As Japan’s new prime minister took office today with a view toward reversing the nuclear ban that the previous government sought, it doesn’t take too much mental latitude to wonder whether the other country well known for its nuclear abolition might also reconsider.
I’m talking of course about Germany, which in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear meltdowns announced it would close all 17 of its nuclear power stations by 2022.
The decision has thus far cost the country dearly environmentally, as Germany, like Japan, has had to increase the percentage of electricity it generates from CO2-emitting fossil fuels.
And then there are the financial costs of Germany’s longer term, ambitious push toward renewable energy.
We already knew that solar and wind farms do not come for free, and that the German consumer is looking at hefty rate hikes to help pay for them.
ON THE LINE
But news began emerging earlier this month of an extra bill: €42.5 billion ($56 billion) to upgrade Germany’s electricity grid so that it can handle the unique requirements thrown at it by renewables.
That’s according to the country’s own state-owned energy agency, Dena, as reported by Bloomberg.
The costs would cover new lines that carry power extra distances from the new locations of wind and solar installations. It would also cover equipment and processes to help prevent grid overloads that can happen when intermittent solar and wind spike high.
“We will be able to consume the electricity from decentralized renewable generators only if we expand the grid infrastructure accordingly,” Dena head Stephan Kohler said.
A Dena study estimated that Germany would have to build 120,000 miles of new lines, and upgrade 15,500 miles of existing ones if the country were to expand the share of renewables from 26 percent today to 82 percent by 2030, as targeted,
The cost would be €42.5 ($36.4 billion) if Germany were to settle for a 62 percent renewable mix, Dena calculated.
Opposition Green Party member Oliver Krischer told Bloomberg that Dena’s observation is misleading because the costs reflect neglect in the power grid over the last decade, and are not tied to a shift to renewables per se.
Photo from Siemens.