Skip to main content

Germany’s Nuclear Conundrum

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.

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.
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.
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.
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!
Bill said…
Not a coincidence; the former Environment Minister justified those coal plants as necessary, to replace the nuclear plants.
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.
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.
Your analysis is based on Germany's electric production. Consumption is higher; Germany also imports electric power from France -- nuclear power.

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …