Group items tagged

Germany will be redirecting its economy towards renewable energy, because of the political decision to decommission its nuclear plants, triggered by the Fukushima event in Japan and subsequent public opposition to nuclear energy. Germany's decision would make achieving its 2020 CO2 emission reduction targets more difficult.   To achieve the CO2 emissions reduction targets and replace nuclear energy, renewable energy would need to scale up from 17% in 2010 to 57% of total electricity generation of 603 TWh in 2020, according to a study by The Breakthrough Institute. As electricity generation was 603 TWh in 2010, increased energy efficiency measures will be required to flat-line electricity production during the next 9 years.   Germany has 23 nuclear reactors (21.4 GW), 8 are permanently shut down (8.2 GW) and 15 (13.2 GW) will be shut down by 2022. Germany will be adding a net of 5 GW of coal plants, 5 GW of new CCGT plants and 1.4 GW of new biomass plants in future years. The CCGT plants will reduce the shortage of quick-ramping generation capacity for accommodating variable wind and solar energy to the grid.

Germany is planning a $14 billion build-out of transmission systems for onshore and future offshore wind energy in northern Germany and for augmented transmission with France for CO2-free hydro and nuclear energy imports to avoid any shortages.    Germany had fallen behind on transmission system construction in the north because of public opposition and is using the nuclear plant shutdown as leverage to reduce public opposition. Not only do people have to look at a multitude of 450-ft tall wind turbines, but also at thousands of 80 to 135 ft high steel structures and wires of the transmission facilities.   The $14 billion is just a minor down payment on the major grid reorganization required due to the decommissioning of the nuclear plants and the widely-dispersed build-outs of renewables. The exisitng grid is mostly large-central-plant based. 

This article includes the estimated capital costs of shutting down Germany's nuclear plants, reorganizing the grids of Germany and its neighbors, and building out renewables to replace the nuclear energy.    Germany’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000, guarantees investors above-market fees for solar power for 20 years from the point of installation. In 2010, German investments in  renewables was about $41.2 billion, of which about $36.1 billion in 7,400 MW of solar systems ($4,878/kW). In 2010, German incentives for all renewables was about $17.9 billion, of which about half was for solar systems.   The average subsidy in 2010 was about ($9 billion x 1 euro/1.4 $)/12 TWh = 53.6 eurocents/kWh; no wonder solar energy is so popular in Germany. These subsidies are rolled into electric rates as fees or taxes, and will ultimately make Germany less competitive in world markets.   http://thebreakthrough.org/blog//2011/06/analysis_germanys_plan_to_phas-print.html http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/merkel-faces-achilles-heel-in-grids-to-unplug-german-nuclear.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/829664/revealed_how_your_country_compares_on_renewable_investment.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany  

The village of Feldheim 60km from Berlin has become an unusual tourist attraction. The village’s independent energy grid and 100% renewable energy sources has gained international attention. The village has its own energy grid and generates power from wind, biogas and solar. The model of Feldheim extinguishes the myth of needing nuclear or fossil fuel for baseload power and the assumption that big utility companies are required for electricity.

The transformation in Feldheim began in 1995 with a few wind turbines. Now the village has more wind turbines than homes. in 2008 the village added a biogas heat plant that runs off of corn waste and pig manure with a back up furnace that runs on lumber waste. In 2008 Feldheim decided they wanted their own energy grid. E,on refused to sell the existing grid to the city so they partnered with Energiequelle and built their own smart grid. Each villager paid in $3,972 for the grid installation but get a 31% savings on electricity and 10% savings on heat. It also created 30 permanent jobs for the town. Energiequelle is not building an electricity storage facility that will hold two days worth of electricity.

Feldheim did all of this while fighting the big utility companies and Germanies regulatory system that was not friendly to the drastic change Feldheim made.

Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary. The Problem

One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio

The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.

There is a real possibility of creating a circuitous electrical super-grid, that begins in Spain, heads eastward through northern Africa and back toward Europe through the eastern Mediterranean nations via Turkey, in the foreseeable future, according to experts who discussed the vision at a conference in Tel Aviv on Thursday.The conference, hosted by Israel’s branch of CIGRE: International Council on Large Electric Systems, featured lead researchers and innovators from all over the world to speak about different techniques of transmitting power within, and among, their countries.

