Germany is first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear
Source: AP
By FRANK JORDANS
BERLIN (AP) German lawmakers have finalized the countrys long-awaited phase-out of coal as an energy source, backing a plan that environmental groups say isnt ambitious enough and free marketeers criticize as a waste of taxpayers money.
Bills approved by both houses of parliament Friday envision shutting down the last coal-fired power plant by 2038 and spending some 40 billion euros ($45 billion) to help affected regions cope with the transition.
The plan is part of Germanys energy transition - an effort to wean Europes biggest economy off planet-warming fossil fuels and generate all of the countrys considerable energy needs from renewable sources. Achieving that goal is made harder than in comparable countries such as France and Britain because of Germanys existing commitment to also phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022.
The days of coal are numbered in Germany, Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said. Germany is the first industrialized country that leaves behind both nuclear energy and coal.
FILE-In this Jan. 16, 2020 file photo an uniper coal-fired power plant and BP refinery steam beside a wind generator in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. The state governors Dietmar Woidke of Brandenburg, Michael Kretschmer of Saxony, Reiner Haseloff of Saxony-Anhalt and Armin Laschet of North Rhine-Westphalia meet in Berlin for the adoption by the Bundestag and Bundesrat of the laws on coal phase-out and structural strengthening in the affected federal states. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)
Read more: https://apnews.com/79d0ea3ba4ae89885134d8a27a702413
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But theyre crazy to eliminate nuclear. Nuclear power creates virtually NO greenhouse gases.
-Laelth
edhopper
(33,573 posts)Tens of thousands of years and the potential for a Chernobyl event.
If we put the research and $ behind alternative energy we should, we would not need nuclear.
But nuclear is still WAY BETTER than coal.
-Laelth
edhopper
(33,573 posts)we can do it without either.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)They have a workable plan to eliminate coal. They have a goal of eliminating nuclear, but no workable plan, and they will continue to buy power from nuclear France when the wind isnt blowing in Germany.
-Laelth
Igel
(35,300 posts)There's no proving yet. Just speech acts.
"By December 1, 2020, Igel's planning on surviving in an oxygen free environment. He'll do this by innovative gene splicing techniques." There, I'm proving we humans don't need oxygen.
edhopper
(33,573 posts)Furthermore, we are capable of building and operating nuclear power plants far safer than the 1950s-design nuclear plants that went Spoing! In Japan and at Three Mile Island.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I dont think that theres a single company in the United States right now that can build a nuclear power plant. We have been anti-nuke for so long that we have lost the necessary institutional knowledge to do it. We would have to hire a French company to build them for us if we wanted to construct some new ones.
-Laelth
progree
(10,901 posts)If you answer "EDF" or "Electricite de France" (or Framatome or Areva) - it sure looks like they've lost their touch. Everything they have been trying to build in the last two decades is way over budget and way way past their original projected in-service dates. Not just the Flamanville reactor they are building in France, but ones they're building in the U.K. like Hinkley Point C .
You're right about the U.S. building reactors -- the last plants we've attempted in decades are the abandoned V.C. Summer units 2 and 3 in South Carolina and the long-delayed and many billions over budget Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia (still under construction).
Details
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=132289
Georgia Vogtle nuclear report: more delays, $1B in extra costs, flaws, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 8, 2020
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/georgia-vogtle-nuclear-report-more-delays-extra-costs-flaws/mBxlgXiDcf0SIaTFr0cZXL/
soothsayer
(38,601 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Its certainly not crazy compared to coal.
-Laelth
soothsayer
(38,601 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,308 posts)The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.
Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.
For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J
oldsoftie
(12,533 posts)New designs of reactors are nothing like the old days.
We'll never be rid of coal without nuclear. Unless something else is invented, which certainly COULD happen.
NNadir
(33,513 posts)The United States built more than 100 nuclear reactors in a period of approximately 20 years from 1965 to 1985 while producing the cheapest electricity rates in the world.
Now we have people saying that what has already happened is impossible, and then stating that support for the only clean and sustainable form of energy, nuclear energy, in the world is, um, "crazy."
