Follow this blog:
RSS

Germany’s $263B renewable energy experiment

By | March 19, 2012, 2:57 PM PDT

German Chancellor Angela Merkel aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors that supply about a fifth of the nation’s electricity with renewable energy — a transformation that will cost billions of dollars and require a penchant for risk.

According to the DIW economic institute in Berlin, the shift from nuclear to renewable energy such as solar and wind will cost upwards of $263 billion, or about 8 percent of the Germany’s gross domestic product in 2011. But this about more than money. Right now, Germany might have reached a political and societal consensus to drop nuclear, but it lacks a clear technological solution, Stephan Reimelt, the CEO of General Electric’s energy unit in the country, told Bloomberg News.

In other words, expect a lot of experimenting with certain technologies — and with that some failures — before Germany finds the right mix of energy sources to meet its post-nuclear needs without increasing its greenhouse gas emissions.

Germany’s energy transformation is already shaking up the power industry, Bloomberg reports. At the end of last year, Germany had 53.8 gigawatts of wind and solar power capacity.  On windy or sunny days, turbines and solar panels flood the power grid with electricity, which erodes the economics of natural gas-fired generators. That has prompted some power suppliers to shutdown gas-fired plants.

Meanwhile, Merkel’s administration is pushing to generate 35 percent of its power from renewable energy by 2020. [It should be noted, that some say the government is sending mixed messages by cutting subsidies for solar energy.]

To achieve those renewable goals, Merkel’s environment minister wants to add 25,000 megawatts of wind power capacity — the equivalent of 25 nuclear power stations — in the North Sea and Baltic Sea by 2030. Right now, there are about 200 megawatts of offshore wind plants in operation.

Wonder what that might look like? Imagine 5,000 turbines, each one reaching more than 300 feet into the air. One turbine would take up some 247 acres. Altogether, their footprint would cover 1,931 square miles — just a smidgen less than the state of Delaware. Grid operators will have to add or upgrade 2,800 miles of high-voltage power lines to connect the turbines with the national power grid, Germany’s economy minister estimated back in January.

What’s perhaps more remarkable is Germany’s plans aren’t as aggressive as other European countries. Sweden, Austria, Spain and Slovenia have promised to add a bigger share of renewables than Germany by the end of the decade. Although it should be noted that those renewable energy goals will likely be mitigated by their richer hydroelectric resources.

[Via: Bloomberg]

Photo illustration by Kirsten Korosec; uses photos from Flickr user Paul J. Everett and zudark, CC 2.0

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Kirsten Korosec

About Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten Korosec is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten Korosec

Contributing Editor

Kirsten Korosec has written for Technology Review, Marketing News, The Hill, BNET and Bloomberg News. She holds a degree from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. She is based in Tucson, Arizona.

Follow her on Twitter.

Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
10
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-2 Votes
+ -
How can wind turbines be green?
The capacity factor of wind turbines is so pathetic that their environmental impact, in terms of the steel, concrete and rare-earth elements used, is massive. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

When does common sense displace the tortuous manoeuvres and intertwined cost calculations of those advocating renewable energy as the solution to the worlds clean energy needs. In one or two decades sustainable breeder reactors will relegate renewables to their low, single figure percentage of energy generation - where they belong. Let's hope those who have to accept that renewables are not the answer, will support Molten Salt Breeder Reactors and not Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors. They will have to opt out of the debate altogether or support one or other of the breeder reactor types.
Posted by Lftrsuk
20th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Use credible sources, not nuke fan blogs
The EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) for wind is far higher the nukes. Solar is also higher than coal, gas and nuclear. See http://oco-carbon.com/2010/05/19/eroei-of-electricity-generation/

Molten salt / fast breeder nukes do not exist which is why no one is building them.

Note: global renewable energy share increased 32% last year. Nuclear power declined 6%. Source IEA.
Posted by Buelo
20th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
MIT Professor not good enough?
What about Professor Per Peterson's efforts? You do know it will be wall to wall breeder reactors soon, don't you? Nuclear - 3.35 tonnes. Wind - 680 tonnes. Now what is the Ratio???
Posted by Lftrsuk
20th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
@ Kirsten Korosec
I can't understand how one wind turbine could "take up 247 acres"? Are you saying that each of these windmills are actually 1.5 times the size of the Pentagon?? Even if you meant to say that the turbines would be placed every 247 acres (which at least is physically plausible), this still makes no sense... why would they be placed that far apart? They wouldn't.

I think you got your numbers wrong, and meant to say that the 5000 turbines would reside on a TOTAL of 247 SQUARE acres, which works out to a roomy 2152 sq. ft per turbine (247 acres=10.7 million sq. feet, divided by 5000= 2152).

Could you clarify this please?
Posted by ddferrari
20th Mar 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
Happy to ...
I'd be happy to clarify. I didn't mean to imply the offshore turbines actually take up 247 acres. Poor word choice on my end. The offshore turbines are often bigger than onshore turbines. But not that large.

However, according to the report each turbine will reside on an average of 247 acres. Combined, their footprint would cover 1,931 square miles (5,000 square kilometers).

A Wind Energy Update report last year noted that spacing between offshore turbines is critical. If they're spaced too closely together, the wake effect reduces their performance.

Of course, it all depends on the size of turbine etc. Cape Wind project, for example, will space its turbines in the Horseshoe Shoal will be 0.34 nautical miles apart (or 0.39 miles).
Posted by kirsten korosec
20th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Thank You!
That makes more sense. I'm no expert on the subject, it just surprises me that each turbine needs to be spaced that far apart to avoid a wake effect. I'm sure that, if completed, it will be an awesome sight to see; such grand scale!

I suppose the only bummer about the spacing is the tremendous amount of wires/cables involved.
Posted by ddferrari
21st Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Footprint nonsense

One turbine would take up some 247 acres. Altogether, their footprint would cover 1,931 square miles...



This is nonsense. The footprint of a wind turbine - including access roads, transformers, etc. - is about 1% of the total area of a wind farm. The land can still be farmed and wildlife can still live happily around them.
Posted by Buelo
Updated - 20th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps, BUT...
The proposed wind farm in this article is offshore- a.k.a. in the water.
Posted by ddferrari
22nd Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Green Power
I cant help wondering how many wind turbines farms can be built before they become unsightly. There are other types of renewable energy devices available, and some not even being allowed to be talked about. It is refreshing to here that wind and solar are becoming accepted, as an alternative to nuclear. I hope that green polices are the future, and that Green energy helps the planet breath.
Posted by Askerape
26th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Experiment is the right word...
...and with the solar subsidies, one part of the experiment already seems to have gone wrong: one after another company is folding, after the public has invested big time. I am commenting this on my blog, always happy about feedback: http://energyingermany.com/2012/11/10/green-energy-subsidies-uk-should-look-to-germany-for-cautionary-tale/

Cheers

Florian
Posted by florianbamberg
10th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!