The problem is that Germany had massive subsidies (especially for Wind Farms). And offshore wind farms are being built in water 20-40 meters deep 40 kms of the coast (with the grid operators forced to connect offshore wind farms at their cost). So it has huge problems – the recession probably helped Germany to advert an energy crises. The phaseout of nuclear power stations will probably be delayed.
IMHO people need to be a lot more pragmatic about green energy and nuclear power. Nuclear power still generates double the amount of electricity than renewable in Germany even while it is being phased out. It would be much better if they phased out the coal power stations instead.
I smile every time a journalist gushes about solar energy in Germany. I lived there for 3 years in several parts of the country. The southern most latitude in the country is approximately the same as Vancouver, and it can be overcast for weeks, even in the summer. Sure, Freiburg gets some good sunshine for a few weeks. What they're really talking about is German built solar farms in the Sahara!
the problem with offshore wind in Germany is that it has to be far away from the coast in deeper water. The local conditions (islands and the Wattenmeer) enforce this. Investment in offshore wind farms is under theseGerman conditions much higher and also the technical hurdles are much higher (wind, waves, corrosion, ...). These offshore wind farms are built for very rough conditions. Still several are under being built now. So the delay has technical reasons and also the investment is quite high.
But the new government has made clear that the investment in renewable energy will go on.
That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology.
>That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology.
It may be a victory on behalf of large energy companies, but I think nuclear is also a victory on behalf of the consumer/taxpayer. It's far and away the cheapest source of energy, cheaper even than coal.
(PS I don't know what Germany's particular energy case looks like. They might be wrapping their nuclear power plants in sarcophagi a mile wide. But it's still generally true that nuclear is substantially cheaper than coal.)
It's so cheap that the UK wants to increase taxes to give it to the energy producers, so that they are motivated to built nuclear power plants, which they are not.
The question is how much an equivalent coal reactor will cost. If you have good references it would be interesting. Just by a blind Google I found this:
> The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said.
That is $4 million per MW (just building). The powerplant in Finland is the first EPR so cost and time overruns is expected. It is a large one though – 1600MW (and it costs according to WP $7billion). The cost will therefore be $4.37 million per MW – about the same as a coal plant (but with no carbon dioxide causing global warming, coal costs and coal transportation costs).
The problem comparing this is that building costs differ from country to country. The EPR is also the first reactor of a series and building prices increased in the 2000’s (which has now decreased).
According to WP, the two VVER power plants at Tianwan cost together $3.3 billion (1000MW each). This means that the capital cost is $1.65 million per MW.
a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro.
Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Even in France there was little action building new nuclear reactors.
There is little chance that a new nuclear power station will be built in Germany, again.
The whole technology is simply to expensive. Mining uranium is expensive and generates huge amounts of waste. Getting rid of the waste is expensive. The nuclear industry has been financed by the taxpayer with billions and billions here in Germany. Currently we are looking into cleaning a research disposal site for a billion plus.
The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc.
If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. Let's see how long that works. The price is huge environmental damage.
>
a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro.
The nuclear power stations built at Tianwan is then cheaper than that.
> Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years.
Nuclear power has stagnated after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. After that a lot of governments stopped building or made regulation so tough that building one became infeasible. With the rise in awareness of global warming nuclear power is getting a second look.
The problem is that the only viable alternative (with current technology here, today) is nuclear power. It is either that or coal power stations that emits a lot of Carbon Dioxide.
> The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc.
The future described in the IEEE Spectrum article is definitely not renewable. The problem is that renewable energy is simply a pipe dream in 99% of situations. All renewable energy projects are developed with incredibly large government handouts.
So, either it is an increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions, a dramatic reduction in electricity usage or nuclear power.
> They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already.
With reprocessing of spent fuel, the amount of nuclear waste is reduced significantly. A coal power plant also produces a large amount of nuclear waste. The only difference is that it is pushed in the air (in addition to carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide (which causes acid rain), particulate matter, etc…). With reprocessing a nuclear reactor probably produces less waste than a coal power station.
