- Home
- Do u think Germany made a big mistake by suspending its civil nuclear program which lead to its severe energy crisis?
Do u think Germany made a big mistake by suspending its civil nuclear program which lead to its severe energy crisis?
By renevers
Do you think Germany made a big mistake by suspending its civil nuclear program which lead to its severe energy crisis?
The electricity generation in Germany.
All investment and future value, into nuclear fission energy is made worthless ,by this step out decision. Germany owns very modern plants that could generate at least 20-40 extra years, or even indefinitely, if only allowed to operate, until proven unsafe. Good investment is now to be scrapped. Capital destruction. Cost of scrapping and after treatment for nuclear waste will now not be covered, by the running cost of the existing NPP's . Belgium is following Germany in this closure program , by political forced phase-out in 15 years.
The policy is made on the presumption that alternative power will and can grow. It needs improvements in cost structure and breakthroughs on technology ,not yet accomplished. Both solar and wind see declining technological progress and come from real high cost levels, so have a long road of diminishing its cost, to go to reach competiveness with other electricity sources. As a consequence of more solar and wind , gas imports from Russia will rise and will tie Germany economically stronger to Russia. Reason: windmills and solar substitute to methane gas use, when there is no wind. Installed solar capacity in Germany is huge , but problems with net-instability already emerge, by over production on sunny-windy days. Outside its specific solar and wind installations , it needs investment in long distance connections for power transport and backup with fast starting power plants.
Germany must find a way to store excess electricity or find use, for surplus-power generated the wrong moment, when it wants to increase alternative capacity. An efficient large scale , technology doesn't exists for electricity storage . Still, overproduction of green power, is paid full, by priority feed-in and guaranteed subsidies, all caused by green political lobbies and ideology motivated. Export of wind and solar power is seldom possible, as neighbor states have often the same problems at the same moment with their own green sector. Germany faces the risk and cost, of future rolling blackouts ,by under-, and over production of wind and solar power.
Biomass generating on German soil ,is already used up its potential. Just by importing biomass from countries like Canada, it can increase slightly, at high cost (But why not make power from biomass within Canada? That's even more environment friendly).
Germany has huge open pit brown-coal mines and can supply base-load fuel from it , another 3 and more decades . Although: these mines ,become deeper and pumping mine-water from that depth will increase cost in the future.
Shale gas and other unconventional mineral gasses could supply some part of the needs for Germany but are to be developed, under what price, for that kind of gas is not known for local geology, but cheapness of shale gas is overstated.
Do you think Germany made a big mistake by suspending its civil nuclear program which lead to its severe energy crisis?
The electricity generation in Germany.
All investment and future value, into nuclear fission energy is made worthless ,by this step out decision. Germany owns very modern plants that could generate at least 20-40 extra years, or even indefinitely, if only allowed to operate, until proven unsafe. Good investment is now to be scrapped. Capital destruction. Cost of scrapping and after treatment for nuclear waste will now not be covered, by the running cost of the existing NPP's . Belgium is following Germany in this closure program , by political forced phase-out in 15 years.
The policy is made on the presumption that alternative power will and can grow. It needs improvements in cost structure and breakthroughs on technology ,not yet accomplished. Both solar and wind see declining technological progress and come from real high cost levels, so have a long road of diminishing its cost, to go to reach competiveness with other electricity sources. As a consequence of more solar and wind , gas imports from Russia will rise and will tie Germany economically stronger to Russia. Reason: windmills and solar substitute to methane gas use, when there is no wind. Installed solar capacity in Germany is huge , but problems with net-instability already emerge, by over production on sunny-windy days. Outside its specific solar and wind installations , it needs investment in long distance connections for power transport and backup with fast starting power plants.
Germany must find a way to store excess electricity or find use, for surplus-power generated the wrong moment, when it wants to increase alternative capacity. An efficient large scale , technology doesn't exists for electricity storage . Still, overproduction of green power, is paid full, by priority feed-in and guaranteed subsidies, all caused by green political lobbies and ideology motivated. Export of wind and solar power is seldom possible, as neighbor states have often the same problems at the same moment with their own green sector. Germany faces the risk and cost, of future rolling blackouts ,by under-, and over production of wind and solar power.
