Germany to abandon Nuclear Power by 2022

Originally posted by Palynka
Transporting energy long distances leads to losses. I've heard conflicting reports about the importance of these. Some say they are a big deterrent to a project like that, others say that it's not that bad.

Anyone knows a bit more about this (beyond wiki)?

The losses are significant but can be handled (you can increase the voltage and reduce the amps to reduce losses over long distances - power lines in Canada have extremely high voltages). I think the more pressing issues are investment costs and handing a power switch to dodgy regimes in Africa. I doubt you can make it more economical than simply building solar plants in Europe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The nuclear plants in Germany are already built. Shutting them down early results in a much higher cost per unit over all because the economics of nuclear include a very high construction cost which gets paid off over time. Shutting down a nuclear plant sooner than necessary is more expensive than keeping it running.

I don't know how you calculate effi ...[text shortened]... ense in this context. Please explain for example how solar is 'more efficient' than nuclear.

Get your head out of the sand; you're at least 10 years behind the times. A recent study out of Duke University stated:

Clearly, new nuclear plants would generate
power at a higher cost than solar electricity.
These costs have just reached this crossover
point in North Carolina in 2010, while nuclear
costs continue to rise and solar costs continue
to fall.
We further project that nuclear power from
new plants would deliver residential electricity
at 22 cents per kilowatt-hour and commercial
electricity at 18–19 cents per kilowatt-hour, after
adding transmission and distribution costs.
Homeowners and businesses could readily
choose on-site solar electricity as a cheaper
alternative to new nuclear power.
Witnessing the Crossover
Solar electricity has numerous advantages
other than cost. Rooftop solar can be installed
in a few days. Small incremental gains in total
generating capacity start producing electricity
immediately. One does not have to wait
ten years for huge blocks of new capacity to
come online. Solar panels leave no radioactive
wastes. They do not consume billions of
gallons of cooling water each year. There are
no national security issues with solar installations.
An accident would be a small local affair,
not a catastrophe.

(Emphasis supplied)

You can read the full report here: http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf (the excerpt above is on page 9).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Get your head out of the sand; you're at least 10 years behind the times. A recent study out of Duke University stated:

[b]Clearly, new nuclear plants would generate
power at a higher cost than solar electricity.
These costs have just reached this crossover
point in North Carolina in 2010, while nuclear
costs continue to rise an ...[text shortened]... arn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf (the excerpt above is on page 9).[/b]

NC WARN: "a nonprofit working for climate protection through clean efficient energy".

Yep, sounds pretty reliable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes it is. Its a lot cleaner than it would have been if they had been using coal power instead of nuclear. Its a lot cleaner than most parts of China that is heavily dependent on coal.

It's pathetic you pro-nukes continue to cling to the idea that radiation being dumped onto a population from a nuclear power plant is no big deal. The nuclear v. coal claims are a red herring; no one is proposing building more coal plants.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
NC WARN: "a nonprofit working for climate protection through clean efficient energy".

Yep, sounds pretty reliable.

Typical. I'm sure you would prefer a study from the nuclear power industry.

You know your response is a fallacious ad hominem argument. It's quite surprising how often lately you lapse into them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's pathetic you pro-nukes continue to cling to the idea that radiation being dumped onto a population from a nuclear power plant is no big deal. The nuclear v. coal claims are a red herring; no one is proposing building more coal plants.

No, but you're proposing shutting down nuclear plants rather than shutting down coal plants.

If Germany wouldn't shut down its nuc plants, maybe it could shut down its coal plants instead.

Meridian West Wind TV Commercial

YouTube

Originally posted by sh76
No, but you're proposing shutting down nuclear plants rather than shutting down coal plants.

If Germany wouldn't shut down its nuc plants, maybe it could shut down its coal plants instead.

Maybe, just maybe, we can also reduce consumption.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes it is. Its a lot cleaner than it would have been if they had been using coal power instead of nuclear. Its a lot cleaner than most parts of China that is heavily dependent on coal.

