Vegans & omnivores: Let's unite against CAFOs! 
The latest battle in the nonexistent 'War on Cars' 
Obama admin announces massive coal expansion 
still nuclear power, but the reactor is 93 million miles away
Germany's solar panels produce more power than Japan's entire Fukushima complex 50
Germany is the world leader in installed solar photovoltaic panels -- and they also just shut down seven of their oldest nuclear reactors. Coincidence? Maaaaybe ... Anyway, it's worth noting that just today, total power output of Germany's installed solar PV panels hit 12.1 GW -- greater than the total power output (10 GW) of Japan's entire 6-reactor nuclear power plant.
Now before the trolls come out, let me just note that 12.1 GW is max power (the output whose name you'd love to touch). The panels generated that much at one instant in time -- when the sun was at its apex -- but of course solar power production varies with the weather and the time of day. To find out how much energy those panels generated today in total, you'd have to calculate the area under that curve in the lower right hand corner. (Which, come to think of it, we should probably use as the CAPTCHA on the comment field on this post.)
Regardless, Japan's facing rolling blackouts until next Winter, and it's undeniable that if the country had more distributed power generation like Germany's roof-based solar PV system, the entire country would be much more resilient in the face of catastrophe.
Read more:
"Performance of Photovoltaics (PV) in Germany," SMA Solar Technology
"Energy impacts after Fukushima," The Energy Collective
"German solar output hit 10.6 GW peak Sunday," Climate Progress
Related Stories
Louisiana's new oil plague sounds tasty, is terrifying 3 
Hans Rosling at TED: Civilization depends on washing machines 1 
Tallest skyscraper in U.S. to become vertical solar farm 11
Related Stories
New eco-friendly fertilizer: Plant farts Afghan-produced biofuels could be one good thing to come out of the war 2
Cats and wind turbines vie for the title of 'biggest avian menace' 12 
Jerks™ trademark the idea of 'urban homesteading' 15
Most Popular Posts
- Viewed
- Commented
-
Introducing ... the Vegan/Omnivore Alliance against Animal Factories 
Bingaman tells the truth about gas prices, is lonely in doing so 
Germany's solar panels produce more power than Japan's entire Fukushima complex 
The latest battle in the nonexistent 'War on Cars' 
Obama administration announces massive coal mining expansion
![Dairy cows frolic in meadow to celebrate spring [VIDEO] image](/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/cows_dance.png&w=50&h=50&zc=C&q=100)
Recent Comments
Comments
Post a Comment +
Yes. Renewable Energy sources like Solar, Wind,Biomass are decentralised ones and will help to supplement conventional energy in times of catastrophe.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Yes. Renewable Energy sources like Solar, Wind,Biomass are decentralised ones and will help to supplement conventional energy in times of catastrophe.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
You should notice that Fukushima Daiichi plant produces only 10% (another 10% by Daini plant) of the national nuclear energy, which accounts for 24% of the national electricity usage. It means Fukushima Daiichi plant, with only 380km², provides 2.4% of the entire electricity usage in Japan. Whereas the entire solar energy produced in Germany, with 357,021km² of land, can only account for the amount of energy similar to this 2.4% of the national electricity usage in Japan. No wonder why Germany has been importing electricity from France, a country that produces 70% of its electricity in the nuclear plants.
The problem of blackouts in Kanto area is not caused by the troubles in nuclear plants alone. Other types of electricity generating plants have been similarly affected by the earthquake and tsunami. The electricity generating capacity of TEPCO (the company that provides electricity in Kanto area) is now 50% lower. That's why we are experiencing "rolling blackouts". Yes, solar panels might be of help, but not a solution for this scale of disaster.
@km1982 The real question is how many billions the Fukushima plant will soak up over all its years of construction, operation and now cleanup. Just because renewables are *in their infancy compared to conventional sources* doesn't mean we can't build lots more of them. And if they're cheaper than e.g. nukes, it's a no-brainer.
@Christopher Mims Before we get to enthusiastic, let's bear in mind the simple thermodynamics of renewable energy systems. You only get a certain amount of the source - period. For example, you may only get a couple of kilowatt hours per square meter for solar. And price can be computed a variety of ways. I think that an assessment of $/kWhr should be considered carefully, along with a full lifetime or life-cycle cost for the technology.
Moreover, to be sustainable, a energy extraction technology must be capable of self-replication plus surplus power production, otherwise it makes little sense to build it.
@Christopher Mims Well, if "the real question" lies elsewhere than your article, you should have discussed that in stead of comparing just electricity generation, don't you think? If you have calculated the cost of putting solar panels in the scale of replacing nuclear plants, it would be interesting to hear.
@km1982 I was hoping you'd do the research. :)
@Christopher Mims What a lazy science writer... and unfounded assumptions... no wonder why solar panel is not replacing nuclear plants.
@Christopher Mims
Sure do I get my own blog on Grist?
@km1982
Solar panels will replace lots of things, like windmills, if locally installed, but not nuclear. Sun goes up, sun goes down, clouds come over, clouds go away, safe nuclear just keeps on rollin' along.
@Daniel Coffey
Dan's right and Mims is not the word.
Chris, I've liked what you've written for some time but I registered just so I could say this:
Max Power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w3zdkmw2E4&feature=related
we could totally be bff's.
@Trickatrog Thanks, but I can't take credit for it: That reference is entirely due to my editor, Jess Zimmerman. http://www.grist.org/people/Jess+Zimmerman
@Christopher Mims
please tell her I love her and want to have her babies
I am from Germany, and I have the urge to add something:
The nuclear reactors that have been shut down recently were only shut down for 3 months, for review. Incidentally, a while ago, the government decided on a dramatic lifetime extension for the nuclear plants in Germany, causing an uproar among those opposing nuclear power. Now, with Fukushima, the same government decided to pause this lifetime extension for 3 months in order to review the nuclear reactors first. (Why they didn't review the old and crumbling reactors before their initial decision in the first place is beyond me.) Mind, this is the same government who decided on the lifetime extension. Credibilitiy of said government now is severely reduced.
About the solar panels: There was a huge government incentive program for getting solar panels. They were not exactly free, but came at a very fair price. Now, since quite a few financial issues are at hand, the government decided on cancelling / severly reducing the incentives for that solar panel program. Meaning the government is not really environmentally friendly, pushing nuclear and reducing solar.
At the moment, there's a bit of another issue at hand as well, it's about the NorGer sea cable. The idea is to link Germany and Norway with a electricity cable. Surplus energy from Germany could be used in Norway to pump up water back up into dams, surplus energy from Norway in Germany. But Norway has so much water that there will be always a surplus from Norway, they say about 60 nuclear plants could be shut off with the power from Norway. Germany has 37 active nuclear plants, afaik. This program is being prevented with legal trickery (like "a cable is not a power plant, therefore the whole legislation for power plants is not appliable for the cable"), my personal guess is that the government is officially not willing to depend on other countries for energy, inofficially in bed with the energy industry. This is a video about how the NorGer is prevented by legislation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsI7_W8QuLU&hd=1 (completely in German, unfortunately. But there are some impressions and artworks.)
I'm happy for the good news about the solar panels. But I fear our government is not as green as it may be your impression.
(I am sure there are sources in english for everything I said somewhere)
PS: Some of the old reactors will stay switched off, true. But not enough. ...read more
@Julian Reischl
I read in the online Spielgel newspaper that although many applauded the effort to put older nukes under review was a good thing, some experts wonder about possible "major disruptions" in transmission throughout the country if such a moratorium is made permanent, and demand shifted as units are taken down for maintenance. All sources of electricity have down times, from coal to renewables to the nukes. You can't generate electricity 24/7 for 365 days a year, no matter what source. Even geothermal units (if they worked) have to go offline for cleaning, inspection, maintenance, repairs, annual upgrades, and so forth.
Now let us consider nominal or nameplate power versus "what is really working." At Japan's Daiichi plant of six units, several were already taken off-line a while ago. Indeed, some of the older German nukes might be in the same idled situation, although I am not privy to that information.
