Slashdot Mirror


Germany Produces Record-Breaking 5.1 Terawatt Hours of Solar Energy In One Month

oritonic1 writes "Germany is rapidly developing a tradition of shattering its own renewable energy goals and leaving the rest of the world in the dust. This past July was no exception, as the nation produced 5.1 TWh of solar power (PDF), beating not only its own solar production record, but also eclipsing the record 5TWh of wind power produced by German turbines in January. Renewables are doing so well, in fact, that one of Germany's biggest utilities is threatening to migrate to Turkey."

28 of 687 comments (clear)

  1. NO NO NO by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

    This can't be right, solar doesn't work, Germany is too far north, the lights must go off every night, PV is a stupid technology, nuclear is the only way!!1 How can this be happening, it must be a liberal media lie put out by the scientifically illiterate eco-nazis... it... it just can't...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:NO NO NO by Ruede · · Score: 4, Informative

      i am paying 24,26 €cents per kwh

      i prefer the prieces of nuclear power.

    2. Re: NO NO NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nuclear subsidies are in your taxes, where you don't see them. Solar subsidies are in the electricity price, where you see them. Nuclear energy is not cheap energy, and while it does work for base load, you only need to look at France in the winter and in the summer to see that relying on nuclear does not cover all loads, so you also need other power plants on standby, so nuclear does not have an advantage over wind and solar there.

    3. Re:NO NO NO by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well to quote the wikipedia page quoting a financial times article:

      Due to the costs of this "Energiewende" Germany now has Europes highest energy costs. Costs have risen over the last 5 years even for industrial consumers who are exempted from the costs of the renewable energy subsidy that consumers pay. In 2013, energy was 4 times cheaper in the United States than in Europe, and 6 times cheaper than in Germany.

      It comes at a price and the sweet spots to produce renewables have already been picked, to keep it up they must use less and less ideal areas and means. Nice to see them lead but it's not really an act the whole world can follow.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:NO NO NO by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It can, only problem is last time I checked (a few years ago though) it took about 6 TW of energy to produce solar cells that could deliver that much energy.

      Don't you mean TWh? TW is the rate of energy production.

      The good news is that the cells last for longer than a month. From your guesstimate figures it seems like they break even remarkably quickly, and then are energy positive for decades.

    5. Re:NO NO NO by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny, my province's power is entirely supplied by a government-owned corporation, which hits about 98% renewable energy generation, has among the lowest energy prices in the world, and has still produced a consistent profit in the billions for decades. Doesn't seem to be failing to me.

    6. Re:NO NO NO by bdwebb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sensationalism much? They feel fine...only their warm-fuzzies were really effected and mostly due to trauma from either proximity to the plant's fire or due to the massive fucking tsunami that caused all of the actual problems . (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/world/asia/japan-who-radiation)

      The lifetime risk of contracting certain types of cancer rose slightly for a small group of people because they were exposed to radiation from the nuclear disaster, the WHO said Thursday.

      The notable exception was young emergency workers at the plant, who inhaled high doses of radioactive iodine, probably raising their risk of developing thyroid cancer. But since the thyroid is relatively resistant to cancer, the overall risk for these people remains low, the report said.

      Otherwise, any increase in human disease after the partial meltdown triggered by the March 2011 tsunami is "likely to remain below detectable levels," the WHO said in its report.

      So basically the tsunami and resulting devastation from the tsunami's aftermath are what the people in Fukushima are really concerned about...not growing extra arms or dying of cancer any sooner than they already would have. The real question for people there is whether or not they are willing to pay double price for their power and be safe from the apparent nuclear menace that is destroying lives...I'm betting people like cheap power.

    7. Re:NO NO NO by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      YYMV

      Your Yardage May Vary?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:NO NO NO by Mozai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. While I'm asking the people of Fukashima, you go ask the four thousand US coal miners each year with blacklung, or if its easier, the six thousand that die each year in China from coal mine accidents. While you're doing that, don't forget to check out the uranium and thorium that gets upchucked into the atmosphere where it can't be contained in a discrete area. http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

    9. Re:NO NO NO by KugelKurt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet another example how socialism fails.

      You have a weird definition of socialism.

    10. Re:NO NO NO by aliquis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice to see them lead but it's not really an act the whole world can follow.

      Sure it can. At the cost of higher energy price.

      There's lots of related stories.

      I just read in a somewhat recent magazine (0-2 year old) how here in Sweden/Scandinavia I think they was often recycling 90-95% (or just 95%) of the building material when they broke down a building.
      In the rest of the Europe they was trying to reach 50-95% (or 50-90.)
      In the US? 20%.

      There's also that story about that plastic stuff in the pacific.

      Over here in Sweden almost all aluminium cans are recycled, you pay 1 SEK for them when you get your drink and you get 1 SEK back when you recycle them. When people go out and drink (and just throw or put down their beer somewhere) or maybe leave their soda cans some people browse the cities for cans and look through the trash cans to pick them up and return them.
      We do the same for glass (1 SEK) and PET (1 or 2 SEK) bottles.
      We have had the same system for beer, cider and wine bottles to. I don't know how it works atm because I don't buy them anyway.

      I'm supplied with a compost bag holder and free paper bags to put my compost in and suppost to drop that content into a compost box outside. At the parking lot (same area) I can also leave all packaging which is made of plastic, metal, glass, cardboard and papers&magazines. If you live further out on the country side there's bigger ones like these: http://www.orebro.se/310.html

      Around the city there's places like this:
      http://www.orebro.se/305.html
      They are made like this:
      http://www.orebro.se/download/18.1ae77d4612f5d50ab538000632/Atleverket_karta+%C3%B6ver+ramp+och+containrar.pdf
      http://www.orebro.se/download/18.1ae77d4612f5d50ab538000634/Mellringe_karta+%C3%B6ver+ramp+och+containrar.pdf
      http://www.trollhattan.se/Documents/Tekniska/renhallning/avc_detaljplan_stor2.jpg
      Here's a photo of one:
      http://www.orebrohus21.se/att/Hovstas%20nya%20%C3%A5tervinningscentral.JPG
      http://www.emmaboda.se/upload/Om%20kommunen/Kommunala%20bolag/MHAB/Kopia%20av%20IMG_3356.JPG

      There you can leave more or less everything. Electronic (everything with built in battery, TVs, ..), dish washers, fridges, freezers, things you can burn (mostly wood and furniture), plastic, asbestos, metal, light bulbs and FLs, I assume there's also room for things like garden left overs for people with no compost of their own, batteries, paint, thinners, oil, ..

      In general the rest garbage is burned for long-distance/district heating (and there's places which burn more nasty stuff to.)

      As for land fills those exist to but with clay in the bottom and they put stuff above and so on but I guess that may be the case in many places. But as I understand things we've actually got a bigger demand for garbage to burn (though I assume we get some pollutans/filter material by doing so) than garbage so we import garbage ..

      They are rebuilding the largest one (?) in VÃsterÃ¥s:
      http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/om-malarenergi/vara-anlaggningar/kraftvarmeverket/Valkommen-till-fornyelsebloggen/
      I don't know where to find the nice looking schematics picture but whatever.

    11. Re:NO NO NO by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you don't put on price on energy usage then there's no incentive for appliances and lights to become more efficient. Sure you pay more, but Germany is proof of what can be achieved with solar and wind. BTW Germany's economy is the best in the EU; they were last seeing bailing out the rest of Europe.

      Don't ask how much something costs without also asking what you get for your money. Germany gets closer to energy self-sufficiency , creates a proof not of concept but of implementation for the rest of the world to benefit from which can and will offset more climate change which saves Germany and everyone else the astronomical, nation destroying costs - which will ultimately fail after they bankrupt us- involved with trying merely counteract climate change.

      So what is the financial cost? It's negative, because the very people paying higher electricity costs today will be spared having to fork over the all the rest of their money to battle climate change later.

      Don't ask how much something is, that's a brain-dead question. Ask what are you're getting for your money, and set the horizon for analysis to be the rest of your life, at least, or even your children's lives if you're the sort of person who is capable of being about something other than just yourself.

      Thanks Germany !

      signed,

      America.

    12. Re:NO NO NO by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Informative
      Careful. While this is the correct answer to the question,
      your table is for total energy consumption, not for electricity.

      This explains the huge amount of oil in there. Nobody in his right
      mind uses oil for electricity generation.

      JFTR, here's the breakdown for electricity in 2012:
      • lignite - 25,7 %
      • nuclear - 15,8 %
      • anthracite - 8,5 %
      • natural gas - 12,0 %
      • patrol products - 1,3 %
      • hydro - 3,5 %
      • wind - 8,1 %
      • biomass - 6,2 %
      • PV - 4,2 %
      • trash - 0,8 %
      • others - 4,1 %

      source [PDF] - includes an interesting row for "percent renewables",
      rising from 3% to 23% since 1990.

      So yeah, still a long way to go (lignite? really?), but working hard on actually going it.

    13. Re:NO NO NO by GoogleShill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And Germany plans to shut down on all those nights that when there are no wind? Give me a break.

      Man, if only we had people smart enough to figure out how to store extra energy for the times when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing.
      </sarcasm>

      It's not rocket science to figure out how to power a town using just the power available from a non 100% duty-cycle power source. Generate extra while you can and store it in capacitors.

