German: Going nuclear-free possible

German: Going nuclear-free possible
By Susan Smallheer
Staff Writer - Published: October 12, 2011

BRATTLEBORO — If Germany can do it, Vermont can do it — and sooner.

That was the message Monday night from Jochen Flasbarth, the head of the German environmental agency, who told 50 activists that Vermont and Germany had a lot in common when it came to nuclear power and the push toward a different energy mix.

Germany decided earlier this year that it would go nuclear-free by 2022 in the wake of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan. Vermont Yankee, which provides about one-third of Vermont’s electric load, is scheduled to shut down in five months.

Germany, which is half the size of Texas and home to about 80 million people, receives about 20 percent of its power from nuclear power, a percentage roughly similar to the United States. Earlier this year, the German government voted to shut down all its nuclear plants by 2022.

...Flasbarth, who is president of the German Federal Environmental Agency...

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20111012/NEWS02/710129930/1003/NEWS02

they'll then be reliant on nuclear power from France.

They can also burn more coal or import nuclear power from the Czech Republic.

1. Right now our energy comes from few places. Environment-friendly energy is produced in smaller facilities, scattered between towns. That means, the electric grid has to be massively expanded, but no town will be ok with new high-voltage landlines ruining their landscape.

2. Why do cars drive? Because we combust gas and turn the chemical energy via pressure into force. Now think a few decades into the future, when we are either out of oil or gas is so expensive that you can no longer use it as a private person. What will power our cars? Electric energy? Where will we get it from? From the same source that powers our industry and homes.

For example: According to wikipedia, in Germany in 2007 21.3 million tons of gas were burned by cars alone, not counting heating, ships, planes...
Combusting gas delivers approx. 11-12 kWh/kg (let's say 11.5), which means, Germany used approx 245 billion kWh that year on cars alone.
A modern nuclear power plant delivers approx 1000 MW, which means such a plant would have to run 245*1000 hours per year.
One year has 8766 hours, so Germany would need 28 nuclear power plants running 24/7 to deliver the electric energy for the cars alone.
If we are out of gas and all our nuclear power plants are shut down, how will we power our cars?



I'm saying, going nuclear-free is the right decision, but we will regret the consequences.

1) The distributed grid in Germany is projected to cost about $14B. The cost of decommissioning the nuclear plants will be almost double that if optimistic estimates are correct. Distributed grids are also more reliable than centralized generation.

2) You can't convert the requirements for electricity to propel an electric vehicle fleet from the energy content of the gasoline consumed by the present fleet in the manner that you have. Internal combustion engines waste about 85-88% of the energy content of the gasoline as heat. Electric drive autos are far more efficient and use more than 90% of the input energy for propulsion.

3) Nuclear free is the right decision. It is not likely that Germany will have cause for regrets. I for one amvery grateful they have taken the lead in both the development and deployment of wind and solar, but also that they have seen the role of nuclear in its proper light and started to long process of moving towards a sustainable energy future.

The distributed grid in Germany is projected to cost about $14B.

No it isn't. That's just the downpayment to get the southern part of the country off the critical list. It's hardly "the distributed grid" that they'll need over the coming decades.

The cost of decommissioning the nuclear plants will be almost double that

Do you realize what you just did? BOTH figures are costs of shutting down the reactors. Both could be saved by not doing so. And even if we accept your supposedly "optomistic" estimate, a big part of that is because shutdown costs are amortized over the life of a reactor. Shut it down early and those funds aren't there.

It is not likely that Germany will have cause for regrets.

They have plenty of reasons for regret. The only question is whether they'll be able to keep their heads in the sand long enough to hide from them... or whether they won't have a choice.

Yes, I realize what I did. The costs of the nuclear plant decommissioning is going to have to be paid no matter what else happens. It is a fair comparison to put it against the cost of the grid upgrades required to fully develop a renewable grid.

Germany has the nuclear industry scared silly. That's good.

Germany wasn't planning to build new reactors anyway, and now the "industry" gets to sell new reactors to her neighbors while using Germany's new dependence to help finance them.

It is a fair comparison to put it against the cost of the grid upgrades required to fully develop a renewable grid.

Not when BOTH costs are the result of shifting directions. Keep nuclear and you save BOTH costs... dump it early and you spend BOTH costs. Shilling it as "either/or" when it's "both or neither" isn't intellectually honest.

The costs of the nuclear plant decommissioning is going to have to be paid no matter what else happens.

Not really. If the reactors operate over their expected lives, the decommissioning costs are built into the cost of the electricity they sell. It's a bit like financing a bridge over 50 years through revenue bonds tied to the tolls the bridge will collect... and then closing the bridge after ten years because people are suddenly afraid of heights. You can't account for the municipality'c loss on paying off those bonds by saying "well... they would have had to pay it back eventually". Nor can you get out of paying the debt by saying they aren't general obligation bonds... when it was your decision to cut the income stream funding the bonds. You'll get sued... and you'll lose.

I was aware of that point, but left it out because I couldn't find proper numbers.

Still, if combustion engines have 15% efficiency and electric engines 90%, the used energy still equals (15/90)*28 = 4.66 nuclear power plants.

All those SciFi-movies, where people drive around in tiny hypermodern electric cars, one person per car, appear now unrealistic. The future will see more commutes.



The european governments should pump more money into the ITER-project to develop fusion reactors, but that won't happen as long the fincancial crisis casts its shadow.

power is not available, even for short periods?