But let us also consider that our power transmission systems are extremely fragile as well, so loss of potential capacity anywhere can have a ripple effect throughout the entire network. You can only squeeze so much power through the electrical cables! Above that limit, the system "trips" and blows out massive fuses (often with quite a boom and bang). A cascading "trip" situation can cause even perfectly good power generators to have to go off-line because the wires are blown ... so massive blackouts and brown-outs can become more common even if you're talking a few percent here and there.
Unfortunately, this condition can even happen to "smart grids." It will just be smarter about turning off your electricity. ...read more
@Julian Reischl
A German with an urge! You are right and its good to hear from an environmentalist who looks hard at the problem. There should not be one source of power for Germany or any country. Multiple sources make the most sense. All sources should be as close to carbon free as is possible.
My question is why isn't there a EU power system with shared resources across the continent. The power from Norway (I'm sure happy to sell to the EU) would pass through Sweden then go to Poland and be distributed from there to reduce dependency on Russia oil and natural gas across the EU. This path follows he most maintainable route and permits the use of HVDC both above ground and underground/undersea.
Here in the states we hear a lot about harmonization. Recently we have been asked to give up our rights under patent law to harmonize with (mainly) Europe. Yet Europe can't even harmonize its own power system and standards? Give me a break!
@Clifford Wells You're absolutely right, I guess. It would be close to impossible to shut down all nuclear plants at once, also importing all energy from Norway is a bottleneck, too. What I wanted to express was my anger with this opportunistic government's "exit from the exit" of nuclear energy (I should have written that years ago, under the last government, they decided on an exit strategy from nukes, which this government has revoked, and is now - in the light of the catastrophe in Japan - re-evaluating the exit strategy. An exit from the exit from the exit, so to say...). It's a crazy stop-go-stop course the gvt is doing, and all points to them deciding on voter's favor, not on reason. Which sucks...
@attoman I'm very happy that the EU came into existence at all, but it's still a major national bickering everywhere. The Euro is great, because I don't need four different currencies when I travel to, say, Ireland, or even when I go skiing to Austria, which is an hour's drive from here. But not all EU countries participate in the Euro (like Norway, the UK or Denmark), and all other issues are equally dificult, if not more difficult.
The reason - I guess - is that the Europe decisions are done in Brussels, where "lesser" politicians represent their respective countries. The national governemnts are in the capitals, and they wage a constant battle of keeping a good image and not bowing to a higher power against Brussels. Which I think is stupid. As you said, so many things could be so much easier, like lorry toll (which is nationalized, meaning every country has its own effing system, vouchers, counters and stuff) or train connections or billions of other things. It's actually nothing more than a pissing contest, ridiculous to me.
In the video I linked they promote a sea cable passing by Denmark in the west, thus not going through Sweden and Poland, and connecting Norway and Germany directly. I actually don't really care how they do it as long as they do something else than burn off fossils or use nuclear power.
There's a lot of resistance against "green" energy here in Bavaria (and Austria), too, as a solar farm or a wind turbine farm would disturb the picturesque landscape (it is picturesque here, admittedly) and dams would severely change the look of the alps, too. I am ambivalent on the question, because to quench the world's thirst for energy, something must be done.
What I personally don't get is why Europe as a whole doesn't team up with the north African countries to use (practically unending and totally reliable) solar power from the Sahara desert, and as a side effect helping the economy of those countries, too. Well, now with all those changes happening all over north Africa at the moment, we might see that in the future.
But again, you're right, it can't all be bet on one horse alone. I wish there was a simple and obvious answer to all this...
(In German, we use the german word for "felt" (Filz) to describe all the policital sleaze that's interconnected so heavily. Just like the fibers in felt, which also cannot be untwined...) ...read more
Unfortunately, this is erroneous. Solar PV at absolute maximum, with 100% efficient cells, can generate only 3MW/acre. A standard nuclear (LWR) plant generates 50 times that, and does it 24/7. Solar nets about 1/4 its specified max per day. And, weather extremely impacts solar output, which is why Germany, even covering all its farm land, can't rely on solar's present 1/1000 of nuclear's output. Then, there's the absurd land sacrifice for massed PV arrays.
