The market
There are 442 operational nuclear power plants in 30 countries producing 375 GW of energy. There are 16 countries that build 65 nuclear power plants for an additional 63 GW. China builds 27 new factories, Russia 11. The United States has 104 nuclear energy producers, far ahead of France (58) and Japan (48 if it is taken into account of the old central Fukushima). Some 212 power stations are over 30 years old and, although there are no absolute scientific data over the safe operating time of these nuclear centers, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel paved the way by ordering the final closure of all plants over 30 years old. The European Union operated 143 factories in 2010, against 177 in 1989, record year. The relative nuclear decline had been engraved in marble long before the Fukushima disaster. Lithuania and Italy have decided to completely withdraw from nuclear, while Finland deplores that the installation of 1.6 GW built by the French (Areva) and German (Siemens) industries is now 5 years late and a Costs of +70 %. Only delays impose an additional annual bill of 1.3 billion euros on consumers, without taking into account the increase in capital costs. The last center commanded by Georgia Power in 2010 is estimated at $ 17 billion. The cost of investment per kilowatt hour (KWH) before March 11, 2011 was estimated at $ 7,000. However, additional security measures that will be imposed are likely to increase the cost to $ 10,000 per kWh. The new nuclear power plants are said to be able to provide basic energy to 5.9 cents per kWh. The real cost - strip nuclear from all its subsidies, its advantages in amortization, insurance protection, financial support and waste elimination - is closer to 25 or even 30 cents kWh. Not only does nuclear energy benefit from a limited liability covered by the company, but in addition, nuclear is not competitive. It is therefore not surprising that by despite massive subsidies and legal protection, in 2010, the installed capacity for renewable energies, covering only wind (193 GW), energy waste (65 GW), Hydroelectricity (80 GW) and solar (43 GW) has overall exceeded nuclear (375 GW), long before the disaster trilogy demonstrates the impossible. Now that the banks of the Pacific and the Indian Ocean have been prohibited for any new nuclear energy project, will the question how will the world manage to produce renewable and affordable energy?
Innovation
The blue economy offers us to use what we have and to study the competitiveness of each innovation without delay of subsidies. If, in the end, the subsidies offered do not matter, the key is to succeed in the decisive test: are there renewable energy solutions which are really affordable? In recent months, I have presented a technology portfolio as part of the Blue Economy Innovations program. These breakthroughs have not received much attention probably because they require complex know-how. However, if they are deployed in a cluster, these few sources of heat and electricity will redraw and strengthen the current landscape of renewable energies. The three innovations are: a) Vertical wind turbines placed within existing high voltage transmission pylons (Case 11), b) The redevelopment of existing municipal wastewater treatment installations to combine water treatment With municipal organic solid waste in order to produce biogas (case 51), and c) combined production of heat and electricity with double -sided photovoltaic panels placed in a recycled container and equipped with optical monitoring devices thus eliminating all parts Mobiles (case 53). If we seriously want to start a renewable energy strategy without warning against the incalculable risks linked to nuclear, we must go beyond the current combination of solar, wind, hydraulic and waste energy and waste . While these four energies have been spearheading renewable energies in the past three decades, we must seize additional opportunities that are immediate and cheaper. This is where a creative approach to the use of existing installations (treatment facilities for municipal wastewater, electric pylons) comes into play. Let's examine the figures together. If Germany completed 500 of its 9,600 municipal wastewater treatment installations with high-performance biogas generators based on Scandinavian know-how in terms of biogas compared to ULSAN, Korea, the potential basic offer could Aput 5 GW at a total investment cost estimated at 10 billion €. These investments are approximately 5 times lower than those of nuclear and the time between the decision and the commissioning of electricity is limited to two years compared to a decade, or five times more, which offers a well best. Biogaz has a safe and predictable production - no one doubts that organic waste and wastewater will be permanently available - and therefore ensures the stability of the network. In addition, if Germany could install inside a third of its 150,000 high power transmission masts of the vertical turbines designed by Wind-It (France), it could produce 5 additional GW, for about a tenth of the cost of nuclear, or 5 billion euros in total. There are 1,900 discharges in Germany. If only 20 to 200 hectares of these unused parts of discharges were covered by the heat and electricity generators combined with Solarus AB (Sweden) who produce 1,830 kWt and 1,360 kwe per hectare equipped with 2,000 units (100 rows of 20), then the potential energy supply increases with 5.44 GWE and 7.32 GWT additional. The heat can be used to reduce the greatest consumption of household electricity: warming water. If the lifespan of these panels was greater than 20 years, then the cost per kWh is less than a penny!
The first cash flow
Daily electricity demand in Germany is around 70 GWh with 80 GWh tips. Nuclear energy represents +20 %, or about 15 GWh. The above calculations indicate that even with only a fraction of the productive use of the existing infrastructure, it is possible to replace all nuclear power plants (5+5+5.4 GW). However, comparative analyzes indicate that the cost of production of these three energy sources is less than or equal to 2 cents per kWh. The current cost of transfer from nuclear to the network in Germany is 5.6 cents per kWh. At such a low cost, funding poses no problem and taking into account the speed with which these systems can be installed, nuclear stoppages in the next 3 years, provided you involve decision -makers premises in charge of exploitation of discharges and the management of municipal wastewater. The unions are all in favor.
The opportunity
The obvious additional advantage is the creation of jobs. And the three technologies selected are only some of the many possible breakthroughs. Imagine that all railroads and highways are equipped with Wind-IT technology? Imagine that all the wastewater treatment facilities for large industrial food processing companies have adopted a biogas strategy? Imagine that half of the German households replace the electric heating of the water with solar water heater in Thermosiphon, reducing their consumption by 15 %? Germany, which is already a world leader in the export of green technologies, could even position itself as the world's largest exporter of green energy, by strengthening its sector of metals, machines and renewable energies which is based on a Solid fabric of medium -sized companies. However, the most powerful change in the design of an output strategy for nuclear is that the price difference between 2 and 5.6 cents (3.6 cents per kWh) for the 15 gw nuclear to replace S ' Accumulates each year to reach around 4.7 billion euros. This cash flow, generated by the system thanks to possible efficiency gains by intelligently exploiting an infrastructure available with simple technologies, could be sufficient to finance the exit from nuclear and ensure the financing of additional capital needs over a period of 10 years. Now that it seems that liquidity are available, a consensus could emerge, according to which companies in the energy sector and communities having a strong exposure to investments in nuclear energy could benefit from an exit based on the Net updated value of their assets - and in fact obtain a pre -established payment for the cessation of nuclear operations. And if the forced closure of the oldest power plants has already dropped their value from 20 to 25 % and if current uncertainty is likely to exert additional drop on their shares (TEPCO - the owner of nuclear power plants Fukushima has already lost 75 % of its market capitalization), it would not be difficult for financial engineers to find a global solution that would allow you to get out of nuclear in a win-win strategy, simply by increasing the benefits for all, thus reducing the Risks, by turning to innovations that are mature for an application. Subsequently, Germany could even become the global financial hub by funding the exit from nuclear power on the basis of consensus and cash flows. This is the ultimate objective of the blue economy: meeting everyone's basic needs with what we have, offering the necessary products and services that are good for your health and the environment at a lower cost, while constituting a share capital. It seems that we see how it can be done - faster than we have never thought.
