No Nukes, No Problem? Germany's Race for a Renewable Future

[kristopher]

No Nukes, No Problem? Germany's Race for a Renewable Future
By Arne Jungjohann and Wilson Rickerson
May 13, 2011


During the last several years, there has been talk of a global "renaissance of nuclear energy". That was yesterday. Today, the tragic disaster in Fukushima, Japan, has raised worrying questions about the safety standards of existing nuclear power plants.

Countries around the world have prompted safety reviews of active reactors. In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will publish a review of the 104 active reactors within three months. China has meanwhile suspended new plant approvals and Switzerland has shut down its plans for nuclear expansion.

But safety issues are not the only concern for nuclear power these days. Rising costs and perceived financial risks are significant barriers to new investments. President Obama supports nuclear power and has included it in his plans to achieve 80% clean energy by 2035.

The Administration has also requested that Congress triple the Bush-era nuclear loan guarantees to $54.5 billion. But despite this federal support, the financial outlook is grim and several projects in the U.S. are delayed or have been cancelled. Analyses suggest that even before the Fukushima crisis, nuclear energy was not competitive in free market economies without significant government support.

Transition or ...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/no-nukes-no-problem-germanys-race-for-a-renewable-future

[FBaggins]

1. In other news... Germany dramatically increases the burning of fossil fuels...

...and kristopher calles it a "race for a renewable future".

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LAGC]

4. Yup.

The anti-nukers are doing a great service for this planet... NOT.

[kristopher]

5. Fission preserves the large-scale centralized system AND coal.

Coal and fission are the foundation of the current system. The large-scale centralized system is calling for "clean coal" and nuclear. Here it is in their own words.

States’ Best Practices Attracting Baseload Investment
Some States Are Acting Against the Hollowing of the Nation’s Baseload Fleet But Many Are Not

Executive Summary
There are clear signs the nation is under-investing in the backbone energy infrastructure, particularly the baseload power generation fleet. Ignoring the advanced age of its vital nuclear and coal components, we have been building only a trickle of new state-of-the-art baseload plants. If the nation does not resume prudently modernizing the baseload fleet soon, the timely retirement of the oldest nuclear and coal plants will be impractical.

Only 44 baseload plants are currently under construction in the continental U.S. If all 44 projects are completed, which is hardly certain, they would add no more than 24,000 megawatts of baseload generating capacity. At this rate, the baseload fleet would not be modernized for some 68 years, not until the year 2079. This rate is actually more alarming when other factors are taken into account, like demand growth for power, expiring licenses of the oldest nuclear plants and air emissions of the oldest coal plants. Consistent with this trend, only 18 baseload plants were completed during the January 2010 – February 2011 period adding just 13,000 megawatts.

It is also troubling that in 15 of the 49 continental U.S. states and the District of Columbia, no baseload plants have been completed since January 2010 nor are any under construction. Texas and North Carolina alone account for one-quarter of all the new capacity.

This disturbing situation is unsurprising since a proposal to construct a baseload plant must typically navigate multiple regulatory processes, each of which can be leveraged by opponents to run up the development time, costs and risks and sully the reputation of the proposing utility or energy company. The regulatory culture of many states makes it all too easy for intractable opponents to mire and string out a process as regulators strive for consensus and shun decisions that would outrage opponents.

Fortunately, the problem is eminently fixable....

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/powergenportal/online-articles/2011/05.Par.17562.File.dat//Volumes/UserData/Users/sharrynd/Desktop/build%20Energy.pdf

[LAGC]

6. kristopher, it would be great if we decentralized the grid and made it more localized.

But that's going to take time.

What do we do in the meantime? Keep burning more fossil fuels because we forsake nuclear?

[kristopher]

7. The fission industry is obstructing renewable development, thereby preserving coal

Every report on energy tells us that the pace of change to a carbon free energy system stands to accelerate in direct proportion to the strength of the policy support by governments for change to renewables.

