In the previous diary, the readers were made, by the means of a satire, aware of the fact, that the criteria, on which radiophobe's estimates of the dangers of ionizing radiation are based, are not only off the mark, but completely, utterly ridiculous to the extent that they would have the entire universe to be declared contaminated with unsafe levels of radioactivity.
Well. It was supposed to be evacuated yesterday, but somehow, it didn't work out. Maybe the angels had no radiation protection gear, and were too scared to go in without it.
Anyway, we are thus to stay, and face the results of what ever energy choices we make. So, now another myth of the anti nuclear movement will be taken to the task.
Namely, that it is possible to phase out nuclear power plants and replace them by renewable energy only.As opposed to the previous claim, this one is at least physically possible. But, we will take a look at the countries, which attempted it, or are in the process of attempting it to see how this possibility translates to reality.
Namely we take a look at the countries which shut down their nuclear power plants.
or deliberately refrained from building plants.
and the countries which wowed to abandon nuclear energy yet they are clinging to their existing nuclear power plants like to their life belt. Which, in some sense of the word, they in fact are.
And finally, the country which got so scared that they want to shut down all nuclear energy ASAP
Italy
So, how is the thing working for Italy ? Italy abandoned all nuclear power in 1990.
In December 1987, Latina was closed and work on the first of the six PUN reactors at the Trino site was halted. Later, the government decided to convert the Montalto di Castro plant (which was almost complete) to a conventional power station and, in July 1990, the decision was taken to finally shut down the two remaining operational reactors (Caorso and Trino Vercellese).
So did Italy go heavily into renewables ? Phased all nukes out and replaced them with renewable energy ?
Take a look on this graph. To see that the answer is a clear NO. The biggest increase was in fossil fuels - coal and gas.
And, to make things worse, Italy lost its energy independence and has to import as much as 16 % of its electricity from cheap French nukes.
Italy also imports about 16% of its electricity need from France for 6.5 GWe, which makes it the world’s biggest importer of electricity.Due to its reliance on expensive fossil fuels and imports, Italians pay approximately 45% more than the EU average for electricity.
Austria
So let's take a look at the second country. Austria. Austria has a higher chance than italy, because it is mountainous country with high rainfall, making hydroelectric power as cheap as dirt. And being somewhat more rural, has also lower energy consumption.
Austria has quit nuclear power after a wave of anti-nuclear phobia and hysteria swept the country.
On 15 December 1978, the Austrian Parliament voted in favor of a ban (BGBI. No. 676) on using nuclear fission for Austria’s energy supply until March 1998. This law also prohibits the storage and transport of nuclear materials in or through Austria.[2] On 9 July 1997, the Austrian Parliament unanimously passed legislation to remain an anti-nuclear country. On 15 December 1978, the Austrian Parliament voted in favor of a ban (BGBI. No. 676) on using nuclear fission for Austria’s energy supply until March 1998. This law also prohibits the storage and transport of nuclear materials in or through Austria.[2] On 9 July 1997, the Austrian Parliament unanimously passed legislation to remain an anti-nuclear country.
So how the story continued after the great victory of anti-nuclear phobia ?
Well, they started well. they built two blocks of a coal-guzzling poison belching monstrosity instead.
The power station was built as a replacement for the Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Station, a plant that was finished but due to a 1978 referendum never started up. The Dürnrohr plant was built in its proximity in order to use the already established power lines and other infrastructure. It consists of two blocks: the first with output of 405 MW operated by VERBUND Austrian Thermal Power AG and the second with output 352 MW operated by the Energie-Versorgung Niederösterreich AG. The plant was finished in 1987.
The plant is powered by black coal imported from the Czech Republic and Poland but can also use natural gas.
And the story continues this way from that day since.
Electricity > Production by source > Fossil fuel 29.3% [177th of 223]
Electricity > Production by source > Hydro 67.2% [35th of 223]
And to add insult to the injury, they have been forced to import as much as 4 % of their energy consumption from the very czech plants they so vigorously opposed.
Austria imports about 20 TWh of electricity per year. Czech Republic, the only net exporter of electricity in middle Europe, is and will be the supplier.
Australia
Australia has no nuclear power plants and, once some Australians wanted to change that, several Australian territories banned the use of nuclear power by law.
Queensland introduced legislation to ban nuclear power development on 20 February 2007.[10] Tasmania has also banned nuclear power development.[11] Both laws were enacted in response to the pro-nuclear position of John Howard,[12] and the release of the Switkowski report.[13]
Australia has low population density, and the greatest potential for solar plants of them all. Essentially, they have one big dessert to cover with solar power plants.
So they are 100 % renewable, aren't they ?
More like 7 %
And as you can see in the graph, the percentage has progressively decreased from 19 % in 1960's to 7 % in 2008 and the only thing that increased, is gas fired power plants.
New Zealand
New Zealand is a similar case to both Austria and Australia. It is a mountainous country with abundant rain, and it didn't want to build any nuclear reactors. However, as all the other cases, It failed to become fossil free, and gas and to lesser degree coal, kept increasing to cover the rising energy demand.
Denmark
Another, perhaps more interesting country is Denmark. Nuclear power is prohibited by law there.
However, in 1985, the Danish parliament passed a resolution that nuclear power plants would not be built in the country and there is currently little prospect of this resolution being reversed.
but its unique geography creates an opportunity for huge use of wind power. However, even there, fossil fuels are still the major energy source
And more yet, because wind strength varies, it goes repeatedly from energy exporter to energy importer, and has to buy cheap nuclear and coal produced energy from Sweden and Germany.
In 2007, about 11.4 TWh of electricity was exported and 10.4 TWh imported. Import from Sweden amounted 5 TWh, From Norway 3.9 TWh, and from Germany 1.5 TWh. Both Sweden and Germany have a portion of nuclear energy in their power production.
Now, let's skim over the 'no new nuclear power' sorry bunch.
Belgium
Belgium, which in 1999 decided to exit the nuclear energy,
Belgium's nuclear phase-out legislation was agreed in July 1999 by the Liberals (VLD and MR), the Socialists (SP.A and PS) and the Greens party (Groen! and Ecolo). The phase-out law calls for each of Belgium's seven reactors to close after 40 years of operation with no new reactors built subsequently. When the law was being passed, it was speculated it would be overturned again as soon as an administration without the Greens was in power.
greatly improved since then, to amazing 7 % of renewables.
Domestic production of Belgium is largely based on nuclear energy which shows an increase of 14% since 1990. The
share of renewable sources (7%) has significantly grown over the last couple of years.
Spain
Spain with 50 % nuclear wanted to abandon nuclear power in 1983
A nuclear power moratorium was enacted by the socialist government in 1983.
But has more or less come back to its senses since then
However, in 2009, the operating permit for the Garona plant was extended to 42 years.[6] In 2011, the government lifted the 40-year limit on all reactors, allowing owners to apply for license extensions in 10-year increments.
Which is a good thing, given their attempts at subsidized solar power became the laughing stock of the entire EU.
Solar Fraud Could Eliminate Spanish Market
A government investigation has uncovered many incomplete projects that were reported as finished by a September deadline. Those projects could qualify for the new 500MW cap for 2009, blocking new project applications.
Sweden
Sweden. Sweden is one of the few countries closest to zero carbon electricity production
renewable sources (26%), is much higher than the corresponding EU-27 average
percentage (14% and 6% respectively). The consumption of solid fuels (6% share) and gas (2% share) is significantly
lower than the EU-27 average (18% and 24% respectively).
However it has vown to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2010.
Sweden formerly had a nuclear phase-out policy, aiming to end nuclear power generation in Sweden by 2010.
Well. Its 2011, and they for all practical purposes gave up on the thing.
