Thread: How Germany Phased Out Nuclear Power, Only to Get Mugged by Reality

How Germany Phased Out Nuclear Power, Only to Get Mugged by Reality

Berlin, Germany—For years, environmentalists in America have looked longingly to Germany. There, across the Atlantic, lay a small, cold, gray country whose solar energy production dwarfed big, sunny America’s, a nation that last year pledged to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by mid-century while Americans proved unable to agree on energy legislation even a fraction as ambitious. Yet in bowing to the country’s strong anti-nuclear movement, Germany appears to have suddenly gone off track: Within the last year the country has gone from a net exporter of energy to a net importer, and the carbon intensity of the energy it purchases has risen as well.

Do you predict this trend to continue, increase, or reduce in the coming years?

Apparently the European cap and trade system works.

Emissions will not rise overall across the EU because of Germany's decision, however, as under the EU emissions trading scheme there is an absolute cap on emissions from energy-intensive industry until 2020. But within Europe, countries where generators switch away from coal are likely to see their emissions dip.

Germany's nuclear phase-out will cause UK emissions to fall, report says | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Works for U.K.

Increases UK overall energy expenses because of another nation's fear of safe technology.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Increases UK overall energy expenses because of another nation's fear of safe technology.

Reduces dependence on coal, in favor of natural gas. Nobody said reducing greenhouse emissions was free.

No, nuclear is not free either, just smarter.

So where's the part about Germany getting "mugged"? They seem to be doing fine.

Originally Posted by iceaura

So where's the part about Germany getting "mugged"? They seem to be doing fine.

Just $40 billion lighter in the pocketbook and higher electric rates for starters. Plus importing electricity from outside borders generated by, yes, nuclear means. Yup, doing Juuuussst Fiiiiiiiine....oh, and collecting same "subsidy" as USA nuclear industry- $0 from USA federal government. Big win there.

[QUOTE=The Finger Prince;290488]

Originally Posted by iceaura

and collecting same "subsidy" as USA nuclear industry- $0 from USA federal government. Big win there.

If you are suggesting the nuclear industry does not depend on government subsidies either in the US or Germany you live in fantasyland.

Originally Posted by prince

So where's the part about Germany getting "mugged"? They seem to be doing fine.


Just $40 billion lighter in the pocketbook and higher electric rates for starters. Plus importing electricity from outside borders generated by, yes, nuclear means.

The slightly higher rates appear to have been their deliberate choice, not a mugging, and no 40 billion loss has been demonstrated - more Fox bookkeeping from the usual sources?

As far as offloading the nuke burden unto France et al - interesting choice. France has had only comparatively minor accidents, waste handling problems, bookkeeping scandals, and political difficulties so far. May it be so lucky for ten thousand years.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by prince

So where's the part about Germany getting "mugged"? They seem to be doing fine.


Just $40 billion lighter in the pocketbook and higher electric rates for starters. Plus importing electricity from outside borders generated by, yes, nuclear means.

The slightly higher rates appear to have been their deliberate choice, not a mugging, and no 40 billion loss has been demonstrated - more Fox bookkeeping from the usual sources?

As far as offloading the nuke burden unto France et al - interesting choice. France has had only comparatively minor accidents, waste handling problems, bookkeeping scandals, and political difficulties so far. May it be so lucky for ten thousand years.

It doesn't look like you read the article, which was from The New Republic (not Fox) and referenced a Reuters article, originally from the German newspaper Handelsblatt.

The nuclear burden will not all be offloaded to France. Some will come from a malfunction prone Czech plant.

Reuters article here: UPDATE 1-Nuclear shutdown costs mount in Germany -report | Reuters

Related article here: German industry exepcts 2012 power bill to rise 9 pct | Reuters

No mention made whether burden of shutdown costs will be borne by German government, but since government made policy, seems only fair. Will heads roll over this decision? Time will tell.

You realize of course, that Germany does this stuff because they can afford it. You're looking at a very functional economy that's willing lose money (over the short term) breaking ground for the rest of us. After they've assumed the risks and costs associated with finding the most workable way to move to renewables, we'll take their discoveries and use them, chiding them all the while for being such "fools" for having put themselves out along the way. As opposed to appreciating their efforts toward a bigger goal.

They're probably hoping the rest of us will join them and collaborate toward a better tomorrow, but it's too easy to laugh at them for not understanding the importance of being small minded and selfish in a small minded and selfish world.

Originally Posted by kojax

You realize of course, that Germany does this stuff because they can afford it. You're looking at a very functional economy that's willing lose money (over the short term) breaking ground for the rest of us. After they've assumed the risks and costs associated with finding the most workable way to move to renewables, we'll take their discoveries and use them, chiding them all the while for being such "fools" for having put themselves out along the way. As opposed to appreciating their efforts toward a bigger goal.

They are not fools for putting themselves out. They are fools for making the wrong decision. An ideologically driven decision which has already increased their use of coal and I think will end up being even worse in the long run.

Originally Posted by harold

It doesn't look like you read the article,

You followed that with a reiteration of what I read in the article, adn referred to in my post. ?

Originally Posted by harold

They are not fools for putting themselves out. They are fools for making the wrong decision.

And not fools if they made the right one.

So far, seems too early to tell, but nothing unexpected has happened - no "mugging" by anything.

Energy Costs Will Rise

Energy Costs Will Rise ‘Viciously’ Without Atomic Power, IEA Outlook Says

Energy will become “viciously more expensive” and polluting if governments don’t promote renewable and nuclear power in the next two decades instead of burning coal, the International Energy Agency said.

Global demand for energy is set to increase 40 percent by 2035, the Paris-based agency said today in its annual World Energy Outlook report. Consumption will rise 1.3 percent a year to 16.96 billion metric tons of oil equivalent in 2035, spurred by China and other emerging economies, the IEA said.

The use of nuclear energy will increase to 1.2 billion tons of oil equivalent by 2035, or 72 percent, from 703 million tons in 2009, the IEA said.

Renewable energies, excluding hydro power, are projected to account for 15 percent of power generation in 2035 from 3 percent in 2009, the IEA said. The use of renewables will be backed by a five-fold increase in subsidies to $180 billion, driven largely by China and the European Union.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by harold

It doesn't look like you read the article,

You followed that with a reiteration of what I read in the article, adn referred to in my post. ?

No, you made some inane comment about Fox news.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by kojax

You realize of course, that Germany does this stuff because they can afford it. You're looking at a very functional economy that's willing lose money (over the short term) breaking ground for the rest of us. After they've assumed the risks and costs associated with finding the most workable way to move to renewables, we'll take their discoveries and use them, chiding them all the while for being such "fools" for having put themselves out along the way. As opposed to appreciating their efforts toward a bigger goal.

They are not fools for putting themselves out. They are fools for making the wrong decision. An ideologically driven decision which has already increased their use of coal and I think will end up being even worse in the long run.

It might be more accurate to call it an "optimistic" decision. The question of whether they were wrong or right is not settled yet, and won't be until the final results come in. They'll either find a way to make it work or they won't. No matter which way it goes we will all have learned something.

When will such "final results" be available? When German society has collapsed? When decision is reversed? When Prince learns to shut up already?

Goodnight to all, be well.

Germany has a very strong economy and is in no danger of collapse. The tragedy here is the replacement of those nuclear plant base-loading with fossil fuels working against their other environmental objectives.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Germany has a very strong economy and is in no danger of collapse. The tragedy here is the replacement of those nuclear plant base-loading with fossil fuels working against their other environmental objectives.

Nobody wants to see the undelying problem: the human growth syndrome. Where can little Germany grow to? Nowhere, so they live within their means and are very prosperous, while most other nations struggle to grow their economies regardless of consequences, so of course they need an ever growing supply of electricity-producing fuel, like coal, oil and nuclear, which either pollute the environment and/or are potentially catastrophic.

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Germany has a very strong economy and is in no danger of collapse. The tragedy here is the replacement of those nuclear plant base-loading with fossil fuels working against their other environmental objectives.

Nobody wants to see the undelying problem: the human growth syndrome. Where can little Germany grow to? Nowhere, so they live within their means and are very prosperous, while most other nations struggle to grow their economies regardless of consequences, so of course they need an ever growing supply of electricity-producing fuel, like coal, oil and nuclear, which either pollute the environment and/or are potentially catastrophic.

One thing Germany really needs is better power distribution infrastructure. They've got surplus wind power in the north and they've had to pay people sometimes to have lights on in the middle of the night to prevent the system going out of control. Of course if they had a fleet of electric vehicles they could simply recharge them for free when power was over supplied, or charge up flow batteries, or maybe a few centralised tanks of something like Cambridge crude if that technology develops.

Whatever. But storage and distribution needs some serious attention.

Originally Posted by adelady

Originally Posted by ecopoet

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Germany has a very strong economy and is in no danger of collapse. The tragedy here is the replacement of those nuclear plant base-loading with fossil fuels working against their other environmental objectives.

Nobody wants to see the undelying problem: the human growth syndrome. Where can little Germany grow to? Nowhere, so they live within their means and are very prosperous, while most other nations struggle to grow their economies regardless of consequences, so of course they need an ever growing supply of electricity-producing fuel, like coal, oil and nuclear, which either pollute the environment and/or are potentially catastrophic.

One thing Germany really needs is better power distribution infrastructure. They've got surplus wind power in the north and they've had to pay people sometimes to have lights on in the middle of the night to prevent the system going out of control. Of course if they had a fleet of electric vehicles they could simply recharge them for free when power was over supplied, or charge up flow batteries, or maybe a few centralised tanks of something like Cambridge crude if that technology develops.

Whatever. But storage and distribution needs some serious attention.

I think Angela Merkel is Germany's best Chancellor ever, and in general I think women are more cool-headed leaders. The basic problem is the human growth syndrome, the instictive urge to grow regardless of consequences, and men are more susceptible to it driven by their chemical biology. So, is the German population growing? I certainly hope not for the sake of their children and grandchildren because, in spite of everything that has happened, I still love them for their great music, literature and art, but especially the music.

Update on German power generation / consumption.

Apparently they've had mild weather there this year, so they've managed to reduce total energy by 4.8%.
German Energy Consumption Drops 4.8% in 2011, With Renewables Providing 20% of Electricity | ThinkProgress

All very encouraging for those looking to see if their own countries could change the power mix. You do have to be careful with the distinctions between generating electricity and total energy, but it's worth a good look.

Originally Posted by adelady

Update on German power generation / consumption.

Apparently they've had mild weather there this year, so they've managed to reduce total energy by 4.8%.
German Energy Consumption Drops 4.8% in 2011, With Renewables Providing 20% of Electricity | ThinkProgress

All very encouraging for those looking to see if their own countries could change the power mix. You do have to be careful with the distinctions between generating electricity and total energy, but it's worth a good look.

This article basically confirms the original post of this thread. They have cut their nuclear power usage but increased the amount of coal burned while making their power more expensive.

The type of coal whose usage increased is lignite. This is a low grade of coal that produces more carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour generated. So, great, by closing the nuclear plants they have managed to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

While you may be encouraged by the increased use of renewables, don't try to extrapolate that too far. The grid can absorb some amount of intermittent solar and wind power, but there is a limit. It will still need some new storage technology before it could become the main source of electrical generation. That isn't happening any time soon.

Originally Posted by harold

This article basically confirms the original post of this thread. They have cut their nuclear power usage but increased the amount of coal burned while making their power more expensive.

They appear to have expected that, in the short term.

How does the on time occurrence of predicted and scheduled events earn the description "mugged by reality"?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by harold

This article basically confirms the original post of this thread. They have cut their nuclear power usage but increased the amount of coal burned while making their power more expensive.

They appear to have expected that, in the short term.