Biomass generating on German soil ,is already used up its potential. Just by importing biomass from countries like Canada, it can increase slightly, at high cost (But why not make power from biomass within Canada? That's even more environment friendly).
Germany has huge open pit brown-coal mines and can supply base-load fuel from it , another 3 and more decades . Although: these mines ,become deeper and pumping mine-water from that depth will increase cost in the future.
Shale gas and other unconventional mineral gasses could supply some part of the needs for Germany but are to be developed, under what price, for that kind of gas is not known for local geology, but cheapness of shale gas is overstated.
Lots of the consequence of alternatives policy for Germany, are no sustainable solutions. Coal and gas would increase in usage ,when nuclear is phased out. Even in 2010 the average year on year contribution of solar is just 2% and for wind 6% (with feed- in priority) + 5,5% for biomass. Biomass cannot grow from own German production and reached its limits. The 2% solar and 6% wind in 2010
yield ,should be decreased with the efficiency loss, in fast start cheap gas powerplants . It could be estimated from the lower natural gas-plant efficiency compared with efficient base-load utility and its fraction in total generated energy of Germany, I suppose it is a quart lower : ¼ x 16% gas PP fraction=4% thermal efficiency loss(TEL) on Yearly overall TWh production . The hydro power and biomass given in statistic as growth in alternative is misleading. It is renewable, but was in great part there before green minister J. Trittins green expansion .Burnable garbage and wood fuel was already used as side mix ,before green politics in coal PPs . Hydro power was there in Germany and is or was imported from Switzerland, Norway and France. It didnt grow substantially . So the former minister for Environment Jurgen Trittin 's claim of 17% alternative growth, is in fact a meager 8-4%(TEL)=4% effective for solar and wind and an estimated 2% extra biomass , waste and hydro, totaling just 6% total German yearly electricity of 603TWh in 2010 as real growth in alternative energy (effective) This 6% is the net effect of the political stimulation for sustainable energy at huge cost. Raising pure solar and wind production will be impossible, as the grid-net could not accept it, and it asks for adaptations like a clever grid , many new longdistance overhead highvoltage lines and storage for electricity. It leads to the fact ,that despite the enormous investments made in it, solar and wind made, Germany just a little bit less reliant on fossil fuels and about 6% more than in the past , instead of Trittins claim of 17% Alternative renewable .Repeat: not all wind and solar power was real gain It was already there like Hydro power and most of the biomass and waste. Without feed-in priority for alternative sources , there would have been no gain at all ,as German NPP's were in load following mode and could have delivered that extra %. The Amazing drop from 30% to 22% from 2009 to 2010 of nuclear contribution, is possibly caused by forced, increased load following in NPPs , for exploding wind and solar generation. Nuclear power was throttled down, in favor of the alternatives.
Most gains in energy economy in Germany were the raise of thermal conversion efficiency of fossil plants for base load power. Those gains could be more than the net contribution of solar and wind together .
The sharp rise of natural gas usage, necessary for the backup power for solar and wind deficiency , illustrates German consume of gas parallel with the growth of alternative power. Germany will certainly flaunt its Kyoto CO2 reduction commitments by the rising natural gas use . Windmills and power-line infrastructure, need huge extra investments, if solar and wind is to be increased. On land ,capacity extension is topping: all good spots for wind-power are used up. On sea ,the foundations for the windmills consume amazing large amounts of steel and concrete. For the connection power transmission cables in the sea ,lots of aluminum and copper is necessary. This base materials investment, is used sub efficiently, only 30% of the time, depending on the wind-spectra .The thousands of relatively small windmills, consume large amounts of metal and rare earth materials for the rotor-magnets and copper for the stators. This as a consideration of basic materials economic use in the investment phase . Let alone the electronics to be produced to feed the windmill power into a grid. Basic materials investment in sea based windmills: steel , concrete , copper , aluminum, energy, neodymium, etc. is factors 3-15 higher than investment in centralized nuclear power technology. The relative small solar and wind units ,lack the advantage of economy of scale . Economic use of base materials is an ecologic problem too, which doesnt get much focus in these green projects. Many base metals have to be imported and mined. It is not only this base materials usage, but the monetairy investments in these technologies is as well: the sheer big amounts of money ..The initial windmill investment is calculable, but there is still no good estimation of the maintenance cost of windmills in the sea after some years. It could be uneconomically expensive. From solar is not known how it capacity will decrease over time and maintenance needs. In fact the whole green turnaround ,seems a gigantic fail investment, as it is not reducing fossil fuel reliance that much, while causing an astronomic cost to the taxpayer and electricity user. Subsidy commitments in Feed-in tariff alone, given by the German Federal state runs to some 100 billion Euro. That amount of free money from the state ,would have bought you 16 Areva EPR 1600 NPPs =200 TWh./yr capacity..33% of Germanys needs. Trittin and his party lobby , got for that amount 36 TWhr/yr (6% of 603TWh) and Germany still had to pay the investments in theexpensive solar ,wind and backup hardware. And the real investments for which there are still no plans and technology for storage and intelligent grid pus generating capacity have to be made, to continue the road to green Nirwana.