On 5 February 2009, the Swedish Government announced an agreement allowing for the replacement of existing reactors, effectively ending the phase-out policy.
Germany
Germany, at last, but not least
Germany has a fairly diverse energy mix, while oil holds the largest share close to the EU-27 average of 38%. The
increasing supply of natural gas is gradually replacing solid fuels. The share of nuclear energy in primary energy supply
has been increasing slightly in recent years, remaining below the EU-27 average of 14%. Renewable sources show an
impressive increase of 141% since 1990, but still are below the EU-27 average share of 6%.
But the share of nuclear energy will soon be zero.
"We want to exit from nuclear power generation as soon as possible and make the transition to renewable energy sources faster," Merkel said Friday in Berlin after talks with the state governors.
Wind power generated on land and offshore will be one of the main pillars of Germany's new energy mix, Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen added.
Yet behind the scenes, the reality looks completely differently. It has an unmistakable black to brown color.
In fact, they are cranking out fossil plants like it were the end of the world ( which may be well the case, if this energy policy is adopted globally )
Just consider the extent of Germany’s new build coal fired power stations currently under construction, as detailed on EU Referendum, that shows that while Merkel is talking the talk on renewables she is not walking the walk:
- EVONIK, Walsum (Duisburg), 800 MW black coal (2010)
- RWE, Neurath (Cologne), 2 x 800 MW lignite (2009)
- RWE Westfalen (Dortmund-Hamm, 2 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- EON Datteln (Dortmund), 1 x 1100 MW (!) black coal (2011)
- ENBW Karlsruhe, 1 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- Trianel (municipality) Lünen, 1 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- Vattenfall Moorburg (Hamburg), 2 x 800 MW black coal (2011)
- Vattenfall Boxberg (close to Leipzig), 1 x 800 MW lignite (2011)
Among them, the dirtiest of the dirtiest (except, perhaps, deliberate gassing of own population), lignite fired power plants.
And even after this greenhouse gas farting overture, to add insult to the injury yet again, they shamelessly import cheap French nuclear energy to make up for their own shutdown plants.
Since then, the nuclear moratorium is in force, Germany has twice as much electricity imported from France as in the past. Adds that the Federal Republic has become the net exporter to net importer of electricity, said the Federal Association of Energy and Water (BDEW) on Monday at the Hanover Fair.
The conclusion about Germnany thus can be summed up : Hypocrisy in German is 'Scheinheiligkeit'.
So, as we have seen, even though not ruled out by the laws of physics themselves,
replacing nuclear with renewables is all but impossible, and the only substitute, that will really be used, is cheap and dirty fossil fuel energy.
And, more yet, the goal is not replacing nuclear with renewables, and letting the previous fossil plants intact. The goal ought be, replacing all fossil energy, not limited to electricity with renewables. Which means that your clean electricity demand will go through the roof.
In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J = 132 000 TWh).
The Production of electricity in year 2008 was 20 261 TWh
So, to cover entire mankind's energy consumption, you will need 6.5 times more energy than the energy needed just to produce electricity.
And, renewables can't even cover 100 % of electric energy production as we have just seen. Many nations genuinely tried. None succeeded yet.
In fact, the only countries coming close to carbon neutral electricity production,
are the ones relying on lots of cheap nuclear energy. See it with your own eyes. Loads of graphs included.
So there is no hope to see them paying the entire energy bill in foreseeable future.
In the finale, the choice is thus, only between fossil power and nuclear*. Choose wisely, and don't complain about global warming if you choose fossil above nuclear.
* There is a third choice. There is always a third choice, but in this case, the third option is not meant to be mentioned by any sane person.
Updated by frankenstein monster at Sun May 22, 2011 at 03:42 AM PDT
UPDATE : in 2010 the renewable share in Germany rose to much better 17 % ( http://en.wikipedia.org/...) however, the point about cranking out fossil plants and import doubling still stands, unfortunately