Germany Building 17 New Coal, 29 New Gas-Fired Power Stations
From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
German utilities and private investors have plans to construct or modernise some 84 power stations, energy and water industry association BDEW said on Monday. Of the total number counted 29 units were gas-fired and 17 coal-fired generation plants, it said. The plans this year reflect over a year of debate on how to best replace Germany’s nuclear power stations, which must be closed faster than planned in light of the nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011. —Reuters, 23 April 2012
It’s a real paradox: As a result of Germany’s green energy transition, nuclear power is on its way out, but coal, Germany’s dirtiest resource, has become the most important energy source again. Brown coal (lignite) in experiencing a renaissance in Germany. Last year, about a quarter of the electricity generated used this most environmentally adverse resource. Its consumption grew by 3.3 percent. This has made lignite the number one energy supplier. The Government’s planned energy transition was supposed to, among other things, produce environmentally friendly electricity. It turns out, however, that the power gap, which was created by the shutdown of eight nuclear power stations, will be largely filled by brown coal.
The Prime Minister believes that unlocking the reserves of gas in shale rock under the county’s countryside has the potential to be a “revolution” creating thousands of extra jobs for the county. Mr Cameron said: “We can complete the review and see whether gas can be extracted safely, clearly in America this has been something of a revolution. I am fully alert to the potential and I am looking very closely at this industry with energy independence and security of vital importance to our country.” —Lancashire Evening Post, 20 April 2012
Until recently we thought that conventional gas was going to run out and the most plentiful supplies of the stuff were in Russia or the Gulf. Now that we realise the rocks under our feet may hold supplies that would last for generations, the world has changed and the greens haven’t caught up. I detect something else behind the “shale rage” of the European greens. They got too close to the present renewables industries and let governments hand out subsidies without enough competition over price. They thought gas would get so expensive that renewables would look cheap by comparison. They were wrong. Instead of getting angry with the frackers, they should adapt their thinking to a world in which gas prices could fall, and persuade governments to spend some of the money we will save on a generation of renewables that might actually solve our problems. –Charles Clover, The Sunday Times, 22 April 2012
The EU member states’ energy ministers remain opposed to binding energy efficiency targets and a freeze on CO2 emissions allowances. The debate at an informal Energy Council, on 19 April in Horsens, Denmark, gave them the opportunity to confirm their positions on this issue. Without going back over all the different points of the directive, the ministers reiterated their total opposition to the inclusion of binding targets in the text, as demanded by Parliament. They could nevertheless agree to an indicative target of 1.5% energy savings, to be achieved gradually by 2020. –Anne Eckstein, Europolitics, 20 April 2012
Argentina’s shale reserves are believed to be the third biggest in the world, after those of the US and China. Just as nuclear scientists hoped atomic power was the answer to the world’s energy needs in the 1950s, oil and gas producers believe this new resource could bring plentiful low-cost power. Shale could also bring energy independence for many nations, freeing them from a reliance on imports. Shale is recasting geopolitics and influencing companies’ investment decisions. National oil companies and international groups have spent tens of billions of dollars acquiring shale gas resources in North America. –Sylvia Pfeifer, Financial Times, 22 April 2012
The only British company in the running to build a new generation of atomic power plants has threatened to pull out due to uncertainty over the government’s energy policy – a move that could imperil the country’s nuclear renaissance. Executives at Centrica, which is planning to build a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset in a joint venture with EDF Energy, have warned Whitehall officials that the plan hangs by a thread and could be scrapped if the company does not receive assurances about the future price of nuclear-generated electricity. –Guy Chazan and Jim Pickard, Financial Times, 22 April 2012
The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers. Officials of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation said on April 19 that the activity of sunspots appeared to resemble a 70-year period in the 17th century in which London’s Thames froze over and cherry blossoms bloomed later than usual in Kyoto. —The Asahi Shimbun, 20 April 2012
Cold reality always wins out in the end.
Hopefully the Greens have learned a lesson, when you vehemently fight against any energy source other than wind, solar and unicorn farts, reality will hit you square in the nose sooner or later.
Actually, the article said, “to construct or modernise“.
There were 23 Offshore Wind, and 10 pumped storage Projects listed, also.
Both Germany and Japan will discover they actually need nuclear power, and may be the first to adopt truly modern nuclear technology. Modular integral fast reactors should be our goal.
Example: http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2011/04/will-fukushima-increase-interest-in.html, although moving away from solid fuel cores might be a better idea.
Why is this entitled “ungreening”?
If the environmentalists can get over the CO2 bed-wetting, they could get back to campaigning about REAL pollution.
I don’t see this as ungreening, more like waking up from a long bad dream and refocusing on real issues. Whether anyone is going to listen to them any more is likely to be their biggest problem.
Kum Dollison says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“Actually, the article said, “to construct or modernise“.
There were 23 Offshore Wind, and 10 pumped storage Projects listed, also.”
You have to divide the wattage of the many small wind projects by 3 to 5, of course, you know that, so that’s many small peanuts.
