Slashdot Mirror
Germany Sets New Solar Power Record
An anonymous reader sends this quote from a Reuters report:
"German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour — equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity — through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank said. The German government decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year, closing eight plants immediately and shutting down the remaining nine by 2022. ... The record-breaking amount of solar power shows one of the world's leading industrial nations was able to meet a third of its electricity needs on a work day, Friday, and nearly half on Saturday when factories and offices were closed."
What percentage is generated at midnight?
It's just gigawatts, not gigawatts per hour.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
That's awesome! For summer...
I don't know how many of you have been to Germany, but it has a LONG winter, with heavy clouds going well into spring. Some places on earth it makes sense to try to fall back so heavily on solar, but Germany is not that place. They are SCREWED come the next long winter. They are either going to be paying out the nose for France's nuclear power, or having quite a lot of rolling blackouts...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is no such thing as GW/hr. Maybe they hit 22 GW of solar power. For how long? How much energy was actually delivered?
Unless there is a way of storing the energy generated, the capacity of solar plants cannot be included in the calculation of capacity to meet peak demand. In other words, even if the solar at peak could meet all your needs, you still can't retire any of the old plants, because the solar capacity is useless when the sun isn't shining.
And by the way, hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy storage media... meaning it could very well be used to store solar energy.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Maybe they mean Gigawatt hours, rather than gigawatts per hour
As I understand it, Germany's Feed In Tariff on green energy is almost the retail price of power (they buy energy produced by solar panels at hugely subsidized prices and charge consumers the tariff to cover it).
Oh, and combine this with other generation systems? Good luck with that; taking half your generating capacity offline for an hour or two (but not every day, and not always half) is a major problem.
Talk to me in December when the sun is low on the horizon and there is a a major storm passing through Germany. How is that different than the quoted article?
1. Sun being lower produces less solar power.
2. Storms block most of the sun decreasing output of solar power plants
3. Snow accumulation can completely stop solar power production.
4. Winter causes higher demand for electrical heat.
5. Darker skies cause more use of lighting.
Taking the increased usage and decreased production into account power production from solar plants could easily drop from 1/3 or requirements to 5%. Instead of touting the optimal power output on a clear sky cool day they need to look at the worst case scenario. The issue with solar power is that you can not turn it on when you need it and that will never change.
Its the rate at which they installed new power generation capacity. Those Germans are demons.
Seastead this.
you have storage. What is needed is to push electric cars that plug-in and give back. To really do that, they should have capacitors, not batteries.
In addition, a very smart move is to have cheap batteries and thermal storage. With thermal storage, you can change excess electricity into heat (alabit at a loss of efficiency), and then convert again back to electricity as needed. The real advantage is that Natural Gas (including coal converted to methane) can be burned on those days when AE and the storage does not meet demands. In fact, the ideal situation is if you have days in which you KNOW ahead of time that it will likely need extra energy (such as hot days to run ACs), you heat the thermal at night and use that as well as the NG.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...against tsunamis? Think of all the children who might be exposed to toxic chemicals should one of them fall over!
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
we built a network of superconductors between the sunniest deserts and the cold places where all the work is done...
A next-gen grid like Germany is aiming to have will be able to move power from sunlit areas to cloudy areas and from windy areas to calm areas. A large distributed power grid capable of smart utilization in addition to these smart devices adjusting their usage will go a LONG way. Too many people forget completely about the significant gains that can be made simply by having intelligence applied to grid for the 1st time.
Power storage is not as huge of an issue as people like to make it into-- promoted as an excuse for not doing anything until everything is completely solved and costs less than the current prices for traditional power (which will continue to rise and never include all the hidden costs either...)
If you build it, they will come. New power storage systems will be created to meet the increased interest and demand. The best solution may be localized battery units (distributed;) minimizing the need to import power. A simple per-minute pricing system for the grid would lay the groundwork for a distributed market of power storage solutions. BTW, nissan is already close to having their cars double as power storage.
Heating/Cooling is the largest power user. The two could be virtually eliminated just by using the building code regulations.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Sort of.
I'd rather say, Americans have got a strong commitment to the appearance of freedom, and thus, to implement most real world policies they have to jump through so many hoops that the resulting freedom is actually less than with a straight forward solution and costs more. And people are actually proud of that. I'd call it the "freedom theatre", akin to "security theatre".
"Ra ra" is not an argument, by the way, because by this logic USSR was certainly the best place to live (hint: it wasn't, even though there were some good things).
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I'd rather say, Americans have got a strong commitment to the appearance of freedom, and thus, to implement most real world policies they have to jump through so many hoops that the resulting freedom is actually less than with a straight forward solution and costs more. And people are actually proud of that. I'd call it the "freedom theatre", akin to "security theatre".
I think you are being excessively cynical/pessimistic. Americans *do* have greater freedom. They have *much* greater freedom of expression than many other countries (for example, "hate speech" legislation is unconstitutional in the USA, as it should be everywhere), have greater freedom of religion (which is good), freedom to homeschool (which is a very important freedom), freedom to bear arms (I have no strong opinion on this one), and their tax burden is quite smaller than in Scandinavian countries. And American politics is much more decentralised (not as much as it should be, but still better than elsewhere). This means that each state's laws reflect the values of the people of that state. It also means that you can easily change states if you don't like the laws of your state. Depending on your beliefs, you can live with rugged tea partiers in Texas, or you can live with more-leftist-than-Herbert-Marcuse-himself Massachusetts/California. This freedom to choose the laws that will govern you is absolutely awesome.
"Ra ra" is not an argument, by the way, because by this logic USSR was certainly the best place to live (hint: it wasn't, even though there were some good things).
I did not get that. Maybe because English is my second language. Could you rephrase it for me please?
Regards,
It's funny you mention Russian natural gas, because it was when Russia shut down the gas pipeline that runs through the Ukraine to Germany and the rest of Europe that the Germans decided they needed to get real about renewable energy in a hot hurry. Now, the Russians did it to mess with the Ukraine, not with Germany or anyone else, but the collateral damage to the latter was considerable. Wonder how good an idea the Russians think that monkey business was now, with the rest of Northern Europe coming to see their gas supplies as a strategic vulnerability?
Anyway Germans shutting down their nuclear plants started when the Greens became a significant player in the coalition government. They've been anti-nuclear for 30-40 years, so when they got power they got busy immediately realizing their heart's desire. Fukushima is quite a recent development, but far from the only thing driving Germans to go to green power.
I'm curious to see what shifting their economy to local solar, wind, and biomass power will do for their overall competitiveness. Will they lure back even more manufacturing when future oil/gas/fossil fuel shocks hit other major economies?
If not us, who? If not now, when?
22 GW of power produced during very favorable periods. I would be MUCH more interested to find how much the MEAN power over the course of a full year is, and how large a fraction of 22 GW is. I imagine a pretty goddam small fraction. For half of every day, solar power is zero. For many days of the year that are completely overcast, solar power is reduced to a very small part of nominal noonday.
I.e., annual solar energy production is a much more meaningful measurement than PEAK solar power production.
That is why homeschooling is generally legal in America, while in Germany there is a Nazi-era law
that persecutes homeschoolers as if they were rapists. In Germany, the freedom to teach one's own
child is less important than the benefit of having ideological uniformity in the nation, making for a stronger
society.
Actually, it's largely because we assign rights differently. In the US, it seems that parents have more rights than their children, so you see home-schooling as the expression of a parent's right to educate their child as they see fit. Within Europe, we're very keen on childrens' rights, and thus it's more important that every child is guaranteed access to a good standard of education, and we feel that home-schooling isn't sufficient for that. It's nothing to do with idealogical uniformity, it's about protecting children from parents that don't really know how to teach.
Calling this a Nazi-era persecution law just shows an ignorance of European cultural values.
In the US, it seems that parents have more rights than their children, so you see home-schooling as the expression of a parent's right to educate their child as they see fit.
It is not that "parents have more rights than children". It is just that parents are, except under rare and extreme circumstances, the best people to protect their children's rights. It is like the concept of national sovereignty: the U.N. shouldn't, except under extreme circumstances, meddle into a country's internal affairs. This is not because "national governments have more rights than their citizens", it is just that national governments are better suited to protect their citizens rights than an international government. In fact, the national government should normally defer to the local government, and so on. By the way, this is another area where Americans have greater liberty: their political system is more decentralised, with each state having its own laws. This means that the laws of each state better reflects its population's values. It also means that you can easily change jurisdictions and find one that matches your beliefs. You can choose to live among rugged tea-partiers in Texas, and the corresponding laws, or among the more-leftist-than-Herbert-Marcuse-himself of Massachusetts or California. This freedom is awesome.
Within Europe, we're very keen on childrens' rights, and thus it's more important that every child is guaranteed access to a good standard of education, and we feel that home-schooling isn't sufficient for that. [...] , it's about protecting children from parents that don't really know how to teach.
Wrong. If the point was about good standards of education, they would simply mandate periodic exams, and send low-scoring kids to the regular
school system.
It's nothing to do with idealogical uniformity
It has everything to do with ideological uniformity.
From Wikipedia:
The European Court endorsed a "carefully reasoned" decision of the German court concerning "the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society."[52]
In other words, they won't allow significant portions of their society to have unauthorised philosophical convictions.
In January 2010, a United States immigration judge granted asylum to a German homeschooling family, apparently based on this ban on homeschooling. This was damn right.
Calling this a Nazi-era persecution law just shows an ignorance of European cultural values.
Wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
And Universal Human Rights transcend cultural borders.
I am JOrgePeixoto. I created tis accounted to overcome the 50-comment limit (yes, I'm an addict)
Take it to North Korea communist freak. America is built on free markets. If those free markets are a problem for Israel: too fucking bad.
Even if we forget our compassion to the Jews, don't you think that economically smothering Israel's enemies would make the region safer,
thus allowing the US Armed Forces to be shrunk, thus decreasing the tax burden?
The US spends a ridiculous percentage of its GDP on the military.
So how much is it when it is raining or cloudy?
It seems like 90% of this thread is arguing either for or against the notion that we shouldn't use solar power because it isn't always available. Rather than just mindlessly shouting about the relative price and reliability of solar vs. nuclear and the statistics about what times of day and times of year we have peak power usage, can we just examine this premise for a short moment?
We have a plentiful energy source which is sometimes (regularly) available to us. You are saying we shouldn't use it? Really? Your basis for that argument is that we can't use it all the time. This means we should never use it? I feel I must politely disagree with you there. Would you advise farmers not to grow seasonal vegetables because they cant grow them in winter? Would you advise people in a desert not to collect rainwater because it doesn't fall much in the desert? Would you advise me not to socialise with my friends because sometimes they have to work?
The article is about how an industrialised nation has demonstrated that it is economically and industrially feasible to harvest significant amounts of energy from the sun. Anyone want to talk about that? No? Well I do. I think this is great news. Good work everyone involved. Hopefully we can look forward to power bills going down in the future but what is money compared to the future habitability of the world? If a country like Germany can do this with the climate they have, this bodes very well for equatorial countries. Germany also has significant amounts of wind power, which also works at night and during the winter. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to start shutting down the coal plants first and the nuclear ones after. That debate on that has raged on this site for many pages, I myself am unsure about the answer. I want to see both phased out. Another important question is: How can we generate more clean, fuel independent energy? More solar farms and wind farms seem like a good idea. Geothermal and hydroelectric are nice for base load although hydro can be affected by weather as well. Osmotic power seems like an interesting variant, and Tesla's old idea of generating power from temperature gradients in the ocean seems worth a second look and maybe one day between the earths atmosphere and space, generation of electricity that is fuelled directly by global warming and works as a direct counter to it. I am getting too far into the possible future though now. The scientists have been doing good work though so far with solar and wind and I have every confidence in their abilities. Let's enjoy the good news for once, shilling for the nuclear power industry can wait till the next thread, and the next, and the next...
How is the freedom to express one's ideas restricted in Germany?
And by being free of religion I mean being able to say that I'm an atheist without being looked at askance, without religion dominating a large part of politics, etc.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Hm. I've been to Germany. And to the US. Guess which one involves me getting felt up on entering?
Germany is not Texas. Much less AC in Europe in general.
For over 18 Deloreans...
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
In short:
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Let's enjoy the good news for once, shilling for the nuclear power industry can wait till the next thread, and the next, and the next...
I could have replied to one of a hundred threads here, but I happen to agree with 99% of what you say so this is probably a good place to complain without being seen as a whatever-shill. As intelligent as your reply was, it ended with just that implication. If you don't agree, then you are a shill. I happen to agree, so let's get that out of the way right now.
The summary quoted a Reuter's article as saying:
German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour — equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity
They don't go so far as to say it, but a very reasonable thing that someone may conclude from this is that 20 nuclear power stations are no longer necessary. Well, no matter how much I like renewable energy, I know that is wrong. You know that is wrong. But your average Joe Blow reading a newspaper sees that and *really does* think, "Wow, we can generate that much power. We don't need nuclear! Hurray!"
When you see others posting and saying, "Oh but what happens when the sun isn't shining." quite a few of them are intelligent people. They are responding to the implication that we no longer need 20 nuclear power plants.
They are being trolled. And they fell for it. On the opposite side, who *actually* believes that if we have, say, 30% base load generation from nuclear that we can simply switch them off because we had a day where we generated 30% of our need from solar? OK, there are some pretty ignorant people in the world, but I submit that they are rare around here. Nobody really believes that. So we get all huffy when people imply that we do.
And here's the saddest part: We've got one side calling the other essentially ignorant, tree-hugging bafoons and in response we call them evil, earth hating shills. All because some asshole at Reuters decided to troll the world in order to get eyeballs. I have seen some incredibly informative and insightful conversations on Slashdot. There are some incredibly smart people around here. But it is all nullified because we just bicker about... Solar providing 100% of our energy needs??? (Almost) Nobody believes that.
Maybe someone thinks nuclear is a good option for base load generation. Maybe someone thinks that we should prioritize research and development in other potential energy sources. There are points for and against each side. Reasonable people can argue about this. Each side can learn something useful from the other. But responding to these trolls just kills any ability to have a reasonable discussion. Calling the other side names does the same. Even imagining that there *is* another side is kind of crazy. We may differ on what method we prefer, but aren't we all interested in having electricity?
The most amusing part of this argument is that the laws against holocaust denial in Germany date back to the time when the USA was running the country (or, at least, the part of the country that this law is inherited from).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Not only that (which is bad enough), but we're also depleting the world reserves of very valuable chemicals used in all kinds of manufacturing, like plastics, medical drugs, etc... Burning this valuable stuff just to get some energy is extremely short sighted.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
"22 gigawatts of electricity per hour"
Power is energy per unit time. Did they mean "22 gigawatts of electricity every hour for X hours"?
Can't Reuters get these things right?
it has been mentioned that solar power is bought with state intervention - however, without state intervention there obviously would be no nuclear power, either, and I didn't hear many conservatives complaining then.