Let's watch this test case

The Green Party of Germany is flexing its muscles as part of Gerhard
Schroeder's coalition governemnt.

Germany's Retreat from Nuclear Energy Begins

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?
type=reutersEdge&storyID=3824838

As a management type guy, this is the kind of thinking that
frightens me:

"However, it is still unclear if Germany can meet the deadline and
how it will replace atomic power, which provides a third of its
electricity, while also meeting commitments to cap its emissions of
greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels."

Nothing like blindly implementing dogma. I don't care whether you're
pro or anti nuclear, if you're going to phase out a third of your
power supply you should have some plan on how to replace it before
you begin.

That doesn't seem to matter to the anti-nuclear protesters though.
They did win this battle, but without insuring replacement sources,
it may prove to be a pyhrric victory.

From a January analysis of this plan,
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19495/newsDate/21-
Jan-2003/story.htm

"How will Germany fill the energy supply gap arising from the loss
of nuclear if coal is sidelined in order to comply with climate
protection targets?," he told Reuters in an interview"

How indeed?

"Nuclear power, accounting for a third of German power generation of
550 terawatt hours (TWh) and saving 160 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide emissions a year, is to be given up entirely by the early
2020s."

How about solar, hydro and wind power? Can they replace the nuclear
megaplants?

"German hydro resources are already being fully exploited, solar
power is heavily subsidised and low in efficiency, and wind power
supply volatile, requiring thermal power as a back-up, which defeats
the object," he said."

Hmm. I guess that doesn't work.

How can one arm of the environmental movement reconcile what the
other is doing. Consider this from the Environmental News Network:

http://www.enn.com/news/enn-
stories/2001/02/02092001/windbird_41856.asp

"The Migratory Bird Act says you can't harm, destroy, kill or molest
migratory birds," Bianchi notes. "Some wind plants clearly break
that law."

"Few energy sources have escaped criticism from environmental
groups. Hydropower has been cited for destroying river habitat,
solar power for overdevelopment in the desert and geothermal power
for toxic discharges."

I've never found a panacea to any problem I've been involved with. I
don't think that renewables will be the answer to replace the
problems of oil/gas/coal and nuclear power systems and their
megaplant configurations.

Denmark is often held up to be a world leader in wind power
generation, but rarely are the problems of wind generation discussed
within the renewable energy advocate network. Take a peek at some of
the issues that Denmark is facing with wind power and distributed
power in general.

http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/cospp/2002_06/integrating_chp_wind.html

"We believe that the large amount of distributed generation in
western Denmark is causing a (temporarily) reduced quality of
electricity supply. The aim is to restore normal power quality."

Ratepayers really like to have reliable service. Right?

"In the early 1990s, there were only marginal costs for implementing
wind power and local CHP plants. At the same time, the presence of
distributed plant postponed the need to upgrade the transmission
network due to the placement of production within the same networks
as the load - distributed generation showed benefits."

As usual, things are always rosey at the beginning of the process
before the system costs catch up to the implementation.

"Yet, as the amount has grown, this is no longer the case. Expenses
are increasing dramatically because the low-voltage distribution
network and the 10 kV networks are 'filled' with distributed
generation, and the need for reinforcement is moving to the 60 kV
grid with higher costs."

"Wind power plants are often built in areas with very low load and
in weak networks. In many situations, operators have to reinforce
the grid to enable the collection of power, even though these
reinforcements are of no benefit in terms of distributing energy to
consumers. In the period from 1992 to 2001 the extra investments of
this kind represented more than DKK 630 million ($83 million), some
two-thirds of which were due to wind power."

"Wind power and local CHP plants have displaced central units that
are now being decommissioned as there is no longer any commercial
basis for them. This means that the regulating units are
disappearing in the very areas where the need for regulating
capacity is growing - the regulating function must therefore be
provided by the local CHP and wind power plants."

"It also means that the level power and short-circuit power are
reduced. This:

increases risk limitation on the use of HVDC links, especially to
Sweden
increases the risk of harmonics
increases the risk of voltage steps when connecting and
disconnecting lines
increases the risk that faults can be seen at a greater distance."