All you have to do is read DUEE for one week to know that the strongest PR campaign and largest source of misinformation regarding renewables is the fission industry.

Just like you and Baggins are doing now.

[LAGC]

8. But according to your own accounts...

Renewables development is growing by leaps and bounds, even with the supposed "fission industry conspiracy" keeping them down.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Is renewable development taking off, or isn't it?

[kristopher]

10. You mean you think we are changing over at a rapid enough pace?

Your false dichotomy is absurd; just like the rest of the crap you post.

[LAGC]

11. If renewable sources of energy were as reliable and cheap as traditional sources of power...

There would be nothing stopping them being deployed on a more massive level... not even an evil conspiracy could stop them.

Its all about the $$$ to the energy companies. If they could deliver massive amounts of RELIABLE energy cheaper than nuclear/coal, don't you think they would? They're capitalists for Christ sakes!

[kristopher]

12. There is a bottle neck where profits rule with coal and fission (made WORSE by fission)

With distributed renewables that bottleneck disappears and their profit evaporates. So you're right, that is the motive that makes coal and fission two sides of the same coin.

[LAGC]

13. Why then is it that you are always speaking out against nuclear power...

But you never criticize coal?

Or natural gas for that matter?

[FBaggins]

14. Coal's check keeps clearing?

Just a thought. :)

[kristopher]

16. You have to be kidding.

My position is that both suck because they are a poor choice to meet our energy needs and waste money that could be far more effective if spent on renewable deployment. Your position is that we have to have everything possible that can reduce carbon emissions no matter what the external and monetary costs. So here is a question for you: IF your objectives are what you say they are, why are you not promoting coalCCS as hard as you work to promote nuclear? The answer is obvious. You promote nuclear power because you want nuclear power adopted and climate change is an excuse not a reason.

At least my position is logically consistent and grounded in more than an industry's paid propaganda. Supporting nuclear and coal are flip sides of the same coin.


As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Above single paragraph broken apart for ease of reading:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[txlibdem]

24. Coal carbon capture is a giant multi-billion dollar fraud -- you and I both know it Kristopher

The sheer volume of CO2 that would be needed, and would need to be 100% contained for at least a thousand years, make CCS both fantastically expensive and logistically unworkable. There are thousands of geological formations across the nation that could be used to contain the CO2... but they are nowhere near most of the coal power plants. Most coal plants would need a pipeline hundreds of miles long. That's not something that Big Coal likes to admit.

And what happens when these supposedly geologically stable cavities get hit by an earthquake or fracking from natural gas extraction?

Look up the costs of a coal CCS plant and you see that the costs of proper containment will make those coal plants more expensive than nuclear power over their lifetime.

Anybody can do a google search for Carbon Capture Fraud to find that Greenpeace, George Monbiot, Graham Thompson from the site "Nuclear Free Planet," and numerous others have all labeled Coal CCS a fraud and a huge waste of taxpayer billions to chase that lie.

[kristopher]

26. Yes it is, and so is fission.

[LAGC]

29. We eagerly await you condemning coal in your sig line, right next to your Cure for Nuclear Addiction

We'll wait patiently while you update your sig line.

[txlibdem]

31. Are you publicly stating that coal should be ended before nuclear power?

If not then your post is not an adequate reply.

[kristopher]

34. Do you call for an "all of the approach" or not?

That is the ONLY basis for supporting nuclear power. Those that endorse that approach (and nuclear power) ALSO endorse coal and natural gas - look it up.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=5918

I endorse a strong government policy role in selecting the desired technological path - renewable energy sources in a distributed grid. No coal, no nuclear and only enough natural gas to enable a transition to 100% renewable sources.

Fission and coal are two sides of the same centralized energy system. Adding nuclear just re-enforces the system built around coal and perpetuates the use of fossil fuels.

Ask any environmental group and they will agree with me, not you.

[txlibdem]

39. You want natural gas, I want zero-carbon energy sources. We're not as far apart as you claim then.

You ask if I call for an "all of the above approach?" If I read your meaning right... yes and I have posted on a number of occasions that we need to begin to get rid of nuclear power once we have reached 70% renewable energy. But we need to end fossil fuel use NOW.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=291642&mesg_id=291762
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x290190
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=292436&mesg_id=292571
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=267697&mesg_id=267723

BTW, repeating the same unfounded claim that coal+nuclear="two sides of the same" does not prove it, make it a fact or even a theory. It's just your own personal opinion. "Ask any environmental group?" They'll tell me that they want to greatly expand the use of natural gas??? I don't think that's accurate.

In my own humble opinion, I believe my position is more logically consistent than yours. I call for only zero-carbon energy sources and 100% renewable energy, eventually closing down all nuclear power plants. The families that can light their tap water on fire might be inclined to agree with me.

[kristopher]

41. Every environmental group agrees with me - that says you're just trying to greenwash nuclear.

[txlibdem]

42. Every environmental group is pro-natural gas??? I don't believe you.

Appeal to authority not accepted.

[kristopher]

43. Strawman "not accepted"

[txlibdem]

44. I notice you didn't answer the question. Interesting, isn't it?

Very instructive.

[bananas]

18. You want Germany to have its own Fukushima? These old reactors get more dangerous every day.

They are ticking time bombs ... tick tick tick ...

[FBaggins]

19. And the coal plants remain more dangerous day in and day out.

You reall prefer that?

Your graph is, of course, total fiction.

[bananas]

20. We have to replace both ... tick tick tick ...

and no, the graph is not fiction ... tick tick tick ...

[FBaggins]

21. You don't seem all that interested in replacing both.

I only see posts worrying about the far less dangerous one.

Would you agree to a program that got rid of both as long as coal went first?

[bananas]

22. I've made many posts about the importance of replacing both.

Here's just a small sample - also see my other posts in these threads:
2007: They got the TXU coal plants stopped: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=105304&mesg_id=105365
2008: Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3509639&mesg_id=3509639
2010: From an ecological standpoint, nuclear is far worse than coal or natural gas: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4673928&mesg_id=4674424

You can find many more: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:democraticunderground.com+bananas+coal

[FBaggins]

23. The issues is which goes first.

You've clearly got that backwards.

[bananas]

28. It might seem that way to people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. nt

[FBaggins]

37. Ridiculous spin.

Germany gets something like 2/3rds of their electricitry from coal and nuclear. There is no way to "walk and chew gum at the same time" here. It will take decades to shift away from both even if they had the political will to do so.

Some plant had to be first... and then second... and then third... and so on. You can pretend that you want to get rid of both... but the impact of your priorities is more coal, not less.

Not wanting to live with that reality doesn't mean that you don't own it.

[txlibdem]

25. You managed to come up with 2 anti-coal posts in the past 4 years??? That's your proof???

You list 3 posts from 2007 till now, one of which says "nuclear is far worse than coal or natural gas" so I wouldn't call that one an anti-coal post, just one more in the endless line of posts against zero-carbon energy sources like nuclear. How many anti-nuke posts have you made in just the past month?!?

As I and others have shown time and again, coal puts out more radioactive material than nuclear, causes more deaths than nuclear as well. The Mercury from coal pollution has polluted the majority of US lakes and rivers -- you can't even catch a darn fish and eat it in most parts of our nation thanks to coal.

If all of the anti-nuke posters here on DU would regularly post the truth about coal, oil and natural gas pollution (including radioactive material dredged up by each of them) and come out publicly to state that we need to end coal first, oil second and then start to end nuclear power, I'd be right there by your side.

Which one to end first -- that's a critical question for the continued survival of the human race.

