Heh, doesn't this set up some interesting things down the road for the EU? Suppose Germany goes ahead with this plan and relies heavily upon nuclear powered member states for electricity. There are some sort of free trade agreements between them all. Still, if one country is "exporting the hazard" of nuclear energy from itself to its peers, then one expects those nuclear powers to enact some sort of economic considerations. OTOH, there could be a huge EU rush to denuke. That would also be very interesting. IMO they will create a world of hurt. But the fun part is, it doesn't matter, we win. If the EU eventually and successfully goes nuke-free, then the world learns that we can step away from the risks and consequences of nuclear energy. I don't think it is very likely, so I'm glad someone else is trying it. Or if it fails spectacularly, then the world gets a lesson in just how great nuclear power really is. Then there is a cynical third option. Somehow shift the nuclear hazard to third world countries. I know, it's really hard to load up an ocean freighter with a big pile of electricity but eventually we might figure out a decent way to shuttle it all around the globe.
It was a bit, but the OP is pretty much right. Nuclear power is (was) over 20% of German electricity generation (which is about the average over all OECD countries). German solar PV nameplate capacity is about 17-18 GW, but it has a capacity factor of no more than 12% compared to nuclear 90%. and it produces no more than about 3% of German electricity. During last winter German PV output was terrible - on some days no more than 0.5GW max at the best time of day on many days. In summer at the best time on the best days peak output is maybe 14-15 GWe. Now suppose that Germany was to tripple it's PV capacity. On the best time of day in summer, every other generator on the grid would need to throttle back to almost no output to accomodate the power blast from PV. On poor winter days, next to no output would still be next to no output. And PV would still be producing no more than 10% of Germany's electricity. And I might add, very pricey electricity. Is clear where the limits to PV lie? Especially in Northern Europe.
I doubt it. No way France is denuking, or Czech Republic or several other countries. If you read the UK governments Climate Change Committee's Renewable Energy Report, it very explicitly has a substantial amount of new nuclear power in every scenario. If they are serious about 50% emissions reductions by 2025, they have very little other option. The new nukes the UK are planning *might* get canned but it looks very unlikely.
Martin Rowson in the UK Guardian sums it up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2011/may/31/martin-rowson-germany-nuclear-cartoon Love the Vee-Dub full of coal and French president Sarkozy looking on.
I'm advocating to use mini nuclear reactor (25 MW) I believe they're safe in the event of Fukushima type disaster.
Germany's goal is 66 GWatts by 2030 in solar alone and they're already generating over 17% of their electrical needs with renewables. And they installed 7400 MW in panels in 2010 alone. So for "next to no output" it seems to be working. The idea that solar PV is expensive ignores that it's essentially free once built. Any energy source which uses fuel cannot compete and is outmoded.
Not quite, all my figures are based on TWh, you're the one that referred to GW for PV. However, if you still think I'm mistaken then you're more than welcome to dispute it with some figures and links of your own. BTW, you can start with these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/electricity_consumption.html http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/electricity_production.html http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/electricity_exports.html http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/electricity_imports.html http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm
This was written just today: Analysis: Germany, France fear nuclear power gap this summer By Reuters Tuesday, May 31, 2011 PARIS/FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Sun and wind in western Europe will be crucial this summer to ensure enough renewable electricity supplies to Germany and France, where nuclear power may fail to deliver, traders and analysts say. Demand for power rises in the summer when homes and businesses turn on cooling devices but with a big chunk of Germany's nuclear capacity out and a possible cut in French nuclear capacity due to a severe drought, things may get tight. http://www.chem.info/News/Feeds/201...ysis-germany-france-fear-nuclear-power-gap-t/ But, hey, what do I know...
. You completely ignored what I wrote which is based on the real world, not wishful thinking. Do you understand what capacity factor is? It is a fact that cannot be wished away that during the last winter German PV output on many days was "next to nothing". It is also a fact that Germany produced about 7.7% of it's electricity in 2010 from solar, wind, geothermal and minor gadgets. It is simply misleading to lump them together with hydro and biomass to "prove" how well renewables are going. Hydro and biomass are limited in expansion potential. If is solar and wind that are going to have to be scaled up to do the heavy lifting. . Go and look up "Levelized Cost of Electricity" which gives a per kWh figure. It accounts for capital costs, fuel costs, operations and maintenance and in the case of nuclear decommissioning and waste management., it is a reasonable way to compare costs. PV remains an expensive option. PV is expensive and poor choice in Northern Europe.
Luckily they're not putting all their eggs in one basket. I can't speak for Germany, but actually the expansion potential for hydro in the US is quite massive and is currently being developed. According to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, total hydro output can be doubled in the US without building a single new damn -- just by upgrading turbines to more modern ones and exploiting run-of-river. Your statement is therefore likely false. It's difficult to compare costs, especially with nuclear, since the cost-estimates per kWh never include the $38 billion in loan guarantees that the nuclear industry received per annum in the US alone (half of which they default on), and rarely include true build costs (US DOE estimates a plant costs something like only $3 billion, which is wildly underestimated), long term disposal costs (which they stopped paying), nor owner's costs, nor inflation, nor fuel cost increases, and never full insurance because they never carry full insurance as they just dump this cost on to the public in case of an accident. Actually the UK (rainy UK), which is similar in latitude to Germany, receives 60% as much sunlight as the equator receives. Solar panels generate electricity even on cloudy days, and some of the newest designs generate at night from infra-red. Plus solar panels have gone down 21% in price in a single year (last year -- likely the same amount this year). Meanwhile, spot prices on nuclear fuel tripled from $20 a pound in 2004 to, what, $60 in a disinterested market. So whether or not you agree, the economics is simply inevitable.