Siemens presents three-point plan for implementing cost-efficient energy transition in Germany
15 June 2013
|
|
| Siemens suggests abandoning a fixed target for renewable energies and concentrating on the CO2 reduction goal. Relying on a higher share of efficient, low-emission combined cycle power plants and wind energy could save €150 billion (US$200 billion) by 2030 while attaining the same CO2 targets, Siemens says. Source: Siemens. Click to enlarge. |
Germany has embarked on a large-scale Energiewende (energy transition)—a policy-driven shift away from nuclear and fossil energy to a renewable energy economy. Following the Fukushima disaster in 2011, the Federal government oversaw the immediate closure of eight nuclear plants, with the rest of the stations to be shut down by 2022. The government also is maintaining its target of cutting GHG emissions by 40% by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) and by 80% by 2050.
However, the financial cost of the shift is causing concern. In May, the International Energy Agency released a review of German energy policies that commended the country for its commitment to developing a low-carbon energy system over the long term, but emphasized that further policy measures are necessary if the Energiewende is to maintain a balance between sustainability, affordability and competitiveness. “The fact that German electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, despite relatively low wholesale prices, must serve as a warning signal,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven as she presented the report, Energy Policies of IEA Countries – Germany 2013 Review.
At the recent Siemens Energiewende-Dialog (Energy Transition Dialogue) in Berlin, the company presented a three-point plan with specific proposals for the cost-efficient implementation of the Energiewende in Germany.
|
|
| Electricity prices in comparison. Euro cents/kWh. Source: Siemens. Click to enlarge. |
The Three-Point Plan is based on Siemens’ analysis of the status quo relating to the energy transition. High electricity rates are burdening private households and industry alike and threatening Germany’s competitiveness, the company noted.
For private households, electricity rates were nearly 40% higher than the European Union average in 2012; for industrial facilities, 20%. Levies for renewable energies will reach a new high of roughly €16 billion (US$21.4 billion) this year. These costs are primarily borne by consumers.
In addition, despite the rigorous development of renewables, carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, because the energy mix increasingly includes coal-fired power plants that emit large quantities of CO2 to compensate for weather-related fluctuations in power generation from renewables and the closing of nuclear plants.
Siemens stands behind the energy transition. However, the project is currently at a critical stage. We need decisions that will maintain our country’s competitiveness over the long term. Our aim is to achieve a sustainable energy system with secure supplies and affordable electricity.
—Peter Löscher, President and CEO of Siemens AG
According to a survey of more than 250 German customers in various industries conducted by Siemens, more than 80% of the respondents believe the current Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) needs revision. More than 90% cite affordability and security of supply as the biggest challenges to a successful energy transition.
Siemens proposes giving up a fixed target for renewables and focus on reducing CO2 emissions in the future instead. The country should give greater priority to high-efficiency combined cycle power plants and wind power, the company suggests. With efficiency ratings of more than 60%, an advanced combined cycle power plant emits less than half the CO2 produced by a new coal-fired power plant, and wind power is well on its way to be able to deliver electricity as cost-effectively as conventional energy sources.
This scenario would ensure that Germany meets its climate targets, Siemens said. At the same time, the investment and operating costs for the energy transition could be cut by more than €150 billion (US$200 billion) by 2030 than with an unchecked expansion of renewables.
The climate goal can be reached by 2030 with fewer renewable energy sources at substantially lower costs. An energy mix with 40 percent green energy—rather than the planned 50 percent by 2030—is both ecologically as well as economically sensible.
—Peter Löscher
The Three-Point Plan. The pillars of Siemens’ Three-Point Plan are a restructuring of the electricity market; increasing energy efficiency; and a European coordination of the energy transition.
1. Restructure the electricity market. Five measures for restructuring the electricity market are geared to enhancing investment security and transparency in the energy market.
The first two measures entail a fundamental revision of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). Renewable energies should prevail on the market in the future without levies, Siemens says. The regulations for plants that are already in operation, however, would remain unchanged to guarantee investment security and legal certainty. To date, renewables have had feed-in priority over conventionally generated power from combined cycle and coal-fired power plants.
As a first measure, this “feed-in priority” should be replaced by a “feed-in responsibility”. In the future, providers of renewable energies would have to market their electricity just as reliably as other suppliers. To guarantee their supply commitments, they must secure their capacity with flexible power plants or with storage. This would create an energy market in which only the amount of electricity actually in demand is fed into the grid.
The second measure aims at making the support of renewable energies more dependent on the rules of competition and thus more cost-effective. One possibility here is auctions. For example, the investor offering the lowest feed-in tariff would be awarded the contract to build a new wind farm.
As a third measure, Siemens is proposing a European regulation for reducing CO2 emissions, such as by strengthening trade in CO2 emissions certificates in Europe. In addition, a fleet regulation for power plant fleets modeled after the automobile industry would be an effective way to limit the average CO2 emissions of the power utilities and further reduce emissions. Utilities with a fleet of aging power plants would then be forced to improve their CO2 balance step-by-step.
| Key recommendation from the IEA report |
|---|
| The IEA review of German energy policy made a number of key recommendations for the government, including: |
| Ensure that the large-scale transmission and distribution developments, including investments that are necessary if the Energy Concept (Energiewende) is to succeed, are put in place in a timely manner and maintain a regulatory system that provides sufficient financial incentives and investment security for mobilizing the necessary investments in distribution. |
| Develop suitable mechanisms to manage the cost of incremental renewable energy capacity via cost-effective market-based approaches, which will support the forecast growth of variable renewable electricity generation that brings new capacity closer to market needs, supports investments in appropriate locations and complements planned network expansion. |
| Assess, in co-ordination with all relevant stakeholders, the extent to which the present market arrangements enable the financing of economically viable investments in new flexible gas-fired generation and cost-effective electricity storage. Part of this assessment is the need to examine the suitability of capacity markets as a transitional measure to support the adjustment to a post-nuclear power system. |
| Take strong measures to ensure that the costs of the Energiewende are minimised and allocated fairly and equitably across customer categories and limit the growth of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) surcharge attributable to the deployment of additional renewable energy capacities, while drawing all benefits from the rapid decrease in technology costs that has occurred. |
| Develop policies that convey a clear understanding of the role of gas in the Energiewende and ensure that the short-term boom in coal use by the electricity sector does not crowd out investment in flexible gas-fired capacity. |
The advantage, according to Siemens, is that long-term and binding emissions targets and regulations for emission certificate trading up to 2030 would give power plant operators leeway to optimize their fleets and invest in new technologies.
A fourth measure relates to the fixed costs of the electricity system, such as the grid or EEG levy. Siemens proposes that these costs would no longer be included in the electricity price but covered via a fixed-cost, flat-rate payment for the grid connection.
All consumers who use the power grid would thus pay an equal share of the costs—regardless if they produce electricity and how much, or what they consume. To date, homeowners with solar collectors have the advantage that they contribute only a small share toward maintaining the power grid since they consume less grid electricity.
The fifth measure aims at maintaining the winter reserve for electricity to guarantee year-round security of supply—even when renewables feed less electricity into the grid. Germany’s Federal Network Agency and the grid operators would define a specific amount of electricity to be maintained as reserve capacity for peak demand. In the medium term, however, it must be decided politically whether Germany introduces a capacity mechanism as in other countries in order to compensate for the provision of power plants.
2. Increase energy efficiency. Rising electricity costs can be partly offset by systems that use less energy. Siemens strongly advocates speedy implementation of the European Energy Efficiency Directive in Germany, because there is huge potential in energy efficiency. Buildings with energy-efficient technology could, for example, generate savings of up to 40%, while efficient electric drives in industry could reduce consumption by up to 70%.
Increasing energy efficiency, however, often requires up-front investments. With intelligent financing models, modernization can be undertaken with no preliminary investment costs for the customer. Instead, these costs are paid entirely from the energy savings, Siemens says.
Along with energy efficiency measures, Siemens recommends the selective regulation of consumption. This means, for example, that consumers voluntarily disconnect themselves from the grid for short times during peak load periods and are rewarded with special compensation.
3. European coordination of the energy transition. The energy transition should be understood as a project that must be coordinated on a European level and driven by close cooperation among the individual countries, Siemens suggests. Separate regional and national solutions increase the costs for all countries moving to sustainable energy systems.
A study carried out by Siemens and the business consulting firm of McKinsey presented 20 international solutions along the entire energy value chain, from power generation and distribution to improving the energy efficiency of buildings, industry and transportation. The US, for example, leads the way in the selective regulation of power consumption through the temporarily reduction of demand. And in the process of modernizing their energy systems, Denmark and the Netherlands are already successfully auctioning wind farms.
This shows what happens when you mix politics and electricity generation - you end up with a huge mess.
The combination of promoting solar and shutting down nuclear has given them higher costs and higher CO2 - which isn't really what anyone wants.
Shutting down the nuclear as a response to a tsunami in Japan was really the stupidest thing I can think of.
You hear of earthquakes and Tsunamis in Japan, you do not hear of them in Germany.
Posted by: mahonj | 15 June 2013 at 11:22 AM
Replacing nuclear with coal fired power plants was a huge mistake.
Investing more into energy efficiency (to reduce demands by 40% or so) would have been much wiser.
Posted by: HarveyD | 15 June 2013 at 11:49 AM
Actually mahonj the anti-nuclear movement in Germany did not start with the Fukushima disaster;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany
Posted by: ai_vin | 15 June 2013 at 12:20 PM
I agree Harvey, replacing nuclear with coal fired power plants was a huge mistake but try to see where their reasoning came from. First of all the move to fossil fuels was always seen as a temporary situation. [Germany still had a target of 35 percent renewable power by 2020, rising to 85 percent by 2050.] They are already closing old fossil fuel plants for newer, cleaner, ones and no doubted trusted the strong Green movement in Germany to force the closure of the new ones too as soon as it was possible to do so.
But why coal rather than gas? Well, for one thing Germany has coal and gas on this scale would have to come from Russia. And back in 2007 conservative politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Economics Minister Michael Glos, used concerns that 'Russian energy supplies to western Europe may not be reliable' to push for more nuclear power, so they couldn't push for more gas power now without eating crow.
Maybe the Audi E-gas plan is a way around this?
Posted by: ai_vin | 15 June 2013 at 12:49 PM
Germans always been anti-nuclear nazis
Endless protests, obstruction with stoping trains with nuclear materals quite common. Green party was rulling party for long time. Siemens stoped all nuclear programs after Chernobyl and never restarted. Instead they are massively producing wind turbines. The current activity targeting save existing business model - wind, gas for public relations, but in reality focus on coal.
Posted by: Darius | 15 June 2013 at 01:02 PM
Agree with mahonj. Given how expensive nuclear is and how difficult to build, if you already have them then keep using them. Do a thorough safety audit with Fukushima as the base model and then redouble efforts to shift to efficiency and renewables but skip the new coal phase.
Posted by: Biff | 15 June 2013 at 02:38 PM
@ Darius
The Greens are everything except Nazis. As a matter of fact they are for the most part on the Left end of the political spectrum. Not a single German Green Party member has a Physical Science Degree. Guys like former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, for instance, who was head of the Green Party hasn't even got a high School diploma.
Posted by: Mannstein | 15 June 2013 at 03:50 PM
Germany has had high electricity prices stretching back before renewables and nuclear became issues.
From a 2009 Economist article about the high price of electricity:
"The main reason Germany's electricity market is not working as it should is the lack of competition."
"A second problem is that Germany's biggest electricity generators also own the networks that distribute electricity. Critics argue that this gives them a huge advantage over independent producers..."
"... over the longer run, ambitious plans to increase the share of electricity from renewable sources may erode the dominance of the country's four biggest electricity generators. Germany hopes to get as much as 30% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and although few in the industry think the target will be met, there is nevertheless likely to be a huge investment in new generating capacity over the coming decades."
http://www.economist.com/node/13527440
Wholesale electricity prices in Germany dropped approximately by 5 billion euros (2012 vs. 2008)due to solar reducing the need for more expensive peaking supply.
---
Nothing like a nuclear reactor blowing up in your back yard to get your attention.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 15 June 2013 at 03:58 PM
Germany's new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. These new plants were planned and construction was started prior to the decision to close nuclear plants.
By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.
Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing. And the new coal plants are partially load-following which will further reduce CO2 emissions.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 15 June 2013 at 03:59 PM
Perhaps there are those who would trust Russia to keep the gas on; I wouldn't because a wholesale loss of energy could damage the Germany economy. You just can't take the chance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106382/Europe-plunged-energy-crisis-Russia-cuts-gas-supply-Ukraine.html
If the cost of electricity is too high, I think the citizens should fight back back by decreasing demand. Turn off the lights and look to efficient lighting and appliances. Conserve as necessary to lower the electric bill. I hesitate to recommend Government intervention unless it is absolutely necessary.
I believe Germany has it right in not building expensive new atomic plants and I completely get it because they remember Chernobl and the fall out over their nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
I look at a little state like South Carolina where they had 32 coal-fired plants and imported coal all the way from South America and at the same time exported electricity to the adjacent states. In effect South Carolina's economy was losing one plus billion a year and they were the air pollution center and coal toxic ash repository of the South.
Finally they woke up and realized they were being had by Big Coal and Big Utility. South Carolina has started shutting down these plants and are working to keep the money and electricity at home. They are late to react but finally doing it.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-South-Carolina.pdf
Posted by: Lad | 15 June 2013 at 07:46 PM
Yeah, what Bob said; http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/15/no-more-coal-plants-in-germany/
Posted by: ai_vin | 15 June 2013 at 08:20 PM
@Bob said:
'Wholesale electricity prices in Germany dropped approximately by 5 billion euros (2012 vs. 2008)due to solar reducing the need for more expensive peaking supply.'
Perhaps you would like to give details of how they managed that since only trivial amounts of solar are available in winter when demand peaks in Germany, and wind is only available when it feels like blowing?
You also seem to be geographically challenged, since Japan is hardly in Germany's back yard.
And:
'By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.'
It is customary to give sources when providing data.
The fact is that moving from nuclear is estimated by the German's themselves to cost a cool trillion Euros, and they admit they have no chance of meeting Kyoto.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/03/germany-shift-to-renewables-will-cost.html
No wonder Siemen's are keen on it.
This absolutely daft notion inflates the market for their products several times over, compared to the comparatively small costs of running a sensible energy policy.
Posted by: Davemart | 16 June 2013 at 03:06 AM
The problem with alternative energy is that it is intermittant, predictably intermittent, but still intermittent. It doesn't matter how many PV panels you erect, you will get no energy at night, and very little all winter.
The same with wind, there will be days when there is more or less no wind, and for those days, you need an alternative. Thus, you have to back the whole lot up with fossil or nuclear or imports (assuming you have maxed out your hydro).
At least with nuclear, it doesn;t all go down at the same time. If you have 10 nuke plants, you can have one down for maintenance, and allow another to go down for random reasons, you still have the other 8. And they work at night. And they work when it isn't windy.
Shutting down nukes early is crazy - they cost a fortune to build and should be operated for as long as possible.
My view is that the Germans are trying to work out a way of building a highly renewable based electricity supply system, which whey will then force on the rest of Europe.
However, this looks unlikely to me as they have made a complete dog's dinner of it.
If they can salvage it by going to gas instead of coal (as per Siemens), it would be for the better - they might be able to get the gas from fracking in the rest of Europe, and not have to rely on Russia.
Posted by: mahonj | 16 June 2013 at 05:47 AM
@mahonj.
Indeed.
The bit:
'The energy transition should be understood as a project that must be coordinated on a European level and driven by close cooperation among the individual countries, Siemens suggests.'
Clearly shows the 'cunning plan' is to foist as many costs as possible onto everyone else, and force them to raise their own costs by engaging in suicidal drives for renewables so German lack of competitiveness is not exposed.
They hope to use trade barriers no doubt to prevent the massive loss of competitiveness with the rest of the world showing.
Right at the moment the surges in power due to intermittent renewables is destabilising not only their own grid, but the grid of much of Europe:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/windmills-overload-east-europe-s-grid-risking-blackout-energy.html
Posted by: Davemart | 16 June 2013 at 06:06 AM
Try to keep up Dave.
You also seem to be geographically challenged, since Japan is hardly in Germany's back yard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
they admit they have no chance of meeting Kyoto.
Actually it is only a 'worry' - not a certainty.
