Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,304
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
The problem with PVs are the band-gap energies of the semi-conducting elements used. The puzzle is trying to convert all of the solar radiation into frequencies that the PV materials can absorb. This is a major hurdle in PV development and it explains why they can't be the solution to the world's energy demands.
Like I said,



instead of PV.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
20,303
Location
Michigan USA
I will have to dig it up, but there was a report done and they didn't account for any change in energy used, ie., we use no less electricity, but it said we could easily switch to renewable resoucres without any problem other than being unwilling to do so. That is the biggest change needed, the will to change.
 

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
So we shouldn't even try to develop the alternatives further? :rofl:
We should, but what might be viable 20 years down the line isn't going to solve the energy problems which will happen in 15 years. We need to build with viable technology that we possess now which are Hydro, Nuclear and Coal.
 
Last edited:

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,003
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
So we shouldn't even try to develop the alternatives further? :rofl:
You guys can continue living in la la land with your wind and solar but Nuclear is the only solution to the world's energy needs in this moment.
Alternatives should always be pursued however, the alternatives aren't quite there yet. They help but there is no way that Wind and Solar alone can replace the duties of Nuke, Coal, Gas, and Oil plants.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,003
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Like I said,



instead of PV.
....and from what I understand, they do not have a working prototype that can harness and transfer the energy yet, so what's your point? Are you suggesting we close all of fossil fuel and Nuke plants and hope they provide commercial versions of this antenna to the masses? Idealistic much?
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,304
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
....and from what I understand, they do not have a working prototype that can harness and transfer the energy yet, so what's your point? Are you suggesting we close all of fossil fuel and Nuke plants and hope they provide commercial versions of this antenna to the masses? Idealistic much?
Nope. I'm suggesting after a bit more research this will provide a viable alternative to fossil and nuclear fuels.

They're optimistic to have prototypes within the next five (read: ten) years: http://munews.missouri.edu/news-rel...r-technology-could-break-photovoltaic-limits/


There are more options for solar power beyond photovoltaics and nantennas, solarthermal for example:





These just can't be distributed easily, they need central locations, maintenance, cooling, yadayadayada.
 
Last edited:

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,003
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
They're optimistic to have prototypes within the next five (read: ten) years: http://munews.missouri.edu/news-rel...r-technology-could-break-photovoltaic-limits/
which means they won't have any cheap enough to put into production for another 50 years... I still stand by the belief that Nuclear is the best tech we have right now, the Gen-III/IV plants are much safer and efficient compared to their '60s and '70s counter parts. Also with fast breeder reactors the waste isn't much and very manageable. Just bury it in a proper repository and be done with it.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,003
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
The film might be cheap but this won't be:

"Pinhero and the team are now developing a way to extract electricity from the collected heat and sunlight using special high-speed electrical circuitry."

My old professor from my Properties of Materials Class is a Nano-tech researcher ( http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/people/nobby ) who is working on a similar project and trust me it is a very very expensive project, if and when they solve that issue, the tech won't become cheap for quite some time.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,304
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
The project is expensive, duh. Making up new tech on insane scales cannot be cheap. The production can be cheap, however.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,003
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
The project is expensive, duh. Making up new tech on insane scales cannot be cheap. The production can be cheap, however.
That isn't always true and it is silly to think that it would be so for a technology such as this. I agree that at some point the production can be cheap but it will take many years until the manufacturing process is perfected. Look at how many years it has taken for regular PV cells to drop in price and they still aren't cheap...
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,304
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
PV cells take lots of material and are inefficient. Per square metre nantennas probably will be a lot cheaper, and they will produce more power. Per kWh it'll be a lot cheaper.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,003
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
PV cells take lots of material and are inefficient. Per square metre nantennas probably will be a lot cheaper, and they will produce more power. Per kWh it'll be a lot cheaper.
Again, I'm not talking about the nantennas, I'm talking about the nano circuitry to capture and convert the energy. Those, I assure you, will not be cheap for quite some time.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Construction workers unearthed this thread... so this could be added to the pile.

