Table - German power

[Dead_Parrot]

See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712753
[div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;"]
Operator                 Location                 Fuel           Capacity Start Date

RWE Power                Neurath BoA II+III       brown coal     2100     2012*
Vattenfall Europe        Boxberg block R          brown coal     675      2012*
Trianel                  Borkum                   offshore wind  200      2012/3**
Statkraft                Huerth, Knapsack II      gas            430      2013**
SWB Bremen and others    Bremen                   gas            420      2013**
RWE Power                Hamm D/E                 hard coal      1530     2013**
E.ON Kraftwerke          Datteln 4                hard coal      1055     2013**
EnBW                     Karlsruhe RDK 8          hard coal      874      2013**
Trianel                  Luenen                   hard coal      750      2013**
GDF SUEZ/BKW FMB         Wilhelmshaven            hard coal      731      2012**
Steag/EVN                Duisburg-Walsum 10       hard coal      725      2013**
BARD Engineering         Veja Mate                offshore wind  400      2013***
BARD/Suedweststrom/WV    Bard Offshore 1          offshore wind  400      2013**
Heag/Munich/EGL/others   Global Techl1            offshore wind  400      2013***
RWE Innogy               Nordsee Ost              offshore wind  295      2013***
EnBW                     Baltic 2                 offshore wind  288      2013***
WindMW                   Meerwind Sued/Ost        offshore wind  288      2013***
Vattenfall               Lichterfelde A Berlin    gas            300      2014***
Vattenfall Europe        Hamburg-Moorburg         hard coal      1640     2014**
Windreich                MEG 1                    offshore wind  400      2014***
E.ON Clim & Ren          Amrumbank West           offshore wind  350      2014***
Wpd                      Butendiek                offshore wind  288      2014***
Vattenfall/Munich        Dan Tysk                 offshore wind  288      2014***
Dong Energy              Riffgrund 1              offshore wind  277      2014***
GKM                      Mannheim block 9         hard coal      911      2014/5**
Windreich                Austerngrund             offshore wind  400      2015****
PNE                      Gode Wind 1              offshore wind  332      2015***
RWE Innogy               Innogy Nordsee 1         offshore wind  324      2015***
Dong Energy              Riffgrund 2              offshore wind  300      2015***
E.ON Clim & Ren          Amrumbank West           offshore wind  288      2015***
E.ON Wasserkraft         Waldeck II               pumped storage 300      2015/6***
Vattenfall               Sandbank 24              offshore wind  276      2015/6***
Duesseldorf utility      Lausward                 gas            400-600  2016****
Trianel                  Krefeld/Uerdingen        gas            1200     2016****
Vattenfall               Klingenberg/Berlin       gas            300      2016****
E.ON Kraftwerke          Staudinger 6/Hanau       hard coal      1100     2016****
Iberdrola                Wikinger                 offshore wind  400      2016****
Suedweststrom            Brunsbuettel             hard coal      1820     2017***
Schluchseewerke          Atorf                    pumped storage 1400     2018****
Trianel                  Simmerath                pumped storage 640      2019****
Trianel                  Nethe/Hoexter            pumped storage 390      2018****
Mibrag                   Profen                   brown coal     660      2020****
RheinEnergie             Cologne-Niehl            gas            1200     2020****
Dong                     Mecklar-Marbach          gas            1100     no date****
OMV Power Intnl          Burghausen               gas            850      no date***
EnBW                     Karlsruhe RDK 6S         gas            465      no date***
Repower                  Leverkusen               gas            430      no date****
Advanced Power/Siemens   Bocholt                  gas            415      no date***
Alpiq                    Premnitz                 gas            400      no date****
GDF Suez                 Calbe                    gas            400      no date****
E.ON Kraftwerke          Stade                    hard coal      1100     no date****
GETEC                    GSW Buettel/Ind          hard coal      800      no date****
E.ON Clim & Ren          Arkonabecken Suedost     offshore wind  480      no date***
E.ON Clim & Ren          Delta Nordsee            offshore wind  480      no date***
                                                                          0
AT PLANNING STAGE                                                         0
Duisburg                 Wanheim                  gas            500      2015/6
Vattenfall               Wedel/Stellingen         gas            600      2016/7
Trier utility            Schweich                 pumped storage 300      2017
Ulm utility              Leipheim airport         gas            1200     2017/8
Donaukraftwerk                                                            0
Jochenstein              Jochenstein/Riedl        pumped storage 300      2018
Mainz utility            Heimbach                 pumped storage 500      2019
Trianel                  Gotha/Schmalwasser       pumped storage 1000     2019
EnBW                     Forbach (extension)      pumped storage 200      no date
RWE                      BoAplus Niederaussem     brown coal     1100     no date
Kraftwerke Mainz KMW     Mainz                    gas            no size  no date
Nuon                     Meppen                   gas            450      no date

* test operations
** under construction
*** approval received
**** approval being sought

And for those of you keeping score:
Hard coal: 13,036 MW
Brown coal: 4,535 MW
Gas: 11,060-11260 MW
Wind: 7,154 MW
Storage: 5,030 MW

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/power-germany-plants-idUSL5E8FN6R220120423

[TheWraith]

1. Boy, that's a shitload of coal spewing toxins and CO2 into the air.

But hey, the important thing is that they made sure to react irrationally and shut down all their clean, safe nuclear plants. Because being in fear is much more important than your kids being able to breathe when they're 30, or preventing climate change.

[kristopher]

2. And yet they continue to decrease overall emissions.

Can you break out of that rightwing wish list the plants that either being modernized or are being built to shut down less efficient plants?
What is the total amount of small projects that are being installed? Most distributed renewables are not on this table as they are owned by individuals or local communities.

And I'd remind you yet again that it is the same people who want nuclear that are insisting on coal. You can't get away from the link between those two energy sources. We need neither one, but the people making money off of one are also positioned to make money off of the other. Those same entities also lose money as the renewables come online. The more renewables, the fewer of these unbuilt fossil plants will be realized and the sooner the existing ones will be shut down.

Nuclear shuts none of them down.

As the OP notes, see discussion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712753

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Are you refering to the 25 million ton increase?

Or does CO₂ turn into rainbows if it's generated across the border?

[kristopher]

4. You are acting like a climate denier...

...when they pick a small section of a long term trend that makes it appear their argument has validity.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. If you are including all the data..

...I suggest you look up "continue", "overall" and "decrease" - you've got at least one of them completely wrong.

Try here: http://www.merriam-webster.com

[FBaggins]

7. No... they aren't.

The power generation sector significantly increased overall emissions - even in a period of reduced demand, favorable weather, and retarded economic production.

Can you break out of that rightwing wish list the plants that either being modernized or are being built to shut down less efficient plants?

Why don't you... since you're trying to make a point?

Oh... and don't forget to adjust for capacity factor (though IMO the pumped storage should be scored at effectively 100%).

And I'd remind you yet again that it is the same people who want nuclear that are insisting on coal.

Repeating false statements doesn't add credibility. It most certainly is not the "same people".

Nuclear shuts none of them down.

Yet miraculously, getting rid of nuclear opens them up. What an odd coincidence.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Out of interest, kris...

Are you accusing Reuters of being rightwingers, or the Germans, or just reality in general?

[kristopher]

10. The government and the utilities that push nuclear and coal

But you already knew that.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Yes kris. That's why I asked.

[FBaggins]

13. They have split personalities of course.

You know... like E.on and RWE? You'll note them on the list as building some of the largest wind and pumped storage units... but also the largest coal plants.

[kristopher]

17. Noticed you ran from this same discussion at your thread on the same topic

When you have to drag someone to do the right thing it doesn't wipe out the fact that their kicking and screaming is because the *want* to do the *wrong* thing for *selfish* reasons.
ETA: You ignore a lot of content, "An astonishing 51 percent of Germany's renewable energy is generated by private citizens and farms."- post 11. http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712753#post11

And we're still waiting for the explanation of how nuclear plants ultimately shut down coal plants. You and DP have been unable to detail how that happens. We do, however, know that nuclear plants BLOCK the expansion of the one path that DOES shut down coal plants - and that would be a switch to a distributed renewable grid.

From an analysis by a German energy analyst:
“...a lot of nuclear electricity and a lot of eco-electricity don't fit together as economic concepts"

When Germany decided to continue down the path of shutting down their nuclear fleet instead of extending its life as the right-leaning Merkel government had attempted to do, we heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the nuclear fan club. One of the most oft heard refrains was how it was counterproductive to global efforts against carbon emissions.

That I disagree is no secret as I've often referred to the interchangeable nature of nuclear and coal, and how a fundamental obstacle against shutting down coal is the perpetuation of the system of centralized thermal generation by false promises that nuclear will save us. These promises not only routinely misrepresent basic central facts like GHG abatement efficacy, but they ignore the heavy external baggage and myriad unsolved problems related to cost, waste, proliferation and safety that plague the industry; thereby only serving to aid in retaining the centralized coal/nuclear system, not actually solving the climate crisis.

This 2010 paper was written to examine the consequences of Merkel's stated intention to change long standing policy and extend the life of the nation's nuclear fleet well beyond the designated shut down date of 2022. The policy had not yet been finalized at the time of publication. It obviously predates the Fukushima meltdowns and the consequent reversal of Merkel's first reversal of nuclear policy. "Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency & Renewables?" is by Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider collaborating.

This paper makes the point that far from aiding our response to carbon emissions, an "all of the above" energy policy fails to provide a planning clarity that is essential to effecting a rapid build-out of a sustainable, renewable global energy infrastructure. The fundamental economic incompatibility of nuclear and renewable systems is (like so many other inconvenient truths) something the nuclear industry routinely tries to sweep under the rug.

...Many systemic issues have not been thoroughly investigated yet when it comes to compatibility or incompatibility of the centralized nuclear approach versus the decentralized efficiency+renewables strategy. What are the consequences for grid development or how do choices on grid characteristics influence power-generation investment strategies? To what extent is the unit size co-responsible for structural overcapacities and thus a lack of incentives for efficiency? How do government grants/ subsidies stimulate long-term decision-making? Will large renewable power plants reproduce the same system effects as large coal/nuclear plants?

The present report presents the basic situation and raises questions that urgently need to be addressed. Successful energy policy will have to address the energy service needs of people in a much more efficient way than has been done in the past, as increased competition for ultimately finite fossil fuel leads to higher energy prices for all. For too long, energy policies have aimed at “supply security” of oil, gas and kilowatt-hours, rather than general access to affordable, reliable and sustainable services like cooked food, heat and cold; light ; communication; mobility; and motor torque...

You can download it with this link: http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

[FBaggins]

18. How odd... you misspelled "imagined" as "noticed".

You attempting to derail the topic of the OP so that you can "run"... followed by me calling you on the deception... is really not the same thing as running.

And we're still waiting for the explanation of how nuclear plants ultimately shut down coal plants.

You imagine that you're "waiting", but the answer was clear. You would like to pretend that they can't shift generation away from coal, but you can't ignore the fact that they have on many occasions and that we clearly see here that coal clearly replaces nuclear.

We do, however, know that nuclear plants BLOCK the expansion of the one path that DOES shut down coal plants -

Patently ridiculous. Renewables don't fill the same slot in the generation portfolio that hydro/nuclear/coal/gas fill. Those baseload options compete with each other, not with renewables... until you drink enough coolaid to imagine that renewables alone can get you 100% of generation. Then you're forced to think of anything other than renewables as blocking what should really be built.

Three decades ago, Belgium burned 48 trillion pounds of coal per year. They’ve done away with over 90% of that. Nuclear power produces over half of their electricity… but I suppose it’s just a coincidence, right?

Prior to the Messmer Plan, France burned mostly oil and coal for power generation… today nuclear power equals almost their entire demand. But nuclear power can't shut down those older plants, right?

In 1980 Hungary produced almost all of it’s electricity with coal, oil and gas… today about 45% comes from nuclear power and the amount of coal/oil burned (for power) has fallen by half.

Switzerland produced almost all of their electricity with coal until about the 50s... and now it's almost entirely hydro/nuclear.

Or how about South Korea? Sweden?

These are hardly the only examples. But you see a specific power company building a nuclear plant in a rapidly expanding power market with a rapidly growing population and you want to pretend that this proves that reactors never shut down coal generation? That it's really the power company just trying to con people into using more of their product that would never actually be needed if the reactors weren't built.

Laughable.

[kristopher]

19. What's the specific *market* mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal?

I don't deny that you can, by government fiat, build nuclear plants and shut down coal plants. However in today's world that is not a highly likely scenario. We have a world if interlocking economies and trading which results in rule-making that favors the interest of private property. You can rewrite some of those rules to change the direction of the energy systems, however, the mechanism that you use anywhere in the western world is not going to allow either the overt defacto or dejure expropriation of private property, which is what you are suggesting.

The process of shutting down the nuclear plants in Germany began in 2000 and was reversed just prior to Fukushima; which opened a rare window of opportunity where existing strong public sentiment and a just changed hold-over policy combined with a world class disaster to allow the mechanism of Germany's social democracy to accomplish a rare event - they stripped their utilities of private property rights related to operation of the nuclear plants.

In the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of the nuclear enthusiast, there are definite constraints on the policies a nation can push through. Nuclear cannot compete in any market for energy without massive government funding and the appetite for continued funding of this very mature industry is gone. It has delivered only rising prices, a litany of dangers and empty promises to do better in a future that never comes.

Nuclear power today cannot displace coal for they both benefit from the rules that are designed to promote the interests of the centralized utilities - which are solidly built around large-scale centralized thermal generation.

Finally if we could just direct the change of the system by a single order as you are suggesting what in the world makes you think we would do it on behalf of nuclear power? We have a global economy where nuclear will play, at most, no more than a small, fractional role. That being the case it is more of an obstruction than an aid in the pursuit of a true carbon free economy built on distributed renewable energy.

This paper makes the case very well, I suggest you read it for understanding instead of just looking through it trying to find something to nitpick, as is your custom.

Amory Lovins: “But nuclear power is about the least effective method: It does save carbon, but about 2 to 20 times less per dollar and 20 to 40 times less per year than buying its winning competitors”.

Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats: Improving electrical efficiency is nearly seven times more cost-effective than nuclear power for abating CO2 emissions, in the United States.

Environment California: “Per dollar spent over the lifetime of the technology, energy efficiency and biomass co-firing are five times more effective at preventing carbon dioxide pollution and combined heat and power is greater than three times more effective” than nuclear power.

Warwick Business School: The undermining of other technologies means that nuclear power is not complementary to other low- carbon technologies. This refutes the argument that all low-carbon technologies should, and are able to, be harnessed together so that they can harmoniously work together to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On the contrary, the government has to make a choice between a nuclear future and one dominated by renewable generation and the more efficient use of energy.

Duke University: “Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, professor of economics.

http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

You and DP need to remember that the is the wish list for those utilities that are really being hurt by the policies of Germany that are moving the country towards a renewable distributed grid. They ARE NOT making this transition voluntarily, they are being downsized by new economic policies regarding renewables that work within boundaries of acceptable market economics. This article is the context for the utility wish list in the OP. The government is in a rulemaking phase and the list above is what the utilities would like to see to preserve their corporate power. We will see how much of their program survives the Environment Minister.

Merkel To Meet Power Companies On German Energy Future
04/24/2012 | 10:55am

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has invited the country's four main utilities to a May 2 meeting to begin hashing out how best to fill the void in its future energy capacity, a year after she decided to rapidly shift away from nuclear power.

The meeting comes after Germany pledged a complete exit from nuclear energy by 2022 and a massive push into renewable energy. The move led to the country's main utilities suffering sharp falls in revenues and earnings, having to implement complex restructuring plans and, in some cases, seeking billions of euros in compensation from the government.

In May, Merkel will face the chief executives of those utilities--E.ON AG (>> E.ON AG), RWE AG (>> RWE AG), EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG (>> Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG), and Vattenfall Europe, a unit of Sweden's state-controlled Vattenfall AB--as well as representatives from Siemens AG (SI) and from power network operators. They will discuss how to approach the transformation in the country's energy mix, a government official said Tuesday.

...

Utilities complain that the rapid expansion of solar and wind energy has made it more difficult to operate and keep profitable fossil-fueled power plants. Germany gives priority to renewable energy, while fossil-fueled plants can feed their power only in to the grid when wind and sun power doesn't meet demand.

http://www.4-traders.com/E-ON-AG-3818998/news/Merkel-To-Meet-Power-Companies-On-German-Energy-Future-14292053/

[XemaSab]

20. In the real world, ALMOST ALL power is subsidized in some way or another.

All offshore wind farms are built on land owned by the people.

Many onshore wind farms are built on land owned by the people.

Almost all these big solar projects that you love so much are built on land owned by the people.

Most small solar setups on peoples' houses were somehow subsidized.

Hydroelectric dams are built using taxpayer money, and most of them are owned by the people.

Most "large-scale" geothermal power is generated on public lands.

A lot of natural gas extraction is happening on public lands.

Coal is subsidized by the people a thousand times over.

Oil is one giant 500-car gravy train of subsidies.

Finally, nuclear gets subsidies.

Moreover, virtually all of these technologies were developed with government research.

You're trying to pretend that the free market controls power generation in this country. If the free market controlled all power generation, we would only ever use dirty coal for power.

We're moving slowly in the direction of renewable energy because the government has decided that we should start moving away from fossil fuels. If this was happening because renewables are the cheapest form of energy, utilities would be running to embrace them. Instead, all renewable technologies are some of the most expensive forms of energy.

As an employee of an energy company, I would expect you to know this.

[kristopher]

21. Poor xemasab...

You aren't even on the same page as the discussion.

I've told you before when you made the allegation that I work for either "big wind" or "natural gas" but I'll tell you again now when you say I'm "an employee of an energy company" - no, I'm not. I'm an independent researcher who stumbled into a place where there was an urgent need to support the fundamental progressive position on our energy needs against the encroachment of rightwing policies designed to promote the continuation of business as usual.

[XemaSab]

23. What does your consulting company do then?

You hire yourself out to other firms to sit and post on the internet all day?

[kristopher]

24. What consulting company?

[XemaSab]

27. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more

[kristopher]

28. What consulting company?

You are making some sort of implied accusation, either retract it or be specific in what you are saying.

[kristopher]

30. Still waiting. Either provide specifics or retract your insinuation.

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2012, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA 12:40 That's what I thought. There is a tendency on the part of those who support nuclear power to make things up and engage in that type of personal slander. It is a result of not having a leg to stand in in their push to promote nuclear power and malign renewable energy sources.

It is worth pointing out one thing: this is a progressive discussion forum and the energy policy I endorse is based on energy efficiency and 100% renewables. It is recognized by virtually every independent energy expert as the most rapid, least cost path to a carbon free economy for the US and the world. It is a policy embraced by virtually every progressive that claims the title.

You and the other nuclear supporters on the other hand are trying to promote a recognized dead end energy source that is the least publicly acceptable of all ways of generating power. It has long been a darling of the republican party and in the last campaign was embraced by McCain with a pledge to build 100 new plants if he were elected. While a small number of progressives will accept nuclear power because of concern about climate change, the idea that a progessive forum is dominated by the vanishingly small number of rabid pronuclear progressives is a statistical anomaly that probably rivals winning the MegaMillions jackpot.

When you add to that the fact that the American Nuclear Society and the Nuclear Energy Institute both expend vast resources promoting the nuclear gospel with thousands of volunteers and paid operatives, then we can get a sense of where the probabilities lie regarding whose message is more a product of sincere beliefs and whose is influenced by dark motives.

[Dead_Parrot]

31. Kris, you've said you're an independant analyst

Wrapping it up in a consultancy business is the most logical structure, unless you just work for brown envelopes stuffed with cash.

Why the chagrin?

[XemaSab]

36. Two things:

First of all, I've been more than forthright about my professional work with different utilities and power companies.

To wit, I have worked on hydropower, solar, natural gas, and coal projects. (The coal project was an exciting two days of calling governmental offices in different states to try to figure out what needed to happen for a coal plant with CCS to move forward.)

I wish you would show equal forthrightness with regards to your professional associations.

Secondly, your tone certainly makes it sound like you would prefer coal to nuclear. This is a strange preference for someone in a left-leaning environmental discussion forum to take. Care to elaborate on that?

[kristopher]

37. What consulting company?

It's a simple question. You wrote, "What does your consulting company do then? You hire yourself out to other firms to sit and post on the internet all day?"

You aren't speaking hypothetically, you were making a statement that asserts you have knowledge of my personal life. Are you stalking me off of DU?

[XemaSab]

38. Here's the deal:

Saying that you have a consulting company was a bit of a roll of the dice.

A stab in the dark, if you will.

Now I am completely convinced that you DO have a consulting company.

So what does it do?

I'm honest with you and everyone else here about my financial ties to Big Energy.

Why are you less than forthcoming?

[kristopher]

39. Bullpucky. You've been party to stalking me off of DU.

You were not hypothesizing, it is crystal clear from the content of your post that you were stating something you knew. I don't mind actually, or I wouldn't have shared my real name with several EE posters. I just wanted you to admit what you've been doing.

This isn't the first time you've tried this type of smear.
April 2011 I explained fully what I'm doing here after you started the same thing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285888

Or here when Josh did it behind my back, posts 19 then 110-114
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124020508

This current instance is probably approaching 10 times I've addressed this issue. Here is another time when I volunteered the information because I was asking another poster if they had a conflict of interest. I'm not linking to it because it I don't want it to seem like a call out.

"'I'm an independent self-funded researcher who has worked for 8 years trying to identify the type and source of misinformation in the public debate over energy.

I have a background in cultural anthropology and am trained on the subject of carbon mitigation policy, strategies and technologies. My professional profile would place me as an energy policy analyst specializing in the transition to a noncarbon economy."

My sole financial stake in this effort lies strictly with small possibility that I might attempt to publish the results of my research in the popular press as a book, which again would not depend on the success or failure of any technology.

As to your "discovery" that I have a consulting company that uses my name as its name, yes, I do. I started it in about 2006 because I needed a vehicle to be paid on a state contract from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for an outreach effort where I spent the summer going around the fresh water fishing spots in the state talking to fishermen directly to get their help in spreading the word about toxins in the fish and what the safe consumption limits are.

That is the one and only time that "company" has transacted any business. I do keep it alive in order to have it available if I decide to do something other than what I'm doing now - an effort for which I receive no compensation of any kind.

You say you are honest about your ties to "Big energy"? Then it wouldn't bother you to do as I did. You could if you wished email me your name so that I can do as you did and check your background. I'm sure you have my non-DU email address.

It is worth pointing out one thing: this is a progressive discussion forum and the energy policy I endorse is based on energy efficiency and 100% renewables. It is recognized by virtually every independent energy expert as the most rapid, least cost path to a carbon free economy for the US and the world. It is a policy embraced by virtually every progressive that claims the title.

You and the other nuclear supporters on the other hand are trying to promote a recognized dead end energy source that is the least publicly acceptable of all ways of generating power. It has long been a darling of the republican party and in the last campaign was embraced by McCain with a pledge to build 100 new plants if he were elected. While a small number of progressives will accept nuclear power because of concern about climate change, the idea that a progessive forum is dominated by the vanishingly small number of rabid pronuclear progressives is a statistical anomaly that probably rivals winning the MegaMillions jackpot.

When you add to that the fact that the American Nuclear Society and the Nuclear Energy Institute both expend vast resources promoting the nuclear gospel with thousands of volunteers and paid operatives, then we can get a sense of where the probabilities lie regarding whose message is more a product of sincere beliefs and whose is influenced by dark motives.

Probabilities are just that, they aren't proof of anything. But they do give a good indication of where to look first for explanations.

[joshcryer]

40. You said you weren't paid.

I'm confused. So when you made that post you were outright lying. That's precious.

Just to clarify something, you're the one making shit personal with people (I think half the people here have been called a shill by you), if you drop breadcrumbs don't expect them to not follow them, imo.

Full disclosure is good.

[kristopher]

42. How do you arrive at that logic?

Outreach to fishermen on a public safety issue related to contaminated fish has nothing to do with energy.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. OK, I'm confused

Are you you saying you haven't been paid for energy analysis work?

[kristopher]

50. Finally you are listening, but you still aren't quite getting it.

I'm a RESEARCHER who is qualified as an energy policy analyst. I'm fortunate enough to be in a position to do what I choose to do, not what I have to do to earn money. I stopped "working" in 2001 and have since been engaged in an effort to better understand the world around me and to try, in some minor way, to contribute to its betterment.

I am beholden to no one or no thing except my own values and ethics.

[GliderGuider]

53. That's a nice cushy role you've chosen for yourself there.

I'd bet less that 1% of the people in the USA have that luxury.

Too bad understanding the world around you doesn't come with more tolerance for the other views you find in it.

[kristopher]

54. Who said it is a luxury?

It took careful planning and downsizing our lives to a very modest lifestyle but it is a direction we both wanted to move our lives in after our children went on their own.

It isn't tolerance for other *views* that is lacking GG, it is tolerance for misrepresentation of basic fact; and I have no desire to change that.

[XemaSab]

55. Irony's not dead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112712905#post5

Also, given your level of education and the opportunities that you've had, if you think your greatest potential contribution to the world is trying to "fact check" people on the internet, well, there's a vast difference between modesty and very, very, very low personal standards.

[kristopher]

56. Poor Xemasab... What's the specific *market* mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal?

Enough catering to your intrusion into my private life.

Picking up where we left off:

I don't deny that you can, by government fiat, build nuclear plants and shut down coal plants. However in today's world that is not a highly likely scenario. We have a world if interlocking economies and trading which results in rule-making that favors the interest of private property. You can rewrite some of those rules to change the direction of the energy systems, however, the mechanism that you use anywhere in the western world is not going to allow either the overt defacto or dejure expropriation of private property, which is what you are suggesting.

The process of shutting down the nuclear plants in Germany began in 2000 and was reversed just prior to Fukushima; which opened a rare window of opportunity where existing strong public sentiment and a just changed hold-over policy combined with a world class disaster to allow the mechanism of Germany's social democracy to accomplish a rare event - they stripped their utilities of private property rights related to operation of the nuclear plants.

In the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of the nuclear enthusiast, there are definite constraints on the policies a nation can push through. Nuclear cannot compete in any market for energy without massive government funding and the appetite for continued funding of this very mature industry is gone. It has delivered only rising prices, a litany of dangers and empty promises to do better in a future that never comes.

Nuclear power today cannot displace coal for they both benefit from the rules that are designed to promote the interests of the centralized utilities - which are solidly built around large-scale centralized thermal generation.

Finally if we could just direct the change of the system by a single order as you are suggesting what in the world makes you think we would do it on behalf of nuclear power? We have a global economy where nuclear will play, at most, no more than a small, fractional role. That being the case it is more of an obstruction than an aid in the pursuit of a true carbon free economy built on distributed renewable energy.

This paper makes the case very well, I suggest you read it for understanding instead of just looking through it trying to find something to nitpick, as is your custom.

Amory Lovins: “But nuclear power is about the least effective method: It does save carbon, but about 2 to 20 times less per dollar and 20 to 40 times less per year than buying its winning competitors”.

Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats: Improving electrical efficiency is nearly seven times more cost-effective than nuclear power for abating CO2 emissions, in the United States.

Environment California: “Per dollar spent over the lifetime of the technology, energy efficiency and biomass co-firing are five times more effective at preventing carbon dioxide pollution and combined heat and power is greater than three times more effective” than nuclear power.

Warwick Business School: The undermining of other technologies means that nuclear power is not complementary to other low- carbon technologies. This refutes the argument that all low-carbon technologies should, and are able to, be harnessed together so that they can harmoniously work together to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On the contrary, the government has to make a choice between a nuclear future and one dominated by renewable generation and the more efficient use of energy.

Duke University: “Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, professor of economics.

http://boell.eu/downloads/Froggatt_Schneider_Systems_for_Change.pdf

You and DP need to remember that this is the wish list for those utilities that are really being hurt by the policies of Germany that are moving the country towards a renewable distributed grid. They ARE NOT making this transition voluntarily, they are being downsized by new economic policies regarding renewables that work within boundaries of acceptable market economics. This article is the context for the utility wish list in the OP. The government is in a rulemaking phase and the list above is what the utilities would like to see to preserve their corporate power. We will see how much of their program survives the Environment Minister.

Merkel To Meet Power Companies On German Energy Future
04/24/2012 | 10:55am

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has invited the country's four main utilities to a May 2 meeting to begin hashing out how best to fill the void in its future energy capacity, a year after she decided to rapidly shift away from nuclear power.

The meeting comes after Germany pledged a complete exit from nuclear energy by 2022 and a massive push into renewable energy. The move led to the country's main utilities suffering sharp falls in revenues and earnings, having to implement complex restructuring plans and, in some cases, seeking billions of euros in compensation from the government.

In May, Merkel will face the chief executives of those utilities--E.ON AG (>> E.ON AG), RWE AG (>> RWE AG), EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG (>> Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG), and Vattenfall Europe, a unit of Sweden's state-controlled Vattenfall AB--as well as representatives from Siemens AG (SI) and from power network operators. They will discuss how to approach the transformation in the country's energy mix, a government official said Tuesday.

...

Utilities complain that the rapid expansion of solar and wind energy has made it more difficult to operate and keep profitable fossil-fueled power plants. Germany gives priority to renewable energy, while fossil-fueled plants can feed their power only in to the grid when wind and sun power doesn't meet demand.

http://www.4-traders.com/E-ON-AG-3818998/news/Merkel-To-Meet-Power-Companies-On-German-Energy-Future-14292053/

[GliderGuider]

57. You can frame it however you want for yourself

But I can tell you that from out here your attitude often makes interacting with you extremely unpleasant. In fact you often come across as an intolerant dick. That's one of the reasons you get such nasty responses. You may not mind that, but it damages the DU experience for many of us.

[kristopher]

58. That perception by you and yours developed in direct proportion

to the hardening of my position on nuclear power.

It is that opposition that has earned me your resentment GG. The nuclear supporters here have been trying to run me off ever since I first started questioning their BS.

[GliderGuider]

59. Oh, my perception goes back a lot further than that.

Your explanation smacks of self-justification. You've been a PITA much longer than that. In fact, my first exchange with you on DU five years ago devolved to you imperiously ordering me to withdraw an internet article I'd written that dissed the potential of renewable power to solve the energy crisis precipitated by Peak Oil. Things have not improved since then.

[kristopher]

60. "imperiously ordering"?

That's too bad you remember it that way. What I recall was an long screed filled with misinformation designed to deflate the belief that renewables were able to meet our needs - a position contradicted by every peer reviewed energy study out there.
You further led the gullible reader to the conclusion that if there was any hope for us at all, it was in the bare possibility that nuclear just might be something we could do.

Yes, I recall pointing all of that out to you, but it was largely in private emails as I recall. As for ordering you to do anything...

[GliderGuider]

61. The issue isn't whether we were right or wrong

It's about the tone of the "conversation". The simple fact that neither of us has changed our position on that issue in the five years since then illustrates how pointless it is to get confrontational on the net. You may think you are protecting the gullible, and that your intemperance is therefore justified, but it AFAICT it does little beyond poisoning the well.

[XemaSab]

41. Turnabout is fair play

If someone disagrees with you, then the person must obviously be a paid shill.

Since you disagree with me, you must be a paid shill.

Oh, and in the interests of continued disclosure, my current job involves (in part) finding holes in other peoples' arguments. I charge $35 an hour. If you want to give me any work, shoot me a PM and we'll set something up.

[kristopher]

43. Again...

It is worth pointing out one thing: this is a progressive discussion forum and the energy policy I endorse is based on energy efficiency and 100% renewables. It is recognized by virtually every independent energy expert as the most rapid, least cost path to a carbon free economy for the US and the world. It is a policy embraced by virtually every progressive that claims the title.

You and the other nuclear supporters on the other hand are trying to promote a recognized dead end energy source that is the least publicly acceptable of all ways of generating power. It has long been a darling of the republican party and in the last campaign was embraced by McCain with a pledge to build 100 new plants if he were elected. While a small number of progressives will accept nuclear power because of concern about climate change, the idea that a progessive forum is dominated by the vanishingly small number of rabid pronuclear progressives is a statistical anomaly that probably rivals winning the MegaMillions jackpot.

When you add to that the fact that the American Nuclear Society and the Nuclear Energy Institute both expend vast resources promoting the nuclear gospel with thousands of volunteers and paid operatives, then we can get a sense of where the probabilities lie regarding whose message is more a product of sincere beliefs and whose is influenced by dark motives.

And since DP has read at least one of my papers you KNOW I am what I say I am.

[XemaSab]

44. So you think I am influenced by dark motives?

Right now I'm sitting here in my beat up old chair with a basket of laundry and "Ecotopia Emerging" on one side, this stupid document on the other side, and dogs all around my feet. I've got my hiking boots, my Wigwam socks, my brown cords, my Mazama shirt, and my Montezuma quail hat on. (I got the hat in Portal, Arizona, so you know it's legit.)

The only dark motives I am looking to be influenced by are a burrito and a Sierra Nevada pale ale. And you know what, since I got paid today, I can make this happen. It's not even a paycheck from the abandoned nuclear warhead facility, either.

Why don't you have a beer too?

See, you seem to be thinking that the people on here have nothing better to do than talk about you behind your back. Maybe everyone else on here talks about you behind your back, but if so, that's a loop I'm not in. Personally, I don't find you either interesting enough or annoying enough to talk about.

Maybe if you drank a beer it might give you a better sense of perspective.

[kristopher]

45. An business license that hasn't been used in 6 years doesn't turn up on a routine google search.

[XemaSab]

46. It shows up on the special google

[XemaSab]

47. Oh, wait, sorry

I mean "I never googled you."

What search terms would I even use?

Delaware wind blowhard consultant shill offshore low bid Frito-Lay?

[FBaggins]

49. It's so cute that you think EITHER has anything to do with market forces.

Neither option has an impact on coal in a totally free market. Both require central (i.e. government) direction in order to impact coal generation. It really doesn't matter whether the policy direction uses the market to enforce what it wants, or just passes a law saying that a certain percentage much come from a given area, or uses regulation/fees to make coal more expensive. It's all the same thing. Someone other than the guy who would profit from selling the cheapest/dirtiest power has to have the authority to force/encourage it to happen.

This really isn't complicated at all. Whoever it is that's planning to meet electrical demand for a given grid knows that demand will never fall below some level. I don't care whether you call that "base load" or "purple penguins"... the reality is the same. Whatever portion of that baseload is carried by nuclear/hydro will not be carried by coal/gas (obviously some bio/geo fits in there as well - with similar benefit). Solar/Wind can replace much of the fuel burned to meet the variable part of demand, but can't do much to replace the capacity. If governmental decisions mean (as was the case in that natgas example we spoke of some months ago) that a particular peaking plant can only sell their wares a smal percentage of the time and can't get compensated enough to compensate them for the small period of time they're needed... they'll shut down. But it's sill to call that "market forces". It's the government's decision... just as much as the collapse of many renewables companies after subsidies are withdrawn has little to do with the "market" even the the government used the market to kill them.

[kristopher]

51. You really haven't got a clue and are not interested in learning.

Government doesn't just willy-nilly write rules. There are extremely complex obstacles to overcome to implement changes that radically alter the balance of power within the economic systems.

There is no existing path for nuclear to displace coal and no likelihood of one being crafted.

[Yo_Mama]

6. At least there is an increase in storage

Transformations don't happen overnight.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Pity they didn't give capacity figures, though... nt

[Nihil]

12. Umm ... did you mean a different type of "capacity"?

> Pity they didn't give capacity figures, though...

.0>

Operator Location Fuel Capacity Start Date
...
E.ON Wasserkraft Waldeck II pumped storage 300 2015/6***
...
Schluchseewerke Atorf pumped storage 1400 2018****
Trianel Simmerath pumped storage 640 2019****
Trianel Nethe/Hoexter pumped storage 390 2018****
...

AT PLANNING STAGE
...
Trier utility Schweich pumped storage 300 2017
...
Jochenstein Jochenstein/Riedl pumped storage 300 2018
Mainz utility Heimbach pumped storage 500 2019
Trianel Gotha/Schmalwasser pumped storage 1000 2019
EnBW Forbach (extension) pumped storage 200 no date
...

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Sorry, I meant as in MWh

So, is Jochenstein 150MWh (300MW for 30 minutes), or 3600MWh (300MW for 12 hours), or ... ?

[Nihil]

15. OK - that makes sense.

Thanks.

[joshcryer]

25. The fucking coal will be economically unextractable by 2035.

Gone. Kaput. Used up.

Standard operating procedure, for sure.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Economies of scale

[div style="width: 70%"]

[joshcryer]

32. No, I mean, I guess I should say it will be declining at that point.

So that only would speed the decline. Production will peak actually around 2020 but it will be on a rapid decline by the late 2030s.

To think, when I was a kid I read a book written in the 50s about how we had enough coal to last 500 years...

[Dead_Parrot]

33. Not sure that applies to German lignite...

...the shitty stuff the pics relate to. reserves of ~40Bb, extraction rate of ~.2Bt/yr suggest they can feed the beast for a while.

Unfortunately.

[joshcryer]

35. Oops, see post #34, I replied to myself!

[joshcryer]

34. See these comments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x265961

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Yes, Germany has a lot of coal, so does the USA, but IMHO, we're using it at a remarkable rate.

For what it's worth I do not think it is possible that we will leave it in the ground outside of some technological innovation (beyond fission) that makes current energy methods obsolete.

[madokie]

16. Still doesn't make it right to use nuclear power

If what is going on in Japan right now is not all the argument we need to put an end to nuclear power then nothing other than a situation likewise here will do it. I am worried that we are going to wake one morning with an exodus of people running for their lives due to one of our aging nuclear power plants going belly up, for whatever reason. The reason will matter not at that time, the fact it has will very much so.
As long as we rely on splitting atoms we won't get to where we need to be. We can do it without nuclear in the mix and its far too dangerous to continue to use it. IMO

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Fair enough...

...and I'm not going to start anything. But hopefully you see where the argument comes from, even though you disagree.