Archive for the 'Nuclear energy' category

How Much More CO2 is Emitted Because of Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout?

Mar 08 2013 Published by under European and German energy law, Nuclear energy

That was a question by John D. Morgan directed at me with this tweet. This is an interesting question. I don’t know the answer, and I think no one can know the exact answer, since it depends on future developments. It also depends on what phase out one is talking about. I will assume that it is the decision in 2011 and therefore contemplate as alternative what would have happened under the earlier 2000 phase out decision without the 2011 one.

The simple answer would of course be “zero”. Some people point to the fact that Germany, as a member of the European Union, is part of the Emission Trading System, which puts a hard limit on all emissions from large installations (power plants are included) in Europe.

That of course means that whatever additional CO2 gets emitted in Germany will be canceled out by less emissions somewhere else.

But I think that is too simple an answer.

That’s because the absolute cap could be reduced faster if CO2 goes down faster than the 1.74% per year required by Article 9 of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2009/29. People could say “wow, we have all this low carbon electricity from German nuclear power plants, let’s get that up to 1.89%” or some other value.

That’s the part where any answer to the question necessarily involves prediction of future policy decisions. If one assumes no change to the 1.74%, well, the answer to the question permanently remains zero.

So then, how much low carbon electricity is gone because of the 2011 phase out decision?

For discussing that, one needs to know that the nuclear phase out in Germany already was decided in 2000 by an agreement between industry and the government, which was later (in 2002) incorporated into law. From 2000 on, nuclear power plants were allowed only a limited number of electricity production, which was set at 2482,18 TWh. See this source from the German government (in English).

Of that number, 980.7 TWh was left as of December 31, 2010. From that one needs to subtract production of 2011 (108.0) and 2012 (99.0) (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen), which leaves us with 773.7 at the end of 2012.

With the remaining operation periods under the 2011 decision maybe some of that low carbon energy won’t be able to be generated. Maybe they all need to shut down before generating their remaining energy.

But if you look at the German Wikipedia article on nuclear power stations in Germany, there is a nice table on when which power station will be phased out under the 2011 decision, and when that power station will shut down because it has no allotment left.

For all of the remaining 9 plants, the shutoff date under the 2011 decision is actually later than that when remaining generation allotments run out.

So that would be, again, zero TWh in low carbon energy lost to the 2011 phase out. Disclaimer: I have not checked the calculations at Wikipedia. But they do seem to make sense at first glance.  The 773.7 TWh remaining at the end of 2012 are only about 77 TWh per year until the final shutdown of the last three power plants on December 31, 2012.

So, to sum it all up: The answer to the question is “zero” if one does not assume that a large lost number of low carbon energy would have brought faster reductions than the 1.74% per year. But the “large lost number” seems to be zero as well, since there was already a cap on nuclear in place since 2000, and the 2011 phase out doesn’t do much to accelerate what would have happened anyway.

This result is slightly surprising to me, I would not have expected it before writing this post. So thanks again to John D. Morgan for asking this interesting question.

One response so far

Nuclear Lobby Doesn’t Tell How Much Nuclear Generated Last Year

Feb 19 2013 Published by under Nuclear energy

The good news for Australian Fossil Nukes like the one I discussed yesterday is that nuclear didn’t decline at all in Australia last year.

That is of course caused by the fact that it is completely illegal there in the first place, and there is no way to further decline from zero.

I recall that Barry Brook, the most prominent Australian Fossil Nuke, expects that small amounts of low carbon nuclear energy may be expected there as early as 2030. As mentioned earlier, until such time he and his friends will try to stand in the way of renewable energy, making climate change worse in the process, if anybody listens to them.

While it is easy to find out how much nuclear declined in Australia, it is surprisingly difficult to find out what happened world wide.

Of course for Germany one look at the latest numbers from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen shows that nuclear is down to 99.5 TWh in 2012, from 108.0 in 2011, for a decline of around 7.9%. In the same year 2012, solar production was up 44% in Germany.

Where would one expect to find data on World nuclear generation in 2012?

The first candidate would be the World Nuclear Association. Their relevant page titled “Nuclear Power in the World Today” was last updated in April 2012, but actually only shows data from 2010 and 2008, conveniently hiding the substantial decline in 2011.

No luck for anyone interested in finding data there about “nuclear today”, I guess.

Next up is the “Nuclear Energy Institute”, describing itself as “the policy organization for the nuclear industry”. Sure they would have data on something so basic as production in 2012.

Again, no such luck. Their page only shows data until 2011.

The same is true of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They also either don’t know or don’t tell about 2012, their data set ending with 2011.

In contrast, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report site came up right on January first with a summary for 2012, which doesn’t show generation numbers, but gives an overview describing the how many new units were connected to the grid (three) and how many old ones were retired (four).

