Nuclear power: If Japan and Germany don't need it, why does anyone?

[kristopher]

Nuclear power: If Japan and Germany don't need it, why does anyone?


If the third and fourth biggest economies in the world believe they can cut their carbon emissions and keep the lights on without building nuclear power stations, then why can't the sixth? That's the question I am asking after Japan (3rd) yesterday followed Germany (4th) in abandoning their plans for a new generation of nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the catastrophe at Fukushima. In contrast, the UK (6th) remains committed to building a new fleet of reactors.

The question may soon become even more stark if a referendum in Italy (7th) next month also cancels their future nuclear programme.

These are not small statements by Japan and Germany. About 30% of Japan's electricity comes from nuclear and a rise to 50% was projected by 2030. In Germany, up to 25% of electricity came from nuclear. Currently, the UK gets just 16% or so from nuclear and government plans only to replace - not expand - existing capacity.

Adding fuel to the fiery debate is Monday's report stating that 80% of the world's energy (not just electricity) can be provided from renewable from sources by 2050. The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was signed off by all the world's governments. It's worth noting the pie chart in the report showing that in 2008 just 2% of global energy came from nuclear power, with renewables (largely biomass) accounting for 12%. And...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/may/11/nuclear-renewables-japan-germany


This is from a previous nuclear supporter...

[AndyTiedye]

1. This is SOOOOO Kicked and Recommended

If Japan can't keep their nukes safe, and Germany doesn't think they can either, that should tell us something.

[Harmony Blue]

2. The key is if there is a drive

and a will to strive for such goals. Even if they fall short, these countries are still positioning themselves more favorably down the road. It is not just the safety/environmental issues involved, but also the geo-political issues.

It would be an amazing sight to see the U.K. move in the direction. Even more amazing if France moves in that direction, but not likely. Still I suspect that there is sentiment brewing in France for such a move as well. If the Germans can pull it off, I think the rest of Europe will follow.

[kristopher]

9. It has the fission industry scared witless.

Not that it was a long journey to get them to that state...

You might like this:
Japan: Seeking higher ground
Tepco may apologise profusely, but the nuclear industry has lost the stranglehold it once had over the energy debate


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/12/japan-seeking-higher-ground

[snagglepuss]

3. From what I've read, Germany will be buying energy from France which is

generated by nukes so I'm not too impressed with their decision. Perhaps I don't know the complete story.

[kristopher]

4. Well then perhaps you could google it and find out what their plan is...

...instead of spreading nuke industry talking points.

[LAGC]

5. Why don't you save us all the time and bless us with your wealth of information?

What kind of time-frame are we looking at before Germany is even energy-independent again, not having to rely on foreign energy imports?

Do you think they even know that right now, after shutting down all their nuclear plants in haste?

[kristopher]

6. Why don't you read something instead of just bashing renewables...

[LAGC]

7. I never bash renewables.

I only question how cost-effective they are to deploy on any sort of massive scale yet.

I support allocating much more $$$ towards R&D, especially into storage battery technology to make them more reliable and competitive.

Whatever path we take, we shouldn't burden the poor with expensive energy prices. Any solution we find needs to keep them in mind, first and foremost.

[madokie]

14. Now here's a quote to hang your hat on.

"Whatever path we take, we shouldn't burden the poor with expensive energy prices. Any solution we find needs to keep them in mind, first and foremost."

In other words lets just continue on this road to ruin, trust me nuclear energy is on a road to ruin, so we don't over burden us poor. If after whats going on in Japan today isn't enough to open ones eyes then that person is blind. :hi:
have a good day
I hope to.

[LAGC]

17. Once we've figured out a way to scale renewables so they are as economical & reliable as nuclear...

I'll drop my support for nuclear, in a New York minute. I've said so multiple times.

We still need to invest a lot more money toward R&D on energy storage battery technology, so that we may get to that point sooner.

As for nuclear, in the meantime, we shouldn't let one negative anecdotal account discredit an entire concept. To do so is to be ruled by emotion, not reason.

Have a good day yourself. :hi:

[kristopher]

22. They are already more affordable, more reliable and more effective at CO2 reductions than nukes.

Of course, like the climate deniers that call themselves "skeptics", there is no evidence that will convince you. You just say that to try and appear reasonable.

I challenge you to produce a recent peer reviewed analysis by noncarbon energy specialists that shows renewables cannot scale up economically or will be less reliable than nuclear; and be sure it is an actual analysis of the issue that details the reasons.

Finally, did you just refer to Fukushima as "one negative anecdotal account"?

[LAGC]

24. kristopher, I've never challenged you when you've gone around pimping renewables.

Because I think its good that we invest more resources in that direction. Like A LOT more.

But there's still a big gap between current reality and your unbridled idealism. And a lot of fossil fuels are going to be burnt before we ever get to that point where renewables can meet most of our energy needs, especially if we forsake nuclear.

[kristopher]

26. Produce proof of your assertions.

On most points I don't routinely challenge people either, but I do on this point because it is blatantly false. So again, I challenge you to produce a recent peer reviewed analysis by noncarbon energy specialists that shows renewables cannot scale up economically or will be less reliable than nuclear; and be sure it is an actual analysis of the issue that details the reasons.

Also, you didn't answer this: did you just refer to Fukushima as "one negative anecdotal account"?

[LAGC]

29. Renewables, in and of themselves, are cheaper than nuclear to deploy.

You are right about that. But its the mass-energy storage mediums that are still so expensive right now, and they are absolutely necessary to make renewables practical on any large scale (so that they can power entire cities in the dead of winter when everyone has their thermostats cranks up, at night, when the wind isn't blowing...)

In another thread, jpak posted about those NaS batteries which have a lot of potential. But global production of them was only 150 MW in 2010, and they are still very expensive to deploy. Those need to be scaled up to the TW capacities without adding a fortune to the cost of the renewables systems they are tied to.

I mean, if we had $15 Trillion to throw at the problem, we might be able to make it work on a large scale. But its going to take considerable time to get from Point A to Point B.

What do we do in all the mean time? Keep burning lots more fossil fuels?

[kristopher]

30. PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE

You are full of crap (including your claims about the relevance of storage) so PROVE the assertions you made with independent, peer reviewed analysis.

[LAGC]

31. GODDESS DAMMIT KRISOTOPHER!

You don't need to be shown a damned peer-reviewed study to prove that 2 + 2 = 4!

You know damn well that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. In order for solar/wind to be viable, we NEED storage. It's just plain old common sense.

Quit being so damned obtuse about this.

[kristopher]

36. Stop wriggling and PROVE YOUR ASSERTION or stop supporting nuclear.

You wrote "Once we've figured out a way to scale renewables so they are as economical & reliable as nuclear I'll drop my support for nuclear, in a New York minute. I've said so multiple times. We still need to invest a lot more money toward R&D on energy storage battery technology, so that we may get to that point sooner."

We do not need to figure "out a way to scale renewables so they are as economical & reliable as nuclear", because we already know - we've known for 20 years.

And you STILL haven't said if you are saying that Fukushima is the "negative anecdotal account" you referred to.

[LAGC]

41. kristopher, I want to stop supporting nuclear. I really, really do.

Very badly, in fact... but we just don't have a better alternative yet that can rapidly reduce our fossil fuel usage RIGHT NOW without costing us a fortune to implement.

Maybe in as soon as 10 years we will be at that tipping point, but not now.

If you spent as much time advocating for renewables Research & Development as you do bashing nuclear power, you might actually be able to accomplish something.

But you're so consumed with anti-nuclear hate that its clouded your vision and distracted you from the bigger picture.

We need to have lofty goals, yes, but we also need to be practical and pragmatic about achieving those goals.

Hyperbole isn't helping anyone, kristopher.

[kristopher]

42. Nuclear costs more, takes more time and impedes other more effective solutions.

I'm not "consumed with anti-nuclear hate", I'm dedicated to implementing the most effective solution to climate change and the lies of the nuclear INDUSTRY and its EMPLOYEES are the primary source of lies about what the science tells us is the most effective solution.

So again, I do not hate inanimate objects, but I do reject without equivocation the LIES of the nuclear INDUSTRY just as much as I reject the LIES of the fossil fuel industry.

AND...

You STILL have not presented one shred of evidence to support the assertions re renewables you routinely make. Since I am extremely familiar with the peer reviewed literature on the topic I do not hesitate to say that the reason you DO not is because you CAN not, since the claims you made were false.

Given that is the case it begs the question of why you claim to be open to suasion yet cannot even defend the beliefs you currently own. That indicates that no amount of new information would alter your position because your position is not founded on a factual basis you can support in public discussion.

[LAGC]

43. That's not true at all.

I could easily be persuaded on this issue.

Just prove to me that a mass-output renewables system (WITH MASS-ENERGY STORAGE CAPACITY) would be cheaper to deploy than an equivalent capacity nuclear plant.

Sure, you can make the case that stand-alone renewables (without storage) are cheaper, and indeed viable in reducing the need for traditional energy sources during hours (sunny/windy) when the renewables system is actually producing output, which indeed can reduce stress on the rest of the traditional grid and cause load to be reduced so that not as much traditional fuel has to be consumed during those times.

But not if you factor in the cost of storage. If you really want to see renewables play a significant role in meeting our electricity generation needs, they have got to be reliable and continuous 24/7/365. Otherwise they will never amount to more than 20% of our generating capacity.

You seem to think there's a nuclear fission conspiracy keeping renewables down. Rubbish! If cost was no factor, energy companies would be abandoning nuclear/coal/natural-gas left and right and embracing renewables 100%. I mean, shit, its FREE energy. The fuel doesn't cost anything. They'd be stupid not to. Its FREE money to them.

But the fact is they aren't, even with heavy subsidies. More renewables are coming online, but not nearly as fast as new fossil fuel sources are being added in this country.

If we ever got around to passing a carbon tax, nuclear would hands-down be the cheapest option. I mean, look how cheap electricity is in France?

Something's got to happen before we are able to truly transition away from traditional fuel sources. We need a break-through in mass-energy storage capacity. And you seem to always conveniently gloss over that fact.

[kristopher]

44. PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE

You are the one with the contrarian position and you keep repeating the falsehood, it is time to prove it. I've repeatedly posted analysis after analysis showing the way renewables will do as all major AGW action plans predicct, now it is time for you to stop the bullshit and PROVE what you say. I've been making the same challenge for more than 3 years now and not once has an Acolyte of Uranus put up even a scrap of proof to back up their bull.

PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE.

[LAGC]

48. The onus isn't on me kristopher, its on you.

You're the one who thinks we can just abandon nuclear power cold turkey and magically transition to a reliable renewables-only energy economy.

If you want to convince our elected leaders, YOU need to prove your case by answering reasonable logistics concerns, not just continue to try to baffle everyone with your usual bullshit.

My elected leaders already support nuclear power. I don't need to convince them.

Seems if you want to change the status quo, its up to you to make your case. And you haven't done it so far. Not by a long shot.

[kristopher]

50. Apparently you didn't see the IPCC report that was just released.

It is only about the 10,000th analysis to say the same damned thing since that has been the accepted understanding of the technologies since the UN did the first intensive analysis for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

No, the onus is on you to prove the falsehoods you are are promoting. I guess your continued evasion is as close as you can come to admitting there is no support for your claims upthread that I labeled false.

[LAGC]

51. You know what, kristopher, you're right.

I'm going to quit defending nuclear power. You've convinced me.

You win.

I wish you the best in your efforts towards ushering in our future renewables-powered society.

I won't criticize you any further on this matter.

[AmericanVanadium]

55. The Vanadium Redox Battery will enable the Renewable Energy Sector

The only thing holding back the VRB are gov't subsidization and the unpredictable cost of vanadium. Please read the following article: "Vanadium: Critical to U.S. Industry" Junior on-track to be the only vanadium mine in U.S. http://bit.ly/kFHbTh

Follow our Twitter feed to stay on top of all news on this subject and our corporate progress: http://www.twitter.com/AVCVanadium

Sincerely,

Michael Hyslop
Director of Corporate Development
American Vanadium Corp.

http://www.americanvanadium.com/about-us.php

[LAGC]

56. Interesting.

Thanks for letting us all know here in this forum.

Hope the logistics work out and your company can deploy it on a massive scale.

Looks promising.

[SpoonFed]

47. The usual suspects all appear...

Also, you didn't answer this: did you just refer to Fukushima as "one negative anecdotal account"?

I sure read it as that. Appauling, obviously, and therefore the poster just refuses to respond.

The usual rhetoric abounds. Particularly amusing is the demand that you prove an assertion of something else, since they cannot prove theirs. Classic. Since all the usual suspects (or sockpuppets?) have turned up to take a swing at you for this OP it seems to me that you're doing something right. Keep it up.

[TheMadMonk]

8. Germany IS buying power from France to make up for the shortfall...

...resulting from their decision to shutter their own plants.

France generates a large proportion of its power in nuclear facilities.

So unless France has rearranged its powergrid to isolate Germany from the French nukes, Germany is still using nuclear electricity.

This my fine adversary is textbook hypocrisy.

You might also wish to note a couple of flow on effects of this environmentally conscious decisionpolitical stunt.

The European grid as a whole is that much more fragile now. And in all probability the maintenance cycles of the French plants just got fewer and further between and/or shorter in duration. Maintenance cycles of conventional plants in both countries are also likely to be affected.

Then there is the question of what Germany's long term plans for its "shuttered" plants.

Are they keeping them fully staffed and idled, for emergency use?

Cold shutdowns, skeleton crew, and wait it out?

OR if it really is "No, no never, never no more." how are they planning on disposing of the "Carcasses"? Since there IS no long term disposal protocol that the "Green" element will currently acccept.

[kristopher]

10. What is the German plan? You haven't got a clue, do you?

And you don't care - all you want to do is push nuclear industry talking points.

[Nihil]

13. That's exactly what he's saying to you ...

> What is the German plan? You haven't got a clue, do you?
> And you don't care

:shrug:

[kristopher]

23. Germany DOES have a plan.

[Nederland]

38. Yes, they have a PLAN

A PLAN is not reality. Do you get that? It is laughable how you consistently offer up papers, articles and plans as proof that something is possible. Those things are proof of nothing, they are words on a page. Reality is almost always different (and yes, that goes for nuclear PLANS that made horribly over optimistic predictions too).

[SpoonFed]

45. Do you take this tact with TEPCO re: Fukushima?

That their plan is total BS? That reality is totally different?

[Nederland]

52. Yes

Every prediction is to be met with skepticism until reality proves it correct, especially when the prediction is being made by someone who would profit from things going as "predicted".

[madokie]

15. I keep reading that but have yet seen a link to that info that is even close to credible

Cough one up for me if you would there please.

[NickB79]

18. Is Speigel credible enough?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,754957,00.html

"Germany has been importing nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic since it switched off its seven oldest nuclear power stations last month in the wake of the Fukushima accident, power company RWE said on Monday.

A spokesman for RWE confirmed a report in Bild newspaper that Germany had become a net importer of power since March 16. Previously, Germany had been a net electricity exporter because of its rising output of power from renewable energy sources.

RWE said the country's power imports from France and Czech have been amounting up to 3,000 megawatts and up to 2,000 megawatts respectively. Three quarters of France's power supply comes from nuclear energy while the Czech Republic relies on reactors for 34 percent of its energy needs."

[GliderGuider]

19. You mean there's no free lunch????

:shrug:

[Nederland]

34. Ah, so right now they have a PLAN to stop using nuclear power

That is a little different from your OP claim that "Japan and Germany don't need it" (present tense). The title is very misleading.

[flamingdem]

11. rec

[Someguyinjapan]

12. An excellent question indeed

[Harmony Blue]

16. I believe in Germany

They went from 5% renewable energy to 17% in a blink of an eye while critics said it would take 30 years to do that. Only 23% comes from nuclear power currently, so it would be safe to say that if Germany is aggressive as they were in the 90's, even more so, they can easily replace 23% that nuclear power provides within five years. What will take longer to replace is the coal power generated which is nearly half.

The nuclear industry indeed is shaking in their boots because Merkel was once a staunch supporter for them. Her background as a scientist allows her flexibility to examine dynamic information. Her original point of view on Nuclear power was that it was highly unlikely an accident to happen in an MDC that is technologically advanced. This world view has shifted with the disaster in Japan based on the information she is privy too.

The American media is terrible on reporting anything outside the U.S., but on May 2nd Merkel was at the ceremony that unveiled Baltic 1, Germany's first commercial offshore windpark.

Don't blink folks because we are about to witness a radical shift in energy policy around the world.

[Yo_Mama]

28. That's where you're wrong

The Germans really have tried hard to boost their energy from renewables. By the middle of the last decade, they ran into wind problems - integrating it into the grid. Then they jumped wholescale into solar, and have had some success with that.

But still they only get around 3% from solar (2% in 2010). They get more from wind, but it's not reliable and they have integrated enough wind that it becomes a problem with the grid. That's why they are doing less with wind now - mostly replacing - and have shifted more resources toward solar. But most of their renewables still don't come from either source:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. What you say can not be true

cause Kristopher says otherwise...

That I know any number of people with international reputations in the field, patents holders, and are recognized experts that agree with you does not matter.

[kristopher]

37. Then prove it.

It should be easy enough if you are truthful.

[NickB79]

20. The key word here is "believe"

"If the third and fourth biggest economies in the world believe they can cut their carbon emissions and keep the lights on without building nuclear power stations, then why can't the sixth?"

We can't yet say as a statement of fact that Japan and Germany don't need nuclear, as they've only just embarked on their attempt to wean themselves off of it after many years of use. They are both well-positioned to make it work, but only time will tell if there are any snags along the way to their renewable futures.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Yo_Mama]

25. The problem is that they do need it right now.

Both countries are going on with their nuclear programs to some extent; both hope to end nuclear power some time in the future, both are trying to develop strategies that will allow it in the future.

Renewables are not yet at the stage at which they offer either country an easy way to dump their nuclear generation without vastly increasing their dependence on fossil fuels.

Germany is building more coal plants, but it is trying to work toward a goal of greatly reducing CO2 emissions. You can't say they haven't tried - they are trying. But they still aren't there.

If the various wave generating schemes ever really produce (I think there is hope), Japan should have a great way to go non-nuclear. Germany will have to find another route.

[kristopher]

27. Please prove that assertion about renewables.

You claim, "Renewables are not yet at the stage at which they offer either country an easy way to dump their nuclear generation without vastly increasing their dependence on fossil fuels."

That is false.

[Yo_Mama]

32. Really?

I can tell you very accurately how Japan is currently bridging its gap - it is running all its thermal stations at max, setting up a few more, and buying power from manufacturers thermal stations. The TEPCO area is still looking at a 15% power reduction this summer.

My guess is that Japan has a chance to do more with wind, because they already have a ton of smaller pumped storage hydropower. But it will take a very long while to get there, and I know the government is currently discussing a German type solar feed in tariff to try to generate more power during the peak summer months.

And as for Germany, it had to import power to make up for shutting down the nuclear plants it did shut down, and it has already concluded that it can't simply halt nuclear power right now, as has Japan. In effect, what the initial shutdown of the seven nuclear plants accomplished in Germany was to make it import power from other countries who didn't, and to boost coal prices:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-energy-coal-power-idUSTRE7342Z920110405

In other words, Germany resorted to running its coal plants flat-out.

[kristopher]

39. The discussion is about a PLANNED transition to renewables.

Not about emergency stopgap measures in the aftermath of a disaster.

I guess you are using the strawman because you KNOW that your claim as it relates to the actual topic cannot be sustained.

[Harmony Blue]

46. While I understand your point

they are putting down a plan for the future as the author suggests in the original post. I do not believe coal or nuclear are safe long term energy sources. But in terms of a stop gap until alternative energy can become dominant, I would suggest coal is better for the reason that we know exactly what carcinogens are emitted from them, we can monitor them, and a coal plant can be shut down if it is changing the pH of the surrounding area significantly. With nuclear, we do not have the technology yet to deal with an accident or fully understand how low dosage radiation over a long period of time can effect DNA of living matter.

Nuclear power will still be around, but it will probably require a greater leap in technology compared to renewable energy.

For Germany, Renewable energy is 17%, while nuclear is 23%. If you told someone that renewable energy could close the gap so quickly approaching nuclear energy output years ago, they wouldn't have believed you.

[Yo_Mama]

49. Coal definitely has different types of dangers

More controllable, certainly.

Germany has had a plan to get out of nuclear energy by about 2020 for a long while. In recent years they were talking about extending some of the life of their nuclear plants as a way to reach their carbon emission reduction goal. They have come off that - their new plan is sort of the old plan.

But part of the original plan was building new coal plants (some of which are in process) and go to a carbon capture system. The idea was to pump the carbon down way below the surface of the earth, into geologically stable substrates. I'm only following one of those, but it is tied up in court. There is some risk, it's a new technology, the inhabitants of the area don't want to run that risk. That is a new type of risk related to coal, and it is more like nuclear type risks - unlikely, but pretty dire if it happens.

So more of their program is in question than people seem to think. Without the clean coal, Germany never had a chance to meet the original reactor scrapping schedule.

So far Germany has been basically stalled out on wind for years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany

From 2007 on they installed additional capacity, but they never managed to increase share. The reason is that it is very unpredictable and as their installed wind capacity grows, their troubles integrating it in the grid grow. They haven't been able to overcome these problems.

So they changed course and decided to try solar, and they have added a substantial chunk of solar capacity at a high, continuing cost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Now, between those two very large programs (large on a global scale) they aren't getting 10% of their total electricity. They probably aren't getting 9.5%.

They have also installed a lot of biomass, biogas, and of course they have maximized hydropower. By last year they were up to about 16.5 - 17.2% (if I am calculating this right) total electricity production in renewables, which is about a 10% increase from 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

But, therein lies the problem. They can certainly eke out a few more percentage points, but they currently don't have a way forward to get 20% more out of these technologies and keep their grid running. Much of their plan relied on these CCS coal plants, and it is not clear that these will ever be built!
http://blog.panidea.com/2011/05/germanys-carbon-storage-plans-provoke.html
http://powerplantccs.com/blog/tag/coal-power-plants-in-germany

Here's an update: the planned CCS law in Germany will probably go through, but it has an escape clause so that any Land can ban CCS through local legislation, and at this point it appears that they all will!
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2011/04/13/government-bids-to-shift-energy-policy-away-from-nuclear-power-germany/

And here's a first draft of the new, new, really older plan:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=6012#more-6012

Note that this plan requires building 15 to 20 new NG or coal plants by 2020.

Finally, here is the BDEW 2010 survey results:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=5436#more-5436
Source 2009 2010*
Nuclear 22.9% 23%
Lignite 24.0% 23%
Hard Coal 17.7% 18%
Natural Gas 13.7% 14%
Renewables 16.5% 17%
Heating Oil, Pumped Hydro, Others 5.2% 5%

* rounded estimate

On the renewable side, wind power provided 6.2%, biomass 4.7%, hydro power 3.2%, photovoltaics 2% and waste power plants 0.8%.

