If Germany can phase out nuclear power and still thrive, why would other nations pursue a uranium-fuelled future?
AT THE start of this year Germany officially entered the Dark Ages again at least according to its state weather service. A mere 22.5 hours of sunshine were recorded in January a 60-year low. Despite this, the country's power supply, which has a world leading input from solar panels, firmly stood its ground, even without the eight nuclear reactors that were switched off in 2011.
There was sufficient energy for charging smartphones, running dishwashers and the like and enough for slightly more essential things such as industry or life-support systems in hospitals. And people in need of a fake tan could easily get one.
Such good news probably did not go down well with the pro-nuclear lobby. Grim and cold spells of this type had been their favourite doomsday scenario. Talk of a Stromlücke, or electricity gap, made headlines after the 2011 decision to shut nearly half of Germany's 17 reactors in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster.
The fear ran rampant that, without a nuclear backbone, blackouts might push German industry out of business or at least out of the country.
This proved groundless. Despite the reactor switch-offs, Germany was able to help nuclear neighbour France as she struggled to meet electric heating needs in the winter immediately after Fukushima. According to recent figures released by the Federal Statistical Office, German electricity exports in 2012 hit a four-year high, which also rebuts the popular fallacy that the country relies on imported electricity from nuclear plants in France or the Czech Republic.
When a highly industrialised country such as Germany can cut a third of its nuclear capacity almost at the flick of a switch and still export more electricity than it imports, the pursuit of a nuclear renaissance elsewhere is puzzling. For example, the UK recently agreed to a new nuclear plant, Hinkley Point C, in Somerset and work began on reactors in South Carolina and Georgia in the US.
Why would anyone choose to reinvest in a form of power that seems not to have been harnessed properly? At Chernobyl and Fukushima the world had two very close shaves. Not a very impressive safety record for a technology that has been pampered with billions of dollars of investment over 60 years.
Nuclear power incurs risks and costs beyond the operation of its reactors: getting uranium out of the ground devastates the ecology of countries that mine it. Then there is the risk of nuclear proliferation and of terrorist attacks on a reactor site. Finally, Germany and many other countries have no facility for the final storage of nuclear waste. That's a bit like taking off in an aeroplane without having a proper landing strip ready.
Fortunately, there are far better alternatives. In 2010 my agency devised a study which showed how Germany could source all of its electric energy from sun, wind or water. Now the Energiewende, or energy transition, the country needs to make is high on the political agenda and gathering pace quickly. Remaining nuclear power stations will be shut by 2022 and fossil-fuel dependence reduced bit by bit.
Some fear carbon emissions will rise. However, Germany is still way ahead of its Kyoto target. In 2012 emissions were already down 25.5 per cent compared to 1990 levels. Under Kyoto only 21 per cent is expected.
One of the most pressing challenges of a 100 per cent renewable world is how best to use energy sources that by their very nature do not run constantly. Your average German wind turbine operates for 1600 hours of the year. Equally, there are times when wind turbines or solar panels produce too much electricity. How to store this excess? This can be done conventionally by pumping water to fill a reservoir during the day, and using it to produce hydroelectric power at night.
More sophisticated is power-to-gas: carbon dioxide and water are combined in a series of steps to produce methane. Renewables will supply the electricity and the methane can be fed into the gas network to heat homes, fuel cars or generate electricity. The technology has yet to mature. But firms such as Audi are trying to get it off the ground commercially.
Another challenge is to transport power from the wind-rich north to the more populous southern and central Germany. That will mean building hundreds of kilometres of new power lines. Opposition is predicted. But this could be tackled by offering locals a financial share in mid-scale, private solar power installations or wind farms.
A quick word on prices: the financial support for renewables has taken some flak. Critics argue that ladling out money for solar panels has overheated the market and created too much capacity at too high a price. But this can be dealt with. Cuts to payments to panel owners for the electricity they generate, the feed-in tariff, have been made, more will follow. To put things in perspective: under the present system the average German is expected to pay 5 a month towards the feed-in tariff. This is a sound investment in clean technology, protecting us from the spiralling prices of conventional energy.
In a recent study we showed that in 2030, renewable electricity on average will cost 7.6 cents per kilowatt hour; electricity from gas or coal-fired power plants will probably be 9 cents. Onshore wind turbines already match prices of some fossil fuels.
Critics of the Energiewende have argued that it was a knee-jerk reaction after Fukushima. In fact, it was a very rational decision that ended a long and emotional debate over energy policy.
We in Germany are not missionaries for this approach. Everybody is free to ignore the facts. Put simply, nuclear power is unsafe and fossil fuels are not a long-term option because of climate change.
