Germany has second thoughts on mothballing nuclear power
posted at 12:00 pm on August 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Maybe the Germans have paid attention to the energy debate here in America, but Americans should certainly pay attention to the energy debate in Germany. During Gerhard Schroeder’s tenure as Chancellor (and before becoming Vladimir Putin’s lackey at Gazprom), his government passed a mandate to shut down all of the country’s nuclear reactors by 2021. Now Germany, faced with a failed promise of plentiful energy from alternative sources, may extend that deadline or rescind it altogether:
It’s no secret that not everyone in Germany is happy with the country’s plan to shut down the last of its nuclear reactors in a decade and a half. Rising energy prices and concerns about the CO2 emissions of coal-fired power plants have many, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum, pushing for the government to reverse a law passed in 2000 mandating the shut down of all nuclear power facilities by the beginning of the 2020s.
Now, talk of “phasing out the phase-out,” as the German media is fond of calling it, seems to be getting more serious. According to news reports on Tuesday, an internal working group within the German Economics Ministry has circulated a paper recommending that the country’s 17 remaining nuclear reactors remain in operation at least eight years longer than currently planned. …
The Economics Ministry immediately fired back with a statement on its homepage. “Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel should cease lashing out at all those who scrutinize the future of the power supply and energy security,” the statement, written by ministry deputy Peter Hintze, reads. “It is vital that an industrialized country with 82 million inhabitants not march blindly into the power supply abyss (more…).”
When Germany passed the phase-out law eight years ago, the plan was for renewable energies to develop to the point that they could take up the slack from atomic power. Great strides have been made, but it is likely that Germany will have to increase its reliance on coal-fired power plants in lieu of nuclear energy, thus emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Marching blindly into a power-supply abyss? That’s practically been the explicit platform of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats in 2008. As in Germany, Obama and his party have made promises of plentiful energy supply from unproven resources. We keep hearing that Obama and the Democrats will sink huge amounts of money into technologies that Europe has researched for years as well as the US, and which still cannot generate the kind of power needed to keep our economy and our standard of living at their current level, let alone improve them.
The Germans, on the cusp of killing off the one clean-producing electrical industry that is proven, suddenly realize that they’ve been had. Now they want to undo the mandate that will leave their economy in a shambles or will force them to use high-polluting generation to make up the gap. Will Americans wake up in time to prevent this from happening here?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We can’t have nuclear power, Jane Fonda and Meryl Streep made movies 30 years ago about how bad it is. That’s all we need to know.
NoDonkey on August 6, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Been to Germany lately? The environmental wackos sold them a huge bill of goods. We’d better wake up.
marklmail on August 6, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Tune in for the exciting conclusion coming to a town near you, Nov 11, 2008.
Hening on August 6, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Here’s a recent paraphrased quote from an Australian Climatologist who is studying the Global Warming model.
It’s seems Germany has been giving this some thought.
Egfrow on August 6, 2008 at 12:06 PM
The technology we have today is so good im surprised that this nuclear power issue is still even being debated. It is a huge part of the answer. We need to start building nuclear power and drilling for oil ASAP
SoCalInfidel on August 6, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Make that Nov 4th. Veterans Day is exciting, but Election Day is the ticket.
Hening on August 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM
getting a 404 for the (more) link
RushBaby on August 6, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Earsplittinloudenboomer
CO2 a pollutant? Better hold your breath!
Kini on August 6, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Democrat plan:
Jump blindly into the abyss, hope we invent a parachute before the “Splat!”
Rodent on August 6, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Let’s build a hundred reactors and just blast any waste into the sun…just like in Superman 4.
Talking about Germany’s problems as a look at the course Obama would steer us towards is smart. That guy loves all the wrong things about Germany…namely destroying valid economies to support loony ideologies, and the cult of personality. Here’s a classic Obama cult image…spooky stuff.
blankminde on August 6, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I saw McCain talking about knowing nuclear energy is safe because he was on a nuclear-powered sub 30 years ago when he was in the Navy. That’s fine, but why hasn’t he gone over to the Palo Verde nuclear plant — the one that’s about 50 miles from his Phoenix home — and talked about how that plant, the nation’s largest, has been providing clean, safe energy for millions of people for decades?
AZCoyote on August 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Can you imagine the proverbial s**tstorm should Bush, or Cheney or pretty much any high ranking Bush admin do the same? Yet Schroeder, he of spotless anti-Iraq war record, didn’t get as much as a disapproving glare.
madne0 on August 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM
That guy is clearly a right-wing plant. Off with his head.
blankminde on August 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM
[NoDonkey on August 6, 2008 at 12:02 PM]
Celebrities will do that. No doubt, if interest in nuke power builds, that same Hollywood meme will start popping up on tv and in movies.
Dusty on August 6, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Germany needs to take a page from the Obama playbook. “As I’ve always said . . . (insert lie here).”
TooTall on August 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Harry Reid opposes the nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain at every opportunity.
The US has spent nuclear fuel stored on concrete parking lots at 60 locations instead of just one at Yucca Mtn. This allows Reid to seem effective to nutcases in NV.
Right_of_Attila on August 6, 2008 at 12:21 PM
There’s a reason why I always referred to Gerhard Schroeder as “the Alfred E. Neuman” of Germany.
(With apologies to Alfred E. Neuman, of course).
thirteen28 on August 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM
AMC has been playing The China Syndrome lately and I thought the same thing.
Brat on August 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I BLAME HANOI JANE FONDA FOR OUR ENERGY CRISIS!!!!!!!
marklmail on August 6, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Yes, because it makes us all sick. Energy is bad.
Rick on August 6, 2008 at 12:39 PM
History channel has a “megadisasters” episode called “glow train” about a waste train blowing up on the way to Yucca Mtn.
Pitiful, pathetic, propaganda. I saw it maybe a month ago, last thing I’ve watched on History channel.
Rodent on August 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Germany has 8.4% unemployment, why aren’t those people generating clean energy somehow?
kirkill on August 6, 2008 at 12:48 PM
It already has. We’ve been phasing out nuclear energy since Three Mile Island. Ditto for hydro.
Socratease on August 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM
We are really too far behind the curve on nuclear power, but at least, unlike Germany, we have scads of oil and oil shale. Nobama maybe ought to move to Germany, replace Merkel, and run their economy farther into the ground. He seems really popular there…or was it just curiosity and the bribes …, free American flags, free rock concert, and free beer and brats?
marybel on August 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Ok… I just did a bit of research, and I hope I flipped a digit somewhere but…. geeezzzzz….
1 Barrel of oil = 1640.8 kilowatt hours
US used 9,468,000 barrels per day 7/25/08 for motor gasoline.
Or 15,535,094,400 Kilowatt hours equivalent in gasoline for transportation, PER DAY, or 15.5 Billion Kilowatt hours per day.
Total electricity generated by US in 2006, 4059 BILLION Kilowatt hours,
Or 11.12 Billion Kilowatt hours per day.
So, we would have to increase electricity generation by a factor of about 140% to meet our transportation requirements by going to all electric.
Someone please check my numbers… I knew that transportation was inherently not efficient… but… if the numbers are this bad we have no CHOICE but to keep drilling.
Romeo13 on August 6, 2008 at 1:20 PM
At this stage, the evidence forces us to the conclusion: almost certainly, no.
Given that not one American in a thousand understands that nuclear power — even in the hobbled fashion it is currently delivered — is safe, economic, and environmentally benign, the odds are slim.
Just ask, for example, the people of Nevada, who still fear opening Yucca mountain.
Fortunately, attitudes can change in very unexpected ways, very suddenly.
JDPerren on August 6, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Plan, mission, motto and sole strategy. They discontinue the reasoning process after their hot buttons are pushed.
whitetop on August 6, 2008 at 1:26 PM
the only way to have a grand energy policy is to have nuclear oil and gas and then give tax incentives so wind and solar and other alternitives are price parity. That was businesses can choose which energy type they want and consumers can choose which they want.
GHowever if BHO energy plan and smart electric monitoring takes hold I see massive movement “off grid” as people flee the government imposed thermostat settings.
Price will not be an issue. electricity generation free of government involement will make people pay mor efor their electricity just to have the freedom to set their A/C’s whatever they want to.