I disagree. I think spending more than two trillion dollars in 20 years for junk that lasts 20 years (at best) - so called "renewable energy" - while allowing 7 million people each year die from air pollution for a renewable fantasy is, not merely crazy, but is actually insane on a Trumpian scale.
The faith based belief in so called "renewable energy" has done absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to address the increases in the use of dangerous fossil fuels. Two trillion dollars, this on a planet where two billion people lack access to basic sanitation. For what?
Sources with commentary:
The money squandered on so called "renewable energy."
Source: UNEP/Bloomberg Global Investment in Renewable Energy, 2019
Death toll from air pollution:
Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 19902015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.
In this century, world energy demand grew by 179.15 exajoules to 599.34 exajoules.
In this century, world gas demand grew by 50.33 exajoules to 137.03 exajoules.
In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 34.79 exajoules to 188.45 exajoules.
In this century, the use of coal grew by 63.22 exajoules to 159.98 exajoules.
In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 9.76 exajoules to 12.27 exajoules.
12.27 exajoules is slightly over 2% of the world energy demand.
2019 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38] (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)
According to the above reference, as compared with the 2018 Edition of the World Energy Outlook, in the world as a whole, the use of coal energy grew between 2017 and 2018 by 2.97 exajoules, whereas in the same period, the use of all the wind, solar, geothermal and tidal energy sources combined grew by 1.63 exajoules, a little more than half as quickly as coal.
Lifetime of wind turbines (my analysis of the data readily available from the Master Register of Wind Turbines on the website of the Danish energy agency): Average Lifetime of Danish Wind Turbines, as of February 2018.
Let me know again, through the prism of selective attention, what exactly "crazy" is.
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)And that doesn't include storing spent fuel rods. Approx 20 tons a year in spent fuel rods per plant.
When wind and solar are producing nothing can compete with free fuel. Just like when hydro is available - it's cheaper than any plant that requires fuel.
That dynamic reduces the number of hours a nuclear plant is producing and pushes the cost to operate higher. It will always get more expensive.
And saying nuclear creates no greenhouse gases ignores not only the cost to store waste but also what is required to mine, process and manufacture the fuel rods.
Check the pollution at the processing plants.
calclar
(55 posts)...when Murphy's Law has been repealed.
machoneman
(4,006 posts)ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)"Explaining Nord Stream 2 the controversial gas pipeline linking Germany and Russia"
International concerns and disputes continue over the controversial Nord Stream 2 - but Germany and Russia remain determined to complete the 745-mile natural gas pipeline connecting their countries
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)Wind and solar continue and get cheaper and better. They cut into the hours of operation of a fuel based power plant, making the cost to operate more expensive which will lead utilities to buy more wind and solar. That's a feedback loop that works for us.
Pretty much every new wind and solar project now includes storage.
Storage eliminates the need for a lot of coal and natgas plants that are in idle waiting for the need to show. But they are burning fuel to keep the boiler ready to produce steam. Batteries are filling that need cheaper and faster.
NNadir
(33,513 posts)It is absolutely disgusting that they have substituted dangerous gas - which they are using inefficiently because of their enormously ignorant dependence on so called "renewable energy" - for nuclear.
The carbon cost of nuclear energy is about 25g CO2/kwh; dangerous natural gas, 500 gCO2/kwh at the low end, 750/kwh/hr during multiple stops and restarts because the wind happens to be blowing.
By the way, you see all those steel poles on their wind turbines? Does anyone repeating this lie that Germany has "phased out coal" now how steel is made?
I'll let you know. Steel is made by heating coal at high temperatures using dangerous fossil fuels as a source of heat.
How about aluminum? What are the anodes in aluminum refineries made of? Could it be petroleum coke?
Does anyone care how they're going to haul this shit away in 20 years, when it is all land fill?
With Diesel trucks on asphalt service roads put through forests to service wind turbine garbage maybe?
If so called "renewable energy" is so damned great, why don't the Danes stop drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, and why don't the Germans stop buying that oil and gas?
Danish Energy Agency Website: Oil and Gas.
Anyone care to understand why Germany has the second highest cost of household electricity after Denmark? Could requiring the redundant use of copper and lanthanides - refined using dangerous fossil fuels - to install generators on wind turbines that might operate at a capacity utilization of 30% and in the backup dangerous natural gas plants have anything to do with it?
This is yet another example of mindless rich people lying to themselves at the expense of poor people.
This lie that phase outs of nuclear energy are either ethical or environmentally sound is, again, a crime against humanity.
Nuclear energy saves lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 48894895)
It follows that a nuclear phase out kills people.
The contempt for science and engineering that the German Nuclear Energy Phase Out gets lots of cheering around the world, and regrettably among nominally "liberal" people. It is a demonstration of the power of ignorance, fondness for ignorance, and the reification of ignorance. Since Germany announced it was going to embrace the lie that so called "renewable energy" would save the world around the year 2000, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere has risen from 369.84 ppm in the week beginning on June 25, 2000 to 416.05 ppm for the week beginning June 21, 2020.
It appears that the embrace of so called "renewable energy" around the world, did not work. The first derivative, the increase in the rate of increase of the concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste - as a ten year average - has risen from 15.39 ppm/decade on the week beginning on June 25, 2000 to 24.61 ppm/decade for the week beginning June 21, 2020. The second derivative is thus 0.46 ppm yr^(-2). It is therefore clear that so called "renewable energy" scam isn't working. As someone who has looked into the matter, I can confidently say it won't work.
The belief that Germany is doing anything about climate change is Trumpian scale lie.
History will not forgive us, nor should it.
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)City of Sydney flicks the switch to 100% green power
Accomplished via Power Purchase Agreements.
All the City of Sydneys operations including street lights, pools, sports fields, depots, buildings and the historic Sydney Town Hall will now be run on 100% renewable electricity sourced from local solar and wind projects. The switch is part of a $60 million deal with electricity retailer Flow Power, the biggest standalone green energy deal of its kind by a council in Australia.
The deal is projected to save the City up to half a million dollars a year over the next 10 years, and reduce carbon emissions by around 20,000 tonnes a year the equivalent to the power consumption of more than 6,000 households. The City calculates that the new deal will see it reach its 2030 of reducing emissions by 70% by 2024, six years early.
snip
The power purchase agreement will see the City source renewable energy from the 120 MW Bomen Solar Farm in Wagga Wagga, the 270 MW Sapphire Wind Farm near Inverell, and the 3 MW Shoalhaven Solar Farm, a not-for profit community-owned solar scheme near Nowra on the south-east NSW coast. The deal will see three-quarters of the Citys power sourced from wind generation and one-quarter from solar.
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/07/01/city-of-sydney-flicks-the-switch-to-100-green-power/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)Over 40% of their electricity is from wind.
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/wind-energy-ireland-2020-seai-iwea
And 32% for the full year 2019.
https://renewablesnow.com/news/wind-produces-325-of-irelands-power-in-2019-689351/
24 new wind farms came online in 2019
c-rational
(2,590 posts)expressing dismay at their publication of a both siderism Letter to the Editor calling into question the root cause of climate change. My letter ended with a plea for nuclear as the only realistic way to avoid catastrophe in the rear future.
bucolic_frolic
(43,137 posts)I'd much prefer passive solar as the main heat source because it's low tech with almost no maintenance ever, but you gotta love the obsession with generating energy on sight in-home, and using government regulation to do it.
hunter
(38,311 posts)Dirty imported fossil fuel power, especially Russian natural gas, will magically become clean.
If you want to see how the German electric grid is doing on any given week, you can go here:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
The problem with an energy system based on wind + solar + natural gas is that it will not save the world, especially if everyone in the world adopts a German standard of living.
There is enough cheap natural gas still in the ground to destroy the natural world as we know it.
Burning gas to support wind and solar energy schemes that are ultimately unsustainable is a very bad idea.
An economy solely powered by wind and solar energy would look nothing like the economy many affluent people now enjoy. It's also likely such an economy would be unable to support the current human population of earth at all.
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)Nothing is going to save us now. The World went 3 months being closed down and CO2 didn't drop, kept going up.