> The price is huge environmental damage.
Coal power plants already produce huge environmental damage (Global Warming).
> If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs.
Nuclear power is a perfect fit for France since they are not blessed with coal reserves as large as that of Germany. It is better than any alternative (including importing coal or oil). Despite France’s lack of coal and a significantly smaller population, they produce as much electricity as Germany. They are also a net electricity exporter (which would indicate that they can sell their electricity for more than they can produce it).
Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe.
Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved.
The IEEE article is mostly misleading. The offshore windparks are currently being built and planned. The government recently has summed up the plans and activities. The plan is to get 15 % of electricity by 2020 based on wind. All renewable energy is then planned to be at 30%.
Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used).
France spends huge amounts of tax dollars for their nuclear industry, and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy. Let's see how France deals with their nuclear waste:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,654969,00....
No pretty sight, I'd say. Additionally it follows the usual strategy to build large players. Many here in Germany prefer to get rid of these large companies and get large parts of the energy production decentralized. The technology is now there and just needs to applied. Volkswagen now has a program for 100000 small 'Blockheizkraftwerke' ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockheizkraftwerk ) which will provide electricity and heating energy. They will also be able to generate electricity and provide it to the grid.
Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die.
> Sure nuclear power stations are cheaper in China then in Germany. All kinds of things are cheaper there. Still the first two reactors cost about 3.2 billion $. Try to build them for that money in Europe.
Coal Prices are almost the same the world over. The price increased significantly the past few years (that is one reason for a steep rise in electricity prices in many countries).
In my country we are lucky – we have low quality sulphur rich coal which we do not export. Thus we can burn it cheaply for electricity and the only side-effect is acid rain.
> Nuclear power is no viable technology. Mining is extremely damaging (including the emission of CO2) , substances handled are extremely dangerous, safety is not resolved and waste disposal is nowhere world wide solved.
Mining of Uranuim is much cleaner than coal – and much less needs to be mined. For coal they actually remove mountain tops to get to the coal. Remember that more than 5000 people die each year only in China from coal mining.
> The IEEE article is mostly misleading.
The IEEE article is extremely accurate. It is a magazine of the largest Electronic and Engineering groups (i.e. a specialist magazine). The article you linked to is for general consumption.
> Reprocessing of spent fuel makes the material even more dangerous. Reprocessing is already a dangerous process that generates huge amount of waste (for example the chemicals used).
Not true.
> and has largely failed to invest money in other technologies like renewable energy.
How much energy does countries with “renewables” generate? (hydropower excluded). There is no serious renewable energy projects – most of it is toys when compared to real power stations. It is just window dressing and none of it is feasible.
The Spiegel article is sensationalist (and half true) as most of their articles are. The nuclear fuel are stored above ground in containment drums – this is quite normal. The problem is that the reprocessing has a huge backlog (since the demand is so high).
And they should be driven either by diesel or gas. Will this really solve any problems?
> Nuclear power plants are dinosaurs deserving to die.
Another thing is happening and will happen more in the future. Manufacturing countries (such as China) will build nuclear power stations (as part of a sensible energy policy) and manufacturing will be exported. With high energy prices German products will become uncompetitive.
I was talking about building them. You switch to coal prices.
Mining uranium is cleaner than coal? We had mines here in Germany and they were definitely environmentally very dangerous. Mining in western Europe has mostly stopped, the environmental damages are now transported to other countries. Let's see how the US deals their abandoned Uranium mines. Probably not at all. In Germany we have to deal with former mine. We already have invested almost five billion Euros into controlling the damages.
For fun calculate the cost of above into the world-market price of Uranium.
Surprise for you: coal prices are not the same in the world. The types of coal are different, the mining is different, labor costs are different.
The IEEE article is not accurate. The current actions in Germany show the opposite.
Reprocessing does not multiply the waste? Wow.
Why would you excluded hydro power from renewables. Germany has started to invest in renewables in the last two decades and the trend is clear. The goal is to reach 30% in a few years. That France does not export much energy from renewable sources is no surprise, they have betted all their money on nuclear power plants.
So with the backlog of processing in France, they ship the stuff to Siberia? I wonder if they know what they are doing? Probably not, France just managed to find a bunch of Plutonium in Cadarache. 39 Kilograms of Plutonium dust, instead of the 8 Kilogram the officials knew about.
A Blockheizkraftwerk will be run on gas and later on biogas. Sure that solves a lot of problems: it decentralizes energy production, allows easy reuse of heat energy, the energy production can be fine tuned to actual usage, gas is much less environmentally dangerous than nuclear materials or coal, ...
It is estimated 100000 of those will allow us to get rid of two Nuclear Power Plants. 100000 homes with those 'Blockheizkraftwerke' is a moderate goal in a country of 80 million people.
Germany already has high energy prices. It is still number one exporter in the world. The German industry is constantly modernizing to lower the demand for energy during production. Countries like China are far behind. It shows in their environment also.
The goal for Germany is not to have cheap energy, the goal is to reduce energy consumption, create new technologies and get rid of the old energy wasting industries.
That's what the article says, Germany is forward looking and has already started a change that will take many years, with the goal to produce most of the energy in a modern clean fashion and without nuclear power. Some other countries have similar goals. France and the UK don't. Let's see when they wake up.
> Mining uranium is cleaner than coal? We had mines here in Germany and they were definitely environmentally very dangerous.
Much more cleaner. All mining is dirty, but Coal mining is moreso. One thing that causes this is the large amount that should be mined. You get mountaintop mining in which the whole top of a mountain top is removed to get to the coal. Another method is underground mining (in which at least 5000 people die each year in China alone). The scale at which coal is mined causes environmental damage of a completely different order.
> Surprise for you: coal prices are not the same in the world. The types of coal are different, the mining is different, labor costs are different.
It depends. The country in which I live is the 4th largest exporter of coal. The prices of low grade coal (with high sulphur and mecury content) differ since it is usually used locally and not exported. The advantage of this is that it is cheaper but the disadvantage is that it pollutes much more. High grade coal are generally more expensive and roughly the same price worldwide (it is a commodity). This is just like gold prices or steel prices.
> Why would you excluded hydro power from renewables.
I excluded hydropower because it is the only viable renewable energy source (e.g. the 3 gorges dam is an impressive 20+GW). But unfortunately there is limited opportunities – when all the dams are built you cannot scale it up much more.
> That France does not export much energy from renewable sources is no surprise, they have betted all their money on nuclear power plants.
Yes, and they are a large net exporter of electricity (Germany is not). With a smaller population and a smaller economy France produces as much electricity as Germany.
> A Blockheizkraftwerk will be run on gas and later on biogas.
You know that gas power generation pollutes a lot? You know that gas power generation is more expensive? (Most countries that have gas generation power plants only run it at peak times).
> and later on biogas.
Biogas is a pipe dream. Enough biogas will never be created for power generation.
> gas is much less environmentally dangerous than nuclear materials or coal, ...
Gas is much more expensive than coal. Your source of gas also runs in a pipeline from Russia over some unstable areas. I doubt that it is a good idea to bet energy security on Russian and Ukrainian relations.
> Germany already has high energy prices.
It should get ready for still higher prices.
> It is still number one exporter in the world.
It will become a lot less competitive with higher energy prices.
> Countries like China are far behind. It shows in their environment also.
The Chinese economy is growing by 8% per year – much more than Germany (that is/was in a recession). China is also becoming less polluted as time progress.
> the goal is to reduce energy consumption, create new technologies and get rid of the old energy wasting industries.
You can reduce energy all you want. But you still have industries that require large amounts of cheap energy – e.g. metallurgy. An aluminium smelter uses 1GW+ whether you like it or not. Those jobs and industry will simply switch to countries with a more sane energy policy.
China is becoming less polluted in the near future? Dream on.
The Chinese economy has to grow 8% because the population grows, less than 8% is stagnation. GDP in China per person is around $3000, where in Germany (East and West) we are at $44000. They have room to grow.