      Hell, the UK has a bunch of storage reservoirs waiting just to dump through turbines to handle the extra load from tea kettles fired up during breaks in the World Cup.

  2. But...but... by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Informative

    But Germany gets so much more sun than the US! We can't compete with that?!

    (I wish I were kidding...)

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:But...but... by simonbp · · Score: 5, Funny

      With enough government subsidies, I'm sure you could build a profitable solar plant underground...

  3. Percentages, please by rogerz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perhaps I should RTFA, but looking at the Wikipedia page on Energy_in_Germany, that looks to be about 10% of monthly electricity consumption, (generously, given that it's summer), and less than 2% of total energy consumption.

    --
    If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
  4. Re:At what cost? by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Subsidies and negative externalities of the fossil fuel and other non-renewable energies and future return to scale of the solar energies are distortions to the economic picture and must be excluded for an honest discussion on the topic.

    FTFY

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  5. Months vs years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "In 2006 the plant produced 38.14 TWh". In a full year. The 5.1 TWh of solar power was for a single month.

    Renewables still have a long way to go, but it's 12 times better than you think. :)

  6. Re: Uneconomics 101 by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Germany's electricity prices are about the same as California's.

    Residents in Germany are paying ~$0.35/kWh while residents in Californian are paying ~$0.16/kWh, and California isnt a good example of efficiency either.

    In Europe, only the people of Denmark pay more than Germans and most of Europe pays ~40% less than Germans.

    But lets not let facts get in the way of a good P.R. piece about solar power, right?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  7. Re:Tell me when the subsidie run out by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are you joking? Nuclear gets the biggest subsidies of all:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
    The insurance is cappedat at ridiculously low value, meaning if there is an accident the taxpayer will have to pay.
    Without the insurance cap nuclear power would not exist.

  8. Re:And it's only getting better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A 200 W solar panel costs about $400 today. If that cost were entirely from the energy required to produce it, that would mean it requires 4000 kWh to produce ($400 / $0.1/khW). 200 W * 10 hours a day = 2 kWh per day. In a year, it'll produce perhaps 600 kWh (assuming 300 days of sun). Most panels are guaranteed for 20 years, so that's roughly 12000 kWh over the lifetime of the panel. 12000 kWh > 4000 kWh, no?

  9. Amazing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any mention of solar or any other renewable energy on Slashdot brings out an army of trolls, dolts, nincompoops and people who haven't commented on a story in ages, but suddenly have a pressing need to hold forth on solar energy. People who say, "It takes 7TW just to build a goddamn solar panel!" or, "Solar's no good because it's only 10%, and since coal is 30%, then that means coal is better because clouds!!" as if we'd passed the limits of technology in the 1890's and had better just get used to what we've got. I don't know what motivates people, or what brings them out for these stories, but it's pretty clear that if there is a concerted corporate effort to spread disinformation about energy, it's definitely working.

    The same people who will discuss seriously the best type of deep space drive for a manned mission to the Cygnus constellation will aver with absolute certainty that solar energy is just a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream.

    If I was a sociologist, I'd study the phenomenon. But that would just depress me.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Details from the English report by steveha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here are the numbers from the chart on page 4:

    Electricity production: first seven months 2013

    Uranium -- 52.1 TWh
    Brown Coal -- 85.1 TWh
    Hard Coal -- 65.5 TWh
    Gas -- 23.8 TWh
    Wind -- 24.2 TWh
    Solar -- 19.4 TWh
    Run of River -- 10.5 TWh

    Total energy production was about 280.6 TWh, renewable was 54.1 TWh (or about 19.3% of all energy production).

    Also interesting is the chart on page 9, "Monthly Production Solar". It is a bar graph, so these numbers are mostly my eyeball estimates:

    January: 0.35 TWh (exact number)
    February: 0.6 TWh (my estimate)
    March: 2.3 TWh (my estimate)
    April: 3.1 TWh (my estimate)
    May: 3.3 TWh (my estimate)
    June: 4.3 TWh (my estimate)
    July: 5.1 TWh (exact number)

    So winter really is bad for solar in Germany, but other months it isn't bad. Interestingly, wind does better in Winter... chart on page 10, "Monthly Production Wind", same deal as above (mostly eyeball estimates with two exact numbers):

    January: 5.0 TWh (exact number)
    February: 3.2 TWh (my estimate)
    March: 4.7 TWh (my estimate)
    April: 3.3 TWh (my estimate)
    May: 2.8 TWh (my estimate)
    June: 3.3 TWh (my estimate)
    July: 1.7 TWh (exact number)

    It doesn't look like renewables will be able to produce 100% of power needs any time soon in Germany, but they are producing about 1/5 of all energy. More than I expected.