How does the on time occurrence of predicted and scheduled events earn the description "mugged by reality"?

If you shoot yourself in the foot, it still hurts.

I installed 8.4kw of solar in Washington State... an area not known for sunny weather. Even up there my system will be pay for itself 7 years. It's expected to last over 30. The panels are made in Germany and the inverter is made in Germany, this is no accident. The inverter manufacturer SMA has a 40% global market share. Ask anyone in the industry who makes the best grid-tie inverter, I've never encountered anyone that didn't reply SMA. The point is that Germany has won a global lead in technology with their subsidies, just as China is now threatening that lead with their subsidies. America is being left behind and we're screwed unless we get out act together. I've worked in the nuclear field for over ten years, I see the writing on the wall, the future is solar. Global solar installs are expected to be nearly 24,000MW for 2011, while nuclear is less than 10,000MW.

Originally Posted by nwdiver

I installed 8.4kw of solar in Washington State... an area not known for sunny weather.

Where in Washington State. Much of the central and east sides is high desert and gets lots of sunshine. What's your estimated return on investment?

Originally Posted by harold

How does the on time occurrence of predicted and scheduled events earn the description "mugged by reality"? If you shoot yourself in the foot, it still hurts.

So does diet and exercise, in the short term. Once again - why do the wingers describe such circumstances as if they were surprising or unanticipated?

It looks like an attempt to support a judgment of foolishness by misdescription, one that is much more difficult to support with fact or by argument.

What's your estimated return on investment?

How many years?

For those 'higher costs' this paper is worth a look. Using the "Merit Order Effect" it turns out that wind ranks alongside nuclear as the lowest cost power in bids for grid supply. Haven't chased down the links and references, but looks worthwhile as a framework.
Clearly a lot more work needs to be done to nail down the details for Europe-wide or USA-wide applications, but certainly looks positive.
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_d...MeritOrder.pdf

And for reliability rather than costs?
Wind: More Reliable, Less “Lumpy”, than Nuclear « Climate Denial Crock of the Week Prompted by the Fukushima event, but some good historical stuff about reliability over decades. Once again, haven't chased down any links or references for similar reliability comparisons in other areas, but worth a bit of a think.

Bremerton, Wa. Balance of system cost was ~$22,000 but the tax credit knocks that down to $15,400. Annual return of ~$2500, with a production credit from PSE of $0.15/kwh, assuming average insolation of ~3.5kwh/m per day. Warrantied system degradation is ~0.0065% / yr or ~ $143/yr. The system should should pay for itself in ~7 years with an ROI of ~10%. Beats the stock market. I wish I was in the high desert... this system would pay for itself in <4 years in a sunnier location.

Originally Posted by nwdiver

Bremerton, Wa. Balance of system cost was ~$22,000 but the tax credit knocks that down to $15,400. Annual return of ~$2500, with a production credit from PSE of $0.15/kwh, assuming average insolation of ~3.5kwh/m per day. Warrantied system degradation is ~0.0065% / yr or ~ $143/yr. The system should should pay for itself in ~7 years with an ROI of ~10%. Beats the stock market. I wish I was in the high desert... this system would pay for itself in <4 years in a sunnier location.

Thanks for sharing. My only quibble would be the $0.15/KWH, but you're probably paying extra or assuming it will climb (I'm paying about $0.09/KW South of Olympia). Either way it shows it's getting attractive to direct connect for even a notoriously cloudy place like Western WA state.

It's not quite there for me yet, but I've got a huge Southern wall just begging for PV solar in the next few years. I'll probably spring for the vacuum tube water heating that even work in cloudy weather first.

The $0.15/kwh is a "production credit" paid for what is produced, not exported. PSE measures three things on my house; production, import and export. My bill is (import-export)(~0.09/kwk)-(production)(0.15/kwh). So if I produce 1000kwh and use 1000kwh I still get a check for $150 that month. That is PSEs way of encouraging renewables. This deal expires in 2020. I would think twice about solar hot water heating. Three years ago when solar PV was $5/w it made sense. You can buy good panels now for ~$1/w. A better bet would be something like the GE Geospring heat pump hot water heater, Lowes had them on sale for $999. It has a COP of 2.3; for every 1w of energy used it adds 2.3w of heat to your water. A low cost evacuated tube solar heater runs about $1500; the tank and other equipment bring that to nearly $3000 and generates ~12kwh/day under optimal conditions. A comparable solar PV array would cost ~$4000 including support equipment.

There are many advantages of GRID-TIE solar PV vs solar Thermal
- System ALWAYS produces; if not needed locally it goes to the grid
- Production credits of off-set cost
- Better economy of scale 20,000MW/yr is A LOT of panels
- Electrical power can be used to pump heat from outdoors for heating, dramatically improving efficiency. Heat is heat, you have what you have.

Please investigate the economics of Solar PV vs Solar Thermal for yourself...

Coal is a renewable resource. It just take time to renew.

Does Germany have its own uranium?

I think Germany is serious with energy efficiency. I saw in TV that they has a whole housing project equipped with the latest energy saving infrastructure. Eg: a whole building topped with a solar panel roof, and a central air conditioning unit that use lake as heat reservoir, and I think there is more technique but I forgot (excuse me if I remember it wrong and if it isn't in Germany).

Actually even the sarcastic quip "Coal is a Renewable resource, it just takes time" is mostly wrong... Coal was formed in a very unique geologic / biologic period before bacteria had evolved the ability to metabolize cellulose. Nearly all coal was formed in the Carboniferous period. Cellulose 300 million years ago is like plastic today... There is a lot of energy available but no critters with the ability to utilize it.

Serendipity! I wasn't even thinking about this topic and I just happened on this item on cost comparisons.

Stunner: New Nuclear Costs as Much as German Solar Power Today -- and Up to $0.34/kWh in 2018 | ThinkProgress


(Haven't done any work myself on the numbers but they make sense on first reading.)

Originally Posted by adelady

Serendipity! I wasn't even thinking about this topic and I just happened on this item on cost comparisons.

