Slashdot Mirror
Germany Exports More Electricity Than Ever Despite Phasing Out Nuclear Energy
An anonymous reader writes "Der Spiegel reports that Germany has exported more electricity this year than ever before, despite beginning to phase out nuclear power. In the first three quarters of 2012, Germany sent 12.3 terawatt hours of electricity across its borders. The country's rapid expansion into renewable energy is credited with the growth. However, the boost doesn't come without a price. The German government's investments into its new energy policy will end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades, and it still relies on imports for its natural gas needs. It also remains to be seen whether winter will bring power shortages. Is Germany a good example of forward-looking energy policy?"
How are your rates?
How hard is it to get a 3-phase drop for your new business?
Are you really going to have a shortage this winter?
Do the tax dollars you've put into this feel like they were decently spent?
People with less-progressive powergirds would like to know.
...usage rates compare with other nations?
How much usage do they have compared to what's generated?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
which has exceeded 3 trillion dollars. I'd gladly trade the money spent on war for a stable power grid that doesn't go down at the drop of a leaf
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Let's see in 2022 how what the electricity output will be. I hope it won't be the same as today and especially not from renewable energy.
Hundreds of billions for something that you can sell and gives the country a renewable supply of energy?
That's a bargain compared to all the wars, bailouts, pork projects, mansions for the few, etc. the rest of the world is "buying" with it's tax money.
No sig today...
But renewables don't work! Subsidies for oil companies! Drill baby drill etc.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
If I lived in Germany, I would buy a non-electric heater. Would hate to be stuck in a blizzard with no heat because my government decided that solar panels are the best way to produce electricity.
sudo make me a sandwich
Yes. Any other questions?
So I read the articles and I didn't see much reference to the EU's target of all member countries having 20% renewable energy in use by 2020. That date is fast approaching and I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that Germany was (and still is due to the economic crisis) the country to pay up for this expensive infrastructure. Meanwhile neighboring countries like France, Poland, Czech Republic, etc are unable to build massive solar panel fields and instead might be trying to meet their own intermediary targets (like France's plan) by riding on top of Germany's output at least for the time being.
So, you know, I have no evidence of this nor do I have the numbers on all surrounding nations but is it possible that (like the summary says) this barrier to entry of hundreds of billions of dollars is putting Germany in the position as being the go-to source for companies and countries inside the EU that are struggling to meet government mandated goal posts for renewable energy? And are willing to pay a premium rather than the initial massive influx of cash required to get operations of these sizes up and running?
Anyone have numbers to back up or refute my above theory?
My work here is dung.
So net loss. But, the time scale makes it easy to hide and the masses won't notice.
Sounds like Germany took a play from the U.SA. playbook.
Cue greenies telling me how wrong my position is because "saving the Earth is the greater good", or some such platitude.
The answer to the question is: It remains to be seen. But I'm highly skeptical that ditching nuclear power in the short term is a good example of anything.
You can't compare these results in a meaningful way without having additional details. This will end up costing them hundreds of billions? Then they are subsidizing the production of the energy to keep the cost less or the same. If they lowered the cost, of course more people are buying. That doesn't mean this is viable in the long term. If they are merely keeping the cost the same, then this means that demand has risen (which raises prices on its own) and again, that's not long term viable. If the cost went up, more people are buying, AND they are subsidizing it, that's a disaster. It means cost, prices, and demand are all increasing and instead of producing energy as efficiently as possible (with e.g. nuclear) they are artificially limiting the production. Either someone else will come along and produce it for less, or everyone will end up paying more for less.
How much are they producing, how much are they consuming? Does this article consider exports from one part of Germany that go to say Denmark, Poland, or Austria, while say France imports more into the Saar area?
Yes, I did read the Google Translation of the article, but I'm not going to trust it.
And that's not even figuring out the source. Now don't get me wrong, I'm glad for Germany's solar and wind investments, but if I were them, I'd phase out Coal first, then nuclear.
Except maybe any Soviet ones. Not that I'm thinking of Chernobyl, that was bad practice, but rather questioning the quality as a whole.
Ask, and the internet provides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
This is not a victory for renewables, but for democracy. German citizens want to go renewable enough that they are willing to swallow the costs. Germany is a rich enough country to do that, and rich countries can accomplish amazing things when they have the will to do so. That doesn't mean renewable became any more viable economically, or that other poorer countries have any chance of replicating this feat.
Germany will have to invest billions in (HVDC) power lines to carry all that volatile electricity around. Windmills are mostly in the north, solar in the south etc. Guess who will complain when they get an ugly power line in their backyard? The same people who protested the nuclear powerplants of course.
And by the way: lot of nukes are closed in europe because they found small fractures in the reactors. In Belgium even the government starts talking about brownouts this winter.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
No, they are not an example of good, forward looking policy. They are a horrible example.
They are replacing established, 0 carbon emission, nuclear power plants with other sources that have either higher emissions because of their construction (wind, solar) or with sources that just plain have carbon emissions from their operation (natural gas). I know natural gas is way better than coal, but they're replacing nuclear with gas which increases carbon emissions.
If we want to impact global warming we have to use nuclear power. Wind and solar don't have the capacity and it will take a loooooong road of building for them to even come close to replacing other forms of electricity generation.
I absolutely loathe how the same "green" advocates who harp about the need to solve global warming now INSIST that the best no CO2 power generation options we have right now be abandoned.
Sure there are arguments on whether building NEW nuclear plants will be good or economical at reducing carbon emissions, but we're talking about shuttering working power plants here.
If you believe global warming is a problem, then the worlds turning its back on its functioning nuclear power plants has to stop!
Exporting all those MWh is great, but are they just importing it back at night?
I would not call it forward looking, because they do not seem to know exactly will happen, or if the strategy will work. The great thing is that someone had to try it on a large scale, and then try to fix the problems that will occur. Smart-grids, energy-storage etc. are all technologies that Germany will have to focus on. It will be a huge investment, but they will gain so much know-how worth much more.
1) Based on the summary numbers, Germany basically has the equivalent of 1.4 Gigawatts of spare capacity. Likely more as I'm sure they don't sell 100% of their excess capacity. This works out to enough to power about 1 million American homes.
2) The cost of the renewable energy looks like it will cost less than the war in Iraq did for the United States.
Draw your own conclusions.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
What are those exports? It's the solar power and wind power that can't be used for lack of domestic power transmission and simple lack of demand in the areas where it is generated. This power must be exported, because it cannot be consumed. Despite all that, wind turbines still have be shut down at peak generation - leading to a steady decline in actual capacity factors of wind turbines. (Don't worry about you money, of course feed-in tariffs are still being paid when turbines are shut down ...)
The most important question on those exports is hidden by the phrasing of those propaganda news: How much did germany get in return for those exports and how much did it cost to produce them? It doesn't take much in the way of imagination to conclude that it isn't much at all. Domestic power prices regularly drop to a fraction of the feed-in tariffs being paid for wind and solar power (occasionally dropping into negative territory) and exports are unlikely to offer better rates.
The result of all that? Germans will pay an average of 0.28 Euro - or about $0.40 per kWh next year, up from 0.25 Euro this year. With a clear trend upwards, as more and more wind turbines and solar cells that produce useless electricity come online. With the recent push for off-shore wind generation that will be 50-100% more expensive than solar power (depending on the scale of the solar power plant), this will only rise. Germany will catch up with the very highest electricity prices in Europe next year (Danemark) and is set to surpass them right thereafter.
Meanwhile, the need for transmission lines is still seen as a conspiracy of the electricity utilities by most "greens" in Germany. The need for serious storage capacity, which is already rather giant, is still not recognized.
This is what you call a bubble - worth on the order of $350bn and rising - paid by electricity consumers through their bills. The only people who profit from it are those who have enough money to pay for solar cells or wind turbines and the more money they spend on them, the more they get. A classic transfer of money from the poor to the richest of our society - all brought to you by massive lobbying of the Green party.
"Hundreds of Billions" over 20 years? That seems to be pretty inexpensive.
Also think of all the jobs for installing/servicing/billing that are being created.
With more adoption of solar/wind/tidal generation, the initial price of the equipment should go down, once
the Chinese market undercutting is "fixed"
I installed a wood burning insert into our fireplace. It has a large glass door so you can still see the flames for ambiance. It is 70% efficient, using a blower to circulate heat and is designed to reignite smoke to reduce particulates. I gather wood locally from trees my neighbors cut down after summer storms.
So I can heat the house in the event of a power outage. I also have an inverter so I can use my prius as a generator to run the blower, router, wifi.
We have the best government that money can buy.
"it still relies on imports for its natural gas needs"
There is a limited supply of natural gas (I'm not talking about stocks and how long we could sustain on reserves of natural gas but on the limited bandwidth of existing and soon to be activated pipelines).
Natural gas is used for 2 usages in Europe: electricy production and home heating.
Germany is currently at the end of majors pipelines coming from Russia, the largery biggest provider of natural gas to Europe. So Germany can prioritized its own usages of natural gas for electricity production. In competition with households from all accross Europe using natural gas for heating who will see the price of natural gas rise.
So the decision to switch to natural gas for its electricity production, Germany impacts the expenses of households of all Europe.
PS: disclaimer: I'm from Europe, I'm not German and I use natural gas for heating.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Funny how you don't "fear the worst" when it comes to climate change.
