Skip to main content

Germany’s Nuclear Conundrum

By

iser nuclear plant It takes some amount of bravery to admit you need what you do not like and you will suffer it for as long as you need to:

The lifespan of Germany's nuclear power plants must be extended "modestly" in order to gradually reach the country's goal of having renewable energy as its main source of energy, German Vice-chancellor and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Wednesday.

Which must mean that Germany is very close to that goal, yes?

In 2008 the gross electric power generation in Germany totaled 639 billion kWh. A major proportion of the electricity supply is based on lignite (23.5 %), nuclear energy (23.3 %) and hard coal (20.1 %). Natural gas has a share of 13 %. Renewables (wind, water, biomass) account for 15.1 %.

These numbers are – not attractive – if the goal is to shut off 23 percent of the clean air electricity produced in the country when nearly 44 percent – 57 percent when you add in natural gas – emit impressive amounts of carbon dioxide – the displacement of which is the point behind increasing the use of renewables. Using renewable energy as a stalking horse for nuclear energy seems – a bit – verrückt.

---

It may evoke a little deja vu to learn that Germany is having some trouble coming up with an energy plan that gets it where it wants to go.

Time will soon run out for Germany to build up enough power generation if politicians continue dragging their feet on decisions over the fuel mix, German state energy agency Dena said on Monday.

Oh, really, and why is that?

"Power markets will feel insecure," he [Dena managing director Stephan Kohler] said in an interview on the sidelines of a Focus magazine conference on power plants.

"There will be no new jobs and the power supply security of the coming years will be impaired."

And why might that be?

Dena forecasts that Germany may be short some 14,000 to 16,000 megawatt of generation capacity if nuclear laws phase out reactors by 2021 as now planned and new projects for coal or gas plants fail to materialize due to public opposition.

In other words, baseload energy. That’s where renewables cannot get you and Germany hasn’t quite figured out how to square this particular circle. Add to the circle squaring exercise a public that wants elements that do not comprise a coherent energy array – not the public’s fault; politicians need to explain this – and you get an intractable conundrum.

I’ve no doubt it’ll work itself out – and only a little doubt that nuclear energy will have a significant role to play.

Germany’s Iser nuclear plant.

Labels:

Comments

donb said…
If you want to figure out how to square the circle, just follow the money. Renewables are expensive, especially solar in Germany. The money to subsidize renewables needs to come from somewhere, and one of those "somewheres" is the nuclear plants. The political types want to tax the nuclear plants to provide the subsidies, so they can present themselves as virtuous by supporting (expensive) renewables. Most any source of money will win at least grudging support.
August 4, 2010 at 3:48 PM
SteveK9 said…
The situation is much worse than even this article makes it seem. I don't know the percentage but typically most of what is called 'renewables' is from hydro. If you take that out then renewables look a lot worse. And, usually there is not much more hydro to add, all the dams are built.
August 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Charles said…
One possible solution will be to build the NPP in France and big power lines across the Rhine. The French need the money to afford buying German stuff, and the Germans have the money... E.ON already expressed its interest for building NPP in the French territory.
Germany will have much bigger bang for the buck investing in NPP in France than investing in Natural Gas infrastructure in Russia.
August 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM
Kaj said…
Germany has no serious efforts to phase out coal either, on the contrary. According to this document from McCloskey’s Coal Report, December 2007, there is 20,000 MGW of new coal power under construction in Germany.

20,000 MW. Thats about the same as the NPP fleet in Germany. What a coincidence!
August 5, 2010 at 3:57 AM
Bill said…
Not a coincidence; the former Environment Minister justified those coal plants as necessary, to replace the nuclear plants.
August 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Phil said…
The only way to create the always-on electricity that we need for modern civilization without emitting carbon is a wholesale movement toward nuclear energy.

Trying to make these sporadic so-called "renewables" work is a waste of time and treasure.

This is the reality. It will become apparent eventually. I don't expect civilization to disband when the proven answer to our biggest problem is right there staring us straight in the face.

NEI please continue to monitor and report on Germany's (hopeless) experiment.
August 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Anonymous said…
So, they're trying to reduce CO2 and other emissions by shutting down emissions-free generation (nuclear) and replacing it with emissions-rich generation (coal)? There is only one word for that: dummeraisel.
August 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Robert Hargraves said…
Your analysis is based on Germany's electric production. Consumption is higher; Germany also imports electric power from France -- nuclear power.
August 5, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more