The double investment intermittent energy + fossil fuels, for the same total output, has pushed the price of electricity upwards wherever the switch to "green" energy is taking hold
Japan has just reactivated a nuclear reactor, Sendai 1, the first of 20 that may soon get back on line (1)(2). This, and a pro-nuclear comment on our webpage, prompts us today to state our position on that form of energy. Save the Eagles International are not keen on nuclear power plants, to say the least. If they can be done without, all the better. But can they be replaced by intermittent energy like wind? This is the question that must be asked.
The answer is no. Not until we find a way to store electricity. This would have to be done at the scale required to fuel a modern economy, ensuring grid frequency stability in spite of wind variations. So far, this has proved to be an impossible task. As long as the problem is not solved, the erratic nature of wind has to be compensated "real-time" by fossil-fuel power stations operating in back-up mode, consuming more fuel than they would otherwise.
Germany, for instance, has tried to replace nuclear by wind and solar, and failed. They had to build additional coal-fired power stations to keep the lights on in periods without wind or sunshine. And the rest of the time, these thermal plants are needed to regulate variable wind or solar energy, otherwise numerous blackouts would occur. As a result, Germany's use of fossil fuels has increased.
In France, which has vowed to close down some of its nuclear plants, much publicity is being given to the "transition énergétique", which rests mostly on wind power. But at the same time, the country has been discreetly building up its gas-fired generation capacity: 16 units since 2005 (3). Officially, they were built to replace dirtier coal-fired power stations. But France has 10,000 MW of installed wind power, more than the generation capacity of the coal plants that were closed down. And many more wind farms are in the pipe-line. So, actually, the new gas turbines will be used mostly to back-up the intermittency of wind power, and balance its unstability. Nuclear plants are not flexible enough to do that.
The double investment intermittent energy + fossil fuels, for the same total output, has pushed the price of electricity upwards wherever the switch to "green" energy is taking hold. Because of that, plus the high cost of wind & solar and related grid upgrades, German households, like their Danish neighbors, are paying 100% more for power than they would in most EU countries. In the UK, the spiralling cost of subsidies to onshore Wind got out of control, so the government announced a cut-out date, April 2016. As for France, a special tax has been slapped on utility bills, "la CSPE", which keeps being hiked year after year. As it has reached € 6 billion, i.e. 15% of utility bills, there is now talk of spreading it over fuel and gas bills.
Intermittent energy causes more fossil fuels to be burnt (4). Besides, its high cost (5) is causing a double problem: "fuel poverty" in humble households, and job destruction as investments and whole industries are attracted by lower energy prices abroad. Japan has been quick to understand the dangers of the German "energy transition" model: today, "Sendai 1" is active again, in spite of Fukushima. Nuclear energy appears to be back for the long haul in Japan (6).
At Save the Eagles International we wish we could, like many, daydream that intermittent energy can replace coal, gas and nuclear power. But we have to deal with realities, unfortunately.
Mark Duchamp
President
References:
1) - cnn.com
2) - nei.org/
3) - wikipedia.org/
4) - iberica2000.org/
5) - Electricity produced by wind turbines is being paid about twice the market price everywhere, and up to 4-5 times as much when at sea. Then one has to factor in other costs: subsidies to back-up power plants, and upgrading the grid to accommodate intermittent energy.
6) - "In June 2015 the government's draft plan for electricity generation to 2030 was approved. This has nuclear at 20-22%, renewables 22-24%, LNG 27% and coal 26%. It aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 21.9% by 2030 from the 2013 level, and to improve the energy self-sufficiency rate to 24.3%, from 6.3% in 2012." www.world-nuclear.org/