They are still getting more usable energy out of solar, but the share of wind energy has been dropping. They are planning to go to 50,000 MW on solar, which would be more far more than double, but after they get to that they'll be close to max there also. They are planning to more than double wind capacity, but even with the upgraded grid and new transmission lines, the actual load assumption from the wind probably won't amount to more than 4% more. Unless they can build a whole bunch of pumped hydro plants, but that is questionable.

Wind power produces most of its output spread over less than a fourth of the time - thus when you get to certain levels, the amount of wind power that actually goes on grid drops and you have to divert it, dump it, or put it in something like pumped storage, which is limited capacity.

What they are actually going to do is send the wind power excess elsewhere (they think, may not be possible) and run the grid off those new gas and coal power plants. They can maybe get another 4-7% actual grid power off the renewables, after that it's fossil fuels or they have to find some way to provide storage to increase renewable shares.

[kristopher]

53. That conclusion is completely incorrect , but I sincerely appreciate the time and effort

If you'll apply the same evidence based reasoning to this problem that you just applied to the core condition issue your product would improve and your conclusions would alter.

Here are a couple of areas:

"They can maybe get another 4-7% actual grid power off the renewables, after that it's fossil fuels or they have to find some way to provide storage to increase renewable shares."

It is a common false belief, but it is, in fact false. Let's go with the simplest refutation first: a third alternative under your model allows for inefficiency as excess power is spilled. They can keep increasing penetration but it would come (again using the false paradigm you posit of how the grid responds) at the cost of lowered efficiencies - an economic not a technical consideration. It would be analogous to the requirement to improve safety in a nuclear reactor; there are no technical obstacles to improving safety substantially, but in the world of competition the cost matters.

But that isn't even the case because the actual rebuttal to your analysis is that you've miscast the way variable sources interact with existing sources of dispatchable generation. It is revealed in your phrasing here: "Now, between those two very large programs (large on a global scale) they aren't getting 10% of their total electricity. They probably aren't getting 9.5%. They have also installed a lot of biomass, biogas, and of course they have maximized hydropower. By last year they were up to about 16.5 - 17.2% (if I am calculating this right) total electricity production in renewables, which is about a 10% increase from 2000..."

The use of the word "aren't" in this instance is comparable to "only" and indicates your perception that if they could they would prefer wind and solar to biomass, biogas and the "maximization of hydropower".

That isn't a safe assumption to hold. All of those sources are dispatchable renewable sources that are expected to play a crucial role in the expansion of renewables. They are completely capable of smoothing the generating profile of variable renewables to shape the load - they are in fact, "energy storage". They are not what is thought of when the economic niche of energy storage is discussed but when you are talking about technical requirements related to grid stability and load shaping, then they most definitely do deliver up their stored energy on command, which is what we are looking for in discussions on increased penetration. It is the same role that natural gas is playing and is why there really is no "ceiling" where renewable sources require dedicated storage of their surplus output (another point for another time) before more renewable generation can be added.

There are several other assumptions are leading you astray, but let's just go with those for now because that may be sufficient for you to see where they are yourself. Just remember the spilled wind example showing not to mix the economic and technical characteristics of generation. That forms the basis of most errors and is usually not readily apparent.

And again, thank you for taking on the challenge.

PS There is just released an ethics commitee report out on recommendations for the transition and a statement by the Energy Minister. They might be worth looking at.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. That they will be successful in this cold turkey approach is still TBD

If there is a heat wave this summer in Europe and France/Czechoslovakia need the power domestically, what will Germany do when they can no longer buy the power they need?

Moving off of nukes is a good thing. Doing it cold turkey may not be. The net loss in total European capacity due to Germany's decision may come back and bite them.

[kristopher]

40. What cold turkey approach?

That is a complete mischaracterization of the situation.

[kristopher]

54. Again, what cold turkey approach?