Germany is also a net exporter of electricity. It is great that it is not a large net exporter, otherwise the industry which gets lots of monetary help from the tax payer sells their electricity cheap to foreign countries.
Aluminum smelters and comparable industries will move to countries with little environmental protection. Let them go. Btw., just where I live we have a Aluminum smelters and related. In Germany. They are still here.
Gas power plants are extremely efficient (twice as coal), cheap to built, have a relatively robust technology and the pollution is much less then from coal (half). Modern gas turbines provide electricity and heat. You can build gas power plants into or very near to cities - this is different from nuclear power plants who need lots of water for cooling and building them near cities is usually not a good idea.
Gas runs through pipelines from Russia, arrive by ships, new pipelines are projected and Germany has gas reserves for two months. During the recent shortage in East Europe, Germany was actually giving gas to other countries.
Biogas is no pipe dream. Funny how your prejudices collide with technical innovations that have already been developed. In East Germany just a few months ago a new Biogas plant has been opened: it will produce 160 million kWh Electricity an 180 million kWh heat - enough for 50000 families.We will see more of that...
I'm getting the impression that you are far behind the technological paradigm shift that people are working on here.
> will produce 160 million kWh Electricity an 180 million kWh heat - enough for 50000 families.We will see more of that...
Your units is not correct. Is that power generation of 160 million kW (i.e. 160GW). If it is kWh, what is the timeframe? (kW is the rate of electricity that is produced - i.e. 1000 (kilo) Watts. kWh is a measure of the amount of electricity - i.e. 1kW for an hour).
If it is kW then it is no doubt not correct - a large power station is 1.6GW.
You still don't get it. It is about being able to generate renewable energy in a decentralized way. It is generating electricity and heat for 50000 households. It is not about large nuclear power stations creating profits for corporations (while the real price is paid by the tax payer) and lots of nuclear waste. A part of future is smaller units that can provide energy on a local level - that will replace a lot of non-renewable-based power stations.
My parents are already selling energy. Because of subsidies buying your own PV array has become a great and save investment in Germany. The banks are happy to give you credit because the price for every KWH is guaranteed (way above market prices — 20 Eurocent or so, I don't know exactly), the array is insured and has a twenty year warranty. And in those twenty years you will have paid off it all (right when most of those who bought it now hit retirement age).
So all those PVs you see when visiting Germany? All built for totally selfish reasons, no tree huggers involved. (I'm personally agnostic as to whether those subsidies are an enviromentally sound idea. But this at least shows that subsidies can be a powerful tool.)
No mention of what may well be the biggest contributor : passive houses. These regulate their interior climate without any active energy consumption. No heating, no cooling at all. They are extremely well insulated homes with big heat-exchangers between incoming and outgoing air. This way, incoming air is brought to the temperature of the outgoing air. No stale air and no energy consumption.
They are almost exclusively new homes, as they require NASA-level insulation that is impossible to put on old, or simply existing, buildings. Also, the air-ducts and heat-exchanger needs to be engineered into the building.
Passive solar design has been around a long time. I believe it was more popular in the past, when people were generally more in tune with the weather and the world around them. I think "modern" life has tended to make a lot of people somewhat oblivious to that. One reason it would need to be new construction is because orientation to the sun is part of the design which can't be fundamentally changed once it's built. However, there are passive solar things that can be added after the fact to improve on efficiency (granted it likely won't match the efficiencies you can get in new design). One example: Planting deciduous trees such that they shade the house from the worst of the sun in summer. In winter, their leaves fall off and you get free heating with passive solar.
Interestingly, a discussion I saw elsewhere about "cooling towers" noted the two following tidbits: 1) Victorian housing in America had design elements like this which most people in the discussion had previously assumed was merely whimsical/decorative and 2) Middle Eastern countries, like Iran, have long used such designs as a fairly common element in housing.
My mother's an architect who specializes in old homes and historic renovation. She harps on this point constantly. The environmental techniques of yesteryear involved design elements like you mentioned, orientation, and also siting vis-a-vis water, hills, woodlots and neighboring building. To build a house otherwise would reduce the occupants' comfort.