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Where did you get your numbers from????
Bogeyfre on August 6, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Romeo13,
You forgot to include diesel, and perhaps natural gas in with the gasoline.
Additionally, you only included the chemical potential of gasoline and the power produced at the plant for electricity.
Last time I checked, IC engines only got about 30% of the energy available in the fuel to the road. Newer cars do better, but I don’t know how much better.
Let’s just assume that 550kW of the oils potential actually gets realized.
On the electricity side (these numbers are a little out of date, so if oldnuke wants to provide newer numbers rather than just declaring I’m an idiot, please provide)
Transportation of electricity from plant to wall socket 80 to 90% efficient.
Converting electricity from AC to DC and from wall voltage to charging voltage. around 90% efficient.
Charging battery. around 90% efficient.
Discharging batter. around 90% efficient.
Converting DC to AC, (every system that I’ve seen uses AC motors, not DC) 90%
Motor efficiency – 90%
Let’s say that on average 45-50% of the electricity produced by the power plant makes it the wheels of an electric car.
This is better than the 30% that I quoted for automobiles.
So just counting gasoline, we would need to more than double our total capacity in order to go all electric.
(BTW, because the batteries are so heavy, EC’s are a lot heavier than IC’s)
MarkTheGreat on August 6, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Use of oil?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_wpsup_k_w.htm
Kilowatt hour to oil barrel conversion?
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cvisco/page75.htm
Electricity generation?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalElectricGeneration.xls
Scary, very scary. Just have to be careful as Electricity Gen is total per year… while oil is talked about in barrels per day.
Romeo13 on August 6, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I was with several groups that tried to pass off electrics as being more efficient than IC’s because an electric motor is 90% efficient while an IC is around 30% efficient.
One thing I didn’t include in the above figures was the efficiency of the boilers used in electric plants.
Working from memory and old data, these boilers tend to be 40 to 50% efficient.
So adding that into the figures from the previous post.
Internal combustion engines (IC’s) are around 30% efficient.
Electric cars (EC’s) around 20 to 25% efficient.
Assuming the same mix of power generation that we have today, electric cars will result in more CO2 being put into the atmosphere than IC cars.
(Of course since hydro-electric is pretty much tapped out in the US, and until they start letting us build more nukes, in reality, any new power plants are going to be coal.)
MarkTheGreat on August 6, 2008 at 2:26 PM
The only way to have an energy policy is to subsidize all types of power so that they are equal in cost?????
Are you friggin nuts?
The only sane policy is to let each form of energy sink or swim on it’s own. If it’s not cost effective, let it die. Don’t demand someone else’s money to keep your favorite alternative alive.
MarkTheGreat on August 6, 2008 at 2:28 PM
One thing that always amazed me about “China Syndrome” is that it is actually a movie about how safe nuclear power is.
In the movie, the earthquake that everyone feared hit. The cooling lines break. Then the plants safeties kick in, and safely shut the plant down. As they were designed to do.
No meltdown.
No huge disaster.
MarkTheGreat on August 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Could you give me a source for Electric motor efficiency? I can’t seem to find one… but…
I seem to remember back from my Navy days that electric motors are only really efficient if they are designed for a static load and RPM… the further you get from that, the lower the efficiency is… ranging from a very low of 30%, up to 90%…
Problem is that we are talking cars here, who will have both a variable load, and different RPMs depending on speed…
But the real point is, just where is this doubling or more of the electric grid going to come from?
Thats what you need to ask the Dems… and throw NUMBERS at them, because their platitudes are STUPID in the face of the numbers.
Romeo13 on August 6, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Romeo13,
Sorry, I’m working from a data sheet that I put together 15 years ago back when I was participating in several newsgroups on the subject.
I may have been giving the EC heads the benefit of the doubt and just assuming the motor would be operating at cruising speed most of the time, which should be designed to be close to it’s most efficient speed.
MarkTheGreat on August 6, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I also didn’t get into the issue of having to replace those batteries every couple of years.
