Skip to main content

Germany: Nuclear Back Pay and the Return of Coal

lightningHere in the United States, the government has imposed a tax on nuclear facilities to pay for a used fuel repository. But there isn’t one and the courts have made it clear that until one is at least on the drawing boards, no more waste fee. That’s supposed to take effect in May.

In Germany, the government has also run afoul of the courts:

he Hamburg Financial Court has ordered authorities in Germany to refund German utilities more than EUR2.2bn (USD3bn) in nuclear fuel taxes. The refund is to be paid to five energy companies, including E.ON and RWE.

---

Courts in Hamburg and Munich have both opined that they believe the tax to be unconstitutional, and have requested instruction from Germany's Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice.

That last part can lead us to believe that this would have happened even if the nuclear facilities continued to operate. But it does seem like garish exploitation to keep the fee, like getting hospital bills after the patient has expired. It doesn’t smell right.

---

So that’s one thing. Here’s another:

What’s a beleaguered utility to do when forced by the government to close its profitable nuclear power plants?

It turns to lignite, a cheap, soft, muddy-brown colored form of sedimentary rock that spews more greenhouse gases than any other fossil fuel.

Lignite! That makes my head shake unbidden, as in, No you can’t be doing that.

You can guess how this turns out.

The result: RWE now generates 52 percent of its power in Germany from lignite, up from 45 percent in 2011. And RWE isn’t alone. Utilities all over Germany have ramped up coal use as the nation has watched the mix of coal-generated electricity rise to 45 percent last year, the highest level since 2007.

The story goes on to say that RWE and its colleagues can’t count on lignite continuing to be plausible, thus mandating a change to renewable energy, like it or not. You sometimes see complaints about American legislators choosing energy winners and losers. Without wading too deeply into that issue, this is what that is really like.

---

A little expansion on these points from CNN:

For German consumers who ultimately foot the bill, the tab for renewable subsidies comes to $32 billion this year, and soaring electricity bills are hitting households and businesses hard. The Energiewende [switch to renewable energy] also requires construction of a costly and extensive new infrastructure of high-voltage transmission lines to carry power from northern wind farms to the industrial south. The spreading visual blight has sparked local outbreaks of Nimbyism.

“Germany’s electricity prices are already the highest in Europe, 40 to 50 percent higher than the EU average and twice as much as in the U.S.,” notes Jurgen Kronig, a prominent Energiewende critic who writes for the German weekly Die Zeit.

Nimbyism certainly didn’t do nuclear energy any favors in Germany. Pretty soon they’ll be complaining that their neighbors’ candles are too bright.

Comments

trag said…
Jurgen Kronig is wrong. German electric bills are 3.5 times larger than USA electric bills. Residential electricity in Germany is about Eu .30, which is about $.42/ KWHr. Average cost at the doorstep for residential electricity in the USA is below $.12/KWHr.

Twice. Hah! The Germans would love to only pay twice.

For what they've wasted on "renewables" they could have converted all of their electricity production to nuclear and have CO2-free electricity generation -- 100$ instead of the few percent they currently manage.
Tom said…
Typical knee jerk reaction without logically thinking about the long term ramifications...pay me later! The sad thing is, it wasn't like their nuclear fleets were about to expire operationally, so why the aggressive action instead of carefully and methodically planning a phaseout? The German situation has that ominous feeling to it, like there's a train coming and they know it, but they're going to see if they can jump it anyway. Hey Germany, no complaining about filthy air and energy prices for the next several decades while you attempt to get your act together! There is no current silver bullet to energy issues but you've put all of your eggs in one basket.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...