That kind of expertise, at one time common, has now been mostly lost. Sure, you can find it in books, but to effectively apply all those principles in concert to a particular design, that is high art.
Kudos to your mom (and can you give me any pointers on getting my kids to promo my sites? <wink>). I decided some years back that I wanted to do work having to do with the built environment. I reviewed some majors related to that and settled on Urban Planning as my long-term goal. I decided I needed a bachelor's in Environmental Studies as a foundation for that so as to not build the next Aswan Dam --which met all stated goals beautifully (like controlling all that icky annual flooding -- you know, the thing that made Egypt "the jewel of Nile" for millenia) but had a few minor unexpected side effects, like a schistosomiasis epidemic (because controlling the flooding allowed snails, the vector for this parasitic infection, to flourish unchecked), dramatically increasing use of commercial fertilizer on Egyptian farms, and such a huge rate of silt build-up behind the dam that the lifespan of the dam will end up being far shorter than initially expected. I think it's a shame that design of our built environment is so often intellectually disconnected from the natural environment which serves as the foundation for all our built stuff (not just buildings but also other infrastructure).
Odd, but I've never seen the use of deciduous trees on the south side of a home mentioned as an energy regulating device. They block the sun in the summer and let it thru in the winter. Simple and effective, and nice to look at, tho someone has to clean up the leaves.
I'm not really a hacker. I'm really a wannabe urban planner/environmental studies major whose life got sidetracked by a health crisis and divorce. I imagine lots of folks in other places I hang out would have heard of this -- but, yes, it's sort of an 'old fashioned' thing and a lot of old fashioned ideas are either 'forgotten' or viewed as inferior to our modern gizmos.
I'm sure it doesn't fit well with current expectations for "convenience" in America. But I can't imagine why climate would be an objection.
Historically, vernacular architecture here did cater to local climate -- back when you couldn't just crank the AC, houses in the South did use passive solar design to help keep homes and lifestyles livably cool. Plantations had a second smaller kitchen outside the main house to avoid heating up the main house during the summer months. Modern Southerners still often grill out during the summer months and upscale modern homes may have "outdoor kitchens" equipped with a place to eat, an upscale built-in grill, prep space and so on. The deep, wrap-around porches seen on some Southern homes not only prevent summer sun from heating the main house, they also made it possible to leave windows open for cross-draft ventilation in spite of nearly daily afternoon storms during the summer and into the fall.
I was specifically thinking about the passive house designs. I think you couldn’t just take those designs and build them in anywhere in the US. Germany has very moderate climate, and I think passive houses are optimized for that.
But you are probably right, you could probably design passive houses that work in more extreme climates.
> you couldn’t just take those designs and build them in anywhere in the US.
This is the challenge of passive environmental design. Climate and topology make a huge difference in what works where. It's a built-in level of indirection: you can't take an effective design from Germany, and expect it to work well in Phoenix. You can take the design principles and (re)discover new pattens, but that's an order of magnitude more difficult.
Oh, well, of course design aimed at working well in Germany wouldn't work well in many parts of the US -- though there are parts of the US which likely would do fine with a similar design. It's a big country with lots of different climates and landscapes.
I lived in Germany for nearly four years as an adult and for a time in my early childhood as well. So, yes, I am aware.
Germany also was something like the world leader in recycling/environmental initiatives (or some such) when I lived there. So I am not surprised to see this green energy initiative.
The problem is that Germany had massive subsidies (especially for Wind Farms). And offshore wind farms are being built in water 20-40 meters deep 40 kms of the coast (with the grid operators forced to connect offshore wind farms at their cost). So it has huge problems – the recession probably helped Germany to advert an energy crises. The phaseout of nuclear power stations will probably be delayed.
IMHO people need to be a lot more pragmatic about green energy and nuclear power. Nuclear power still generates double the amount of electricity than renewable in Germany even while it is being phased out. It would be much better if they phased out the coal power stations instead.