That is so bogus. Germany relies on coal. It's replacing its nuclear generators with coal powered generators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany The thing about renewable generation is mostly a lie.
Well, according to this article, the neighbors don't want that exported electricity and it's causing problems with their grids.
When Germany need all of their power is during the winter, when temperature is well below zero degrees. During this period they will not export a single watt of energy out of Germany.
12.3 Twh = 12 300 Gwh = 12 300 000 Mwh.
12 300 000 Mwh / 273 days / 24 hours = 1 877 Mw per hour.
...just wait until you see how much those non-renewable alternatives like tar sands and coal-to-gas will cost you. And that's before you figure in the cost to clean up the mess they make.
Remember: deepwater horizon had a wellhead as far beneath the waves as Denver is above them, and the oil itself was farther below the seafloor than the peak of Everest is above sea level. Loooooooong gone are the days when you had to be careful with a pickaxe in Texas lest you set off a gusher.
Oh -- and it's petroleum that fertilizes our crops and powers our transportation infrastructure, and we've already burned up half of the planet's total reserves. The easy-to-get-to and high-quality half, of course.
Like it or not, the days of cheap energy are done and gone with. If we're smart, we'll bootstrap ourselves to a solar-based energy system, which won't be cheap, but it will give us more power than any of us can imagine. There's enough insolation just on America's residential rooftops to power the entire planet, for example. If we invest wisely, as Germany is doing, we'll sacrifice a little bit of short-term comfort for a lifetime of luxury. If we invest poorly, as Obama will have us do with his "Drill, baby! Drill!" energy plan... ...well, if we actually follow through with that, we're well and truly fucked.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Wind power is the best thing ever happened to Gas powerstations manufacturers.
For every wind farm, you need a gas powerstation of the same size to compensate when the wind is not blowing.
So, over one year, wind power rejects more CO2 than a nuclear plant of same capacity.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Germany has been subsidizing nuclear, gas and coal energy for decades and invested billions from tax payer money into research and subsidization. One example: Building a wind turbine somewhere, the owner has to have an insurance covering 100% of the cost of possible problems due to faults and breakdowns, e.g. during storms. A nuclear power plant in contrast only has to insure 1% (in words: ONE percent) of the costs of a meltdown. Have a look at Fukushima and get figuring: so far, 137 billion USD for cleaning up that mess (and of course, the insurance only takes the predicted value, which is far less than that cost).
If the renewable energies would have been subsidized the same in the past two decades, the total cost of producing this energy would be by far lower than the cost of nuclear energy.
So, if you want to really discuss this issue, have a look at all sides and subsidizations. There's a study you might want to check out (unfortunately, I have not found an english verison yet), which results have been summarized here: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/37/37513/1.html. If you do not understand german, just check out the graph in the middle, showing the (normal and hidden) subsidizations of different energy sources in germany.
When the wind is not blowing, either you need to activate a CO2 generating natural gas power plant (with increasing price of natural gas) or import from other countries that would gladly charge you top money for this energy you need and can't produce.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I know the author was trying to tout renewable energy, but the fact of the matter is they turned off their nuclear plants, and ramped up how much coal their burning. Now, you might not like Nuclear, and I could argue with you on that... but coal is far far worse than Nuclear will ever be. This is a net loss for the environment. We need to turn off the coal, turn on the nuclear, and develop the renewable. Nuclear wont last forever, but it's the cleanest fuel we have for now.
France: 0.12 Euro per kWh.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
There's a lot of talk about wind energy in Germany, but in truth most of our energy stems from coal and natural gas plants. And that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. Check out the up-to-date statistics on power production in Germany that eex provides.
I really would have it contributed to Green energy but as far as i got it, it is not due to the fact that they have a surplus of green energy, but that the Coal price is way lower than Gas.
As a result Gas plants are turned off and Coal plants are used to the max.
It just happens that the Netherlands has a lot of Gas plants and Germany Coal plants, hence the exports
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
Sure! If you don't mind paying 5X as much for electricity as you do now, you too can help fund the development of renewable energy projects, just like the Germans. Oh what a time to be alive.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It looks to me like the reason for being able to export more electricity is not really the additional power from the renewable sources. These are mostly wind and solar plants that require large backup capacities due to fluctuations in power output. Naturally, when there is enough wind / sun available, there is excess power from backups that can be exported cheaply. So by supplying the capacity to provide power when renewable sources are not available, we have to overproduce at times when there is enough renewable power. The larger the fraction of fluctuating power plants becomes, the more overproduction will be necessary. Exports are thus just a reminder of an inherent flaw of most renewable power sources...
Sure, nuclear power plants (and their future dislocation) are and will be zero-carbon, compared to the part of my roof that's covered with cells.
How is parent modded interesting, that's 'funny' you should have clicked!
