|
Post by speedy on Aug 22, 2012 18:01:22 GMT 9.5
The ‘energy turnaround’, advertised as replacing nuclear with renewables is in reality replacing clean and safe nuclear with dirty and dangerous fossil fuel, with a little bit of renewables for greenwashing. This time they are celebrating the opening of two new lignite (!) fired units at Neurath: neinuclearnotes.blogspot.no/2012/08/nuclear-today-lignite-tomorrow-germanys.htmlwww.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shift-forces-germany-to-burn-more-coal-energy.htmlwww.rwe.com/web/cms/en/12068/rwe-power-ag/locations/lignite/kw-neurath-boa-2-3/The most disgusting part is that this plant is advertised as an enabler for renewable energy due to its ability to quickly respond to varying demand, while the Germans are destroying their by far biggest source of clean energy. The picture of the two new units at the Neurath power plant at the RWE site is a perfect illustration of Germany’s broken energy policy. A brand spanking new lignite plant, with some windmills in the background for greenwashing. To make matters worse, the hill the windmills are built on, Vollrather Höhe (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vollrather_H%C3%B6he), is a spoil tip from the nearby Garzweiler open pit lignite mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_open_pit_mine). I also recommend the video on this plant, but take your blood pressure medicine before you start watching it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ehJoLd6Zs&feature=youtu.beNote that I’m not directly opposed to wind and solar, they certainly have niches were they are very useful, I just think that the idea of powering an industrial society with diffuse and unreliable power sources is as likely as me riding a unicorn to work every day.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Nicholson on Aug 23, 2012 16:08:18 GMT 9.5
I notice that they don’t say how efficient the lignite plant actually is – only that it will save 6 million tonnes of CO2e (which I assume is each year) compared with “old” power stations. The RWE website claims a net efficiency >43%. It is a 1100 MW plant.
Loy Yang A is 2120 MW and in 2008 generated 17.3 TWh (93% capacity factor) and released around 19 million tonnes of CO2e. Based on this “old” (30 years) lignite power plant scaled down to 1100 MW would release about 10 million tonnes of CO2e at an emission intensity of 1.1 tonnes/MWh.
To save 6 million tonnes over this old power station at 43% efficiency would mean that Loy Yang A is only 17% efficient. Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by speedy on Aug 23, 2012 16:28:43 GMT 9.5
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_NeurathEmissions are 950g/kWh, compared to 494g/kWh average for the German supply, which will certainly increase when nuclear is shut down, and 330g/kWh for a moder CCGT. I'm guessing that emissions from lignite plants vary significantly depending on lignite source. Lignite consumption is 820t/h per unit, or 1640t/h total.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Nicholson on Aug 24, 2012 10:35:25 GMT 9.5
Hard to imagine how they are going to save 6 million tonnes a year of CO2e if the EI is 0.95 tonnes/MWh. Assuming they generate 9 TWh/year the emissions would be 8.5 million tonnes. So an “old” plant would need to release 14.5 million tonnes at an EI of 1.6 tonnes/MWh. This is higher than any lignite plant in Australia – even Hazelwood or Playford!
|
|
|
Post by speedy on Aug 25, 2012 1:48:32 GMT 9.5
I think 6 Mt is total, i.e 3 Mt per unit. At the expected 16TWh/a (per RWE site) that works out to 1325g/kWh for the old plants.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 25, 2012 3:34:54 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 28, 2012 13:57:21 GMT 9.5
planning of coal plant Neurath was started in 2005, building it in january 2006. so it does not contradict the "energiewende", as construction simply started long before Merkel switched of several nuclear reactors after Fukushima. Environmental groups in Germany have managed to stop several dirty coal plants and they are still fighting against other projects, as this map illustrates: vorort.bund.net/suedlicher-oberrhein/neue-kohlekraftwerke-enbw-eon-rwe-vattenfall.htmlthe original post does seriously underestimate the effect of solar power on the German energy mix. The real data can be seen at this link: www.transparency.eex.com/de/the solar power peak is in good alignment with peak demand in germany and it is providing a serious amount of our power during this spring and summer.
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Aug 28, 2012 14:36:22 GMT 9.5
It's a known fact amongst those who build electricity generators (coal, gas, wind, solar, nuclear etc.) that when you build wind and solar you need a back-up because wind and solar are intermittent. Developers and grid managers know this, 100% renewable advocates don't.
A grid may have existing coal and gas plants that can be modified to load follow due to the imposition of intermittent sources coming into the grid, or new coal and gas plants need to be built to match the increased variability in supply in the grid.
