(no title)
Eeko | 13 years ago
And that's a pretty good result btw, truly a world champion -level achievement. Meanwhile, Japan's nuclear phaseout is done with 99,999478% in fossils. (The bloomberg links are down where they were calculated before, but should be googlable with "Japan's Use of Oil May Surge by 300000 Barrels a Day" & "Japan Will Use More Coal During Maintenance, Deutsche Bank Says".
Yes, you can get rid of nuclear, but for all intents and purposes, it has always resulted with more dinosaur burning, not less. And that's pretty bad.
Even with all flaws, nuclear is a lot cheaper economically and environmentally as an insurance option than what Germany and most global economies are currently pursuing.
lispm|13 years ago
I live in Northern Germany and the days where it is not windy aren't that much. During the next two decades you will see massive investments in offshore wind parks. Winds on the North Sea are very strong and steady.
Current distribution networks are being upgraded. You'll see more of that in the next decades. We'll have a HVDC grid around the north sea. Connecting the wind parks, pumped hydro and the consumers.
90% from new electricity from fossil in the next years? That won't happen. The market for new fossil fuel plants is currently dead in Germany. To make that happen, the market would need to be restructured.
New fossil plants are also not that bad, since the new combined heat power plants are extremely efficient. There are new gas power plants which have a combined efficiency of 90%.
Japan's phase out is also not only done with fossils. Much of that is done with reduced consumption.
The German plans for its electricity production look forward to 2050, where around 80% of the electricity production will be from renewable energy. That's 38 years away, but it directs the policies and the investments. Nuclear then will be long gone.
Nuclear is also extremely expensive. Not cheap. The private sector is not willing to invest into it, without massive subsidies. Nuclear is getting more expensive, not cheaper. The whole area of safety is underdeveloped. The storage of nuclear waste is not solved. The public pays for accidents (see Japan, where Tepco gets more and more money from the government). Acceptance of the technology is going down. The nuclear industry had many costly adventures: reprocessing plants, breeders, thorium reactors, ... Many old reactors need to be replaced or upgraded.
Nuclear in its current form is no option. It generates huge centralized energy monopolies and it hasn't solved its core problems (waste, safety, security, ...).
cygx|13 years ago
In my opinion, this is the main issue that needs to be solved. Currently, we have centralized power plants with constant output, which distribute energy over medium ranges.
Decentralized energy production with fluctuating output doesn't play well with the existing network. However, that's not an unsurmountable problem - it's just not profitable as long as fission and fossil fuels are acceptable alternatives.
greedo|13 years ago
tobiasu|13 years ago