Stunner: New Nuclear Costs as Much as German Solar Power Today -- and Up to $0.34/kWh in 2018 | ThinkProgress


(Haven't done any work myself on the numbers but they make sense on first reading.)

Another study that just compares cost per kilowatt hour, with no consideration of the intermittent nature of solar power.

Another study that just compares cost per kilowatt hour, with no consideration of the intermittent nature of solar power.

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc).

The point to be taken from this is that when the sun is shinning... use solar. All other times nuclear will due. It would also be wise to invest in pumped storage. It's efficient, cost-effective, has a long life and would also serve to raise the capacity factor of nuclear plants while simultaneously storing excess solar energy.... come-on people!!

The point to be taken from this is that when the sun is shinning... use solar.

Which means during the summer in Germany. The winters days are to be cloudy and with few hours of sunshine--there's no way to store power more than few days (and the ones shown in these threads have their own problems), in this case we're talking months. They can build solar but need at least a 80% redundant capacity from other sources.

Reduncency isn't a bad thing

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Reduncency isn't a bad thing

There might be a better word for it. There's very little solar energy available during German winters--so they'll need something to power most of their needs--nuke energy, fossil fuel, a bit from wind, trunked in solar power generated power from far to the South, or some other system we haven't' developed yet. It's the type of problem we'll have for many of the renewable systems--we'll need to build several times to full capacity we do now just to make sure we have enough all the time. All that's going to be very expensive.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Another study that just compares cost per kilowatt hour, with no consideration of the intermittent nature of solar power.

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc).

If you close your eyes and wish really hard, then there might be a practical storage system for solar power.

Originally Posted by meteor wayne

Reduncency isn't a bad thing

Not if you have unlimited funds to build redundant generating capacity.

Originally Posted by harold

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc).

If you close your eyes and wish really hard, then there might be a practical storage system for solar power.

Or just expand the current molten salt stuff, use a flywheel setup (no more sophisticated than the centrifuge setups used for processing nuke fuel), pump water into reservoirs, compress air, use the juice to charge fuel cells or separate hydrogen,

or maybe just hook the thing up to an intermittant use, taking the peak load off the current system and saving big bucks that way.

Everything has its engineering challenges. We are a lot closer to safe and practical storage of solar power (we have actual working systems in commercial use) than we are to safe and practical handling of nuclear waste - and many billions of dollars to the good, by comparison.

[QUOTE=iceaura;299987]

Originally Posted by harold

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc). ....

or maybe just hook the thing up to an intermittant use, taking the peak load off the current system and saving big bucks that way.

There's a difference between 3 days and three months. Your solar storage idea is pure fantasy and not based in reality.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Another study that just compares cost per kilowatt hour, with no consideration of the intermittent nature of solar power.

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc).

That's true, kind of, but cost per kilowatt hour would certainly go up if you factor in the storage medium.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by meteor wayne

Reduncency isn't a bad thing

Not if you have unlimited funds to build redundant generating capacity.

In other words: not if you're Germany.

Originally Posted by kojax

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc).

That's true, kind of, but cost per kilowatt hour would certainly go up if you factor in the storage medium.

Of course. And cost @ kwh of nuclear power should include estimates of the eventual cost of decommissioning and waste handling, as well as a risk premium for accidents to cover, minimum, the expected cost at the current rate and severity per operating plant (saner would be the kinds of estimates routine for such events in other fields, such as transistor failure or light bulb burnout, where the likelihood of failure somewhere in the system rises by a fairly large power of the number in operation).

And the cost of coal power should include the cost of mercury contamination as well as greenhouse boosting and respiratory illness.

One major benefit of solar is also its stumbling block so far - its costs are not hidden, not distributed, not postponed. It's going to take Japan 40 years to clean up Fukushima (latest official estimate I've seen) and every nickel will be subtracted from tsunami recovery monies. That's a type of risk Germany is not going to be running.

Trouble with nuclear is we're going to run out of easy-to-mine Uranium deposits at some point. Then it's down to Thorium or some kind of sea water sifting .... stuff like that. I'd be very surprised if the cost of nuclear remains low at that point.

Solar has the advantage of never running out, and the advantage others have mentioned: whoever develops the solar industry first will have a huge head start over the others when Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium finally start to run short and solar becomes the only remaining alternative. It looks like that's going to be Germany and we can be quite assured they'll be charging us full price when the time comes.

Then who's going to be getting mugged by reality?

What you all forget is one point you cannot compare the US with germany, because you have very different positions. The US have nuclear weapons germany not. This has some consequences on the energy production so it is saving money to combine the production of weapons and energy so maybe in the US it really covers the costs but in Germany not. The costs of nuclear power are nearly 3 times higher than of solar energy which by the way can be produced very decentral so you even don't need such enormous energy infrastructure which has to be repaired and so on.

Another thing I have to mention is that the calculation that we would be a net energy importer is wrong but we are in the future no longer a big exporter of energy, thats right.

The cost of nuclear fuel is insignificant compared to the cost of building the plant. Down-blending is performed for the specific purpose of destroying nuclear weapons and has little economic benefit. Modern enrichment technology has lowered the cost of fuel further. Germany also has it's own enrichment plant operated by URENCO, this plant produces more that sufficient SWU to meet Germanys domestic demand. The limiting factor for nuclear is the high cost of new construction. Unless Gen III+ plants like the AP1000 can succeed in significantly reducing the cost of construction it will be unable to compete with renewables. As long as the cost of a 1000MW plant remains above $4 billion solar makes more sense than nuclear.

Originally Posted by nwdiver

The cost of nuclear fuel is insignificant compared to the cost of building the plant. Down-blending is performed for the specific purpose of destroying nuclear weapons and has little economic benefit. Modern enrichment technology has lowered the cost of fuel further. Germany also has it's own enrichment plant operated by URENCO, this plant produces more that sufficient SWU to meet Germanys domestic demand. The limiting factor for nuclear is the high cost of new construction. Unless Gen III+ plants like the AP1000 can succeed in significantly reducing the cost of construction it will be unable to compete with renewables. As long as the cost of a 1000MW plant remains above $4 billion solar makes more sense than nuclear.

Nuclear power plants are finally approaching the point of standardization where mass production becomes significant. There have been, over the course of the history of the industry, a bewildering variety of designs and sizes of nuclear reactors, some with quite enviable safety records, a few, notoriously less so. Moreover, there are designs which require no enrichment at all, e.g. the CANDU variety developed for Canada.

Does it snow in Germany? It snows in Canada, according to reports, and Germany is at roughly the same latitude, so it seems reasonable to assume so. Solar collectors are not very efficient when covered with snow, according to my understanding. With nuclear, this is no such problem, in fact seasonal variation is not a factor at all.

With nuclear fuel, your energy is already stored, and has been stored for millions of years. As for the cost of thorium, quite a bit of it has already been mined and is patiently waiting to be put to good use. Worried about nuclear "waste"? The good news is that most of THAT is fuel, too, already mined U-238. Something like 95% of it, too- though it is LESS radioactive than natural uranium, it can be transmuted into fissionable plutonium, a small amount of which is also present in the so-called "waste".

Originally Posted by kojax

Trouble with nuclear is we're going to run out of easy-to-mine Uranium deposits at some point. Then it's down to Thorium or some kind of sea water sifting .... stuff like that. I'd be very surprised if the cost of nuclear remains low at that point.

Solar has the advantage of never running out, and the advantage others have mentioned: whoever develops the solar industry first will have a huge head start over the others when Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium finally start to run short and solar becomes the only remaining alternative. It looks like that's going to be Germany and we can be quite assured they'll be charging us full price when the time comes.

Then who's going to be getting mugged by reality?

Germany. "Unlimited funds to build redundant generating capacity"? I rather doubt such funds will be available.

Siemens puts cost of nuclear exit at 1.7 trillion euros | Reuters

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by harold

Solar power is not intermittent, unles designed so (no storage, etc).

If you close your eyes and wish really hard, then there might be a practical storage system for solar power.

Or just expand the current molten salt stuff, use a flywheel setup (no more sophisticated than the centrifuge setups used for processing nuke fuel), pump water into reservoirs, compress air, use the juice to charge fuel cells or separate hydrogen,

or maybe just hook the thing up to an intermittant use, taking the peak load off the current system and saving big bucks that way.

Everything has its engineering challenges. We are a lot closer to safe and practical storage of solar power (we have actual working systems in commercial use) than we are to safe and practical handling of nuclear waste - and many billions of dollars to the good, by comparison.

Then send those billions to dear old Deutschland, it looks like they could use them over there. And you talk as if the French have not been reprocessing nuclear fuel since 1966. If it were not "safe and practical", don't you think they might have given up on it a couple of decades ago, iceman?

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by kojax

Trouble with nuclear is we're going to run out of easy-to-mine Uranium deposits at some point. Then it's down to Thorium or some kind of sea water sifting .... stuff like that. I'd be very surprised if the cost of nuclear remains low at that point.

Solar has the advantage of never running out, and the advantage others have mentioned: whoever develops the solar industry first will have a huge head start over the others when Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium finally start to run short and solar becomes the only remaining alternative. It looks like that's going to be Germany and we can be quite assured they'll be charging us full price when the time comes.

Then who's going to be getting mugged by reality?

Germany. "Unlimited funds to build redundant generating capacity"? I rather doubt such funds will be available.

Siemens puts cost of nuclear exit at 1.7 trillion euros | Reuters

and? Once every plant has to be build back, you will get the costs later. And then we will have the technology to do this and help you ($catching$)

Originally Posted by The Geographer

The costs of nuclear power are nearly 3 times higher than of solar energy which by the way can be produced very decentral so you even don't need such enormous energy infrastructure which has to be repaired and so on.

I think this is backwards. I know the numbers for wind better than solar, so let's start there. Besides, the capacity factor for solar in a cloudy northern country like Germany is not going to be so wonderful.

Decentralized power INCREASES the energy infrastructure which must be built and maintained. That's why central power plants exist.

Constructing a modern GenIII+ nuclear plant takes about 400,000 cubic yards of concrete per GWe (sorry for using English units, that's what the DOE publishes and I'm too lazy to convert to cubic meters):

http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/reports...Rev0102105.pdf


A 1.5 MW wind tower (68 m rotor diameter) takes an average of 300 cubic yards of concrete foundation on land (more in water). However, the best siting only yields about 30% capacity factor, so you only get 0.5 MW output. So you need about 2000 of them for the same GWe output, ignoring the issue of intermittence and whatever pilings are needed for the resulting network of transmission towers. That’s 600,000 cubic yards, or about 50% more.

But you can't ignore the extra infrastructure. You need wiring between all 2000 wind turbines. You need an assortment of substations to combine the power, match phase, and do all the other complex manipulations needed for smooth, uniform power to appear at the wall outlet. Then add some sort of energy storage infrastructure, if you really want to get by with no base-load plants at all. All of this stuff has to be maintained.

Besides, as long as significant power is being generated from coal (Germany is the 6th largest hard-coal importer in the world), nuclear power can be justified on *public health* grounds, completely ignoring CO2. If there were small, hand-held instruments which could detect particulate emissions from coal plants with the same sensitivity we have for radiation, the same people screaming "no nukes" would march en masse to the nearest coal plant.

I refer you to the ExternE study, which assessed the full life-cycle risk of all forms of power generation (from mining/transporting the fuel, to building the plant, to emissions in normal operation, to accidents and decommissioning). Risk was normalized as expected deaths per terawatt-hour produced. Nuclear power, including the Chernobyl disaster, was about the same as renewables, and 35x times safer than coal in Western economies (400x safer on a world basis, because China is the main coal user and their mine safety and pollution controls are much weaker). Worried about cancer from radiation? You should worry more about coal: NETL: IEP - Air Quality Research: Health Effects of Coal Plant Emissions

Shortly after Fukushima, I did a talk at my kids' elementary school entitled "A Rational Environmentalist's Guide to Nuclear Power". A greatly expanded version is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5490445

Originally Posted by DiogenesNJ

A greatly expanded version is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54904454

The link says "edit or delete", but I can't figure out how to delete this.
I edited the post above to correct the link, so they both work now.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5490445

I have to say, I think that nuclear powerplants could be save, IF they run under state control, long time it had been like this in germany. But in private hands there is always the first point we have to produce energy (think of the money). Private persons take higher risks look at the finance crises everybody in this business knew that it could end like this. And your argument with the dead people is very strange, when I work in a mine I know that there are risks but/so I get good money for this, the people which are living in sphere of influence of a power plant don't get any money for this, so when you argue like this you would have to compensate these people (in europe about 500 million) for higher risks of dying from cancer, having lesser profit in farming and so on, no insurance will ever take this risk.

You're taking with the wind power a bad example cause this can't be the solution (and certainly not alone). Thats I imagine a little bit the american way of thinking "let's build there one enormous and then we are the best" (please don't be angry with me). Have you been in Germany in the last ten years? Then you would have realised what I really meant when I said "decentral" nearly every third house has solar plants on its roof, thats decentral! You are right we still need technology to store the energy thats a problem, but we are two steps farer then the US cause we need much lesser energy and our houses produce some energy at solar and also by warm water facilities which save energy.

Originally Posted by DiogenesNJ

Originally Posted by DiogenesNJ

A greatly expanded version is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54904454

The link says "edit or delete", but I can't figure out how to delete this.
I edited the post above to correct the link, so they both work now.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5490445

Oops, page not found.

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by kojax

Trouble with nuclear is we're going to run out of easy-to-mine Uranium deposits at some point. Then it's down to Thorium or some kind of sea water sifting .... stuff like that. I'd be very surprised if the cost of nuclear remains low at that point.

Solar has the advantage of never running out, and the advantage others have mentioned: whoever develops the solar industry first will have a huge head start over the others when Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium finally start to run short and solar becomes the only remaining alternative. It looks like that's going to be Germany and we can be quite assured they'll be charging us full price when the time comes.

Then who's going to be getting mugged by reality?

Germany. "Unlimited funds to build redundant generating capacity"? I rather doubt such funds will be available.

Siemens puts cost of nuclear exit at 1.7 trillion euros | Reuters

and? Once every plant has to be build back, you will get the costs later. And then we will have the technology to do this and help you ($catching$)

I find your reasoning difficult to follow, could you elaborate here, please?

Originally Posted by The Geographer

I have to say, I think that nuclear powerplants could be save, IF they run under state control,

Do you mean like Chernobyl? It needs government regulation, not operation by the government.

long time it had been like this in germany. But in private hands there is always the first point we have to produce energy (think of the money). Private persons take higher risks look at the finance crises everybody in this business knew that it could end like this. And your argument with the dead people is very strange, when I work in a mine I know that there are risks but/so I get good money for this, the people which are living in sphere of influence of a power plant don't get any money for this, so when you argue like this you would have to compensate these people (in europe about 500 million) for higher risks of dying from cancer, having lesser profit in farming and so on, no insurance will ever take this risk.

You're taking with the wind power a bad example cause this can't be the solution (and certainly not alone). Thats I imagine a little bit the american way of thinking "let's build there one enormous and then we are the best" (please don't be angry with me). Have you been in Germany in the last ten years? Then you would have realised what I really meant when I said "decentral" nearly every third house has solar plants on its roof, thats decentral!

And how much power are you getting from the rooftop solar panels?

You are right we still need technology to store the energy thats a problem, but we are two steps farer then the US cause we need much lesser energy and our houses produce some energy at solar and also by warm water facilities which save energy.

Well, you are burning a bit more coal now than you were before. Are you happy about that?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Do you mean like Chernobyl? It needs government regulation, not operation by the government.

The Udssr (and the ukraine much lesser) wasn't a free country the control of those nuclear power plants had been at the people in moscow. Also the technological state isn't comparable to today, you also need much stronger regulations then we have today because of the terror threat. I can imagine that regulation of nuclear power plants could be possible, but there is no country (well perhaps norwegian or sweden) where I would say private nuclear plants are to 100% safe. You really need somebody who is there 24/7 and not one day in six months.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

And how much power are you getting from the rooftop solar panels?

2011 3,5% of the whole energy requirement but with more efficent and cheaper solar panels this number is still rising very strong, take a look at this picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Photovoltaik_Deutschland_%282010%29.jpg it shows the energyproduction of solar energy in germany.

Well, you are burning a bit more coal now than you were before. Are you happy about that?

no but we have to be realistic we need it and we have in Germany also coal reserves which are already today coast efficient. We won't update our energysystem in one year that will take rather 30-50 more years.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by kojax

Trouble with nuclear is we're going to run out of easy-to-mine Uranium deposits at some point. Then it's down to Thorium or some kind of sea water sifting .... stuff like that. I'd be very surprised if the cost of nuclear remains low at that point.

Solar has the advantage of never running out, and the advantage others have mentioned: whoever develops the solar industry first will have a huge head start over the others when Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium finally start to run short and solar becomes the only remaining alternative. It looks like that's going to be Germany and we can be quite assured they'll be charging us full price when the time comes.

Then who's going to be getting mugged by reality?

Germany. "Unlimited funds to build redundant generating capacity"? I rather doubt such funds will be available.

Siemens puts cost of nuclear exit at 1.7 trillion euros | Reuters

and? Once every plant has to be build back, you will get the costs later. And then we will have the technology to do this and help you ($catching$)

I find your reasoning difficult to follow, could you elaborate here, please?

What exactly? You need know how to rebuild nuclear power plants, and we are the first who do this so we have a technological advantage.

Then why shut them down to begin with? It is still unclear. And why waste time and effort putting solar panels on 1/3 of homes?

Silly.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Then why shut them down to begin with?

shut down to begin with...what?

And how much power are you getting from the rooftop solar panels?

18 TWh in 2011 apparently (though different measures give different numbers). Almost 3% of total electricity.
Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December -- The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011 | ThinkProgress

Remember Germany's planning on reducing electricity consumption by 50% by 2050. So every step along that path helps as well.

Originally Posted by arthur

And you talk as if the French have not been reprocessing nuclear fuel since 1966. If it were not "safe and practical", don't you think they might have given up on it a couple of decades ago, iceman?

You talk as if "reprocessing" took care of the problem.

And the nuke business has been doing unsafe and impractical things (at other people's risk and expense) from day one. If being unsafe and impractical were a serious objection to nukes, they none of them would exist.

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Then why shut them down to begin with?

shut down to begin with...what?

Why shut nuclear power plants down if you plan to rebuild them? Surely they do not need fuel/maintenance/replacement simultaneously- in fact the decision to take them offline appears to be a purely political decision without sound technical or economic justification.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by arthur

And you talk as if the French have not been reprocessing nuclear fuel since 1966. If it were not "safe and practical", don't you think they might have given up on it a couple of decades ago, iceman?

You talk as if "reprocessing" took care of the problem.

And the nuke business has been doing unsafe and impractical things (at other people's risk and expense) from day one. If being unsafe and impractical were a serious objection to nukes, they none of them would exist.

Works well enough for France. I suppose one could argue that automobiles were unsafe and impractical, with far better statistics to back up the case, yet people generally drive when they can afford to- maybe even you, iceman.

There is really nothing "practical" at all about not developing nuclear power. If one is opposed to radiation in the environment, it should be extracted and kept in a nice safe place where it can be monitored, and if we can get some use out of it while it is so confined, so much the better.

Originally Posted by adelady

And how much power are you getting from the rooftop solar panels?

18 TWh in 2011 apparently (though different measures give different numbers). Almost 3% of total electricity.
Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December -- The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011 | ThinkProgress

Remember Germany's planning on reducing electricity consumption by 50% by 2050. So every step along that path helps as well.

Why not reduce by 91% and put solar on all the rooftops? Wouldn't that be even better? Or do without electricity altogether, live in the Black Forest on nuts and berries? Very "Green", that...

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by adelady

And how much power are you getting from the rooftop solar panels?

18 TWh in 2011 apparently (though different measures give different numbers). Almost 3% of total electricity.
Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December -- The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011 | ThinkProgress

Remember Germany's planning on reducing electricity consumption by 50% by 2050. So every step along that path helps as well.

Why not reduce by 91% and put solar on all the rooftops? Wouldn't that be even better?

don't be a troll! We have just started to put solar panels on rooftops, we have still increasing rates of about ten's of percentage of total solar power.

Originally Posted by arthur

You talk as if "reprocessing" took care of the problem.

- - - - -Works well enough for France.

It works the same for them as for everyone else - an accumulating pile of stuff they have no good way to handle. And when the wave of decommissionings rolls in, some tough decisions will have to be faced - at very great and so far unbudgeted expense, one way or another.

Maybe Germany will help them out. Or maybe they will just dump it in the ocean off Somalia.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Then why shut them down to begin with?

shut down to begin with...what?

Why shut nuclear power plants down if you plan to rebuild them? Surely they do not need fuel/maintenance/replacement simultaneously- in fact the decision to take them offline appears to be a purely political decision without sound technical or economic justification.

oh my fault thats whats called in linguistics a 'false friend' I thought rebuild would mean break off

Originally Posted by iceaura

Maybe Germany will help them out. Or maybe they will just dump it in the ocean off Somalia.

You forget that they did this not so long time ago, only as we realised that by the food chain everything is getting on our dishes, they stopped to put those tons in the oceans

By the way I don't see the big problem at the deposition of the nuclear waste, there are existing really very clever and safe ideas... but those ideas are not very cheap, thats the problem at the moment, and I don't think that we really get a final deposit in the next ten years. Thats what the guys who are arguing for nuclear power still forget, it will get much more expensive than we think of it today.

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Then why shut them down to begin with?

shut down to begin with...what?

Shut down the nukes! And while you are at it could you tell me who goes up on the roof to shovel snow off the solar panels? Nothing I'd want to do all freakin' winter, I'll tell ya that.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by arthur

You talk as if "reprocessing" took care of the problem.

- - - - -Works well enough for France.

It works the same for them as for everyone else - an accumulating pile of stuff they have no good way to handle. And when the wave of decommissionings rolls in, some tough decisions will have to be faced - at very great and so far unbudgeted expense, one way or another.

Maybe Germany will help them out. Or maybe they will just dump it in the ocean off Somalia.

Lay out the numbers for me, iceman. Or maybe you don't think a better than 95% reduction in volume is significant:

U.S. needs nuclear waste recycling | www.hillsdale-econ.com

Originally Posted by The Geographer

By the way I don't see the big problem at the deposition of the nuclear waste, there are existing really very clever and safe ideas... but those ideas are not very cheap, thats the problem at the moment, and I don't think that we really get a final deposit in the next ten years. Thats what the guys who are arguing for nuclear power still forget, it will get much more expensive than we think of it today.

We can't just dump it in the ocean, haven't you ever seen any Godzilla movies?

The Oklo reactors didn't cost us a dime to dispose of THEIR "wastes":

The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by The Geographer

By the way I don't see the big problem at the deposition of the nuclear waste, there are existing really very clever and safe ideas... but those ideas are not very cheap, thats the problem at the moment, and I don't think that we really get a final deposit in the next ten years. Thats what the guys who are arguing for nuclear power still forget, it will get much more expensive than we think of it today.

We can't just dump it in the ocean, haven't you ever seen any Godzilla movies?

I didn't say that we could drop it in the oceans

Truly, you did not, it was iceaura who did.

By shutting down your nuclear power generating capacity you deprive yourself of the benefits of this technology without relieving yourselves of the burdens associated with it. Is that a smart move?

No.

Originally Posted by arthur

Lay out the numbers for me, iceman. Or maybe you don't think a better than 95% reduction in volume is significant:

It buys them some time. Right now they are stashing the stuff in steel barrels under the floor of some building.

With luck they can hold off until they have to decommission a few dozen reactors, and slide it in with some huge pile of hot and poisonous debris - of course they don't have any way of dealing with that either, so the ocean dumping option is going to look pretty attractive for the whole shebang. Is there any way to stop them from doing that?

Originally Posted by arthur

By shutting down your nuclear power generating capacity you deprive yourself of the benefits of this technology without relieving yourselves of the burdens associated with it. Is that a smart move?

When you discover you have dug yourself into a hole, it's often a smart move to quit digging, yes.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by arthur

Lay out the numbers for me, iceman. Or maybe you don't think a better than 95% reduction in volume is significant:

It buys them some time. Right now they are stashing the stuff in steel barrels under the floor of some building.

With luck they can hold off until they have to decommission a few dozen reactors, and slide it in with some huge pile of hot and poisonous debris - of course they don't have any way of dealing with that either, so the ocean dumping option is going to look pretty attractive for the whole shebang. Is there any way to stop them from doing that?

Originally Posted by arthur

By shutting down your nuclear power generating capacity you deprive yourself of the benefits of this technology without relieving yourselves of the burdens associated with it. Is that a smart move?

When you discover you have dug yourself into a hole, it's often a smart move to quit digging, yes.

Then you AGREE that the Germans should restart their nuclear facilities?

There may be hope for you yet.

And there is no evidence that there are plans for marine disposal:

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

By shutting down your nuclear power generating capacity you deprive yourself of the benefits of this technology without relieving yourselves of the burdens associated with it. Is that a smart move?

Which benefits? You forget that those things were built when we had politicans that wanted the nuke, that was it true legitimacy. Knowledge and know how will stay here at universities for research programs and so on, nobody wants to get back in the stone age.

Originally Posted by arthur

And there is no evidence that there are plans for marine disposal:

Or any other disposal. We'll just have to see what they do when the crunch time comes. The entire industry was built on a quite stunning lack of foresight.

Meanwhile, sunny Spain and sunny Greece and sunny Turkey are in need of friendly cooperation from Germany, at the same time that Germany is in need of some heavy lift solar power sources.

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

By shutting down your nuclear power generating capacity you deprive yourself of the benefits of this technology without relieving yourselves of the burdens associated with it. Is that a smart move?

Which benefits? You forget that those things were built when we had politicans that wanted the nuke, that was it true legitimacy. Knowledge and know how will stay here at universities for research programs and so on, nobody wants to get back in the stone age.

So you do not want the electricity from these closed installations? Over here kilowatt hours are worth something.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Over here kilowatt hours are worth something.

On our side we pay more money for the waste than for the energy itself.

Good, we'll sell you our waste too. We'll keep the electricity, though.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Good, we'll sell you our waste too. We'll keep the electricity, though.

you know what I mean, don't be a Troll

Okay, how about some figures for cost comparison?

Solar cell has soo much potential, and with Germany giving soo much incentive to solar energy this could accelerate their development further. Currently the most awesome commercial sold solar cell is the CIGS-thin-film cell costing just $1/1kWh (by Nanosolar) (originally from US) which now manufacturing in Germany (with cell efficiency reaching 17%!), and China's industrial large scale manufacturing now allows the 'once-expensive-silicon-crystal PV' to be as low as $1.70/kWh (but efficiency still ~10% for this type), and if demands continue worldwide (there is also incentive in other country to put solar cell on rooftop) you could see newer nano-technology-solar-cell to be practical. Based on the graph-of-solar-efficiency-over-year-below: the best in-lab cell efficiency is 40% which mean (if you live in "isolation" region, see link-of-solar-power below) will produce 2.8kWh/meter-square during the day!, as you know the power per meter-square on this reqion is max 7kWh/m2 which IMO is alot.

File:PVeff(rev111205).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was thinking more of cost/kilowatt-hour totals vs costs of nuclear waste disposal, but, hey, this is okay, too.

Reality is beginning to set in, in Spain.
AFP: Clouds gather over Spain's renewables sector as aid cut

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

I was thinking more of cost/kilowatt-hour totals vs costs of nuclear waste disposal, but, hey, this is okay, too.

hard to calculate I imagine that there are very different numbers for nuclear power kwh. If you have a solar panel on your roof you get in Germany 0.30 cent/kwh (this are about 0.23$) that indicates the german subvention politics so you will pay the solar panel back in about 15 years (thats my own experience - conservative estimates say 20 years) inclusive costs for insurances and so on. For nuclear power the price for a kwh would be over 1.0 $/Euro (the estimate I know says 1.30 Euro = 1.69 Dollar)

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Reality is beginning to set in, in Spain.
AFP: Clouds gather over Spain's renewables sector as aid cut

But Green, "clean" energy is supposed to be CHEAP! Too bad it isn't. Does it snow in Spain?

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Reality is beginning to set in, in Spain.
AFP: Clouds gather over Spain's renewables sector as aid cut

But Green, "clean" energy is supposed to be CHEAP! Too bad it isn't. Does it snow in Spain?

much cheaper than nuclear energy

Originally Posted by The Geographer

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Reality is beginning to set in, in Spain.
AFP: Clouds gather over Spain's renewables sector as aid cut

But Green, "clean" energy is supposed to be CHEAP! Too bad it isn't. Does it snow in Spain?

much cheaper than nuclear energy

Yeah, I imagine living in the Black Forest eating nuts and berries would be pretty cheap too. Everything is "cheap" when someone else is paying for it. The issue in sunny Spain is that the government in Madrid cannot keep paying for the shiny toy.