Is Germany's Green Energy Plan Failing? (Der Spiegel)

"German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen never tires of all the praise for Germany's energy revolution coming from around the world. Whenever he explains to foreign politicians that his highly industrialized country aims to decommission all of its nuclear power plants by 2022 and obtain at least 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050, he is only rarely met with utter denial -- at least not among his fellow environment ministers. The reactions range between incredulous amazement, genuine enthusiasm and envy over the great amount of courage such a move takes."

<>

"Chancellor Merkel had also promised that Germany's energy revolution wouldn't force it to become dependent on imported nuclear power. But while German energy generators exported 6 percent of their power in 2010, since the swift shutdown of the seven nuclear power plants in the spring, they've been forced to import 2 percent of the energy used. The Environment Ministry denies that any of that energy is from atomic sources despite the fact that electricity generated from the Czech nuclear power plant in Temelin is making its way to Germany via Austria.

Chancellor Merkel also promised that the nuclear phase-out wouldn't undercut climate-protection efforts. But experts have told the Economics Ministry that, according to their calculations, German CO2 emissions will actually increase by 5 percent -- or 40 million metric tons -- between now and 2020 because more energy will be generated by coal. And, as of yet, there are still no plans to offset this increase in another area, such as vehicle traffic."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,790940,00.html

and how much out of country nuclear and fossil fuel plants are they going to support in the process.

Exporting your problem is not really solving it.

from Munich

and these old reactors are getting into the rising end of the curve.
The expected frequency of catastrophic failure will increase every year.
Trying to keep them running is asking for trouble.

In 2003, 2006, and 2009 heat waves caused reactors across Europe to shut down or reduce power,
it's happened in the US too, just when you need it most they don't perform.
In 2009 France was importing electricity from Britain (and other countries).

Even in "normal" years France has to import coal-fired electricity from Germany to meet peak-load.

People seem to have magical beliefs about nuclear power,
they aren't magic, they're just machines built by humans,
they don't last forever, and just like an old car,
at some point you have to realize it's better to replace it than to try to keep it running.

I mean, we wouldn't want the bathtub to overflow or something, right?

I don't know how much they're planning to net import.

I do know that either they're going to change tacks on this come the winter, when people need that electricity for heat and light, or else they're going to contribute to an increasing climate disaster. All because of media fearmongering crap.

The same utilities and political interests that wanted to extend the life of the nuclear plants also have been trying to build more coal plants - true. However those coal plants have been blocked for YEARS by the same interests that forced a reversal of the corporate policy extending the life of the nuclear plants.


The option we face is simple - centralized coal/nuclear or distributed renewables. The choice you've made is clear.

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/BNetzA/PressSection/ReportsPublications/2011/110527PressConferenceNuclearPowerMoratoriumpdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile



http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1911/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2011/110831PressConfNuclearPlantBack-upOperation.html?nn=48242
BNetzA is relying on extended operation for some older coal plants, some old ones placed in reserve operation, and hopefully Datteln 4 coming online in 2012-2013:

once in a while so be it. If we were to really try to moving to alternatives it would take a lot of fossil fuel to get us on that road. As Kunstler says in the Long Emergency most of what we call alternatives are at this point fossil fuel based. We build the parts for these alternatives in factories run on fossil fuels. Until we can invent a better way back tracking may be our way of life for some time to come.

We're all trying to do the right thing, but the Germans are helping to make our way of life extinct.

fail spectacularly if they try "at least 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050". There's no money for that. They need a lot of energy. Where are they now with renewables, at ~30 percent?

Not much additional traditional hydro power available. Biomass has grown tenfold over the last decade or so, but the most optomistic estimates have it perhaps doubling over the next decade.

It's really solar and wind that will drive future growth... with some indication that solar is starting to lose it's luster.

The OP is just more of the corporate garbage that the utilities and nuclear losers have been trying to promote since day one.

Y'all are petrified by the move away from nuclear in Germany because it provides absolute proof that nuclear is a loser when compared to the existing alternatives. If nuclear wasn't a quasi-governmental industry it would never even be considered.

Or is it that you don't understand what "none" or "true" mean? (just as likely).

Is their renewable penetration about 20% or isn't it?
Have they or have they not gotten just about all of the traditional hydro generation that's available?
Does anyone expect biomass to grow anywhere near as fast in the coming decade as in the last?
Are not wind and solar the key contributors to their future renewables plans?
Have they not cut back on solar subsidies and did not their PM just announce that even that would be further reduced?

If it's about 20%, it's just crazy to speak about 80% by 2050. It will not change much by 2050, I mean the 20%. They will need a lot of coal. Maybe even more bituminous coal, which will be more expensive to mine.

Now that I thought about it, even 20% sounds very much. What do you include in renewables?

80% would be an incredibly expensive option, but it will be much MUCH more than 20%.

Now that I thought about it, even 20% sounds very much. What do you include in renewables?

This is Germany in 2009 (when renewables reportedly made up about 16% of generation).

I just googled and found different numbers. What's your sorce for ~20% renewables?

Exporting clean renewable energy to France, which has to import from it's neighbors to meet peak load.

What, are people going to stop paying their monthly energy bills? Of course there is money for that. The only question is who do we want that cash stream to go to. Germany has made the choice that it should go to entities providing renewable power instead of coal and nuclear.

EU mandates on climate change preclude major investments in new coal unless it is CCS. Since CCS doesn't exist in reality that means there is not going to be an expansion of coal. They will intensify their consumption in the short term, but the concurrent expansion of distributed renewables builds the systemic momentum to shut down centralized coal altogether.

People are increasingly struggling in the EU too. Big crisis is coming. But even if things get better economically, NO money for big investment in renewables. There's hardly money for new coal plants and for maintenance of the existing ones. Gas fired ones will be more and more expensive, they have to import gas from Russia. EU is corrupted too and it's draining the money from the potential investments.

Your conceptual foundation is flawed. Every time an end user pays for energy it is money that is going for "investment" in the source of that energy. When you put all those payments together you have a very large existing "cash stream" that can be directed by government policies. Germany has elected to channel that money into renewables, not expansion of coal or perpetuation of nuclear.

It's a bubble. Users are staying without jobs. Germany is losing steam together with the EU. We still don't have any reliable replacement for hydrocarbons, in sufficent amount and with energy safety/reliability. We will still be burning stuff for hundreds of years to produce e-power.