German upper house endorses nuclear power phase-out (less nuclear = more coal)

[FBaggins]

Germany’s upper house of parliament on Friday expectedly approved plans for
nuclear energy exit by 2022, finishing the last step needed to make it the first
major industrial country without atomic power plants.

The Bundesrat, or the upper house of parliament, representing Germany’s 16
federal states, unanimously approved the shutdown plan proposed by Chancellor
Angela Merkel’s center-right coalition.

The bill that demands closing the country’s all 17 nuclear plants by 2022 has
been given a green light last week from the Bundestag, or the lower house, as
opposition parties, including the Social Democrats and the Greens firmly
supported the plan.

...snip...

On Friday, the upper house also backed proposed measures to bridge the power gap
after nuclear power, which currently accounted for 22 percent of the nation’s
electricity supply. According to the power compensation plan, Germany will establish new coal and
gas power plants in next few years, and will boost the renewable energy
industry, with an aim to raising green energy’s share from current 17 percent to
35 percent by 2020.



http://www.thainewsagency.com/english/world/22/08/2011/14808/

[kristopher]

1. Unrec

The original event (upper house approval of this bill) happened in July.

German Upper House Approves Nuclear Exit

Updated: Friday, 08 Jul 2011, 1:06 PM CDT
Published : Friday, 08 Jul 2011, 1:06 PM CDT

(Dow Jones) - Germany's upper house of parliament voted Friday in favor of plans to phase out all the country's nuclear reactors by 2022 -- one week after the country's lower house approved the plan.

The new nuclear law sets fixed dates for every individual nuclear-power plant. Eight of the country's oldest reactors have already been permanently taken offline. The remaining nine plants will be taken offline gradually, by 2022 at the latest.

The vote completes a major policy reversal begun by Chancellor Angela Merkel in March, following the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/news/international/german-upper-house-approves-nuclear-exit-dpgonc-20110708-to_14037641

Also the embedded links to articles supposedly supporting the claims unique to this article do nothing but take you to an abstract of the Thailand News Agency OP.

In other words, more nuclear propaganda.

[FBaggins]

2. Lol! Unrec because it happened a month ago?

When you've been denying that the highlighted piece happened at all? Not because the facts are wrong?

And, of course, we yet again have evidence that "nuclear propaganda" in your world is the same thing as "inconvenient facts" to your version of reality.

[kristopher]

3. The links to the "facts" you claim go nowhere.

In other words, it contains no facts at all; just baseless assertions.

Did you make that page yourself?

[FBaggins]

4. That must be it! I made them myself. I have control over several countries' media.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/09/c_13974388.htm
http://www.cncworld.tv/news/v_show/16433_Nuclear_stepping_out__.shtml
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/665406/German-upper-house-endorses-nuclear-power-phase-out.aspx

You may want to sit down for this one... maybe even up your dosage...

...just because you don't want something to be true... has no impact on reality whatsoever.

You've seen multiple reporting that their chief executive said it had to happen... and it's common sense that it has to happen... and you've seen reporting of the greens in Germany complaining about HOW it's happening (using climate change funds to pay for new coal)... but it's all pure speculation until DU takes up a collection to fly you to Germany and sit you at a construction site.

And even then...

[kristopher]

5. It has been discussed, that doesn't make it a likely path.

Do we really need to repost the summary of the ACTUAL LONG TERM PLAN from the Environment Ministry yet again?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/670

And

June 2011
The path to the energy of the future - reliable, affordable and environmentally sound

Germany is one of the most productive and economically successful countries in the world. This would not be possible without a competitive supply of energy for our businesses. We will preserve this asset. Our citizens rely on electricity being available at all times of the day and night, in any quantity and at an affordable price. They can continue to rely on that. We want our energy system to strengthen our economic base, give important impetus to innovation and technological progress, preserve the natural foundations of life and help protect our climate. We stand by these goals. We do not want Germany to be dependent on electricity imports, we want to be able to generate our net demand ourselves. This will remain our motive.

Germany has made the fundamental decision to cover our future energy supply from renewable sources. In autumn 2010 the federal government adopted the Energy Concept, which paved the way for the age of renewable energies. Nuclear power has a bridging role in this Concept, but only until renewable energies can play their part reliably and the necessary energy infrastructure has been established.

However, in the aftermath of the previously unimaginable Fukushima disaster we must reconsider the role of nuclear energy. The catastrophe and its impacts, which cannot yet be fully foreseen, compel us to reassess the residual risks of nuclear energy. The Reactor Safety Commission has presented a comprehensive analysis of the risks associated with the nuclear power plants in Germany. In addition, the federal government has appointed an independent Ethics Commission which has drawn up opinions on all issues relating to our future energy supply. The results presented by these commissions guided us in taking the recent energy policy decisions that needed to be made.

In a step-by-step approach, we will completely phase out electricity production in German nuclear power plants by the end of 2022 at the latest. The seven nuclear power plants shut down during the moratorium and the Krümmel nuclear power plant will not go back on-line. The Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant will be taken off the grid by the end of 2015, followed by Gundremmingen B by the end of 2017, Philippsburg 2 by the end of 2019, and Grohnde, Gundremmingen C and Brokdorf by the end of 2021. The three newest plants, Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2, will be shut down by the end of 2022 at the latest. The remaining operating times are based on a lifespan of 32 years to take due account of the rights of the owners. The residual electricity volumes of the seven plants that were taken off the grid during the moratorium can be transferred to other plants. The same applies to the residual electricity volumes of the Krümmel and Mülheim-Kärlich plants.

The Federal ...

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/47609/3860 /


The original framework they drafted (updated in 2010) is fundamental to the above description. It explores 3 paths to their goal of a carbon free energy system based on renewables.

...For Germany an electricity supply system based completely on renewable energies by 2050 is technically as well as ecologically feasible. Such a system can be imple- mented using currently available production and demand side technology and wi- thout compromising neither Germany’s position as a highly industrialised country nor current lifestyles.

An electricity supply system based completely on renewable energies can – at any hour of the year – provide a security of supply on par with today’s high standard. The results of our simulations show that renewable energies – through the inter- play of production and load management and electricity storage – can meet the demand for electricity and provide the necessary control reserve at any time. This is possible even during extreme weather events as occurred in the four-year time period considered.

The constrained renewable energy potentials in Germany (considering technical and environmental constraints) were shown to be sufficient if – at the same time – available efficiency potentials in electricity consumption and building insulation are tapped.

The potentials identified in our simulation are also sufficient to cover the additional power demand from strongly increasing e-mobility and from the use of heat pumps to cover the entire heating and hot water demand, as well as for additional air conditioning.

The expansion of ...

You can download the English version of the Exec Summary here:
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/weitere_infos/3997-0.pdf

Which is on this page:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/energie-e/index.htm


There, as here, the actual path that will be followed is one that will be determined by political influence. If the right wing takes complete control, you can be sure that they would resurrect their nuclear plans and go full steam ahead with coal plants, hoping in both cases for a future solution to the waste products of both industries. If the Greeen movement continues as it has been lately, however, then it is likely the pace of transition to a renewable energy infrastructure will accelerate.

[NickB79]

6. Not only that, but you appear to control the largest port in Europe as well

"Rotterdam to Expand Port Terminals as More Coal Flows to Europe"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/rotterdam-to-expand-port-terminals-as-more-coal-flows-to-europe.html

“We expect coal imports in Europe to increase sharply over the coming years,” Peters said. “Europe will need more coal as a result of the closure of coal mines and increasing demands from Germany.”

Pretty sneaky of you.

[SpoonFed]

7. Oh right...

Opinion piece plus opinion piece = fact...
Just like prediction = fact...

Keep gasping and grasping at those straws... nukers.

[NickB79]

8. The article about the Rotterdam expansion is an opinion piece?

Despite the fact that they're already ponying up $72 million for the work and have ALREADY added 61 acres of holding space in the past year alone?

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

9. You just don't understand the vocabulary.

The words look similar but have entirely different meanings.

Facts cease to be facts when they are inconvenient.

[SpoonFed]

11. What part of...

“We expect coal imports in Europe to increase sharply over the coming years,”

the highlighted word do you not understand. This is speculation/prediction, not fact. Not to mention this is action supposedly taking place in The Netherlands. You and FBags are trying to pretend that speculation by Ying Diao of bloomblog reporting the expections of some ¨a business manager at the hub¨ are calling the shots in Germany despite publicised German Gov policy decisions.

Where is the condemnation of The Netherlands for facilitating coal burning and an increase of GHG? No where... cause the point of all of this is taking the weakest of shots at Germany for dumping the nuke filth industry by 2022.

This is called scraping the bottom of the barrel in the ongoing attempt to paint the Germans as a bunch of coal-lovers for dumping Nukushima filth. Granted it is a better job than the lame attempts of Ignored in painting antinuke=coal, but just as plausible as his floating cities.

[FBaggins]

12. Ah... but you ALSO ignore those "calling the shots in Germany despite publicised German Gov policy "

This too gets spun as "speculation" when it doesn't agree with what you want them to do.

[SpoonFed]

21. Um...

are you inadvertently admitting you are ignoring those calling the shots in Germany?
That would be the implication of your assertion of ¨ALSO¨...
Woops. Another FBaggins laughable slip up.