As for pumped storage: We use that to produce renewable energy. Many Germans happily pay inflated prices for renewable electricity; this electricity is largely produced by hydropower plants. What kind of energy you use to pump the water uphill doesn’t matter. The moment it flows downhill it’s green energy.
That’s how Greenpeace Energy and a lot of other electricity traders work. Customers are free to choose whether they make a contract with their local provider or somebody else; if you’re a green, you pay more for “green” electricity from one of those providers (comes through the same grid of course and is only a bookkeeping exercise).
silly germans! and a silly knee jerk reaction re nuclear power.
I was going to post this on Tips n Notes, but it fits quite well here :
All you Germanists out there, this was on Bavarian TV this evening. Basically the German solar industry is on the verge of collapse, threatening 3000 jobs ( tsk, that is actually pretty bad and it wiped the smile off of my face ) as the government pulls the plug on subsidies and they are being overrun by cheap Oriental imports.
http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/programmkalender/sendung267210.html
600,000 Households In Germany Without Power – “Increasing Energy Poverty Is Alarming”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/23/600000-households-in-germany-without-power-increasing-energy-poverty-is-alarming/
Cold long Winters can be bad for reelection without cheap reliable energy. Renewables and cold long winters don’t go hand in hand. If you freeze to death ‘green thinking’ stops.
I had no idea how bad the German school systems are. They are afraid of tsunamis in Germany taking out their nuclear power plants. Really?
Clearly, someone was looking for any excuse to close those plants. It’s a shame because nuclear is the way to go in the long run. It has the smallest footprint and is safer than most power industries. Thorium liquid nuclear reactors have all pluses, no meltdowns, cheap fuel, potential for full-automation, and even usable byproducts rather than waste as the fuel is so fully used up.
The problem facing the environmentalists is that, if they have to give up on CO2 because it cannot do what they say, they do not have anything as monumental and with the potential in power-accumulation that a Draconian takeover of the world’s energy based on CO2 would have. All other issues pale compared to what they see in the AGW Scam.
It has taken a long time to realize that, very simply, NO atmospheric gas can warm the Earth’s surface. The back radiation and greenhouse effect simply do not exist. That leaves CO2 emissions as the most beneficial thing we can do for the planet and for all life on Earth. There is no downside.
Germany will not jeopardise “Das Autos” and that requires secure and cost effective energy.
higley7 says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm
“I had no idea how bad the German school systems are. They are afraid of tsunamis in Germany taking out their nuclear power plants. Really?
Clearly, someone was looking for any excuse to close those plants. It’s a shame because nuclear is the way to go in the long run. It has the smallest footprint and is safer than most power industries. ”
The public schools are in the hand of greens; most members of the Green party are teachers. The other teachers are members of Die Linke, a reform communist successor of the DDR’s SED party.
Neither in the schools nor in the media (not even in the non-public media) is the safety record of nuclear power EVER mentioned in a fair way (which would be deaths/TWh).
Meanwhile, people die in the construction of useless offshore wind parks. That’s the korrekt way of dying for a noble cause.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/22/killer-offshore-north-sea-windparks-3-dead-80-serious-accidents-more-have-died/
German has a word for this, “Gleichschaltung” (lit. synchronisation; meaning total conformity in the media).
Shale gas won’t help Argentina
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/21/robert-fulford-do-cry-for-argentina/
Higley, it looks like “sustainabiity” or water distribution may be on the back burner as a substitute scare tactic by the watermelons.
GJohn Barrett says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm
german solar industry is on the verge of collapse, threatening 3000 jobs
The total of green jobs in solar is 3 000?.
“The largest share of jobs in the field of renewables can be found in sectors directly or indirectly linked with solar energy, with a total of 125,000 employees last year. Approximately 111,000 of these in the photovoltaics sector. This is followed by the biomass sector with around 124,000 employees and wind power with more than 100,000.”
http://www.energy-enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=3&PRINT=yes&ID=4146
3 000 does not sound like collapse.
P. Solar says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
“Why is this entitled “ungreening”?
If the environmentalists can get over the CO2 bed-wetting, they could get back to campaigning about REAL pollution.
I don’t see this as ungreening, more like waking up from a long bad dream and refocusing on real issues. Whether anyone is going to listen to them any more is likely to be their biggest problem.”
The Greens are withering since Merkel outgreened them by switching off half the nukes; “ungreening” is a good description – the Greens approval rating fell from 30%+ after Fukushima to 12% now.
The Greens in Germany used to make political hay from anti-nuclear fear for decades now; CO2 was always the smaller player. Only after the Red-Green Schröder government decided to phase out nuclear (a decision that was later reversed by Merkel before she reversed it again) became CO2 an important objective.
So… it’s all zigzagging from one fear to the other for the German Green party – they were NEVER about “real issues”. Right after the founding of the party internal cleansings began until all the top honchos were ex-K-Gruppen members; members of the small communist groups of the 70ies who recognized that the anti-nuclear movement could be their ticket to power. These people (Trittin, Fischer, Kretschmann for instance) dominate the party to this day.
