EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Germany grapples with post-nuclear power gap

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 04 May 2012

Germany’s accelerated nuclear exit and increased reliance on renewables is likely to cause a power gap equivalent to the output of up to 15 plants by 2020, participants at a high-level energy meeting said on Wednesday (2 May).

But the meeting hosted by Chancellor Angela Merkel and attended by leading energy executives reached no decisions on how to fill the shortfall.

“It was agreed that by 2020 there will be a capacity gap of 10 Gigawatts,” one source said after the meeting. This is the rough equivalent of 10 and 15 power plants.

Merkel met with chief executives of the power utilities E.ON and RWE AG, as well as officials from Siemens AG, power network operators, trade unions, and energy lobbyists.

Germany’s decision last year, following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, to completely phase out nuclear power within a decade has thrown big utilities onto the defensive and sparked a debate about how best to fill the cap in electricity generation.

Another meeting with German state premiers is due to take place on May 23, which may focus on grid expansion and increasing the use of offshore windpower.

Oppositions parties have criticised Merkel for failing to deliver a coherent post-nuclear energy strategy, and the meetings reflect her government's desire to show progress is being made ahead of a federal election next year.

Industry leaders have said there need to be more incentives to invest in flexible gas-fired power plants to fill supply gaps when weather is unfavorable for wind or solar energy, or when industry and consumers require power at peak-use times.

Since Germany switched off a large slice of its nuclear power supply last year, there have been a number of incidents when wind from the north could not be transported quickly enough to consumers in the south due to a lack of grid infrastructure.

Hildegard Mueller, the head of Germany's main energy lobby BDEW, said there had been consensus at the meeting that existing power stations needed to stay in place while at the same time new plants needed to be built. But no decisions were reached.

“On the one hand, this has to be about being able to run existing power plants profitably in the future,” Mueller said. “On the other hand it is important to develop carefully further measures for the necessary new constructions,” she added.

Some big utilities have signaled they are angry that billions of euros are being poured into subsidising renewables to create a decentralised power generation structure instead of funding infrastructure.

Next steps: 
  • 23 May 2012: German state premiers to hold another energy meeting
  • 2022: Germany to phase out all of its nuclear reactors
EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • There is another element to the puzzle that is not mentioned in the article above. If there is going to be a shortfall in production, then a reduction in demand could also fill that shortfall and the best place to get that reduction is in the buildings sector. Renovation of existing buildings in Germany has the potential to reduce the demand from the building stock by about 80% - an amount that would surely fill the gap referred to in the article above.
    Furthermore, boosting the deep renvoation of buildings will increase jobs, increase economic activity and underwrite economic recovery!

    By :
    Adrian M Joyce
    - Posted on :
    04/05/2012
  • A 'power-gap' is only relative to other nations that continues with nuclear power.

    As nations rid themselves of nuclear, they need to trade together on a mutual MFN basis.

    With Japan and Germany now on the no Nuke path, and with many other nations still on the sidelines, this may be a practical way to the future.

    By :
    Canberra
    - Posted on :
    06/05/2012
  • Let the German nation follow its own (day) dream, as long as the rest of Europe isn't drawn into it. They'll have to face reality sooner or later, when their manufacturing economy starts to scream under the burden of ridiculously high energy costs. As soon as emissions are seen to rise and the jobs start to go, we'll seem a rapid reversal of support for the 'Greens'.

    How can anyone, with a grain of common sense, believe that a rain forest of wind turbines, plastic squares and cables covering Europe from the Med. to the Arctic represents a decent environment for future generations? The sums don't add up.

    Back in the real world, the inevitable global deployment of breeder reactors is likely to happen sooner rather than later.The arithmetic for breeder reactors proves that the technology does exactly what is required, free of greenhouse gas emissions, with ease. Breeder reactors are inherently safe (that means walk-away safe - they shut themselves down according to the laws of physics, even under a common-mode failure, as happened at Fukushima). Breeder reactors work on a closed fuel cycle to 'burn' over 90% of the energy in the fuel as opposed to the 1% burned by the PWRs currently used. Breeder reactors can burn all of the world's plutonium, spent fuel and depleted uranium stockpiles to produce electricity whilst making the 'problem' of nuclear 'waste' disappear. Breeder reactors produce only a tiny fraction of the waste from present day reactors and the radioactivity of that waste decays to background radiation levels in 300 years - easily, cheaply and safely capable of storage.

    Breeder reactors can supply all of the energy (including liquid fuels for transport) to every individual on the planet (at developed world standards) for all of time (from inexhaustible uranium and thorium deposits).

    Watch this video - it's only 20 minutes long and see what you think: http://vimeo.com/35261457

    The only decision we have to make is - will the best choice be LMFBRs or MSBRs: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html+111

    By :
    Colin Megson
    - Posted on :
    06/05/2012
  • The article shows that realities are now surfacing about the German government decision to abandon nuclear power in its territory. It is still not understandable, beyong internal politics arguments, why the German government has decided to close its nuclear power plants (about 10 GW) in 10 years time. Its consequences will be dire, costly (for every MW closed 4 times as much will be needed using renewables),anti-environmental (more coal and gas burning) and will increase its dependence from outside (import of gas and renewables). Will it lead to more safety? It is largely questionable. In Germany, as well as in Europe, nuclear power has been safe through decades. Fukushima has shown new risks. But are they feasable in Europe (tsunamis)? Euractive should continue to report about this issue as it is not only a German matter but also a really European one for the next years ahead.

    By :
    Fernando Fonseca
    - Posted on :
    07/05/2012
  • In the meeting seems to have participated the usual energy producing lobby. Naturally is the production industry interestede to keep their profits. Cutting demand very systemetically with the same amount of financing is normally not an option as that industry is very scattered with mostly small players. Industry and HVAC are using the same amount of money for each object. When prices double the used bought energy will be cut with 50%. There are many comparisons done showing this.

    By :
    Lennart Rolfsman
    - Posted on :
    11/05/2012
Background: 

In May 2011, Germany announced that it would shut all its nuclear reactors by 2022, following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

Eight of Germany's oldest 17 nuclear reactors were permanently shut soon afterwards and another six are slated to be taken offline by 2021.

The remaining three reactors, Germany's newest, will stay open for another year until 2022 as a safety buffer to ensure no disruption to power supply.

Just two months previously, Chancellor Merkel had taken an unpopular decision to extend the life of ageing nuclear stations in Germany. But facing widespread public hostility to the energy source after Fukushima, she back-tracked.

Before the phase-out decision, Germany got 23% of its power from nuclear plants.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Energy Supply News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Energy Supply Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising