Germany Sets New Solar Power Record

It's Just Gigawatts by Savantissimo · 2012-05-26 08:40 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:It's Just Gigawatts by Trepidity · 2012-05-26 08:50 · Score: 4, Informative

A lot of people seem to intuitively like to think of energy capacity in terms of energy generated per hour, which seems to be what causes the confusion. You can use Joules per hour, but J aren't used conventionally in electricity generation; instead watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, and gigawatt-hours are used. But then if you want to talk about energy generation per unit time, you'd talk about how many gigawatt-hours per hour are being generated, GW*hr/hr. Which is of course just gigawatts. But now you have something that doesn't sound like "energy per hour" again, unless you know that a watt is a unit of power, and that power is already energy over time.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:It's Just Gigawatts by NemoinSpace · 2012-05-26 09:53 · Score: 4, Funny

I have only about a 1 in 10 success rate of explaining the difference between Power and Energy to people who don't know the difference.
Not because I am bad at teaching.
Usually I get through the first part, and then ask myself - "Why am I doing this to myself again?
Then I switch the subject to sports.
everyone walks away happy.
Re:It's Just Gigawatts by Trepidity · 2012-05-26 10:59 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm not arguing specifically for Joules, just that in most cases when a rate is used, it's explicit: miles-per-hour, km/hr, m^3/s. Power is a somewhat odd case because a derived unit, J/s, is given its own name, W, which wraps the fact that it's a rate into the unit, "burying" the per-unit-time portion of the unit, rather than keeping it explicitly written out as in km/hr or m^3/s.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:It's Just Gigawatts by Moldiver · 2012-05-26 11:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Exactly, the original german data said that on Friday, 25th in the hour between 12 and 13 the average output of solar power was 22.145 Megawatt (MW) or roughly 22GW.
Windmill output in the same time was 4378MW. Was not a very windy day in germany. At least around Frankfurt...

The Winter of our Disconnect by SuperKendall · 2012-05-26 08:41 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Re:The Winter of our Disconnect by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-05-26 08:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Germany has a long term plan to eliminate the long winter problem:
Global Warming.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:The Winter of our Disconnect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 08:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Sorry to disappoint you - sentences exactly like this have been spewing from the nuclear industry since the decision. Coupled with many scenarios of doom that would happen as soon as the first nuclear power generators were disconnected. Coupled with how the power price would immediately increase (it fell since then, even though the industry tried to keep it up).
And you know what - nothing happened. Germany is happily exporting power (even to the french with all their nuclear power. Because on really hot and cold days they do not have enough capacity. Kind of funny when thinking about it ) - and there are even some gas power plants that are being abandoned because we still have too much capacity (they are not viable at the current power prices).
So - no, we are not screwed in the next long winter, we will not be needing french nuclear power and we certainly won't be seing rolling blackouts.
Re:The Winter of our Disconnect by rrohbeck · 2012-05-26 09:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

As opposed to US politics, there is a consensus in German politics. Namely that politics is for the benefit of the people and society. Business is a part of that society, not the other way around.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:The Winter of our Disconnect by tomhath · 2012-05-26 09:17 · Score: 5, Informative

It's premature to say what the net effect will be. There are time when Germany has a net surplus and exports to France (because Russian natural gas is more expensive than surplus German electricity). There are also times when Germany imports French power because French nukes keep cranking out the power around the clock and their economy is in the tank compared to Germany's.
Re:The Winter of our Disconnect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

People should also pay attention to the effect of energy prices: Germany has high electricity prices. If electricity is used for heat, it's in low-energy (well-insulated) houses and with heat pumps. France has cheap electricity. The pressure to use the electricity efficiently isn't there, so the French have much less insulated houses and resistive electric heating, which is less efficient than heat pumps, is ubiquitous. In cold winters, France has energy shortages, in spite of the numerous nuclear power plants. Their cheap electricity policy has caused a very seasonal energy need, for which nuclear power is far from ideal. To meet peak demand, they have to build so much capacity that they end up having to sell the surplus very cheaply most of the time.

Re:midnight by Shoten · 2012-05-26 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

What percentage is generated at midnight?

Midnight isn't the problem; power consumption is quite low then, and only drops more as the clock continues, only to start climbing well after dawn. Power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure has to be built for peak, and that's the problem. Fortunately, a lot of the peak load is during daylight hours. A lot of it is also in the evening as well, but it's not about finding a magic bullet, it's about helping cut back on (not eliminate) the need to use coal or nuclear power.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.

Re:midnight by Mashiki · 2012-05-26 08:45 · Score: 4, Informative

0 of course. That's when they're buying power from France's nukes though. Not to forget that they're already scrambling to find some way to subsidize all of this, because it cost too much taxpayer money. At the end of the day, the government is going off about how it'll pay all for itself, and the public is still left wondering where all the money is coming from, while the euro is tanking, and the economy looks like shit.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Solar doesn't replace other power sources. by Locke2005 · 2012-05-26 08:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Solar doesn't replace other power sources. by mmmmbeer · 2012-05-26 08:50 · Score: 4, Informative

That's why they do, indeed, build in ways of storing the energy. In fact, they do the same with every other type of power plant, so they can run at only peak efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
Re:Solar doesn't replace other power sources. by Shoten · 2012-05-26 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why does everyone think that renewable energy sources will be the first technology ever that works completely the first time, solving all the problems right out of the gate? Nothing else has ever worked that way. You have to start somewhere...meeting a significant part of the needed generation part of the time is the first step to doing it much of the time. And then comes most of the time, and then maybe, heaven forbid, all of the time. Not all phones are VOIP yet either; that doesn't mean that VOIP is a failure as a technology. They haven't started blowing up their CTs and other fossil-based generation facilities just yet...

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:Solar doesn't replace other power sources. by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-26 09:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are half right. There are three types of solar power. You have PV panels which, as you say, provide whatever power is available from the sun at that instant and have no storage. Then you have solar thermal which can run all night because is stores energy in molten salt. Finally you have solar heating for water and buildings, which stores energy in said water or building.
You also have to remember that cooling is a major use of electricity in many countries. Since temperature is strongly correlated with light levels solar PV is actually ideal for covering peak demand in many places.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Solar doesn't replace other power sources. by rtaylor · 2012-05-26 09:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Not certain where you are but in North America (Canada too) peak electricity consumption is during the hotest summer days and typically during the afternoon to early evening (3pm to 7pm).
20 years ago you were correct. Air Conditioning, however, completely changed that.

--
Rod Taylor

Re:What nonsense units. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Energy graph for part of the day on which that happened.

solar is yellow.

Re:midnight by Pentium100 · 2012-05-26 08:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Working hours correlate well with sunlight in the summer, but winter is different - short days (less than 8 hours during winter solstice in my country (more north from Germany)) not much light during the days and everybody using more power (lighting) make solar power not practical in winter.

December by jklovanc · 2012-05-26 09:03 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:December by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-26 23:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Good job Germany isn't totally reliant on solar then. In the winter there is plenty of wind. And before you say it, there is never a time when there is no wind anywhere. Never. So as long as you have diversity then it's fine.
I take your point about peak figures, but they are still useful. In particular France will be interested as it may help cover their peak demands during the summer when nuclear plants are forced to shut down in high ambient temperatures.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:What nonsense units. by SubstormGuy · 2012-05-26 09:10 · Score: 3

Sorry, but you are wrong. Energy (in MKS units) is measured in joules, where 1 joule = 1 kgm^2/s^2. A watt is a unit of power (P=dE/dt) so 1 watt = 1 joule/s. A kilowatt hour is = (1000 j/s)(3600 s) = 3,600,000 joules. A kWhr (or a GWhr) is a unit of energy. A GW/hr is the unit that would be associated with the time rate of change of power, which is not a physical quantity of any interest here. So, yes, nonsense units.

Re:And it's only twice as expensive by NemoinSpace · 2012-05-26 09:31 · Score: 3, Informative

I thought this was nuts till I started looking up some numbers.
Germans are paying .23 per kwh. New Yorkers pay about .19.
So the question is what do New Yorkers get from their tax dollars, besides goofy politicians?
Meanwhile Floridians pay about .07/kwh. Which explains why I am glad the Germans are the "innovators" on this one.
All in all, still pretty impressive.

Re:midnight by Knuckles · 2012-05-26 09:32 · Score: 5, Informative

The German nuclear industry was subsidized by at least 80 billion EUR from 1956 to 2007 (and 3.7 billion in 2006 alone) based on extremely conservative estimates, but likely much more. A study commisioned by Greenpeace arrived at a number of 203.7 billion from 1950 to 2010. According to WP at least, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernenergie#Deutschland

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns

Re:midnight by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-26 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually France has been struggling to meet peak demand with nuclear in recent years due to the hot summers we have been enjoying. Nuclear plants need to dump a lot of heat and when the ambient temperature gets too high they either have to drop to idle mode or dump hot water into lakes and streams, killing off the local wildlife and generally trashing the environment.

Of course this flaw does not mean nuclear is useless. I'm not a nuke-you-mentalist who writes off every other technology because it isn't perfect. However, this does highlight solar PV's strength - you get the most power when you need it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:midnight by Dahamma · 2012-05-26 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

However, this does highlight solar PV's strength - you get the most power when you need it.

People have to remember that many parts of the world (Germany, especially) actually uses *more* energy in the winter (and it's more important that it be available - AC for the most part is a modern convenience, but heat it necessary to survive), it's just not traditionally via electricity generation. Natural gas and heating oil are also non-renewable hydrocarbon-based energy sources. A long term solution to power needs to replace *all* form of non-renewable, CO2-generating energy...

Re:midnight by willy_me · 2012-05-26 09:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Working hours correlate well with sunlight in the summer, but winter is different - short days (less than 8 hours during winter solstice in my country (more north from Germany)) not much light during the days and everybody using more power (lighting) make solar power not practical in winter.

Very true. Here in Canada, people often rave about how we could be using solar power; they just don't get it. Solar power is not an efficient solution in Canada, wind power makes far more sense.

But Germany reaching their goal of solar providing for 1/3 of their power would be an impressive feat. There are plenty of countries that have far more solar potential then Germany. If they can do it, then other countries like Spain should be able to do even more.

Re:What nonsense units. by artor3 · 2012-05-26 09:55 · Score: 4, Informative

No, you're completely wrong. In fact, it's difficult to even parse what you're trying to say.

Yes, there are units called "kilowatt-hours". Really, that's just a kilowatt multiplied by an hour. The existence of such a unit has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, since we're talking about "gigawatts per hour". To put it in units more familiar to you, the phrase "miles per hour" makes perfect sense. But the phrase "mile-hours" is basically meaningless.*

A gigawatt per hour isn't a unit of "flow". It would be more akin to a unit of acceleration. If your power plant generates 5 GW/hr, then that would mean it starts off generating nothing, and after an hour its producing 5 GW, and after 2 hours it's producing 10 GW, and so on. That's clearly not what the summary is trying to suggest.

*Before anyone gets pedantic, yes, GW/hr and miles*hours and cubits*Rankine/Farads are all meaningful in the mathematical sense. But in the practical sense, they're meaningless.

Re:midnight by fritsd · 2012-05-26 09:56 · Score: 3, Informative

"Passivhaus" is a German word.
There is still an enormous amount of "low-hanging-fruit" in energy conservation by better insulation with modern materials.

A long term solution to power needs to replace *all* form of non-renewable, CO2-generating energy...

Yes, agreed. And also better storage technology is needed, especially with intermittant renewables such as solar and wind.

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?

Re:midnight by slashrio · 2012-05-26 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Subsidized you say?

Wait until we start 'subsidizing' the decommissioning of all those nuclear-waste producers...

For that money we could have reached 100% solar coverage. From the Sahara.

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.

Re:Americans have greater liberty by dunkelfalke · 2012-05-26 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:midnight by Knuckles · 2012-05-26 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Absolutely. Not even the Greenpeace numbers fully account for that. Plus Germany still has no final storage facility for nuclear waste, and the previous attempts at storage (Assen, Gorleben) ended in costly failure. Who knows what an actual final facility might cost over time.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns

Re:midnight by ThePeices · 2012-05-26 10:53 · Score: 4, Informative

The technology is here already, molten salt thermal storage.

We just need to build a utility grade facility to get the engineering challenges ironed out and to measure the real world performance of a full scale system.

Countries like Australia could be 100% solar with 24/7 electricity generation by coupling solar thermal concentrators with molten salt storage, by using some of the vast tracts of high sunshine hour desert land in the outback.

The measurement is almost meaningless by fnj · 2012-05-26 11:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:midnight by Mashiki · 2012-05-26 11:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wait did you just quote Greenpeace? The same group that opposes any form of nuclear power whatsoever? Ah I thought you did. Now remind me that even with these subsidies how much the power in germany works out to via nuclear? I'm sure it'll be somewhere in the 0.06-0.012c/KWH range, and solar will be in the 0.40-0.90c/KWH range. I mean in Greece it hit an earth shattering $1.20/KWH for just wind, solar did hit 0.80c/KWH.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:midnight by Grayhand · 2012-05-26 11:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

The German nuclear industry was subsidized by at least 80 billion EUR from 1956 to 2007 (and 3.7 billion in 2006 alone) based on extremely conservative estimates, but likely much more. A study commisioned by Greenpeace arrived at a number of 203.7 billion from 1950 to 2010. According to WP at least, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernenergie#Deutschland

Care to add up the numbers we've spent on the military during that same time frame as in percentage of the budget compared to Germany? If we spent the same percentage on the military as Germany and took the savings and spent it on alternative energy we'd have such an energy glut we'd be powering Canada and Mexico as well and trying to figure out how to export electricity to Europe. Fiscal will is all that has held us back. Germany has it we don't.

Re:midnight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 12:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

No, that would help solving the storage problem.

Re:midnight by PopeRatzo · 2012-05-26 12:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

but even Saudi Arabia wants to build nuclear power stations

They also want their women to wear black blankets over their head in a sunny, hot climate, so I'm not sure what "Saudi Arabia wants" is worth considering.

Personally, I find what "German wants" more compelling than what "Saudi Arabia wants".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

What does that have to do with anything? by Internetuser1248 · 2012-05-26 14:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

Re:What does that have to do with anything? by cheesybagel · 2012-05-26 18:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Solar power is nuclear fusion power... It is just that the reactor is really far away. The problem is one of cost effectiveness. Once solar panels are price competitive people will use them. Yet it is still an intermittent energy source so you will need some storage mechanism or backup generator increasing the system costs further.
Removing nuclear fission from the equation is stupid. It is cheap and plentiful, safer than most alternatives, and you either use it or lose it. All U-235 on Earth is going to decay eventually so either we use it before it decays or we will never be able to use it anymore. Solar panels are not necessarily clean. Silicon solar panels fabrication in particular uses solvents and acids in the manufacturing process which must be disposed of or recycled at a steep cost. Given that most solar panel production is currently in China I wouldn't be surprised to find out they simply dumped the toxic waste it into a nearby pond or river.
The problem with temperature gradients in the ocean is that the temperature difference is too small for a heat engine to have decent performance. Try reading about OTEC power plants. Large and expensive infrastructure built in the ocean. Even if you use ammonia as the heat fluid the performance is crap.
Re:What does that have to do with anything? by Genda · 2012-05-27 09:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Solar power is nuclear fusion power... It is just that the reactor is really far away. The problem is one of cost effectiveness. Once solar panels are price competitive people will use them. Yet it is still an intermittent energy source so you will need some storage mechanism or backup generator increasing the system costs further.
Just the other day, there was an article on Slashdot crowing about a fantastic breakthrough. allowing for a cheap, easy to manufacture efficient, stable thin film cell. Even now the cost for solar is below a $1 per watt and most sources predict a $0.50 per watt solar cell by next summer making solar a viable contender against coal for power generation. Add the recent breakthrough in cheap, nontoxic, high efficiency catalysts for hydrogen production and now we can easily convert that electricity to hydrogen to manage power storage. No need for backup generators, no need for anything but repurposed liquid gas storage

Removing nuclear fission from the equation is stupid. It is cheap and plentiful, safer than most alternatives, and you either use it or lose it. All U-235 on Earth is going to decay eventually so either we use it before it decays or we will never be able to use it anymore. Solar panels are not necessarily clean. Silicon solar panels fabrication in particular uses solvents and acids in the manufacturing process which must be disposed of or recycled at a steep cost. Given that most solar panel production is currently in China I wouldn't be surprised to find out they simply dumped the toxic waste it into a nearby pond or river.
Agreed, however, there are a lot of exciting new technologies that remove weapon production from the equation. Talk to Iran, offer them Thorium reactors with international support from the U.N. so they can have their nuclear power, and join the rest of the modern world, and we can all be safe knowing they don't intend to blow anyone up in perhaps a synagogue near by? Small reactors that are virtually run-away-proof, are going to be the preferred technology of many developing nations. They are clean, right-priced, and can be mass produced like batteries. Could it possibly get any better?

The problem with temperature gradients in the ocean is that the temperature difference is too small for a heat engine to have decent performance. Try reading about OTEC power plants. Large and expensive infrastructure built in the ocean. Even if you use ammonia as the heat fluid the performance is crap.
I have done the reading, and as of 2009,10 and 11, respected researcher all over the map (with a high concentration in China) are saying OTECS are the wave of the future. The problem is to place them in the tropics in places with access to deep water. Here the temperature differences between warm surface water and deep water can exceed 60F. Added benefits include getting potable fresh water, high mineral seawater for aquaculture and the potential mitigation of violent storms. So besides generating huge amounts of power, OTECs can be used to provide fresh water to coastal cities in the tropics, and dramatically expand aquaculture providing whole new renewable ocean industries as well as significant carbon sequestration. Oh there are also several interesting designs for large ships/platforms using OTECs as their power source (obviously stable or slow moving), these sea platforms could be part of a new series of habitats for both surface and subsurface ocean living and exploration. Life is complicated. Every new solution brings new problems. That said, I'm hearing opportunity knocking hard and loud. I can't imagine a single viable reason why we shouldn't be answering.

Re:AC need is a big draw and when it's dark out by tmosley · 2012-05-26 15:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Germany is not Texas. Much less AC in Europe in general.

We've been trolled by wrook · 2012-05-26 18:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:midnight by camperdave · 2012-05-27 02:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Very true. Here in Canada, people often rave about how we could be using solar power; they just don't get it. Solar power is not an efficient solution in Canada, wind power makes far more sense.

Berlin, Germany is further north than Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Charlottetown, Fredricton, and Regina. Furthermore, each of these cities receives an average of 30% more solar energy than Berlin, some as high as 60% more. So, given that our populations live at roughly the same latitudes, and we have more area in which to deploy solar, and we get more sun, why would solar be okay for Germany, but not for Canada?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Slashdot Mirror

Germany Sets New Solar Power Record

45 of 568 comments (clear)