What does Germany's no to Nuclear really mean?

Removing one fifth of its power generation facilities is an extraordinary step for Europe’s industrial powerhouse Germany as it pledges to shutdown all its nuclear facilities by 2022.

While the role of nuclear and its building processes have proved controversial and expensive, the technology does supply a large proportion of baseload power to any grid system. The likely outcome of the decision to exit from such a reliable power source will mean the need to replace it with an equally constant type of energy generation. Germany, with an absence of oil, has so far relied on coal-fired power stations as its largest resource, with as much as 50 per cent of its energy demand being met with by this fossil fuel.

The decision to shun nuclear may mean a push towards renewable power sources such as solar and offshore wind. But due to the high levels of intermittency witnessed with both – until energy storage solutions are brought down in price – investment in an alternative, reliable power source seems inevitable.

In theory the fastest, low carbon alternative to providing back up power for the German system would be the construction of more natural gas fired power stations. At a build price of about £800m and a reasonably quick construction time it would appear that the next ten years may see a new dash for gas in Germany.

This may also put even more impetus behind the pressure to build gas pipelines across Europe, with projects such as Nabucco continuing to be high on the energy security agenda.

With German industry gradually coming out of recession, the supply of cheap electricity to power its factories remains vital to such an economic recovery. But with Germany sitting on significant coal reserves, alongside natural gas and offshore wind development, the temptation for the country to expand its carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiative seems compelling.

The major coal player in Germany investing in CCS research and development is Vattenfall, which according to a Reuters report is ‘mulling’ over its flagship project in the east of the country. The German government is also set to develop a legal framework for CCS project development in the coming months.

CCS technology is often described as fledgling, and this is a fair comment. It is not currently a mainstream power solution. However, it must be remembered that the components of the technology are all being used in different places around the world. Piping carbon dioxide (CO²) has, for instance, been taking place for years in North American oil industry.

The technology behind the development of moving CO² in what is termed ‘the dense phase’, that is before it becomes super critical – where a gas under a certain pressure will form a liquid – has been studied and now needs applying to new projects such as Long Gannet in Scotland. Collection and storage of CO² has been commercially proven by Statoil at Sliepner since 1996, where one million tonnes a year have been now been stored in a Saline Aquifer.

Many of these commercial-scale projects do not represent much more than an experiment but with the theory working in practical applications, the main threat to its development appears to be the rising cost of coal-fired power stations and public sentiment to switch to renewables.

It also remains to be seen to see if there is enough geological storage suitable for the housing of such gases. What is clear from the nuclear decision is the power of the green lobby in Germany and its capacity for affecting an extreme policy outcome. Opposition to burning coal in Germany could do for CCS what it has now done for nuclear. Vattenfall and its peers are no doubt watching the space carefully.

http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/cleantech-features/by-technology-f/energy-efficiency-f/what-does-germany%e2%80%99s-no-to-nuclear-really-mean.html