MarkTheGreat on August 6, 2008 at 2:48 PM
From Wiki… don’t know how reliable… so lets go backwards… .27Kw.h/mi would be average…. today…. soo…
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08maytvt/08maytvt.xls
says we drive about 2,966,431 million miles a year…
divide by 365 is 8,127 Million miles per day…
times .27 KwHr/mile is 2,194 MILLION Kw Hrs… but thats for existing cars like the Tesla… which I sure can’t fit 6 passengers and a dog in… let alone a Mac truck…
Romeo13 on August 6, 2008 at 3:12 PM
If Germany, or in fact Europe decide to mothball their nuke power plants, they’ll all be in total darkness, because they have nothing else. Also, why would they spend capitol on new power plants, when nuke power’s working great for them now!
byteshredder on August 6, 2008 at 3:16 PM
First I never called you an idiot. I said your were in error on one particular point using rather coarse language, for which I later apologized. I don’t even think you’re an idiot. I think you’re passionate about what you believe in. I actually agree with most of your positions. You were still wrong on that one issue.
I have no idea where you got your data in any of the above posts and the only ones I’d care to comment on would be the things I actually know something about. Efficiency of boilers (as opposed to the entire power plnat cycle) is done by calculating the amount of BTU in the fuel per unit time compared to the BTU released in combustion. It usually runs in the 98% range. Plant efficiency is calculated by using BTU input at the heat source compared to BTU out of the generator. For a nuke plant (PWR) that’s in the neighborhood of 32% Fossil plants are a little more efficient but don’t approach 50% I’d be surprised if they were over 35%. The last time I ran an efficiency on a fossil plant was around 1976 and I really don’t remember what the numbers were. The rest of your efficiency numbers I have no idea about some of them seem Ok some a little high but I don’t really know. I don’t really have any idea about how you’d figure the efficiency of an automobile. How would you factor in idling time, wind resistance etc. I guess you could pick an optimum cruising speed and plug the numbers in for that environment. In any case the point is that energy is energy and it’s gotta come from somewhere. Just changing the source doesn’t reduce consumption it just has to come from soemwhere else.
I won’t even go into The China Syndrome suffice it to say that any operator could have safely shut the plant down from outside the control room in a very short time.
Oldnuke on August 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Yep… gotta come from somewhere, which is why I started to wonder about the transportation numbers in the first place…
I really don’t think ANY of these politicians have had any of this explained to them. They rely on people who really don’t seem to have any clue about the problem…
We currently use MORE energy per day driving than we use ELECTRICITY nationwide… now just how in the HECK are they going to replace the energy we get from oil?
Thats the fly in the ointment, as it were… and the BIG question NONE of them are willing to answer.
Romeo13 on August 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Career politicians have to pander to the mob to keep their jobs. It takes something like $4 a gallon gas to get the mob grumbling then they’ll listen. Most people think electricity just magically appears at their wall sockets they have no idea what actually goes into getting it to their homes. Same with gasoline, it just appears in those gas stations. You said we used more energy driving than we use as electricity, I’m not sure about that, didn’t check your numbers. Sounds plausible though given the transportation needs of our society. The important thing is that they are both very big numbers no matter what units you put after them. The answer is drill for more oil, start mining coal, and start building nukes. Oil is used for almost everything in our lives. I don’t think many people realize just how pervasive it is. Gasoline is only one product out of many. We either have to find more oil or we have to come up with a totally new method of manufacturing stuff. Perhaps we could come up with those spiffy mass/energy converters they use on Star Trek I think they were called replicators.
Oldnuke on August 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What’s so terrible about the Australian situation is that the new labor government wants to enact draconian laws.
Laws which will increase the price of energy and push back economic growth – all to limit their paltry two percent effect on global warming.
This, in a country which has vast reserves of brown coal.
davod on August 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I recently had an interesting conversation with one of the current vp’s of the company I retired from. The discussion was centered around new construction for generating plants and fuel sources. We were talking about the vast coal reserves in the West and Midwest and I mentioned that a lot of that coal was high sulfur. He told me that technology has advanced so far and so fast in that area that this was no longer an issue and that emissions and pollution control in general wasn’t a problem any longer. It appears that someone will find a way to paint any advancement as an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
Oldnuke on August 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM
“power supply abyss (more…)” seems to be 404 here.
{^_^}
herself on August 6, 2008 at 5:27 PM