Thread: Renewable / Sustainable Energy Supply - German model

Interesting stuff, Zoido. Go Germany! Way to plan for the future.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Interesting stuff, Zoido. Go Germany! Way to plan for the future.

Thanks.
Well the subject is really complex and has many layers, but the opinions and viewpoints offered in the international media are very slow to adapt to rapid changes of the market.

For example as of early 2011 installation cost (construction & setup) for completed wind power projects in Germany were:

- 1000€ / kW - onshore wind
- 3000-4000€ / kW - offshore wind (those are the costs of pilot projects and include costs for construction vessels, etc.)

In comparison the new nuclear reactors that are currently being build in France & Finland cost 3500-4000€ / kW.
( projections costs were at about 2000€ per kW... so that number didn't add up and they are still under construction).

To be fair:

It's fact that onshore wind operates at an anual adjusted rate of about 20-25% of installed capacity in Germany. The first offshore windparks have operated at 47% of installed capacity in the first 9 months.
New and modern Nuclear reactors operate with about 90% of their installed capacity due to regular week long complete shutdowns for refueling etc.

That means you have to install 4-5x as much onshore and 2-3x as much offshore capacity to get the same maximum capacity.
On the other hand, windpower only needs maintainance after it's build.
It's not neccessary to shut down the entire windpark for this, just the one wind power turbine that is being serviced.

Nuclear power on the other hand requires maintainence & cooling, fuel, waste management and a 20 year decommision process after end of life (cost about 300-500 million Euro for every reactor).

Prices continue to fall far wind turbines, while construction costs, uranium costs and waste management costs keep rising for nuclear power.

Very optimistic, El_Zoido.

But this is the real German Agenda:
1. Turn the nuclear powerplants off faster to keep the greens down...
2. Purchase nuclear energy from France and Czechia
-----------------------
Billions of Euros will be the costs for a working renewable energy model.
Power supply lines, the energy producing devices and the energy storage devices have to be built up.
Furthermore, the rape growing will turn big areas into mono cultural fallow lands without animals and other signs of life.

Originally Posted by El Zoido

The question of an economic and technologicaly viable energy storage has been pushed as the ultimative argument against renewable energy sources. Electricity can't be stored unless batteries get alot cheaper or new huge infrastructure projects like new powerful powergrids or new pumped-storage hydroelectric stations are being build. A massive and expensive task that would take years or even decades.
But even for this issue, the sollution is already being implemented in Germany.
In reality, large scale windpower has to stop operating alot more often due to risks of overpowering the local power-grid than due to lack of wind. This frustrating waste of windpower has lead operators of windpower stations to develope an alternative use for their excess power. Their solution is simple and promessing. They convert their "un-needed" electricity into a natural gas substitute and feed it into the already existing natural gas grid with it's massive storage capacity.
The natural gas substitue is an ultra clean methan produced from hydrogen from electrolysis and CO². To make this natural gas substitute a truely Renewable-Energy-Gas the CO² used comes from Biomass-Energy.

This form of energy storage can be used for the unlikly event that we suddenly have significant shortage of wind, is very practical because current gas grid & strogage already hold the capacity to supply all of Germanies electricity needs for 2-3 months. Gas turbine powerplants are already in use and decentralized small scale gas-power & heat stations are already being build throughout the country for energy-efficency & economic reasons.

In case you are wondering, the first implementions of the "Windenergy -> RE-Gas" converters work at 60% efficiency.
Since the electricity used for the conversion would otherwise been wasted, this is a cashcow for the windpower operators. Large scale facilities are currently under construction and will hit the energy market later this year.

Ahh... the Sabatier reaction. Certainly an interesting twist and a much needed improvement on a system dependent on the weather. It could and should be applied to solar thermal systems as well.

But the fact of the manner is that while renewable sources can be tailored to individual residences and small offices, renewable sources are impractical to most commercial and industrial applications, because they require constant and dependable energy. Simply looking at a chart that says there is x amount of energy floating in the breeze and that y piece of machinery can capture z percentage of it doesn't keep your servers warm at night. Nuclear is the answer. And all of the so called "downsides" to nuclear power are imposed on us by Luddites forcing us to keep using 50 year old designs.

Popular Science had a great article on Generation IV thorium fueled molten salt reactors in its latest issue.

Even with their significant safety improvements, Generation III+ plants can, theoretically, melt down. Some people within the nuclear industry are calling for the implementation of still newer reactor designs, collectively called Generation IV. The thorium-powered molten-salt reactor (MSR) is one such design. In an MSR, liquid thorium would replace the solid uranium fuel used in today’s plants, a change that would make meltdowns all but impossible.

And we had better get our butts in gear, or the Chinese will beat us to the punch, and the leak of manufacturing from the West will become a torrent.

Outside the U.S., the transition could come more quickly. In January the Chinese government launched a thorium reactor program. “The Chinese Academy of Sciences has approved development of an MSR with relatively near-term deployment--maybe 10 years,” says Gehin, who thinks the Chinese decision may increase work on the technology worldwide. Even after Fukushima, “there’s still interest in advanced nuclear,” he says. “I don’t see that changing.”

Originally Posted by Commodore

Ahh... the Sabatier reaction. Certainly an interesting twist and a much needed improvement on a system dependent on the weather. It could and should be applied to solar thermal systems as well.

But the fact of the manner is that while renewable sources can be tailored to individual residences and small offices, renewable sources are impractical to most commercial and industrial applications, because they require constant and dependable energy. Simply looking at a chart that says there is x amount of energy floating in the breeze and that y piece of machinery can capture z percentage of it doesn't keep your servers warm at night. Nuclear is the answer. And all of the so called "downsides" to nuclear power are imposed on us by Luddites forcing us to keep using 50 year old designs.

Popular Science had a great article on Generation IV thorium fueled molten salt reactors in its latest issue.


And we had better get our butts in gear, or the Chinese will beat us to the punch, and the leak of manufacturing from the West will become a torrent.

Thanks for your comment

As I wrote in the first post, the problem of constant and secure availability is already solved and the viability of the solution has been proven in field tested.
The Project of "Kompikraftwerk 1" (Combined Powerstation 1) was successful in providing the actuall demand situation in a scale of 1:10.000. That means that they matched the actuall demand on a small scale. The results of the project have been released 4 years ago in 2007. (that's ages in renewable energy terms)

If you are interessted, here is a little video in english:
"Kombikraftwerk 1 - Wind, Solar, Biomass & Hydro deliver 100% renewable power"
The press release can be found here and a handout document describing the setup here.

The research project "Kombikraftwerk 2" is currently being conducted to examine system wide stability (frequency & voltage stability) on an even larger scale. At the same time other so called "virtual Powerstation" & "Smart Grid"-Concepts are being field tested.
I think it's important to recognize that it's all in a field testing stage and by no means a IF,WHEN and HOW of the early concept phase.

I found another english language video to describe the basic concepts, policies and conflicts of the whole renewable energy situation in Germany. It's abit long and the Australian Journalists sometimes look abit funny but overall it gives a good insight. It's from 2006 though. So since then renewables already doubled their output in electricity and primary energy output and the goals/predictions are alot more ambitous now. (80% by 2050)

The Sustainable Star - Germany ( 28min )

-----------------------------

Now about "your" Thorium Reactor .
The concept and techonolgy sounds as wonderful in theory.
However in my opinion it shares too many flaws with the present nuclear/fossil power plants.

You got the high installation costs, a fuel-cycle, centralized power generation and expensive decommision at end of life (radioactive machinary).
In addition the molten-salt reactor would require massive reasearch investments and there is no reason to believe that it would turn out alot better than all the other Generation IV reactor projects.
Even if the optimistic 10 years till operation claimed in the article would be true, adding the construction time for the first reactors it will take about 20 years till any of them can hit the energy market.

At the same time renewables become cheaper, experience & optimization increases their efficiency and massproduction is pushing cost down.
The cost for the installation of solar capacity dropped an average of 50% from spring 2009 - early 2011.
At the same time cost for the new Finish nuclear reactor doubled in that time, due to delays, construction errors and optimistic numbers.
It's my impression that the nuclear industry has always offered "magic" in order to get reasearch funding & investment subsidies... at the end they delivered a very mixed bag with a price-tag in my opinion.

Since the Thorium Reactor isn't really renewable in any way, maybe this isn't the right thread to continue this exchange of ideas after this reply.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Thanks for your comment

As I wrote in the first post, the problem of constant and secure availability is already solved and the viability of the solution has been proven in field tested.
The Project of "Kompikraftwerk 1" (Combined Powerstation 1) was successful in providing the actuall demand situation in a scale of 1:10.000. That means that they matched the actuall demand on a small scale. The results of the project have been released 4 years ago in 2007. (that's ages in renewable energy terms)

If you are interessted, here is a little video in english:
"Kombikraftwerk 1 - Wind, Solar, Biomass & Hydro deliver 100% renewable power"
The press release can be found here and a handout document describing the setup here.

The research project "Kombikraftwerk 2" is currently being conducted to examine system wide stability (frequency & voltage stability) on an even larger scale. At the same time other so called "virtual Powerstation" & "Smart Grid"-Concepts are being field tested.
I think it's important to recognize that it's all in a field testing stage and by no means a IF,WHEN and HOW of the early concept phase.

I found another english language video to describe the basic concepts, policies and conflicts of the whole renewable energy situation in Germany. It's abit long and the Australian Journalists sometimes look abit funny but overall it gives a good insight. It's from 2006 though. So since then renewables already doubled their output in electricity and primary energy output and the goals/predictions are alot more ambitous now. (80% by 2050)

The Sustainable Star - Germany ( 28min )

As I've said, renewables are great on the local scale, where you have control over usage. Homes, farms, and small office based businesses would do great with a rooftop solar thermal array, heating big tubs of water in the basement for heat, electricity, and store-able hydrogen/methane/SOV. You can be independent, or actually contribute to the grid. But heavy industries and highly urbanized areas are going to quickly overwhelm the real estate. You can't just pave the all the rural areas with solar panels and wind mills. You need a high density energy source.

