Nuclear & other power source discussions

[Urwumpe]

Germany has now decided to shut down nearly all older nuclear reactors (some are almost 60 years old), at least until a favorable safety review. This is a direct result of the moratorium of the "runtime extension law", a law that delayed the planned complete exit out of nuclear power generation in Germany.

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

On a lighter note:

Translations:
Subtitle: "Nuclear power plant operators - the dog owners among the managers"
Bubble: "He'd never done somethin' like that before!"

 

[Artlav]

delayed the planned complete exit out of nuclear power generation in Germany.

Huh? What about the environment and all that green stuff?
Why would a country with the best safety record do such a step backwards?

 

[Urwumpe]

Huh? What about the environment and all that green stuff?
Why would a country with the best safety record do such a step backwards?

Well, three reasons:

1. Nuclear power was never exactly popular here, and since TMI and Chernobyl, it is deeply hated by a large number of people, and only a minority being even just slightly positive towards it. Even the strongest supporters only call it a bridge technology until better technology is available.
2. There is still no solution for storing the nuclear waste in Germany on the horizon. The trust in the politicians in that topic is extremely low since the "absolutely safe" nuclear waste test dump of Asse II is slowly running full of water (despite Asse I already drowning in 1912)
3. The safety record is pretty much only existing in political speeches. Germany has maybe the strongest safety regulations there, but in reality nobody to really enforce them. The number of accidents that had to be reported is actually pretty high and contains a few incidents in which nuclear material was emitted. One of the most embarrassing ones had been at the pebble bed reactor, a "safe" technology test bed that was developed largely in Germany, in which a worker tried to fix a jam in feeding fuel pellets by ejecting more pebbles into the jam with increasing pressure. Was also not harmless - the same feed mechanism is also used for putting control balls (the equivalent of control rods) into the reactor. The reactor was thus out of control for a long time.

 

[Sky Captain]

Germany has now decided to shut down nearly all older nuclear reactors (some are almost 60 years old), at least until a favorable safety review. This is a direct result of the moratorium of the "runtime extension law", a law that delayed the planned complete exit out of nuclear power generation in Germany.

How are Germany going to avoid severe power shortages? IIRC nuclear energy accounts to 30 % of total german electricity. Do you have that much spare coal and gas plants to make up for the loss?

 

[Urwumpe]

How are Germany going to avoid severe power shortages? IIRC nuclear energy accounts to 30 % of total german electricity. Do you have that much spare coal and gas plants to make up for the loss?

Yes, also there is a lot of increasing capacity in the next years in wind and hydropower. Also, we already needed a lot of extra capacity in the past because our nuclear power plants failed pretty often, not always because of accidents that required reporting.

 

[Wishbone]

I bet if Germany invested into any other alternative source as much as it invests in solar, there'd be no need in nuclear power plants.

 

[Urwumpe]

I bet if Germany invested into any other alternative source as much as it invests in solar, there'd be no need in nuclear power plants.

The investments in solar power will be reduced a lot in the future, they have already passed the point, where the solar power subsidies turned into something harmful by far. We have now too many expensive solar power installations, that are economically at bad places.

 

[Sky Captain]

What about development of geothermal power? You have that nice big volcano sleeping under Laachersee caldera lake. How feasible would be to drill down and tap the heat from its still active magma chamber? Geothemal power is vastly superior to wind because it is always on and don't recquire gas turbine stations on stanby in case wind stops blowing.

 

[Urwumpe]

What about development of geothermal power? You have that nice big volcano sleeping under Laachersee caldera lake. How feasible would be to drill down and tap the heat from its still active magma chamber? Geothemal power is vastly superior to wind because it is always on and don't recquire gas turbine stations on stanby in case wind stops blowing.

Geothermal is currently under review, after there is a lot of evidence that too naive geothermal drilling caused strong earthquakes and building damage by expanding chalk.

 

[Sky Captain]

The investments in solar power will be reduced a lot in the future, they have already passed the point, where the solar power subsidies turned into something harmful by far. We have now too many expensive solar power installations, that are economically at bad places.

I'm wondering why Germany decided to invest that much money in solar power at all. Your solar plants get a capacity factor of about 10%. Even wind is much better at 20 - 30 % and also wind installations are cheaper per kW than solar plants and during winter when demand is highest your solar plants generate next to no power.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm wondering why Germany decided to invest that much money in solar power at all. Your solar plants get a capacity factor of about 10%. Even wind is much better at 20 - 30 % and also wind installations are cheaper per kW than solar plants and during winter when demand is highest your solar plants generate next to no power.

Actually as supplement to wind power in the 100,000 roofs program (since 2000) and of course for teh export. :lol: Also the law was much simpler and more robust that way (because all renewable energy sources are treated equally by it), the EEG (renewable energy law) is one of the biggest success stories of Germany in the past ten years, many countries copied the concept already.

Germany actually produced 8300 GW/h by solar power alone last year. of course the effectivity isn't that great, but it is better to use the sunlight than just letting it throw some shadows, right?

 

[Belisarius]

Looks like there's going to be a thorough safety review of all reactors in the EU

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12737396

The EU has called an emergency meeting on Tuesday to review safety measures at nuclear reactors across Europe.

In a statement, the EU said it wanted to assess the Japanese situation and the EU's state of preparedness "in case of similar incidents". It said the aim was to get "first-hand information on contingency plans and safety measures in place".

The Swiss government also announced on Monday that it was suspending its nuclear plans because safety was its first priority.

Switzerland currently has four nuclear plants with five functioning reactors and the country's regulatory authorities have now frozen the regulatory process for a further three sites.

However, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said his country would go ahead with its plans to build two new plants, noting that Poland did not have the same risk of earthquakes as Japan.

It's undeniably true that Europe doesn't have the same seismic dangers as Japan, Chile or California.

 

[Linguofreak]

Huh? What about the environment and all that green stuff?
Why would a country with the best safety record do such a step backwards?

Well, one thing that the anti-green crowd in the US uses as ammunition is that the green crowd can never agree on a power source that is environmentally friendly: Fossil fuels are in limited supply and cause global warming, nuclear reactors can do a Chernobyl all over the surrounding countryside, wind power can kill birds, solar requires paving over too much land with solar panels, destroying the local ecosystem, hydroelectric plants require the creation of resevoirs that flood over the local ecosystem, etc, etc.

Every time one part of the green crowd says "this source of energy is cleaner than fossil fuels" some other part of the green crowd says "but it hurts the environment in this way". The anti-green crowd is convinced by this that the green crowd just wants us to recede into the middle ages and not use any power source that takes more technology than a horse. (Horses, of course, create their own kind of pollution).

I'm not convinced that the green crowd wants us to sink back into the middle ages, but I am convinced that there is no consensus among the green crowd on what power sources we *should* use.

 

[T.Neo]

It's undeniably true that Europe doesn't have the same seismic dangers as Japan, Chile or California.

Does it? I know Greece experiences earthquakes, and other areas in the region of the Med do as well, but are they as active as Japan?

The anti-green crowd is convinced by this that the green crowd just wants us to recede into the middle ages and not use any power source that takes more technology than a horse. (Horses, of course, create their own kind of pollution).

I'm afraid that sort of crowd does exist. They of course do not make up all environmentalists, it is more like a sliding scale, from Logical Assesment and Solutions, to Fossil Fuels and Nuclear are energy sources of EVIL, to Horses-and-mud-huts, to complete nutters.

It's quite funny that the introduction of the car was seen as an end to pollution- the extent of horse-based pollution is probably not something that can be discussed in polite company...

As this very terrifying situation is ongoing, regardless of severity, I am really annoyed by the fact that anti-nuclear people will use (and are already using, most likely) it as a reason to abandon nuclear energy.

It is not. A mishap is a mishap, a disaster is a disaster (God forbid), but when it's finished you pick yourself up and make sure it doesn't happen again. You don't give up and run away.

 

[Sky Captain]

Germany actually produced 8300 GW/h by solar power alone last year. of course the effectivity isn't that great, but it is better to use the sunlight than just letting it throw some shadows, right?

But is it cost effective? [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany"]Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
wikipedia says installed capacity is 17 GW as of 2010 that would mean average output assuming 10 % capacity factor would be ~1.7 GW while the costs for feed in tariff is around 1 billion euros. That is freakin 12 billion euros per year for very litte gain.

 

[Urwumpe]

But is it cost effective? Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wikipedia says installed capacity is 17 GW as of 2010 that would mean average output assuming 10 % capacity factor would be ~1.7 GW while the costs for feed in tariff is around 1 billion euros. That is freakin 12 billion euros per year for very litte gain.

What the hell do you calculate there? Can it be you are a bit confused about German solar power regulations? :lol:

Again - German photovoltaic arrays produced 8300 GWh (Gigawatt-hours) in 2010. While being the most expensive regenerative energy source in terms of the price that has to be paid, this means maximal 57.4 cent per kWh = 4.266 billion Euro in 2010 had to be paid by the energy producers for 8300 GWh produced solar energy at the maximal possible price - note that this price would only be paid if you installed this solar array on your house in 2004 and have less than 30 kW power. Later years or different installations had less.


If you would today install a 500 kW solar array on your factory or farm building, you would get for these 500 kW/h:

30 * 28.74
+ 70 * 27.33
+ 400 * 25.86

= 13119.3 cent or 26.23 cent per kWh

That is the money that a energy company HAS to pay you for your energy, even if this is not used. In comparison: Because of the cheating, that large energy producers do with nuclear power plants, you pay 69 cent per kW/h at the electricity exchange as electricity provider.

Nuclear power costs actually 2.65 Cent/kWh in Germany at the existing power plant. Nuclear power in Germany additionally gets around 4.3 ct./kWh from the state as subsidies. The energy companies pay only 2.65 Cent/KWh but get effectively 75 cent/kWh for it when they sell it. A gold mine.

Coal power costs 2.40 cent/kWh, according to a study by the MIT, new nuclear power plants would cost 5.8 Cent/kWh.

Also nuclear power plants have actually a lower thermal effectivity as a coal plant: while the energy is produced without CO2, the steam is almost 250°C cooler at a nuclear power plant than at a modern coal power plant, because you can't increase the steam temperature at a nuclear power plant easily. That is also why you can't use nuclear power plants for additionally heating houses (which further increases the effectivity of coal or gas power).


(Can a moderator maybe move the nuclear power costs and stuff discussions out of the Japan thread? I feel bad about it)

 

[Linguofreak]

I'm afraid that sort of crowd does exist. They of course do not make up all environmentalists, it is more like a sliding scale, from Logical Assesment and Solutions, to Fossil Fuels and Nuclear are energy sources of EVIL, to Horses-and-mud-huts, to complete nutters.

Well, what I was talking about was that disagreement among the more reasonable elements of the green crowd as to what exactly is the best solution causes the anti-green crowd to think that the less reasonable horses-and-mud-huts elements are the dominant elements of the green crowd.

It's quite funny that the introduction of the car was seen as an end to pollution- the extent of horse-based pollution is probably not something that can be discussed in polite company...

As this very terrifying situation is ongoing, regardless of severity, I am really annoyed by the fact that anti-nuclear people will use (and are already using, most likely) it as a reason to abandon nuclear energy.

I'm annoyed, but not surprised. It happened with Three Mile Island.

 

[Sky Captain]

30 * 28.74
+ 70 * 27.33
+ 400 * 25.86

= 13119.3 cent or 26.23 cent per kWh

That is still quite expensive electricity about twice as much as I have to pay utlity company for 1 kW/h. I am assuming if it were not required by law the utility company would never even consider buying it.

Nuclear power costs actually 2.65 Cent/kWh in Germany at the existing power plant. Nuclear power in Germany additionally gets around 4.3 ct./kWh from the state as subsidies. The energy companies pay only 2.65 Cent/KWh but get effectively 75 cent/kWh for it when they sell it. A gold mine.

How is that possible? Some sort of legislation exploit?

Anyway, what is German policy regarding coal and fossil fuel power in general? If nuclear reactors are shut down then coal share in energy generation will increase since it is the cheapest. Large usage of wind will make electricity prices go up since more gas turbine plants will be recquired on stand by ready to kick in anytime the wind dies.

 

[Urwumpe]

That is still quite expensive electricity about twice as much as I have to pay utlity company for 1 kW/h. I am assuming if it were not required by law the utility company would never even consider buying it.

Feel lucky then.

How is that possible? Some sort of legislation exploit?

Exactly. Also an exchange in which the big companies define the rules to suit their dark desires.

Anyway, what is German policy regarding coal and fossil fuel power in general? If nuclear reactors are shut down then coal share in energy generation will increase since it is the cheapest.

That has to be expected at least for the medium time.

Large usage of wind will make electricity prices go up since more gas turbine plants will be required on stand by ready to kick in anytime the wind dies.

Not really. First of all, power storage technologies become more attractive because of such plans. Wind energy already now produces often a lot more energy, than could be actually used, resulting that on the best days, wind power turbines are powered down.

Next, the German economic plan is about having smarter power networks in Europe that would permit reacting to local events (Good or bad) by using the big network for compensation. But the big energy companies are currently in the way for this, because they do everything to prevent having to invest money into infrastructure.

 

[Sky Captain]

Not really. First of all, power storage technologies become more attractive because of such plans. Wind energy already now produces often a lot more energy, than could be actually used, resulting that on the best days, wind power turbines are powered down.

What are those energy storage technologies? From what I know cheapest energy storage technology is hydroelectric dam - when there is plenty of wind power generated you shut the gates and let the water acumulate for usage when wind is low or in more advanced design pump the water up the dam with surplus electricity. However this method is very location dependent. Do Germany have any significant unexploited good hydroelectric sites. I mean if you want to run a large country on intermittent energy sources like wind and solar you have to have dirt cheap means of storing for long periods of time megatons worth of energy.