Establishing an interconnected grid throughout the Mediterranean basin is the work of a Paris-based organization called Medgrid, which is pushing for the continuation of a project called MEDRING, started quite some time ago, which would successfully link the countries electrically, thereby reducing individual infrastructural demands and boosting all of these nation’s economies.Members of the private joint venture currently include 20 European Union and southeast Mediterranean companies, among which include Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Syria – but not yet Israel due to its electrical isolation.

“The objective of Medgrid is to design the Mediterranean interconnection grid with a time target that is about 2020-2025, which is a bit near, in comparison with DESERTEC, which is 2050,” said Jean Kowal, executive vice president of Medgrid and former secretary general of CIGRE-France, referring to a campaign that aims to harness large amounts of desert light on a high voltage supergrid by 2050. Creating the Medgrid would complement European Union objectives for 2020, which include a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide compared to 1990 levels, a 20% gain in energy efficiency, and ensuring that 20% of energy consumption comes from renewable, according to Kowal.

Iran's first nuclear power plant, built by Russia, will be connected to the national grid in late August, atomic chief Fereydoon Abbasi Davani told the Arabic-language network Al-Alam on Sunday. "The test to reach 40 percent of the plant's power capacity has been done successfully... God willing, we will be able to commission the plant by the end of Ramadan with an initial production" of the same amount, Abbasi Davani said. He estimated that the plant would reach its "full capacity of 1,000 megawatts" in late November or early December.

The connection of the Bushehr plant in southern Iran to the national grid, originally scheduled for the end of 2010, has been been delayed several times because of technical problems. The plant was started up in November 2010 but repeated technical problems delayed its operation, leading to the removal of its fuel in March. Russia has blamed the delays on Iran for forcing its engineers to work with outdated parts in the facility, while the latest delay in March was pinned on wear and tear at the plant.

Construction of the plant started in the 1970s with the help of German company Siemens, which quit the project after the 1979 Islamic revolution over concerns about nuclear proliferation. In 1994, Russia agreed to complete the plant and provide fuel for it, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning the spent fuel, amid Western concerns over the Islamic republic's controversial uranium enrichment programme. Abbasi Davani's remarks come on the eve of a scheduled visit by Security Council of Russia's secretary Nikolai Patrushev, who will hold talks with his Iranian counterpart Saeed Jalili and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.

The Obama administration moved Wednesday to speed up permitting and construction of seven proposed electric transmission lines in 12 states, saying the projects would create thousands of jobs and help modernize the nation's power grid.The projects are intended to serve as pilot demonstrations of streamlined federal permitting and improved cooperation among federal, state and tribal governments. The projects will provide more than 2,500 miles of new transmission lines in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

In all, the projects are expected to create more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, help avoid blackouts, restore power more quickly when outages occur and reduce the need for new power plants, officials said."To compete in the global economy, we need a modern electricity grid," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday in a statement. "An upgraded electricity grid will give consumers choices while promoting energy savings, increasing energy efficiency and fostering the growth of renewable energy resources."

The cyber-security of the North American power grid is "in a state of near chaos," according to a report by a respected U.S. energy consultancy monitoring the industry's transition to wireless digital technologies.The white paper by Pike Research reveals that a $60 smart phone application can bypass security measures and allow direct communications between the phone and some control systems (ICS) that regulate breakers, relays, feeders and the flow of electricity.The news comes on the heels of a warning from the cyber-security arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that the hacker collective known as Anonymous appears intent on exploiting the ICS vulnerabilities within the energy industry.

In an unclassified October bulletin obtained by the website Public Intelligence, the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center believes the group has, "a limited ability to conduct attacks against ICS. However . . . Anonymous could be able to develop capabilities to trespass on control system networks very quickly."In July, Anonymous threatened to target companies involved with Alberta's oilsands.

North America's power supply has never been disrupted by hackers, though there have been numerous uneventful penetrations of the system, including at Ontario utilities.A chill went through the critical infrastructure industry last summer when a malicious computer worm called Stuxnet attacked Iran's uranium enrichment plants.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government insists that electricity bills will only grow modestly as a result of the nuclear energy phase-out. Experts, however, disagree, with many pointing to Berlin's massive subsidies for solar power as the culprit.

A pioneering spirit has taken hold in Germany, thanks to the government's radical reworking of the country's energy policies. Hardly a week goes by without the foundation being laid someplace in the country for a new solar farm, yet another biogas plant or an even bigger wind turbine. Fesseldorf, the town in northern Bavaria which just hosted Seehofer, will soon be home to one of the largest photovoltaic plants in the state.

The German government's plan calls for increasing the share of renewables in the country's energy mix to 35 percent by 2020. It is an ambitious goal in every respect. Not only will the current renewable energy share have to be doubled within a few years, the grid expanded and new power storage facilities installed. But Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is also somehow expecting the entire energy revolution to cost virtually nothing.

It is fashionable among green groups and others who have utopian visions of a low tech post industrial society to say that nuclear energy is finished as a result of the Fukushima crisis. This is dead wrong. Charles D. Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists, has an important essay in Foreign Policy Magazine on the subject. In an article titled, "Think Again: Nuclear Power," he writes that while Japan has "melted down, that doesn't mean the end of the atomic age."His point is that the fashionable approach to the nuclear fuel cycle is sometimes wrong.Also, there is other positive news about nuclear energy. The NRC is making headway with the final design certification of the Westinghouse AP1000. South Africa will try again to get financing and build new nuclear reactors instead of more coal plants.

Here's a quick summary of Ferguson's essay.First, Fukushima did not kill the nuclear renaissance. Germany already had a significant anti-nuclear political constituency well before March 11, 2011. Fukushima simply accelerated a process that was already underway. Meanwhile, China, India, and South Korea are moving ahead with their plans to rely on nuclear energy.Second, nuclear energy is not "an accident waiting to happen." The accidents which have happened are mostly the result of issues with organizational culture, and not technology failures.

Third, the expense of building nuclear power plants is offset by the low cost of running them. Once you factor in the benefits of stopping carbon emissions and the issue of climate change, nuclear energy looks like a bargain. While nuclear energy has been good for highly industrialized countries, it doesn't have nearly the same potential in the developing world for two reasons – cost and lack of robust electrical grids. Ferguson doesn't address small modular reactors which could find a niche in these markets.Fourth, commercial nuclear development does not necessarily lead to bomb making. Most of the 30 or so countries that use nuclear power have not built their own enrichment plants nor reprocessing centers.

China says it has made a breakthrough in its nuclear technology, testing for the first time an experimental fast neutron reactor. The China Institute of Atomic Energy says it tested the small reactor outside Beijing Thursday, connecting it to the power grid to produce electricity.

The test highlights Beijing's determination to be a leading innovator in nuclear power despite a slowdown in approving new plants to allow for safety checks following the nuclear disaster in Japan in March.  Beijing spent a year testing the fast neutron reactor before linking it to the power grid.

The new technology raises the uranium energy efficiency of the reactor, allowing less uranium to be used to produce power.  It also means that nuclear waste from older reactors, which are less efficient, can potentially be reused.  Experts say the technology also reduces radioactive waste

SciDev.Net reporters from around the world tell us which countries are set on developing nuclear energy despite the Fukushima accident. The quest for energy independence, rising power needs and a desire for political weight all mean that few developing countries with nuclear ambitions have abandoned them in the light of the Fukushima accident. Jordan's planned nuclear plant is part of a strategy to deal with acute water and energy shortages.

The Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) wants Jordan to get 60 per cent of its energy from nuclear by 2035. Currently, obtaining energy from neighbouring Arab countries costs Jordan about a fifth of its gross domestic product. The country is also one of the world's most water-poor nations. Jordan plans to desalinate sea water from the Gulf of Aqaba to the south, then pump it to population centres in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa, using its nuclear-derived energy. After the Fukushima disaster, Jordan started re-evaluating safety procedures for its nuclear reactor, scheduled to begin construction in 2013. The country also considered more safety procedures for construction and in ongoing geological and environmental investigations.

The government would not reverse its decision to build nuclear reactors in Jordan because of the Fukushima disaster," says Abdel-Halim Wreikat, vice Chairman of the JAEC. "Our plant type is a third-generation pressurised water reactor, and it is safer than the Fukushima boiling water reactor." Wreikat argues that "the nuclear option for Jordan at the moment is better than renewable energy options such as solar and wind, as they are still of high cost." But some Jordanian researchers disagree. "The cost of electricity generated from solar plants comes down each year by about five per cent, while the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power is rising year after year," says Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, director of the Energy Centre at the University of Jordan. He called for more economic feasibility studies of the nuclear option.

Nuclear power proponents claim: It has low carbon emissions. It is the peaceful face of the atom and proliferation problems are manageable. It is compact -- so little uranium, so much energy. Unlike solar and wind, it is 24/7 electricity. It reduces dependence on oil. Let's examine each argument.

1. Climate. Nuclear energy has low carbon emissions. But the United States doesn't lack low-carbon energy sources: The potential of wind energy alone is about nine times total US electricity generation. Solar energy is even more plentiful. Time and money to address climate change are in short supply, not low carbon dioxide sources. Instead of the two large reactors the United States would require every three months to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, all the breathless pronouncements from nuclear advocates are only yielding two reactors every five years -- if that. Even federal loan guarantees have not given this renaissance momentum. Wall Street won't fund them. (Can nuclear power even be called a commercial technology if it can't raise money on Wall Street?) Today, wind energy is far cheaper and faster than nuclear. Simply put: Nuclear fares poorly on two crucial criteria -- time and money.

2. Proliferation. President Eisenhower spoke of "Atoms for Peace" at the United Nations in 1953; he thought it would be too depressing only to mention the horrors of thermonuclear weapons. It was just a fig leaf to mask the bomb: Much of the interest in nuclear power is mainly a cover for acquiring bomb-making know-how. To make a real dent in carbon dioxide emissions, about 3,000 large reactors would have to be built worldwide in the next 40 years -- creating enough plutonium annually to create 90,000 bombs, if separated. Two or three commercial uranium enrichment plants would also be needed yearly -- and it has only taken one, Iran's, to give the world a nuclear security headache.

The nuclear phase-out until 2022, which the government proposed in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, and the accelerated transition into an age of renewable energy supply can almost go ahead as planned. The Bundesrat (Federal Council)  followed the Bundestag’s (Federal Parliament’s) vote of 1 July 2011 and approved the energy legislative package in its last session before the summer break. However, the Energy-Efficient Renovations of Residential Buildings Act was rejected. Hence, the laws below can enter into force after having been signed by the Federal President Christian Wulff and following promulgation in the Federal Law Gazette: 13th amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG) – the actual nuclear energy exit law; Act Amending the Legal Framework for the Promotion of the Electricity Generation from Renewable Energy Sources (Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Rechtsrahmens für die Förderung der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien), which most importantly contains amendments of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) in Article 1; Act Amending Energy Law related Provisions (Gesetz zur Neuregelung energiewirtschaftsrechtlicher Vorschriften), most importantly of the German Energy Act (EnWG); Act on Measures Accelerating the Expansion of the Electricity Grids (Gesetz über Maßnahmen zur Beschleunigung des Netzausbaus Elektrizitätsnetze), which most importantly includes a new Grid Expansion Acceleration Act (NABEG) in Article 1, but also amends other laws; Act Amending the Energy and Climate Fund Act (Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes zur Errichtung eines Sondervermögens “Energie- und Klimafonds – EKFG -ÄndG); Act Strenghtening Climate-Friendly Measures in Towns and Municipalities (Gesetz zur Stärkung der klimagerechten Entwicklung in den Städten und Gemeinden); First Act Amending Shipping Laws (Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung schifffahrtsrechtlicher Vorschriften). Approval by the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the federal states, had been uncertain for many of the bills contained in the package. The CDU/CSU/FDP coalition government does not hold a majority in the Bundesrat. While support for the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AtG) in the Bundesrat could be expected after the clear majority that the bill received in the Bundestag’s vote, this was not the case for many the other bills. To be able to decide before the summer break, the Bundesrat had shortened the consultation period for the bills. Still the expert committees of the Bundesrat prepared numerous recommendations to amend the bills.

Part of the Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) team, region five, their normal operating ground covers 10 Midwestern states—but this time their expertise was needed abroad. Trained in radiation detection and monitoring, RAP teams are on call twenty-four hours a day to respond to any release of radiological materials in the U.S. When the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi began to emit radioactive material, the Department of Energy’s national emergency response assets, including several RAP teams, responded to calls from both the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. military. They wanted guidelines on protecting U.S. citizens and military personnel stationed in Japan from radiation hazards; but this raised the enormous task of finding out how much radiation had been dispersed.

In late March, several Argonne members flew to Japan to take over shifts from the initial response team members, who had been working around the clock to take measurements at U.S. military bases, other U.S. interests, and elsewhere in the 50-mile radius around the reactors. On the ground, small teams set out to comb the earthquake-stricken countryside, radiation detectors in tow. They took hundreds of readings and collected soil samples, mostly between the 20-80 kilometer zone from the plant. They ran into challenges right away.