Greens take aim at target, shoot country in foot:
How Germany Phased Out Nuclear Power, Only to Get Mugged by Reality

Aaron Wiener
October 31, 2011 | 12:00 am

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. Now, with its energy politics in turmoil, Germany is serving as a very different sort of model for environmentalists: how not to go green.

At the root of Germany?s current energy struggle is its nuclear power politics. Reports tend to cite Japan?s Fukushima disaster as the starting point of the country?s nuclear turmoil, but really the story begins a lot earlier, in Chernobyl, Ukraine. The Chernobyl plant?s 1986 nuclear meltdown in Germany?s backyard galvanized the anti-nuclear movement and led the country?s center-left parties to commit to phasing out nuclear power?a pledge they fulfilled when the Nuclear Exit Law went into effect in 2002 and mandated the end of nuclear power in Germany within 20 years.

When Angela Merkel?s administration changed course last year and moved to extend the operating life of the country?s nuclear plants, tens of thousands of environmental advocates flocked to Berlin from all over the country (and even from abroad) to protest the reversal. With opinion polls showing that Germans opposed the nuclear extension by nearly a two-to-one margin and Merkel?s political rivals promising to overturn her new policy, the German nuclear industry seemed to be hanging on by a thread.

Then came Fukushima. The German government really only needed the slightest excuse to nix its plans for a nuclear future; instead, it was given a tsunami. Four days after the earthquake struck Japan, and before the implications of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown were fully understood, the government shut down eight of the country?s 17 nuclear reactors. Two weeks later, the Merkel administration announced that the remainder of Germany?s nuclear power would be phased out by 2022.

Environmentalists suddenly had a much more resounding victory over nuclear power than they?d thought possible a month earlier. They cheered the news?for a time, at least. But over the next six months, it became increasingly clear that the fidgety administration, worried by declining poll numbers, had failed to think through the consequences of its abrupt U-turn. Last year, Germany was a net exporter of electricity, drawing from a diverse range of energy sources led by coal, but with substantial contributions from low-emissions nuclear (23 percent of the total mix) and renewable energy sources (17 percent). With half of the country?s nuclear plants suddenly yanked from the grid in March, however, Germany became a net importer of electricity almost overnight.

The resulting economic loss from the shift has been disconcerting for a country with near-zero growth. Compounding the problem, electricity prices have risen for consumers, and it could cost the country?s four operators of nuclear plants more than $40 billion simply to shut the nuclear reactors down. To environmentalists, though, the greater concern has been the question of where Germany is getting its new power to make up for the country?s energy shortfall.

Germany?s environmental activists had hoped that shutting down nuclear plants would clear the way for the development of renewable energy sources. The Merkel government has laid out a set of ambitious targets to that effect, but not the proper mix of incentives and infrastructure to ensure that renewables make up for the current energy shortfall. Indeed, Laszlo Varro, the head of the gas, coal, and power markets division at the International Energy Agency, told me the end of nuclear power ultimately won?t have a discernible impact on renewable generation. That?s because the main obstacle to renewable development isn?t competition from nuclear power, but the challenge of transmission?how to bring electricity from offshore wind farms in northern Germany to the factories in the south. The nuclear phaseout, Varro argues, will only exacerbate this challenge by removing nuclear plants from southern Germany and increasing the north-south energy imbalance.

The energy shortage that?s hit Germany since the nuclear shutdowns is indeed taking place mainly in the country?s industry-heavy south, says Konrad Kleinknecht, the former climate commissioner of the German Physical Society, the world?s largest organization of physicists, and it will require more fossil fuel power generation as a result. ?Where are we supposed to get the rest of our energy in the next ten years?? Kleinknecht asks. ?If nuclear power plants are taken off the grid, we?ll need to build around 30 coal and gas plants, mostly in the south.?

