Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumTable - German power
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
(24,331 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(14,478 posts)Or does CO2 turn into rainbows if it's generated across the border?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...when they pick a small section of a long term trend that makes it appear their argument has validity.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)...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
(26,748 posts)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
(14,478 posts)Are you accusing Reuters of being rightwingers, or the Germans, or just reality in general?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)But you already knew that.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)FBaggins
(26,748 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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.
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
(26,748 posts)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. Theyve done away with over 90% of that. Nuclear power produces over half of their electricity
but I suppose its 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 its 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
(29,798 posts)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.
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.
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
(60,212 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(60,212 posts)You hire yourself out to other firms to sit and post on the internet all day?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are making some sort of implied accusation, either retract it or be specific in what you are saying.
Response to kristopher (Reply #28)
XemaSab This message was self-deleted by its author.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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
(14,478 posts)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
(60,212 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(60,212 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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 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.
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
(62,276 posts)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
(29,798 posts)Outreach to fishermen on a public safety issue related to contaminated fish has nothing to do with energy.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Are you you saying you haven't been paid for energy analysis work?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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.
Response to kristopher (Reply #50)
XemaSab This message was self-deleted by its author.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(60,212 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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.
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.
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
(21,088 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(21,088 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(21,088 posts)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
(60,212 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(60,212 posts)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
(29,798 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I mean "I never googled you."
What search terms would I even use?
Delaware wind blowhard consultant shill offshore low bid Frito-Lay?
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)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
(29,798 posts)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
(8,303 posts)Transformations don't happen overnight.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)> 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
(14,478 posts)So, is Jochenstein 150MWh (300MW for 30 minutes), or 3600MWh (300MW for 12 hours), or ... ?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Thanks.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Gone. Kaput. Used up.
Standard operating procedure, for sure.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)[div style="width: 70%"]
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)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
(14,478 posts)...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
(62,276 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)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
(51,076 posts)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
(14,478 posts)...and I'm not going to start anything. But hopefully you see where the argument comes from, even though you disagree.