For the longer term picture on the decline of nuclear I still recommend their World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012.

 

9 responses so far

Japan Not Allowed to Phase Out Nuclear, Says John Hamre

Nov 03 2012 Published by under Japanese energy law, Nuclear energy

Japan Times reports on the visit to Japan by John Hamre and several of his statements on the nuclear phase-out the Japanese government has decided. Thanks to this tweet by Kevin Meyerson for the link.

John Hamre is a former Deputy Secretary of Defense (in the Clinton Administration) and now the chairman of the “Center for Strategic and International Studies“.

He had this to say (from the Japan Times article):

If Japan is to give up nuclear energy — and if nuclear power is to wither in the U.S. due to competition with cheap natural gas and in Europe as in the case of Germany — “the countries that have given us the security system are going to diminish, and who’s going to replace them?” he said. “Americans cannot afford from a security standpoint to have Japan abandon nuclear power. It’s too important to us.

I am not sure how this is supposed to help support for nuclear power in Japan. Basically, he is asserting the right of the Americans to decide on whether Japan will keep nuclear or not.

Actually, under basic values of democracy, it’s none of America’s business in what direction this decision goes.

Again, the occupation ended in 1952.

So, if anything, asserting that the Japanese government needs to ask Obama (or possibly Romney) for permission before they decide on their energy strategy can only lead to strengthening opposition to nuclear power in Japan.

 

No responses yet

German Nuclear Phaseout is Done Deal, Move On Already

Oct 26 2012 Published by under Fossil Nukes, Nuclear energy

Mark Lynas kindly discussed a bit about nuclear energy with me on Twitter, asking why I would oppose keeping nuclear on the grid in Germany while understanding it is a low carbon source.

Actually, I can’t recall having opposed keeping nuclear on the grid in Germany. But if one would ask for the reasons for such a position, here are a few.

For one, it would be a fringe minority loser position to call for reversing the nuclear phaseout in Germany. There is no party you could vote for in the next election. They were all united in voting for the phaseout last year.

I for one don’t think it is smart to base your climate activism on a strategy with zero chance for realization. And basic rules of democracy require respecting the will of the majority.

Next, I hate nuclear energy. My position was “shut down those filthy nuclear reactors” even back when I added “once the last fossil fuel power station is out of business”.

I’m not one of those guys who like the smell of uranium in their morning coffee. I dislike the big corporate structures, the necessity for strong security, the possibility to build nuclear weapons with plutonium. And I have watched the Fukushima explosions from rather close up.

I hate nuclear. The only question is if I would – barely – want to tolerate it for another couple of decades because I hate global warming even more.

Unfortunately, such a position is made much more difficult by the fact that most of the pro-nuclear voices think anti-renewable propaganda will help their case. Rod Adams with his “unreliables” term. Barry Brook and his merry band of anti-renewable propaganda peddlers. I hate this position, which I call the “Fossil Nukes”, even more than I hate nuclear in the first place.

So I might be tempted to actually oppose keeping nuclear on the grid in Germany, as Mark Lynas thought I already did.

But there is no point anyway. That is a done deal. At some point, the Fossil Nukes need to understand that their dreams of a nuclear renaissance in Germany just won’t happen and move on.

I am old enough to have actually seen on television the Wembley Goal, where the English team got a World Cup final win against Germany handed to them by referee incompetence, as proved later by a study of the Oxford university engineering department.

I don’t agree with that decision, but I have moved on. Time for the Fossil Nukes to move on as well.

Update: Energiewende Germany just kindly linked to this post with this Tweet, stating:

If you want others to get why Germany is rightly phasing out nuclear power,personal feelings don’t make compelling case

That is not my intention here. Actually, I have not even stated anywhere above that I support the phase-out myself. What I said is that it doesn’t matter any more.

My intention was to answer the question by Mark Lynas how I could understand that nuclear is a low carbon source and still “oppose keeping nuclear in the grid”. My answer to that was that I have not stated such an opposition, but if I were to do so, there are some reasons for me personally for that.

6 responses so far

Edano on Energy

Oct 08 2012 Published by under Book Review, Energy from the desert, Japanese energy law, Nuclear energy

Minister of Economy Edano’s recent book “Tatakaretemo iwaneba naranai koto” (What I have to say even if I get beaten up for it) has a chapter on energy issues.

He states that he, personally, wants to get rid of nuclear energy as soon as possible (ichinichi demo hayaku, 一日でもはやく), which is exactly the way the new government energy strategy frames the issue. This is not a phase-out until 2040, as many have misunderstood. It is a phase-out that should take place tomorrow, if possible. On the day the society is not any more dependent on nuclear, the remaining plants get shut down permanently.

The book adds some more detail on the order in which nuclear plants are supposed to be shut down. The German phase-out legislation gave exact dates for when which nuclear plant gets shut down. The Japanese energy strategy only says that no plant will operate longer than 40 years.

Edano explains that there will be an order of urgency eventually, evaluating all existing plants. This will take some time, since it is not only a matter of when each plant started operation. If that was the only thing to consider, such an order would be established in a couple of minutes. The exercise of developing this order will also consider factors like earthquake risk, which is different in different areas of Japan, and the potential damage and scale of evacuation if an accident happens.

He also confirms that the outdated monopolies for utilities need to be abolished, and unbundling of generation and grid management is necessary.

Then he says that for the time nuclear energy remains in Japan, it needs to be put under government control. It is not adequate in his opinion to have private corporations collect the profits from nuclear, while the taxpayer is stuck with the bill for damage compensation.

He then also says that, contrary to many assertions, phasing nuclear out will lead to stimulating the Japanese economy, since there will be two large new fields of demand with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I agree with most of these positions. And anyone discussing Japanese government energy policy would be well advised to read this book. That is especially true for pro-nuclear positions, who adopt the wishful thinking that Japan is not serious about phasing out nuclear.

I hoped that Edano might mention the “Asia Super Grid” proposal or the idea of energy from the Mongolian Gobi desert. I could not find any such mention in the chapter on energy. I regret this state of affairs. It shows that the concept of energy from the desert still has a long way to go in Japan compared to the situation in Europe.

No responses yet

Build Solar Capacity at Nuclear Plants

Oct 06 2012 Published by under Fukushima, Japanese energy law, Nuclear energy

I am reading Minister of Economy Edano’s recent book “Tatakaretemo iwaneba naranai koto” (What I have to say even if I get beaten up for it).

He starts out this book by looking back to his involvement in the aftermath of the earthquake and the Fukushima accident last year. He was one of the key persons involved on the government side. I recall watching his regular press conferences.

I learned that the TEPCO headquarters in Tokyo and the Fukushima plant were connected by a television conference system. But the government didn’t realize even this simple fact until March 15, four days after the earthquake, when Prime Minister Kan lost patience and stormed into TEPCO headquarters (pages 31 to 32).

In contrast, I already knew a bit about the failure to get mobile generators connected in time. Last time I wrote about it was in June last year.

Edano writes (on page 23) that the first mobile generator arrived at about 9 in the evening on March 11, and the final count was 60. But their plugs did not match, their voltage did not match, and their connection cables were too short.

And he comments that this vital mission failed because of these very simple problems.

Obviously, one would want to make sure that in future cases the mobile generators can be plugged in quickly.

But I have one other proposal as well.

Build as much solar and wind capacity as possible right on site, and connect it to the plant’s internal grid in the first place.

There is probably no other application of electricity where having an uninterrupted supply is of such vital importance. The consequences of those plugs not matching and those cables being too short have been enormous.

In that case, it makes sense to throw every available resource at the problem of keeping power under any circumstances. Adding renewable capacity right on site would diversify the supply. It could only help, since it adds one more layer of security if everything else fails.

That would also mean that those power plants could at least supply some electricity to the grid while they are shut down, as many of the plants in Japan will be for a long time from now.

And I like the symbolic value of having solar panels at nuclear sites.

I hear that most of the European nuclear power plants have failed their stress tests. They  might want to consider adding this security feature as well.

 

2 responses so far

Prime Minister Noda: Energy Strategy Approved by Cabinet

Sep 21 2012 Published by under Japanese energy law, Nuclear energy

Yesterday, Prime Minister Noda was on “News Zero” with other candidates for the position of leader of the Democratic Party. The first question to him was about the confusion surrounding the new energy strategy document. The newscaster asked if the nuclear phase out was dropped.

Noda answered that this is a misunderstanding. He made clear that the Cabinet has adopted the energy strategy document and that the political goal to reach a society not dependent on nuclear in the 2030s has been adopted by Cabinet as well.

Starting with Justin McCurry here, as far as I am aware all Western media (Spiegel, New York Times) have misunderstood the situation and reported that Japan reversed the nuclear phase out decision only a couple of days after it was adopted.

I had a different take, and I think Prime Minister Noda’s statement backs my understanding.

He also cleared up that the original strategy paper does not decide phasing out nuclear until 2040, but makes it a long term policy goal to get a society not dependent on nuclear.

That said, he did get some criticism from the other candidates for party leadership that the Cabinet decision was lukewarm and gave rise to this kind of misunderstandings. In the coming elections, the Democratic Party will be the party of phase out, while the Liberal Democrats will be the party of keeping nuclear. It is important to make these positions clear to the voter.

Update September 27: Prime Minister Noda now also said at the United Nations that Japan aims to achieve zero reliance on nuclear by the 2030s.

