Slashdot Mirror


Germany's Glut of Electricity Causing Prices To Plummet

WIth an interesting followup to the recent news that Germany's power production by at least some measures was briefly dominated by solar production, AmiMoJo (196126) writes Germany is headed for its biggest electricity glut since 2011 as new coal-fired plants start and generation of wind and solar energy increases, weighing on power prices that have already dropped for three years. From December capacity will be at 117% of peak demand. The benchmark German electricity contract has slumped 36% since the end of 2010. "The new plants will run at current prices, but they won't cover their costs" said Ricardo Klimaschka, a power trader at Energieunion GmbH. Lower prices "leave a trail of blood in our balance sheet" according to Bernhard Guenther, CFO at RWE, Germany's biggest power producer. Wind and solar's share of installed German power capacity will rise to 42% by next year from 30% in 2010. The share of hard coal and lignite plant capacity will drop to 28% from 32%.

365 comments

  1. This just illustrates by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This just illustrates that carbon tax is too low

    1. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does the price at the household meters go down too?

    2. Re:This just illustrates by Shimbo · · Score: 2

      If it doesn't it's time to switch supplier. If they all hold their prices, then they risk being investigated as an illegal cartel. So, maybe not immediately but it creates a downward pressure.

    3. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      switch supplier

      You mean switch bill-printer, right? The supplier won't change - that's one of the great cons of the privatisation of utility suppliers.

      And any as multi-billion dollar corporation kno, the "risk" of being investigated for pretty much anything is part of business. The laws are phrased vaguely enough that all that really matters is the bias of the judge, which will be reflected in how he/she interprets the facts and the law. A good lawyer goes a long way to making a particular view easier to swallow, ofc.

      5 people think: "We'd all remain more profitable and minimise our risk if we kept prices high." That's easy. Don't even need to meet up to see that's obvious. Market's captive, baby.

    4. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The average household electricity prices in Germany were at ~29 eurocents per kWh in 2013 and they are rapidly rising 5-10% per year. The "price drop" the article describes is the drop in the electricity exchange market (EEX) prices, which indeed went down from something like 5.5 cents to 3.75 cents in the last years. The reason is the massive influx of highly subventioned solar, wind and biogas-generated electricity. At times when the renewables production spikes, the electricity is "sold" at negative prices - i.e. whoever takes it, gets paid.

      For the end user, the falling market prices are pretty much irrelevant, since the end price contains the averaged difference fee ("EEG-Umlage") between the subventioned price and the market price - the lower the market price, the more the end users have to pay to get the subventioned price to the level defined by law. The more renewable energy is produced, the more they have to pay in total.

      The other side of the issue is that the commercially operated conventional power plants cannot competitively operate against prices deflated by subventions, so many operators announced to scale down their capacity and close many power plants. In many cases, brand-new gas-fired plants with very high efficiency are affected, of all things, because of the rising gas prices. This however plays against the renewable energy plans, since exactly these gas-fired plants are direly needed to keep the grid stable in presence of highly fluctuating renewable inputs. Currently there are talks about introducing subventions for the conventional gas- and coal-fired powerplants in order to maintain their generation capacity. The subventions of course will be forwarded to the end user.

    5. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 2

      All suppliers in Germany are abided by law to add taxation to the end-user prices. Taxes and fees, most prominently the renewables subvention fee were rising rapidly in the last years, while raw electricity price on the bill was slowly decreasing. Yes, all suppliers in Germany will be raising or at least holding prices, and the only criminal cartel involved here is the govenrment. Good luck investigating those guys.

    6. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "You mean switch bill-printer, right? The supplier won't change - that's one of the great cons of the privatisation of utility suppliers."

      While the source of the energy YOU use isn't known, your energy supplier has to feed enough net energy into the grid to account for the use of its customers. So when I go to the supplier that buys it energy from some nukeplant, I actually may use most of my energy from my neighbours solarpanels, but on the total grid all is accounted for. So what is the problem with "bill printers"?

    7. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The more renewable energy is produced, the more they have to pay in total

      With this logic and 0.29EUR/kWh it really makes sense to invest in your own personal renewable energy source.

    8. Re:This just illustrates by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

      Really? "The new plants will run at current prices, but they won't cover their costs"
      And you wonder if the prices go DOWN?

      Sure they can go down and most definitely some companies go bankrupt but count on it the prices will go up after that...

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    9. Re:This just illustrates by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Some places, even here in the US, have a choice of electrical provider, it is VERY rare, but does happen.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    10. Re:This just illustrates by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This just illustrates that carbon tax is too low

      Ah, looks like we've run into another person who believes that human misery is the way to go. How's the plan for excessively high energy prices working out for various countries anyway? And do you believe that you can build a world on expensive energy, expensive food, and expensive bare necessities without causing massive suffering to people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:This just illustrates by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      At times when the renewables production spikes, the electricity is "sold" at negative prices - i.e. whoever takes it, gets paid.

      Why would suppliers provide electricity at negative prices? Can't they just waste it somehow, just install a bunch of resistors in a big swimming pool and run the excess electricity through there?

      Of course storing it for later use, for example by pumping up water that can be routed through turbines later, would be even better but would also require a serious investment. But certainly from the provider's point of view, simply wasting it is better than selling at negative prices?

    12. Re:This just illustrates by damienl451 · · Score: 2

      They already do it, but negative prices are a rare occurrence and it's probably not worth investing in additional capacity. Storage and reducing production are both more expensive than paying people to accept the extra electricity. In a way, this is the same as installing resistors, except that you're just letting other people dispose of the electricity without incurring capital expenses yourself.

    13. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is incorrect. In many countries, such as my own (Finland) you can actually choose which power provider to use.

      My bill basically consists of two parts. One comes from utility provider providing power transmission wires to my home (which I cannot choose for obvious reasons) and one comes from the provider of electrical power to the grid (which I can choose from anywhere in Finland).

      I live in city of Tampere, and buy electricity from provider in Kouvola (https://www.kssenergia.fi/). The distance between our cities is several hundred kilometers, but this works because electric grid is unified, and what actually happens is that provider feeds a certain amount of energy into the grid, and whatever energy I take out is billed according to our contract. Provider is required to feed this much power (+ certain surplus for transmission) into the grid at its local exchange. This creates competition between electricity generating companies while transmission fees are monitored by government to ensure that they are in line with spending and do not abuse the monopolistic rights (since they are the only provider in the area for obvious reasons).

      This system enables healthy competition for power providers without upending utilities.

    14. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great idea, but it has too many mistakes:
      1. Most people in Germany do not have their own house, but live in rented apartments. They have no possibility to install any kind of power generator, renewable or not.
      2. Even if you have your own house, you cannot install for example a wind turbine or a biogas tank - these are only allowed at a minimum distance to living areas.
      3. So, the only option is the solar power, but its output is fluctuating, so you need capabilities to equalize it, either:
      - keep a connection to the grid (which brings you back all kinds of taxes and fees back, also see the next point)
      - have a battery storage - for a househould it would require a battery the size of a shipping container and cost 1-2 million euros and wear out within few years. Remember, you need a storage capacity to last through the winter, where there is barely any solar output.
      - have a backup generator running on diesel or gas - possible to combine with a heating boiler, there are solutions on the market like that, but then again you will need to pay additional taxes for electricity generation from gas, pay for gas, deal with the waste heat when you don't need it and I don't think any solution will readily run without grid connection
      4. Starting from this year, the regenerative energy produced for self-consumption will be also subject to the EEG surcharge (the money that goes to the subventioning the renewable energy production) in Germany.
      When you realize that it's cheaper for you to live off the grid you will realize that it's cheaper not to live here at all.

    15. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Most Germans live in cities where such investment is impossible.

    16. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. Energy generation is a very difficult thing in that entire grid must stay within certain tolerance levels. We're talking about gigawatts per hour, so your swimming pool would have to be a size of a large lake or two and would obviously not be worth the cost.

      They used to pump electricity up into potential energy water storage in some places, but those have been in dire need of upgrades and for some fucked up reason (which is an apt summary of the entire Energiewende really) are not supported and are actually closed down. All while new coal and gas is being massively built up so that they have hot reserve ready to go for the renewables fluctuations.

    17. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a quick FYI, because you keep using that word: "Subvention" is subsidy in English.

    18. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And do you believe that you can build a world on expensive energy, expensive food, and expensive bare necessities without causing massive suffering to people.

      Ah, looks like we've run into another person who believes that externalizing costs the way to go.

    19. Re:This just illustrates by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      A whole house backup battery costs a few thousand Euros and will last decades. Electric vehicles are pushing the price down further as used packs become available and production ramps up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still, your actual provider does not depend on who you pay. You can buy "100% renewable" and get your electricity from a coal fired plant next door regardless. The grid is not a pool. That's just an abstraction for consumers. Location matters.

    21. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? The monopoly of one electrical pole, one electrical service to a block, one electrical system to a town, given monopolies to an area, bought monopolies, to a county, etc, where states grant sales to the best pocket stuffers, and we the customer, utilizer have a choice? Where? How? Brand X is owned by brand Y, so what choice?

    22. Re:This just illustrates by sourcerror · · Score: 2

      No. Energy generation is a very difficult thing in that entire grid must stay within certain tolerance levels. We're talking about gigawatts per hour, so your swimming pool would have to be a size of a large lake or two and would obviously not be worth the cost.

      Or you need a lot of small swimming pools. My water boiler uses so called "night current" which is sporadic excess electricity sold at a discounted price. (I live in Hungary.)

    23. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you've clarified, the various providers are required to feed into a common grid which is managed by government and is required to accept input from all sources dictated by government. Two things:

      1) This is not privatisation but Italian corporatism, where the private sector collects profits but the government is responsible for preventing losses which detriment society.

      2) This isn't choosing where your power comes from - that would be terribly inefficient - just apportioning sources for total power in the pool.

      Consider what happens if the provider which is cheapest at source also involves the greatest total distance to homes and businesses.

    24. Re:This just illustrates by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, looks like we've run into another person who believes that human misery is the way to go.

      Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read about electricity trading. [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_market]

    26. Re:This just illustrates by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in america my power bill consists of only one part, and I have the choice of whether to go fuck myself or allow the regional monopoly to price gouge me for electricity.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    27. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This just illustrates that carbon tax is too low

      Indeed. Damn those Germans for allowing access to cheap energy.
      Damn them for having industry, making things, and improving their standard of living.

      If they aren't starving peasants, they're doing it wrong!

    28. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with your AmeroLibertarian appraoch ... the grid needs those generators for stability, and with gas turbines unavailable, the grid will become unstable or force more feathering of wind.

    29. Re:This just illustrates by v1 · · Score: 1

      Lower prices "leave a trail of blood in our balance sheet" according to Bernhard Guenther, CFO at RWE, Germany's biggest power producer

      Sounds to me like "our production costs are so close to our competition's retail price, we're having trouble staying in business, pity us!"

      No, this is not something for me to pity, and it most certainly isn't my problem to help you solve. You need to innovate and improve efficiency of your business, or close your doors. We don't do the "buggy whip" thing anymore. And your existence isn't critical enough to justufy subsdies/handouts. Innovate or die. (quietly if possible)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    30. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have bad news for you (sorry, not much found online except in German language): http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/ww... http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/... It's a literally giant installation, cost: 6 million euro (1.3million subventioned from the state), capacity: 5MWh, that's 250 euro worth of electricity stored. Life span - certainly not "decades", 10 years at most.

    31. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the source of the energy YOU use isn't known,

      Which is precisely what I indicated.

      So what is the problem with "bill printers"?

      "What is the problem with unnecessary, leeching middlemen?"

      Minimising the cost and impact of electricity by selecting appropriate sources at various positions on the grid according to demand across the whole grid is a mathematical puzzle. If everyone signs up for Roger's Discount Retail because it happens to buy its energy from Carly's Coal and Carly charges the least per kWh to feed into the grid from its single plant 1,000 miles away, what will happen?

      It is whoever regulates the grid who must put hard limits on where energy is sourced from, and who is also ideally placed to select optimal sources.

    32. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "All while new coal and gas is being massively built up so that they have hot reserve ready to go for the renewables fluctuations."

      The new coal plants are almost all being built to REPLACE older units that are less efficient AND less flexible.

      http://www.renewablesinternati...

    33. Re:This just illustrates by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      At times when the renewables production spikes, the electricity is "sold" at negative prices - i.e. whoever takes it, gets paid.

      Why would suppliers provide electricity at negative prices?

      Generally the time prices are negative is small, so it is cheaper to pay to take it than try to cycle a plant to keep prices higher. A baseload plant is not easily ramp up and down, especially when demand changes faster than their ramping ability, so they simply base load and pay to take to excess capacity.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    34. Re:This just illustrates by kenaaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've got a "whole house" battery backup that I installed several years ago for about $ (usd)8k. It has 8 batteries (6 volt gel packs in series) and a 3 Kw inverter with integrated auto transfer switch. That's been enough to run the critical systems in the house for 3 days (from experience). It doesn't run the air conditioning, but everything else works just fine.

    35. Re:This just illustrates by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Lower prices "leave a trail of blood in our balance sheet" according to Bernhard Guenther, CFO at RWE, Germany's biggest power producer

      Sounds to me like "our production costs are so close to our competition's retail price, we're having trouble staying in business, pity us!"

      No, this is not something for me to pity, and it most certainly isn't my problem to help you solve. You need to innovate and improve efficiency of your business, or close your doors. We don't do the "buggy whip" thing anymore. And your existence isn't critical enough to justufy subsdies/handouts. Innovate or die. (quietly if possible)

      While I agree in principle, you can't simply have generators shutdown and not supply power to meet demand. If they simply shut off plants, the grid be damned, people would be screaming about blackouts and brownouts. Many of their competitors are heavily subsidized as well, and their generation not (yet) reliable enough to base load and ensure grid stability. While it's easy to say fu and your business model when it comes to power generation it isn't that simple. Just as California after the deregulated.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    36. Re:This just illustrates by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      The word exists. It's just uncommon.

    37. Re:This just illustrates by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Do you mind giving me some info on your system? Brands/models?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    38. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I eat in the bathroom....walking wastes too much energy ðY

    39. Re:This just illustrates by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in america my power bill consists of only one part, and I have the choice of whether to go fuck myself or allow the regional monopoly to price gouge me for electricity.

      Interestingly enough, German residential electric rates are up to four times as high as US rates (Hawaii pays about as much as Germany, New England and Alaska half as much, everywhere else considerably cheaper)

      Finnish rates, on the other hand, are comparable to New England's rates. In other words, more expensive than anywhere but Alaska and Hawaii.

      So, if you're being "gouged", I take it you live in Hawaii? Because otherwise, your "gouged" is probably lower than anyone in Europe is paying....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:This just illustrates by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      I hope "innovate or die" will keep people warm in winter. Otherwise I hope they stick to their "it's my right to demand a lower price and it's not my problem" principle and let's see what happens then...

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    41. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If everyone signs up for Roger's Discount Retail because it happens to buy its energy from Carly's Coal and Carly charges the least per kWh to feed into the grid from its single plant 1,000 miles away, what will happen?"

      The customer will never know[*]. Roger's Discount Retail however will have to buy the used energy from somewhere else, which may cost them more than they bargained for, maybe less depends on the price at the exchange.

      *: the final notice will include a specification of energy suppliers, at my previous supplier 100% of the nuke generated kWh came from a plant 3 countries to the south, on paper.

    42. Re:This just illustrates by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.

      So you're telling me that CO2 is what's going to cause the real human misery. Not poor healthcare, not food to eat, not ways to keep things from spoiling. Not having properly developed agriculture or sewage management. Okay there. Next you'll be saying that burning cow dung indoors doesn't cause lung cancer, and sleeping on the ground in a hut covered with shit doesn't cut your life expectancy in half due to parasites. You do realize that in my examples that not even 1/3 of the people on this rock are at this level. If you're lucky you might hit 20%

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gird is a pool, I buy 100% green, my neighbour buys 100% coal. We get the same mix from the pool (x% green, y% coal, z% gas, ....). The provider only has to make sure it payed for the right kind of source at the Energy Exchange to keep the pool at the required level.

    44. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What crops can you grow in a desert?

    45. Re:This just illustrates by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. Most people in Germany do not have their own house, but live in rented apartments. They have no possibility to install any kind of power generator, renewable or not.

      That is not really true. One of the things that is becoming more common is for the housing corporations to create projects where the renters pay an additional fee for using power from solar panels the corporations install. There are variants when it comes to the type of payment and ownership, but the general construction is quite viable. Basically, renters get to bet that their fees for the solar panels will be lower than what they would pay in electricity costs, feel good about supporting solar and have to do nothing otherwise. The housing corporations can (technically) provide better panels and prices due to the scale advantages.

      It's obviously not a panacea, considering that housing corporations could really mess up their choices or try to become rich off of the projects, but in a way it is a much faster way to increase the number of installed solar panels than waiting for home owners to take the plunge.

    46. Re:This just illustrates by Temkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some places, even here in the US, have a choice of electrical provider, it is VERY rare, but does happen.

      Certain parts of Texas have fully seperated the generation market from distribution. Distribution is run by a monopoly called Oncor, and they get to leech from your bill at a mostly fixed rate. You then sign up for generation with a variety of providers offering various contract terms. When I lived there I locked in a 2yr contract, flat rate at 8.9 cents per Kwh, and tried my hand at bitcoin mining via dirty old coal. But I could have had 100% wind or 100% renewable at even lower rates, but they were seasonal and they tended to have short terms. 3mo then you get dumped on the market again when the 8.9 cent deal isn't available. Longer term renewables ran 11 - 15 cents per Kwh.

      This is the system California was trying to set up, but the mistake they made was to not seperate distribution from generation. Now they're stuck with a politicized PUC making decisions that deem 1 Kwh used by a company has higher economic value to the state than 1 Kwh used at my house. So I get a form of rationing by tier, and if I leave my computers on and do too many load of laundry, they start charging me 50 cents a Kwh. Just who get s to keep the difference between that and the actual generation costs is lost on me...

    47. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      There's more desert created from bad management than from global warming. For example, way back when I read some study on Slashdot which claimed a certain amount of arable land would be lost from desertification and sea level rise from 2C rise in temperature over a century. That ended up being about the same area as a year's worth of normal desertification.

      I tried googling for that story, but never could find it.

    48. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you not even read the summary?

      "The new plants will run at current prices, but they won't cover their costs"

      So they won't be dropping prices because they are already losing money, and you think that is criminal?

    49. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are trading the long term for the short term. If we knew about the effects of excessive CO2 production in the 1900s, the electric car may have gained much more traction and we would be in a position, today, to help proactively on world hunger, healthcare, etc. However if you are trying to say the carbon tax is a bad idea because of these world problems, then I would agree that the tax is a burden. However wars don't really help either and this global war on drugs/terror/middle east is just as much to blame for world hunger and healthcare. Can you imagine if the US did not go into the middle east after 9/11? How many families would be eating today?

      You do realize that we cannot drop everything we are doing and focus on world hunger and healthcare. It is just not feasible today. Just like in the 1900s, the idea of free healthcare and free food was laughable. At least today we can begin discussion because we have the means. Tomorrow, hypothetically speaking, we may be able to cover 1/3 of th epeople on this rock at that level. How do we get there? By mitigating damage to our planet so we're not spending healthcare resources on fixing a leaking oil well in the ocean.

      Just an AC's $0.02. You probably don't want to hear any of it though because it's not "solving the problem"

    50. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, Texas did it properly. My electricity coming into my house is likely coal powered but I can change my supplier to a wind or solar energery provider based out of KS or OK. They are getting my money even though I am not receiving their energy, but it means people in KS or OK also have the option for wind or solar because that plant can afford to increase their infrastructure. I can sleep better at night this way. I just worry what this means in 20 years time, because eventually solar is going to be affordable for me to install on my roof (technically it already is today, but due to HOA rules I can't have them and so my hidden costs include fighting a proxy vote war or flat out moving)

    51. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      5MWh is more than the yearly consumtion of an average euorpean household (about 3.5MWh). You don't need such a large capacity even if you want to be 100% selfsufficient, not that an average household can produce such amount of energy. It doesn't make any economic sense to try to be 100% selfsufficient. Get a 10-20kWh storage unit and you'd be reasonably selfsufficient during the summer and large parts of spring/autumn.

    52. Re:This just illustrates by kenaaker · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sure, the inverter/ATF is a Xantrex SW4048. The model has been replaced with other models. I've never had a problem with it, although I've heard some complaints about components in the newer models. The main service tie is a 30 amp 110 circuit, and there's a secondary input that I can drive with a generator or other 15 amp 110 source.

      The batteries are Fullriver DC310-6 gel-packs which are supposed to deal with hydrogen out-gassing. I think the model number translates to 6 volt, 310 Amp hours. They're connected in series to yield 48 volts DC to the inverter.

      The system was sized to run the critical circuits in the house for 3 days. (Critical being the heating boiler (LP), some lights, the kitchen (except the electric oven), a sump pump, and a circuit for the living room and master bedroom.

    53. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, am I missing something? The majority of the world lives without electricity, clean water, etc. Are they suffering?

      Should we kill them all so they stop suffering? Should we expand coal fired power production 10x so we can electrify their cities and homes and run filtration and desalination plants for them?

      It's all relative.

    54. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1, Informative

      The grid is a pool. While "location matters" if there is only one source, it is wholly irrelevant if all power companies have clients across the nation, and actual distribution of what how much power is fed and taken is handled by exchanges.

      That is how Finnish energy markets have worked for many years now, and that is in part why we enjoy some of the lowest electricity prices in the EU.

    55. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I'm being gouged in New England, paying 12 cents /kWh? The EIA says that, on average, the power company's *revenue* is 12.31 cents/kWh, which puts me on the cheaper side of the average.

    56. Re:This just illustrates by zwede · · Score: 3, Interesting

      solar is going to be affordable for me to install on my roof (technically it already is today, but due to HOA rules I can't have them

      Have you checked with your HOA recently? TX now has a law that regulates what HOAs can demand as far as roof top solar. An HOA cannot simply say "no solar panels allowed". Instead there are guide lines in the law that the HOA will make you follow, such as the panels must follow the roof angle, no tilt panels that follow the sun, panel frames and mounts that blend into the HOA color scheme (probably they will ask for black). Stuff like that. The law isn't perfect, there are loop holes in case the HOA is run by jerks. But if you're willing to go to arbitration it is very likely you will win. I'm in Dallas and installed 20 solar panels (5kW) earlier this month. My HOA was very supportive and changed some of the rules due to my suggestions in order to make the process easier.

    57. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's the bullshit claim that is laid to allow uninformed to feel good about it.

      In reality, older coal plants have been fired to pick up the slack en masse, and Germany had to even give up on its environmental goals. In fact, after Energiewende started and they had to fire up all the old coal plants, for the first time in over 15 or so years Germany's CO2 emissions increased instead of decreasing. It created quite a furore until it was silenced by organised media push to save Energiewende, because it was clear that if masses found out what was happening for real, they'd be up in arms.

      Reality is, when Energiewende started, the lack of energy in Germany became so dire, that they had to fire up essentially all functional mothballed coal plants. The new plants that are coming online are partially taking over hot reserve needs of renewables, and partially replacing these old, formerly mothballed plants. But reality is that these plants were never fired until the policy started. So even if you're very optimistic and assume that current plants are enough to provide hot reserve for increasing renewable production (they are not, but let's pretend), you're still looking at massive increase in coal burning across Germany due to Energiewende.

    58. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.

      So you're telling me that CO2 is what's going to cause the real human misery. Not poor healthcare, not food to eat, not ways to keep things from spoiling. Not having properly developed agriculture or sewage management. Okay there. Next you'll be saying that burning cow dung indoors doesn't cause lung cancer, and sleeping on the ground in a hut covered with shit doesn't cut your life expectancy in half due to parasites. You do realize that in my examples that not even 1/3 of the people on this rock are at this level. If you're lucky you might hit 20%

      The problem is that those 20% are producing so much CO2 that it will cause most of the problems you listed for 100% of the human race if we continue to burn fossil fuels with wild abandon..... well OK, the 99% of the human race that can't afford fortified villas in gated communities guarded by private armies.

    59. Re:This just illustrates by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      When I lived in regular Texas, Green Mountain was my 100% wind provider, and my rates only went down for the ~6 years I used them.

      Austin doesn't give me a choice as I have to use the municipal service. I'm still 100% wind but angry they didn't grandfather my past record of wind power into a lower early adopter rate.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    60. Re:This just illustrates by BlackPignouf · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are an idiot.
      High energy prices in the future are a sure thing.
      You have exactly two options :
      * sit on your ass, don't change anything and give more money everyday to Russia, Saudi Arabia & Qatar. Those countries love this option, because one day, USA & Europe will be broke, won't have gas to heat their houses in winter or oil to power their cars, tanks or fighter jets. Then they can nicely invade Ukraine or go all Djihad on our ass.
      * pay a bit more taxes, complain that some free loaders and greedy politicians get too much of it, but let your country invest in infrastructure that will help you and your people face peak oil and global warming. Yes, you'll pay more for energy (at first), but the price evolution is clearer than without taxes and it helps you reduce your energy demands.
      Now tell me, which option is the way to go for "human misery"?

    61. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a choice of power provider, where multiple companies provide power, but one company provides delivery over the grid, can be a nightmare. I manage my cousin's property in Chicago, and I am constantly deluged by spam phone calls from power providers trying to trick me into switching to them. All they have to do is get me to give them my account number with Commonwealth Edison (who distributes the power, but doesn't generate it any more) and they will flip my account. They lie about the projected savings, they try to trick me into giving them the account number, and they call repeatedly even if you tell them to stop.

    62. Re:This just illustrates by skids · · Score: 2

      If we knew about the effects of excessive CO2 production in the 1900s,

      FWIW.

      "The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in a planet's atmosphere warm its lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall,[66] was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896,[67] and was developed in the 1930s through 1960s by Guy Stewart Callendar.[68]" ...just because it always amuses me to remind myself how long we've known much physics.

    63. Re:This just illustrates by budgenator · · Score: 1

      On what planet do you live where it's considered critical thinking to increase taxes on an industry that has been so decimated by subsidized renewable power that they literaly have paid people to use the power so the grid isn't damgaed by the over-supply? Renewables aren't manageable so they're goin to need a lot more peaking capacity and that'll mean selling your souls to buy up more of Putin's fracked Natural gas. You watermelons will not be happy untill anything resembling human civilization has been reduced to ruin.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    64. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same model is used for electricity in Germany. That's what the story is about after all. The physical world however is different from that abstract model. The grid does not transmit power from your chosen source to you, if that source is far away. That would be incredibly wasteful and create too much load on the transmission lines. You get your power from whatever puts energy into the grid and is close to you. Whether you pay them or someone else does not change that. The abstraction works nicely as long as there are no shortages anywhere, but if there are transmission or generation shortages, the abstraction collapses and the physical truth is revealed: "Your" electricity is not generated by the letter head on your bill.

    65. Re:This just illustrates by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's more desert created from bad management than from global warming

      Global warming is caused by bad management. Bad management of land (leading to desertification) leads to global warming, both by reducing CO2 fixing and by reducing cooling. Bad management of CO2 leads to global warming. This is not compliated. There is no conflict. What environmentalists are asking for uniformly is good management, which takes the future into account. Not account for CO2 now is almost exactly the same as looting a corporation for short-term profit for the primary investors. Only a minuscule percentage of the affected stand to profit, and even they will suffer in the long term. The difference is that you can just move on and sack another corporation, they'll make another one. We don't have another planet to go to, notably because even if we did, we couldn't get there.

      For example, way back when I read some study on Slashdot which claimed a certain amount of arable land would be lost from desertification and sea level rise from 2C rise in temperature over a century. That ended up being about the same area as a year's worth of normal desertification.

      Hahahahaha "normal desertification" hahahahahahaha.

      No other response to that paragraph is dignified.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re: This just illustrates by kenh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is solar 'affordable' with or without subsidy? If it requires subsidy, then in my mind it isn't affordable, it's a more expensive form of power generation that the government forces your neighbors to help you pay for...

      --
      Ken
    67. Re: This just illustrates by kenh · · Score: 1

      Taxing energy that was generated for 'self-consumption'? Amazing, even if you choose to not be part of the national electric grid you are obligated to pay for it!

      --
      Ken
    68. Re:This just illustrates by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...just because it always amuses me to remind myself how long we've known much physics.

      Thanks for that reply. Once again, those who remember the lessons of history will be doomed to watch others repeat them. It's been said that Europe would be pretty much all desert now if not for the plague. Now take a look at the USA. Not only did we cut down whatever the natives didn't burn* and indeed burn much of it, but we outright turned it into a dustbowl, fixed it, and are doing it again. Even California is going dustbowl, right now. The drought means that many farms are getting no water allotment this year, while others are pumping their allotment and [illegally] selling it to others, and we're putting in new vineyards left and right.

      There is simply no evidence that, knowing better, we will do better. It takes more than knowing.

      * Some natives maintained forests, some decided they would like plains better

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    69. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're not thinking this through. Two points:

      A) Electricity is not water + arbitrary pipes of infinite width: you don't (and can't) just channel it all into a massive reservoir somewhere in the middle of the country and redistribute it at will.

      B) If everyone selects collectively most remote source X, requiring capacity Y, but source X can only supply Y/2, you have a source which i) is extremely inefficient in terms of transmission losses; ii) is only giving you ~50% of your power needs.

      The same problems are apparent with several sources, unless those sources are distributed carefully and run well under capacity. In reality, the input of various power stations vary with time of day, season, maintenance cycles, etc., and it would be extremely inefficient to keep a constant balance of inputs based on the decisions made by the layman about which generator quotes the cheapest rate.

      Or do you seriously think that a nuclear power station can suddenly undercut a hydro station by a few pence, causing everyone to switch and leaving the hydro station running into a dummy load for the next few months?

      There are various reasons why Finland has cheap electricity - it has the highest per capita nuclear production in the world; it has local firms investing sensibly in renewable energy; it (as a net importer of electricity) has invested in Russian suppliers and been hesitant to align with NATO; &c. The woowoo that the customer has the power to determine where his electricity comes from is misleading.

    70. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is you who refuses to get it. It is a pool, but is is not centraly fed like you try to say with A. In your example B is supplying at full power but can't meet the demands the reseller (your household energie supplier) ordered. It is not like the customers from the reseller will not get any power, they will receive power from closest source. Reseller has to buy power from any other source at the exchange to pay the bills for their customers usage.

      I might actually be buying 100% green energy from a windpark in the Northsea, but the actual potential energie in the electrons might come from a French nuke or my next door neighbours with the solar panels (the closest source). But still my money goes to the windpark owners, not the my neighbours or France. Maybe I'm using Norwegian energy during the night (NorNed cable), I don't know and I don't care as long as the lights stay on.

    71. Re:This just illustrates by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The first link provides no details, the second one says that the system has 25,600 lithium cells. For reference a Tesla Model S has about 7000 in an 85kWh model, and a Nissan Leaf only has a 24kWh battery. Nissan advertise the Leaf as being an emergency whole-house UPS with the ability to run essentials for a few days, which seems reasonable.

      For solar smoothing you don't need anything like that capacity, maybe 5kWh or 10 if you really want to push the boat out. Maybe 15 if you want to live off-grid and have a fairly massive solar array. Like an EV battery it will last much, much longer than 10 years. Nissan guarantee their's for 8 years (100,000 miles, minimum 70% capacity remaining) and Tesla have an unlimited mileage guarantee for the first 8 years. Tesla's cells are rated for 900,000 miles and they have tested them up to 750,000 miles with 85% capacity remaining, so these numbers appear to be realistic. They aren't even exceptional for a lithium cell: 3000 charge lifetime * 300 miles range per charge = 900,000 miles.

      For solar smoothing you won't be straining the cells too much. Over their lifetime they should easily pay for themselves many times over.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    72. Re:This just illustrates by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You also seem to misunderstand what batteries on the grid are for. Sure, 5MWh is only "worth" â250 to the end user, but the massive savings made by being able to store renewable energy and smooth it out during the day adds far more value than that. Considering a typical modest PV installation is maybe 3kW that battery is enough to smooth out over 10,000 such systems at the very least.

      It's actually pretty small fry and I'm a little surprised they went for lithium cells. The Japanese have some 50MWh systems in place that use low temperature sodium sulphur batteries. Probably a patent issue or something like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    73. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IOW the assertion that companies generate in proportion to the amount paid directly to the generators by consumers is wrong, and your use of "pool" is ill-defined.

    74. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Here in Pennsylvania (which is in the US, just as a FYI) I can select my power provider.
       
      I guess your state sucks at the teat of regulatory bliss because they seem to be fucking you in the ass.

    75. Re:This just illustrates by onepoint · · Score: 1

      While I respect and understand your point. I have to have some hope that this current generation, will invest in making the energy cheaper and cleaner. Overall, I think that the rich countries have done a decent job, I know that there is a ton of toxic companies, but I think there are more cleaner thinking companies too.

      Look at the project in Spain that cost 300 Million euro's. I think that proved that solar storage works, and once someone knows it works, investors line up to fund it. So, in the future, we might see Spain, Greece, and Italy, providing the long term solar energy to most of Europe for daylight base loads. Got the same idea for Florida, Texas and Mississippi are doing the same for west of the Rockies daylight baseload.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    76. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the CO2 aka "plant food" released will cause less suffering because of more abundant supplies of food.

    77. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      subvention is a word. subventioned (sic) is not.

    78. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep writing "subventioned"--it's not a word. It makes people wince when reading your comments.

    79. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The customer pays to a reseller that promises some mix of sources (or not depending on contract). If I pay for 100% green, as is my contract with the reseller, it is up to the reseller to spend 100% of my money on green sources. That I didn't actually get 100% green doesn't matter, my contract/usage generated a demand for some xMWh of green energy that was delivered and paid for.

    80. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 1

      How do you survive through the winter with 15 kWh capacity, can you explain that?

    81. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some mix of sources

      That's already rather more vague than paying for a specific provider.

      my contract/usage generated a demand for some xMWh of green energy that was delivered and paid for.

      No, at best it generated a payment to a broker which has the option to either provide the energy through its own generators (if available) or to pay someone else to do it. The idea that a grid can/will have its demands precisely satisfied according to the whims of consumers is absurd.

    82. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, wrote it in a hurry. The proper word is "subsidized", meaning the regenerative energy producers receive subventions to keep them going.

    83. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So choice is bad? Or is it that telemarketeers are bad? Don't you guys have some "do not call list"?

    84. Re:This just illustrates by skids · · Score: 1

      Some natives maintained forests, some decided they would like plains better

      I for one, in that situation, would want to see the bears from a distance. :-)

    85. Re:This just illustrates by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 1

      The key word is "critical". Meaning - you don't have the comfort of using electricity as you like. There are devices in my household that are capable of running on a single AAA battery for several years, but it's definitely not my refridgerator, not my stove and not my computer. What do YOU do consider "critical"?

    86. Re: This just illustrates by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Is solar 'affordable' with or without subsidy?

      Depends on location, usage, and interest rates... In many locations (deserts, mostly), consumer rooftop PV solar absolutely is cheaper than buying grid power, after less than 20 years, without even counting the subsidizes.

      http://www.solar-estimate.org/

      But then again, coal, nuclear, and natural gas get many subsidizes of their own, so it's not a fair comparison.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    87. Re:This just illustrates by kenaaker · · Score: 1
      Comfortable as in sheltered, warm in the winter, fed any time I feel like it any time of year, and dry when a thunderstorm has knocked out the power and is dumping on us.

      To restate. Critical being the heating boiler (LP), some lights, the kitchen (except the electric oven), a sump pump, and a circuit for the living room and master bedroom. I grew up without running water and with wood stove heat. The current setup is way better than that. And it does last for days without starting up the generator.

    88. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      No. Global warming comes from a combination of natural and human-caused sources. The latter need not be due to bad management, but rather a consequence of having a fossil fuel-based society and its benefits.

      OTOH, desertification whether from global warming or "normal" sources is IMHO mostly due to bad agricultural practices like pumping water out of the ground, depleting the ground water table, depleting the nitrogen in the soil without growing legumes or letting the land go fallow for some time, or not taking care of the topsoil and letting it blow away. It's someone cutting major corners now - a major sacrifice of the viability of that land for near term gain. There's no excuse for it.