When shutting down Nuclear and removing a good chunk of the base, something that can be dispatachable 24/7 needs to take it's place. Supply has to be guaranteed.
Wind and Solar cannot guarantee the 24/7 dispatchability so they have to be paired with a coal or gas plant that can quickly load follow to ensure supply is there on demand 24/7.
Nuclear can do this (load follow), but in the German energy market it is being phased out hence the wind and solar sources need to be paired with a coal or gas plant to guarantee supply and reduce market price volatility.
Thus removing Nuclear only increases the opportunity for new plants to be built, or further utilisation of coal and gas due to a larger share of wind/solar in the grid to ensure supply.
At the end of the day a coal or gas plant will be operating at some capacity with wind and solar to make up what Nuclear provided.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 28, 2012 17:07:05 GMT 9.5
The planning of those dirt burners was done while Germany was under a nuclear phase out and construction also started while there was a nuclear phase out, thus it is quite reasonable to blame the anti-nuclear movement for their existence.
|
|
|
Post by speedy on Aug 28, 2012 18:07:45 GMT 9.5
sod, you apparently missed this bit on the RWE site:
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Aug 28, 2012 21:49:23 GMT 9.5
planning of coal plant Neurath was started in 2005, building it in january 2006. so it does not contradict the "energiewende", as construction simply started long before Merkel switched of several nuclear reactors after Fukushima. It is disingenuous to argue so. A basic goal of energy policy in Europe since the Kyoto protocol has been signed is to decrease the CO2 emission rate by a factor of 5 (EU-wide) in 2050. The red/green coalition before 2005 could have outlawed coal newbuilds without CCS. It has not. It has enacted an exit from nuclear plan. It is not entirely the fault of environmental groups if this plant has been commissioned, but if there is no new nuclear build, something will take its place as a dispatchable means of production. While this is true, the very same groups tend not to oppose gas projects. Those projects are less polluting, but they still have too big an impact on the climate to be reckoned 'clean'. It is not enough to argue they are only temporary means, as a gas plant has a life time of 40 years and as there exists a means to produce baseload electricity without emitting CO2. It's the sum of the CO2 emissions till 2050 that counts, more than the rate of emission in the year 2050!
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 31, 2012 13:03:38 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on Sept 1, 2012 17:11:18 GMT 9.5
You might be interested in this post by German green MEP Reinhard Bütikofer, posted in the Finnish Green Party's website: www.vihreat.fi/blogit/vihreat/will-germany-really-make-it-and-phase-out-nuclear-completelyThe reasons why Germany will phase out nuclear completely (note that no mention is made of fossil fuels) seem to be - because the people want it - because no one dares to speak against it - because the Greens are still in power - because business community hopes it will happen That's the level of analysis here folks. Of course, I and probably others here have their doubts whether it's the reality or the rhetoric that comes out on the top in the end, but...
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 1, 2012 19:50:59 GMT 9.5
There are some articles in the german weekly newspapers about the energy policy. They are often critical of how events unfold. The english version of Der Spiegel has a lot of such articles. Der Spiegel seems to be the place for the Mittelstand to complain about the price of electricity. There was also a big piece in Focus titled 'die große Illusion' but Focus does not offer english translation of its articles (although the title does not need any translation). So reading the german press, I'm not so sure businesses agree with the german policy. RWE says on its website that the nuclear phase out is the wrong route to take. Big industrial users are exempted of the renewables tax, this is what they wanted. But now some complain because of voltage variations. Small & medium business have to pay the tax and they do complain, hence the pieces in Der Spiegel. All the rest of what Janne summary says looks broadly true to me. Most german people are against nuclear power, it's the same poll after poll. Few politicians appear to speak publicly in favor of nuclear power: even before Fukushima, Merkel's policy was to extend the life time of existing reactors, new builds were not considered. The decentralized nature of power in Germany allows the Green to still have a sizeable chunk of power because they reap a lot of votes and are backed by a number of activist groups. Another point that I rarely see addressed in public is that lignite mines allow Germany to have a stable price of electricity for baseload consumers. Remove this and big industrial consumers would turn against the policy. Otherwise, the price would vary much more in tack with the price of oil (i.e upwards). Hence the need for new lignite plants.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 1, 2012 19:53:16 GMT 9.5
The reasons why Germany will phase out nuclear completely (note that no mention is made of fossil fuels) seem to be - because the people want it It appears this may well be the case, oh well, at least we'll get an example of what not to do. - because no one dares to speak against it Because the anti-nuclear movement harnesses many of those who do. - because the Greens are still in power They aren't at the moment, but they're expected to end up there soon (and the current government is largely doing what they want out of fear that'll happen). - because business community hopes it will happen Energy intensive industries likely aren't (though they tend to be more anti-renewable than pro-nuclear).
