Germany's wind farms challenged (BBC)

By Tim Bowler
BBC World Service business reporter, Alsleben, Germany

Germany is the world's biggest user of wind power, and it has ambitious plans to build even more wind turbines.

It has decided that generating nuclear power is not the way forward, and it has decided eventually to close all the country's existing nuclear power stations.

The country's great hope for is for a future of green energy, and in particular wind power.

However, some observers are now questioning whether all the investment in wind power makes economic sense.
***
But a row is brewing over the cost of building the power lines {and other infrastructure} which will be needed.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4944046.stm

This article discusses the drawback of the fact that wind power is not continuous 24/7, but does not ONCE mention the possibility of storing or accumulating energy! This strikes me as a glaring, and baffling, omission.

All in all, this doesn't strike me as the most informative article I've ever seen, but it did make me aware of some things going on in Germany I didn't know about. (like shutting down ALL nuclear plants!?! When was that decided ?) It also gives the impression that Germany may have gone ahead full tilt with this program before all the consequences were fully considered.

persons raising the objections.

by the way, do you have a problem with germany eventually shutting down all its nuclear plants--from the way you phrased it, it almost sounded as though they should have consulted you about this decision.

anything about this anywhere, not that I necessarily keep up with the decisions of German government on a day-to-day basis. Still, a major decision like this by the economic powerhouse of Europe would have made a bit more of a splash in the news, I would have thought. Maybe this happened before I learned not to rely on American media for news.

A little interesting that France is fully commited to nuclear energy, and (IIRC--I may not) gets more of its electricity from nukes than any other country in the world. Meanwhile, their good neighbor Germany is phasing nuclear out, and on a short schedule. Doesn't really match popular perceptions of "national character", does it? If the French were protesting nuclear power because of some weird theory from homeopathic medicine, or a claim that it made the wine inferior, it wouldn't be a big surprise. If the Germans were going full-bore for nukes ("We discovered atomic fission, after all.") and insisting that THEY were safe from accidents because they didn't make silly mistakes, that wouldn't be a big surprise either. Thus the danger of relying on cliches like "national character", I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

Critics of a phase-out in Germany argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for, and predict an energy crisis, or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously (with the use of oil and fossils) and/or in energy imports either ironically of nuclear power from France or of natural gas from Russia, which is still not perceived as a safe partner.<14>

Because of increasing prices for fossil fuels, arguments for a phase-out of the phase-out were again being discussed. In the federal election in 2002 the candidate for chancellor of the CDU/CSU, Edmund Stoiber, promised, in the event he wins, to cancel the phase-out.<15> His successor and current German chancellor Angela Merkel has announced plans to negotiate with energy companies the time limit for a shut down of nuclear power stations.<16> The battle over nuclear energy, that was set to be a key issue in coalition talks between CDU and SPD, was settled in favor of a phase-out.<17><18>

More at link... :)

I've missed in the way of news (well, news that doesn't fit the interests of the American corporatist takeover, anyway).

no widely available, affordable solution to the challenge of mass energy storage has been found.

I am not talking about natural processes

a single solution. By combining several different sources of green power one would think it would all add up. Further, I think developing a diverse range of technologies is better for the long term prospects of the green energy movement.

of solar energy for electrical purposes.

...for wind. The only method of storage that we've got to grips with - for grid quantities - is pumped hydro, and then you've got to find suitable terrain to put it. Other options (Like VR cells) get very expensive at the TWh scale.

The other possibility is an on-demand source, such as hydro (terrain again) or NG, that you can switch on for those still days (or weeks).

Germany's 20% target might be in reach without this sort of fall-back, but they won't be getting any further than that...

Meanwhile, they decided to phase out nuclear power in 2000. Given that it currently supplies 30% of their electricity, I'll be fascinated to see how they plan to replace it without hiking up their emissions. Think I'll go pop some corn... :)

They are re-powering their older wind farms and building new ones offshore.

They have not "hit the wall"...

They currently purchase hydro-power from Norway to balance their wind loads (which, unlike a tripped nuclear plant does not drop power output in seconds).

They have extensively researched production of electrolysis hydrogen as a means of buffering output from their wind power assets and plan to use hydrogen at existing gas-fired co-generation district heating plants.

Electrolysis hydrogen is currently ~2-3 times more expensive than imported NG.

However, there are HUGE uncertainties in the future price and availability of NG form Russia.

MW-scale hydrogen electrolysis technology already exists, as does the infrastructure to use hydrogen in Denmark.

The Danes will be able to implement hydrogen storage of wind power rather rapidly.

"The Wall" is pretty flimsy it seems....

• Coal "gasificatication"
  
• Fischer-Tropsch coal liquefaction
  
• plastic precursors from coal

They have been funding "under the table" a lot of the "ebvironmental groups" fighting nuclear plants and wind energy.

Note - I grew up in "coal country" - my Dad was a United Mine Workers lawyer - and I went to an engineering school and a grad engineering school that had significant coal industry "support."

Anyone who attempts to displace nuclear, which is a constant load source of energy, with a renewable source will come hard up against that troublesome matter called reality.