    Critics claim that Germany is paying six times as much for power, to finance all the renewables. (Per that article, 18 billion Euros paid on power that has a market value of 3 billion Euros) See also the Wikipedia article on Renewable energy in Germany.

    Presumably though this is an investment and the renewables will keep providing power once their costs have been paid fully. I'm wondering if, over the operational lifetime of the solar and wind power equipment, they will wind up producing enough power that they will have actually been a good investment?

    IMHO it would make more sense for them to keep the nuclear power plants and try to shut down coal plants, but that's not their plan.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  11. Re: NO NO wait! What about clean coal! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

    The sky is falling, The sky is falling

    Since the sky seems to fall quite often, maybe we should build skyfall power plants.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  12. Nuclear by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 900 lb gorilla in the room is the shutdown of nuclear generation. This is causing a much faster increase in coal consumption and construction of more coal burning plants in Europe.

    A lot of what is being mined and burned is nasty brown stuff too.

    The idea is that it's going to be replaced by renewables. Someday maybe, but I bet not in my lifetime. The upshot is that despite all this solar etc. the EU is spewing more CO2 than ever.

    The Economist has a great article about it. They call it the 'Golden Age of Coal'.

  13. Re:Meanwhile coal generation is rising in Germany. by D'Sphitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah yes, crony capitalism. Like all of the cronies who have collected the ~$10T we've pissed away over the past decade on such national treasures as our multiple ongoing wars, an unmatched prison-industrial complex, corporate welfare and bailouts for billionaires, and national defense and security. A hefty price tag, but I guess we did get a lot for our money. We got a new surveillance state, militarized police forces, dismantling of the constitution, and a recession bordering on depression while the elite have never been richer or contributed less. Let's also not forget that we nailed down the #1 spot on the Incarceration Rate Hot 100 (not to mention the #1 spot on many other prestigious charts), and as a bonus, our global resentment is at an all time high!

    But I hear you, let's focus on the negative waste like green energy subsidies that cost less than what is filtered to war profiteers every month to keep Operation Occupy Afghanistan running indefinitely. We should also probably bitch about even thinking about providing healthcare to our citizens, and don't even get me started on those leeching retirees who demand a monthly cash handout just because they worked their whole lives paying into social security. What a waste.

    In 2013, it’s estimated that $7.3 billion — 45 percent — in energy tax subsidies, will go towards renewable energy, according to Congressional testimony by Congressional Budget Office senior advisor Terry Dinan. Another $4.8 billion — 29 percent — in energy tax subsidies will be for energy efficiency.
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/14/cbo-most-energy-tax-subsidies-go-toward-green-energy-energy-efficiency/

  14. Background Info by Tom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some more info - I am a German living in Germany, and I've been following non-mainstream media on this very topic for quite a while.

    Solar and wind are exploding, much quicker than anyone expected. In fact, so quickly that it has the government in panic, probably courtesy of the big energy corporations. You see, most solar and wind power is decentralized, deployed in small batches by thousands of small companies or private owners. The plans for big off-shore wind parks are moving ahead much, much more slowly.

    So, the government broke their own promises, retro-actively(!!!) changed the law and reduced the subsidies for clean energy. When you read "subsidies" you should realize that both coal and nuclear are also heavily subsidized. With the recent changes, more so then renewable energy.
    In addition, a law that exempts the really huge energy users in the industry was massively expanded and these days most energy-heavy industrial users are exempt from energy taxes. This makes electrical power a lot cheaper for them then for the consumer, who of course needs to pay for the difference. The purpose of this is obviously to reduce public support for renewable energy, because it has all been accompanied by a massive PR campaign about rising energy costs.

    The fact is that the actual price of electricity has come down. If you look at the power exchange (like a stock exchange, just for energy prices), there were days when the price of electrical power was negative for several hours. Yes, that's right, there was so much energy being produced that the producers paid you for taking it off their hands. Sounds insane, isn't - electrical energy can't be stored easily, and you can't just make it vanish. If supply and demand aren't in balance, the stability of the energy network is in danger.

    Of course, private consumers didn't notice and weren't given cheap energy. See above.

    There's a massive political tug-of-war going on within Germany right now. On the one hand there are hundreds of mostly small or medium-sized companies that are driving the renewable energy market, building and installing wind turbines and solar panels. On the other hand are about half a dozen big old energy-power companies who simply missed the boat and are still heavily invested into coal and nuclear. There's a whole story there about the Germany government's flip-flopping on nuclear power over the years, too much to include in this post.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org