There are 3 pieces of an overall energy solution: efficiency (we waste >50% of generation today); local solar (distributed generation on existing structures); and safe nuclear power (developed 40 years ago by US ORNL and allowed to languish). The Chinese are now taking all our work and running with it (thank goodness they're not dummies too)...
http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/#comments
www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
Anyone interested in why the Chinese are interested...
http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd and http://tinyurl.com/yb2qgex
For an interesting read of how we've indeed been nuclear dummies for decades...
http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/CivilianNuclearPower.pdf and http://tinyurl.com/ye6leml
We currently consume energy worldwide at the rate of what 50,000 Olympians can generate working 24/7 as hard as they can, per capita. Yes, each of us has 50,000 energy-producing slaves. And, we don't feed them (OMG, what if we had to?). So we should then grasp how foolish we've been in not addressing energy waste as well as safe generation. Burning 3 cubic miles of oil each year is something our scientists knew was unsustainable before most of us here were born. And, before oil, Arrhenius warned in 1896 & 1905 that burning coal would be problematic around 3000AD (despite being a Nobellist & the father of industrial chemistry, he didn't know we'd be even more addicted to oil).
We're so far behind, hundreds of millions around the world will suffer for our ignorance over the next decades. Time to get with it. Efficiency, solar PV on local structures, plus safe nuclear power, solve the problem -- too late for millions, but as the old country saying goes: "There's no substitute for human stupidity". I also like that we create our own problems with our "opposable thumbs and obdurate minds". Best of all is Walt Kelley's Pogo: "I've seen the enemy and he is us".
Feel free to call, if only for your kids & grandkids.
--
Dr. A Cannara
650-400-3071 ...read more
All you would have to do is couple that solar output and use hydrogen as storage and you could completely demolish the baseload argument for renewables.
There is zero reason to use nuclear fusion to boil water to turn a generator to make electricity.
Zero.
@John Bailo
Like any other combustible energy source, hydrogen wastes most of the energy content available by combining with oxygen (yes, hydrogen has no energy by itself) due to basic thermodynamics. And, though H2 + O can yield energy, compressing H2 to usable volume saps at least 20% of the maximum H2 combustion energy of 15kWHr/lb. This, plus H2 production energy and explosive dangers, is why the famed "hydrogen highway" is a myth.
And, modern nuclear reactors don't "boil water". They operate at very high temperatures, often using molten fuel and inert gasses, yielding far higher efficiency that any H2 combustion engine. Facts may help...
https://www.ornl.gov/fhr/documents/FHR_Workshop_Summary.pdf
www.ne.doe.gov/geniv/neGenIV1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
We all like facts, right?
;]
http://tinyurl.com/yb2qgex
http://tinyurl.com/2dq8hzs
@John Bailo
Ahh gee John thanks so much for recognizing the need and supreme value of FUSION (missed that eh Alessandro?). Beyond doubt hydrogen fusion is the best way to use hydrogen to produce energy forever (at least 5 billion years which is long enough).
Later after we've gotten really good at it (making perfect targets that like to implode perfectly) we will see BH fusion that is so safe it can power remote homes, cars, boats, planes, and in spacecraft put us in control of the solar system in a big way..
@attoman
Again, study helps -- fusion has a serious Tritium problem -- it's gone in several years. So fusion folks have yet to address the basic reality of not having quite enough neutrons to both make more Tritium from Lithium and heat a steam or gas blanket to generate power. LLNL is not addressing that, because they're not making a power reactor.
We had a 50-year reunion of the Stanford Plasma Physics group last year and, while we'd agreed in 1961 that fusion was 20 years away, we now agree it's 30.
;]
@DrAlessandro
30 years sure for ITER but not for ICF.
I'm betting that John Nukolls was not consulted in that estimate. We are a few months away from ignition and a 5-8 years away from the commercial first power plant. that is if MS greed does not interfere as they always have with any competitor.
