Guest Post by Bas Gresnigt. German Energiewende: Reasons, Methods, Results.

About this guest post: 

A few days ago, I posted The German Experience: Seen by Environmentalists, and Seen by Nuclear Opponents.  Within that post, I included a part of a comment by Bas Gresnigt (he made the comment on Rod Adams blog). He said that Energiewende is a success, and he included a target priority list of the Energiewende to support his statement.  I included this list in my blog post. The top of his list was that shutting down the nuclear plants is the first priority of Energiewende.

Gresnigt and I exchanged emails: he felt that having this very short list on my blog did not present an accurate view of his thoughts. I agreed with this assessment.  My blog is not about "equal time for all," but I decided it would be worthwhile to have a guest post by Gresnigt about the Energiewende.  In this post, he is able to express his ideas, include links, and so forth. 

I must stress that this post expresses Gresnigt's opinion, not my opinion.  My own opinion is shown in my post on the German Experience.

Update February 6: Comments are closed.  I will not be publishing more comments on this post.
With more than 25 comments, from both sides of the fence, several of my regular readers asked why I was still publishing comments.  Indeed, the comments were getting more and more angry (in my opinion). "Why was I still publishing comments?"  I didn't have an answer to that one.  So the comments on this post are now closed.
------

German Energiewende: reasons, methods, results
by Bas Gresnigt

Biking alongside 400 year old
windmills in The Netherlands 

Sustainable society

Romanticism was rooted in Germany (~1800) and still is a factor in the German worldview. Romanticism supports (grand) ideas to elevate society and legitimizes individual ideas as a critical authority. It also includes a strong belief in the importance of nature. In line with this philosophy, ideas about building a sustainable society got strong support in Germany in the 1960s.

A sustainable society leaves the earth in the same (preferably better) state for the generations after us. Since we now consume nature's reserves and cause pollution, romanticism is an invitation for individual action.

Nuclear

When Nuclear Power Plants (NPP's) were introduced, they generated questions regarding the waste and accidents.  Experts assured people that there would be no accidents and that the waste could be stored safely in the salt layers 600m below surface.

In 1973 with the start of the construction of the fast breeder in Kalkar, green experts calculated that it may escalate into a small atomic bomb like explosion.  The debate left some doubt about the assurance that such an explosion would be impossible. So the Germans, being more inner-directed than e.g. Americans, took action with among others huge demonstrations (~150K people) and near war-like fights.

The explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 killed new nuclear politically as the Germans felt the effects, despite being ~1000 miles away. There were more birth defects, eating mushrooms from contaminated woods was forbidden (eating those mushrooms still is forbidden), etc.  Furthermore, some people in Germany had contacts in the Chernobyl regions, where there are old German farmer communities.  Therefore the statements of IAEA/WHO made no impression. Instead, many people believe that there will be as many as one million deaths from Chernobyl in the period until 2100. Some of these ideas are supported by research results. Some estimated that there might be millions evacuees if  (for example) the Fessenheim NPP would explode.

Boletus mushroom (edible)

The Energiewende

Chernobyl generated a decade-long debate regarding how to continue with electricity generation.  As parties realized they needed a common base, many consultant studies were done in order to find the real facts and agree on the best scenario to continue.

In 2000, the government agreed on the present Energiewende scenario; 80% renewable energy in 2050, all NPP's closed before 2023, and intermediate targets as the scenario spans 50 years.

The scenario was based, among other things, on predictions that solar and wind would become much cheaper when the market would expand (more research, production automation, etc) and that substantial energy savings are possible without losing personal comfort. Population support was ~55%.

Even the utilities agreed to the nuclear phase-out scheme, perhaps in the expectation that the Energiewende would become so expensive that it would stop.   (The Feed-in-Tariff for solar was more than €50cent/kWh at the time.)

When Merkel got a coalition with the conservative FDP in 2009, she was stimulated to postpone the closure of the 17 remaining NPP's. After long hesitation she stated in the autumn of 2010 that nuclear energy was a bridge technology until renewable could take over, and postponed the closures with ~12years. No new NPP's allowed.

After that decision her popularity fell (Energiewende support was then ~70%).

A few months later, Fukushima saved the day for her.  She closed 8 older NPP's (some earlier than in the 2000 agreement, for which government may have to pay compensation) and re-installed the full Energiewende scenario.

The FDP, which initiated the NPP closure postponement, paid with a historic defeat at last autumn's elections. It had held  ~16% of the seats, but it is out of parliament now. The FDP had been in parliament since its foundation 60 years ago.

Merkel now has a coalition with the socialists (SDP) and agreed to increase some renewable targets slightly. In 2025 45% and in 2030 not 50% renewable but 55-60%. She refused 90-100% renewable in 2050 as there is no clear scenario including costs for that (yet). The optimal 100% renewable-energy scenario is under discussion and research by German scientists. Debate is about the best scenario and how fast (2050 or 2060/70).

Since Fukushima, any proposal to postpone NPP closures would be political suicide. Support for the Energiewende is now ~90%. That rise in support was stimulated by experts and utilities who too often told fairy tales:
 – They stated that the waste would be safe in stable salt layers 600m below surface. German tax-payers now face a multi-billion bill because that layer started to leak and the stuff has to be excavated.
 – They stated no explosion possible...until Chernobyl happened. Thereafter
 – They stated not possible with safe western designed and operated reactors...until Fukushima happened.

Climate
GHG/CO2 emissions become an issue.  It is considered less important by many as:
 – Everybody is convinced that with the increasing share of renewable (~2%/yr), CO2 will decrease further. Which decrease will accelerate after the closure of all NPP's.
 – Germany surpassed the Kyoto targets already greatly (-27%). And many countries are even above the 1990 Kyoto reference level (USA about +10%).

Results of the Energiewende

The major utilities now pay for their perseverance to continue building NPP's in the 1970/80s against public opinion. This cost them public sympathy.  The Energiewende favors small renewable-energy installations by citizens, farmers, etc. Many (~100) new utilities have been founded by villages and cities such as Munich. Nearly all these new utilities deliver 100% renewable electricity.