[bananas]

27. No, I even gave a google search link where you can find many more.

Here it is again: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:democraticunderground.com+bananas+coal
In case you missed it: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:democraticunderground.com+bananas+coal

[txlibdem]

32. Ho-hum. I fell asleep before I could move my mouse toward your link.

I guess you'll have to provide your own proof that you are equally against coal. I honestly don't think it's my responsibility to do your work for you. It's your reputation, your logic, your stance that has been called into question.

[kristopher]

33. Your tactics are sleazy

They are typical of what we see from the fission industry in every realm - a total disregard for the truth and repeated attempts to smear fission's critics with made up trash.

[txlibdem]

36. Asking a poster to defend his or her own position is sleazy???

Isn't that a fair request. Isn't that what you would expect of any of us "pro-nuclear power" posters? Why is it "made up trash" when one of your cronies fails to back up their statements? Double standard not acceptable.

[kristopher]

30. Fission and coal are two sides of the same coin.

You write, "If all of the anti-nuke posters here on DU would regularly post the truth about coal, oil and natural gas pollution (including radioactive material dredged up by each of them) and come out publicly to state that we need to end coal first, oil second and then start to end nuclear power, I'd be right there by your side."

That is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Post any discussion on DUEE where the use of carbon emitting fuels defended. The discussion here isn't about whether to replace fossil fuels, it is about what to replace them with.

If you were actually motivated by concerns about AGW and were supporting nuclear power as part of that solution, then your support for nuclear is ONLY rational as part of an "ALL of the above" strategy where (it is claimed) we MUST pursue every carbon mitigation option that is one the table, that picking winners and losers based on efficacy is NOT desirable. If your claimed motive and selected strategy is true, then your rejection of coal with carbon capture and storage makes no sense at all.

If, however, you are intent on promoting nuclear power and are using climate change only as a convenient excuse, then your position makes perfect sense.

That premise would also explain your attempts to smear people who obviously are operating under a strong ethical and moral imperative to protect the planet. When you are honestly operating from THAT view (instead of just using it to greenwash nuclear power), then nuclear, coal, and ethanol are all unacceptable diversions of funds from the most effective technologies for addressing climate change.

[txlibdem]

35. "That is pure, unadulterated bullshit" - why are you avoiding the question so ferociously? Hit home?

And just to refresh your memory, I have posted a number of OPs stating the truth of the radioactive emissions of coal and have received pretty universal opposition and harassing posts from you and your anti-nuker crowd. Ditto the threads that mention the other pollution from coal.

Stating that coal carbon capture is anything but a red herring is pure fantasy and you know it. The logistics of how to capture all of it, where to store it, and how to get it from the coal power plant to the locations where geologically stable CO2 storage is possible are mind boggling. The costs of such a project would make coal far more expensive even than the ripoff nuclear construction companies.

You continue to attack the motives and morals of those of us who are realistic about the relative costs and the relative dangers of fossil fuels. To my mind, that colors every post you write with a huge question mark as to your true stance.

Why can't you answer the question: will you or will you NOT openly state that fossil fuels need to be ended before nuclear power?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txlibdem]

40. An exact repeat of your earlier post? Proves what, exactly?

Seek help.

[Yo_Mama]

15. Germany is still building a lot of coal plants!

They can't do much more with wind, so it's back to coal.

Originally the plan was for carbon capture systems, but that is running into problems (it is somewhat risky):
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15074923,00.html

[defendandprotect]

2. kr

[Larry L. Burks]

9. There are ways to fix this.

Look here and see how things get done right.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2067716,00.html#ixzz1L9UIzsMC

May be some one should call Japan up and tell them how to fix that problem they have with that nuclear thing.

And while your at it. Call Iran up and tell them the same thing.

May be you should call Obama up and tell him about this.

There is a 50 million Dollar reword money for such things.




What did you think Obama was talking about when he said.

“The answer to American Energy needs is Green Energy Technology.....

Solar, Wind, and Hydro Electric Power Plants.”

Need I say more?

[Larry L. Burks]

17. The part that I liked best was the part where it said....

“planned phase out of all nuclear power”

Works for me.