      While I suppose you can make the same claim for activities that induce global warming, going with fossil fuels and other activities that induce global warming has more short and long term gain and less long term cost. Unlike bad agricultural practices there are long term gains to using fossil fuels now such as building up the economies of the world and elevating billions of people from poverty.

    89. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      Now take a look at the USA. Not only did we cut down whatever the natives didn't burn* and indeed burn much of it, but we outright turned it into a dustbowl, fixed it, and are doing it again. Even California is going dustbowl, right now. The drought means that many farms are getting no water allotment this year, while others are pumping their allotment and [illegally] selling it to others, and we're putting in new vineyards left and right.

      Maybe you ought to actually take a look at the parts of the US that don't have a suicide pact going on. California, not coincidentally, is also the state which leads on trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. When one pursues short sighted goals at the expense of the future, this is the sort of thing that happens.

    90. Re:This just illustrates by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Germany already has the highest electric prices for a major 1st world industrialized country:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

      Obviously if wholesale electricity is now at 4.5 cents (usd) per kwh, there's a whole lot of other shit piled on there to bumb it to 36.x cents per kwh.

    91. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      I guess your state sucks at the teat of regulatory bliss because they seem to be fucking you in the ass.

      I hate being left behind by these kinds of arguments. If only I had gotten a degree in rhetorical topology. Then I'd be able to figure out how that works.

    92. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI, it's like that in all of northern europe at least. Probably most of Eurpoe.

    93. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      There's more options. For example, we could switch over to that infrastructure when it makes economic sense to do so. In the mean time, "giving" money to oil producing countries isn't making anyone poorer.

    94. Re:This just illustrates by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      Human misery indeed.
      How many suffer due to wars for the control of depleatable energy sources?

      But let's talk about costs.
      How much does the US spend for its military?
      In which parts of the world is it deployed?

    95. Re:This just illustrates by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Now tell me, which option is the way to go for "human misery"?

      Apparently it's both. Then again I live in an energy-rich country that's a massive net-exporter of everything from oil based, to nuclear based. Funny enough we supply ~20% of the energy for the US North East. You get one guess to which country.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    96. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      It's like this - if you're a relative of Da Man, you can install solar panels, if not, you cannot. The HOA rules are flexible, subject to interpretation based on kinship.

    97. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're being gouged. Germany, striving for energy independence, has had a policy of paying some enormous amount, like 50 cents/kWh guaranteed by the government to anyone who's able to supply renewable energy to the grid (this means solar or wind,) which made it very easy to finance huge solar installations, because there was a price guarantee, and the breakeven point for solar panels is probably near 35 cents/kWh, while coal fired plants can get you 5 cents/kWh + distribution cost (i.e. power lines, transformers, meters, etc., which is at least another 7 cents/kWh.) This 50 cent or something around that range move was done to achieve energy independence, in anticipation of an energy crunch world where energy prices might hit $2-$5/kWh, such as global war, global black plague, etc. (The Prince Merchant DOS game has a feature that when the plague hits Venice, the prices skyrocket, so it's an excellent time to make money, but you have a chance of losing your trading crew and vessels to the plague.) Now Da Man, thought about it, and decided to send the German energy market into a free spiral downward, as the last thing the world needs is another energy independent united Germany wearing Prussian dick-spiked metal helmets, marching in formation with the Nazi salute and a rifle on the shoulder, in front of tanks, chanting Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles! It's kinda too late now, because people know the innards of renewable power, so everything installed has to be attacked and dismantled, and people made to forget how it's done, so you're talking at least 40 years of folk memory erasing effort, or 2050 before the effects of this energy independence 50 cents/kWh government push can be fully remedied and rectified. But 50 years is a long time, and the only way to maintain stability, is to build lots of nuke plants, but now you end up with a Germany with a bunch of nuke plants? That's not a safe idea either. I think the safest things would be nuke plants in North Africa, far enough away, through HVDC, because you can't put solar panels in North Africa and tell the Germans to take their own solar and windmills down. Switzerland for all the nuke plants supplying all of Germany and Italy? Or Russia, and play shut electricity off games like they do with natural gas these days? Switzerland does not have ports for fuel imports, but, as it's so energy dense, even flying the fuel from Canada or Australia or Congo would make sense. But it's too small a country surrounded by a lot of common folk countries like France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, Netherlands. And it's hard to live up to neutrality principles in a war when you're the only one supplying everyone's lifeline to energy, you become the one and only strategic high ground target to capture and the war is automatically over and won by the one able to accomplish it. So how you gonna make it to 2050 while quietly dismantling the renewable German energy infrastructure and flooding the market with 3 cents/kWh nuclear electricity, because the big question is, from friggin where? Russia? From the remote safety of Siberia?

    98. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That is irrelevant, as the model of the "pool" doesn't dictate that "your energy is generated by one who you are paying the bill to".

      What pool model DOES dictate is that one you pay for electricity supplies the pool with the amount you take out + transmission.

      Seriously, you're denying a model that worked in most of the Europe for many years now. You're like a person standing in front of a stone pointing at it and saying "this doesn't exist".

    99. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Your inane assumption is that there is only one provider. Something I explicitly pointed out to be false.

      The pool model, which is how electricity supply/demand has been (note: HAS BEEN as in this model has been working for a long time now) managed, is that you have a lot of providers (power generators) and a lot of distributors (utilities). They all meet at the pool exchange and buy/sell power as needed. The pool is fed by all the providers and taken out by all the suppliers.

      There is no single source, which is the strawman you are basing your assumption on.

    100. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Notably the Nordic part of it is even call "Nord Pool Spot AS". Have fun arguing with that.

    101. Re:This just illustrates by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Numbers are publicly available and completely contradict your non-sense (or should I say lies?)

      Here is the reality:
                          nuclear / renewables / gas / coil + ignites / export
      2000: 169.6 TWh 37.9 TWh 49.2 TWh 291.4 TWh -3.1 TWh
      2005: 163.0 TWh 62,5 TWh 72.7 TWh 288.2 TWh 8.5 TWh
      2010: 140.6 TWh 104.8 TWh 89.3 TWh 262.9 TWh 17.7 TWh
      2013: 97.3 TWh 152.0 TWh 66.7 TWh 283.2 TWh 33.8 TWh.
      source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen....

      There is no more energy production from coal than in the past. In fact, it is lower than before the Energiewede (although it was lower in 2010 than in 2013 because gas was usage was at an historical high). Similarly, CO2 from electricity production from Germany has not increased and ofcourse energy was never dire in Germany. In fact, exports increased a lot.

    102. Re:This just illustrates by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me guess, you typed that while staring into a reflective, black screen. Permitting unchecked emissions of CO2 is what's going to cause us the real human misery. Keep telling yourself you can shit where you eat without getting sick, though, while desperately looking around for supporting examples.

      So you're telling me that CO2 is what's going to cause the real human misery. Not poor healthcare, not food to eat, not ways to keep things from spoiling. Not having properly developed agriculture or sewage management. Okay there. Next you'll be saying that burning cow dung indoors doesn't cause lung cancer, and sleeping on the ground in a hut covered with shit doesn't cut your life expectancy in half due to parasites. You do realize that in my examples that not even 1/3 of the people on this rock are at this level. If you're lucky you might hit 20%

      Except that these are the very people that be affected by the consequences of CO2 emmissions.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    103. Re:This just illustrates by Uecker · · Score: 1

      And while I am checking facts: More efficient new plants have replaced old plants for lignites last year so usage of it has actually decreased while electricity production has slightly increaded. Usage of lignites decreased from 166.3 mil. T (2012) 163.8 mil. T. Coal went up ofcourse while gas went down, but overall CO2 emission from electricity production was stable from 2012 to 2013 at 0,51 kg CO 2 /kWh.

      Source: http://www.ag-energiebilanzen....

      I find it funny that indeed coal went up instead a bit in the US with corresponding higher CO2 emission:
      http://www.eia.gov/todayinener...

    104. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enron killed the free market in California. They are probably still paying for it.

    105. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God we're getting shafted here in Australia. In Queensland, we have metric fucktons of coal, and are now shipping gas to china but we pay at least 20 c/ kWh (Australian dollar buys about 94 US cents).

    106. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making the AC's point for him. The nature of electric power is that the electrons are fungible. Who you're paying for the electrons coming through your house has absolutely nothing to do with who or what is actually pushing those electrons into your house. Electric utility deregulation is an elaborate shell game not rooted in the physics of how power is delivered to the customers.

    107. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You know, it's always fun when people post numbers that show they are wrong, and then they claim based on those numbers that they are in fact right.

      Because you know, 262,9 > 283,2. Right?
      And the fact that they have to use mothballed old plants today means that CO2 has gone up from 2005. Something Germany was forced to admit on official level. Woops.

      And please, stop the "gas historical high" bullshit. Gas is growing. Massively. They need the hot reserve.

    108. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The gas is going down for one single reason - warm winter this year as jet stream caused massive freeze over North America and massive thaw over Europe.

      That is also the reason behind issues in US.

      Something that environmentalist spin doctors immediately used to pretend as hard as possible that this is some kind of a change to status quo of worsening of the emissions.

    109. Re:This just illustrates by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      It has made long-term economic sense for at least ten years.
      Sure, if you're waiting for short-term economic sense, you'll run into big trouble and the energy trap (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/). You'll need to invest oil and money during a few years in order to use less oil and money. Guess what? You'll have neither time, nor money nor energy, nor probably political stability. Your option isn't one.

      And please tell me more about France selling PSG (Paris soccer cub), Le Louvre; Spain selling Barca and Germany selling BMW and Mercedes to Qatar not "making anyone poorer".

    110. Re:This just illustrates by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Really? I'm pretty sure I'm trading the long term for the long term in a different way. Tell me, what would happen if to those countries where they're having 8-10 kids at a time, like we here in the west were not even 80 years ago. Pre-industrial revolution of course, and they were suddenly in the span of 80 years on-at-or near par with us technologically.

      Just ponder that one out, and while you're still thinking just think if there were more people like Norman Bourlag around, who in fact focused on food, and food production and attempted several times to introduce it to those dirt farming nations that are perpetually broke, rocked by wars and so on because of food shortages mainly. Now, while you're thinking on this what happens when you have an entire rock that's able to feed itself, has a high standard of living and is producing people who are intellectually fit and not driven by "tribal conflicts" and so on.

      I'll wait, because you probably don't have an answer to those hypothetical statements. But as a point, Bourlag attempted several times to increase farming there, and nearly every time it was leftist groups causing problems, or wars causing problems.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    111. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's like this: $7.85/hr x 160 hr/month work = $1256 gross/mo. At 20% social security and medicare and income tax, 80% x 1256 = $1004.8.

      At that income, you should be paying $150 a month or less. You were off by about 2x on tax. The rest of your rant didn't seem any more accurate.

    112. Re:This just illustrates by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      How big is your house that it costs several million Euros? A buddy of mine (I'm the US fyi) bought a used fork lift battery. His system consists of panels on the roof, the battery(s) and a propane generator as an ultimate fallback. I'd like to say the battery cost him $2400 dollars. The way he uses it, it'll last indefinitely.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    113. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works as long as enough customers don't care which energy they are buying. Over the long term they are declinig and the power generation market has to shift.

    114. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original suggestion was that the consumer dictates who generates their electricity. Everyone now accepts that this is false.

      The modified assertion was that the consumer determines the proportion of energy supplied from each source. The physical realities of electricity generation and distribution make this impossible.

      Nobody has stated that there is a single source. (It is the degenerate case which illustrates a reductio, however.) Even if there is a handful of sources, the method is still not possible - several posts have explained this.

      note: HAS BEEN as in this model has been working for a long time now

      No. If this is what the marketing claims, it's simply lying to you. The whole "deregulation" of electricity supply in Europe has been an elaborate con, leaving us with prices far above those of the apparently monopolistic US even though we're often much more willing to invest in sensible sources (esp. nuclear).

      Even if a particular generating company collects money from you, it still ultimately decides whether it will generate the power itself or pay another generating company to do so. What you're actually paying for is a particular broker which has some in-house capacity. The usual promise tends to be something like, "x% coal, y% nuclear, z% renewable" - this is a moving target rather than a promise.

      To reiterate: the physical realities of power generation and distribution mean that you can't simply allow a gaggle of third parties to set exactly who inputs what proportion of power into the grid and when. I'm surprised that to a moderately scientific community this isn't completely fucking obvious.

    115. Re:This just illustrates by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you ought to actually take a look at the parts of the US that don't have a suicide pact going on.

      I am, I'm looking at California. Most suicide is in red states where they don't give a fuck about CO2. Oh, you were speaking in bullshit hyperbole? What a shocking surprise.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    116. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      Most suicide is in red states where they don't give a fuck about CO2.

      Those states aren't willfully trying to destroy their future, economically and politically, even if they happen to emit a little more carbon dioxide than you are comfortable with. Coincidentally, they aren't having trouble with desertification unlike California.

    117. Re:This just illustrates by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Those states aren't willfully trying to destroy their future, economically and politically,

      [citation needed]

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    118. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      Guess what? You'll have neither time, nor money nor energy, nor probably political stability.

      My view is that we've been in the circumstances under which the "energy trap" is supposed to hold since the 1970s.

      And please tell me more about France selling PSG (Paris soccer cub), Le Louvre; Spain selling Barca and Germany selling BMW and Mercedes to Qatar not "making anyone poorer".

      Sure, I'll do that request. Those things aren't making anyone poorer. Next.

    119. Re:This just illustrates by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      I guess you consider that a meth head selling his TV set to a pawn shop isn't getting poorer.

    120. Re:This just illustrates by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This problem of electricity rates going negative has cropped up in Texas with wind power as well.

      The larger issue is that dynamic power like wind and solar make operation of power plants capable of base load production uneconomical if the later are required to trim production shifting capacity to the dynamic power sources. That make grid stability worse.

      My suspicion is that Germany has ended up outsourcing their base load requirements to France making their renewable electricity numbers look better than they really are.

    121. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Yes, obviously I don't pay 800/mo on health insurance either. Yet. But that's where things are headed when it's mandatory by law.

    122. Re:This just illustrates by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. This is the original statement with important part bolded:

      I live in city of Tampere, and buy electricity from provider in Kouvola (https://www.kssenergia.fi/). The distance between our cities is several hundred kilometers, but this works because electric grid is unified, and what actually happens is that provider feeds a certain amount of energy into the grid, and whatever energy I take out is billed according to our contract. Provider is required to feed this much power (+ certain surplus for transmission) into the grid at its local exchange.

      At no part was there a suggestion that consumer dictates who generates their electricity. All that is claimed is that there is a common pool, and you can decide who to pay to fill the pool for the amount you're taking out of it.

    123. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      And by the way the only reason I buy health insurance at the temp agency, as I just realized the other day that I did sign up when filling out the application, so the only reason I haven't cancelled it, is because I work with maffiozos. Italian maffiozos back in the 1920s before the creation of the FBI to manage corrupt cops, they used to make their money by selling business insurance. As in walk into a bar or restaurant, and make an offer: 50% of your profits to me for a business protection insurance. Owner says he's not interested. Next day a bomb goes off in the restaurant, and he's told, see, you should have bought the business insurance, it would have protected you. I will eventually drop the health insurance, but I don't feel safe enough yet working with maffiozos ready to send me to the hospital and into bankruptcy - the risks of getting bombed are too high to where they forcibly make it worth it to buy health insurance, especially when they keep the present premiums very low for me, but I can see where it's headed, from the premiums my aunt had to pay.

    124. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      By the way the job itself is very safe, the only issue is hotheaded emotionalism. I am forced to work in teams, and I have never been good at working with people, and constantly putting up with their little issues and sensitivities, constantly walking on eggshells, and no matter what you do, you can't please people that don't wanna be pleased. I'm always happiest working alone.

    125. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Without subsidies, for Germany, nuclear is the cheapest electricity source minus coal/natural gas.
      Nuclear is expensive upfront, but extremely cheap over the 60-80 years a new nuclear powerplant should operate if properly maintained.
      Solar is an extremely lousy option for Germany.
      Don't get me wrong. I'm all for solar for equatorial/tropical areas, but considering Germany is 45 North and up, solar is useless in the winter.
      It amazing how much brainwashing the greens were able to perform in mass scales.
      Nothing new, mass brainwashing is done all over the world. Nothing to be ashamed.

    126. Re:This just illustrates by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Some places, even here in the US, have a choice of electrical provider, it is VERY rare, but does happen.

      Certain parts of Texas have fully seperated the generation market from distribution. Distribution is run by a monopoly called Oncor, and they get to leech from your bill at a mostly fixed rate. You then sign up for generation with a variety of providers offering various contract terms. When I lived there I locked in a 2yr contract, flat rate at 8.9 cents per Kwh, and tried my hand at bitcoin mining via dirty old coal. But I could have had 100% wind or 100% renewable at even lower rates, but they were seasonal and they tended to have short terms. 3mo then you get dumped on the market again when the 8.9 cent deal isn't available. Longer term renewables ran 11 - 15 cents per Kwh.

      This is the system California was trying to set up, but the mistake they made was to not seperate distribution from generation. Now they're stuck with a politicized PUC making decisions that deem 1 Kwh used by a company has higher economic value to the state than 1 Kwh used at my house. So I get a form of rationing by tier, and if I leave my computers on and do too many load of laundry, they start charging me 50 cents a Kwh. Just who get s to keep the difference between that and the actual generation costs is lost on me...

      I live in Quebec, Canada. For the average consumer, electricity costs us about 7.5 cents/kwh unlimited use. For large users(manufacturers, smelters, etc.) the rate is around 4.2 cents/kwh. For resident homes on dual energy (heatpump/oil/gas), it is at 4.2 cents/kwh, except when temp outside is below -12C or above 32C.
      When temperature is out of bounds, the rate climbs to 12.5 cents/kwh. We can help keep rates low by not heating our hot water 60 gallon insulated water tanks in peak periods, defined as hrs between the 16:00-20:00 hrs (supper time). Give the kids a bath or use dish washer outside the supper hour period.
      Oh yes, Hydro Quebec is provincial government owned. Even at that rate, the government makes a great profit (waterdam energy).