The Arctic is on fire and releasing all that carbon that has been frozen until now. Feedback loops locked in.
What wind and solar do is provide the survivors with sustainable means of producing electricity. 50 yrs from now there will be solar panels that were installed this year still producing some electricity.
Nuclear power plants will poison the environment for thousands of years in the future because there will not be the infrastructure to keep safe the waste. Those plants go thru 20 tons of fuel rods per year per reactor. No way to sustain that in the future you know is coming.
progree
(10,901 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 4, 2020, 11:31 PM - Edit history (2)
proof that we're past the tipping point. At least no reputable (or not) climate scientist that I know of has said so.
Here is what they say at NOAA.gov (I broke it from one paragraph to three paragraphs for readability as I just don't handle big bricks of solid text well)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html
Here is an example: If emissions are lower by 25%, then we would expect the monthly mean CO2 for March at Mauna Loa to be lowered by about 0.2 ppm, and again in April, etc. Thus, when we compare the average seasonal cycle of many years we would expect a difference to accumulate after a number of months, each missing 0.2 ppm.
The International Energy Agency expects global CO2 emissions to drop by 8% this year. Clearly, we cannot see a global effect like that in less than a year. CO2 would continue to increase at almost the same rate, which illustrates that to tackle our global heating emergency aggressive investments need to be made in alternative energy sources.
======================================================
The below illustrates the considerable variability in the growth of the Mauna Loa CO2 level from year to year:
# Growth Rate tab - Annual Mean growth rate of CO2 in ppm/year :
2014: 2.19, 2015 and 2016: both 2.99, 2017: 1.89, 2018: 2.86, 2019: 2.46
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html visited 7/4/20
======================================================
https://earthsky.org/earth/rising-carbon-dioxide-co2-record-high-june2020
If humans were to suddenly stop emitting CO2, it would take thousands of years for our CO2 emissions so far to be absorbed into the deep ocean and atmospheric CO2 to return to pre-industrial levels.
If emissions reductions of 20% to 30% were sustained for six to 12 months, then the rate of increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa would be slowed.
Geochemist Ralph Keeling runs the Scripps Oceanography program at Mauna Loa. He said:
"People may be surprised to hear that the response to the coronavirus outbreak hasnt done more to influence CO2 levels. But the buildup of CO2 is a bit like trash in a landfill. As we keep emitting, it keeps piling up. The crisis has slowed emissions, but not enough to show up perceptibly at Mauna Loa."
Even though terrestrial plants and the global ocean absorb an amount of CO2 equivalent to about half of the 40 billion tons of CO2 pollution emitted by humans each year, the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere has been steadily accelerating. (emphasis added by Progree)
The point of my emphasis is that given that only half of the CO2 that we emit each year in a normal year lately (pre-Covid) is absorbed, it would take a sustained cutback of more than 50% in emissions for the actual CO2 ppm level in the atmosphere to drop, as opposed to go up more slowly.
Admittedly, this just covers the CO2 situation. Methane might be whole 'nuther story.
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)VW resorted to software to fix the diesel pollution standard for one reason - they didn't have room for an extra tank for DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) in their small cars. That's what Mercedes uses to deal with those standards, called Bluetec.
DEF is an ammonia based fluid injected into the exhaust to convert the NOx in the exhaust into Nitrogen and water vapor.
Not only Mercedes but every truck since about 2001 has been using this tech to deal with the NOx pollution created when burning diesel fuel. Trucks also have a particulate filter to remove the soot we all know about from diesels.
Older model diesel cars were easily identified from the soot on the bumpers around the exhaust pipe and of course the smell. Current models Mercedes don't have that smell or the soot.
Xolodno
(6,390 posts)...maybe that's why Trump hates Merkel so much.
Given the region, I doubt they have the full capability of going full green while excluding nuclear...well at least traditional nuclear. Natural gas from Russia will obviously become a large supplement, which is probably cheaper when comparing to disposing nuclear plant waste, building the plant, etc. Nuclear needs more research and advancement before becoming significantly viable.
Coal of course, will go the way of the blacksmith.