Hence the incumbent utilities lose market share, and have no bright future now. So they generate public campaigns such as the outcry in Brussels last October about grid stability, even while they are not responsible for it. Grid owners/management operating under the directions of the regulator are responsible.

I also see many nonsense publications, such as this one at Bloomberg.  These articles create many of the misunderstandings in English speaking countries.

Grid reliability increased greatly. The average total down time per customer connection was 30min/year. Now it is 15min/year in Germany (Netherlands still 30min/year).

The costs of the Energiewende are closely monitored, as those are important for public support. At the moment they are ~€250/year per household, which is less than 1% of household income. Scientists and Merkel predicted small cost increases, and after ~2023 decreases. The Feed In Tariff (FiT) for older solar and wind installations will disappear and their power will be sold at market prices, while the FiT for new installations will be very low.  The FiT for big solar is now €9.5cent/KWh and €13.7cent/KWh for rooftop.


In 2013 the German average whole-sale price was €5cent/KWh. This price is lower than the wholesale prices of France and UK. There is no real indication that any German industry considers moving out of Germany because of electricity prices.

Change towards flexible plants  It is better for wind and solar to continue full delivery even if the price is €1/MWh. But for power plants that price implies losses that are bigger if they cannot down-regulate output fast and deep.

So baseload plants are replaced by flexible plants that can also burn mixtures of lignite/coal/biomass/waste/biofuel. Burning biomass/waste/biofuel gives them a future in a 100% renewable society.

Due to the low temperature burning of the circulating fluidized bed process, those new plants also produce less toxics (less filters needed) and are far more efficient (greater than 50%), which also implies less CO2 (still ~30% more than gas). As the new plants are situated at open lignite mines with transport by conveyor belt to the power plant, these plants have very low costs.

Germany reached the intermediate targets (now renewable produce ~23% of the electricity). No doubt that the targets will be reached, as the scenario is clear and support overwhelming. During my last biking tour, Germans considered it self-evident.

Steering the Energiewende

The major steering mechanism is the fixed Feed-in-tariff (FiT) during 20years (solar) or 15years (wind) for new installations. So investors (households, farmers, etc) can trust that they will earn a profit of ~6% with their investment and may hope for extra profit after the FiT ends.

In 2011/12 the pricefall of solar was such that it delivered ~7GW/year new installations despite a 50% lower FiT. As that may create grid instabilities (grid upgrade is slow), the solar FiT for new installations is now lowered every month and the scheme is adapted every quarter so the targeted installation rate of ~3GW/year is reached.

Several institutes monitor the Energiewende and study methods for further development.
A few with English websites:
 – The Fraunhofer institute, which shows overviews, and reports about progress.
 – Agora: Scientists that study options.

Alexander Glaser from Princeton University wrote a longer overview of the Energiewende.

_________________________________________
Bas Gresnigt is a Dutch international consultant/project manager operating in the telecommunications sector.  He worked in Germany, USA (only for a short time), and many other countries. He visits Germany about three times a year.

Gresnigt is devoted to nature and the outdoors. I had seen some of his photos, and I asked him to include some pictures of his adventures on this blog post.

Climbing the Demavend in Iran

Climbing the Nesthorm North Face
Alps

The German Experience: Seen by Environmentalists, and Seen by Nuclear Opponents

Communication

Triple Falls, Dupont State Forest, North Carolina
From: Farmers, City Folk and Renewable Energy
at ANS Nuclear Cafe

I consider myself a pro-nuclear communicator, and I often blog about effective communication.  However, communicating effectively means considering your audience.  I have come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of people who are opposed to nuclear energy:

• Environmentalists who have lumped nuclear with "other bad stuff," but may not have given the matter much thought. They often come to realize the role of nuclear energy in providing very low carbon electricity.
• People who are just plain against nuclear energy. Period. End of story.

You have to know who you are talking to.  For example, these two groups will have very different assessments of the recent German experience.

Environmentalists

Many environmentalists (people interested in a healthy environment) are beginning to embrace nuclear power.  The movie Pandora's Promise is about one such set of environmentalists.  Similarly, Armond Cohen, a leading environmentalist in California, noted that greenhouse gas emissions in California rose substantially when San Onofre went off-line. Cohen also realized that renewable sources, such as wind turbines, require huge amounts of land to make the same amount of power as a relatively small nuclear plant.

As described in this VPR interview, Cohen explains why he has reluctantly shifted from being an anti-nuclear activist to someone who now argues that we can't afford to dismiss nuclear power.

At the Washington Post last month, Stephen Stromberg wrote Why Environmentalists Should Hope Nuclear Power Sticks Around.  He illustrated his article with a chart showing the two low-carbon power sources in the United States: renewables and nuclear.  By 2040, U.S. renewables are expected go from producing 12% of our electricity (today) to 16% in 2040.   Nuclear energy's contributes 19% today and 16% in 2040. It is an important part of our low-carbon future.

Meanwhile, in Europe, greenhouse gas targets remain in place, but renewable targets are being scrapped.  Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk gives an excellent overview in her latest blog post: Good News From Europe: Reasoned Approaches to Energy Policy. 

Opponents of Nuclear Energy

At Canadian Energy Issues, Steve Aplin has several posts that show that Germany's greenhouse gas emissions have risen, despite their investment in renewables. This is because the Germans are phasing out their nuclear plants.  Two excellent posts are:

• Money for Nothing: German wind turbines and solar panels useless during coldest, darkest part of the year.
• Reducing carbon pollution from electric power generation: what works?

In the second post, Bas Gresnigt (from The Netherlands) comments that the German people are happy with the German electrical grid, because they are pleased to see nuclear be phased out.

The German Experience as an Opponent Experience

Which brings us to a question: what is the purpose of the German energy transition?  If it is about greenhouse gases, it frankly isn't working, as Steve Aplin (and others) point out.