CONCLUSIONS
"One of the consequences of Danish policy has been the need to
operate a very complex power system, in this case where wind and
local CHP plants generated 50% of power produced in 2001. This has
led to some power overflow situations. At present, balancing a power
system like the Danish one can only be done because it is connected
to areas with other types of production - not a solution that is
acceptable in the long term."

Hmmm, are they saying that wind power works in Denmark because they
can count on importing reliable baseload power from other systems?
What happens when everybody is on wind power? Doesn't bode well for
the future.

"Internal Danish measures are now needed if critical situations and
disturbances are to be avoided. From a transmission system
operator's point of view, it is critical that the earlier, 'passive'
production units be transformed into active elements so they can
deliver the ancillary services required by the grid."

You'll note that these cogeneration plants and wind farms, are still
discrete points and bundled together. They are by no means
decentralized as most of us would take the meaning, though because
they are smaller than the megaplants they are replacing, thus
necessitating greater numbers, they work towards decentralizing the
system. Note the distinction I'm making between the process of
decentralizing and achieving the state of a system with so many
decentralized nodes that it becomes impossible to destabilize the
system by incapacitating its nodes, i.e. the internet writ large for
utilities. These farms are still vulnerable to the same catastrophic
fates that could jeopardize the megaplants for these farms
congregate the wind towers and solar arrays together for efficiency
gains, though the overall efficiency drops compared to the
megaplants that they replace.

So, the Stade nuclear plant is closing. How many wind farms will
have to be created to replace it?

"Vattenfall under the deal will have to close the 672 megawatt
northern German nuclear plant at Stade, which it jointly owns with
E.ON (EONG.DE), in the autumn of 2003."
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19495/newsDate/21-
Jan-2003/story.htm

"More and more wind turbines are being assembled in non-coastal
regions in Germany. Thus, with over 500 megawatts of new installed
capacity, the German state of Brandenburg easily outstripped the
coastal state of Schleswig-Holstein last year. The reason for this
is that many coastal areas with strong wind conditions have already
been occupied. Plus, new and larger turbines are rendering wind
power an economically viable option in non-coastal areas."

Hmmm, the best wind locations are ALREADY used up. Why we've hardly
started the closing of the nuclear plants. Now all the the sub-
optimal locations will be used and they won't be as efficient nor as
reliable as the high wind locations, despite newer turbines.

"A good example of this is the 15 wind turbines which Enertrag has
now ordered from Nordex for assembly in two locations in Uckermark,
Brandenburg, in a project worth around EUR 22.6 million. Each S77
turbine has a nominal output of 1,500 kilowatts. To ensure that this
output is achieved in even only medium wind conditions, the turbines
are fitted with a large rotor with a sweep of 77 meters mounted on
towers with a height of 100 meters."

How about low wind conditions, or no wind at all? Then where does
the power come from?

http://www.nordex-
online.com/_e/presse_und_messen/pressemitteilungen/2003/03_03_21.html

The 672 MW Stade plant will require 30 wind farms like the one
mentioned above, with each farm consisting of 15 turbines. Yet, the
wind farms can't be relied upon to supply baseload power as the
megaplants did. They may approximate baseload power through
statistical load sharing, but that statistical design will only work
19 times out of 20, or some such probabilty. On the 5% of the time
that the wind is dormant across all farms, there will be a brown out
at best, and a blackout at worst, not to mention the strain that the
equipment will go through with the spiking from generation flucation.

As I've said before, solar and wind power are appropriate for niche
markets, but they are not scalable to the degree that they are
mainstays in a power grid, nor are they robust enough even approach
a majority contribution to the power demand requirements for they
are land intensive and not reliable.

Again, SPS meets all the conditions that the megaplants meet, yet
betters the environmental advantages of wind and terrestrial solar.

I wonder how the German Green's would react to microwaves beaming
down from orbit. My prediction is that soon they would target SPS
for protest because, although very environmentally friendly, it runs
counter to their gaia/anti-industrialization vision.

Let's watch how Germany replaces its megaplants and copes over the
coming years with trying to reconcile its robust commitment to
Kyoto, meaning less reliance on coal, oil and gas fired plants, and
its phase-out of nuclear power.

TangoMan