4 responses so far

Matthew Hulbert Making Up His Own Reality at Forbes

Sep 16 2012 Published by under European and German energy law, Fossil Nukes, Japanese energy law, Nuclear energy

Matthew Hulbert has written about the decision of the Japanese government to bury nuclear energy in Japan at Forbes. Reading that article, one might get the impression that nuclear is still not dead in Japan. Let’ s take a couple of moments to debunk some of his more glaring mistakes.

He starts off in his first sentence with “Japan has taken the decision to phase out nuclear power by 2040 – a mere 28 years from now.”

That is false. Just read the new Government strategy paper.

It does not decide on phasing out until 2040, though it does say that they want to be able to get away from nuclear power until that year. What it does decide is that no reactor will be allowed to operate longer than forty years, and no new ones will be approved.

He then leads off another paragraph with this mistake: “Prices have cooled in Asia now that Japan has filled most of its nuclear gaps, but in large part, that helps to explain why Japan is in no rush to take their nukes offline at breakneck speed.”

Does he even know that there are only 2 nuclear reactors running now in Japan? Japan has shut down the nuclear fleet much faster than Germany.

He follows up with this interesting analysis:

Debate will obviously rage in Japan as to the relative merits of the DJP proposition, but it wouldn’t be particularly surprising if nuclear operators take this as a cue to get more plants back online now that the political air has been ‘cleared’.

The decision on getting plants back online is not up to the utilities. Actually one of the three principles on nuclear power in the new strategy paper makes that very clear. But it was clear for anyone with the slightest idea about nuclear energy in Japan before already.

Having conclusively shown that he knows nothing about Japan, Hulbert then goes on to demonstrate the same thing for Germany:

Germany has had little choice but to massively expand coal fired plants (‘clean dark spreads’ aren’t exactly hurting in Europe these days given a collapsed carbon price), coupled to increased quantities of expensive Russian gas through the Nord Stream pipeline.

In his fantasy world. Meanwhile, in reality, electricity from coal fired plants in Germany went down to 111,8 TWh in 2011, from 117,0 TWh in 2010.

He then adds the fantasy of Germany buying French nuclear power:

Whether Berlin will continue on their path of ‘nuclear nonsense’  remains to be seen once the true political and economic costs become clear – the most galling of which will be signing power purchases agreements across their borders for French nuclear power.

Again, in reality, France needed bailing out from Germany when things got somewhat tight in February of this year.

And, again in reality, those fantasy power purchase agreements from French nuclear won’t happen, because nuclear can’t compete on price with renewable energy.

11 responses so far

Nuclear Dead in Japan, Only Funeral Missing

Sep 15 2012 Published by under Japanese energy law, Nuclear energy

Yesterday, the Japanese government published the new long term energy strategy. It is available as a PDF file at the Prime Minister’s Website, and in Html format at Tokyo Shimbun. My comments here are based on the original PDF file.

In this post, I will address the question of nuclear energy. Other areas of the policy will be the topic of other posts.

I blogged on the last long term strategy of summer 2010 last March. At the time, the goal was to get to 70 percent electricity from nuclear and renewable combined until 2030, up from 34% in 2010. For that to happen the plan was to build at least 14 new reactors until 2030 and increase the capacity factor to 90 % (up from only 60 % in 2008).

The new strategy starts out with the desire to get rid of nuclear energy as soon as possible.

For that to happen, it decides that no nuclear plant will be allowed to operate longer than 40 years, that only those that are decided to be safe by the Nuclear Regulation Commission will be allowed to operate, and that there will be no new plants built.

The German decision to get rid of nuclear energy was somewhat easier to read, since it tells everyone exactly when which plant will be retired. There is some uncertainty left. Which plants will be restarted for the rest of their remaining operation period of 40 years maximum? We will have to wait and see.

But it is quite clear that nuclear is dead in Japan in the long run.

As far as my interest is concerned (low carbon energy and global warming), it would be rather reckless to count on a large contribution from nuclear in Japan. Just as in Germany, renewable energy will have to do the job on its own.

Since a large majority of Japanese citizens is firmly opposed to nuclear energy, this is exactly what is supposed to happen in a democracy.

Of course, there are still supporters of nuclear energy in Japan. Maybe they can get another government elected that changes the policy again.

I for one won’t count on it.

One response so far

How Many Fast Reactors Will the US Build in the Next 50 Years?

Sep 09 2012 Published by under Nuclear energy

None, according to Bill Gates here:

This is the first time someone talked about “killer application” for nuclear, says Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Poneman, who interviewed Bill Gates in this video.

Thanks for this Tweet by Robert Wilson for the link.

Maybe there will be a long shot chance for nuclear to contribute something if his Terrapower concept works out. But that will take another ten years at least.

 

No responses yet

Older posts »