The responsible former minister for environment and fast Ausstieg, Norbert Röttgen has already been fired, by Angela Merkel :probably for his decisions on nuclear .He must have been under the spell of the mass media, after the Fukoshima crisis, to take his hasty decision. German mass media are very influenced by the green movement .They were, biased very strongly, against nuclear power , even before Fukoshima. Anti- nuclear is the political raison d'etre for the German green movement.
yield ,should be decreased with the efficiency loss, in fast start cheap gas powerplants . It could be estimated from the lower natural gas-plant efficiency compared with efficient base-load utility and its fraction in total generated energy of Germany, I suppose it is a quart lower : ¼ x 16% gas PP fraction=4% thermal efficiency loss(TEL) on Yearly overall TWh production . The hydro power and biomass given in statistic as growth in alternative is misleading. It is renewable, but was in great part there before green minister J. Trittins green expansion .Burnable garbage and wood fuel was already used as side mix ,before green politics in coal PPs . Hydro power was there in Germany and is or was imported from Switzerland, Norway and France. It didnt grow substantially . So the former minister for Environment Jurgen Trittin 's claim of 17% alternative growth, is in fact a meager 8-4%(TEL)=4% effective for solar and wind and an estimated 2% extra biomass , waste and hydro, totaling just 6% total German yearly electricity of 603TWh in 2010 as real growth in alternative energy (effective) This 6% is the net effect of the political stimulation for sustainable energy at huge cost. Raising pure solar and wind production will be impossible, as the grid-net could not accept it, and it asks for adaptations like a clever grid , many new longdistance overhead highvoltage lines and storage for electricity. It leads to the fact ,that despite the enormous investments made in it, solar and wind made, Germany just a little bit less reliant on fossil fuels and about 6% more than in the past , instead of Trittins claim of 17% Alternative renewable .Repeat: not all wind and solar power was real gain It was already there like Hydro power and most of the biomass and waste. Without feed-in priority for alternative sources , there would have been no gain at all ,as German NPP's were in load following mode and could have delivered that extra %. The Amazing drop from 30% to 22% from 2009 to 2010 of nuclear contribution, is possibly caused by forced, increased load following in NPPs , for exploding wind and solar generation. Nuclear power was throttled down, in favor of the alternatives.
Most gains in energy economy in Germany were the raise of thermal conversion efficiency of fossil plants for base load power. Those gains could be more than the net contribution of solar and wind together .