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on Sept 3, 2012 19:42:35 GMT 9.5
German media accepts only anti-nuclear experts, claims the director of EU's JRC research center, Roland Schenkel: www.tekniikkatalous.fi/energia/ymparisto/saksan+medialle+kelpaa+vain+ydinvoimakielteinen+asiantuntija/a833479In brief, the nuclear physicist who has published over 100 papers on e.g. physics, nuclear safety and nuclear fuel cycles says 73 percent of experts interviewed in the German media after Fukushima have been anti-nuclear even before Fukushima. 23 % had been neutral before Fukushima. After Fukushima, no pro-nuclear experts have been interviewed. In contrast, in 2008 65 % of the interviewed experts were pro-nuclear, 20 % were anti-nuclear, and 15 % were neutral. Schenkel believes that international regulation would significantly improve nuclear safety, and the regulations should be binding. He admits that decision-making should include value judgements in addition to numbers and data, but says that justifications should not be based on false or cherry-picked data (implying that they tend to be).
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 4, 2012 6:53:01 GMT 9.5
In brief, the nuclear physicist who has published over 100 papers on e.g. physics, nuclear safety and nuclear fuel cycles says 73 percent of experts interviewed in the German media after Fukushima have been anti-nuclear even before Fukushima. 23 % had been neutral before Fukushima. After Fukushima, no pro-nuclear experts have been interviewed. In contrast, in 2008 65 % of the interviewed experts were pro-nuclear, 20 % were anti-nuclear, and 15 % were neutral. There's a math problem here: 73+23 = 96 < 100. In other words, contrarily to what he says, by his own figures, a lucky few pro nuclear experts have been interviewed in the german press after Fukushima. Like our host. I reckon this is a very tiny part of the interviewees, but it's not zero.
|
|
|
Post by Janne M. Korhonen on Sept 4, 2012 18:07:04 GMT 9.5
Good catch, Proteos!
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Oct 1, 2012 4:27:25 GMT 9.5
The BDEW, an industry lobby groups also maintains a document about the cost and the outlook for renewable electrical production. It's in German, but the figures can speak for themselves in most cases. It shows that solar PV is a real rip-off: it gobbles half of the renewable tax, but produce only a quarter of the total renewable electricity. It's the other way round for onshore wind! Offshore wind looks also poised to become a big beneficiary of the tax because of its high price (>150¤/MWh). And then, there's this figure at the end of the report: It shows that except for solar PV which comes down from ludicrous prices, all other source see their price stay flat or increase. So no price decrease, at least in the next few years, as was hoped when feed in tariffs were put in place.
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Oct 31, 2012 22:31:11 GMT 9.5
The german renewable tax on electricity will shoot through the roof next year: it will be almost 53€/MWh. The cause of this is of course the rush for PV installations last december. As the feed in tariff of PV was ridiculously high, the costs for consumers are on par. This is especially worrying, because the less carbonated the german electricity supply is, the more expensive it becomes. The tax is now higher than the price for baseload electricity over the course of next year (which is around 47€/MWh)! Meanwhile, the price of natural gas does not incur such a tax. Thus people are in fact discouraged to use carbonless energy. The tax is now so high that some businesses are to doing everything they can to be exempted, as described in this Spiegel piece: they run machines empty to reach the threshold of the exemption. I guess it now makes economical sense
|
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Nov 1, 2012 16:58:18 GMT 9.5
Spiegel seems nowadays to be the only part of the German press where two-and-two still make four. There was an article www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-87737177.html in the print edition 33/2012 in August about a boom in purchase of emergency generation equipment. German industry is having increasing problems with the instability of the supply nowadays. The article has many details about the problems for industry, and the cause can easily be seen from the little graph at the side showing solar and wind output.
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Nov 1, 2012 18:55:06 GMT 9.5
Spiegel seems nowadays to be the only part of the German press where two-and-two still make four. I mainly use the Spiegel because it has an english language edition on the web, this being an english speking forum (and my command of german being a bit patchy). While I would agree that the Spiegel is the most vocal newspaper against the german energy policy, it is not the only one. I posted a link to a piece by Focus whose title does need any translation. I also saw that Peter Altmaier, the environment minister, took a beating by some newspapers (like the Handelsblatt) this summer when he made his tour of Germany. The general tone of the press seems like the renewable push, while very desirable, is very badly executed and has disregarded technical hurdles.
|
|