Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls(1)

DIW: almost all wrong!

The German economics institute DIW has released a study on nuclear power, the conclusion of which is that nuclear power is expensive and dangerous

This study  is full of various errors and manipulations.

 Historic nuclear competitiveness: "In recent years, new studies have confirmed that nuclear energy is not competitive."

Comment: false, false, and ultra false for historical nuclear. To stay in a Germany, the Fraunhofer Institute showed in 2018 that the energy generated by nuclear power plants was cheaper in Germany than that obtained from coal, lignite and gas and barely more expensive than from biomass..

A key parameter for calculating the cost of energy production is the lifespan of a given source. And of course, DIW has shortened the life of the nuclear reactors, saying that "nuclear power plants are designed to last 30 to 40 years.”

The initial uncertainty about the lifespan of nuclear power plants was due to a precaution resulting from a lack of knowledge about the effects of long-term irradiation. Today, it is clear that these initial fears were premature and the consensus is rather over 60 or even 80 years; especially since nuclear power plants are constantly maintained and large refit-type renovations like French grand carénage allow for a safe extension of life.

By comparison, the lifespan of wind farms is only 20 to 30 years, and much less for marine wind farms. According to an OECD report, the median cost of electricity generated during the life of an electricity producer is $53/MWh for a nuclear power plant and $175/MWh for an offshore wind farm. !

And if nuclear was not so interesting, why then do the so-called alternative suppliers of french EDF rush to ARENH (regulated access to historic nuclear) and demand more and more?

 (cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/06/pourquoi-les-tarifs-edf-augmentent_26.html)

Competitiveness of the new nuclear :  "Additional investments in nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident will be made in a new economic environment that could affect their level of profitability."

Comment: Oh yes, really? In Germany, the government takes more than 20 billion euros from the pockets of citizens each year to allocate to the renewable energy sector. According to Peter Altmeier, German Economy Minister, total support for energy Germany reaches 680 billion euros. This amount enough to build 61 nuclear power plants of Olkiluoto-3  type(EPR), despite all the slippages and difficulties of this second prototype of the EPR

Dear German friends, you better think! (sur l’intérêt de l’EPR, cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/01/un-nucleaire-nouveau-est-necessaire.html)

In addition, the experts in the DIW report made a series of biased errors, notably neglecting the quality of the energy (fatal or controllable, it's not the same!), failed to translate the installed capacity into the amount of energy actually generated and ignored external costs, such as not at all negligible costs of network extension and management, which are high when operating dispersed and intermittent sources !!

Decarbonised energy or not? "There is still no reason for the private economy to invest in commercial nuclear energy today"

Comment: yes, especially if you  do not want to fight global warming and do not put in place a carbon tax essential and adapted for this purpose!

The imposition of meaningful taxes on CO2 emissions makes nuclear competitive with coal-fired production in all fuel price scenarios and with CCGT technology (combined cycle power plant, the top of the gas) when gas prices are at moderate or high levels. At a price of $25 per tonne of CO2, in a moderate coal price scenario, nuclear would be competitive with coal. With a higher royalty of $50 per tonne of CO2, nuclear costs less than gas in moderate and high gas price scenarios.

However, the carbon credits generated by the Kyoto Protocol are no longer available and manufacturers have now exhausted their total quota. According to a carbon tracker study, the price of carbon could reach between 35 and 40 euros per ton over the next five years and this is far from enough if we are to meet our climate targets.

The Quinet report of France Strategy (Feb 2019) estimated the necessary value of CO2 at 250 euros/tonne of CO2 in 2030. Realistic, the authors do not ask for a carbon tax of 250 euros by this time, but their study means this: "Any action to reduce emissions that cost less than 250 euros/tonne of CO2 makes sense for the community and must therefore be undertaken »

So priviledge nuclear power over gas, and of course, coal. Which is the exact opposite of what Germany is doing with its Energiewende !

And the DIW study has a meaning that we would do well to understand: Germany will fight like a bulldog to avoid the increase in the CO2 tax and to deter nuclear financing, which it has beautifully succeeded in bringing out the taxonomy of green funding proposed by the EU.

We are warned: Germany is determined to continue to behave like a climate criminal!

Acceptance of nuclear power: "The main determinants of the future operation of existing nuclear power plants and investments in new nuclear power plants remain economic considerations, safety considerations energy, environmental considerations and public acceptance"

Comment: Having grossly falsified the figures on economic considerations, not being able to say anything about energy security (if it is security of supply, the US and Russia are fighting fiercely about who Europe will be vassal for gas, about  safety at all, . WHO estimates, globally, that nuclear has spared 3.8 million premature deaths from carbon pollution

And there, surprise: "researchers are surprised that the public's acceptance of atomic energy has not been more shaken by the Fukushima accident." It was expected that countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Japan would be significantly affected in their support for nuclear energy. In practice, these forecasts have been proven for Germany alone, with the German Parliament declaring its intention to close nuclear power plants by 2022. Meanwhile, Japan is gradually restarting nuclear power plants that closed after 2011, while Switzerland allows its existing reactors to remain in operation. Not to mention nuclear investments in China, Russia, India or Saudi Arabia ...

Climate: and now the big big lie! : "Nuclear energy is not an option for a climate-friendly energy mix."

Comment: Well, precisey !, nuclear energy is much better than wind or solar that’s has to be necessarily backed by an equivalent power either gas or, much worse, coal, or, much worse than worse, lignite, as our dear friends have done in Germany ; this is what emerges from the IPCC's latest climate report of October 2018, for which keeping global warming below 1.5°C requires a sharp increase in nuclear energy production.

 (cf.; https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2018/10/le-nucleaire-seul-espoir-pour-sauver-le.html)

In summary: dishonest selectivity of sources, omission of any study contrary to the position of the German government (and even the IPCC documents), erroneous conclusions of the analyses cited, cost-effectiveness analysis of nuclear completely and deliberately falsified,  the DIW report is clearly biased, written to support the German government's thesis that it is necessary to move away quickly from nuclear energy. 

The fact that such an unreliable study, a shameless propaganda tool, is taken up without criticism by some media is just another example of Fake Science and manipulation in the energy sector.

Germany is determined to do everything it can to continue to behave like a climate criminal!

And after all, crime against humanity is a local specialty !

 On this subject, see also

https://www.energetyka24.com/germany-misinforms-about-the-nuclear-energy-diws-report-under-criticism-analysis