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Now about "your" Thorium Reactor .
The concept and techonolgy sounds as wonderful in theory.
However in my opinion it shares too many flaws with the present nuclear/fossil power plants.

You got the high installation costs, a fuel-cycle, centralized power generation and expensive decommision at end of life (radioactive machinary).
In addition the molten-salt reactor would require massive reasearch investments and there is no reason to believe that it would turn out alot better than all the other Generation IV reactor projects.
Even if the optimistic 10 years till operation claimed in the article would be true, adding the construction time for the first reactors it will take about 20 years till any of them can hit the energy market.

At the same time renewables become cheaper, experience & optimization increases their efficiency and massproduction is pushing cost down.
The cost for the installation of solar capacity dropped an average of 50% from spring 2009 - early 2011.
At the same time cost for the new Finish nuclear reactor doubled in that time, due to delays, construction errors and optimistic numbers.
It's my impression that the nuclear industry has always offered "magic" in order to get reasearch funding & investment subsidies... at the end they delivered a very mixed bag with a price-tag in my opinion.

Since the Thorium Reactor isn't really renewable in any way, maybe this isn't the right thread to continue this exchange of ideas after this reply.

Did you read the article?

Oak Ridge Tennessee hosted an operational Thorium reactor for several years back in the Sixties, before it was shut down because it didn't produce weapons grade material. This is not a theory. The only R&D that needs to be done is to incorporate modern materials into the system.

MSRs were developed at Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1960s and ran for a total of 22,000 hours between 1965 and 1969. “These weren’t theoretical reactors or thought experiments,” says engineer John Kutsch, who heads the nonprofit Thorium Energy Alliance. “[Engineers] really built them, and they really ran.” Of the handful of Generation IV reactor designs circulating today, only the MSR has been proven outside computer models. “It was not a full system, but it showed you could successfully design and operate a molten-salt reactor,” says Oak Ridge physicist Jess Gehin, a senior program manager in the lab’s Nuclear Technology Programs office.

And you can compare the expense of Gen II light water reactors to thorium MSRs because they operate quite differently.

The MSR design has two primary safety advantages. Its liquid fuel remains at much lower pressures than the solid fuel in light-water plants. This greatly decreases the likelihood of an accident, such as the hydrogen explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Further, in the event of a power outage, a frozen salt plug within the reactor melts and the liquid fuel passively drains into tanks where it solidifes, stopping the fission reaction. “The molten-salt reactor is walk-away safe,” Kutsch says. “If you just abandoned it, it had no power, and the end of the world came--a comet hit Earth--it would cool down and solidify by itself.”

There is essentially is no meltdown risk, so you don't have to over build the thing to the ridiculous degree. It is self regulating, so there is little need for the several times redundant coolant systems. That is where the expense comes from, plus the regulatory costs. Without that need, expenses plummet.

Without the need for large cooling towers, MSRs can be much smaller than typical light-water plants, both physically and in power capacity. Today’s average nuclear power plant generates about 1,000 megawatts. A thorium-fueled MSR might generate as little as 50 megawatts. Smaller, more numerous plants could save on transmission loss (which can be up to 30 percent on the present grid). The U.S. Army is interested in using MSRs to power individual bases, Kutsch says, and Google, which relies on steady power to keep its servers running, held a conference on thorium reactors last year. “The company would love to have a 70- or 80-megawatt reactor sitting next door to a data center,” Kutsch says.

And the waste? What waste?

Although an MSR could also run on uranium or plutonium, using the less-radioactive element thorium, with a little plutonium or uranium as a catalyst, has both economic and safety advantages. Thorium is four times as abundant as uranium and is easier to mine, in part because of its lower radioactivity. The domestic supply could serve the U.S.’s electricity needs for centuries. Thorium is also exponentially more efficient than uranium. “In a traditional reactor, you’re burning up only a half a percent to maybe 3 percent of the uranium,” Kutsch says. “In a molten-salt reactor, you’re burning 99 percent of the thorium.” The result: One pound of thorium yields as much power as 300 pounds of uranium--or 3.5 million pounds of coal.

Because of this efficiency, a thorium MSR would produce far less waste than today’s plants. Uranium-based waste will remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years. With thorium, it’s more like a few hundred. As well, raw thorium is not fissile in and of itself, so it is not easily weaponized. “It can’t be used as a bomb,” Kutsch says. “You could have 1,000 pounds in your basement, and nothing would happen.”

That solves the Yucca Mountain issue. Not to mention the fact that the waste is instead stored right in your backyard now, and as in Japan, may still require active coolant.

And while is not renewable, there is enough for several hundred years. Any fission plant is just a placeholder for fusion anyway. But if neccicery, there is plenty of thorium on the Moon.