Slashdot Mirror

Near as I could figure it, Fraunhofer doesn't do coal, they only offer renewables (solar and wind) so it's not relevant. Here's a result from Google showing in chart form the last ten years or so of German electricity production (2005 - 2014):

http://energytransition.de/201...

Over the ten year period shown in the first chart non-carbon-emitting green nuclear production is down, renewable production is up and CO2-emitting coal and lignite production is not changing very much. The lowest production was in 2008 and 2009 during a world-wide recession.

As I said before, the non-carbon nuclear supply (currently about 95 TWh) is going away totally by government diktat in 2023. The projected increase in renewables will probably cover that loss in generating capacity (although renewables aren't a good replacement for baseload generation without lots of expensive storage or backstop fossil-carbon gas CCGT) but it means Germany will be still burning lignite in ten years time at the same rate it does today to keep the lights on. It's either that or freeze in the dark.

Erm ... links from "wordpress"? You know that this is a "blog site"?

Simple fact you seem not to know: in Germany we are dismantling coal plants continuously. Because they can not compete on the market with wind.

If every wind plant needed a coal plant to back it up, we would not do it.

Good luck with your crusade, though ...

Especially your last paragraph is so laughable :D

As a matter of fact: And if you're still not convinced ... which part of I work in that business and know basically everything about it and you don't (neither work nor know anything) did you not get or grasp yet? How do you want to "convince" a surgeon that he is doing his surgery wrong when he in fact is the surgeon and you are, frankly, only: a moron?

The last link ... did you actually read it? I relink it for you: http://energytransition.de/201...

Why are people so dumb, brain dead idiotic, that they google for something, read the first introducing paragraph (which is worded in a rhetorical question phrase) and then post it as proof of their idiotic misunderstandings is beyond me. If you would have had the patience to read that link, I post it again: http://energytransition.de/201... you had figured: wow, angel'o'sphere is right. All what he is saying is plainly written in that article.

Idiot. And please don't blame me: you dug out that link.

Last paragraph, as you are likely not going to read your own link:

Though this option seems the best in terms of technology, it faces a financial challenge: wholesale power prices are now so low on the power exchange that investments in additional generating capacity would not be profitable. Not only are Germanyâ(TM)s four biggest power firms abandoning plans to set up new gas turbines; there have also been rumors that some of the existing turbines might be taken off-line because they are no longer running for enough hours per year.

So, in your words: Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are _not_ needed as backup. Fixed that for you. It is clearly stated in the last link of yours that all the things you claimed in this /. story: are wrong. And you are even to stupid to realize that because you did not read the link but copy/pasted random links you found via google without reading them: IDIOT!

Erm ... links from "wordpress"? You know that this is a "blog site"?

Simple fact you seem not to know: in Germany we are dismantling coal plants continuously. Because they can not compete on the market with wind.

If every wind plant needed a coal plant to back it up, we would not do it.

Good luck with your crusade, though ...

Especially your last paragraph is so laughable :D

As a matter of fact: And if you're still not convinced ... which part of I work in that business and know basically everything about it and you don't (neither work nor know anything) did you not get or grasp yet? How do you want to "convince" a surgeon that he is doing his surgery wrong when he in fact is the surgeon and you are, frankly, only: a moron?

The last link ... did you actually read it? I relink it for you: http://energytransition.de/201...

Why are people so dumb, brain dead idiotic, that they google for something, read the first introducing paragraph (which is worded in a rhetorical question phrase) and then post it as proof of their idiotic misunderstandings is beyond me. If you would have had the patience to read that link, I post it again: http://energytransition.de/201... you had figured: wow, angel'o'sphere is right. All what he is saying is plainly written in that article.

Idiot. And please don't blame me: you dug out that link.

Last paragraph, as you are likely not going to read your own link:

Though this option seems the best in terms of technology, it faces a financial challenge: wholesale power prices are now so low on the power exchange that investments in additional generating capacity would not be profitable. Not only are Germanyâ(TM)s four biggest power firms abandoning plans to set up new gas turbines; there have also been rumors that some of the existing turbines might be taken off-line because they are no longer running for enough hours per year.

So, in your words: Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are _not_ needed as backup. Fixed that for you. It is clearly stated in the last link of yours that all the things you claimed in this /. story: are wrong. And you are even to stupid to realize that because you did not read the link but copy/pasted random links you found via google without reading them: IDIOT!

No.

I'll take even your own example of a unicorn. IF I had only claimed 'a unicorn exists because I say so, but I can't be bothered to provide proof' - much like you do with your arguments - then one would have a point. However, if I link to a scientific paper stating unicorns do exist and why, then, when you still claim it's not true, it's for you to demonstrate the earlier conclusion is false - with counterarguments that are also verifiable. Saying you can't be bothered to read it, or that it's 'old data' doesn't cut it.

So the matter is not your preconceived idea about whether unicorns do or do not exist - which was what you were implying with the use of such an analogy - but whether it can be demonstrated by falsification whether it exists or not.

In the case of the stochastic nature of the weather, I already gave you the definition of stochastic - so no semantic discussion can arise -, I logically argued why the weather conforms to that definition, and I even gave you a link to a scientific paper which confirmed it.

your only answer basically is, that it isn't because you say so. and you can't link to any proof of what you say, because it isn't. that's a tautology. Since the paper claims differently, one can reasonably assume other papers would contradict it, if it were true, as you so vehemently keep insisting that it isn't. Well, then: I merely ask that you provide a link to sites or papers that show the opposite, and confirm your claim. Idem for the 'no need' for backup of gas/coal/oil plants.

And, here, I'll give you some more links that demonstrate the fact that renewables need backup of classical plants, ALSO in Denmark and Germany:

The 'hidden' coal plants are not hidden at all - if you bother to do some basic research before claiming something, that is. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). And of course they also have gas-fired power stations too. For the necessity of Denmark to rely on gasturbines/plants as backup: https://carboncounter.wordpres...
and for Germany: https://www.dissentmagazine.or... and https://www.bcgperspectives.co...

I'll even give the quote:

"Prices in 2023 may therefore be 10 to 20 percent higher than those in 2013. (See Exhibit 8.) Note that this calculation includes all applicable taxes and levies, including a “security of supply component” (hidden today in grid use fees) used to finance the development of sufficient backup capacity to cover peak demand hours that lack sufficient feed-in from renewables."

Note that, while it deals with prices, it mentions the fact that part of it is due to develop sufficient backup capacity. Ergo - let's use logic here - if there WAS NO NEED for backup, they wouldn't need to develop it, nor augment to prices for it. Hence, backup is needed.

And if you're still not convinced: http://energytransition.de/201...

I'll give you the relevant quote yet again:

"Essentially, Germany needs to have a dispatchable installed capacity at the level of its peak demand for the year, which is currently around 80 gigawatts and occurs on winter evenings – when the sun does not shine. A large part of that 80 gigawatts therefore needs to be built as dispatchable gas turbines."

Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are needed as backup. Once again, the conclusion can only be that renewables ARE de facto, in need of backup. And they will always be, until one has developed storage-capacities that can cover long time-spans (several weeks at least). And I hve also already indicated in my first post

http://energytransition.de/201...

Here is another source that says Germans easily pay twice as much as the US, which puts it at 24 cents (or more).

It also says that one of the reasons most Germans can absorb this is that they only consume about 1/3 as much total power as the average American, so the actual bill isn't so bad.

Of course, it also says that the average German home is 1,000 square feet, compared to 2,400 square feet, and air conditioning is standard in the US, where it is rare in Germany.

So you are not going to get the US consumption down to German levels.

It appears that Germans are willing to pay more, and make do with less. That is their choice, but that choice isn't going to work over here.

From what I gather that coal power is coming from existing power stations and not new ones.

http://energytransition.de/201...

You do have to be careful with fertilizer, too much injures the soil's micro-flora which inhibits the crop's ability to absorb essential nutrients and minerals; modern farmers use a crop production service that analyses the soil, considers the crop being planted and applies a custom blended mixture of fertilizer and minerals. Production increases in Europe have been flat, it's hard to tell if this is because of their abhorance of GMO and pesticides, antiquated farming methods or increased bio-mass monoculture, but European soil is losing organic carbon compounds and fertility.

"It would not ... as most CO2 is produced by cars, house heating and industry."
Since renewables only generate electricity we can ignore all none electrical sources as far as nuclear and renewables. Unless you want to count the tiny number of passive solar heating installations.
If you look at this graphic http://energytransition.de/fil...
You will see that France gets around 10% from hydro. You will also see that France still gets some power from coal which is baseload power is is ideal to replace with nuclear. The natural gas is probably split between base load and peaking load. Replacing the base load with nuclear is again a simple matter the peaking is a more difficult issue which is why I suggested that France should convert their hydro from a base load to a peaking source aka as pumped storage. The power stored would come from a combination of both renewables and nuclear.
As to your comment about where the majority of CO2 comes from do you have any sources?
My research shows that home heating in france is more often than not electrical heating. https://www.justlanded.com/eng...

Do you have any real data or just insults?

WRONG.

I'm not going to retype this:

Some renewables are intermittent? Not a problem: Solutions to a 100% renewable and sustainable energy supply worldwide include but are not limited to hydro-electric and pumped hydro, geothermal, solar pv, wave-power, tidal lagoons and other tidal, onshore and off-shore wind in conjunction with better home insulation, heat pumps - ground source and air source, storage heaters, solar water heating, battery storage and charging electric cars whilst renewables output is high. Vehicles, ships and trains can be powered by electricity and hydrogen fuel cells, aircraft could run on liquid hydrogen.

$500 Billion A Year In Fossil Fuel Imports Could Be Saved In US, EU, & China In 100% Switch To Renewables | CleanTechnica

China Government Study Sees 86% Renewables by 2050

New Study: 95% Renewable Power-Mix Cheaper Than Nuclear And Gas | CleanTechnica

The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says

        German grid more stable in 2013 â" German Energy Transition

â- Powering the World With Wind, Water, and Sunlight: Mark Jacobson at TEDxPaloAltoHighSchool - YouTube

The storage necessity myth: how to choreograph high-renewables electricity systems - YouTube

http://energytransition.de/201...

That part of the world has a very high standard of reliability for their power grid, things like a UPS are al but unknown.
Another big factor is that except for the large trunk lines everything is underground making it far more reliable than the US system of stringing wires to dead trees.

http://energytransition.de/201...

You are ignoring the fact that Denmark imports lots of hydro electricity from norway/sweden, nuclear from France, without big imports the system would break down.
No, I'm not ignoring this ;D because it is wrong. The energy Denmark is importing is neglectible. They are a net exporter.

E.g. see this: http://energytransition.de/201...

Or google for more ...

If Energiewende was that cost effective, then why isn't Germany cheaper than France ? Because:
a) in France energy is subsidized
b) French households bottom line use much more electricity than germans (heating of water and house heating e.g.)
c) the Energiewende is not finished yet, however prices are already dropping

I can't believe you think that's real.

http://energytransition.de/201...

Actually, the cost of subsidizing solar and wind has doubled the cost of power in Germany

Sure, although even now it isn't the most expensive in Europe. The cost will be high for a while, and Germans seem to accept that. Change costs money, but the end result is worth it.

And Germany's power industry is increasing the amount of energy generated with coal.

It's reducing the amount of coal burnt: http://energytransition.de/201...

Many of the older coal plants are being closed, to be replaced by 6 fewer new ones: http://energytransition.de/201...

So there is a decrease, and the newer ones are cleaner anyway. Germany is aiming to make the transition around 2024, so is only 1/3rd the way in. It will take time for the grid to adjust to make bigger impacts on coal, but as you can see the energy companies clearly believe it will happen so are already reducing their capacity.

Germany is building -6 new coal power stations: http://energytransition.de/201...

In other words, they are building new ones but closing so many they will end up with six fewer. The new ones are cleaner and use less coal than all the old ones, and will probably never make much money because of all the renewable energy.

Keep in mind that there are another 10 years to go before Germany is finished transitioning. Judging the results only 1/3rd of the way through isn't really fair.

What is really helping Germany at the moment is that solar ties up with peak demand nicely. Unfortunately for energy companies peak demand was where they made a lot of their profit, but for Germany as a whole it means they have lots of high value electricity to sell to other countries

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When the renewables are at full peak, German energy is sold for negative prices, precisely because there is little buffering capacity. This was frequently the case in 2013 and 2014 (only one example here). This has been criticized a lot here in Germany because the resulting loss is passed on to consumers, not to producers which were guaranteed fixed prices as part of a federal effort to ramp up energy production from renewable sources.

Germany is reducing the number of coal plants it has: http://energytransition.de/201...

Most of the closures and new builds were announced before Fukushima, and some of the new builds have been either cancelled or mothballed since. The ones that are opening are unlikely to ever make much money, if any.

The difference between a strip mine and Fukushima is that the mine is planned and will be cleaned up and returned to a re-usable state when finished with, and didn't destroy multiple towns and villages or kill hundreds of people. The mine can be managed, Fukushima cannot.

There is no such thing as negative energy price, unless you're retarded?

Apparently they are retarded in Germany...

The source for that claim is a BusinessWeek article from 2008. Here is some actual research: http://energytransition.de/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/

Basically:
1. Since the nuclear shutdown 2 new plants have been completed and 8 are under construction. However all were planned since before the nuclear shutdown.
2. Since the nuclear shutodwn 0 new plants have been planned for consstruction. Additionally, 6 plants which were planned have been canceled.
3. So the total change in planned German coal capacity is -6 plants and don't hold your breath for more, coal is becomming uncompetitive in Germany.

The OP's claim that US coal exports have increased is not incorrect (http://energytransition.de/2013/04/german-reliance-on-coal-from-the-us/). However it is a substitution affect. Not an increase in German imports. Actual coal energy production in Germany has remained flat

P.S. Sorry for the bad formating. Slashdot butchered my attempt to add an <ol> list with superflous <p> tags

The source for that claim is a BusinessWeek article from 2008. Here is some actual research: http://energytransition.de/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/

Basically:
1. Since the nuclear shutdown 2 new plants have been completed and 8 are under construction. However all were planned since before the nuclear shutdown.
2. Since the nuclear shutodwn 0 new plants have been planned for consstruction. Additionally, 6 plants which were planned have been canceled.
3. So the total change in planned German coal capacity is -6 plants and don't hold your breath for more, coal is becomming uncompetitive in Germany.

The OP's claim that US coal exports have increased is not incorrect (http://energytransition.de/2013/04/german-reliance-on-coal-from-the-us/). However it is a substitution affect. Not an increase in German imports. Actual coal energy production in Germany has remained flat

P.S. Sorry for the bad formating. Slashdot butchered my attempt to add an <ol> list with superflous <p> tags

In what year is it predicted that Germany will generate fewer kWh of power from coal than it did in, say, 2005? Will we have to wait until 2050 or something for this long-promised decrease?

This might interest you:
http://energytransition.de/201...
I would have thought Germany would have been better off closing the coal plants first and then phasing out nuclear but it appears to be a popular choice (still). I guess they weren't impress by things like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

In 1979 a report on the stability of the pit building was released by a working group under the leadership of HH Juergens which describes the now imminent scenario of uncontrolled inflow from the capping mass in the southern flank resulting in the subsequent loss of the load carrying capacity. The manager of Asse II in 1979 and his advisers categorised this report as "unscientific" and declared that there were no stability problems.

Now they have problems....
Trust is low I guess.

It's interesting that France is going to scale down it's nuclear generation and replace to capacity with renewables - cost reasons.

Actually, there is a nice article debunking a lot of this FUD:

http://energytransition.de/201...