Skip to main content

Germany Counts Cost of Nuclear Shutdown

Nuclear energy. It’s expensive, right? That’s what a lot of our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace keep saying.

Alright, then let’s shut down some plants and start saving money, right? Surely, just on a cost basis alone, it makes sense. To be fair, let’s replace the electrons generated using fission with a mix of (more expensive) renewables and (relatively cheaper) fossil fuels. We can use more domestic coal, maybe import some natural gas and use local renewables to drive down electricity prices. That should save ratepayers real money every month. But wait. Something quite similar is happening in Germany and electricity prices have gone up, not down [FT, subscription req’d. Original article: “Electricity Prices Jump in Europe,” March 15.]. Just after the Fukushima accident, as Germany announced it was shutting down several nuclear power plants, the FT reported:

The cost of electricity in Germany, the European benchmark, immediately rose as utilities are likely to burn more expensive natural gas and thermal coal to bridge the shortfall in electricity.

Then, there are even more expensive options like renewables.

Increasing the share of renewables in electricity and heat is likely to be expensive for some time to come. Onshore wind is currently about 50% more expensive per unit of energy than conventional power sources, while offshore wind is about 250% more expensive.

And now, according to VIX, a German trade group, electricity prices for industrial users are expected to rise next year. It’s particularly poor timing:

Germany's big electricity consumers said on Wednesday they expected their power bills to rise by an average 9 percent for 2012, burdening industry amid a weakening economy and rising finance costs.

Not only that, but cutting nuclear energy out of the mix may be reducing not only the quantity, but the quality of electricity available. The knock-on effect? Horror of horrors! A decline in German manufacturing and export prowess.

…[VIK Chairman Volker Schwich] also said that network frequency changes have become more evident since the withdrawal of the huge nuclear facilities, which had ensured stability. This could hit sensitive industrial production, even if it is not noticeable by household customers.

‘It's not about a candle-lit dinner but complex production processes whose stability, long before a publicly noticeable network black-out, can be threatened,’ he said.

…He said this was unacceptable for an export nation.

There are many cost/benefit trade-offs to consider in energy choices. But here’s hoping that Germany’s rush to ditch nuclear power finally ends one enduring myth: that nuclear energy is just too expensive. As we pointed out before, done right over the long term, it’s one of the cheapest baseload generating options.

Finally, a side note on current prices. While it is true that German electricity prices (to be precise, contracts for baseload electricity in 2012) are down lately, this seems more due to the anticipation that European growth will remain slow this year, as this article notes. I.e., it’s not due to the German nuclear shutdown, which had the opposite effect on prices. 

Also, the press release from VIX, in German, is here. I found Google Translate got me pretty close to the original.

Comments

Bill said…
Also:
"The Latte Fallacy: German Switch to Renewables Likely to Be Expensive" (07/27/2011)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,776698,00.html

"Revolution Threatens to Falter: Is Germany's Green Energy Plan Failing?" (10/11/2011)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,790940,00.html

EU faces 20 years of rising energy bills" (October 16, 2011)
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fb79d97e-f7fd-11e0-8e7e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1awyPZPxx
Meredith Angwin said…
The strange similarities with Vermont...
Matte said…
Compounded with the political fall out from Germans paying for keeping the Euro afloat...what could possibly go wrong?

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…