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    127. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrhenius' mathematical formulation for the amount of heat vs CO2 concentration remains accurate to this day. He even predicted that human burning of fossil fuels would cause the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, thereby raising the heat in the planetary atmosphere. His final calculation was about 1.6 degrees C per doubling of CO2, withing the ballpark of current estimates. His one error was that he estimated that it would take humanity 30 centuries to double the atmospheric CO2 at the then current rate of fossil fuel use.
      Although, of course, we all know that Al Gore invented AGW in collusion with the vastly powerful and wealthy climate scientist cartel in order to deprive the poor and suffering of the earth of healthcare, food to eat, ways to keep things from spoiling, properly developed agriculture or sewage management.

    128. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a little like saying you can buy your cereal from Safeway or from Walmart. It's either Post or Kelloggs or General Mills in either case, most likely. Even the house brands are not actually generated by the middleman suppliers themselves.

    129. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany uses gas for heat. Electricity peaks at 35% above winter months during the summer for air-conditioning. Solar dovetails nicely with seasonal demand.

    130. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      None of the things you mentioned so far is like human addiction for illegal, expensive recreation drugs. They are often compared so, but the comparison is grievously flawed.

    131. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, your numbers are all made up. It looks that way. If you have to lie to prove your point, perhaps it's your point that's wrong, not reality.

    132. Re: This just illustrates by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is expensive upfront, but extremely cheap over the 60-80 years a new nuclear powerplant should operate if properly maintained.

      Obviously you can't point to any nuclear power plants that have been operational for 80 years, so that's a BS theoretical figure.

      Meanwhile, none of San Onofre's three units have operated for more than 30 years, before decommissioning. That's probably a more accurate figure for the life-span of a reactor. So I'd say you'll have to at least double your lifetime cost figures to be accurate.

      Solar is an extremely lousy option for Germany.

      Nobody mandated solar, people just decided it would work and be profitable. Germany got a lot of wind power built as well, but apparently solar also works well enough to be worth the investment.

      The prices for electricity in Germany are insane, but there's no question that they need to get away from reliance on Russian natural gas as quickly as possible, and if solar helps that process along, so be it.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    133. Re:This just illustrates by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Yes, 262,9 (2010) is smaller than 283,2 (2013). Which I pointed out myself.Thank you. But 283,2 (2013) is smaller than 288,2 (2005) and smaller than 291,4 (2000). So the idea that coal when up since the start of the Energiewende is clearly wrong. That it was lower for a very short time around 2010 does not change this and is related to the relative price of gas and coal.

      With respect to gas, the numbers are: (from 1990 - 2013)
      35,9 36,3 33,0 32,8 36,1 41,1 45,6 48,1 50,7 51,8 49,2 55,5 56,3 62,9 63,0 72,7 75,3 78,1 89,1 80,9 89,3 86,1 76,4 66,7

      Guess what the highest number is? 89,3. This is the year 2010. This is what is called a historical high. So you have again nicely demonstrated that you have no idea and also do not even care to look at actual numbers. You are right though: Gas would be growing if the price of CO2 certifcates would be higher. But then coal would be down, not gas and everything would be fine. But even so, CO2 emission from electricity production was stable in contrast to what you claim and there is no offical statement which "admits" otherwise. In fact, the statement that CO2 emission from electricity production was stable from 2012 to 2013 is on page 40 of the document "Energieverbrauch in Deutschland im Jahr 2013". You are probably confusing this with the fact that overall energy consumpion went up in Germany with a corresponding to an increase in CO2 emission due to colder weather in 2013, but this has nothing to do with electricity production and energy policy. You can find this is available at: www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/ which is as official as it gets - although mostly in German. But if you don't speak German, this is no excuse to make things up because it fits your ideology.

    134. Re:This just illustrates by Uecker · · Score: 1

      I made no statement as to why the change in the US. I just find it funny that a similar change in Germany is mis-interpreted as a failure of the Energiewende and as proof for the clearly incorrect claim that coal has replaced the turned-off nuclear plants. In contrast to all other hard evidence other wise, i.e. that the increase of renewables is much bigger than the decrease in nuclear.

    135. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 0

      San Onofre was decommissioned for political pressure.
      Many operational nukes have been re-certified for 60 years operation.
      Per the usual, you anti nuclear pundits are always content with spreading anti nuclear FUD or outright lies.
      If Germany wants to reduce Russia natural gas reliance it would restart all of its recently shutdown nukes.
      Renewables have risen from 10% to 23% with Energiewende (?) might be up to 24 or 25% right now that its summer.
      Solar makes sense in places where the worst solar day (rainny winter day) produces at least half as much as the best summer day. In Germany its pretty close to 1:10 relationship. And wind is lousy, even though in average nights are windy, there will always be those few almost windless nights or windless winter days, so in the long run, it will be impossible to have 100% renewables due to solar being next to useless in the winter and wind being unreliable on a 2 sigma basis.
      The main reason this brainwashing is done in Germany is Germany has coal. France did nuclear and it works just fine.
      Worldwide, there are over 400GW worth of nuclear generating capacity, while solar+wind worldwide is what, less than 10% that ?
      Go watch cool it, pandora's promise to see all the BS the radical environmentalists are feeding the general public.

    136. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I didn't realize that the plants were on strike -- no longer converting CO2 to Oxygen with a dynamically increased rate based on available CO2. I also forgot about the total lack of correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

      Silly me.

    137. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      . What do YOU do consider "critical"?

      You have serious reading issues.

      It doesn't run the air conditioning, but everything else works just fine.

      So "everything other than A/C" is "critical".

    138. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Most people in Germany do not have their own house, but live in rented apartments.

      Most Germans live in rented accommodation, but most live in houses. 43% own houses they live in. Some live in houses they rent (the stat you pretend doesn't exist). So most Germans live in houses. Yes, most don't own their own houses, but they live in places with the possibility or installing any kind of power generator.
      https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pub...

      When your numbers are wrong, how can we believe the rest of it?

    139. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You build an insulated house. I'm not in Germany, but in the middle or winter, I have the heat off and the windows open most of the time.

    140. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You have good English for a non-native speaker, but you seem to use big words you don't understand. "subventioned" for one (addressed elsewhere), and "abided" for another. "Obligated" would be correct. "Abided" means "obeyed". And "Suppliers are obeyed by law to add taxation" doesn't make sense. "Required" or "obligated" would work.

    141. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try moving to a reasonable state like NJ, who not only is generating a good chunk of the US's solar (yeah, it confuses me too.. we're behind only CA/AZ, which is pretty forgivable I'd say), but has had a creator/provider split on my bill for years.

      Actually, my town (West Orange) recently negotiated a group rate with a regional provider, which was ~$.008/kwh cheaper than our current "default" provider, with no mention of source - it took no action to get the switch, and only a letter or phone call to opt-out.

      We've had the option to go "full renewable", "renewable+nuclear", or "whatever they're burning over in PA" for years now, or whatever other blends/offers the regional providers want to put on the table (competition!!!) and have me choose between.

    142. Re: This just illustrates by evilviper · · Score: 1, Informative

      San Onofre was decommissioned for political pressure.

      "both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in replacement steam generators"

      You've got a funny definition of "political pressure".

      France did nuclear and it works just fine.

      Japan did nuclear, and it worked out just fine... until they had problems. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, nearly everyone would say it didn't work out quite so well.

      Worldwide, there are over 400GW worth of nuclear generating capacity, while solar+wind worldwide is what, less than 10% that ?

      PV panels didn't exist in the 50s. Solar and wind haven't had remotely as long to scale-up. They are now being installed at a break-neck pace, and will eventually dominate.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    143. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 0

      Fukushima greatest impact was deaths caused by an irrational evacuation + all anti nuclear idiots putting BS on people's heads.
      Should the evacuation have been optional, there would be 90% less deaths.
      Zero radiation deaths + zero cancer rate measurements.
      Chernobyl was the only really serious nuclear accident and it killed less than 100 people and even the worst case 5000 cancer deaths are increasingly looking like an exaggeration, perhaps less than a thousand people will die prematurely from cancer.
      Chernobyl type accidents should never EVER happen again. It was easily preventable with nuclear safety practices from 25 years earlier !

      Compare that to coal that kills 200 thousand / year worldwide, 13 thousand / year in USA alone.
      Natural gas total deaths are far more than nuclear per TWh produced.
      Solar+wind means lots of natural gas or coal peaking power plants, plus solar rooftop joins together the two highest risk professions performed in large scale (roofing and electrician). The low density nature of solar and wind will mean that in the long run far more people will die from solar+wind install/maintenance than nuclear, but you are probably ok with that, since its not you at risk, but instead a low level labor guys on minimum wage.
      When you add together all deaths from solar+wind+natural gas, nuclear looks like a cake walk if you look at it honestly without a negative bias.

      Solar+wind+hydro+biomass+geothermal can't run the worlds electrical grid without another 30 to 50 years of scientific advancement.
      If solar+wind were so great, Hawaii would be running 100% on solar+wind right now with its ultra expensive low efficient electricity oil based generators. And many other islands would have done it too. Instead only the little islands with ultra expensive diesel generated electricity can afford to go solar.

      The problem isn't having enough panels. Its also not having cheaper/higher efficiency panels. Its a humongous energy storage problem.

      The Germany plan is just confirming what was predicted a decade ago, the math just doesn't add up. It's not a glass half empty problem, it's a glass that is half full and can't be topped off for decades.

      That's the big problem with you fundamentalists. Be it religion based, technology based, politically based, you just refuse to see what is out of tune with your fundamentalist view of things.

    144. Re:This just illustrates by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Could you please explain why the comparison is flawed?

    145. Re: This just illustrates by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sometimes lost in the Fukushima discussion is a tsunami that killed about 25K people. That may have contributed to secondary effects.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    146. Re: This just illustrates by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Just keep in mind that the fossil fuel industry is also getting big subsidies, by far larger than any renewables get, albeit in a different form. So I'm ok with your unspoken desire to get rid of subsidies for solar, wind, etc. just as soon as we also get rid of them for Big Oil, Big Coal, etc.

    147. Re: This just illustrates by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Fukushima greatest impact was deaths caused by an irrational evacuation

      No, the large swaths of valuable land, left uninhabitable by humans for centuries, is the bigger impact.

      Solar+wind means lots of natural gas or coal peaking power plants

      That's complete nonsense. Solar IS the "peaking power plant".

      solar rooftop joins together the two highest risk professions performed in large scale (roofing and electrician).

      Both risks are very easily eliminated by proper regulations, forcing contractors to use proper safety equipment.

      Solar+wind+hydro+biomass+geothermal can't run the worlds electrical grid without another 30 to 50 years of scientific advancement.

      Also nonsense. In fact solar is the ONLY technology that can supply the projected demand a century in the future. It can supply ALL electrical demands, in combination with pumped hydro for extended solar minimums, without issue, just as quickly as the facilities can be built. Solana is a good model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      The problem isn't having enough panels. Its also not having cheaper/higher efficiency panels.

      Baseless crap. The current efficiencies are vastly more than necessary. The numbers have been run by a number of people many times, and only a very small landmass is needed for the entire world's current energy needs.

      Its a humongous energy storage problem.

      Thermal storage is well understood and has been in-use for years. Pumped hydro storage is well understood and deployed on a massive scale already.

      you just refuse to see what is out of tune with your fundamentalist view of things.

      That's funny coming from a nuclear zealot, who jumps on anyone who points out the problems with his preferred technology. And who is outright lying with a straight face, about the capabilities of renewables, since their use is cutting in to poor old nuclear power. Boo hoo.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    148. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      There is no uninhabiltable land even for decades in Fukushima. None at all.
      Go read up on baseload/peaking electricity sources. Peaking produces when the grid needs, not when the sun is shining, big difference. Again you show utter lack of understanding how the electrical grid works.
      If its so easy to prevent solar related deaths, just make it happen...
      The sun doesn't shine at night, you are assuming huge scale availability of pumped hydro which just isn't available.
      Plus you are ignoring the fact that solar is next to useless even in the winter in Germany. Germany produces less than 20% solar electricity in the winter vs the summer.
      Using fast nuclear reactors there is enough mined uranium + spent nuclear fuel (that becomes new fuel for IFR reactors) for many decades years to supply 100% of the earths electricity, plus fast reactors fission mainly the common uranium (U-238) instead of the rare uranium (U-235).
      LFTR (salt cooled/thorium powered reactors) can power 100% of the world's energy (including providing synthetic fuels, providing warming energy, ...) including projected growth for the next few decades with just 10 thousand tons of Thorium / year. There are DOZENs of mines worldwide, each capable to providing that much throrium for at least a century, or adding it all together enough Thorium to power the earth for thousands of years. Plus by extracting uranium from seawater there's another ten thousand year supply of Uranium.
      Russia just brought online a new sodium cooled fast reactor, a BN-800, they have a few BN-600 running for 40 years around Russia and the former USSR states.

      Nuclear can power the earth's electricity today, solar needs radical energy storage scientific breakthroughs to power the whole earth. Again, not a problem of having enough solar panels, but an energy storage problem since the sun doesn't shine at night, and provides very little photons in the winter at high lattitudes.

      I'm not a pro nuclear zealot, since I'm not against solar+wind. I'm just against those that claim solar+wind are the perfect solution, and that it's enough to solve climate change. I actually tell people to put solar panels at their homes here in Brazil, since we are at a low enough lattitude the sun provides at least half the photons in the winter vs the summer, plus we are still at negligible solar penetration and we have 70GW worth of large hydro dams that can help with the load following without need for pumped hydro. What you call huge scale pumped hydro is still peanuts compared to what will be required to turn off all of Germany's nuclear power plants. I'll make another prediction, Germany just won't turn off the remaining nukes, it just won't be possible.

      Go study up on nuclear power, grid generation, grid transmission characteristics. Nuclear isn't perfect, but it's the only solution that can power the world today. Solar+wind can only be a fairly small part of the solution today. Remember that Germany uses the rest of Europe to load follow it's ups and downs of solar+wind production, so what matters is the overall penetration of solar+wind Europe wide, and that percentage is tiny !

    149. Re:This just illustrates by khallow · · Score: 1

      First, it's not an addiction. There's a lot of discussion of psychology of addiction online. And fossil fuel consumption simply doesn't fit that.

      Second, fossil fuels aren't the only thing we need which we don't provide all by ourselves. A lot of vital goods, for example, food and vehicles are provided by others as well. Where's the complaint that we're "addicted" to food or to transportation?

      Third, fossil fuels do useful things. Meth doesn't. Similarly, fossil fuels are cheap and meth isn't. The addiction mechanism is what gets the meth user to keep making unfavorable purchases.

      Fourth, there is that unfavorable purchase you mentioned of the meth head selling their TV for the next high. That just isn't happening in the US. Sure, there are a lot of people and governments in the US borrowing and spending their future - doing foolish things, but they'd be doing that even if all fossil fuels were domestically provided.

      That lack of foresight exists whether we buy foreign oil or not. At least by buying foreign oil and such, we'll be helping someone else out with their problems. As you may have noticed, a lot of OPEC countries have serious problems which oil revenue can help with.

    150. Re: This just illustrates by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You need to read what I've explained to you, rather than projecting your misconceptions onto what I've written.

      Large scale pumped hydro isn't needed until/unless the world switches to 90%+ solar. Short of that, all is good. The US DoE has said so, and they know vastly more than you. Solar thermal can have several days of storage. Overnight, existing hydro easily provides the low baseload today, and it can be shut off whenever wind power is producing enough.

      Solar IS peaking, because demand follows the sun in most of the world. Industry makes up 75% of demand, and they operate predominantly 8am-5pm, while the sun is shining the most. Dense office environments need air conditioning constantly, even through fall and into winter, and that tracks solar supplies quite nicely.

      The research is out there. You don't need to imagine that it won't work. You can search the DoE's website for facts and figures for the US power grid. I'm willing to bet the Germans did research on the subject, too.

      I know how the grid works, far better than you ever will, and your misreading or making bad assumptions in what I've written is just wasting my time. You are utterly wrong in most all of your assertions.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    151. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without subsidies, for Germany, nuclear is the cheapest electricity source minus coal/natural gas. Nuclear is expensive upfront, but extremely cheap over the 60-80 years a new nuclear powerplant should operate if properly maintained. Solar is an extremely lousy option for Germany.

      Too bad that the German energy companies always insisted on subsidies for nuclear power, so even if they could still be build, you just declared they couldn't.

    152. Re: This just illustrates by dublin · · Score: 1

      Is solar 'affordable' with or without subsidy?

      Depends on location, usage, and interest rates... In many locations (deserts, mostly), consumer rooftop PV solar absolutely is cheaper than buying grid power, after less than 20 years, without even counting the subsidizes.

      Not really. I've been working in the solar industry the last five or six years, and the short answer is that solar only makes sense without subsidies in places where you simply can't get energy from other sources - mostly islands or other areas where there are no fossil fuel resources nearby.

      But then again, coal, nuclear, and natural gas get many subsidizes of their own, so it's not a fair comparison.

      Again, that's not really true - depending on whose numbers you use, solar and other renewables are subsidized at a rate that is at least 25 to 50 TIMES that of any other energy source (including nuclear) on a per unit energy basis (which is really the only sensible way to even attempt a subsidy comparison.)

      From a WSJ editorial based on the US govt's EIA figures (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324432404579051123500813210):

      The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated in 2010 that fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $4 billion a year. ... Renewable sources received more than triple that figure, roughly $14 billion. That doesn’t include $2.5 billion for nuclear energy.

      Actual spending skews even more toward green energy than it seems. Since wind turbines and other renewable sources produce much less energy than fossil fuels, the U.S. is paying more for less. Coal-powered electricity is subsidized at about 5% of one cent for every kilowatt-hour produced, while wind power gets about a nickel per kwh. For solar power, it costs the taxpayer 77 cents per kwh. (Emphasis mine)

      Don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to solar, in fact, I favor it - but the fact is that solar and other renewables are not economically viable without subsidies. This is why the Original article is important - Germany has subsidized solar to the point that it's now a sizable portion of the German power grid. Unfortunately, renewables are NOT a replacement for power plants, since they literally only work at the whims of the weather. That means you still have to keep enough power plants in operation to meet peak demand. Therefore, letting the gluts determine prices is folly (this is why West Texas wind energy actually often has a *negative* price - you literally have to pay the grid to take it at night.)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    153. Re:This just illustrates by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      You are implying that the cause of the higher prices is due to the de-coupling of distribution from generation. I'm not sure it is that clear cut.

    154. Re: This just illustrates by dublin · · Score: 1

      Nobody mandated solar, people just decided it would work and be profitable. Germany got a lot of wind power built as well, but apparently solar also works well enough to be worth the investment.

      Germany's problems are entirely of its own making - the government wrote laws that required the power companies to pay solar generators at rates that are often over 3X the going rate for electricity. Not surprisingly, a LOT of people took them up on that deal. This works sort-of-OK until a big squall line blows over and you lose a hundred megawatts in a few minutes (it's worse than that really, since sites that were exporting power to the grid now need to become consumers, so demand increases simultaneously even faster than the loss of supply!)

      Germany is now the global poster child for grid instability, and I suspect they'll get bitten hard before too long - you can't keep up that balancing act forever, especially with declining spinning reserves, and no incentives for power companies to keep them at the ready. In the very near future, if Russia pulls the plug on natural gas at the same time as a major storm front, all of Germany will go black...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    155. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could reduce your carbon footprint 100% by blowing your fucking brains out.

    156. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      My health insurance is not 800/mo. My housing cost is not 700/mo, and still my biggest line item, even though Da Man is pissed why I don't move into something more expensive, and I'm like are you out of your mind, this is way too friggin much already. That's the major issue with the US today, housing cost is out of control, out of balance of what's sane. 100 years or so ago, a company started somewhere, a mini-town was sprung up around it, by the company having the houses built, and people could pay it up on 1 salary with a stay at home mom in like 3-5 years, on the salary the company paid them. The land around the company was empty, cheap, so why not, why not make it attractive to your workforce. Nowadays we got 40 year interest only mortgages. Insane. And I don't drive anything under 30 mpg if I can help it. I never had an unaerodynamic pickup truck, like it seems to be best seller these days. My numbers are made up when it comes to what I pay, but I have a very close relative who pays 800/mo for a 1 bedroom apt. Insane. And in NYC for a mouse hole you have to pay 1500/mo and get a roommate at that price. Insane. In my mind, in today's global economy and price competition, a 50 bux per month housing cost is reasonable, even that's too much. Hearing that all the bloodsuckers feeding off the housing market are gonna get frantic - banks doing mortgages that are sanctified into tax-law (as in if you already paid interest to Da Man via a mortgage, you get a 20-30% or whatever your taxbracket is discount on your taxes for it), real estate agents, construction companies, etc, A house is valued at 699,999 with a land value of 39,999. Really? How about land value is infinite, and that piece of shit contraption on it is worth 30K instead of 600K? How are construction companies and real estate brokers and banks and everybody gonna extract profit out of it, if you can't tag the temporary part, the just created out of nothing wooden house with a huge price tag, so everyone can profit on the "creation?" You could have a fixed but humongous price for land, without much fluctuation in the real estate market, unlike with the temporary house on top of it, that can rot to nothing and devalue, its prices is very open and unstable and fluctuate. But some people make an entire career living off of fluctuations in price.

    157. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest you learn what paragraphs are, but then your rants would be longer to read, even if more readable.

      Housing was always a scam. Serfs got "free" housing in exchange for being a slave. Housing was often more than the "average" income of the area, and would cause a de-facto slavery.

      Company dorms were used in the Old West and in China. Funny how you are supporting them in the Old West, but so many condemn them in China.

      Land is finite. It will only ever go up in value. Buy all you can. I made more money in the past 10 years watching my house appreciate than working in a top 10% income job.

    158. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Depends... If you're ok with having even more coal/natural gas being burned in low efficiency peaking powerplants to make up for moments when solar and wind are falling short than perhaps. But if you want Germany to stop burning brown coal and stop needing Putin's Gas, then you need several times the pumped hydro Germany has even if it tapped 100% of what it can.

      But per the usual, you anti nuclear environmentalists don't discuss the inconvenient facts to your side. Only your pipe dream scenarios that ignore all the downsides.

      Like I said and I will say again, what matters isn't Germany renewables penetration alone, instead what matters is the total renewables penetration of Germany+the countries it has large electric interconnects total average, since Germany is frequently dumping massive overproduction (which otherwise would need several times more pumped hydro than it has) onto its neighbors, and then it can import baseload nuclear/pumped hydro from France when it falls short. When you average that you will see a far smaller number than the under 25% renewables penetration in Germany alone.

      Like most rational environmentalists out there, I'm pro math, while you ignore it blatantly. Start doing the inconvenient math and you will see that nuclear is an essential component to solve climate change. Not my words per see, but rather the words of many renowned climate scientists PhDs, like Dr James Hansen, please google "james hansen need nuclear", watch Pandora's Promise, Cool It, and start differentiating the radical anti nuclear environmentalists whose math doesn't add up and the ones that actually do the complete math and want to solve climate change instead of chasing a pipe dream.

      Solar is not peaking. Peaking produces when the grid needs it, a somewhat match between consumption and demand is NOT peaking. If you were an electrical engineer you'd know that by heart. I have talked about this with actual electrical engineers with actual grid generation and transmission experience. You are wrong.

      I would however concede that solar + wind + a 2 hr electricity production buffer could actually act as a peaking source but it would still need fossil fuel backups.
      A stand alone grid operating even 50% on solar + wind with efficient fossil fuel production (baseload plants with 60% efficiency) might not even be doable with a 6hr storage capacity.
      But show me a single isolated electrical grid that did this in a Hawaii / Puerto Rico or larger scale. It just haven't been done yet anywhere in the world.
      Like I say again, and again, if this solution were economical, it would have already been done in Hawaii, since it's fossil power plant is low efficiency even compared to state of the art peaking power plants.

      Stop dreaming, Germany's is doing what it's doing because of its coal production lobby. There are strong economical interests desperate to maintain Germany burning lots of coal.

      It's been said that upgrading the USA grid to handle a predominance of solar+wind would cost 10 trillion USD just in grid upgrades (you still need to add all the solar panels and wind turbines). I'm not sure the number is this high.

      Nuclear power isn't evil. Nuclear weapons *might be*. I actually believe the massive nuke stockpile of NATO prevented WWIII and WWIV already. The only thing that prevents a dictatorship like USSR and now Russia/China from going to war is the certainty it will end up with massive population and economic losses. Another inconvenient truth anti nuclear environmentalists are unable to face.

      Remember Eistein's quote: "I don't know what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones".

      So when its all said and done, nuclear power and nuclear weapons might be an essential force for peace and economic prosperity.

      Keep installing your solar panels. Still waiting for Hawaii to go 100% solar+wind+hydro+biomass+geothermal !

    159. Re: This just illustrates by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The willful ignorance on display is pretty staggering...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    160. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      You run out of arguments and resort to name calling.
      Bottom line... My arguments don' t matter. What matters is disproving through videos like Pandora' s Promise and rational environmentalist videos like Cool It.
      I'm yet to find any article that is able to disprove them. All articles against those two videos also resort to name calling.
      Another very careful video disproving one of your beloved radical environmentalists, Helen Caldicott. I refrain to call her Doctor, since she' s just a pediatrician instead of a PhD.

    161. Re: This just illustrates by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Here is the video:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Its funny to watch them rage about the climate change denialists to just turn around and ignore the science/electrical engineering on nuclear and the electric grid.

    162. Re:This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First things first... people need to realise the FIRST REASON OF INDUSTRIALISATION, this is: producing stuff at higher quantities reduces item price ("scale economies").

      Of course it's cheaper to live off the grid, or at least this *should* be an of-course-situation.

      Next : how can the solar lobby ever sincerely claim that they're cheaper or a better solution than grid power? As long as solar has to be subsidized to be competitive, like they are in most European countries, they should be happy they're allowed to sell their shit at all.

      Now, none of this means i don't think renewables are the future, because i do, i think exactly that, they are THE FUTURE. But the technology (at least for solar) is so immature, and prematurely force-fed on society, that right now it's causing a lot more problems than it's solving. And i'm not even taking into account the costs/pollution that comes with the production of the panels in the first place.

    163. Re:This just illustrates by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Sometimes life is good when you are a good slave. Like good food on the table every day, stuff to keep busy with every day - like a job, security and safety of good military protection so that no Dzhenghis Khan Mongols (commaded by Subutai on the western front, conquering the biggest empire yet in world history) run through your village and burn everything to the ground and kill everybody that moves, and pretty much empty the country out to the point of having to import people to fill it up when they had left. And by everybody I mean every man, not the women, or even children, because even the Mongols had that much human decency to carry off your gold, your grain, your horses, cattle, sheep, and your women, and children, all of them considered "chattle." If nothing else the women and children were sold for good money at the Kaffa slave trading markets in Crimea, and a lot of them end up in Venice or Genoa. That was in a day when women were objectified and considered property. Even today there is a Mad Tv Gangster Shop Quartet video on youtube where they sing: "you better have my money cuz you know I own that honey and her booty is on loan, and her booty I do own." Sometimes being owned, being property, such a thing keeps you alive. But in the USA we sing: "Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave." And it's kind of silly that, unlike in the rest of the world, official slavery was so prevalent while people sang that stuff. That's what you call hipocrisy. But sometimes the line between being a de facto slave or official slave is very blurred. How about a free and brave slave? Running your mouth on slashdot. Or running your mouth like Socrates and Diogenes in ancient Greece, pissing everyone off. Diogenes was captured by pirates and sold to Xeniades, when he told he only wanted to be sold only to someone who needs a master (he ended up being a tutor to his kids.) As in when you hire a doctor, you follow his instructions, you employ him to be your master, and if you don't pay him for it, then it's like slavery, where the slave is the master. And stuff like that.

    164. Re:This just illustrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Take a couple Prozac and try again.

    165. Re: This just illustrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it show that building the coal plant was too expensive. Like because of unions.

  2. Another misconception bites the dust by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    People here keep saying that Germany is adding coal capacity to make up for the closure of nuclear plants, but actually they are reducing it over time. Yeah, in the short term there are more plants, but that is just so they can get running before taking the old ones off line. After that the total capacity will be lower.

    --
    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:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that Germany mostly uses brown coal in it's coal plants which pollutes the environment the most. It's the dirtiest form of energy production. Lot's of CO2 and Sulphur products.

    2. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    3. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except the sulphur (and fly ash) gets scrubbed. I believe that may even be a legal requirement in Germany.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that Germany mostly uses brown coal in it's coal plants which pollutes the environment the most. It's the dirtiest form of energy production. Lot's of CO2 and Sulphur products.

      Plants in Germany are filtered. I don't know of any problems with sulfur. In fact, sulfur in the air is a lot less than in the 1980s.
      (According to Wikipedia, modern plants filter out 99.5% of ash and 90% of sulfur dioxide.)

      Though you are correct in that they produce more CO2. (Wikipedia says typically 850–1200 g CO2 per kWh compared to 750–1100 g CO2 per kWh for black coal.)

      Obviously we need to move away from fossil fuels. Hence wind and solar.

    5. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, there are actual environmental laws in Europe. ;) German power has always been a serious issue to the neighbors and friends. You see I'm on a roll today.

    6. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've heard that one before. In europe, we've got our share of "temporary bridges" built after "world war II" that were definitely going to be replaced in a few years by a definitive solution and they were still used in the 21st century. We also have temporary taxes (every new tax for decades has always been introduced as temporary) that were never repelled. And now, we have temporary coal power.... I'll believe it when I see it.

    7. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      I don't think anybody can give you am exact date on when coal power will be phased out but the energy transition effort enjoys fairly broad support among the German public even if it is expensive so I expect it will continue. Also, there is now a strategic security/economical/political dimension to the energy transition for Germany much like there is for the USA concerning Oil independence that has only been reinforced by the Ukraine crisis. The Germans also tend to think in terms of decades rather than fiscal quarters like many Americans seem to do. Germany has gone from renewables being 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012. That's an increase of about 20% in 12 years so if we are insanely optimistic and assume a linear progression they should be at 50% renewables in c.a. 2028-30. The future of the energy transition project depends on several factors (apart from politics and economic issues of course), chief among them are things like the speed and extent of the transition to electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, how the transition to wind and solar goes and perhaps most importantly the level of progress on projects to store excess energy. The last time I checked the Germans were planning to store energy initially by producing hydrogen which will be used to supplement natural gas (which in turn requires modifications to the gas mains) and how much success they have with projects to store energy by producing methane from carbon dioxide (which a Nature article I read claimed they plan to eventually scrub from the atmosphere) and the hydrogen generated with excess solar/wind energy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...). I seem to remember there are already a couple or so industrial scale P2G methane plants on line but they are still somewhat experimental.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    8. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hasn't been seen so far. Germany is building new coal and has taken many older plants out of mothballed status since Fukushima and planned closure of the nuclear power plants.

      Perhaps in very distant future, they will start reducing the dependence on coal. Right now, German coal buildup is a massive manna from heaven for power plant building companies in what is otherwise a very challenging market outside China.

    9. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Around 2020.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by torsmo · · Score: 0

      Well, lignite does have high sulphur content, but anthracite is expensive (and also produces more CO2), and producing coking coal requires peteroleum.

    11. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People here keep saying that Germany is adding coal capacity to make up for the closure of nuclear plants, but actually they are reducing it over time.

      That must be a sense of "are reducing it" that I'm not familiar with, since they "are increasing it".

      ut that is just so they can get running before taking the old ones off line

      And I'm a Nigerian prince, and if you just send me $1000, then I'm going to send you $10000 back. Right. Sure.

    12. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by stenvar · · Score: 1

      You will have to wait until the current generation of politicians has retired. Then a new generation of politicians will be in power who will make new impossible promises that they will then not fulfill until they retire.

    13. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Also, there is now a strategic security/economical/political dimension to the energy transition for Germany much like there is for the USA concerning Oil independence that has only been reinforced by the Ukraine crisis.

      Two things:

      1) The USA is a net exporter of petroleum products (we import some oil, but export more refined petroleum products than the oil we import makes) these days.

      2) Increasing dependence on natural gas rather than coal by Germany makes them more vulnerable to things like the Ukraine situation.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

      Some of it may be scrubbed, but there are still significant losses. Even a small fraction of a percent escaping results in substantial pollution when burning billions of tons of coal a year. Have a look at the contents, and that isn't even considering the contribution of CO2 to ocean acidification.

      Germany should reverse course, as they are not on a path which will eliminate or even mitigate coal pollution. Current policy is driving prices up and creating a permanent dependence on fossil fuels to compensate for unreliable energy from wind and solar. A $100B spent on nuclear instead would have been a much wiser investment.

    15. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Coal usage will drop as soon as the political winds shift yet again and a new generation of politicians reopens the nuclear plants.

    16. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      And the uranium? Just blowin in the wind.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    17. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      But of course, that difference is way outweighed by the fact that the new gassification plants are about 40% efficient, versus 25%-ish for the plants they're replacing. Also the new plants are designed for rapid ramp up/ramp down. That means that while they're baseload for now, the more renewables in the future come to dominate the grid, the more they'll switch over to being peaking plants. I actually don't think it's a bad strategy at all. I think it makes a lot more sense than relying on Russian NG. It's lower carbon, but more expensive, and it leaves you reliant on a country that tries to use its market dominance as geopolitical blackmail. And the extra money you spend on NG could instead be spent on increasing your renewables deployment.

      On the other hand, if some of the European nations that are interested in fracking end up going that route, perhaps they get low carbon *plus* low cost and geopolitical stability. It's really hard to know what NG prices are going to be in the EU in the long term. If EU does go the fracking route, Russia's going to be in a world of hurt. Before the US fracking boom, US and EU NG prices were about the same. Since then, EU prices have doubled while US prices have halved; US prices are now a quarter of what they pay in Germany. If the EU could get gas prices even close to what they are in the US, the Russian natural gas industry will pretty much collapse, there's no way they can afford that sort of pricing.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    18. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I think you're overly pessimistic. There's a lot of effort to build energy sources that are cheaper than the capital investments and operating costs of nuclear facilities, AND - unlike nuclear plants - can provide power at a moment's notice. There's also trading electricity with (hydroelectric) Norway, future upgrades to the international power grid, etc. Are you sure dumping those $100B purely into nuclear facilities would have been wise?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That probably can't be filtered out, but at least it's harmless in comparison with anything else coming from coal.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hydrogen doesn't just require "modifications to the gas mains", it requires a complete reconstruction, and it'd probably be a really dumb idea. Hydrogen embrittles metals. You put it in any sort of regular pipe, and your system will start springing leaks everywhere from distribution to end-user consumption. It also leaks through almost everything, but especially things not specifically designed for it. But it gets worse, because after it leaks it tends to pool in explosive mixtures under overhangs. Also, if you have multiple pipes running parallel, and there's hydrogen in the lower one but not in the upper one, part of the hydrogen leaking out of the lower pipe ends up in the upper pipe, where it can follow it to its destination and pools there. Beyond that, H2 has combustible fuel air mixtures way, way wider than of methane, 4-75% in air. And unlike methane, it can readily undergo deflagration-to-detonation transitions under STP conditions. NASA safety guidelines require any facility handling more than a dozen or so kilograms of hydrogen to have a roof designed to be blown away in an explosion. And hydrogen ignites with a tenth the ignition energy of methane. We're used to fuels that require a visible, audible spark to ignite, but hydrogen ignites with the sort of tiny static or electrics discharges that you don't even see in everyday life; ordinary electronics are not designed to be safe in an environment where a combustible hydrogen mix might leak into.

      Beyond that, producing hydrogen then burning it is a ridiculously wasteful approach. Even using it in a SOFC after producing it is still ridiculously wasteful. And it's also a very expensive process. Producing methane from atmospheric CO2, however, is so bad it makes even hydrogen look efficient by comparison.

      Obviously, the efficient way to store electricity is batteries. Given DC and not too fast of a charge rate, li-ions, for example, can be over 99% efficient. But obviously the price for storage would be way too high. There's various cheaper techs on the market, including some forms of flow storage, with radically cheaper ones in development, and there's talk of using used EV batteries for grid storage; we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Also far cheaper and more efficient (~75% net) than hydrogen production is pumped hydro, with or without a river present. Compressed air storage is relatively cheap, but inefficient (~10-30%); however there's some lab-scale attempts at isothermal storage which might get that signficantly higher.

      Sometimes you see claims on hydrogen or compressed air production that are higher efficiency, but that's just PR flak; they get those numbers by assuming you make use of the waste heat for some other industry that would otherwise have to burning something to produce said head. But you can say that about every system on earth, because everything has waste heat. The number that matters is how efficiently you can store your electricity.

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    21. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Also, there is now a strategic security/economical/political dimension to the energy transition for Germany much like there is for the USA concerning Oil independence that has only been reinforced by the Ukraine crisis.

      Two things:

      1) The USA is a net exporter of petroleum products (we import some oil, but export more refined petroleum products than the oil we import makes) these days.

      That's news to me.... a net oil exporter is somebody whose domestic production exceeds domestic consumption leaving a surplus to export. According to EIA statistics about 40% of the crude oil consumed in the USA in 2012 came from foreign sources:
      http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_b...
      According to this article the USA is on it's way to become a net gas exporter, it is already a net coal exporter but unlikely to be come a net crude oil exporter.
      http://business.financialpost....

      2) Increasing dependence on natural gas rather than coal by Germany makes them more vulnerable to things like the Ukraine situation.

      They are planning to synthesize a natural gas substitute from hydrogen and CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere or collected off of decomposing biomass. How is that increasing dependence on Russian gas? If this pans out, and P2G is currently getting massive amounts of research money, the Germans will even be able to recycle their existing natural gas infrastructure for storage of excess energy. They'd at the very least be able significantly reduce eliminate Russia's importance as a gas supplier. The best case scenario would of course be to eliminate reliance on Russian gas since it is a significant a strategic liability.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    22. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Did you even read TFS? New coal plants are looking unprofitable and according to TFA investors are looking less and less interested in them. Coal is on the way out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      He said "petroleum products".

      The US is a net oil-product exporter: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    24. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen doesn't just require "modifications to the gas mains", it requires a complete reconstruction, and it'd probably be a really dumb idea. Hydrogen embrittles metals. You put it in any sort of regular pipe, and your system will start springing leaks everywhere from distribution to end-user consumption. It also leaks through almost everything, but especially things not specifically designed for it. But it gets worse, because after it leaks it tends to pool in explosive mixtures under overhangs. Also, if you have multiple pipes running parallel, and there's hydrogen in the lower one but not in the upper one, part of the hydrogen leaking out of the lower pipe ends up in the upper pipe, where it can follow it to its destination and pools there. Beyond that, H2 has combustible fuel air mixtures way, way wider than of methane, 4-75% in air. And unlike methane, it can readily undergo deflagration-to-detonation transitions under STP conditions. NASA safety guidelines require any facility handling more than a dozen or so kilograms of hydrogen to have a roof designed to be blown away in an explosion. And hydrogen ignites with a tenth the ignition energy of methane. We're used to fuels that require a visible, audible spark to ignite, but hydrogen ignites with the sort of tiny static or electrics discharges that you don't even see in everyday life; ordinary electronics are not designed to be safe in an environment where a combustible hydrogen mix might leak into.

      Beyond that, producing hydrogen then burning it is a ridiculously wasteful approach. Even using it in a SOFC after producing it is still ridiculously wasteful. And it's also a very expensive process. Producing methane from atmospheric CO2, however, is so bad it makes even hydrogen look efficient by comparison.

      Obviously, the efficient way to store electricity is batteries. Given DC and not too fast of a charge rate, li-ions, for example, can be over 99% efficient. But obviously the price for storage would be way too high. There's various cheaper techs on the market, including some forms of flow storage, with radically cheaper ones in development, and there's talk of using used EV batteries for grid storage; we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Also far cheaper and more efficient (~75% net) than hydrogen production is pumped hydro, with or without a river present. Compressed air storage is relatively cheap, but inefficient (~10-30%); however there's some lab-scale attempts at isothermal storage which might get that signficantly higher.

      Sometimes you see claims on hydrogen or compressed air production that are higher efficiency, but that's just PR flak; they get those numbers by assuming you make use of the waste heat for some other industry that would otherwise have to burning something to produce said head. But you can say that about every system on earth, because everything has waste heat. The number that matters is how efficiently you can store your electricity.

      Who's talking about replacing natural gas wit hydrogen? That is what you mean isn't it? I will admit that I'm no chemist nor an expert in the effects of hydrogen on pipe material. All I know is what I have read in the energy industry journal I subscribe to. The idea as far as I understand it is to supplement compressed natural gas (CNG) with hydrogen. That's safe with minor modifications up to a mixture of about 20%. I remember reading somewhere that this has been field tested in Holland where they found that mixtures of up to 20% hydrogen and 80% CNG (by volume) could be treated almost identically to pure CNG. Excess energy from wind and solar plants goes to waste 100%. It does not matter that the process of using that energy to create hydrogen using from that SNG is wasteful, at least the excess energy is not going completely to waste the only issue is whether or not it can be done economically. Making P2G economical is a big issue and It won't be easy but then if it was easy everybody would be doing it. And I'm not quite sure where you are going with that Battery idea, the thought here is to store thousands of gigawatt hours of energy (the current German Gas storage capacity is 200,000 GWh) and that would require one massive battery.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    25. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      He said "petroleum products".

      The US is a net oil-product exporter: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

      And I was originally talking about energy independence (oil in this case) when he started going on about the USA being a "net oil product exporter". WTF does that have to do with energy independence? Energy independence is when all of the oil consumed in your country comes from sources within your own country but perhaps definition of energy independence is different in the US from what it is over here in Europe (Nota Bene: I doubt it). A country can be a net metal products exporter and still be dependent on foreign suppliers of steel, i.e. not "metal independent".

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    26. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Except that it can't be on the way out, because it's mandated that it needs to be built, because much subsidised renewables cannot function without it being their hot reserve.

      Which brings us to the current dilemma. Cheap subsidised renewables are paid with massive subsidies taken from consumers. Electricity from renewables is mandated to always take priority in being taken by exchanges over coal, gas and other non-renewable sources. Yet renewables are useless without equivalent amount of coal and gas (and similar non-renewables) backing them as hot and cold reserve. So non-renewables become unprofitable because much of the time they cannot sell their electricity because renewables get mandated priority. At the same time they cannot shut down, because then renewables wouldn't be able to operate.

      And while all this subsidy idiocy is going on, fuelling the entire fiasco, consumers are footing the huge electricity bill that is massively higher than in neighbouring countries simply because of the Energiewende subsidies surcharge.

      So the "cheap price" you see on the market is a result of massive corruption of the market by misplaced subsidy regime that makes those who are actually desperately needed unprofitable, and those who are expensive, unprofitable and inoperable without massive backup look actually profitable. Which is the main goal here - to make renewables "appear" profitable on their own. And people like you become the suckers who buy it.

    27. Re: Another misconception bites the dust by kenh · · Score: 1

      Germany shut down nukes, used mothballed coal plants to pick up the slack.

      Germany invests in solar/wind alternatives, but their power supply is 'bursty' and requires coal-fired plants to maintain power levels on cloudy, windless days and nights.

      As time goes on, Germany starts replacing older coal-fired plants with bigger, cleaner coal-fired plants.

      Eventually, when Germany has shut down their last nuke, and they max-out on solar/wind generation installations, they will still be running the recently built dial-fired plants because people like to have electricity at night, during rain storms, in winter, etc.

      Germany tied it's future to reliance on coal and gas-fired power generation when it committed to shutting down their nukes.

      --
      Ken
    28. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly not while the SPD is in power. They have become the most rabid anti-environmentalists, even worse than the CDU.

    29. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Coal + Ignites 2005: 290,0 TWh
      Coal + Ignites 2013: 283,3 TWh

      Predictions are that coal will be used even less in 2014 and for the first 5 months this was true.

    30. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Germans also tend to think in terms of decades rather than fiscal quarters like many Americans seem to do.

      Too bad we don't see evidence of that in this story. Why brag that the wholesale electricity generation market for Germany is so malformed that at times they're paying to get rid of it? Why shut down nuclear plants without a viable alternative to replace them? Why double the cost of electricity to the end user? There's a huge amount of next quarter thinking here.

    31. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by multi+io · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody can give you am exact date on when coal power will be phased out

      Yeah, because nobody knows how you could run the grid without them. You certainly can't run it just on solar+wind+some measly storage capacities on the same scale as today's. If Germany were to run on solar+wind plants alone all the time, they'd need the ability to store one or two weeks of electricity consumption, which amounts to 10..20 TWh -- that's at least 200 (two hundred) times as much capacity as is installed nationwide today. Which means you'd need totally different storage technologies, some of which you may have to invent first. Nobody is sure how (and whether) this might work.

      but the energy transition effort enjoys fairly broad support among the German public

      Which doesn't change the physics. And, what actually "enjoys broad support" is getting rid of all the nuke plants. So the only date that was fixed early on in this whole effort is the day when the last nuke plant would be shut off. Because not doing that would've cost Merkel her reelection. Everything else isn't nearly as important.

    32. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      BM3
    33. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      NASA safety guidelines require any facility handling more than a dozen or so kilograms of hydrogen to have a roof designed to be blown away in an explosion.

      FWIW, on the (US) submarine I served on there was only one gas for which we had not one but two (one primary and an identical backup) dedicated real-time atmosphere monitoring devices - good ol' H2. Submarines have learned the hard way over the years just how dangerous it can be.

    34. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we go the fracking route then soon we may need to import clean drinking water from elsewhere. Russia maybe?

    35. Re:Another misconception bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hydrogen is indeed nasty. After all, acids do their thing by excess of H+ in solution. And as a small molecule it is therefore leakier than the hydrocarbons we're used to. And, there's Boyle's Law; pressure*volume = # of molecules. Not weight, not stored energy. So, x liters of H2 @ y PSI represents a lot less potential energy of oxidation than the same quantity and pressure of natural gas or propane or whatever with extra hassle.

  3. Aluminium by itzly · · Score: 1

    Set up aluminium plant that can absorb any surplus capacity.

    1. Re:Aluminium by durrr · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work very well:
      http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
      In short, the aluminium plants can't work on unstable grid power.

    2. Re:Aluminium by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Set up aluminium plant that can absorb any surplus capacity.

      They'd be far better off if they could figure out how to store the surplus.

      Stored energy is the big answer to variable sources. And it doesn't have to be batteries. There are many ways to store energy. Potential energy in the form of gravity has so far been one of the most practical. Usually it has been large volumes of water pumped uphill to storage, which then runs back down during peak periods to generate more electricity. But one current project pumps water OUT of a large tower in the ocean, and allowing the water back in is what generates the electricity. It's still the same basic concept: stored potential energy.

    3. Re:Aluminium by itzly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Abrupt power glitches are a (different) problem, but I'm sure that can be solved, and/or that plants can be upgraded to handle them better. The article is also talking about the rolling mill snagging, where I was hinting at the aluminium electrolysis, which is very much insensitive to these glitches.

    4. Re:Aluminium by itzly · · Score: 2

      Aluminium is a good (compact) way to store electricity. Of course, you can't easily convert aluminium back to electricity, but you can turn off the plant to free more of the existing electricity for other consumers.

    5. Re:Aluminium by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But one current project pumps water OUT of a large tower in the ocean, and allowing the water back in is what generates the electricity.

      Either that, or - luckily for the Germans - Holland is right next door!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guess where the largest German aluminium plant is. Right next to the "coal triangle" Cologne-Aachen-Mönchengladbach in Neuss.

    7. Re:Aluminium by swb · · Score: 1

      Pumped water is nice if you have the geography, but what about hydrogen from electrolysis? Convert it to methane and add it to the natural gas network.

      It makes the most sense with renewables like wind or solar when there's no grid demand but conditions are favorable for generation. In those conditions its free energy and the inefficiency of generation really doesn't matter. You could also use it as a grid sink for non-renewables in situations where it would be less practical to spin down other sources only to spin them back up soon after and waste energy in the process.

      Another useful work option for excess capacity would be for desalination in arid areas.

    8. Re:Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has the French president to do with this?

    9. Re:Aluminium by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Storage costs money. Lots of storage costs lots of money. Storage wastes energy too -- pumped hydro, the cheapest form of bulk energy storage has an input-to-output efficiency of about 65 percent. Baseload coal, gas and nuclear generation doesn't need storage to be useful and meet demand 24/7/365 unlike intermittent renewable generating capacity, but no-one ever adds the cost of storage to the cost of renewables when comparing prices.

    10. Re:Aluminium by ibwolf · · Score: 1

      ...but you can turn off the plant to free more of the existing electricity...

      No you can't. Aluminium plants take time to shut down. A sudden loss of electricity will destroy the equipment used to smelt it. So you'd need many hours to wind production down and then many hours to get it started again.

      The last thing any aluminium smelting plants wants is downtime. That is why they are run 24/7. Shutting them down takes a very long time and costs a lot of money.

    11. Re:Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be Hollande not Holland. Unless you insist on translating family names.

    12. Re:Aluminium by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They'd be far better off if they could figure out how to store the surplus.

      Well, not really. Aluminum replaces steel, so you don't need as much steel production if you're producing Aluminum. More and more cars are being made out of Aluminum, which Germany has traditionally purchased from the USA. I would presume they've upped their production capacities since the nineties, when they bought pretty much all of it from Alcoa, but there's probably still more demand. So really, what is Aluminum production but energy storage? It's stored in the form of order.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Aluminium by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Pumped water is nice if you have the geography, but what about hydrogen from electrolysis? Convert it to methane and add it to the natural gas network.

      Hydrogen from electrolysis is horribly inefficient to begin with. Pumped water has far better payback. They don't have city-sized fuel cells to pump that hydrogen back into, so it has to get converted (more energy) and then used in ways in which it is not needed. If you're going to make it at all, it should get used in ways in which natgas is used, but without actually being made into natgas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Aluminium by nadaou · · Score: 1

      > Storage wastes energy too -- pumped hydro, the cheapest form
      > of bulk energy storage has an input-to-output efficiency of
      > about 65 percent.

      yeah, but that excess production was free, so even if you lose some
      of it in the efficiency losses it's still a net gain, just less so.

      which is still good.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    15. Re:Aluminium by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Most renewable generators get a guaranteed minimum payment for electricity they feed into the grid (in the UK where I live windfarm operators get about £145 per MWh) so the "excess" production is not free, it is paid for by the grid operators and ultimately the consumers even if it is not needed sometimes. If the renewable generators stored their excess production and dispatched it into the grid at times of low output that would be a different story, but that would cost them money so they don't do that. The round-trip efficiency losses are even more reason for them not to build storage into their operations.

    16. Re:Aluminium by kenaaker · · Score: 1

      A demonstration plant for conversion of electricity to feed the natural gas network was ready in Germany in 2012. There should be more details here. http://www.zsw-bw.de/infoporta...

    17. Re:Aluminium by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      He supplies power to Germany on days when the wind drops.

    18. Re:Aluminium by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...pumped hydro...has an input-to-output efficiency of about 65 percent.

      I think that's a pretty low number, perhaps typical of older designs. Newer designs can have efficiencies upwards of 80%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
      http://people.duke.edu/~cy42/P...
      http://www.colorado.edu/engine...

      ...and nuclear generation doesn't need storage to be useful and meet demand...

      I believe nuclear tends to be quite bad at load following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      Of course, it is excellent for always-on power, but not ideal for surges or lulls. In certain cases -- L.A. in the summer, for instance -- solar power, although intermittent on the whole, is intermittent in the most useful way: on a nice clear hot day, there's the biggest demand for A/C and the best solar power production.

      ...but no-one ever adds the cost of storage to the cost of renewables when comparing prices.

      Well...staunch proponents with an ax to grind may not include such costs, but then, staunch proponents of coal with an ax to grind will ignore any externalities related to airborne toxins. Any legitimate study of renewable energy should really include storage costs.

      With all that said, I really think Germany did the wrong thing with the whole anti-nuclear energy thing. To paraphrase that quote about democracy, nuclear is the most dangerous form of energy generation, except for all those other sources we've tried ( http://physics.kenyon.edu/peop... ).

    19. Re:Aluminium by swb · · Score: 2

      Sure, pumped water is better, provided you have the geography and a reservoir handy. Most places don't.

      Measures of energy efficiency are meaningless if you're using renewable energy when it would otherwise go unused. The only real question in terms of efficiency is the cost and operational complexity of the facilities, especially in light of the gas yields from fracking.

      The Germans have a plant that makes 300 cubic meters of methane per day from 6.6MW of power. The Alta Wind Energy Center can generate 1.3MW -- a scaled version of the German plant could make 50,000 cubic feet of gas a day. That's maximum output, but even if you could only get access to 10% of the wind power you're still creating over a million cubic feet of natural gas a year with energy you could generate but otherwise could not input into the grid.

    20. Re:Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the whole (screwy) idea is to avoid the (absurd) act of negative cash flow for production of electricity, I would say tthe more inefficient the process the better. Hell, you just tell the German people it's a Helium 3 plant and watch the number of exploding garage labs increase exponentially.
      Nature seems to insist on preserving the stupid gene. That's why we will always have the hip waders of Venice, Holland, and Middle Easterners fighting to preserve their right to live in the desert. On the flip side of the -double tail coin- we will always have Al Gore sitting on the board at Apple and Bill Gates spending any amount of money to ensure the AIDS virus is sustained.
      Nature has sequestered more Carbon and Oxygen from the atmosphere than humans will ever hope to free upin the million years we have left. Before mountain ranges of limestone, and continents of forrest, all that shit was in the atmosphere. Russia, U.S. and China all think the opening back up of the Northwest passage is a good thing. Arctic sea routes are nothing new. Get used to it. But above all,, don't expect the Germans to fix Europes problems. There are just too many Frenchmen to overcome.

    21. Re:Aluminium by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Modern nuclear reactors can load-follow quite well, swinging output by 30% in fifteen minutes thanks to newer control tech and a lot of operational experience over the past 50 years. Load-following can even be done somewhat with older second-generation LWR plants. It's not actually done much since baseload nuclear power is very cheap in terms of fuel consumption and refuelling tends to be done at fixed intervals anyway. Other thermal generators like gas where the fuel is a major part of the cost of operations are normally used to top-up baseload stations -- in the UK the nuclear generators run full-out as much as possible with gas filling in much of the rest and coal as a cheap backstop, limited by pollution and carbon controls.

    22. Re:Aluminium by Uecker · · Score: 1

      The article is a stupid piece of propaganda. you know if from this: "The voltage off the electricity grid weakened for just a millisecond." This can obviously not be blamed on renewables as the article does.

      Small voltage changes in the millesecond time frame are caused by nearby activation of power consumers. That is not to say that wind and solar do not pose challenges to the grid, but the even with a high amount of renewables, the Germany grid is still far more reliable than the grid in US.

    23. Re:Aluminium by Uecker · · Score: 1

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

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

    24. Re:Aluminium by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That is the sort of thinking that has gotten us into so much trouble in the first place. Honestly basic physics says there is no free lunch. With the exception of solar ( which isn't a renewable ) you are pulling energy out of something. I am sure if we put up enough turbines we can and will impact atmospheric conditions.

      Just because something is plentiful does not make wastefulness a good idea.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    25. Re:Aluminium by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am sure if we put up enough turbines we can and will impact atmospheric conditions.

      That has been studied, and the answer is no. Wind farms cause a localized heating effect downstream, but it is quickly lost in noise. It should be fairly obvious that this is the case; we've reduced our forest biomass substantially. The environment can obviously sustain some wind-slowing turbines.

      With that said, I obviously agree that adding more wasteful conversion steps is a non-starter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Aluminium by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      and Bill Gates spending any amount of money to ensure the AIDS virus is sustained.

      Wow, I thought I hated Bill Gates. I haven't heard this one. Please explain, because if it seems plausible I shall plan a field day. I mean, even I haven't come up with anything bad to say about spending a bunch of money on condom research, that seems relatively anti-STD.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Aluminium by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Germany's power grid isn't significantly more unstable that the grid in the USA (if it even is measurably more unstable in the first place), and Alcoa operates just fine on grid power.

    28. Re:Aluminium by swb · · Score: 1

      But there IS a free lunch -- wind generators already built that sit idle when the wind blows because there's no grid capacity for the power. Let them spin and create storable, transportable energy.

      The alternative letting them sit idle, doing nothing.

    29. Re:Aluminium by dhanson865 · · Score: 1

      your information is outdated, as is that Wikipedia entry. I'll try to update it after this post.

      The quote below is from "Nuclear Development, June 2011, http://www.oecd-nea.org/"

      "Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have strong maneuvering capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. they participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day.

      The minimum requirements for the maneuverability capabilities of modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100% of its rated power Pr, with a rate change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute.

      Most of the modern designs implement even higher maneuverability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following fast power modulations in the frequency regulation mode with ramps of several percent of the rated power per second, but in a narrow band around the rated power level."

      the above excerpt is just a small portion of http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

      I'm not sure why the URL has to be so god awful long to work, I tried to shorten it manually but it killed the link. I suppose if I could find a direct link from http://www.oecd-nea.org/ it might be shorter but I'm not in the mood to dig for it.

    30. Re:Aluminium by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      With all that said, I really think Germany did the wrong thing with the whole anti-nuclear energy thing. To paraphrase that quote about democracy, nuclear is the most dangerous form of energy generation, except for all those other sources we've tried ( http://physics.kenyon.edu/peop... ).

      Thanks for the paper. The problem with the death rate figures comes from the IAEA being able to interdict and censor the WHO's published papers and data. This is blatant politic interference that skews the data preventing the real figures from being exposed. In Chernobyl studies into the aftermath of the accident's effect on thyroid cancer in children, funding for data collection was stopped while the evidence for the true harm was still being collected.

      The data that was collected clearly showed the gestation period of the cancer in children exposed to cesium radioisotopes (some 6 years) followed by a dramatic rise in cases (from memory, 25,000 were recorded) before the funding was stopped. This measures only one radioisotope (as a nutrient analogue) with a short half life and no data was collected on other ones like strontium 90, pu-239, cobalt 55 with longer half lives.

      Nor does it measure the harm to future generations because, like present measurements, the data does not exist. This doesn't mean that nuclear power causes less deaths, it means the data on actual deaths hasn't been collected.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    31. Re:Aluminium by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Sunk costs arent free, nor are the panels when you have to replace them in 30 years.

    32. Re:Aluminium by durrr · · Score: 1

      I guess the NRA is a good place to read about debunking of the more guns = more gun death FUD too.
      Because clearly biased sources are always right in your world.

    33. Re:Aluminium by Uecker · · Score: 1

      You can find the actual numbers here: www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/
      But feel free to stick to your own bias....

    34. Re:Aluminium by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Also I forgot: The article I have linked to has many links to its sources. Among other, I you follow the links you find the following article from "Die Zeit" at http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/... with the following quote "Wir beobachten die Versorgungsqualitaet sehr genau und haben keinen Hinweis, dass die Zahl der Stromausfaelle im Zuge der Energiewende zugenommen hat." from the head of the Bundesnetzagentur, the government institution regulating the electricity grid in Germany. Translation: "We monitor the quality of the supply very carefully and have no indication that the number of power outages increased during the Energiewende". So this nonsense if *officially* debunked.

    35. Re:Aluminium by Uecker · · Score: 1

      And while I am debunking all this FUD, here is an official benchmarking report from the EU:

      http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page...

      Tthe most reliable grids in Europe have Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, ...

    36. Re:Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exports and Bilateral Agreements for Electricity...

    37. Re:Aluminium by dublin · · Score: 1

      Sunk costs arent free, nor are the panels when you have to replace them in 30 years.

      And 30 years is best-case. In the real world, the output of quality solar panels at around 25 years will only be about 20% of their nameplate rating. That last 5 years is really just trying to eke out enough additional energy production to get positive over the entire life of the array.

      Although tight, the economics are workable with good quality panels. Unfortunately, the crappy Chinese panels that now dominate the market are starting to show significant failures (backing delamination, which results in water ingress, destruction of the panel, and leaching of heavy metals into the environment) even BEFORE 10 YEARS. If that happens, you will NEVER, EVER break even on your solar plant.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    38. Re:Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He supplies hot air to Germany on days when the wind drops.

      FTFY

  4. Monopoly by jiriki · · Score: 1
    "The profit margin for eight utilities in Germany narrowed to 5.4 percent last year from 15 percent a decade ago. "

    Well, the big four utility companies had a 15% profit margin ten years ago, because they had a monopoly. So it's a good thing to see their profits drop.

    You cannot move to a more decentralized model of power generation without huritng the big players, can you? And of course they are complaining about it.

    1. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you ignore the fact that it's them who are burdened with expensive investments to make the grid resistant to fluctuations and keep it within the specs. Renewables dump their output on them and don't give a shit what happens next.
      Narrow profit margins in such circumstances is nothing good because they don't have much to reinvest and it's not like all that investment is going to have epic ROI, after all most of it will go to mitigation of damage from unpredictable inputs, no profit centers to be found here. Smart grid allowing the renewables to live is not going happen without them so you shouldn't cheer their finances go south.

  5. hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's odd, in Australia our prices have gone up to make up for losses from increased solar installs.

  6. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lower prices???? In what world?
    The prices per kW/h have risen year after year in Germany. How do I know this? I'm living in fucking Germany and get a higher bill each and every year.
    RWE is one of the greediest bitches in Germany. They even have the audacity to ask the government to pay for the save destruction of their own nuclear plants, after receiving subsidies to operate them and extracting as much money as possible for their own pockets.

    1. Re:WTF? by itzly · · Score: 1

      They are talking about the prices after December when the new plants come on-line. They're also talking about wholesale energy contracts. As a consumer you pay more for electricity, but you also pay other fees and taxes that aren't necessarily going down.

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If wholesale energy costs are going down, but the consumer prices are going up, then the profits are raising at lot.
      It's simply dishonest from RWE to complain about low wholesale energy costs. Why? Cause the rabbit hole is deeper. RWE actually BUYS energy from the European Energy Exchange in Leipzig like everyone else. Yes, they sell too, but they profit from lower prices like every other company. They buy at low prices and then sell them outside the EEX for quite high prices. It's market manipulation that even cause the attorney general and the antitrust division to start an investigation.

    3. Re:WTF? by itzly · · Score: 1

      It depends. Because of the increased usage of solar and wind, the grid needs more upgrades, and part of the consumer bill goes to such investments. Also, government taxes could go up. And there's no problem with buying low and selling high, as long as they are not using unfair business practices to block competitors from doing the same thing.

    4. Re:WTF? by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Lower prices???? In what world?

      I think they're talking about the prices they can charge other utility companies. Consumer prices will continue to rise, because corporate greed will never decline.

    5. Re:WTF? by Sarius64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as the government can feel good about itself, why should they care if you can barely afford food?

    6. Re:WTF? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      The prices per kW/h have risen year after year in Germany.

      kWh, dammit. Go learn some very basic physics, or you won't even understand what you are being billed for.

    7. Re:WTF? by brambus · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. The EEG is currently running a dangerous experiment with a highly questionable outcome with the German electricity grid and economy. The EEG guarantees renewables a feed in tariff for the next 20 years to make them appear to be ultimately profitable and forces grid operators to take the electricity regardless of the spot price on the market. Grid operators must then direct traditional plant operators to either throttle or even shut down to keep the grid stable. This is a problem for plant operators, because power plants are forced to operate fewer hours of days (prolonging amortization and ROI on the plants) and are forced to operate less efficiently (you know what it takes to restart a brown coal plant?). And what if at some point the grid operators get too much energy from renewables? More than they need or can handle? Well, they transport or even sell it abroad to the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech republic, often at negative prices, meaning, Germany pays for the others to take it. But if you remember, they were forced to purchase the energy at the renewable plant operator (solar or wind) at a guaranteed feed-in tariff, so who's paying for the difference? Partly the taxpayer and partly the grid operator, which is also one of the a reasons why their profit margins are thinning. Sooner or later this mix will blow up into German's faces, but unfortunately, the political elite is in denial, the media fuels an anti-corporatist frenzy and common people who don't know much about how electricity generation, distribution and marketing work such as yourself are simply taken along for the ride on the lie train. And unfortunately, there is no practical solution in sight.

    8. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP posting. Sorry. You are entirely correct. Shame on me. I should know better. Dang. Don't know why I wrote it that way.

    9. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is an apt summary of Energiewende. It's a "feel good" policy that came after Fukushima, and resulted in a massive build up of coal and gas plants under the guise of "get renewables".

      And now you pay so much for electricity, that you actually have energy poverty in Germany - state where there are people who are too poor to afford electricity. In a modern Western country. It's a god damn insanity, but Greens get to feel good about being on the forefront of renewables. Poor be damned, as usual

    10. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the prices are rising because government has made some pretty insane requirements of those companies. They are basically building a completely new power grid in the country which is costing them billions upon billions, on top of building up renewables and coal and gas needed to provide hot reserve for the renewables.

      They certainly are posting good profits on all of this, but they're not in a good spot right now with massive investments they have to make and all the subsidy mess that is going on with renewables and grid buildup.

    11. Re:WTF? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

      It depends. Because of the increased usage of solar and wind, the grid needs more upgrades, and part of the consumer bill goes to such investments. Also, government taxes could go up.

      And there's no problem with buying low and selling high, as long as they are not using unfair business practices to block competitors from doing the same thing.

      There are and always will be people who notice the most minute increase in electricity or gasoline prices but think nothing of spending a fortune on, say, cigarettes, holidays, restoring a classic car, buying a caravan or keeping a bunch of pets but the original poster nevertheless has a point. A disproportionate amount of the costs of the energy transition has been offloaded on German consumers. The argument has been that this is being done to save jobs, keep industry competitive, blah, blah, blah..... While the proportion of energy costs in the average household budget may be fairly low it is still unfair to make the consumer pay more than his/her share.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    12. Re:WTF? by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      So have the plant operators put the extra energy in some batteries and stop crying about it already. In a 100% renewable system, you're going to need battery/fuel capacity for when the sun is down and when the wind doesn't blow. Store the energy when it's cheap and plentiful, don't run your plant full throttle, and move staff over to monitor energy storage. If there is really such a surplus, make hydrogen, get in bed with VW for a fuel cell vehicle, do something. I really can't believe that the best they can come up with is to pay someone to take it from them.

    13. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is exactly the right diagnosis of the Energiewende. Basically, it's a loss in every way: Emissions are worse, prices are higher, more coal is being burned than ever before. But yes, there is a fairly large group of wealthy people on the political left get a warm feeling about it, because when they were teenagers, they had a great time protesting against nuclear power. Now that they're influential and wealthy voters, they finally get to have the thing they wanted when they were teenagers: a Porsche, and a shutdown of nuclear powerplants.

    14. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an apt summary of Energiewende. It's a "feel good" policy that came after Fukushima, and resulted in a massive build up of coal and gas plants under the guise of "get renewables".

      And now you pay so much for electricity, that you actually have energy poverty in Germany - state where there are people who are too poor to afford electricity. In a modern Western country. It's a god damn insanity, but Greens get to feel good about being on the forefront of renewables. Poor be damned, as usual

      Only, problem, this already happened before Fukushima.
      Remember, the decision to switch off the nuclear power plans as made about 25 years ago.
      Only 1 month before fukushima, my government abandoned this plan and right after fukushima banned nuclear energy once again.

    15. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And now you pay so much for electricity,

      ... that the price on the wholesale market is plummeting!

      Long term, and probably even medium term, the cost of electricity in Germany can only go one way thanks to renewables. Down. Less reliance on polluting and foreign sources of energy is just an added bonus.

      High capitol expenditure at the start followed by a big payoff later on is pretty much the definition of an investment.

    16. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LULz? Have you done the math on storage capacity? You'd need a battery the size of a small city for each coal plant. The most economical way storing that kind of power is using water pressure but even that's no where near enough at the moment. A more practical solution is not be using the power as much when it's not being produced but that takes a very long-term view. Kind of funny to see them shutting nuclear plants while opening coal plants and claiming that it's going to help the environment. They needed to replace the nuclear plants with ones that don't waste 99.5% of their fuel. Germany's government must be insane...

    17. Re:WTF? by brambus · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, paying somebody to take it off them is really the cheapest option. Grid scale storage systems simply do not exist. Pumped hydro is the closest (only ~25% process loss rate and ~$45 billion per GW in year-round baseload equivalent) and there simply isn't enough places to put them in Germany (at present they have 35 of them, they'd need >500 just to replace the remaining nuclear fleet, not to mention the fossil fuel plants, of which there is 4-5x as many). What's worse, most of the locations for pumped hydro is in the hilly south of Germany, whereas most of the wind resources are in the north, especially off the coast in off-shore wind, so they'll need to beef up their high-voltage transmission network (also add ~7-8% additional transport losses on top). By one estimate, it'll take an additional 100000 to 140000 miles of high-voltage lines to get to their 80% renewable target in 2050. At a cost of ~$1M/mile, that'll be another $100 billion - $140 billion on top of any storage capacity (the government budgets ~$50 billion for new lines through ~2030). Batteries are extremely expensive per Wh stored. If battery storage plants were being built, it wouldn't be shiny recyclable lithium-ion cells, which are expensive as heck (about 5-10x as much as pumped hydro), but the cheapest lead-acid crap you can find. Storage losses in batteries are somewhat lower (only about 5-10%), but their lifetime compared to pumped hydro (~10 years for batteries vs. >40 years for pumped hydro) make the capital expenses impact on ROI much worse. Hydrogen is unfortunately also a no-go. Small scale electrolysis can be up to 80% efficient, but it uses exotic metals on the electrodes and those are consumed over time via ion diffusion. Large scale electrolysis is much less efficient (maybe 50%) and even so nobody's demonstrated that it can be done on a grid level (there's no 500MW electrolysis plant anywhere). What's worse is storage. Hydrogen is extremely nasty stuff, liquid storage requires >1000 PSI (so it takes a lot of energy to compress - another significant efficiency decrease) and it's still about 12x less dense than water, so the tanks have to be HUGE. Metallic pipe embrittlement is a serious issue, as are unintended fires. Imagine a hydrogen storage plant catching fire. Hydrogen is extremely volatile and burns with an invisible flame - enjoy putting those out. The detonation speed is much higher than say butane-air so any detonation of a hydrogen-air mixture is much more destructive than, say, a natural gas explosion. Quite simply, common environmentally conscious people have been not been told the full truth about the scale of the problem by the media and it's no wonder - this is complicated stuff.

    18. Re:WTF? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Long term, and probably even medium term, the cost of electricity in Germany can only go one way thanks to renewables. Down. Less reliance on polluting and foreign sources of energy is just an added bonus.

      If that renewable power is still funded by causing customers to pay more (which is currently the situation in Germany with customer-funded subsidies on renewables), then it's not going to be cheap. And if they can't come up with some way to store the power generated by the less reliable parts of renewable energy, then they will continue to be dependent on foreign sources of energy.

      I'm sure the high variability of the German electricity market is great for traders. I can't see what the appeal would be for everyone else.

      High capitol expenditure at the start followed by a big payoff later on is pretty much the definition of an investment.

      And if that big payoff never comes, it is pretty much the definition of a loss. A project with large front-loaded costs and nebulous back-loaded payoff is a classic "privatizing profit/socializing losses" ploy.

    19. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You are likely referring to decision taken under SPD-Greens coalition, which was promptly repealed when CDU came to power.

    20. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wholesale price is down because utilities are FORCED to accept electricity from renewable plants, which were massively built up due to subsidies.

      Said subsidies are paid by a massive surcharge taken out of the bill of consumers.

      As a result, while electricity wholesale prices are down, the reason they are down is because consumers are being charged an arm and a leg, and that money subsidises production.

      And the trend is to increase the surcharge, because Energiewende is at massive risk of failing due to being late or deemed unfeasible on almost every front.

    21. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now you pay so much for electricity, that you actually have energy poverty in Germany - state where there are people who are too poor to afford electricity. In a modern Western country. It's a god damn insanity, but Greens get to feel good about being on the forefront of renewables. Poor be damned, as usual

      That's some anti-tax BS right there. See this post "The average household electricity prices in Germany were at ~29 eurocents per kWh in 2013"

    22. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Energiewende" is older than the Fukushima disaster. Just because the Merkel administration keeps flip-flopping on the issue doesn't mean the concept and in fact the relevant subsidies haven't been in place for much more than a decade. Educate yourself and stop spewing propaganda. (Off topic: If you think you'd prefer being poor in just about any other country of the world, do try it.)