Do people know that the Gates is flogging his idea of a clean fission reactor/ Terrapower?
Yeah, your next generation power brought to you by the genius who created tiny basic (and nothing else technical).
What do you have to say about the Terrapower depleted uranium government subsidy business?
Even with the energy loss, hydrogen-as-a-battery may still end up being the way to get zero carbon energy to power bulldozers, 18 wheelers, dump-trucks, cranes, and possibly airplanes. Too bad about the loss of energy, but nobody said curbing global warming was going to be all easy or cheap.
@christophersj
Actually not. The energy for dissociating Hydrogen is very high and must come from somewhere, perhaps from nuclear heating. Direct electrical transfer is far more efficient. For example, on-board battery/ultra-capacitor storage is becoming very efficient. Add to this the 15% energy recovery from electric braking and it becomes clearer why combustion for vehicles, except aircraft, will be senseless, even mocked (they way we mock flip-phones), in a generation.
@DrAlessandro
I don't care if it is combusted or turned back into electricity on the vehicle itself, but I know Lithium Ions are not going to run an 18 wheeler, a bulldozer, or an airplane with 200 passengers. I'm talking about the eventual problem of getting large vehicles off of natural gas, which many of them are likely to use as a transition fuel. I'm saying, even with inefficiencies, hydrogen tanks may end up being the way to get these giant things to run off of solar, wind, ect. Regardless of whether it's burned or returning to electricity on the vehicle.
I suppose algae biofuels and bio gas are other competitors with this area of need.
My point is that there is a completely separate conversation to be had about large machines and transport that is not the same topic as cars and light trucks and Lithium Ions. (and super conductors would be awesome -- bring it on)
@christophersj
Perhaps you're unaware the the US military is already contracting for electric-drive combat vehicles. Remember, combustion engines waste 2/3 of their fuel's energy. Think about that when filling your tank! So an electric storage system for same need hold but 1/3. And, braking returns another 15% -- the military folks aren't dummies.
Electric drivetrains have always been superior, even Ferrari is about to offer a nice red machine that will go faster than any they've made before, and has a "blast past" button on the dash -- that button doesn't turn on any combustion engine in the car.
;]
Aircraft indeed will stay with petrol for a long time, but mobile storage systems are improving so fast that Lithium ions will be irrelevant quite soon. The best choice for vehicles may well be nano-tech ultra capacitors, which are non-toxic, fully recyclable and are presently used as 1/2 of high-end car batteries to provide efficient, fast bursts of starting power.
When such storage reaches Detroit's price point, you'll love driving a Chevy again.
@DrAlessandro
I think you might be confusing me with somebody who is only interested in ICE's, and also confusing me with someone talking about cars and light trucks. I love electric. I'm getting a plug-in hybrid next year for my own vehicle.
Lithium Ions are not going to run an 18 wheeler from L.A. to Chicago, or a bulldozer for a day of work. But they can be electric. I don't care. I'm saying that the density of storage afforded by compressed hydrogen, as a battery for electricity, may be a choice for these things to run at zero emissions.
@christophersj
If you want to run an 18 wheeler to Chicago best way is the fast fully recovered energy way try www.terraspan.org for serious speed and efficiency. Forget long haul airplanes on this route too slow, too expensive, too polluting.
try the 4 minute 200 mile wonder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKXbx9ssONo
Hello, Chris. Could you please make a comparison of the area of the Fukushima reactor and of the <u>all</u> solar panels in Germany? So you can obtain what area you need to cover with solar panels to obtain the generation capacity of all 54 nuclear power plants of Japan, that contribute with only 30% of the electricity generated in this country.
You've gotta love the pragmatic, can-do attitude of the current German generations. They're building another real industry in a cold, cloudy sun forsaken part of the world and are making the dithering fools and old world energy lobbies of the world discuss the merits or otherwise of future energy sources.
Go the great do-ocarcies of the world.
@digitdave
If you are talking about solar, try again. Its stupid, like building a geothermal plant in the middle of a tectonic plate