"One of the problems we ran into was accessibility," said Dave Chamberlain, an Argonne chemical engineer with RAP. "When you practice going out to get samples, the classic technique is to divide the area into a grid and take samples say, every 10 meters. But many of the areas we were sampling in Japan were mountainous, forested and damaged by earthquakes, so you can't stick to the grid plan. We were often limited to roadside sampling." "The other difficulty was that we wanted samples from ground that hadn't been disturbed since the accident," explained Chamberlain. "If someone had plowed or watered the ground, it changes the dynamics of the distribution—and that time of year is rice planting season in Japan."

Norway has given the cold shoulder to plans to buy energy from the Murmansk region to power gas recovery operations at the northerly Melkøya field until the two oldest reactors at the Kola Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) are taken out of service in 2018 or 2019. Anna Kireeva, Charles Digges, 13/08-2012 Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy sent an official letter to Norwegian grid operator Statnett in which it said that planned imports of electricity via links between Norwegian and Russian energy networks were not to proceed until Kola NPPs reactor Nos 1 and 2 are taken offline.

As the full cost of the Fukushima nuclear accident continues to climb—Japanese officials now peg it at $64 billion or more—nuclear power’s future is literally headed south. Developed countries are slowing or shuttering their nuclear-power programs, while states to their south, in the world’s hotspots (think the Middle East and Far East), are pushing to build reactors of their own. Normally, this would lead to even more of a focus on nuclear safety and nonproliferation. Yet, given how nuclear-reactor sales have imploded in the world’s advanced economies, both these points have been trumped by nuclear supplier states’ desires to corner what reactor markets remain.

This spring, Germany permanently shut down eight of its reactors and pledged to shutter the rest by 2022. Shortly thereafter, the Italians voted overwhelmingly to keep their country nonnuclear. Switzerland and Spain followed suit, banning the construction of any new reactors. Then Japan’s prime minister killed his country’s plans to expand its reactor fleet, pledging to reduce Japan’s reliance on nuclear power dramatically. Taiwan’s president did the same. Now Mexico is sidelining construction of 10 reactors in favor of developing natural-gas-fired plants, and Belgium is toying with phasing its nuclear plants out, perhaps as early as 2015.

China—nuclear power’s largest prospective market—suspended approvals of new reactor construction while conducting a lengthy nuclear-safety review. Chinese nuclear-capacity projections for the year 2020 subsequently tumbled by as much as 30 percent. A key bottleneck is the lack of trained nuclear technicians: to support China’s stated nuclear-capacity objectives, Beijing needs to graduate 6,000 nuclear experts a year. Instead, its schools are barely generating 600.

Excelon Corporation announced Monday, Jan 30 that one of two reactors at Byron, Illinois had automatically shut down due to loss of electrical power from the electrical grid.

The two Byron nuclear stations generate almost 7 Billion Watts of heat, 2.3 Billion Watts is turned into electricity; the remaining 4.7 Billion Watts of Heat is wasted heating up the Rock River.

This is perfectly in line with the normal abysmal efficiency of the big nuke power reactors of at most 33%. Equivalent Billion Watt  coal and/or natural gas power plants hit 60% efficiency.

Scientists from around the world have completed a study that says harvesting the sun's energy in space can turn out to be a cost effective way of delivering the world’s needs for power in as little as 30 years. As important, the report says that orbiting power plants capable of collecting energy from the sun and beaming it to earth are technically feasible within a decade or so based on technologies now in the laboratory.

These are findings in a report from the International Academy of Astronautics, headquartered in Paris. What their time references refer to are that the very technology needed to satisfy global energy requirements may be available in only 10 to 20 years, and the project can show cost-effectiveness in about 30 years. The IAA's three-year, ten-nation study, as the first broadly based international assessment of collecting solar energy in space, is considered significant. The study was conducted from 2008 to 2010 and was under peer review. John Mankins, the former head of concepts at NASA, led the study. The concept centers on placing one, then several, then many, solar-powered satellites in orbit over the equator. Each would be several miles wide. The satellites would collect sunlight up to 24 hours a day

The power would be converted to electricity in space, then sent to where it was needed on earth by a microwave-transmitting antenna or by lasers, and then fed into a power grid. Who would bear the cost of such an effort? The report recommends that both governments and the private sector should fund the research needed to further determine viability. A pilot project to demonstrate the technology could proceed using low-cost expendable launch vehicles being developed for other space markets, said Mankins, according to Reuters. A moderate-scale demonstration would cost tens of billions of dollars less than previously projected as a result of not needing costly, reusable launch vehicles early on.

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government watchdog, has called for the number of electric cars on Britain's roads to increase from a few hundred now to 1.7 million by 2020.