An energy turnaround without subsidies is possible by 2020

Rate this post

The phasing out of nuclear energy by 2020 is only feasible and financeable by using renewable energy. 

1312993729 An energy turnaround without subsidies is possible by 2020 We Blue

ZERI: an energy turnaround without the aid of subsidies is possible by 2020.

(Berlin, 13th May2011). The phasing out of nuclear energy by 2020 is only feasible and financeable by the use of renewable energy. So is shown in an innovative scenario from the Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives (ZERI). Prof. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker supports the model: “Through the intelligent combination of existing technologies the energy turnaround can succeed by social consensus, and with financial gains”.

“The expansion of renewables will be economically successful, when we use existing technologies and material cycles in the established infrastructure” explains Gunter Pauli, founder and chairman of the ZERI Foundation, at the presenatation of this energy scenario in Berlin. The massive expansion of a decentralised, regenerated energy supply will therefore be possible and viable, without triggering social opposition. “I am thrilled with the method” says Prof. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, former President of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. “The intelligent combination of simple energy sources creates synergies and efficiencies”.

With the use of these synergies, electricity can be produced  from renewable energy sources at costs so low, that the funding of the expansion will be unnecessary. The use of innovative technologies for wind, solar and bioenergy is more than a faster and more lucrative way out of nuclear energy: “the phasing out of nuclear energy results in great opportunities to create jobs in Germany and to achieve a worldwide leadership in technology” explains Anne-Kathrin Kuhlemann, director of ZERI Germany (ltd?)

Gunter Pauli´s scenario is based on three, already proved, technologies:

1.    Windpower without plant construction: vertical wind turbines that are installed in existing pylons make the construction of additional wind farms unnecessary. If one third of the 150,000 pylons in Germany were equipped with vertical turbines, up to 5 gigawatts could be provided. The cost amounts to about 5 billion euro.

2.    Biogas efficiently and as storage: Biogas generators enables the efficient extraction of biogas through a combination of agricultural waste and sewage sludge. If 500 of Germany´s 9,600 sewage treatment plants equipped with this, 5 gigawatts of electricity could be provided to the basic energy supply, with total investment costs of roughly 10 billion euro.

3.    Solar Energy without Subsidies: The third technology is a combined electricity and heat production through double-sided Photovoltaic panels. With a lifespan of over 20 years the costs per kilowatt hour are below one cent. The investment for a targeted capacity of 5.4 gigawatts is around 10 billion euro.

Through the combination of these three technologies it will be possible to produce energy at a cost considerably lower than by nuclear energy at present. With a price difference of 3.6 cent per kilowatt hour there exists-from replacing 15 gigawatts from nuclear energy-a saving of 4.7 billion euro per annum. Calculated on a running time of eight years, investments amount to around 25 billion euro in savings, compared to the amount of 38 billion euro. Through these savings, the capital requirements for the necessary investments should be covered, and in this way finance Germany´s phasing-out of nuclear power.

1 reply
  1. CoCreatr
    CoCreatr says:

    4 years on the way, it makes economic sense, even in the USA, the Rocky Mountain Institute finds. “In the face of rising retail prices for grid electricity, investing in solar-plus-battery systems can insulate grid-connected customers from those increasing prices and effectively lock in a peak price that won’t continue to climb, according to a recent analysis by RMI. The result for customers across diverse geographies will be substantial savings relative to what they would have paid for a full-fare utility bill. For utilities and regulators this will be challenging—and present an opportunity. ”


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply