The example of Germany shows that trying to decarbonize electricity supply while also removing nuclear power from the mix is simply too high a mountain to climb, writes Milton Caplan, President of MZConsulting. And this is not just about Germany, he adds.
Over the last few years, we have written extensively about the strength of peoplesâ beliefs and how difficult it is to change them. In spite of this, I thought we were making progress with a push to more evidence-based decision making. For something as polarizing as nuclear power, facts-based decision making is critical to increasing support. (I understand the paradigm of fear of radiation is more emotional than fact based and I agree that we need to appeal to emotions to create the change we need â but letâs leave that to a future discussion. In any case it certainly doesnât hurt to have the facts on your side.)
With the populist surge in 2016 we have seen an accompanying rise in complete disregard for facts; all the way to the propagation of absolute lies (or âalternative factsâ) to support peoplesâ beliefs. I donât want to get into a political discussion nor take sides on right versus left. What I do want to do in todayâs post is to discuss something more fundamental â i.e. that although we are free to believe what we want â that beliefs have consequences â and that consequences matter.
Not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the percentage of time during 2016 that solar and wind produced electricity declined dramatically
So, letâs look at what happens when countries believe they can eliminate nuclear power from the mix and replace it with more wind and solar power. Of course, I am talking about Germany. Reducing carbon emissions is a reasonable goal as evidence (alternative facts notwithstanding) shows that climate change is impacting our environment and has long-term implications for our entire society. On the other hand, removing a low-cost low-carbon source of energy like nuclear power because of safety concerns is based on a strong element of fear rather than evidence. In fact, Germanyâs nuclear plants are likely some of the safest in the world and there is no reason to suspect they will result in a catastrophic accident that means the end of Germany as we know it â yet that is what people fear.
So, what happens in a case like this? The results are in. Fossil fuel use is increasing in Germany, carbon emissions are going up and so is the cost of energy. The German people are paying more money for an outcome that does more damage to the environment and hence, their health. Frankly, itâs a high price to pay for the peace of mind that comes from eliminating the perceived risk of nuclear. Or in other words, the extreme fear of nuclear is driving policy more than concern for either energy cost or the environment.
As shown above, closure of another nuclear plant in 2015 resulted in increased emissions in 2016 (the first full year it was out of service) even though there was a substantial substitution of gas to replace coal.
And after adding 10 percent more wind turbine capacity and 2.5 percent more solar panel capacity between 2015 and 2016, less than one percent more electricity from wind and one percent less electricity from solar was generated in 2016. So, not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the percentage of time during 2016 that solar and wind produced electricity declined dramatically. And why was this the case? Very simply because Germany had significantly less sunshine and wind in 2016 than 2015.
Why worry about the outcome when you know you are right or as said by comedian Chico Marx in the famous Marx brothers movie Duck Soup âWho you gonna believe â me or your own eyes?
This analysis was done by Environmental Progress and shows that the intermittency of these renewable sources of electricity both throughout the day and from year to year mean that even huge increases in capacity of these forms of generation will continue to require fossil backup in the absence of nuclear power making 100% renewables an unachievable goal. Another study shows that to achieve a 100% renewable system in Germany would require a back-up system capable of providing power at a level of 89% of peak load to address the intermittency.
Comparing Germany to France, France has more than double the share of low carbon energy sources and Germany has more than twice the cost of energy as France.
So, trying to decarbonize by also removing nuclear from the mix at the same time is simply too high a mountain to climb. The following shows that German emissions were 43% higher in 2016 without the nuclear plants that have been already shut down. Keep in mind that they still do have operating nuclear and with more plants to shut down, the future trend is not likely to change.
Itâs not just about Germany. As Japan struggles to get its nuclear plants back on line after the 2011 Fukushima accident, its use of coal has skyrocketed. In 2015 its use of fossil fuels for electricity generation was 82% compared to 62% in 2010 when the nuclear plants were in operation. And now Japan plans to build 45 new coal plants (20 GW) over the next decade to meet its energy needs.
Finally, we can also look at South Australia, a nuclear free zone. Recent blackouts due in part to lower wind availability and the inability of thermal plants to make up the shortfall are also leading to questions on âhow much renewables is too muchâ.
So, we can all continue to hold our beliefs very dearly and only listen to those that support them, while vilifying those that do not. However, please keep in mind that in a world where the farcical becomes reality, results still matter. And for now, the results are clear, taking nuclear power out of the mix in Germany is not achieving its political-plannersâ goals. Yet these results are also not likely to change any German minds when it comes to nuclear power. But hey, why worry about the outcome when you know you are right or as said by comedian Chico Marx in the famous Marx brothers movie Duck Soup âWho you gonna believe â me or your own eyes?â
Editorâs Note
This articles was first published on the website of MZConsulting and on The Energy Collective and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate group=”9″]
onesecond says
Sigh. Another article cherrypicking data to make it fit into a not so subtle agenda. The truth is that Germany already reduced 27% of its emissions since 1990 while also phasing out nuclear plants while having the second highest electric supply security in the world (after Denmark) and lower European wholesale electricity prices (lower than in France!). The industry is benefitting from the low wholesale price while they are exempt from payment for the renewables. The population which pays for the renewables don’t mind, 93% are in agreement with the Energiewende because they are actually smart, so no problem here. Right now Germany has 8 nuclear plants, but 3 are not producing electricity due to technical failures and one revision that highlight the high cost and unpredictable reliability issues with nuclear. Furthermore nuclear isn’t flexible (it could be made more flexible but only with ever increasing costs) so it doesn’t match well with the low cost renewable generation that is already taking over bulk supply everywhere in the world right now, so nuclear has to go first in a grid on its way to a 100% renewable future which is not only possible but also cheaper which numerous studies have confirmed (crossfeeding into heat and transport with heat pumps and electric cars offer huge demand response potential even before storage is needed). Lastly it is outrageous that South Australia’s blackouts got pinned on renewables by the right wing Murdoch Media but it is not true at all. On the first occasion transmission lines where destroyed by a storm regardless of the form of electricity production and on the second occasion an interconnector failed which had nothing to do with renewables either. Every cent not wasted into nuclear energy is a cent availabe to the actual future which is clean, renewable and cost-efficient.
Helmut Frik says
CO2 emissions in germany by power generation dropped in 2016.
JimHopf says
It’s simple. All new renewable generation (and conservation measures) should be used to replace fossil fuels, not nuclear. That is, if we actually care about global warming (not to mention the significant public health impacts of fossil power generation). This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
In another sign of how much Germany really cares about global warming (and other genuine health impacts), is it too much to ask for them to at least use gas, instead of coal, for their non-renewable generation? No, they say, because gas would cost a little more than coal. But they’re willing to pay a LOT more for renewables. Go figure. This despite the fact that using gas instead of coal has a greater environmental benefit than using renewables (in lieu of gas, or nuclear, etc..). Why can’t they understand that the figure of (environmental) merit is not how much renewables you use, it’s how little coal you use.
Helmut Frik says
Well, if germany would have built a power sector based on 100% gas, there would be exactly the same or higher CO2 emissions, as there are now, just without wind and solar beong developed, and so with no hope to bring down emissions to zero. But there would be a 100% dpendency on russian deliveries, which would never work.
Nigel West says
Over relying on renewables is more of a threat to Germany’s energy security than Russian gas deliveries. Russia has never interrupted, nor threatened, supplies to western Europe. They know that any threat to do so would seriously damage their valuable overseas earnings permanently and long-term, not just to Europe, but elsewhere too.
Coal is the worst form of generation for CO2 emissions. Switching to gas would make sense to back-up renewables and lower emissions further. Germany could import LNG too to reduce any perceived risk attached to Russian supplies.
Bas says
“Russia has never interrupted, nor threatened, supplies to western Europe. ”
That’s a too optimistic assumption.
The Russian-Ukraine quarrels about payments, left some countries in SouthEeast-EU in winter cold, as gas delivery stopped for some weeks.
Ooozz says
Why doesn’t anyone consider Ukraine as a significant nuclear treat? They use NPPs the whole nine yards disorganized, uncontrolled. Meanwhile those facilities hadn’t been modernized since the Soviet Union times. http://www.articlesreader.com/ukraine-on-the-brink-of-a-nuclear-disaster/
Karel Beckman says
You underestimate Energy Post:
https://energypost.eu/ukrainian-nuclear-power-emerges-russian-shadow/
Ian Hore-Lacy says
Yes, and quite a bit has happened since August 2014.
I can do a short update if you wish.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine.aspx
A small update is in the works for Ukraine-EU “energy bridge” – look for 13 March version soon.