Herve S.
Like the title says, how much did they produce? How much did they use? I would not be surprized if some of that energy was bought cheaply from some troubled European countries and then re-sold at higher price.
Better to spend hundreds of billions on building future-forward infrastructure and creating jobs than spending hundreds of billions of dollars destroying cultures, bombing poor villages and murdering innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis in cowardly drone strikes that only serve to create more enemies and bankrupt the nation.
Subsidies:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
Those are the largest, there are many other.
Get your facts straight, then we can have a discussion about whether or not their value to society is worth keeping them or not.
This is not a post pro or against them, just pointing out that you are factually wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What does endorsing nuclear because you "fear the worst" have to do with denying climate change because "you fear a NWO"?
Nuclear power is one of the least clean and least usable (especially if you're not on the USA's friendly list) power sources.
Nuclear DOES NOT DO baseload.
Nuclear does slow change (until an unexpected outage) load.
But load changes.
Nuclear is SO BAD at following load that France has HUGE problems with financing. They overproduce at night and have to sell at firesale prices to get the stuff shifted, losing on every MW (to, for example, Germany). They can't ramp it up in the day, so they have to buy in from (for example) Germany's renewable sources at peak times.
Nuclear is hugely slow to procure, accident prone and dangerous and is actually specifically forbidden to most of the world.
The fallout from a solar heating array is some water dribbling down the wall.
I live in Oregon, we pay on average 7.6cents per kWh. Much lower then the national average. We get over 50% of our electricity form renewable source. Mostly Hydro.
maybe you should research AND THEN form an opinion?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is Germany a good example of forward-looking energy policy?
No. Nuclear is the way forward, Germany is instead following the siren song of the Green Luddites.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'd have thought that everyone was pretty much like me...you get an electric bill...you pay it, that you rate your 'usage' by how high your bill is each month.
I have levelized billing, so I just pay about $200-$210/mo and never look at the bill. Kinda like with gasoline or other commodity utilities in my life. I have to have them, so I just get the bill and see the amount, pay and forget about it and be on my merry way.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
11 million homes on solar power with about with say 1.5 times your avg need
then we have natural gas and we have oil
we can sell to others all this while keep rates as they are and if done at a rate of about 700,000 homes a year the following occurs
the fact that in canada people get taxed more then corporations is one factor
the fact that they get 4-5 K extra cash a year they would have gave a corporation who pays little taxes on it compared to us....
you then have sales taxes on things people will buy , you have some that will save shoring up banks liquidity and govt bonds ....
and this while taking 20 years to do one has to remember the arrays have avg life span of 20 years so by time your done the last people you just start over thus creating a stable across canada job market
and after 9 years the cost to put them onto houses vs the revenue one gets back is now a plus.
in fact by year 20 you have about 8-10 billion extra a year in revenues.
THIS does not include the people that now have jobs and pay taxes and buy stuff
this does not include the stimulation of more workers needed for new products as the home owner buys more stuff then usual....
NOW think that you no longer have to buy expensive arab oil in ontario and eastward....and west of ontario they dont have to use the oil/gas ....
the fact is NONE i repeat NONE of canada's politicians have an attention span past 3-4 years and its this very reason canada is slowly going the way of the usa undert stephen the reformer conservative harper.
P.S. Samsung even moved 4 solar array facilities to ontario so we have the capability to do this....putting it into a corporations hands in a field that was meant for food WILL NOT HELP US.....they dont pay enough taxes and they will over charge and price you up more.
We have the same deal in Ontario, Canada, the Liberal government massively subsidized renewables with feed in tarrifs (coming out of general tax revenue I believe). Then, because the manufacturing industry here has shrunk quite a lot over the past few years, there was a drop in demand, so we frequently wind up exporting excess power from renewables at a tiny fraction of the FIT. So basically, we are paying our neighbours (in the United States) to take our renewable energy.
I haven't read the FIT for Germany, but typical FITs only pay when energy is delivered. If the wind stops blowing, the generator is not able to charge for the capacity of the facility during that time.
Power exports are highly volatile and depend on who else is generating at the time and what the demand is at that time. If the majority of exports occurred in the evening, the exporter is likely doing so at or below cost. However, daytime rates are often several times higher than the price at night which would be a gain for the exporter.
The bottom line is that renewables make power trading more volatile but not necessarily more expensive. More generators mean more competition and the potential for lower prices. The power system is very complicated and very hard to characterize.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
I think you might have an intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful President of the United States confused with a Bimbo from Alaska!
To make the same amount of energy requires new capitol investment and the rate of return is lower. As such, the only way you're going to be profitable is to grow your export. Is slashdot really this far removed from business 101?
