Debunking Common Myths About Nuclear & Coal Power In Germany

Print Friendly

Every time you turn around, someone else is spouting some nonsense about energy in Germany (which just goes to show how much of a threat the actual story in Germany is to entrenched fossil fuel and nuclear enthusiasts). I’m not going to repeat most of the nonsense, since it might then stick in your head and you might forget that it’s nonsense somewhere down the road. However, Karl-Friedrich Lenz just had a great post debunking statements – some of the most common German energy myths — from a poor Guardian post by George Monbiot, and this is definitely worth a read, so I’m reposting it below.

To chat with Karl or share the original article with others (you should probably bookmark it for the next time you’re in a conversation with someone misrepresenting the facts), the link to the original is on the headline below.

George Monbiot Spreading False Information About Germany

George Monbiot, in the Guardian:

Germany also decided to shut down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima crisis, due to the imminent risk of tsunamis in Bavaria. Last year, as a result, its burning of “clean coal” – otherwise known as coal – rose by 5%. That was despite a massive cut in its exports of electricity to other European countries. One estimate suggests that by 2020, Germany will have produced an extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 as a result of its nuclear closure: equivalent to almost all the savings that will be made in the 27 member states as a result of the EU’s energy efficiency directive.

Let’s refute the errors in that paragraph one by one. All numbers sourced from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen.

For one, what “massive cut in exports”? Germany has exported more electricity than ever in 2012. That would be 23 TWh, as opposed to 17.7 in 2010, the last year before the nuclear phase out.

Monbiot doesn’t give a reference for this statement, even on the version of the article at his personal website, which does include some references. So I don’t know how he could get to that conclusion. Anyway, he really should learn to look at primary sources like Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen before commenting on Germany.

Next, it actually is true that coal (including lignite) is up around 5%, or 13.6 TWh compared to 2011. However, gas is down 12.5 TWh, around the same. The reason for that is of course that America is shipping cheap coal to Europe because of their vile and evil shale gas boom, and that carbon prices in Europe are far too low. Both developments lead to coal replacing gas, and both have nothing to do with nuclear in Germany.

The big picture in Germany is that fossil fuel use (all flavors added) is essentially unchanged in 2012 compared to 2010, that nuclear is in decline, and that renewable has replaced most of that nuclear phaseout exactly as intended.

Monbiot’s reference for this statement is a short article at Yale’s E360 digest. It’s from last August, so it is not suited for backing up any statement about “last year” in the first place.

The last “estimate” of “300 million tons” until 2020 is taken from this 2011 article at New Scientist, where it is backed up with a reference to “calculations by Trevor Sikorski”, which are not linked to or referenced. It is anybody’s guess how those “calculations” were made.

But it is of course true that shutting down a source of low carbon electricity will delay replacing fossil fuel by exactly the amount of electricity that would have been generated from nuclear if Germany had shut down its reactors a decade later (as was the plan before Fukushima).

Germany will phase out nuclear, since just about everybody wants it that way. At some point, people who dislike that fact because of concern for the climate need to accept reality and move on.

Zachary Shahan (2291 Posts)

I'm the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular clean energy website in the world, and Planetsave, a leading green and science news site. I've been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and I've been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, bicycling, and wind energy for the past few years. You can also find my work on Scientific American, Reuters, Think Progress, GE's ecomagination site, several sites in the Important Media network, & many other places. To connect on your favorite social network, go to: zacharyshahan.com


  • globi1

    By the way, new nuclear does not only require a much longer building time than PV, it is meanwhile also more expensive than PV in Monbiot’s rainy Britain:

    EDF wants meanwhile up to
    £140/MWh for its new nuclear power plants in Britain and this doesn’t include
    decommissioning and waste repository:
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2187888/EDF-wants-taxpayers-cash-pay-nuclear-power.html
    This is more than the feed-in tariffs for much more quickly built PV in the UK
    above 4 kW:
    http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/tariff-tables/Documents1/FIT%20Tariff%20Table%201%20February%202013%20PV%20Only.pdf

    So, if Britain invests in new nuclear instead of new renewables, it will emit more CO2 per £ invested and this also for a longer time.

    Also, what nuclear proponents usually miss, is the fact that the corporations which operate and invest in nuclear power plants are the same which invest in new coal power plants (e.g. Swiss utilities produce more fossil power abroad than what entire Switzerland consumes electricity in total). So if one gives those corporations more support hoping for more nuclear, they might just get more coal instead.

    What the German data also shows is the fact, that coal power plants can deal with varying demand without needing much gas power. It disproves that renewables require new flexible power plants as back-up.

  • Otis11

    Yeah I never understood phasing out old nuclear before fossil fuels – once it’s operating you already have to dispose of the waste, might as well use it first, but that’s just me. I’d say make some safety improvements, shut down the one’s that are unsafe and then get rid of coal first.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I suppose if you had experienced a nuclear meltdown in a neighboring country, a radioactive cloud passing over your country, and lingering radiation from that meltdown over 25 years later you might have a different feeling about nuclear.

      We can make safety improvements, but it’s pretty much the case we make safety improvements after a reactor gets in “unique” trouble, experiences a “Whoa, we didn’t see that one coming!” event.

      I agree with your overall strategy. Shut down the most dangerous, get coal off our grids and then re-focus on closing nuclear.

      In the US I think we need to give a lot of thought to closing Indian Point. If that one goes sour there is no possible way to evacuate the surrounding population. The cost of creating a Chernobyl-like wasteland in that location would be extremely high.

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lVZbIJHJWZw/TYIp6DHAjCI/AAAAAAAAHA0/6a7vKBZixrg/s400/indian.jpg

      • Otis11

        Yes, but I’m looking at it from the perspective of – by your own statistics, coal WILL kill x people this year (pick your statistic, regardless of where you cite it’s pretty high). IF something goes wrong, nuclear COULD kill y people. Follow that by the likelihood of something going wrong and it’s much better to shut down coal.

        Sure nuclear has a fear factor since all the people are located in one geographical area and it’s more noticeable to link them all together, but if you look at the overall possible damage, and look at the likelihood, the statistics say get rid of coal first…

        • Bob_Wallace

          I’m not arguing against closing coal first. Those nuclear plants we built are built and paid for. They won’t create a huge increase in the amount of used fuel we already have.

          But Indian Point is unique. There’s no feasible way to evacuate people around that one. The numbers would be huge.

          Get rid of coal quickly. Close nuclear plants as they wear out (if we need them that long). Figure out better storage solutions that let us phase out natural gas.

          We may see about a quarter of our nuclear reactors closing over the next few years simply because they go bankrupt. Wind and natural gas are wiping them out.

          One large repair bill could do them in.

          “Even plants with no pressing repair problems are feeling the pinch, especially in places where wholesale prices are set in competitive markets. According to an internal industry document from the Electric Utility Cost Group, for the period 2008 to 2010, maintenance and fuel costs for the one-fourth of the reactor fleet with the highest costs averaged $51.42 per megawatt hour.

          That is perilously close to wholesale electricity costs these days.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/economics-forcing-some-nuclear-plants-into-retirement.html?_r=1

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Yeah, the point is really just: Germans want nuclear shut down, so they are shutting it down. It’s a democracy, and the people have spoken.