But maybe it isn't about environmentalism, lowering the carbon footprint, or anything like that.  Maybe it is mostly about being opponents of nuclear energy. Rod Adams posted about fossil fuels versus nuclear energy: Smoking gun research continuing in earnest. This post was published in early December 2013, and now has 145 comments.

At the base of a turbine
Lempster wind farm
New Hampshire

I want to draw attention to one comment. Once again, Bas Gresnigt was commenting, and someone brought up the increased carbon plus increased electricity cost of the German experiment.  The question was

"Does the current German electricity market situation really make sense to you?"

Bas Gresnigt answered it as below (here's the link, so you don't have to read 145 comments.)
Here's his answer:

Very sensible market design.
You will agree if you measure that market with the German targets in mind (in order of importance):
1. Nuclear out
2. Democratize energy
3. 100% renewable
4. Less CO2
5. Affordable costs
etc.

I contacted Gresnigt and asked him if I could use this quote. He was kind enough to give permission, though he felt the brief statement of this quote was somewhat unfair to his arguments.  I hope he will comment on this blog post.

Back to Communication

People looking at the German experience can look at it as a colossal failure (higher carbon dioxide, higher prices) or a great success (phasing out nuclear plants). For a group for whom "anything is better than nuclear energy," no amount of communication is likely to make a difference.

For environmentalists concerned with land use and with greenhouse gases, nuclear communicators can use the German experience as an example of a situation in which, as they say: mistakes were made.

Tweet, Tweet about Expensive German Energy

German States from Wikipedia

Spiegel and Me

Some people in Vermont have been opposed to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. These same people are often opposed to fossil power sources.  How do they plan to obtain electricity? They often say that Vermont should "follow the lead of Germany in using renewables."

I don't want to follow that lead, because I don't think the German program is leading anywhere happy. A few days ago, a three-part article in Spiegel Online confirmed my opinion of the German experience.  The Spiegel story about renewable energy is in three parts:

Part 1: Germany's Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good

Part 2: The Regressive Energy Tax

Part 3: Incentives for Pollution

Facebook, Twitter, and Me

I am an administrator on the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook Page and I thought that this Spiegel story would be of interest to Vermonters.  So I posted it on that page. The Facebook page tweets a link to its posts.  On Twitter, I am  yes_VY.  Here's my Spiegel tweet as it appeared on Twitter.

Germany's renewable system isn't working. From Der Spiegel. #nuclear #VY Electricity as a "luxury good."... http://t.co/aZAeZx8yMy
— Yes Vermont Yankee (@yes_VY) September 6, 2013

Energiewende Germany, Twitter, and a Complete Rebuttal

Who knew?  Energiewende Germany found this tweet and a similar one from NEI.   Here's their answer:

Skyrocketing prices?! That article tries to scare German readers with €90 power bill, what most Americans already have. Oops! @N_E_I @yes_VY
— Energiewende Germany (@EnergiewendeGER) September 7, 2013

At then...@NuclearEnforcer came on the Twitter scene.  His twitter illustration shows a cartoon superhero (complete with cape). The description of his tweet stream is "Battling the anti-nuclear dis-information campaign one tweet at a time."  He answered the Energiewende tweet:

@EnergiewendeGER @N_E_I @yes_VY Check page 43, Germany had 2-3 times higher prices than US in 2011 and going higher http://t.co/bGux55OX2r
— NuclearEnforcer (@NuclearEnforcer) September 7, 2013

EIA and real data

Enough tweets.  Let's look at some real data: the data @NuclearEnforcer referenced.

He (or she) linked to the International Energy Agency (IEA) 2012 report on world-wide energy use and prices.  Here's a link to that 2012 IEA report. (Warning, it's a big pdf and slow to download.)  To save time for my readers, I have copied page 43 of the report below.

Electricity for households in Germany is about 35 cents per kWh, the second-highest in Europe.  The equivalent price in the U S is about 12 cents per kWh.

Who is trying to scare whom?

It's been mighty quiet from Energiewende recently.


Further reading:

I encourage you to follow the Spiegel links in this blog post, and that is certainly enough reading.

Still, I need to link to one more article.  My friend Guy Page had a guest post at this blog: As Germany Goes, So Goes Vermont?  In May of this year, he covered much of the same information Spiegel covered, but in a more succinct fashion.

However, to get the German view on this subject, you should read Spiegel (the links above).

As Germany goes, so goes Vermont? Guest post by Guy Page

Guy Page

As Germany goes, so goes Vermont?

Parallels in renewable energy policy and outcomes

By Guy Page

“As Maine goes, so goes the nation,” went the political truism between 1834 and 1932, when the Pine Tree State picked the winner in almost every presidential election. When only staunch Republican (!) Vermont joined Maine in selecting Republican Alf Landon in 1936, winner Franklin D. Roosevelt’s campaign manager James Farley famously if somewhat predictably quipped: “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.”

Eighty years later Vermont is following another trendsetter:  Germany, the Western world’s undisputed leader of government-subsidized renewable power. Visitors to Germany note that solar panels cover the south face of seemingly every village church, school and home. Germany is home to a well-funded, highly popular “feed-in tariff” (FIT) that has encouraged almost broadbased power production. Of the 40 GW of installed solar power worldwide at the end 2010, almost half – 17.4 GW – was located in Germany. In just two years Germany’s share jumped to about 30 GW, according to the Feb. 2013 Washington Post.

German Inspiration

The German program was an inspiration to the crafters of Vermont’s May, 2009 feed-in tariff law, the energy-generation lynchpin of the state’s plan to use 90% renewables by 2050. Then Senate Pro-Tem (and now Governor) Peter Shumlin was particularly enthusiastic. In March, 2010 he told Fox News that if overcast Germany can get 30% of its electricity from solar power, so can America. He said this just days after leading the Vermont Senate in its “no” vote on Vermont Yankee. (When Fox reporter Stuart Varney pointed out that Germany gets just one percent of its power from solar, Shumlin conceded the error but has never retreated from his central point: Vermont, like Germany, can become a leader in the new renewable power energy economy, resulting in new jobs, clean air, and energy independence.)

Like its European forebearer, Vermont’s FIT solar power program also contributes about one percent to the state’s total power portfolio – actually, about one-third of one percent. The state’s SPEED website lists 13 projects (see “project summary” page) as “online and generating,” producing about 18,000 MWh of Vermont’s total load of about 6,000,000 MWh. (The FIT program for ALL forms of generation comes in at 53,000 MWh, or just under the one percent mark.)

German FIT solar power costs about 32 cents American per kilowatt-hour. Likewise in Vermont: FIT solar power is down from 30 cents to 25.7, about five times the average market rate. And while market power rates fluctuate – for better or worse - the Vermont FIT solar power rate, once set, is fixed in contractual stone over the course of the 10 year contract.

Nuclear and Fossil

As in Germany, Vermont opponents of nuclear power were empowered by a nuclear “incident” that helped them reverse government support for nuclear power. The Vermont Senate’s 2010 vote was held amid a powerful public response to reports of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee. In May 2011, in the wake of Fukushima, the German government announced plans to close many nuclear plants. Although Germany followed Vermont chronologically, the decisions-making process was similar: the politically astute realized that a sense of crisis had moved matters to a tipping point.

The pro-renewables, anti-nuclear policy has had an unexpected effect in both locales: they are more reliant on fossil fuels. Germany has been an acknowledged leader among the “green” nations of Europe. In 2011, Vermont had the nation’s smallest carbon footprint for power generation, thanks largely to its reliance on hydro and Vermont Yankee.

A Step Backwards for the Carbon Footprint

Lignite or "Brown Coal"

In carbon terms, both have taken a step backwards. According to a February 27 2013 Bloomberg News report, Germany plans to build 6000 new megawatts of coal-fired power generation, a move which will significantly increase their overall carbon footprint. The pragmatic Germans realize they need plentiful, domestic, baseload power capacity to support Europe’s strongest manufacturing economy. Deprived of nuclear power, the German government is turning – back – to coal.

In Vermont, something similar has happened. Vermont Yankee’s contract providing about a third of the state’s electricity expired in March, 2012. Vermont’s reliance on New England grid power jumped about one million megawatt-hours in 2012 over 2011, according to “Vermont Electricity At A Glance,” study I conducted for the Vermont Energy Partnership. That figure equals one-sixth of Vermont’s total electrical load. About three-quarters of the grid’s power is derived from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas.

Concerns about the technical Achilles Heel of intermittent power - grid instability - are present in both Vermont and Germany. The August, 2012 Spiegel Online reported that large German manufacturers have experienced expensive power interruptions related to the transition to renewable power. In Vermont, the New England transmission grid operators have “curtailed” its purchases of power from the Lowell Mountain wind turbine development due to intermittency, resulting in a million dollars of lost income this winter, according to the general manager of one Vermont utility quoted in the April 5, 2013 Vermont Digger. The project’s owner is installing a synchronous condenser - $10 million pricetag – that it hopes will solve the problem.

Looking Forward

It is only fair to point out that in neither Vermont nor Germany has the final chapter been written. Perhaps solar power will prove to be greener, in both cash and carbon, in the long run.  Someday, a bright engineer may solve the problem of “translating” intermittent power into a traditional power grid. No doubt renewable power is delivering many positive benefits right now, including energy diversity, property tax income, and strong growth in solar-related employment. Solar power’s cost of production has decreased somewhat in recent years, in part due to fierce competition from China’s solar panel producers. Nevertheless, it’s a safe bet that when the avid backers of solar power in Vermont and Germany celebrated the passage of their FIT laws, few of them were anticipating that the immediate future would have more carbon and serious concerns about power cost and reliability.

-------

Guy Page is a frequent guest blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee. His most recent blog post described his report on Vermont's transition to renewable energy. 

The Other Vermont Yankee Lawsuit: Reactor Operators Sue For Property Rights

Everyone expected Judge Murtha to rule on the main Vermont Yankee lawsuit by the end of the year in 2011. This lawsuit was brought by Entergy against Shumlin et al in their capacities as officials of the State of Vermont. Entergy claims that the state cannot force Vermont Yankee to close, since the NRC has extended its license.

The main lawsuit is complicated, and I have blogged about the overlapping issues, including state pre-emption of nuclear safety regulations. For this lawsuit, you can also connect to all the filed documents on the Vermont Attorney General's web site.

On this suit, newspapers reported last year that "a ruling is expected by the end of the year." I don't know where they obtained this information. I cannot find a quote from Judge Murtha saying that he would rule in that time-frame. 2011 is over, and the ruling didn't happen.

The Operator Lawsuit

However, the Entergy lawsuit is not the only Vermont Yankee case in front of Judge Murtha right now. In June, several licensed reactor operators brought suit against the state. They claimed that the state has denied them their jobs and taken their property without due process. The state wanted their case dismissed, of course. In December, the reactor operators asked Judge Murtha not to dismiss their case. The Brattleboro Reformer has a reasonably complete article on the operators' request to Judge Murtha.

Basically, the state claims that the operators have no legally protected right to their jobs, so their lawsuit should be dismissed. The operators claim that the state is attempting to shut down Vermont Yankee without a legally-valid reason, and therefore, it is inflicting harm on the operators without due process. Much of the argument depends on interpretation of various due-process clauses in the Constitution. For example, the Fifth Amendment includes the words: No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Due process is a knotty concept in the legal world. If you read either the Wikipedia article on due process, or the Brattleboro Reformer on the operators' request to Judge Murtha, I can guarantee that your head will swim.

I'm not a lawyer, and we're not going there.

The German Experience

As far as I can tell, the operator's claims are very similar to the claims that Vattenfall, the big Swedish utility, is making in a lawsuit against Germany. Vattenfall owns several nuclear plants in Germany. As Spiegal On-Line reported in November: Nuclear Phase-Out Faces Billion-Euro Lawsuit.

From Vattenfall's point of view, the German government's decision to abandon nuclear power has destroyed the value of its assets....

The fact that Vattenfall is a Swedish company will help it in German courts, according to the Spiegel article.

According to Handelsblatt, Vattenfall has an advantage in seeking compensation because the company has its headquarters abroad. As a Swedish company, Vattenfall can invoke investment rules under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which protect foreign investors in signatory nations from interference in property rights.

Last time Vattenfall challenged the German government, they settled out of court. Sounds likeVattenfall knows how to get compensated when the German government acts arbitrarily toward its power plants.

(By the way, nothing in the law seems to operate on time. The Spiegel article says that the Vattenfall lawsuit suit would be filed by Christmas. It wasn't. Newspapers said Judge Murtha would rule on Vermont Yankee by January 1. He didn't.)

A General Concept: Due Process

Following the individual twists and turns of due process is difficult, but the concept is easy. The government cannot deprive individuals or companies of their property without due process of law.

Civilized countries have tax laws in place (due process). Uncivilized areas have thugs who show up at the door and ask for "protection money." The thugs require arbitrary amounts, deriving people of their property according to the whim of the thugs.

Governments aren't supposed to do that. They aren't supposed to take your property or forbid you to operate your business, just because they feel like it. When governments act like thugs, they get themselves sued. The Magna Carta in Britain started the trend toward limiting the powers of government. Here and in Germany, recent lawsuits are forcing governments to acknowledge that their citizens also have rights.

I am no lawyer, so I can't even begin to predict how the current lawsuits will turn out. However, the principal is clear and straightforward. Even a government can't seize property or close down a business without due process.

-----

John of England signs the Magna Carta, from Wikipedia

60th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers

The 60th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is up today at Atomic Power Review. This is the first time Will Davis has hosted the Carnival at his site, and he has done a splendid job! I was hooked on reading it. He starts the Carnival with an ambiguous picture: guess what this photo shows? You have to read to the end of the blog to find out what it is. (Well, you can cheat and scroll down to see the answer. I did.) And when you read the answer, you will learn some nuclear history

Series Posts

Two posts are each part of important series:

1. In the fourth part of Charles Barton's multi-part post on Nuclear Subsidies, Barton explains that most supposed "subsidies" to nuclear are not subsidies at all. In these four well-researched posts, Barton discusses government relationships to nuclear energy, other energy projects, and military nuclear. In another post, Barton describes Google's floundering attempts to go "green" without considering small modular reactors.
2. In the third of three posts on Lessons Learned from Fukushima, Margaret Harding describes the political lessons of Fukushima. Her earlier posts have described techniclal and corporate lessons.

Thought-Provoking Posts

Rod Adams of Atomic Insights wonders why nuclear advocates rarely mention the positive role of nuclear power in preventing climate change. Adams makes a convincing case for not hiding nuclear's climate-beneficial light under a barrel.

Rick Maltese of Deregulate the Atom writes a bold (and probably correct) prediction that Japan will speed up nuclear development in the future. While noble suicide was a tradition in Japan during the feudal era, the country won't choose to commit economic suicide by phasing out nuclear during the modern era.

Looking toward the future, Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat watches Jaczko attempt to delay and derail APR1000 regulatory approval. (Despite the fact that no APR builds have even been suggested for Nevada! Okay, that was my snarky comment, not Dan's post.)

Brian Wang of Next Big Future notes that if Germany phases out nuclear, they will be going to fossil. In another post, Wang, once again, keeps us up with the fusion future. Wang reports that t the United States has joined the Stellerator fusion project in Germany.

Announcements and Bartenders

The Carnival includes my paired Yes Vermont Yankee posts about the Vermont Attorney General (AG): "Vermont AG will announce", and "Vermont AG has announced" that he is not bringing criminal charges against Entergy. The AG sure got a lot of mileage out of a non-event! Myself, I'm planning to hold a press conference to announce that I will hold another press conference to announce whether or not I am bringing charges against the Vermont AG. (Just kidding, I think. Maybe.)

Finally, I thoroughly enjoyed Dan Yurman's post at ANS Nuclear Café, Some Good News for a Change. So few nuclear posts start with a conversation with a bartender! This bartender, see, tells a bunch of nuclear people that they are a gloomy crowd and should lighten up, and then Dan says....Okay. As Yurman points out: There's lots of good news in the world of nuclear. The United Kingdom is building nukes, Finland has asked for more bids for reactors, and more. I'll drink to that!

The 60th Carnival! Bartenders, Germany, climate change, APRs, fusion. Something for everyone! Pay it a visit.

56th Carnival of Nuclear Energy

The 56th Carnival of Nuclear Energy is up at NEI Nuclear Notes, and David Bradish has done a terrific job of putting it together.

Politics

This week's carnival includes lots of juicy political stuff, such as Dan Yurman's post in Idaho Samizdat about how Jaczko manipulated the internal process in order to stop Yucca Mountain. (Hey, that was Jaczko's job, after all!) Rod Adams describes the NRC caving to an email attack by Friends of the Earth. Rick Maltese (Deregulate the Atom blog) gives credit where it is due: INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) and WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) are self-regulatory nuclear organization who can tack much credit for the nuclear industry's excellent record on safety. I talk about Vermont Law School and its blog, and Steve Aplin reviews negotiations with Iran (and the situation in Libya).

New Types of Plants, and New Builds

Despite what people think, new builds are popping up all over, and the Carnival describes several. At Cool Hand Nuke, Jeff Madison, describes the move toward completion of the TVA's Bellefonte plant. Construction was halted in the late 80s. Dan Yurman posts that Areva plans to push spent fuel recycling plans in the United States. Charles Barton at Nuclear Green compares Advanced High Temperature Reactors with renewable energy in his post: Why is Renewable Energy so Expensive, while Molten Salt Reactors will be so Cheap? At Neutron Economy, Alan Rominger and Steve Skutnik describe charter cities built around small modular reactors. Brian Wang at Next Big Future describes advances in plasma research for fusion.

Germany, Germany, Germany

Once again, Germany has decided to shut down its nuclear plants, sometime in the future, and several bloggers have comments. (Comments is a nice word, so neutral...) Margaret Harding describes Germany's Nuclear Game of Chicken while Michele Kearney at Nuclear Wire and Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk count the costs. Brian Wang points out that nuclear generation is higher this year than last year, in the developing countries. (This includes the fact that Japan is making less nuclear power, with so many reactors off-line for so long.) Rod Adams takes a crack at the "golden age of natural gas" (and how will Germany feel about buying lots of gas from Russia?)

Japan

Only one post on Japan, but it's a good one. Will Davis at Atomic Power Review has a Fukishima update with great pictures. Highly recommended.

Come to the Carnival! It's always a treat!

55th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs

Today I am hosting the 55th Carnival of Nuclear Energy, bloggers look at the world, including Saudi Arabia, Germany, and what kind of Lessons Learned are possible at this point from Fukushima. It's truly a feast of information!

Germany and the Czech Republic

At Idaho Samzdat, Dan Yurman describes Germany's Nuclear Energy Panic Attack.

Shortly after the extent of the damage to reactors at Fukushima became apparent, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced she was reversing her policy of keeping the nation’s oldest reactors open beyond 2022. A deal put in place by her predecessor called for the eventual closure of all 17 reactors by that date.

There is no middle ground in the nuclear debate in Germany. Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany runs high with polls showing as much as 70% of the population says "no thank you" to nuclear power.

Some sentiment among Green Party members calls for a reduction in Germany's industrial economy and a return to a life style of "off the grid" villages in natural ecosystems. Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic, the utility is moving ahead with its reactor projects, planning three to five new reactors. Perhaps Germans won't have to live "off the grid" after all. There's always "nuclear colonialism." If a neighbor country like the Czech Republic builds nuclear plants, there's nothing wrong with Germany buying the power, right? The map to the right shows a potential nuclear colony of Germany. Much more complete analysis in Yurman's post.

Fukushima Fuel Pools (Red Herrings)

In her blog post, Nuclear Power and the Witch Hunt, Margaret Harding shows that the spent fuel pools at Fukushima are a witch story. They didn’t burn, they did run out of water and caused problems for TEPCO, but we should not over-react in the need to “fix” a problem that isn’t there. There is risk that a fix could create other issues.

Harding's post includes a video of Unit 4 fuel pool, showing the pool intact, the fuel rods intact, the fuel racks intact, and debris in the water from the explosion at Unit 4. Harding is in touch with people in Japan who are figuring out what caused the explosion at that unit: clearly not the fuel pool. Harding notes that we may well have to rethink our fuel storage, but we should do it on the basis of facts, not witch hunts.

The NRC and Nuclear Power

In Nuclear Sanity and Nuclear Insanity, Will Davis of Atomic Power Review describes the evolution of nuclear thinking world-wide (Germany wants to shut down its nuclear plants, Saudi Arabia plans to build 16 nuclear plants) and in the United States. As he points out, we can expect 40 million tonnes more CO2 in the air each year if Germany closes down its nuclear plants. Davis describes the role that nuclear bloggers and others might take to change the NRC's position from insanity (we must PROVE we are doing EVERYTHING possible) to some level of sanity. His post is a call to action.

The Future of Energy in Europe and Arabia

In a series of posts at Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes Saudi Arabia building 16 nuclear reactors by 2030 and Lithuania building two. As usual, his well-referenced post is a pleasure to read.

Wang also notes that Desertec plans to build terrawatts of wind and solar power in North Africa. Desertec is a proposal to build terawatts of wind and solar power in North Africa, which is Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and other countries. This proposal would be to spend $600 billion or more to build wind farms and solar farms in the same politically unstable area where OPEC is now to provide about 17% of europe power needs by 2050. About 110% of the current world nuclear power generation. (2,940 TWh per year). The detailed financial and technical proposal is due in 2012. So currently it is a back of napkin proposal and they hope to progress to vaporware in 2012, all for a bad idea for Europe to fund a solar and wind OPEC by 2050.

Wang describes the consequences to Switzerland and Germany if they phase out nuclear power. Electricity costs will go up and Germany will depend more on coal and fossil fuel.

In another post, Wang points out that instant-phase-out of nuclear power in Germany is running into some snags. German Utility Eon is taking action to recover tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue that will result from the German decision to shut down nuclear prematurely.

That's the trouble when governments take unilateral action without due process. They get sued. Happens in Vermont and it happens in Germany.

• Due Process: it's what makes governments into governments, not tyrants.
• Lawsuits: they are what keep governments from becoming tyrants.

All in all, this Carnival is perfect for a summer evening's reading!

Retrospective

The 54th Blog Carnival was hosted at Idaho Samizdat last week. It includes good news about thorium reactors, discussions about the NRC, and an analysis of passive cooling for small modular reactors. Worth reading! (I had serious internet connection problems last week and was not able to blog or even email, most of the week.)

Map of Czech Republic from Wikimedia.

Anthracite Coal Image from Wikipedia.

Solar and Nuclear: Economics and Land Use

Today, I am pleased to host this guest blog written by Willem Post.

Willem Post, Bob Hargraves, Howard Shaffer, Peter Roth, Steve Fox and I are all members of the local group, Coalition for Energy Solutions. Willem has both an MS in Mechanical Engineering and an MBA. He has many years of experience in financial estimation and oversight of large energy projects. Willem has written several reports on energy subjects. The Coalition For Energy Solutions Research and Reports page includes links to these reports. This is his first guest post for Yes Vermont Yankee.

Introduction

A recent article on the New York Times Greenwire describes the Blythe Solar Power Project, BSPP. BSPP is a 968 MW thermal solar plant on 7,025 acres, or 11 square miles, of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, land in the California desert. The plant consists of (4) 242 MW units. Expected total energy delivered to the grid is 2,200 GWh. The capital cost will be $6 billion. It will take at least 6 years to complete. (A more complete description can be found in the project application documents.)

The BSPP will utilize solar parabolic troughs to generate electricity. Arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A synthetic hydrocarbon is used as a heat transfer fluid (HTF). The HTF attains high temperatures (750 degrees F) as it is piped through the receiver tubes. The HTF is then piped through a series of heat exchangers where it releases stored heat to generate high- pressure steam. The steam is fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced. The plant is started in the morning and shut down in the evening.

Power Production

The annual production from the plant will be = 968 MW x 8,760 hrs/y x CF 0.26 = 2,200 GWh. The power varies daily and seasonally with the strength of the sun and is available only during the sunshine hours of the day.

For reference: Vermont uses about 6,000 GWh/yr

The NYTimes article states this power is enough for roughly 800,000 households. As a California household uses about 6,000 kWh/yr, about 4,800,000,000 kWh/yr would be required by these households.

The NYTimes statement is grossly inaccurate, unless the writer meant that the power is enough only during the sunshine hours of the day. This is a sizable difference of 2,600,000,000 kWh. For a NYTimes writer to report on thermal power and not understand the real world and the numbers is truly incredible.

Other power sources, such as pumped storage hydro, nuclear, wind, stored biogas (CO2 emitting) and fossil (CO2 emitting) will be needed to supply the 2,600,000,000 kWh during low-sun and sunless hours.

Note: Wind power also varies daily and seasonally with the strength of the wind, and is not available at all when wind strength is too little or too much.

As such variable power becomes a greater percentage of the power mix, one approach is to have a greater capacity of CO2-emitting spinning reserves. These are usually fossil power plants that are running without sending power to the grid, but they can be called on to instantly increase their outputs when required. Spinning reserves allow the grid to maintain its required steady voltage. If there is too much voltage variation, all sorts of electrical equipment will automatically shut down.

Environmental Effects of the Project

The land will be leveled by bulldozers to accommodate the arrays. Even though it is desert, no fauna and flora lives there?

The 11 square miles of surface will create a heat island in the desert, hotter than an equivalent desert surface that is partially covered with vegetation, as in New Mexico. Some of that heat will be radiated outwards and some of that will be reflected back. A new, hotter eco-balance will be created in that area. Building a large number of such plants will add to global warming. It runs counter to having white roofs on buildings to reduce the heat island effect and global warming.

Legislative Requirements and Tax Credits

The force that drives this project is California's renewables mandate for utilities and the 30% federal tax credit; about $2 billion in this case.

If a developer cannot use the tax credit, he can opt to get a check for $2 billion from the federal government. In other words, a check from all of us.

Thermal Solar Compared with Nuclear Power

A standard 1,000 MW nuclear plant for about the same cost as the above thermal solar plant would produce = 1,000,000 kW x 8,760 hrs/yr x CF 0.90 = 7,884,000,000 kWh/yr, 3.58 times the power of thermal solar plant.

This power is steady and 24/7/365, i.e., it is available during all hours of the day, CO2-free, and will serve ALL the power needs of 1,314,000 California households for a year.

New nuclear plants are designed to have useful service lives of about 60 years. A spreadsheet comparison of the lifetime costs of PV solar and nuclear plants would need to include the replacement of all PV panels and disposal of the old PV panels at a multi-billion dollar capital cost around the 25th year of the comparison.

The 1,000 MW nuclear plant would require about 100 acres. This is only 1.5% of the land area required for the 1,000 MW PV solar plant.

Given the above, it is to be expected that the smart and knowledgeable power industry experts in at least 30 major nations, such as the US, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, China (building about 50% of the nuclear plants being built), India, etc., have convinced their governments to continue to opt for nuclear power as a major component of their future power mix.

To do otherwise is a folly.

A German Renewable Power Demonstration

Several German power industry experts created, for demonstration purposes, a “renewables utility company” that uses several field-mounted, sun-tracking PV solar plants in southern Germany, several wind farms in northern Germany, several biogas-fueled combined cycle gas turbine plants with biogas storage tanks and several pumped storage hydro plants, all controlled from a central point to maintain a nearly constant output to the grid, as would any traditional utility company.

The experts maintain that as it was shown to be technically feasable for a small combination of renewable power plants, it will be for increasingly larger combinations as well.

This works in Germany because its national grid is designed as their cars and trains. For this to work in the US, its national grid, with about 1,000,000 MW of power plants connected to it, will need to be rebuilt at a cost in the order of $200-$300 billion during the next 10-15 years. Going “variable and renewable” has its costs.

As an alternative, that level of funding could be used to replace 33,000-50,000 MW of the older US nuclear plants; no significant changes to the grid would be required.

Solar Thermal image through Wikimedia Commons

Vermont Yankee On the Market?

Back in the days when I worked for EPRI or had my own consulting business, I read the Energy Daily. It's a well-reputed and very expensive ($2400 a year) daily update on the energy business. Needless to say, I don't subscribe any more.

But I have friends in low places, and they shared an article from today's Energy Daily with me. The Energy Daily claims that Vermont Yankee is on the market, with NRG Energy and Exelon showing some interest. Of course, nobody at any of the companies will comment about this possibility. If Energy Daily can't get a comment, I'm not even going to try.

What do I think about this? I think it could be a good thing for the plant and the state. Selling the plant won't change the opinions of the so-called "citizen's groups" that met with Jaczko, or the Eugenics Grannies. But it would give the Senate the ability to revote. After all, the plant would REALLY have new management with a sale. "They lied" would be off the table ("they" aren't there anymore) and the economics and reliability of Vermont Yankee would be far more visible. As a matter of fact, I suggested the positive aspects of a sale in a post in May called Entergy Communications.