When they are in power, they greenlight sacrificing forests for wind turbines (like in Nortthrhine Westphalia at the moment), when they are in opposition, they oppose it and want to protect the forest (like in Hesse).
They are completely machiavellistic.
With reserves of ‘frackable’ shale gas being found worldwide, it would appear that there will be a slump in energy prices. This could prove extremely embarassing for the ‘green energy’ and windfarm lobby. Just as they were pushing the peak oil meme – along comes shale gas in huge quantities. For the world if things _do_ get colder in the next few years at least shale gas offers a cheap way forward before thorium or fast breeder reactors are accepted.
Be careful of what you wish for.
How true- in their crusade to remove nuclear the Greens have landed themselves with lignite.
Happy days!
“warned Whitehall officials that the plan hangs by a thread and could be scrapped if the company does not receive assurances about the future price of nuclear-generated electricity.”
So are the pro-nuclear folk here as opposed to subsidy for nuclear power as they are to subsidy for wind and solar?
The truth is, nuclear power has always been expensive power, cross subsidized by the operators from hiked prices on fossil fuel generated electricity. Plus the financial plans in place for decommissioning and waste disposal are shoved off balance sheets way into the future, when the taxpayer will no doubt have to pick up the tab.
Tell the nuclear fat cats to frack off with their attempted ransoming of subsidy IMO.
“The plans this year reflect over a year of debate on how to best replace Germany’s nuclear power stations, which must be closed faster than planned in light of the nuclear disaster in Japan in March 2011.”
—————————————————–
Would that be the disaster that caused zero fatalities and zero injuries? OK, the tsunami drowned 2 nuke power plant workers and there was a heart attack of one worker who was doing heavy lifting. Of course, there was relocation of neighbors because of the possibility of an actual nuclear problem. But it is the government, not the contamination, that is preventing some of those people from moving back home. The government agencies all cling to the disproven linear no threshold philosophy of hazard analysis. references: http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm and http://www.radpro.com/mossman.pdf and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ Of course, these government actions will cause cancer cases because the people expect them, not because of an elevated radiation level.
I had higher expectations from the Japanese government.
higley7 says: April 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Exactly, the Merkel government seems to be afraid of higher-than-predicted tsunamis in Germany.
Ian W says:
April 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm
…. Just as they were pushing the peak oil meme – along comes shale gas in huge quantities. For the world if things _do_ get colder in the next few years at least shale gas offers a cheap way forward before thorium or fast breeder reactors are accepted.
__________________________________
Too bad the world wasted so much money and brains on CAGW. If all that money, energy and brain power had been focused on something like developing and modular thorium reactors.
For Germany, they are nuts to power down their nuclear reactors when all they have to do is switch to thorium. See E.M. Smith’s comment on thorium’s use in conventional reactors: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/21/the-moon-and-sick-plans/#comment-964024
tallbloke says:
April 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm
“So are the pro-nuclear folk here as opposed to subsidy for nuclear power as they are to subsidy for wind and solar?”
Yes, we are.
The German plants that have been switched off are GE Mark 1, a design from 1968, built in the 70ies.
Back in those days the electricity providers in Germany were publically owned; there were subsidies for German coal production (similar to today, the so-called “Kohlepfennig” was added to the cost of a kWh to cross-subsidize German mining) etc. Of course German miners were supported to ensure their votes, as usual. So it wasn’t only nuclear back in those days that got subsidized.
If new nuclear plants were to be built now, I would insist that they’d have to finance themselves. What would be the point otherwise.
But I would also insist that the anti-nuclear protesters pay for the thousands of police necessary to carry them out of the way when they block nuclear transports. If they want to play they can pay.
DirkH says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Kum Dollison says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm
You have to divide the wattage of the many small wind projects by 3 to 5, of course, you know that, so that’s many small peanuts.
As for pumped storage: We use that to produce renewable energy. Many Germans happily pay inflated prices for renewable electricity; this electricity is largely produced by hydropower plants. What kind of energy you use to pump the water uphill doesn’t matter. The moment it flows downhill it’s green energy.
That’s how Greenpeace Energy and a lot of other electricity traders work. Customers are free to choose whether they make a contract with their local provider or somebody else; if you’re a green, you pay more for “green” electricity from one of those providers (comes through the same grid of course and is only a bookkeeping exercise).
That bookkeeping exercise has always interested me.
For instance, at this time, metered wind power is 363Mw from a plated capacity of 4491Mw. Who is paying for wind power that isn’t being generated? I’ve seen below 20Mw btw.
DaveE.
Gail Combs says:
April 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“For Germany, they are nuts to power down their nuclear reactors when all they have to do is switch to thorium. ”
Thanks for the link, Gail, I didn’t know about this possibility. But the reason we switched them off has nothing to do with the availability of nuclear fuel… as I said, the population here has a fear of radioactivity that can only be described as superstitious. Nobody in our anti-nuclear movement could tell you what a milliSievert is. They are not even interested in facts or logic.