Every incident of the "we are going to ban nuclear power" game always lays the onus on future generations. We will ban nuclear power in {insert date of ban} + 25 years, using renewable source x or y which will be available in {insert date of ban} + 20 years.

Sweden's 25 years are up. Ringhals was upgraded, not shut. There is outrage in Sweden about the price of power and everyone knows that to shut Ringhal's they would either have to turn out the lights or burn coal. All parties in the Swedish government have agreed not to shut a single nuclear plant because of some 1980's phaseout parties. Now every nuclear plant in Sweden - by general consensus - is planned to run for their full lifetimes. When these plants need to be replaced, you can bet that all of a sudden there will be an outcry for new nuclear plants. In fact, I'm going to guess it won't take that long. The Swedes will take a longing look over at Finland, and admit that the new EPR there works just fine.

There are only three successful baseload forms of energy, fossil fuels (especially coal, but sometimes natural gas or - less frequently - oil), nuclear energy and hydropower. The risk of fossil fuels is unacceptable. Hydro has reached the limits of scalability.

Wind can - and should - replace gas when it is used as a variable source but there is exactly one and only one scalable form of energy that can replace coal - that is nuclear.

The German nuclear phase out, like all other phase outs, is a political scam. It will not come to pass. The phase out we actually need on safety grounds - it's called global climate change - is the phase out of fossil fuels. This is essential. Fossil fuels are killing us now.

other discussions about alternate energy. It appears that the anti-alternate energy proponents think
EXACTLY alike. The implication is that attempts to develop wind, solar, tidal, geothermal or anything other than fossil fuels or nuclear is hopeless. Give up. Use up the coal and oil until it's gone or turn to nuclear until a major accident wipes out life on an entire Continent, then accept a stone age existence until the end of time. What a plan!

"There are only three successful baseload forms of energy, fossil fuels (especially coal, but sometimes natural gas or - less frequently - oil), nuclear energy and hydropower."

Give up. You will be assimilated.

...you've invented an aluminium smelter that runs off a PV panel, even at night.
:eyes:

debate the differences, I will fabricate a hypothesis that suggest the poster is mentally deficient.
That ought to do it. I will reduce him to a level that is beneath my lofty intellectual level.



Note: I've read a many of your posts.

..."I don't agree with the poster, so I'm going to label them an 'anti-alternate energy proponent', rather than attempt to address the issues they raised. Everybody will then think the poster is just a corporate whore, rather than somebody who's actually thought about the problem."

For example: Iceland, US Pacific Northwest..etc.

Iceland in particular is poised to become the world's largest producer of aluminum (using its vast geothermal resources).

One of the key reasons I moved to NZ is that it has lots of renewable resorces (which includes a large Al smelter powered by hydro). I'm not aware of anyone using geo. as a primary source of power for a smelter, but I'm sure you'll point me in the right direction.

But it is ridiculous to point at places like this and say "let's all use hydro for industry!" because the majority of places simply don't have the resources. Most of Germany, for instance, is pretty flat and certainly not volcanic. I believe they manage to get about 5% of their power from hydro, but that's about it. I also know they're looking at geothermal, but it's hardly Iceland.

So what would you do? Tell the Germans they can shut down thier heavy industry and piss off? That they can on do any manufacturing what it's windy?

Countries that don't have any uranium (like Germany, UK , Sweden, France and Spain) or coal are going to have to restructure their economies in the Peak Oil Apocalypse - they will have no choice.

How all that shakes out is anyone's guess.

And yes, NZ is going to have fairly sound renewable energy mix (geothermal, wind and hydro) in the near future (>700 MW of wind on the South Island alone). They're going to have quite a bit of tidal and wave power too.

If they put some PV arrays along all those pasture fence rows, they'd have it all by the nads...

How their tourism industry is going to cope with $200 a barrel oil is another thing (no airborne backpackers - maybe they can sail over from Oz???)

You can put it a box and take it from one country to another - the same way the materials for wind turbines and PV panels are moved, in fact.

Moving a couple of mountains or a geothermal field is usually not an option, unless I've missed something major.

Why NZ would put up PV is a mystery - given the hydro base, we get twice the power from spending the money on wind (which is, happily, happening with alacrity).

I am anti-fossil fuel.

The problem with the "alternative energy does not include nuclear" school of thinking is manifold. Typically these people have the following features:

1) They think talk about some era decades off is the same as producing energy now.

2) They despise the laws of physics.

3) They cannot do comparisons.

4) They do not know about what external costs of energy involve.

5) They don't understand the immediate urgency of the problem.

6) In general they are middle class or higher up the economic scale and have trouble thinking broadly in terms of all humanity.

Personally, I approve of wind plants everywhere, because I am trying to prevent the use of natural gas to make electricity. I approve of nuclear energy because I am trying to prevent the use of coal everywhere.

As for your proselytizing claims, "you will be assimilated," my sister-in-law belongs to a cult that believes she will convert everyone on earth to her form of fundamentalist christianity in ten years. When her group has accomplished this, she plans to invite Jesus to visit her home in New Jersey.

That won't happen either.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it'll make it true.

lays a burden on future generations.