The sharp rise of natural gas usage, necessary for the backup power for solar and wind deficiency , illustrates German consume of gas parallel with the growth of alternative power. Germany will certainly flaunt its Kyoto CO2 reduction commitments by the rising natural gas use . Windmills and power-line infrastructure, need huge extra investments, if solar and wind is to be increased. On land ,capacity extension is topping: all good spots for wind-power are used up. On sea ,the foundations for the windmills consume amazing large amounts of steel and concrete. For the connection power transmission cables in the sea ,lots of aluminum and copper is necessary. This base materials investment, is used sub efficiently, only 30% of the time, depending on the wind-spectra .The thousands of relatively small windmills, consume large amounts of metal and rare earth materials for the rotor-magnets and copper for the stators. This as a consideration of basic materials economic use in the investment phase . Let alone the electronics to be produced to feed the windmill power into a grid. Basic materials investment in sea based windmills: steel , concrete , copper , aluminum, energy, neodymium, etc. is factors 3-15 higher than investment in centralized nuclear power technology. The relative small solar and wind units ,lack the advantage of economy of scale . Economic use of base materials is an ecologic problem too, which doesnt get much focus in these green projects. Many base metals have to be imported and mined. It is not only this base materials usage, but the monetairy investments in these technologies is as well: the sheer big amounts of money ..The initial windmill investment is calculable, but there is still no good estimation of the maintenance cost of windmills in the sea after some years. It could be uneconomically expensive. From solar is not known how it capacity will decrease over time and maintenance needs. In fact the whole green turnaround ,seems a gigantic fail investment, as it is not reducing fossil fuel reliance that much, while causing an astronomic cost to the taxpayer and electricity user. Subsidy commitments in Feed-in tariff alone, given by the German Federal state runs to some 100 billion Euro. That amount of free money from the state ,would have bought you 16 Areva EPR 1600 NPPs =200 TWh./yr capacity..33% of Germanys needs. Trittin and his party lobby , got for that amount 36 TWhr/yr (6% of 603TWh) and Germany still had to pay the investments in theexpensive solar ,wind and backup hardware. And the real investments for which there are still no plans and technology for storage and intelligent grid pus generating capacity have to be made, to continue the road to green Nirwana.
The responsible former minister for environment and fast Ausstieg, Norbert Röttgen has already been fired, by Angela Merkel :probably for his decisions on nuclear .He must have been under the spell of the mass media, after the Fukoshima crisis, to take his hasty decision. German mass media are very influenced by the green movement .They were, biased very strongly, against nuclear power , even before Fukoshima. Anti- nuclear is the political raison d'etre for the German green movement.
By sacrificing, its nuclear power, Germany will have to live, with very expensive electricity in the future. Its industry will be less competitive. State debt will rise tremendously , as high tax revenues from nuclear industry will be supplanted, by the necessary subventions in alternatives. All other industry will suffer and generate less tax. The cost of real green electricity is so high , that future governments in Germany will possibly fall back on fossil fuels, like gas and brown-coal, further compromising CO2 -Kyoto promises. Competitiveness will decline sharply for German industry with the high electricity cost. Energy intensive industry, could move out of Germany. The industry of base metal and the volume chemicals is expect to leave. Even car production could be in danger. Alternative power, in place of nuclear energy will cost Germany at least some percentage points of growth, but could lead to economic depression. In fact the money spend the past years in the alternative energy sector in Germany ,was withdrawn as consumer spending power, from other sectors, like tourism .This economic effect could have accelerated the downfall of the economies of the Southern European countries who relied on this consumer money in German Tourism and buying power for holiday homes. Uneconomic investing in green is like consuming. You get nothing in return later.
The uncertainty in nuclear industry and fail-investments ,by the green energy choice makes the European economic crisis even deeper. All money in green technology could end up wasted, if nuclear power would succeed to survive in Europe and win the battle against alternative in the end. So there is little investment in risky green-alternative, from private parties, stemming from this uncertainty, in the heavily subsidized and artificially state promoted, green industry. In fact all development in green, is forced by the state in rules, laws ,long term commitments, etc., or made attractive by subsidies and high ,forced feed-in tariffs, which could change after elections ,with another government , for- pro green parties. The energy reconstruction succeeds ,within a hyped extremely pro-green, anti-critical, mass media atmosphere . As European states run out of money ,the uncertainty of future subsidies , make windmill plans even more risky. Key players in utilities know ,that logic would be, to increase the power generation with the lowest cost and the most stable future :nuclear power . But the reverse happens. Even France, by PM F.Hollande , wants to have more alternative energy and makes an effort ,to bring down the nuclear energy share from 80+% to 50%; but it is not clear ,how the plans are , let alone its costs. Unnecessary shutting down of French nuclear plants? Build windmills and solar installations, against huge cost? Like Germany? That is throwing away of French money as well. Digging state debt a bit deeper?. Economic crises, are made up , of a lack of good projects. Under green economic philosophy, there are no natural good projects, only subsidized, artificial ones . The economic crisis in Europe can only end ,with a defeat of green anti nuclear ideology and its fail investments and spending . If all environmental effects would be considered , nuclear power is even a lot greener than solar and wind: les mining, less overhead power lines, less basic materials investment, no CO2 emissions ,no horizon pollution. The eco friendliness of nuclear power , needs some other article.
