(Edited as faulty reporting) Cold snap forces Germany to restart nuclear reactors

[FBaggins]

Last edited Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

The original story appears to be the result of faulty translating and insufficient verification by Japantoday. An apparently much more accurate story can be found at the following link. The thrust of the story is similar (Germany is having trouble keeping the grid stable after a poor decision), but the reality is nowhere near as bleak as restarting multiple reactors would imply.

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Germany_forced_to_tap_into_electricity_reserves_999.html

The OP follows

The cold snap gripping Europe has forced Germany, which decided last year to abandon nuclear power, to bring several reactors back on line, the daily Handelsblatt reports in its Thursday issue. The cold related surge in electricity demand prompted Germany’s network operators to call upon nuclear power plants left in reserve as a “preventative measure”, a spokeswoman for Tennet, one of the operators, told the newspaper.

In the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan last March, which prompted radiation to leak at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Germany decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022.

Eight of Germany’s 17 reactors were immediately taken off line, but five of them are serving as reserve generators in case electricity demand cannot be met from other sources. In December, Germany imported power from neighboring Austria to stabilize its network.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/cold-snap-forces-germany-to-restart-nuclear-reactors

[Dead_Parrot]

1. At least this happened before they finished their new coal build out. nt

[FBaggins]

2. Unfortunately... that's not as much of a bonus as you might think.

They immediately started bringing much older (read "dirtier&quot coal plants out of retirement. So this lesson only helps if they change course and decide not to build them.

Worse yet, it isn't just a short-term issue. They've only closed eight of their reactors. There are plenty more to come. So as they bring new coal (and renewables) generation online, they can't count on re-retiring the old coal... because they'll be replacing newly-retired nuclear.

The next several years could see lots of this. Some of the usual suspects will predictably pick a high-renewable-generation time period to declare success (as we've seen often enough)... but people need to keep the heat on all winter long (not just when the wind is blowing). Hundreds of people are dying in Europe... not maybe getting a 2% greater chance of cancer over a lifetime. Reliable power is important.

What they can't seem to see is that when your demand varies between 10-12 GWs and you have a generation portfolio that provides somewhere between 5-15 GWs at any given moment... that's really not a good thing. And it doesn't become a good thing when you point to the day that was at 15 and crow that non-intermittent generation had to be shut down.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. IIRC...

...the phase-out requires a huge jump in coal generation for 10+ years. Apparently, getting 20% of your power from renewables is more important than getting 50% of it from non-carbon sources.

Sigh.

[FBaggins]

4. Well... coal and/or gas.

They were already building a number of new coal plants prior to the decision (and some of those were still under debate), so it's hard to parse out how much of the new construction is "new in response to the nuclear closings"...

...I think it's fair to say that they're leaning more toward gas than coal in their response to the generation gap (while obviously trying to close as much as possible with renewables). Gas also fits better in a high-renewables-penetration portfolio, so that could impact the decision as well.

Still fossil generation in response to reduced nuclear generation... but not necessarily primarily coal.

[Yo_Mama]

17. They are

At least that's what I get from the BNetzA published scenarios for the gas grid.

http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=8572

The "high need" scenario apparently assumes that some of the roadblocks in place for other generation don't get cleared.

It will be interesting to see how they move on this.
http://www.netzentwicklungsplan-gas.de/undefined/

This has been a mild winter for Germany, but they will have more typical ones. The nice thing about the gas piece is that it can be designed independently of the whole grid/storage roadblock, so maybe they could dump some of the coal plants.

[kristopher]

5. As usual you are suffering from selective recall

The phase out "requires" no jump in coal generation at all and a "no coal" course of development has been fully articulated and recommended by the Environment Ministry. What the Conservative Pro-Nuclear, Pro-Coal Merkel Government actually does is still in flux.

[FBaggins]

6. Looks like the actual environment it showing the environment ministry...

...that they don't know what they're talking about.

[msongs]

7. "as usual you..." how does that comment contribute to the dialog did you say? nt

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Well, no...

...They could use gas. But since they are already building the coal plants , it seemed too unlikely to consider. My bad.

[wtmusic]

9. Ironically, this stop/start business will make it more dangerous for the German public.

and when they've finally pulled the plug and are "safe", Austria will be more than happy to supply them from Zwentendorf with the exhorbitant rates they deserve.

People are just stupid.

[Yo_Mama]

10. I think this is false

Are we sure this happened?

In August 2011, BNetzA published a report saying that the Tennet Austrian agreement plus the backup from the older fossil plants to be restarted could handle the situation:
http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/BNetzA/PressSection/ReportsPublications/2011/110831NuclearPowerExitSummaryReport.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

If that's wrong, it's big news. The problem is that you can't just start up a nuclear reactor very quickly, nor can you just shut it down. They are not designed to serve this purpose. This is utterly idiotic if it happened. You're not increasing safety - you're worsening it versus continuing operation.

Are you sure this is correct? I'm not impugning your integrity, but I don't believe it, and I found at least one source which says the report was false:
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Cold_snap_forces_Germany_to_restart_nuclear_reactors_report_999.html

The article refers to the original Handelsblatt report, which I think was based on confusion about the BNetzA emergency plan. I think they followed their plan as laid out in August and restarted the coal plants, plus pulled in the Austrian surplus.

In Handelsblatt I find an article about France needing to import energy from Germany, but none about the restart of the nuclear reactors:
http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/trotz-atomkraft-frankreich-braucht-strom-aus-deutschland/6183254.html
http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/trotz-atomausstiegs-deutschland-exportiert-strom-nach-frankreich/6183796.html

What those say is that Germany's arrangements worked well enough that they exported electricity to France due to its shortfall from the severe cold "in spite of the nuclear shutdown".

[FBaggins]

11. I'm not. It's interesting that it hasn't hit a bigger news outlet.

It's possible that they restarted five plants that they had set aside as backup and someone misconstrued that to be a particular type of plant.

OTOH, the cold snap in Europe is reportedly much worse than they planned for. Other countries are running short on power compared to demand without any challenges comparable to Germany.

An additional possibility is that Germany by itself isn't short, but That Europe as a whole is struggling and Germany can't carry the weight they historically have been able to shoulder.

No doubt we'll learn more shortly.

[Yo_Mama]

12. I think this article was mistranslated

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.handelsblatt.com%2Funternehmen%2Findustrie%2Fengpass-in-sueddeutschland-stromnetzbetreiber-kaempfen-gegen-blackout%2F6186770.html

This refers to the restart of the German fossil fuel plants.

[FBaggins]

13. Seems like it.

The link in your last post seems to match what I thought might have gone wrong and this pretty much confirms it.

Still a big concern that they're at the extreme end of their backup plan if they can't count on a significant portion of their portfolio, but they could get lucky with more amply endowed neighbors of the weather may not get any worse. A clear indictment of their decision, but not the slap in the face restarting multiple reactors would be.

Still... the OP appears to be flat wrong. In another forum I would delete it, but I'd prefer to own errors that I post rather than appear to hide them.

Thanks!

Here's a much more accurate version of the story -

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Germany_forced_to_tap_into_electricity_reserves_999.html

[XemaSab]

14. I can lock it if you want

[FBaggins]

15. Nah... even that would probably be misconstrued. And I keep forgetting about DU3's enhancements.

I can correct the OP long after it's posted (and have done so).

Locking the thread would deprive a few anti-nuke advocates of an opportunity to take an easy jab.

I should have realized that you can't kick start a reactor overnight and something had to be wrong with the story.

[XemaSab]

16. Word