[NickB79]

13. They expect demand to increase further, because it has already been increasing

"The port, which handles 60 percent of seaborne coal to Europe, will receive 27 million metric tons of coal this year, up from 24 million tons last year, Peters said by phone. The port is investing 50 million euros ($72 million) to expand its coal capacity to 42 million tons by 2018, he said."

No one invests $72 million dollars on a major seaport expansion on an opinion. Furthermore, if they aren't seeing increased coal shipments, why have they ALREADY FINISHED a 60-acre expansion of their coal facilities?

And I have plenty of condemnation of The Netherlands for facilitating coal burning and an increase of GHG. Start a thread on it and I'll Rec. it for you. But let's try to stay on the topic of this thread for the time being.

[kristopher]

14. "No one invests $72 million... on an opinion." - Not true. It is done all the time.

It is a well considered opinion, no doubt, but it is an opinion. And going by the statements of the German utilities in the last few days, it is an opinion that isn't that well researched since coal has been deemed "economically unviable" there.

The use of one indirect metric (imports into one seaport) is an absurd way to determine what is actually happening with a complex industry operating in a global market.

Right off the top of my head, possible confounds for your "theory" include stealing business from other seaports; declining reserves in Europe; and or cheaper coal from countries outside of Europe.

[FBaggins]

15. possible confounds for your "theory"

There's a difference between building a new coal plant and running an existing plant at a higher level.

There's no question that Germany has been burning much more coal since the shutdown of several reactors.

The other piece that is being missed is that Germany is also shutting down coal mines... so they will necessarily be importing more just to maintain their current demand.

So yes... it's his "opinion", but that opinion is far closer to established reality than anything made up here.

[kristopher]

16. It provides zero support for your bullshit claims in the OP.

"German utilities recently deemed coal-fired generation as economically unviable (see CSD 2 August 2011),"

http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2011/08/03/9482340/carbon-price-collapse-boosts-german-power-generation.html

[FBaggins]

17. It wasn't in reply to the OP

It merely corrected some errors on your part.

[SpoonFed]

22. This part is funny...

But let's try to stay on the topic of this thread for the time being.

You mean off-topic... in trying to turn a pretty good decision (in my view) by the German parliment (people) to dump nuke filth in a decade into repetitive speculation (fact in your words) that Germany are bastards for burning more coal. When the country you live in has reached or surpassed the GHG reduction goals of Germany, then maybe, just maybe you might have credibility in throwing stones, Nein?

The actualy numbers will play out as they may, but the ongoing agenda is clear.
Dump a load on a country that doesnt want to play in your sandbox anymore,
even if that dump is based on mere speculation than fact at this point.

Lets hear it... on with the condemnation of The Netherlands, now...

[kristopher]

10. (German) Energy giant RWE puts brakes on new coal and gas plants

Energy giant RWE puts brakes on new coal and gas plants
RWE plans to expand its wind energy network in the future

German energy concern RWE says it will not start building any more gas or coal-fired power plants after ones already under construction are completed. But additional investments in renewables will have to wait a while.

Essen-based energy concern RWE is moving away from conventional power generation as of 2014 to focus on renewable energy sources like wind power, the company announced earlier this week.

But despite Germany's recent energy turnaround, the company will not expand its existing green energy program for at least the next three years.

"The next three years won't change that much," said Hans Bünting, the chief financial officer of the concern's renewables unit, RWE Innogy, adding that current projects costing some 3.9 billion euros had to be completed before the company switched its focus.

"We have to build what we're already building," he said....

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15231271,00.html

[OnlinePoker]

18. Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change cash

The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

The plan has come under stiff criticism, but the Ministry of Economics and Technology defended the idea. A spokeswoman said it was necessary as the government switches from nuclear to other renewable energy sources and added that the money would promote the most efficient plants possible.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

[kristopher]

19. Do you think RWE is unaware of the right's effort to promote coal and nuclear?

Are you aware that the rightist government has been pushing new coal AND continued use of nuclear in spite of the plan that has guided green energy production ever since the decision to phase out nuclear was taken more than 10 years ago?

How successful have they been to date?

How did that anti-democratic move to extend the lifetime of the nukes work out for them? Did it succeed? Or did it result in more aggressive renewable goals?

"German utilities had recently deemed coal-fired generation as economically unviable (see CSD 2 August 2011)"

[OnlinePoker]

20. I see the last line in the following

http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2011/08/03/9482345/coal/csd/utilities-buy-coal-to-lock-in-healthy-clean-dark-spreads.html

but can't open CSD 2 Aug 2011 as it is a subscription site. What does the article say.