The uncertainty in nuclear industry and fail-investments ,by the green energy choice makes the European economic crisis even deeper. All money in green technology could end up wasted, if nuclear power would succeed to survive in Europe and win the battle against alternative in the end. So there is little investment in risky green-alternative, from private parties, stemming from this uncertainty, in the heavily subsidized and artificially state promoted, green industry. In fact all development in green, is forced by the state in rules, laws ,long term commitments, etc., or made attractive by subsidies and high ,forced feed-in tariffs, which could change after elections ,with another government , for- pro green parties. The energy reconstruction succeeds ,within a hyped extremely pro-green, anti-critical, mass media atmosphere . As European states run out of money ,the uncertainty of future subsidies , make windmill plans even more risky. Key players in utilities know ,that logic would be, to increase the power generation with the lowest cost and the most stable future :nuclear power . But the reverse happens. Even France, by PM F.Hollande , wants to have more alternative energy and makes an effort ,to bring down the nuclear energy share from 80+% to 50%; but it is not clear ,how the plans are , let alone its costs. Unnecessary shutting down of French nuclear plants? Build windmills and solar installations, against huge cost? Like Germany? That is throwing away of French money as well. Digging state debt a bit deeper?. Economic crises, are made up , of a lack of good projects. Under green economic philosophy, there are no natural good projects, only subsidized, artificial ones . The economic crisis in Europe can only end ,with a defeat of green anti nuclear ideology and its fail investments and spending . If all environmental effects would be considered , nuclear power is even a lot greener than solar and wind: les mining, less overhead power lines, less basic materials investment, no CO2 emissions ,no horizon pollution. The eco friendliness of nuclear power , needs some other article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
Statistics electricity year 2010 was on 603 TWH total = 17% Renewable electricity =101.7 TWh
6% wind power 36.5 TWh, Net instability- natural gas import for backup
5,5% biomass and biowaste 33.5 Twh, Can only grow by import
3,3% hydropower 19.7 TWh and Can only grow by import
2% photovoltaic power 12.0 Twh. Net instability- natural gas import for backup
22,4% nuclear ...Load following ( in 2011 >17,7% Fukoshima faseout)
15% Natural gas(steeply increasing!) , lignite 23,7% hardcoal 18,7%
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/germany/electricity-production-from-natural-gas-sources
http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CIABEBYwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rwe.com%2Fweb%2Fcms%2Fmediablob%2Fen%2F1262786%2Fdata%2F55436%2F1%2Frwe-power-ag%2Fblob.pdf&ei=7AXYT7nGH8Sc8gPio724Aw&usg=AFQjCNHezRrv2UL2QqRwGiGvVDUEQiuu4Q&sig2=kenitl_S0Ac7is6dHjZeCQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
Statistics electricity year 2010 was on 603 TWH total = 17% Renewable electricity =101.7 TWh
6% wind power 36.5 TWh, Net instability- natural gas import for backup
5,5% biomass and biowaste 33.5 Twh, Can only grow by import
3,3% hydropower 19.7 TWh and Can only grow by import
2% photovoltaic power 12.0 Twh. Net instability- natural gas import for backup
22,4% nuclear ...Load following ( in 2011 >17,7% Fukoshima faseout)
15% Natural gas(steeply increasing!) , lignite 23,7% hardcoal 18,7%
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/germany/electricity-production-from-natural-gas-sources
http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CIABEBYwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rwe.com%2Fweb%2Fcms%2Fmediablob%2Fen%2F1262786%2Fdata%2F55436%2F1%2Frwe-power-ag%2Fblob.pdf&ei=7AXYT7nGH8Sc8gPio724Aw&usg=AFQjCNHezRrv2UL2QqRwGiGvVDUEQiuu4Q&sig2=kenitl_S0Ac7is6dHjZeCQ
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=117546&type=member&item=98681476&commentID=84203904&report.success=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_84203904
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten
