Siemens Says German Energy Switch on Track for Failure on Costs
bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/siemens-says-ge...
bloomberg.comPosted May 4, 2013, 1:09 PM UTC
3041
bloomberg.comI never understood why anyone would ever want to reduce their usage of nuclear power.
Germany's change in policy occurred right after the Fukushima accident, which makes me think it was either an emotionally motivated move or someone used people's emotions to cause the phase-out for their own gains.
I just can't see any logical reason to phase out pre-existing nuclear reactors.
12
The phase-out was certainly accelerated after Fukushima, but it's a pretty old policy. There seem to be quite a few reasons, ranging from a deep-seated pacifism and distrust of nuclear technology in general following WWII to concern following Chernobyl (to which Germany was relatively more exposed than much of the rest of Europe), fear of nuclear weapons during the Cold War (again, Germany was much closer to the action), to a political system that allows fringe parties such as the greens to get into power.
It's certainly an emotional reaction, but it's the very thing that gives nuclear so much potential - a vast concentration of energy in one place - that seems to trigger a fundamental distrust in the national psyche. To an extent, it's quite understandable given all the things the country went through in the 20th century, but in today's world where climate change and energy shortages are some of the biggest threats we face and nuclear is safer than ever it does seem rather irrational.
I'll admit that much of this is speculation. Any Germans or genuine historians, feel free to correct me.
12
It's pure nonsense to link Germany's decision to emotions mainly. No, it's not "nonsense", it's actually a common cheap strategy to belittle another pushing one's agenda, like commercial fission. Actually Germany has a very high educational level, even a lot of knowledge the US gained about nukes came from Hitler's scientists. I think, they are just two steps ahead. Again.
-6
even a lot of knowledge the US gained about nukes came from Hitlers scientists.
Which backs up the point I was trying to make. The fear (call it what you like, but that's what it is) of nuclear power stems from real concerns about the abuse of technology and the abuse of power in general, but I believe these concerns are mostly irrelevant today. I'm not saying Germans are uneducated, I'm saying they're being irrational.
Germany has one of the best regulated, safest, most economically successful nuclear power industries of any nation on earth. If the national distrust of nuclear power was really for the reasons anti-nuclear activists tend to claim (chief among which seem to be safety and economics), why is the same level of anti-nuclear vitriol not seen to an even greater degree in the US, UK, France, Sweden, Finland, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Japan etc., where at best one could claim that the standards of the industry are on a par with that of Germany and at worst can be well below that level? Or are Germans actually a people of superior intelligence and the rest of the world is simply a bit thick? Or maybe we're all under the influence of a giant military-industrial conspiracy?
10
Or maybe we're all under the influence of a giant military-industrial conspiracy?
Interesting for two reasons: 1st, usually commercial fission proponents try to hide the tight connection of the nuclear industry and the army
2nd, the "military-industrial-complex" is a quote from a legendary speech of Eisenhower, you sure heard about it.
And I wouldn't call the Germans superior intelligent, but you know, they have accepted and paid back for their cruelty against jews, roma and others, the same time they learned as a nation to resist industrial and political propaganda better than many others.
Other nations that did similar cruelties, genocides against native populations in order to raise artificial white territories outside Europe, have never paid back anything to their victims significantly, no real national memorial of cruelty (like in Germany Holocaust-memorials everywhere) and the same time seem a lot more susceptible to industrial and political propaganda.
-2
The USA has one of the best regulated, safest, most economically successful banking industries of any nation on earth. Do you trust these companies that they always do the right, safe things? Do you believe that these companies are controlled good enough by the government?
By the way, did you see how your nuclear plants are taped together?
-3
Those scientists weren't "Hitler's". Germans don't see everything German as Nazi, unlike some non-Germans.
0
I am Austrian, as Hitler, but yes, these scientist's where his, his disappointed ones, since Hitler didn't grant sufficient funds lacking the understanding of the potential of the technology. The happier they were with happy Americans who loved to give them as much support as they needed to get the bomb done. But if Hitler had funded them, they would have loved to build it at home, even Jews among them, believe it or not.
1
the phase out was put into law 10 years before fukushima. people really should know that by now..
7
But was being delayed until Fukushima when the sheeple went mad in fright of an imaginary threat and they reversed their decision and closed multiple plants.
4
Logic doesn't enter into these kinds of decisions.
2
Well, I am extremely surprised. No one ever guessed that something like this would happen
8
It's the weirdest thing, too... almost like harvesting energy and displacing existing infrastructure are not the same thing.
3
Sighhh... and the big elephant in the room that is Nuclear Energy and everyone seems to ignore it.
7
The Germans aren't ignoring nuclear energy, they are specifically excluding it.
4
I don't know much about what is going on in Europe but wouldn't gas fired generators be more economical if their carbon price wasn't down the toilet?
5
Well, coal would certainly be hit harder than gas, but I'm not sure what level the carbon price would need to be before gas was preferable for baseload generation in the short term. Long term, a reasonable carbon price would probably deter the construction of new coal plant, but it would take a much higher price to stop the operation of existing stations since fuel costs are so much lower than for gas power.
7
The problem is that you can green up a coal plant by adding some wood pellets to the load. You can also take to Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) from elsewhere. Power is traded by the hour but a REC isn't so you can take and dump a MWh of renewable power from say a thousand houses and that can green a MWh of baseload overnight. By dump, the generated power doesn't exactly get thrown away but it just gets sold on as non-renewable power when it can actually be used.
5
I've worked in coal and coke plants, and there is nothing you can add to make them 'green'.
They are disgusting. The sulfur, while technically natural, is disgusting. It gets everywhere, even with means to control it. It gets in the air, and adsorbs into your skin. You can still smell it coming out of you even when taking a shower hours or even a day later. The dust is disgusting and gets everywhere and blows everywhere... there's just nothing green about it.
8
I worked at the trading end of a energy company so see it from the other side. The SO2 can be removed (to be fair, reduced) with scrubbers and particulates with participators. The problem is they cost a lot to run and some end-of-lifed coal plants don't have very effective ones. So the word is that some energy companies have been able to secure waivers.
By "greening up", I'm actually referring to "green washing" so to speak where coal is made to appear greener than it actually is. That is, to use alternate fuels like wood pellets as supplements or to take RECs from green energy that is otherwise lost such as the bulk of domestic solar during the day and apply it to the coal. With low carbon emissions prices, this remains quite possible.
3
Can I ask you about your opinion on nuclear emissions from coal plants? I've read that they're worse than nuclear plants because they pump radioactive particles into the atmosphere while nukes keep them contained, but there doesn't seem to be a scientific consensus on that.
2
Interesting! In Australia we are seeing a few of our black coal plants shutting down primarily because they have become uneconomical due to a combination of fuel & carbon price (plus reduced demand). Brown coal is staying on because the fuel is so cheap.
I work for a vertically integrated energy company so we will often run OCGTs when the pool price is far lower than our short run marginal costs.
3
Don't worry, I'm quite sure we'll have several voices dismissing him as a shill in no time.
2
Well, that is basically the reason why the German governement seems (at last) not opposed to a freeze in the attribution of emission quotas.
2
Notice they pointed to subsidy reform for solar projects to only fund in demand power addition, and did not claim Germany should be starting up nuclear plants again.
Which is great, I agree, some of the subsidies that have existed have been a little generous, which got things up and running, but now we need more directed solar subsidies.
Siemens is out of the nuclear game, they realized it's dead. If you are reading this thinking Siemens is talking about bringing nuclear back online you aren't reading that closely.
2
Yes, the early adopters got 30c per kWh (guaranteed for 20 years). I think it is down to 15c now after about 7 years, but again you are guaranteed that price for another twenty years. Domestic scale renewable energy has a particularly good ROI and in practical terms, is on partially usable (a utility can dump the power but pass on the REC to green up other, more predictable energy sources).
3
I'm a bit confused as to what this article is trying to say. Anybody care to explain?
2
Renewable energy doesn't just replace one energy source with another. It disrupts the whole idea of utilities delivering electricity to customers, and if plug-in hybrid cars come along, it will also disrupt the liquid fuel for transportation idea as well.
So there are a lot of debates in the industry. One is that gs is more expensive than coal in Europe, so renewables are killing gas instead of coal, which is generally viewed as more polluting.
3
Hmm, okay that makes sense.
2
I have no idea what the second half of this article is trying to say.
I dunno. I'm a serious hard-energy proponent, but I always pay attention to what's going on in the renewable space. The German solar boom has always mystified me. I've never seen a good writeup of the economics of this national strategy. Does anyone have a value-neutral, comprehensive financial/economic writeup of what's really going on in Germany's solar space?
1
German solar boom
Just change that one word to 'bubble' and you nailed it.
4
Actually no. Those panels aren't going anywhere, and the will keep producing for 30 years. Since there is no marginal cost involved, they will not be shut down.
2
The panels don't but the industry is long dead. 40% of jobs were lost in Germany in th PV production last year.
2
Doesn't germany get hail? Also I believe someone has to clean them from time to time. Also if a panel has a part getting light while another part doesn't it damages itself.
1
Germany just started building new power lines and has yet to find out how to even out production and demand, e.g. with storage and smart grids. We're just at the beginning of the process of invention, application and improvement. The political landscape and strong, differing opinions doesn't make this any easier.
I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for meaningful data.
2
It's not gonna happen. The average German believes that it's all conspiracy of the energy companies and we need even more renewables to fight them.