The psychological effect could be huge. Without some kind of drastic change, it is hard for a group like the Senate to reverse itself. There's a shame factor: "Were we wrong before, maybe? Are we admitting we made a mistake?" Love may mean never having to say you're sorry, but politics seems to insist on never admitting you need to be sorry. The political motto is: "I have never made an error, and I never will. Trust me."

The German Model

Relicensing Vermont Yankee at the 11th hour, with new management in place, would be completely precedented. Germany and Sweden came within inches of shutting down their nuclear power plants, by law. But as the day came closer, these countries became aware of all the natural gas they would be buying from Russia. It was Reality Check time, and their nuclear plants are still running.

It is amusing to shout about the imagined dangers of nuclear power, but when it actually comes time to buy fossil energy off the grid from outside suppliers, people begin to object. Ordinary people who are not anti-nuclear activists prefer the plants that they know, the plants that have been running for ages, the plants that supply jobs and taxes to THEIR own jurisdiction.

Negotiating with the Weak, Negotiating with the Strong

I read, somewhere, sometime, that Entergy put a pretty good rate on the table for selling electricity to Vermont utilities after 2012. I believe the rate was 6.1c kWh, which was the same as the "strike price" in the existing Revenue Sharing Agreement (item 4) of the Memorandum of Understanding. I don't think this rate was firm, though, so I am not going to try to look up the newspaper article in which it appeared.

Entergy has also been battered by poor choices and poor publicity. As everyone who reads this blog knows, the problems were blown out of proportion. The tritium leak was small and fixed in jig time. Every investigation shows Entergy did not lie about the pipes. However, these accusations DID weaken Entergy's negotiating position a great deal. They put Entergy in the position of a beggar, really. "Please please let us keep the plant open, and we will give you whatever you want."

Nuclear plants in general are changing their tune. They don't tend to be beggars anymore. When Germany decided to tax nuclear fuel rods as a simple way to bring revenue to the state, the utilities weren't standing still for it and threatened to shut the plants down. They aren't trying to stay open at any cost, with any taxation structure. This on-going fight in Germany is still, well, on-going.

My point is that negotiating from a strong position ("You wanta buy from the Russians, huh? You wanta buy from the New England Grid at spot prices, huh?") is likely to lead to more money for the group in the strong position. If Vermont Yankee is sold, the new owner will be in a stronger position, and the negotiations may be quite different.

If Vermont Yankee is sold, a major motivation might be to let the Senate off the hook about reversing itself. In which case, Vermont would have only itself to blame for encouraging the change in ownership, and therefore putting itself into a worse negotiating position. Ah well. It won't be the first time politicos mess up.

"I have never made an error, and I never will. Trust me." This statement is not a good way to get through life, or through politics. It is sure to cost someone some money, somewhere down the line. Vermont may have arrived at that place. New ownership at VY, higher priced power for everyone, but the Vermont Senate gets an "out" to reverse itself. Sigh.

Correction: In an earlier version of this post, I wrote: "if Entergy is sold." I meant: "if Vermont Yankee" is sold. Thank you to Rod Adams for the correction.

The Sixteenth Blog Carnival Of Nuclear Energy

The Sixteenth Blog Carnival of Nuclear Energy is up at Idaho Samizdat. Once again, Dan Yurman has done a terrific job of choosing the best of the blogs, and putting things in perspective. There's Advanced Reactor Research at Brave New Climate, a terrific post from economist David Bradish of NEI Nuclear Notes on Nuclear and Job Creation, and CoolHandNuke on TVA refurbishing the Bellefonte reactor. Great stuff! Read and enjoy. Nothing like a Carnival on a late summer evening.

Dollar image from Wikimedia.

Map of nuclear plants in Germany also from Wikimedia.

Ferris Wheel also from Wikimedia.

Shumlin Overstates Himself

Peter Shumlin usually overstates himself. He is President Pro Tempore of the Vermont Senate, and he forced the vote on Vermont Yankee, despite misgivings by many of his colleagues. Most of the time, I think of him as dedicated (to his own election as Governor) and dangerous (to the state of Vermont). Today, though, I gotta giggle.

A few days ago, he went on Fox News to justify his vote. And boy, did he justify it. Vermont Yankee may provide 30% of Vermont's power, but....Germany gets 30% of its power from solar! Yes, my friends, he said this howler on national TV. To quote ABC news on the subject

"Germany right now is producing 30% of their juice from solar," said Shumlin during the FOX Business interview.
The host of the show later pointed out Germany gets 1%, not 30%, of its power from solar. Our call to Shumlin for comment was not returned.

The local blog Vermont Tiger had a very funny post on this, including a shot from Casablanca. Humphrey Bogart explains himself to Claude Rains: "I was misinformed."

The link in the Vermont Tiger post seems to be broken, so I decided to include some links on German electricity. The best diagram I have found is here. It is IEA/OECD data at a website (GENI) devoted to renewable energy. Similarly, the European Nuclear Society website has the same data presented in a slightly different format. Despite different philosophies, the two websites agree on the facts. Shumlin should have checked.

Rod Adams checked Germany's solar figures today, and did a careful explanation in his post. We're all citing our sources because during the video clip, Shumlin is informed that Wikipedia says that Germany gets one percent of its electricity from solar. He dismisses it as "well, that's Wikipedia." Mr. Shumlin, Wikipedia was right.

Sadly, I think Shumlin actually believed what he was saying. He has no idea about where electricity comes from. He believed that Germany gets lots and lots of electricity from solar, and Vermont can do the same, no problem.

It's been several days since this incident, and Shumlin still hasn't explained how he thought Germany got 30% of its electricity from solar when it gets less than 1%. I think it would hurt his bid for governor to own up to a mistake, and he won't do it.

Prove me wrong, Mr. Shumlin. Explain yourself.



Image of a solar panel on the Autobahn, from Wikimedia.