A Nuclear Renaissance, in Germany?

In two previous posts, "Build Wind, Drop Nuclear? Germany Loses its Mind!" and the follow up post "Germany Loses its Mind- Follow Up" I wrote about how the German government was looking to decommission nuclear plants in favor of building 17 wind farms. As you can tell from the above titles and posts, I think it was a pretty bad decision.



However, there has been a ray of hope! I found this article on Platts titled "Germany's RWE to build new nuclear plants at home, abroad." The CEO, Juergen Grossman stated the following to the German newspaper, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, (as reported by Platts):

"RWE will engage in projects in Germany as well as abroad. An exact number will depend on the financing options available and possible partners, but we reckon about three to five new builds."

Well, it seems like Herr Grossman has the inside track. Maybe Germany has figured out that there is a real need for clean, reliable, nuclear power and that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game with wind power.



Interestingly, he also makes this statement, that on first blush, is counter intuitive, considering the enormous capital costs surrounding the construction of nuclear facilities:

"Grossman believes the credit crunch provides an opportunity for RWE to grow as people look to greater security in their energy supplies. The crisis may require affected governments to reduce the amount of imported natural gas and re-focus on national resources, such as nuclear or clean coal technology, he said."

Let's hope that Germany can get back on the nuclear track while it lives out its wind fantasy.

Nuclear, French Style

Ah, the French. While I love to poke fun at them and their, um, French ways, I have to give them credit for their successful nuclear power program. There, I said it. The French do something right that isn't silly.

The New York Times ran a piece titled, "France Reaffirms Its Faith in Future of Nuclear Power" on August 17, 2008. In it, the explain how France got its act together, starting in the late 1950s, to be as close to energy independent as possible. The article states, "Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas." Certainly, this has helped smooth out many economic bumps experienced by those countries without such an aggressive nuclear policy. Additionally, think of how clean the air is without all of those coal plants?

Did I mention that nuclear power is clean, reliable, and cost effective? Here is where France really makes nuclear the best option: "He (senior aide to Jean-Louis Borloo, the minister of ecology, sustainable development and planning) said that France’s choice for a “closed fuel cycle” — reprocessing used nuclear fuel to recover plutonium made in the reactors so it can be reused — was safer." Too bad Jimmy Carter banned fuel reprocessing in the US. Spent fuel from first use has about 95% of its active ingredient left. Hey, recycling, what an idea!

Finally, the French discovered that having a successful power program is great for their economy. In some towns, the 60-year life cycle of a nuclear power plant, "...we have economic activity for two generations.”

Nuclear, India Style

India is not only one of the world's largest countries by population, it is also on of the largest consumers of electricity. However, India suffers insufficient power generation and distribution networks, making stable and continuous power a very hard target.

In the July 24 issue of Business Week, titled "All Eyes on India's Nuclear Prize," the article, while focused on who is getting business to build 30+ reactors, also spells out India' commitment to clean, nuclear energy.

When it comes to spending about $100 billion of government money, one can bet on controversy. Additionally, when that money is to spent on building safe, reliable, clean, nuclear plants, one can count on the leftists to scream the loudest.

So, should one be suprised when the article states, "Communist members of Singh's coalition opposed it and walked away from the government, forcing a confidence vote on July 22." If one followed the news, they would see that Singh survived the confidence vote.

Lest anyone question the need India has for power, consider this quotation:

"And as the economy expands, New Delhi hopes to quintuple nuclear energy production. "Demand for electricity is so large," says R.B. Grover, India's chief negotiator for the nuclear deal, "that we can accommodate all countries" willing to help build capacity.

All the best to India and its nuclear power expansion. If they are successful, perhaps the can reduce the number of coal and oil plants and really reap the fruits of clean, safe, and reliable, nuclear power.

Is Solar just Blowing Sunshine?

When initially deciding the four topics to start off my blog, I included solar because of its popularity. Solar energy is a very broad topic and this post is not intended to cover all possible aspects and applications of solar. Instead, I will focus on photovalic applications and not other more sophisticated uses, as many are still in the research phase.

In simple terms, photovalic modules are used to collect solar energy which is then transformed into electricity. This electricity can either be AC or DC. In some instances, such as calculators, garden lighting, and other applications with very low electrical requirements.

However, when compared with traditionally generated electric power, solar is not economically efficient. The US Department of Energy states:

"The cost of larger PV systems (greater than 1 kW) is measured in "levelized" costs per kWh—the costs are spread out over the system lifetime and divided by kWh output. The levelized cost is now around 30 cents/kWh." http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_quick_facts.html

As of January, 2008 the US average cost per kWh was 10.2 cents, well below the solar cost of 30 cents/kWh. Again, this figure comes from the US Department of Energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html



So, why is solar so popular? In many respects, it is the new, shiny toy. Also, there is the allure of "free" electricity. However, as the old adage states, "If its too good to be true, then it probably is." One has to recall that to convert one form of energy to another, there is loss. When one burns coal, heat is the main output, true also for any fuel that burns. What makes coal and fossil fuels in general, more efficient is that their combustion creates very high amounts of heat per unit. This heat is generally used to create steam, which then turns turbines (dynamos) to create electricity.

Solar has potential, but at today's cost points, it is only economically efficient in certain applications. Personally, I am renovating my home and looked into solar roofing shingles, as well as other PV collectors. In both cases, their cost well exceeded the benefits. However, a solar-powered attic fan may be just the thing.