This may be unusual from an US standpoint, but to us Germans, power shortages really are an alien thing. Nobody of us has ever seen them or heard about them. We never had any and can't even imagine how that would look in practice.
I don't know why, but I guess something like a power shortage just is a big taboo around here, that just is not allowed to happen, no matter what.
But we sure do pay a premium for electricity and heating. Very often the price raises are even flat-out illegal! But nobody sues, and the energy companies are in bed with the government, so yeah... you pay up or you get cut off. It's pretty nasty.
But at least the grids are good and so reliable, we can't remember the last time there was a problem.
I rent in Canada and I pay CA$0.11/kWh all-in with no base cost. That's €0.087. Some months, it's 10 cents. Man, you guys get ripped off!
He is not wrong. You get 300W per square meter and need 14.2 kWh per year. So these solar cells would need to run 47 seconds per year.
Phasing out nuclear was a stupidest move that germans could do. Now look what countries are building nuclear power plants. France, Russia and countries of the Eastern Europe. Now which reactor would be safer: German or Russian? There is no question. While germans play with their wind and solar nuclear power plants are being built around them with non-german engineering. The next time radioactive cloud comes from the east german can hide under their solar panels or turn on their windmills and try to blow that cloud back.
...and I hope it gave you at least a little chuckle, too. I was going for "funny" and not "flamebait".
But I guess the /. nuke fans found my post to be a little too close to the truth? They do seem to be remarkably humorless, so I suppose I was asking for it.
The current mess this country is in is pretty much the result of an incompetent back-and-forth between elected governments that always try to push through some bullshit to get re-elected. Several years back, a "left"/green coalition (the chancellor from back then coincidentally got into a leading position at Russias gas racket Gazprom when he was done with that) actually decided to phase out nuclear power with a set timeframe. Nobody in the industry gave a shit by then, because everyone banked on the next government reverting the whole thing. There were also enough loopholes in there to drive the entire US nuclear arsenal through without anyone bothering: stuff like transferring lifetime from new, safer reactors to old crappy ones that were already beyond their planned lifetime. Why? Simple: the old ones were fully written off, and everything they produced was pure profit.
Some years later, enter right-conservative/capitalist government (the one we have now), the whole thing was actually scrapped for good! The industry rejoiced, but of course they continued generating income through the financing plan for renewables. Politics didn't care: they actually tax the tax, so more taxes on top of higher fees!
Some years later, enter the tsunami and upcoming elections, it was, of course top priority for our current ruling fascists (actually those are the ones at least partly responsible for some Greek islands having no water sometimes, austerity measures can be fun) to make it their idea to phase out nuclear power. Now. No thought, no brains, just now. Of course, in the past years, nobody bothered to invest in the infrastructure because the whole thing was canned earlier in the legislative period.
Oh, of course we also stopped paying for ITER, so we will always need to import some fossil fuel, preferably through the new pipeline from Russia, to meet base demand, so that was a smart move.
That "plan" deserves shooting of everyone involved, not recommendation.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
This is what you call a bubble - worth on the order of $350bn and rising - paid by electricity consumers through their bills. The only people who profit from it are those who have enough money to pay for solar cells or wind turbines and the more money they spend on them, the more they get. A classic transfer of money from the poor to the richest of our society - all brought to you by massive lobbying of the Green party.
AU here: just paid AUD7600 for a 4.5 kW solar on my roof (equiv. 5 iMac 21") - the company offered also offered me to pay it monthly over 2 years (for $300 more at the total price. The rate would be a bit lower than the cost of ciggies I smoke during a month).
Based on your statement, this takes me in the "richest of our society" class now? Wow... I didn't know the disposable income I afford make me this rich.
They had a very cool summer. The connection to tree-hugging is BS.
I don't know about Germany, but Denmark had the wind turbines produce 28% of the domestic electricity consumption in 2011, which obviously resulted in a lot of exports and imports. Yet Denmark made more per kWh exporting than what was paid per kWh importing.
This is because wind power is produced mainly during winter months where the hydro power stations in Sweden and Norway are running out of water. The power imported in summer is cheap, because the lakes cannot contain the amount of water coming in as the snow melts. Northern Germany can get almost the same deal, but the southern parts likely can't because Germany is still a bit lacking in north-south transmission lines. Given that it is Germany that we are talking about, the transmission problem will be fixed.
Also note that the "raw" electricity prices in Denmark are extremely competitive, especially when considering that Denmark has no natural energy resources (except oil, but no one sane uses that in power plants). Taxes on energy are high, but taxing things that do harm makes more sense than taxing things which are beneficial (like work).
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Keyword here is "beginning". Germany quietly restarted several reactors, which will slowly be decomissioned until 2020. So yeah, they still have power. And cretinously stupid hippies can blather about "being green".
ok in order :
A] OP doesn't know anything about electricity generation if he thinks wind/solar replaces nuclear power. You don't replace predictable an continuous productions facilities with intermittent and hardly predictable ones.
