5 ms·

This article paints Germany’s “Green Energy” in a way too rosy picture. The reality is much different. A good article about this is “Germany’s Green Energy Gap”

by catzaa 17y ago

This article paints Germany’s “Green Energy” in a way too rosy picture. The reality is much different. A good article about this is “Germany’s Green Energy Gap” in the August 2009 IEEE Spectrum (submitted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=887095 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=887095 original here: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/germanys-green-energy-gap http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/germanys-green-en... ). The problem is that Germany had massive subsidies (especially for Wind Farms). And offshore wind farms are being built in water 20-40 meters deep 40 kms of the coast (with the grid operators forced to connect offshore wind farms at their cost). So it has huge problems – the recession probably helped Germany to advert an energy crises. The phaseout of nuclear power stations will probably be delayed. IMHO people need to be a lot more pragmatic about green energy and nuclear power. Nuclear power still generates double the amount of electricity than renewable in Germany even while it is being phased out. It would be much better if they phased out the coal power stations instead.

lispm 17y ago
the problem with offshore wind in Germany is that it has to be far away from the coast in deeper water. The local conditions (islands and the Wattenmeer) enforce this. Investment in offshore wind farms is under theseGerman conditions much higher and also the technical hurdles are much higher (wind, waves, corrosion, ...). These offshore wind farms are built for very rough conditions. Still several are under being built now. So the delay has technical reasons and also the investment is quite high. But the new government has made clear that the investment in renewable energy will go on. That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology.
- daniel-cussen 17y ago
  >That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology. It may be a victory on behalf of large energy companies, but I think nuclear is also a victory on behalf of the consumer/taxpayer. It's far and away the cheapest source of energy, cheaper even than coal. (PS I don't know what Germany's particular energy case looks like. They might be wrapping their nuclear power plants in sarcophagi a mile wide. But it's still generally true that nuclear is substantially cheaper than coal.)
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    Cheaper than coal if you've already built the thing.It's a sunk cost, sure, but for policy going forward you can't ignore it.
  - lispm 17y ago
    Finland, reactor under construction. Estimated cost 4.5 Billion Euro. Just to build one.
    - catzaa 17y ago
      The question is how much an equivalent coal reactor will cost. If you have good references it would be interesting. Just by a blind Google I found this: http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html > The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said. That is $4 million per MW (just building). The powerplant in Finland is the first EPR so cost and time overruns is expected. It is a large one though – 1600MW (and it costs according to WP $7billion). The cost will therefore be $4.37 million per MW – about the same as a coal plant (but with no carbon dioxide causing global warming, coal costs and coal transportation costs). The problem comparing this is that building costs differ from country to country. The EPR is also the first reactor of a series and building prices increased in the 2000’s (which has now decreased). According to WP, the two VVER power plants at Tianwan cost together $3.3 billion (1000MW each). This means that the capital cost is $1.65 million per MW.
      - lispm 17y ago
        a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Even in France there was little action building new nuclear reactors. There is little chance that a new nuclear power station will be built in Germany, again. The whole technology is simply to expensive. Mining uranium is expensive and generates huge amounts of waste. Getting rid of the waste is expensive. The nuclear industry has been financed by the taxpayer with billions and billions here in Germany. Currently we are looking into cleaning a research disposal site for a billion plus. The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. Let's see how long that works. The price is huge environmental damage.
hussong 17y ago
If the subsidies in wind farms are a problem, are the ones in nuclear power a problem as well?
jackfoxy 17y ago
I smile every time a journalist gushes about solar energy in Germany. I lived there for 3 years in several parts of the country. The southern most latitude in the country is approximately the same as Vancouver, and it can be overcast for weeks, even in the summer. Sure, Freiburg gets some good sunshine for a few weeks. What they're really talking about is German built solar farms in the Sahara!

by catzaa 17y ago

lispm 17y ago

the problem with offshore wind in Germany is that it has to be far away from the coast in deeper water. The local conditions (islands and the Wattenmeer) enforce this. Investment in offshore wind farms is under theseGerman conditions much higher and also the technical hurdles are much higher (wind, waves, corrosion, ...). These offshore wind farms are built for very rough conditions. Still several are under being built now. So the delay has technical reasons and also the investment is quite high. But the new government has made clear that the investment in renewable energy will go on. That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology.

daniel-cussen 17y ago
>That the nuclear reactors may not phased out as soon as planned before, is a victory of the large energy companies, who want to make the most money out of their investment. Still they are at best seen as a transition technology. It may be a victory on behalf of large energy companies, but I think nuclear is also a victory on behalf of the consumer/taxpayer. It's far and away the cheapest source of energy, cheaper even than coal. (PS I don't know what Germany's particular energy case looks like. They might be wrapping their nuclear power plants in sarcophagi a mile wide. But it's still generally true that nuclear is substantially cheaper than coal.)
- DaniFong 17y ago
  Cheaper than coal if you've already built the thing.It's a sunk cost, sure, but for policy going forward you can't ignore it.
- lispm 17y ago
  Finland, reactor under construction. Estimated cost 4.5 Billion Euro. Just to build one.
  - catzaa 17y ago
    The question is how much an equivalent coal reactor will cost. If you have good references it would be interesting. Just by a blind Google I found this: http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html > The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said. That is $4 million per MW (just building). The powerplant in Finland is the first EPR so cost and time overruns is expected. It is a large one though – 1600MW (and it costs according to WP $7billion). The cost will therefore be $4.37 million per MW – about the same as a coal plant (but with no carbon dioxide causing global warming, coal costs and coal transportation costs). The problem comparing this is that building costs differ from country to country. The EPR is also the first reactor of a series and building prices increased in the 2000’s (which has now decreased). According to WP, the two VVER power plants at Tianwan cost together $3.3 billion (1000MW each). This means that the capital cost is $1.65 million per MW.
    - lispm 17y ago
      a few years ago Germany built a coal power plant with two times 920MW for 2.4 billion Euro. Well, prices of nuclear power plants are so huge that only a few have been built in the last twenty years. Even in France there was little action building new nuclear reactors. There is little chance that a new nuclear power station will be built in Germany, again. The whole technology is simply to expensive. Mining uranium is expensive and generates huge amounts of waste. Getting rid of the waste is expensive. The nuclear industry has been financed by the taxpayer with billions and billions here in Germany. Currently we are looking into cleaning a research disposal site for a billion plus. The future is described in the article and it is not nuclear. It is decentralized production of electricity and heat, energy efficiency, wind solar, biogas, etc. If France wants to invest even more into nuclear energy, let's see how they deal with the costs. They could park the waste cheap in Siberia... oh, they are doing it already. Let's see how long that works. The price is huge environmental damage.

hussong 17y ago

If the subsidies in wind farms are a problem, are the ones in nuclear power a problem as well?

jackfoxy 17y ago

I smile every time a journalist gushes about solar energy in Germany. I lived there for 3 years in several parts of the country. The southern most latitude in the country is approximately the same as Vancouver, and it can be overcast for weeks, even in the summer. Sure, Freiburg gets some good sunshine for a few weeks. What they're really talking about is German built solar farms in the Sahara!