Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum"...a bit of cognitive dissonance for solar power haters with breakfast this morning"
FEBRUARY 9, 2012 BY ZACHARY SHAHAN
Remember last year when Germany decided to speed up its phasing out of nuclear power and switch to clean energy and everyone (not in the clean energy industry) got freaked out about how German electricity prices would rise and the country would just start importing electricity from Frances nuclear power plants?
Well, as I just wrote, it seems pretty clear that solar photovoltaics are bringing down the cost of electricity in Germany. Additionally, electricity imports to France have been increasing!
Because France has so much nuclear power, the country has an inordinate number of electric heating systems. And because France has not added on enough additional capacity over the past decade, the countrys current nuclear plants are starting to have trouble meeting demand, especially when it gets very cold in the winter, Craig Morris of Renewables International writes.
... power exports from Germany to France reached 4 to 5 gigawatts the equivalent of around four nuclear power plants last Friday morning according to German journalist Bernward Janzing. It was not exactly a time of low consumption in Germany either at 70 gigawatts around noon on Friday, but Janzing nonetheless reports that the grid operators said everything was under control, and the countrys emergency reserves were not being tapped. On the contrary, he reports that a spokesperson for transit grid operator Amprion told him that photovoltaics in southern Germany is currently helping us a lot....
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I was hoping it would be one of the ones from a couple days back that gushed about how things had gotten cold but Germany was doing fine while nuclear France was struggling (a non sequitor, but whatever)... but this is close enough.
Missed the news today, eh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11276304
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That's not exactly the massive blackouts and national economic disaster you were predicting, is it?
I'm sure you think that is some sort of refutation of the OP but I don't see events discussed in the OP that way. This is more representative the reality that German energy policy is building upon:
OTTAWA For at least eight hours Monday, Ontario is once again forecast to produce more electricity than it consumes, and the recurring glut has one top energy executive warning of temporary nuclear power plant shutdowns.
We have largely been able to avoid nuclear shutdowns to deal with the (surplus) conditions but this may not be the case in the near future, Paul Murphy, head of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), recently told an industry gathering.
His comment is raising questions about Ontarios plans to boost nuclear power as the provinces chief source of energy.
Nuclear-generated power supplies about 57 per cent of Ontarios electricity. Based on the provinces assumption that demand will grow moderately over the long term, multi-billion-dollar projects are contemplated for new reactors and refurbishments of existing ones.
The problem is, unlike wind...
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Ontario+power+glut+means+possible+nuclear+plant+shutdowns/6105634/story.html
The more renewables are installed the more this becomes an existential problem for coal and nuclear. They are forced to shut down more and more often, meaning that the amount of power they sell is reduced.
Fuel as a portion of their overhead is rather small,and the reduced sales lowers their income by more than it reduces their fuel costs; meaning they have a shortfall which has to be made up by charging more for the power they *are* able to sell.
This increase in cost, in turn, makes renewables more competitive leading to more capacity being installed.
A perfect descending spiral for both coal and nuclear unless governments step in to prop them up with artificially high prices on the electricity they produce.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11275859
AND
Germany has the wind at its back
MATTHEW WRIGHT ABC Environment 9 FEB 2012
THE recent clinching of a $1.9 billion Australian defence contract by the Germans illustrates to carbon price knockers that they need look no further for proof that an economy which relies on renewable energy can outsmart one dependent on fossil fuels.
Germany's electricity sector delivers 21 per cent of its power from renewable sources, such as the wind and the sun. Just 8.5 per cent of Australian power is provided by these sources, despite the fact that our continent has them in spades compared to the Germans.
...
How is it possible that a nation shouldering the lion's share of bailing out Europe's basket-case economies has its finances in the best shape ever in two decades?
The yearly German unemployment rate keeps falling and at 6.7 per cent in January was the lowest since reunification. The Berlin based BGA Exporters and Wholesalers group estimated total German exports hit a record $US1.3 trillion last year.
This is hardly a picture of an economy that has been struggling ...
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/02/09/3426757.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11276295
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Or, having ruled out storage, nuclear, hydro, & geothermal what option you think they should have.
Pointing to an article that describes the chaos in Ontario's grid isn't helping you as much as you think.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I'm sure you think that is some sort of refutation of the OP
It's more a refutation of the articles of the last couple days looking at just the start of the cold snap and pronouncing that Germany's shift has been successful. That fell on it's face this morning.
It's also a refutation of your predictions from last summer... as you will no doubt now mis-remember.
Or... perhaps you'll continue to spam the thread with anything else you've posted recently since you apparently think that keystroke count is a measure of credibility.
Think back now to July when Germany was considering placing one recently shutdown reactor into a backup mode in case of cold weather. You were told that it was either that or LOTS more fossil fuel generation. You rubbished the claim. They decided that the nuclear plant wasn't going to be needed... that they would instead bring coal plants out of retirement and add more gas generation as well as add some older Austrian plants in as a backup.
Well today we read that all of those plants (and then some) are running and five reactors are restarting.
The power shortage in France argues against you as well... but I expect that to be a harder concept to present. Perhaps we'll save it for another time.
FB: "Where did I predict canadian blackouts?"
That was poorly laid out on my part; you predicted massive blackouts and economic failure for Germany not Canada. The reality has been that Germany has been coping very well without those nuclear plants in both meeting energy needs and meeting their (far more ambitious than the US CO2 reduction goals. Pointing to one shortfall in the first year of the transition is evidence of little more than your desperation to preserve nuclear power.
The OP is a trend that is going to continue. Your reply (which you admit is inappropriate to the OP) is of a rare event that will become far more rare as the new renewable grid takes shape.
The article about Canada points out the economic reality that is the basis of Germany's pre-Fukushima decision to move away from nuclear. In a renewable grid there is no economic niche for nuclear or coal.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)But there's a big niche for gas, isn't there? Why are you so adverse to admitting this?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You know absolutely nothing about power systems.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)backed up by article which said "if youre going to add supply, it probably should be supply that you can turn off when you dont need it"
Are you now disagreeing with the article? If so, why do you keep posting it?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)From Citigroup's 2008 analysis on replacing Britain's existing nuclear fleet of smaller reactors with Areva's 1300MW reactor:
Using a guestimate of average size of the current reactor fleet as 800MW that means nuclear requires a spinning reserve requirement of about 50%.
for every new EPR build in the UK an additional 260MW of spinning reserve would be required at £1.3-2.1/MWh.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)There are more than a couple reactors around the world, right? Surely there's some data on actual spinning reserves and maybe some way to guestimate the proportion of that necessary for the reactors (obviously the larger the local grid, the less spinning reserve each individual generator needs).
So why not post that?
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)It's not like citi have a track record for financial wizardry.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)...than who they choose to trust to provide them with analysis.
It's just some guy in Canada with a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering who worked a minor job for a small energy company (focusing on run-of-river hydro power). He now specialized in consulting on wind power projects.
Why Citi thinks this guy has any value to add to planning a national grid and identifying reserve needs for nuclear plants... is beyond me.
Why Kris so often relies on this irrelevant analysis, however, is not. It's because there are no legitimate sources saying anything like this... so it's what he's stuck with.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)PB Power = http://www.pbworld.com/capabilities_projects/power_energy/
PB World's power and energy division.
Investment reports like that of Citigroup are an excellent source of independent data. This class of data has issues with self interest but that places it in the same class as both governmental information and data provided by an industry.
If you have data that contracts Citigroup's report then post it. Otherwise all you are doing is engaging in ad hominem.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Can you by any chance find the analysis they did? The only reference to the quote I can find is to the citigroup piece.
It would be interesting to see how well the statement matches up with the entire analysis.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)That's the strawman that the articles built for debate purposes.
What I did say was that they would build more coal/gas (they have and are), would burn more fossil at ezxisting plants (they have and are), they would import more and export less (all true), and in the extreme could have to turn reactors back on (apparently the case today).
They're a modern country. Blackouts from such poor decision-making are possible, but not necessary. They're not going to cling to their bad decisions so tightly that they let people die rather than turn a generator back on (it is politicians making this decision after all). If they did cling to it, yes, it looks like there would be blackouts this week... and dead Germans as a result. But I wouldn't predict that Germans would suddenly become idiots.
reality has been that Germany has been coping very well without those nuclear plants
Did you miss today's news? Let me revisit my comment from the other current thread:
You're looking at the days where generation has been high. Obviously the more variable generation to implement, the greater the gap between the high and low point in your cycle. You can't just look at the highs and declare success because hundreds of people dyign with the heat or A/C cut out is not acceptable in a 1st-world economy.
Pointing to one shortfall in the first year of the transition is evidence of little more than your desperation to preserve nuclear power.
One shortfall? Add up the five reactors plus the multiple retired dirty coal plants that were broght back on line. How much of that original 8-reactor capacity have they been able to do without?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Shouldn't be hard to find.
The things I did predict have already occured.
I remember posting a article from a british paper saying that they were "bracing for blackouts"... but I wouldn't have predicted them. As I said... why have a blackout when you have nuclear neighbors happy to extort you for the power you need? Why have a blackout when you have lots of antique coal generation that you can bring back?
On edit - That thread I hinted you should look at was an article saying they were considering restarting one of their retiring reactors to avoid blackouts... but to prove my point, they would obviously rather restart five than accept a blackout.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and I posted an article about a nuclear plant that had been running for 60 years with no shutdowns other than for scheduled maintenance, you would call bullshit.
If the issue at hand is that a grid with high renewable penetration may not be reliable, and you post an article about how well renewable energy is doing on a totally different continent, then I will NOT call bullshit, I will kindly point it out to you in hopes that it was a simple error on your part and not a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)It's so hard to keep up. I must need another coffee...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your preference for ambiguity makes meaningful communication difficult. Works well towards snark though; which I suppose is why you prefer it.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)...that comment is too ambiguous, and you can't figure out the subject?