B] the exports is NOT a net value (i.e : it is a stupid value). Yes Germany has exported more electricity than ever before, but it also has imported more. Why ? because Solar and wind are not on demand so they've had massive surpluses of power followed by massive shortages.
C] to cope for the progressive phasing out of nuclear power they have built several GW of Gaz turbine power plants, gaz that they import from Russia via Ukraine (very reliable and loving couple of countries who are inn NO way in the middle of a blackmailing war over tarifs.... OH wait ! they are !)
D] the electricitygermany sells, they sell NOT at the price they want to but the price people who buy want to, because they don't control when they produce surpluses. So they sell to France for 0.1 euro/kWh, and 8 hours later they buy from France's EDF for 0.2 euro/kWh. Not a very sound business model but it is paying for the 4th generation Nuclear plants in France so i'm not complaining.
E] Before you even start to consider getting off Nuclear power, remember America, you're are not germany, you don't have France to sell you on demand Nuclear electricity when you need it.
To conclude, Wind and Solar are GREAT, we need more of that, MUCH MUCH more.Myabe more in the form of CSP like the project in Marocco than in the form of solar panels on german roofs but nevermind anything is good. ... ALSO GREAT ! It's better than gaz, oil, and coal. more reliable, cheaper and less CO2 intensive. We need nuclear power to be able to make true clean renewable. Because we need an on demand predictable power source.
br> Nuclear Power is
Lastly Hydro-electricty is the greatest as usual : ~0% CO2, continuous production, predictable power output and the Only way to efficiently and durably STORE potential electrical energy.
Another german here...
this being a rather complex question asked, my 2 cents...
the economic truth is, renewable energy still depends on subsidies, BUT no accounting of the real costs of nuclear power is done, or at least its a topic avoided by the media.
Fact is, we dont even have a permanent storage for used up nuclear fuel. A temp. storage in Asse (an old stone-salt mine, planned to be permanent storage) is turning into a financial disaster at the moment with ground water leaking in, rusty barrels and everything basically collapsing. dont have exact figures but this will cost the taxpayer some hundred millions to fix and there still is no permanent storage available- since nobody wants a nuclear dump at their very doorstep its unsure if there ever will be one.
Since longterm storage is payed for solely by the state, the "big ones" like Wattenfall, E.On etc can once more tell the myth of nuclear beeing cheap clean energy. furthermore, if a major fuckup like fukushima happens here, the mandatory insurance for the plants will pay a ridiculously small amount of money, for the providers the liability is capped, and the rest is on the taxpayer as always...TEPCO rings a bell?
Plus uranium as a very limited resource will not get cheaper anymore, plants are not really secured against terrorism and would need expensive major upgrades etc etc etc. So getting out of nuclear simply was the best thing to do for us here. 2 of the 4 big energy providers have even backed off from building new plants in denmark and england, since its not economic for them anymore.
Same thing goes for coal-plants, the exploitation of coal is also heavily dependent on taxpayers money, which doesnt show up on your electricity-bill, the restoration of landscape devasted by open cut mines, direct subsidies, and last but not least the costs of climate change are all not accounted for. So coal isnt a viable option either.
Oilplants are a good shot at the moment, but with peak oil this will be not the case for much longer. Also Oil is a too precious resource to burn it so you can charge your laptop or do the cooking IMHO
So basically the only vialable conservative option thats really cheap is natural gas plants, which happen to mix perfectly with renewable energy tech. Those plants are highly flexible in times of high demand, and the more advanced can go from cold to full capacity within half an hour. Its not a matter of choice if you want to settle for renewable energy its simply the only good option on the long run, at least here in germany where we have no resources and need to import (almost) every bit of natural gas. With piplines, for example, from russia crossing unstable states like belarus or the middle east...in this times you wouldnt really want some dictator going nuts and shutting down the pipeline, like russia did the last time with the ukraine (russia wanted to install a new pricetag for the gas)
So far the subsidies in renewables (will) have an impact of something between 10-20 € per month within the next 5 years which you have to pay with your bill. That may sound like a lot at first, but the problem is not that its too expensive, problem is its the taxpayer has to pay for it alone (again...is there a hidden pattern somewhere?) , while lobbying has managed to free the biggest users like heavy industry from that by law.
Also renewables have already dropped the prices at the electricity stock in Leipzug in peak times (around noon) by about 30% on average last year. (Thats bad for the margin, so guess who doesnt like more homeowners to install solar-panels?)
But this savings will not show up on your bill either as only commercial customers benefit, and the savings strangly dont trickle down to customers like you and me...
Quite ironic, as Joe Average this makes you pay even more "renewable energy tax" (EEG-Umlage) because the prices that the renewable energy producers get for a kW of input is calculated by the difference between producing costs and stock prices. So no, the EEG is far from perfec
That's not what I said. It's when the wind is blowing and the turbines have to be stopped for lack of demand, when the feed in tariff keeps being paid in full. In Germany it takes 10GW of installed capacity to produce about 1.7GW on average over the year. But peak generation remains on the order of 10GW, so this happens a lot, even when the overall contribution of wind power is just a fraction of annual demand.
So, when a certain area claims to get 50% of their energy from wind power (some parts of Germany do), then what this means in real-world terms is that in good wind conditions the wind turbines produce anywhere between 2 times and 5 times as much electricity as can be consumed in the area. (Depending on the time of day and week. At night, demand is especially low, but wind will be blowing anyway) Of course, this unconsumable surplus is part of the "50%" they keep claiming, so in reality they receive much less of their energy from wind power than they claim.
Now, you may say that the energy isn't wasted, it is exported. But that's only true if you operate on a small scale. If wind power is adopted large-scale all over Europe, you'll run out of places to export your surplus to as the wind will be blowing there too. Wind is highly correlated over large areas of Europe, especially the windy ones around the north sea.
Why do you write such nonsense? ... not based on installed capacity. /. and especially US wikipedia myth. No one in the enery business uses that term or the pseudoscience math behind it. ...
Power exports are usually based on long term contracts.
Wind turbines are very seldom shut down due to much production. In such a case you shut down (more exactly: power down) a coal plant.
Feed in tarrifs are not payed fo shut down plants, how do you come to this brain dead idea?
Payed are kWh, with a tarrif based on source and market conditions
Finally: capacity factor is a
The rest of your post where you throw in random Euro numbers makes no sense at all
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I didn't come up with the braindead idea to pay feed in tariffs for shut-down plants - it was braindead German legislature. And wind turbines are regularely shut down in Germany because of overproduction. You can see it, because they don't spin and their average power production has been dropping. The owners of wnd turbines used to complain about having to shut down their turbines - hence the braindead piece of legislature to pay them anyway.
Also, if you think capacity factors are a myth, you can't be helped.
While it is true, that Germany exported huge amounts of electricity (despite the 'green' power revolution) - this really paints a misleading picture. One could actually believe, that Germany has an overcapacity. However, this is not correct. Rewnewables produce power wether you use it or not. In some cicumstances, you have much more power than needed. So - Germany pretty much gave it away. As a matter of fact, neighboring countries switched off their own powerplants because they got that 'green' power cheapo. Germany didn't export power. They disposed it. They've got rid of it.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Thats why your idea is brainded.
No one pays feed in tarrifs for a plant, payed is for kWh.
There is no such law as you claim.
Capacity factors are a myth in so far as no one working in the energy sector is using them and most numbers on american/english wikipedia pages are nonsens regardless how you put them or use them.
Hint, if you would follow my older posts you would know: I actually work for one of the biggest german energy companies.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Exactly how dense are you? Of course wind power plants are being paid feed in tariffs when forced to shut down - for every kWh they could have fed into the grid, if they had not been forced to shut down.
Given your ignorance of the subject and the fact that you're calling capacity factors a myth, you either lied about your "credentials" or I should be much more afraid of Germanys future in energy than I ever thought was warranted.
Exactly how dense are YOU?
There is no such law that a) forces wind power plants to shut down, and b) there is no law that forces energy companies to pay for offline/shut down wind plants. AGAIN: why are you repeating this lie? Who told you that bullshit? And why are you so dumb to believe it is true?
Capacity factors are only citaded and likely also put up by 'unknowing' guys like you.
Capacity factor, in german KapazitÃtsfaktor, is word that does not even exist. No one uses it, no power plant has it as an attribute. Looking at the claimed capacity factors (on wikipedia) of nuclear of 90% and wind of, what whas it, 25% I believe, clearly shows that those wikipedia article writers have no clue about how power is produced or power plants or fleets of power plants are run.
A typical offshore wind park is producing about 50% of its time over the year 'rated' load, about 25% of the time above rated load, about 20% of its time below rated load, and 1% no load and about 4% very low load.
With the 50% time where it is running at name plate values it is already far above the wikipedia claimes of 25% "capashitfactor". If you don't believe that, hint: google is yoour friend.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Shut up you freak.
Only a miniscule fraction of german wind power is off-shore. So whatever you say is an implicit lie. Capacity factors of *all* wind power in Germany were 16.7% in 2010 and 18% in 2011. If you're incapable of calculating that from the amount of energy generated and the installed name-plate power you better get off your job.
Second:
11 EEG
Einspeisemanagement
(1) Netzbetreiber sind unbeschadet ihrer Pflicht nach 9 ausnahmsweise berechtigt, an ihr Netz unmittelbar oder mittelbar angeschlossene Anlagen und KWK-Anlagen, die mit einer Einrichtung zur ferngesteuerten Reduzierung der Einspeiseleistung bei Netzüberlastung im Sinne von 6 Absatz 1 Nummer 1, Absatz 2 Nummer 1 oder 2 Buchstabe a ausgestattet sind, zu regeln, soweit
1. andernfalls im jeweiligen Netzbereich einschließlich des vorgelagerten Netzes ein Netzengpass entstünde,
2. der Vorrang für Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien, Grubengas und Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung gewahrt wird, soweit nicht sonstige Anlagen zur Stromerzeugung am Netz bleiben müssen, um die Sicherheit und Zuverlässigkeit des Elektrizitätsversorgungssystems zu gewährleisten, und
3. sie die verfügbaren Daten über die Ist-Einspeisung in der jeweiligen Netzregion abgerufen haben.
Bei der Regelung der Anlagen nach Satz 1 sind Anlagen im Sinne des 6 Absatz 2 erst nachrangig gegenüber den übrigen Anlagen zu regeln. Im Übrigen müssen die Netzbetreiber sicherstellen, dass insgesamt die größtmögliche Strommenge aus erneuerbaren Energien und Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung abgenommen wird.
(2) Netzbetreiber sind verpflichtet, Betreiberinnen und Betreiber von Anlagen nach 6 Absatz 1 spätestens am Vortag, ansonsten unverzüglich über den zu erwartenden Zeitpunkt, den Umfang und die Dauer der Regelung zu unterrichten, sofern die Durchführung der Maßnahme vorhersehbar ist.
(3) Die Netzbetreiber müssen die von Maßnahmen nach Absatz 1 Betroffenen unverzüglich über die tatsächlichen Zeitpunkte, den jeweiligen Umfang, die Dauer und die Gründe der Regelung unterrichten und auf Verlangen innerhalb von vier Wochen Nachweise über die Erforderlichkeit der Maßnahme vorlegen. Die Nachweise müssen eine sachkundige dritte Person in die Lage versetzen, ohne weitere Informationen die Erforderlichkeit der Maßnahme vollständig nachvollziehen zu können; zu diesem Zweck sind im Fall eines Verlangens nach Satz 1 letzter Halbsatz insbesondere die nach Absatz 1 Satz 1 Nummer 3 erhobenen Daten vorzulegen. Die Netzbetreiber können abweichend von Satz 1 Anlagenbetreiberinnen und Anlagenbetreiber von Anlagen nach 6 Absatz 2 in Verbindung mit Absatz 3 nur einmal jährlich über die Maßnahmen nach Absatz 1 unterrichten, solange die Gesamtdauer dieser Maßnahmen 15 Stunden pro Anlage im Kalenderjahr nicht überschritten hat; diese Unterrichtung muss bis zum 31. Januar des Folgejahres erfolgen. 13 Absatz 5 Satz 3 des Energiewirtschaftsgesetzes bleibt unberührt.
I think micro-inverters are changing the game now. They've made it simpler to just buy and plug in a single power-producing device, right into your wall socket. Mixes the power generated with yours, shaving some watts off your utility bill. Later on, the system can be expanded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_micro-inverter.
Ah, you finally figured it. It is not power companies but grid operators that have to pay a compensation if they can not carry power from the producer to the customer. The compensation is far below 'feed in tarrifs' as you claimed before. The intent is that grid operators invest into grid capacity, as soon as the investment is cheaper than paying compensation.
Regarding your wiered wind power numbers, you are wrong again. Most of the wind power is off shore. Your numbers are not the percentage of 'possible' windpower in relation to installed amount (capacishitfactor) bit the total contribution to all power generated with wind. We are generating up to 20% of our power via wind, since years.
BTW, you missed to copy / paste the paragraph about 'compensation' in case your plant can not feed into the grid.
You copied the paragraph that covers the energy you actually do feed into the grid. And how grid operators have to behave and notify authorities etc.
So, you actualy still don't know how much they pay for shutting down a plant :)
As a sidenote, not realy important but as you seem to be a number freak and unable to educate yourself: the amount of power lost because of (wind) power plant shut downs, is below 1% of all wind power generated, so it is below 0.02% of all power generated and used in the german grid.
Sorry, my mistake that I did not grasp you where talking about grid operators and not power providers.
Feed in traffic is payed by power providers. (Something like 16 cent per kWh)
Grid operators only charge/pay grid traffic. (Something like 5 cent per kWh). The compensation if you can not feed your power plants energy into the grid is even lower.
Ah well the paragraph you are desperately looking for is: Â13.2 EnWG
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.