Varro estimates that the nuclear phaseout in Germany has caused a 25-million-ton annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions. The culprit, in large part, is the new coal power that has come online to meet the shortfall. ?In the past couple of months,? Varro says, ?coal-fired power generation was up in Germany because they shut down the old nuclear power plants from one day to the next, and you can?t build renewable power from one day to the next.?

Meanwhile, the biggest financial winner from Germany?s nuclear moratorium, Varro says, is nuclear power outside Germany. Since March, Germany has imported considerably more electricity from neighboring countries like France that rely on nuclear power sources. It?s also turned to power from coal-fired plants in Poland and the Czech Republic.

None of this means that Germany has necessarily fallen off course in meeting its ambitious renewable energy targets (the 2050 goal involves many factors, and it?s too soon to judge the ongoing progress with any certainty). But the country?s chances of meeting its emissions goals will almost certainly suffer. That?s because replacing low-emissions nuclear power with wind or solar doesn?t actually reduce emissions?and replacing it with coal and gas only worsens the situation. ?Reaching the carbon dioxide emissions target will be more difficult and more expensive after the moratorium,? Varro predicts.

This is no doubt a source of dismay among the very environmental activists who pushed for, and succeeded in bringing about, the nuclear phaseout. But it?s not the only reason for disappointment. Indeed, anti-nuclear activists employed another main argument for the end of nuclear power in Germany: safety concerns in the event of a meltdown or attack. On that count, however, the phaseout has also proved problematic.

It?s true that the risk of a meltdown within Germany is diminished as the country?s nuclear plants are decommissioned. But now German electricity consumers are suddenly providing more business to nuclear power plants in neighboring countries that are, in some cases, not as well regulated as their German counterparts. Instead of producing nuclear power itself, for instance, Germany is importing power from plants like the accident-prone one in the Czech city of Temelin, just over 60 miles from the German border.

To be sure, as a laboratory for an energy experiment of this magnitude, Germany does have some advantages. It?s a highly industrialized country with a substantial investment in renewable energy sources and a history of beating expectations. And to some environmentalists who believe strongly in the need to eliminate nuclear power, the experiment has been a worthwhile, if perhaps a bit hasty, effort toward a necessary end. But many energy experts are more skeptical. In a survey this month of experts in 21 countries by the London-based World Energy Council, none of the respondents said they expected Germany to meet all of its stated energy goals, and more than three-quarters predicted a weakening of the Germany economy over the coming decade as a result of the nuclear phaseout. ?It?s really a catastrophe,? Kleinknecht told me.

Earlier this month in Bonn, German Environment Minister Norbert R?ttgen heaped praises on the German energy project. The country?s energy policy, he said, ?could serve as an interesting example to other countries.? R?ttgen is right that the world?s environmentalists have their eyes on Germany. It?s just that the example the country is setting might not be the one he intended.

Aaron Wiener is a journalist living in Berlin and a special correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.
 

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,145
two things before I go to bed ...

electricity prices have risen for consumers,[...]
True, but they have risen before the nuclear shutdown because of a new tax "brennelementesteuer" that came along with the extention of the operating life of our nuclear plants and the electricity producers kindly handed that through to us customers.

The resulting economic loss from the shift has been disconcerting for a country with near-zero growth.[...]
2010: 3,7% 2011: 2,9% (estimated in october 2011) - "near-zero growth" looks different. Or what country was he talking about?
 
Last edited:

GaryC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
4,001
Location
Adelaide
Car(s)
'90 Miata, '12 Octavia RS
*sigh* That's what happens when you listen to the hippies instead of the scientists
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
2010: 3,7% 2011: 2,9% (estimated in october 2011) - "near-zero growth" looks different. Or what country was he talking about?
We have a similar issue here - as one economist put it, if your economic growth was equal to or less than your population growth, you actually had zero or near zero growth. Mind, that puts our current sub-3% economic growth into the red, so this isn't a "USA BETTAR" thing.
 
Last edited:
Top