and you consume more with the resultant pollution and environmental damage. Even little old 'Commie China' is now rubbing RE in our collective faces as American's. Somehow, I think Steven, you would be advancing the myth that there is such a thing as 'American Exceptionalism'. Ethnocentrism in other words. I suppose we are exceptional if you consider we are one of only a few countries in history that freely invades sovereign countries,slaughters the innocent on trumped up causes and then claims to be advancing Democracy. I suppose the fact that Germany also made that mistake once and learned from it makes my original comment all the more valid.

Sorry Steven, but Larry has a big point! In a perfect world, I totally agree with you on nuclear power being clean.... But when unpredictable human or natural things happen, nuclear is a hugh evironmental mess to say the least. So what will the true costs of radioactive power prodution actually turn out to be? This may or may not be known for centures to come, and at the expense of our environment and future health. And yes coal totally sucks.

Now larry, I would think my points are clear:
1) Germany has only achieved very modest increases in renewable energy at great incremental cost. This is not a stellar record and not a model for the rest of the world which needs to achieve an affordable solution. It is not even a sustainable model for achieving large amounts of renewable energy in rich countries such as Germany.
2) Nuclear power is cleaner than coal usage, and we know how to safely store nuclear waste whereas the waste from coal fired generation is merely spewed into the atmosphere. Admittedly nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but by choosing to replace nuclear generation before coal generation Germany is abandoning any serious effort to reduce greenhouse gases. This is extremely shortsighted.

Some modest improvements in safety measures would address any concerns with nuclear power. Shutting down the reactors before their rated lifetimes is massive overreaction to an extremely tiny risk. Meanwhile pollution from coal plants is serious peril that nothing is being done about.
Steven

@Steven
You give the micro
Not the Macro

I was making a general statement and your picking one point

Not what I meant

Live in Germany for awhile and get back to me

And clean Nuclear?
Based on what macro points of discussion?

Fukushima was real 'clean' wasn't it

High cost energy and still they out produce us and second only to really cheap China.
High wage union workers who don't have to go bankrupt because they cannot pay the thieves who supply 'health insurance'

Need I go on?
I can you know

So what's your point?

Larryofgalaxy writes in comment #3:
"Germany is so far ahead of the curve on so many things"

This is hyperbole. Consider these points:
1) When full-year statistics (which will include the peak usage months) are available they will show that Germany is a net electricity importer; if they shut down their nuclear capacity, which generates more than 20% of their electricity they will continue to be a net importer for many years.
2) Germany has one of the highest costs for electricity of any nation in Europe and these costs are more than double the US average.
3) Germany relies heavily on coal for electricity generation so their CO2 production per kWh is high. Because they have elected to replace their clean nuclear generation first they must continue to rely heavily on coal for many years. Thus, their CO2 emissions will not be decreasing any time soon.
4) Germany needs to import natural gas (used for ~14% of their electricity generation) from Russia, leaving them vulnerable to an energy embargo.
5) In 2010 renewable generation only edged up from 16% (in 2009) to 16.5%, which can hardly be described as a stellar increase.

In 2009 the US produced ~10.5% of its electricity from renewables compared to Germany's 16.0%, but it did so at less than half the cost on a per kWh basis. The German's have spent lavishly to achieve only a modest few percent increase in renewable generation and have decided to remain dependent on coal for the long term. This is, at best, a mixed record.
Steven

Germany is so far ahead of the curve on so many things

They hopefully will begin rapid phase out of their nuclear controlled melt down reactors

Been looking seriously into the data coming out of NASA and others on the EMP issue. Solar flares.
Looked into the Carington Event of 1859 to see the extensive damage done to telegraph systems.
Most experts predict extensive grid damage with events similar to this one. Some areas without power for months and possibly years.

Just remember that all light water reactors are just in controlled melt down all the time. Kill the grid and you avoid meltdown with massive diesel backup. Only two sources of electricity as no nuclear plant can cool itself without the grid or diesel generators. What happens when there is no grid and no means of supplying diesel to keep things cool? How about cooling the highly radioactive nuclear waste pools filled to the brim all over the country.

Think Fukusima times 72 for the plants now operating in the US.
Are you downwind of one of these death plants?
This solar flare issue and the resultant damage to the grid is not fantasy as it has happened before. Are we just simply playing Russian Roulette with this loaded gun of Nukes? Only time will tell. Hope we are not too late.

If one looks on the balance post nuclear closures, instead of H1 2011, which includes high Jan-Mar exports, Germany has indeed become an importer and remained so until now. So the conclusion of the article is simply wrong!

In science and technology, when you're no sure what to do, do what Germans do!