Maybe not so clean if you take into account the problem of what to do with the waste products.Germany and, I think,most countries using nuclear power have no definate idea of how to store the waste.In Germany it is all in temporary storage because no one knows what to do with it.

Originally posted by sh76
No, but you're proposing shutting down nuclear plants rather than shutting down coal plants.

If Germany wouldn't shut down its nuc plants, maybe it could shut down its coal plants instead.

You tell me how many coal plants have been "shut down" because of the building of nuclear power plants.

Red herring.

EDIT: Germany is phasing out its coal production by 2018 (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463172,00.html), so the goal of ending the use of nuclear power and coal power is not mutually exclusive as KN and TW pretend.

Originally posted by kmax87
You could bounce the energy around the globe using microwave links and satellites. Yes it would be inefficient, but you would have an over abundance of solar energy to tap!

A former NASA scientist has gone one better than this and thought of capturing solar energy in space and beaming it down to earth using wireless power transmission (microwaves)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/visionary-beams/

The key to our energy future may be in space. A new long-range energy transmission experiment opens the possibility of sending solar energy from space to earth.

Former NASA executive and physicist John Mankins captured solar energy from a mountain top in Maui and beamed it 92 miles to the main island of Hawaii....

.....Although the amount of power sent, 20 watts, is barely enough to power a small compact fluorescent light bulb, and most of it was lost in transmission, the system was limited by the budget not the physics. If they had been able to afford more solar panels, more phased array transmitters and a better receivers (the one they had could only receive in the horizontal direction), Mankins claims they could do much better– possibly up to 64% efficiency.....

....the implication for our energy future. The 120 gigawatts of solar power hitting the planet every second is more than all of human kind has used since the dawn of the industrial era. In space, you can tap into that without having to worry about losses in efficiency from the atmosphere, clouds or night. The space program seems like it could lead to a very tangible benefit, as tangible as global communications satellites and weather tracking satellites were to the previous generation. ....

Originally posted by kmax87
A former NASA scientist has gone one better than this and thought of capturing solar energy in space and beaming it down to earth using wireless power transmission (microwaves)

Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the theorized concept of collecting solar power in space for use on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

Check this out. You can read the whole article yourselves but I thought I would include a timeline of achievements.

1968: Dr. Peter Glaser introduces the concept of a "solar power satellite" system with square miles of solar collectors in high geosynchronous orbit for collection and conversion of sun's energy into a microwave beam to transmit usable energy to large receiving antennas (rectennas) on Earth for distribution.

1973: Dr. Peter Glaser is granted United States patent number 3,781,647 for his method of transmitting power over long distances using microwaves from a large (one square kilometer) antenna on the satellite to a much larger one on the ground, now known as a rectenna.[2]

1978-81: The United States Department of Energy and NASA examine the solar power satellite (SPS) concept extensively, publishing design and feasibility studies.
1994: The United States Air Force conducts the Advanced Photovoltaic Experiment using a satellite launched into low Earth orbit by a Pegasus rocket.
1995–97: NASA conducts a “Fresh Look” study of space solar power (SSP) concepts and technologies.
1998: The Space Solar Power Concept Definition Study (CDS) identifies credible, commercially viable SSP concepts, while pointing out technical and programmatic risks.
1998: Japan's space agency begins developing a Space Solar Power System (SSPS), a program that continues to the present day.
1999: NASA's Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT, see below) begins.

2000: John Mankins of NASA testifies in the U.S. House of Representatives, saying "Large-scale SSP is a very complex integrated system of systems that requires numerous significant advances in current technology and capabilities. A technology roadmap has been developed that lays out potential paths for achieving all needed advances — albeit over several decades.[3]

2001: Dr. Neville Marzwell of NASA states, "We now have the technology to convert the sun's energy at the rate of 42 to 56 percent... We have made tremendous progress. ...If you can concentrate the sun's rays through the use of large mirrors or lenses you get more for your money because most of the cost is in the PV arrays... There is a risk element but you can reduce it... You can put these small receivers in the desert or in the mountains away from populated areas. ...We believe that in 15 to 25 years we can lower that cost to 7 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. ...We offer an advantage. You don't need cables, pipes, gas or copper wires. We can send it to you like a cell phone call—where you want it and when you want it, in real time."[4]

2001: NASDA (Japan's national space agency) announces plans to perform additional research and prototyping by launching an experimental satellite with 10 kilowatts and 1 megawatt of power.[5][6]

2003: ESA Advanced Concepts Team studies [7] [8]

2007: The US Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) issues a report[9] on October 10, 2007 stating they intend to collect solar energy from space for use on Earth to help the United States' ongoing relationship with the Middle East and the battle for oil. The International Space Station may be the first test ground for this new idea, even though it is in a low-earth orbit.

2007: In May 2007 a workshop is held at the US Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to review the current state of the SBSP market and technology.[10]

2009: Several companies announce future SBSP partnerships and commitments, including Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) & Solaren,[11][12][13] Mitsubishi Electric Corp. & IHI Corporation,[14][15] Space Energy, Inc.,[16] and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.[17]

2010: Europe's EADS Astrium announces SBSP plans.[18][19][20]

2010: Professors Andrea Massa and Giorgio Franceschetti announce a special session on the "Analysis of Electromagnetic Wireless Systems for Solar Power Transmission" at the 2010 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation.[21

Originally posted by kmax87
[b]Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the theorized concept of collecting solar power in space for use on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

Check this out. You can read the whole article yourselves but I thought I would include a timeline of achievements.

..... 1968: Dr. Peter Glaser introduces the concept of a "solar ...[text shortened]... usable energy to large receiving antennas (rectennas) on Earth for distribution.....

[/b]

Here's an article about one of wireless power transmission's pioneers. William C. Brown.

http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/William_C._Brown

.......... By 1953, he had invented (among other things) a new type of tube based on the magnetron called the Amplitron. Unlike the magnetron, which was merely an oscillator (or generator of microwaves), the Amplitron could amplify a broad band of microwave frequencies as well. The Amplitron (later called the Cross Field Amplifier) had a long and successful career in military and space communication.

Under military sponsorship, Brown modified the Amplitron to greatly increase its power output. The strength of the output led him to begin to think seriously about using microwave technology to transmit power, rather than using it for radar or communication. Wireless power transmission had been suggested by Nikola Tesla and others, but dismissed as being impractical because electricity at low frequencies is wasted as it flows through the atmosphere. However, at high frequencies that flow is more efficient. Brown spent much of the rest of his career trying to develop applications for this idea.

By improving devices to transmit and receive high power microwave energy, Brown was able to demonstrate a model of an electric helicopter in 1964, which was powered by a microwave beam transmitted from the ground. Then, in 1968, Peter Glaser proposed a solar-power satellite that would collect solar energy in space, convert it to microwaves, and beam it down to the surface of the earth where it could be collected and used for power....

Originally posted by no1marauder
You tell me how many coal plants have been "shut down" because of the building of nuclear power plants.

Red herring.

EDIT: Germany is phasing out its coal production by 2018 (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463172,00.html), so the goal of ending the use of nuclear power and coal power is not mutually exclusive as KN and TW pretend.

France has relatively few coal plants because it has many nuclear power plants.

The article is about coal mines, not coal plants (Holland for example shut down its coal mines decades ago but still has many coal plants). Aside from that, the article dates back to 2007 and it's likely the coal policy will come under review considering the shutdown of nuclear plants.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Typical. I'm sure you would prefer a study from the nuclear power industry.

You know your response is a fallacious ad hominem argument. It's quite surprising how often lately you lapse into them.

I wouldn't trust a report from the nuclear industry either. But you tell me why governments wouldn't build solar plants en masse if it were really so cheap - it's clean, renewable and popular. European governments aren't (all) in the back pocket of the oil companies.