-The agency's president Jochen Flasbarth said fears that the nuclear exit would spark far greater greenhouse gas emissions had not happened "because, above all, the further development of renewable energies has countered it."
"However, the trend of again converting more coal into electricity worries me," he added in the statement.
Germany said that despite the slight increase in emissions in 2012, it had more than met the targets agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, with its greenhouse gas emissions having fallen by 25.5 percent compared to 1990.-
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20130226-48189.html#.UTecT1f2Tcs
No wonder Siemen's are keen on it.
They may be "keen on it" for other reasons;
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/fossil-power-generation/
Posted by: ai_vin | 16 June 2013 at 07:39 AM
'I look at a little state like South Carolina ...”
Why would you do that? Why would you use UCS as a source of information?
Here is a better source:
http://www.eia.gov/state/index.cfm?sid=SC
“South Carolina received 70 percent of its coal for the electric power sector from Kentucky in 2010. ”
and
“South Carolina’s four existing nuclear power plants supplied 51 percent of the State’s net electricity generation in 2011, and, in March 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction of two new units at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station site in Fairfield County.”
Duke Energy is also planning on two new more nukes in SC.
'coal toxic ash repository of the South.'
Actually, SC uses half the coal to make power as neighboring states.
I am not sure what point Lad was trying to make. If you are looking for a place with no coal resources but uses nuclear to export power to its neighbors, SC is another very good example. France is another.
SC has 7 large reactors that they use to sell power to other states. The state public utility commission has allowed some of the profits to be used as CWIP to fund new nukes.
Posted by: Kit P | 16 June 2013 at 08:20 AM
'I look at a little state like South Carolina ...”
Why would you do that? Why would you use UCS as a source of information?
Posted by: Kit P | 16 June 2013 at 08:22 AM
Here is a better source:
http://www.eia.gov/state/index.cfm?sid=SC
Posted by: Kit P | 16 June 2013 at 08:23 AM
“South Carolina received 70 percent of its coal for the electric power sector from Kentucky in 2010. ”
and
“South Carolina’s four existing nuclear power plants supplied 51 percent of the State’s net electricity generation in 2011, and, in March 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction of two new units at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station site in Fairfield County.”
Duke Energy is also planning on two new more nukes in SC.
'coal toxic ash repository of the South.'
Actually, SC uses half the coal to make power as neighboring states.
I am not sure what point Lad was trying to make. If you are looking for a place with no coal resources but uses nuclear to export power to its neighbors, SC is another very good example. France is another.
SC has 7 large reactors that they use to sell power to other states. The state public utility commission has allowed some of the profits to be used as CWIP to fund new nukes.
Posted by: Kit P | 16 June 2013 at 08:24 AM
“South Carolina received 70 percent of its coal for the electric power sector from Kentucky in 2010. ”
and
“South Carolina’s four existing nuclear power plants supplied 51 percent of the State’s net electricity generation in 2011, and, in March 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction of two new units at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station site in Fairfield County.”
Duke Energy is also planning on two new more nukes in SC.
Posted by: Kit P | 16 June 2013 at 08:25 AM
“South Carolina received 70 percent of its coal for the electric power sector from Kentucky in 2010. ”
and
'coal toxic ash repository of the South.'
Actually, SC uses half the coal to make power as neighboring states.
I am not sure what point Lad was trying to make. If you are looking for a place with no coal resources but uses nuclear to export power to its neighbors, SC is another very good example. France is another.
SC has 7 large reactors that they use to sell power to other states. The state public utility commission has allowed some of the profits to be used as CWIP to fund new nukes.
Posted by: Kit P | 16 June 2013 at 08:26 AM
Davemart -
http://qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/RA-January-2013_Germany-Wholesale-Power-Report-3.pdf
--
Chernobyl is in Germany's backyard. Have you not heard about the problem of German wild boars with radioactive meat?
When Japan blew the Germans, I suspect, decided that if the so cautious Japanese could melt a few down that getting rid of reactors might be the wise thing to do.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 16 June 2013 at 10:38 AM
@mahonj
If we build a 100% renewable energy grid we will need to build enough storage to make it 24/365 reliable power.
If we were to build a 100% nuclear energy grid we would also have to build a lot of storage. We'd need to move "always on" output from low demand to high demand times.
And we'd have to build enough storage to cover needs when one or more reactors suddenly went offline. Enough to carry us for a few days until a backup reactor could be brought on line.
The problems of a renewable and a nuclear grid are remarkably similar. Both need storage, backup and redundancy.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 16 June 2013 at 10:44 AM
Davemart - you wanted more information about
Germany and coal?
The recent news that the German Environmental Minister opened a new coal plant made headlines around the world and lead people to believe once again that Germany's nuclear phaseout would only lead to greater coal consumption, thereby raising carbon emissions. But a single new coal plant does not a trend make.
Opponents of renewables in North America are pouncing on the news of a new coal plant in Germany, especially because German Environmental Minister Peter Altmaier cut the ribbon, so to speak. Altmaier said Germany will need the conventional fossil power plants for "decades to come," though he did not say it was, as Fox Business put it, to "complement unreliable and intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power." In fact, he stated that "fossil energy and renewables should not be played as cards against each other" and that we have to move beyond "making enemies of the two."
It took six years to build the plant, meaning that the process started in 2006. It is by no means a reaction to the nuclear phaseout of 2011. And as Altmaier himself points out, the new plant can ramp up and down by 150 megawatts within five minutes and by 500 megawatts within 15, making it a flexible complement to intermittant renewables. In the area, 12 coal plants more than 40 years old have been decommissioned, and the new 2,200 megawatt plant is to directly replace 16 older 150 megawatts blocks by the end of this year, so 2,200 megawatts of new, more flexible, somewhat cleaner capacity (the new plant has an efficiency of 43 percent, whereas 35 percent would be considered ambitious for most old coal plants) is directly replacing 2,400 old megawatts.
Germany has a target of 35 percent renewable power by 2020, rising to 85 percent by 2050 – meaning that 65 percent of its power supply will be conventional in 2020, and the country will still have 15 percent conventional power by mid-century. Obviously, Germany needs to build some new conventional power plants to reach even that ambitious goal for renewables.
There have been reports that Germany plans to construct some 23 coal plants, but as in Cologne these plans predate the nuclear phaseout of 2011. The question is how many of these will be built. German environmental organization BUND has a map (in German) of the power plants planned and those already blocked. In addition, Germany's Energy Agency (Dena), which is not considered a blind advocate of renewables (on the contrary, the renewables sector considered its Grid Studies subservient to grid operators' needs), estimates in a recent study (PDF in German) that 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity (both hard coal and brown coal) will be decommissioned by 2020, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed by that time. Most of the new capacity is expected to be gas turbines, with 20.7 gigawatts going up by 2020.
Finally, it is simply not possible for Germany to increase its carbon emissions from the power sector because the country has emissions trading, which sets a limit on emissions. If anything, the phase-out of nuclear will remove a chunk of low-carbon generating capacity, thereby raising the price of carbon, which will make future investments in coal plants expensive -- but the effects will not be felt for years because it takes years to build these plants.
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/is-germany-switching-to-coal/150/537/56081/
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 16 June 2013 at 10:51 AM
"Shutting down nukes early is crazy - they cost a fortune to build and should be operated for as long as possible."
Crazy is a strong word. What if we substitute "questionable"?
My attitude is that if an existing nuclear reactor is judged to be safe and if it is located where the local population could be evacuated in the event of a meltdown, then we should probably keep using it.
But we need to respect the feelings of those who are living close to reactors. If they want to close a reactor and pay any resulting increased electricity costs then that's a local decision. If they want to get a lot of renewables in place and then close a reactor, same thing.
What we're seeing in the US is that existing reactors are failing for financial, not social, reasons. We've lost four so far this year and have others in trouble.
If we put a price on carbon then some of the financially troubled reactors should survive for a while. But not long term.
The price of wind-electricity is low and falling. Wind will cause off-peak merit order pricing to drop to the point at which nuclear is losing money.
And solar-electricity prices are dropping very fast. That lowers the merit order price ceiling and kills nuclear's opportunity to earn the high profits it needs to offset off-peak loses.
Since the right wing of our Congress will not entertain a price on carbon there's little hope for nuclear. Wind, solar and natural gas generation are lethal competitors.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 16 June 2013 at 11:04 AM