    23. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Store the energy when it's cheap and plentiful

      And just how do we propose we do that?

      So have the plant operators put the extra energy in some batteries

      Batteries cannot store nearly enough energy. Maybe you should learn some maths and some physics before mouthing off your betters.

    24. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are and always will be people who notice the most minute increase in electricity or gasoline prices but think nothing of spending a fortune on, say, cigarettes, holidays, restoring a classic car, buying a caravan or keeping a bunch of pets...

      It's called discretionary spending.

      Being obliged to pay artificially inflated prices for necessities like gasoline or electricity because of corrupt politicians pandering to lobbyists for Big-Corn or Big-Green is not discretionary spending. It's theft.

    25. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I would prefer being poor in my own country, Finland. Or alternatively one of the other Nordics. It would be a much better life.

    26. Re:WTF? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It might have something to do with PV being one of the most expensive forms of energy out there (particularly in a northern european country), as well, and having shut down a lot of their nuclear.

    27. Re:WTF? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are basically building a completely new power grid in the country which is costing them billions upon billions

      Ah, so it's pretty cheap then! Compared to a single nuclear plant which will cost somewhere around â10bn to build and then billions more over its lifetime to subsidize and decommission this new, clean grid is a bargain.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Except that grid's ROE is terrible, while nuclear power plant ROE is among the top of all industries in existence, simply due to reasonably cheap operating and fuel costs (when compared to amount of electricity produced).

      But sure, whatever helps you think that you're doing a "good thing" while in reality you're shitting on environment and your poor. Ivory towers and strawmen that you build to make them comfortable are nice, aren't they?

    29. Re:WTF? by dublin · · Score: 1

      I don't have any mod points, and have posted on this thread anyway, but LISTEN TO THIS GUY (brambus).

      Unlike most of the armchair experts here, brambus is explaining *exactly* why the German grid is broken and why it will eventually fail - at this point, I think the only questions are "When?", and, "How bad?" The tariffs that led to all this investment in solar et al are completely unsustainable over the long haul, and everyone has known that all along, but like the actual climate record, it didn't fit with the narrative and had to be ignored.

      If Germany is really lucky, they'll get by with some scary but not-totally-grid-meltdown failures that might finally kick some sense into the Greens and others who think they can legislate reality based on wishcraft...

      It's sad, but they're going to have to learn what I taught my kids: You are free to choose your actions, but you are NOT free to choose the consequences of your actions...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    30. Re:WTF? by dublin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sounds simple, right? Just store it! First, even the best solar systems today are not economically viable without huge government subsidies unless you live on an island and have to ship your fuel in, so really, you're upside down before you've spent a dime on storage.

      Secondly, with any known and viable technology storage is *really*, *REALLY* expensive on a grid scale. For all practical purposes, it's fair to say that there is NO known way to do it in most locations. (The dangers of gas-pressurized reservoirs may well be orders of magnitude higher than fracking at its worst, and very few places have geography that allow pumped hydro to be even marginally cost-effective.) Batteries, supercaps, and the like still need another couple of orders of magnitude price/performance improvement to be viable.

      Do the math, and you'll see that storage isn't even an option - the solar plant is barely viable even with subsidies (here in Texas, with cheap and readily available natural gas, solar costs 4-5 times as much per KWH, according to EIA's LCOE figures). Add in any kind of grid-scale storage at all, and the costs soar through the stratosphere, especially since most storage technologies have relatively short economic lives.

      So yes, paying someone to take the power is actually the cheapest thing to do - not only in Germany, but many nights here in the US with wind power, too. There's just more capacity than demand, and since it costs the power companies to deal with that, they justifiably want to get paid to offset the costs and inefficiencies of having to shut down and spin up their conventional plants.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    31. Re:WTF? by brambus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the kind words, though I must confess I'm also just an "armchair expert". The difference is I'm trained as an engineer, have studied electrical engineering and wasn't afraid to check the math on the political talking points. And although I wish it did, it simply doesn't add up.

    32. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an apt summary of Energiewende. It's a "feel good" policy that came after Fukushima,

      "The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident." FU

    33. Re:WTF? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Talking about current implementation of it obviously, as is referenced in the topic.

  7. So not a total ripoff anymore? by Skylinux · · Score: 5, Informative

    So instead of extremely high prices we are going to get high prices? Awesome!

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
    Lists an average price of 26,4 ct/kWh for 2012 in Germany. RWE.de gives me a current price quote of 25,72 ct/kWh.
    The average in Europe is 18,4 ct/kWh.

    Power may be cheaper on the exchange but the consumer is still getting shafted.
    The only people who will profit from this are energy traders and power hungry corporations. They currently pay ~15 to ~12 ct/kWh.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    1. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are right that energy traders and power companies trade at around 12 - 15 ct/kWh, but your conclusion couldn't be further from the truth. 12-15 ct/kWh is close to the actual cost of producing the power. The difference to the retail price is only taxes and EEG-Umlage. So the profiteers are the government (through high taxes) and the operators of solar and wind power stations. who are subsidized through the EEG-Umlage because they still cannot produce power at competitive prices. That's the reason why power is so expensive, the price needs to be inflated artificially because otherwise renewable energy would not be competitive.

    2. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>German power for delivery next year, a European benchmark, slumped to a nine-year low of 33.65 euros/MWh

      That is less than 4 €cent /kWh. What you are paying are the oligopol-rip-off prices. It has nothing to do with the cost of electricity. If anything your consumer-without-alternative-prices will go up to make up for lost profit.
      You have been conditioned by propaganda (e.g. that nuclear is somehow cheap when in fact unsubsidized nuclear is most expensive form of energy, but it traditional made RWE&Co a lot of money so they propagandized the shit out of it) to believe that your prices are so high because of renewable energies. In fact you as a consumer have been ripped-off by the greedy energy conglomerate.

    3. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      The average in Europe is that low mostly because of some Eastern European countries with big old Soviet power plants that sell power cheaply. The average would be considerably higher than 18,4 ct/kWh if you removed Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and the Baltic countries from the calculation.

    4. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      In the UK I'm paying 0.15 Euros a KW/h (Including Euro Tax, without "standing daily charge", but before some discounts). I may have overlooked the soviet power plants somewhere.

      Jason.

    5. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot, a place where no matter what, whiny manchildren can complain about any fucking thing.

    6. Re: So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong. The price at the EEX is 4 cent per kWh. That's what RWE buys energy for. Nuclear energy is only competitive due to high subsidies and no tax on nuclear fuels. Which is a subsidy, too. Remove all nuclear subsidies, demand the money back, tax them properly and all of the sudden nuclear energy is the most expensive one. That's the big lie of the big four energy company. Renewable energy is not expensive.

    7. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in Finland and pay around 10 eurocents.

      We have a sane energy policy though, and rely heavily on nukes and hydro.

      http://www.investinfinland.fi/...

    8. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Just looked up the prices back home (Denmark):
        0.274 - 0.35 EUR/kWh

      Not sure Germans have anything to complain about :)

    9. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact you as a consumer have been ripped-off by the greedy energy conglomerate.

      RWE's ROA is 2.5%; how is that "greedy"? How low would you like the ROA to be?

      but it traditional made RWE&Co a lot of money so they propagandized the shit out of it) to believe that your prices are so high because of renewable energies

      Yes, they make less money with an inefficient and costly way of generating energy, and yes, they "propagandized" that fact. How dare they tell the truth when it contradicts your ideology!

    10. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Trepidity · · Score: 0

      As I said, ex-Soviet countries...

    11. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an inefficient and costly way of generating energy which is making the selling price of electricity take a huge nose dive. yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

      at some time you are going to have to make the math of this work and reassess your thinking on this one. or your brain might explode.

    12. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Er, Finland was never part of the Soviet Union.

    13. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Just for comparison, in the US I pay ~8 eurocents per kWh.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That's because the U.S. makes no attempt at incentivizing energy conservation through the tax system.

    15. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Next you'll be telling me how we should be grateful to Allies for saving us from Soviet Union?

      Hey dickhead, have you tried history?

    16. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Then who erected those Lenin statutes?

    17. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, that 10 cents is going up:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
      "According to some estimates, Olkiluoto reactor could be the fifth or sixth most expensive structure in the world"
      (It's going to be scraped before it's started, to cover come of the debts)

    18. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      In eurocents, my local power company (37 GW installed capacity) charges 3.83 ct/kWh, and they are highly profitable.

      Of course, our power company is owned by the government, the rates are set by the government (at levels that are still very profitable), and all their power generation capacity is renewable with plants lasting for many decades (hydro). I realize that not everywhere has anything like the hydro capacity available, but nuclear plants can last similar amounts of time, and solar prices can be much lower than what power costs in Germany (perhaps why solar is becoming so popular there). Unsubsidized solar costs less than half those prices you're quoting for Germany.

    19. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      The Finns I know would resent the implication heavily, in fact. As far as I can tell, darn near the entire mobilization of the Finnish military is on the Russian border, and (according to a Finnish friend of mine) Finland came in on the side of the Axis during WW2 primarily because Germany was opposing Russia.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    20. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And we don't have to care, because Areva is paying for it. And unless Areva goes under (exploding in laughter over the absurdity of French government allowing is prized jewel go under because of a single project), the only problem our power company resposible for it has is getting decent lawyers to ensure that arbitrage ensures that all contractual conflicts and fines are paid.

      So indeed, I don't have to worry.

    21. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      That's because the U.S. makes no attempt at incentivizing energy conservation through the tax system.

      Why would not incentivizing energy conservation make it CHEAPER, if the US is not conserving energy wouldn't supply and demand make it more expensive?

      --

      Enigma

    22. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Interesting question, by way of backtracking from the challenge. I know of two statues (if that is what you meant to write) of Lenin in Finland. There are also two such statues in Italy, and four such statues in the US. I guess they must have been ex-Soviet countries too.

      OTOH, the Finnish armed forces killed a lot of Soviet soldiers during WW II. And Nazi German soldiers, BTW, in a different period of the war.

    23. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behind most people complaining about cost, is a fool that thinks new power plants are free.

    24. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Finland and pay around 10 eurocents.

      We have a sane energy policy though, and rely heavily on nukes and hydro.

      http://www.investinfinland.fi/...

      With a growing reliance on imported.

    25. Re:So not a total ripoff anymore? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      We're finishing building a new nuclear power plant (it was supposed to have been ready a couple of years ago, but Areva messed up) and another one is in the works. Most of the shortfall is because Olkiluoto 3 plant was supposed to have been finished, and the fact that we have a long term deal to help finance Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant on Russian side and Narva shale rock plants on Estonian side by buying power from those states in long term.

      So no, not at all. If anything, we're looking at less imports once Olkiluoto 3 is finally finished.

  8. Prices still keep rising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big four energy companies try everything to save their profits (which are shrinking, the horror), so the prices keep going up while energy can be bought for cheaper and cheaper.
    They say that it is because of the solar power and its subsidies, but if you do the math, prices should be going down even though subsidies keep growing. The problem here is that the math gets a bit complex: solar and wind power has a minimum price associated with it. If the prices at the exchange sink, it is more expensive for the state to pay the minimum price. Therefore, the "tax" for the subsidy goes up.

  9. Increased production, or reduced demand? by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Informative

    The production figures in this article are all given as percentages of demand - not the actual amount generated. There's two reasons Germany could suddenly be producing an excess of energy: supply has increased, or demand has dropped. A quick Google shows German production has dropped 6% in the period 2004-12 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... ).

    So the reason isn't that Germany's renewable plants are producing an abundance of power - it's that people are demanding less power; presumably because they cannot afford prices that are among the most expensive in the world ( http://www.contactenergy.co.nz... )

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    1. Re:Increased production, or reduced demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's that people are demanding less power; presumably because they cannot afford prices

      or they are reducing their energy demands on an intelligent way : better insulation for example.

    2. Re:Increased production, or reduced demand? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      or they are reducing their energy demands on an intelligent way : better insulation for example.

      Right. Its not for the obvious reason that follows well known economic laws.. its for the hard to swallow reason that people are more intelligent now.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Increased production, or reduced demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its for the hard to swallow reason that people are more intelligent now.

      Unlikely. People still have forgotten the difference between a possessive form and a pronoun followed by a contraction. No way people are smarter now.

    4. Re:Increased production, or reduced demand? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Both can be true. If the price of energy goes up, people are going to start looking at alternative ways of spending less, that may not have been economical in the past. As power costs ramp up, the time it takes for the cost of insulation to pay for itself drops, making it more attractive.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  10. Europe's moral high ground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Allows them to enjoy the products of mining and heavy industry, while lecturing the rest of the world about carbon emissions.

  11. Higher prices for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Funny, I just got a letter stating my (Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) energy prices will rise on August 1st to 27.42 cents per kWh. That translats to 37.43 US cents per kWh. This price will remain in effect until December 2015. Nice.

    1. Re: Higher prices for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes consumers have to pay for this energie strategie while corporations don't pay any energie in Germany.
      In the mean time my bill is going down because of cheap imports from Germany.

    2. Re:Higher prices for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good time to invest in solar. Or figure out how to reduce the amount of energy you use by a lot.

      Or, should we go through the rest of the things you waste money on each month, like many other people here who complain about their power bill going up a few dollars...

  12. some don't agree with that by wm2810 · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://srsroccoreport.com/germ... :
    Since the introduction of the Renewable Energy law in 2000 aimed at replacing coal and gas-fired as well as nuclear power generation by so-called renewable energy sources, the household price for electricity has jumped by more than 200%. German customers now pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. At the same time, the task of stabilizing the grid against the massive erratic influx from solar and wind power plants that produce without regard for actual need has pushed the operators to their limits.

    One of the major problems with wind and solar is that the projects aren't commercially viable without huge Govt subsidies including long-term contracts by energy utilities to pay 2-4 times the going wholesale electric rate for solar and wind generated power.

    1. Re: some don't agree with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear energy wouldn't be viable without subsidies either.

      Don't fall for the propaganda and lies of the 4 big energy companies in Germany.

  13. A political opportunity arises! by Grindalf · · Score: 2

    This is clever! The German people should be able to undercut the rest of the world with their manufactured products. Cheap 3 phase nuclear electricity should be the goal of every nation, so that fully automatic production of goods frees the people from the slavery and drudgery of repetitive jobs and can fund a new system of benefits for those who do not work that is effective and complete, and start a new “knowledge based economy” for those who do have the mindset to enjoin! If only we the people have to foresight to invest in 3d printing and factory robotics. Then there will be no unemployment or employment, just humans and droids! We move ...

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  14. Prices ridiculously low by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2

    Chemical engineer here. The industry prices for electricity have become so low that it doesn't even make sense to heat up the reactors using turbine-generated steam any more. It's ridiculous. It's cheaper to buy the electricity to generate the steam!

  15. Redundant Generating Capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is wind and solar are useless for base load so there have to be fossil fuel plants able to cover 100% capacity when the sun isn't shining and wind is not blowing at the right speed. It is worse than that because all of those fossil fuel plants have to be kept hot at standby because solar and wind can quit suddenly. With this set of assets, it is obvious there will be a sunny day when the wind is just right and too much power is available. By the way, a combination of coal fired generation and renewables will produce more CO2 than a natural gas combined cycle plant.

    ronscubadiver.wordpress,com

  16. Can't wait for self generation... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    These markets are being screwed up by politics... both international and domestic.

    If we self generate then the powers that be can sit on it and spin... I really can't wait.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Can't wait for self generation... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      These markets are being screwed up by politics... both international and domestic.

      If we self generate then the powers that be can sit on it and spin... I really can't wait.

      Self-generation is already perfectly feasible. What's missing is self-storage. When that is solved, we can have REAL energy independence. Independence from all these manipulative selfish bastards.

      If I were an electrical engineer, I'd be trying to solve the problem myself, using nickel iron batteries. If I were a chemist, I'd be trying to make a gel-pack nickel iron battery.

  17. Lower prices than other places by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Sadly other places have the same rises and some surpass Germany. It's as if Enron wrote the Standard Operating Procedures for "electricity traders" worldwide and now pointless middlemen infest most electricity industries.
    It sucks immensely.
    For example, Australia has much lower wholesale electricity prices than Germany yet has much higher retail prices than Germany with the distributors blaming their con on increased infrastructure. That price gouging has driven residential solar to around a two year payback when sized appropriately for consumption.

  18. "Capacity" by cirby · · Score: 1

    "From December capacity will be at 117% of peak demand."

    Ignoring, of course, that when talking about solar/wind power and "capacity," the actual output is, to say the least, variable.

    They had the big headline recently about how much they generated during one hour of one day - but for some reason, they didn't mention all of those cloudy and windless winter days where effective output was a tiny fraction of that - and they had to use lots and lots of coal to make up the difference.

    1. Re:"Capacity" by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Solar generally has a 0.20 power factor, which AFAIK means that theyll be generating 20% of that at best.

  19. Original post: absolute lie?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Average German family pays $129 for their electricity bill, 3x higher than average US family
    Source: http://www.voanews.com/content/green-energy-expansion-in-germany-comes-at-a-hefty-price/1858699.html

    This seems "German prices are plummeting" story seems to be either a lie, or propaganda by the Green party.

  20. Baseline power? by gatzke · · Score: 1

    Sunny days they make tons of "free" electricity.

    On cold dark winter nights, where does the power come from?

    They can build backup plants that run on coal/gas typically operating under nameplate capacity or they can buy nuke power from the French.

    Oh, the irony...

    1. Re:Baseline power? by d3vi1 · · Score: 2

      Sunny days they make tons of "free" electricity.

      On cold dark winter nights, where does the power come from?

      They can build backup plants that run on coal/gas typically operating under nameplate capacity or they can buy nuke power from the French.

      Oh, the irony...

      You've got it. What I don't understand is why nuclear electricity is put in the same basket as coal and gas plants. The incidents that Nuclear has gone through in the past 60 years only reinforce my view that it's a safe solution. If given all the fsck-ups that gave us Chernobyl, Fukushima and 3 Mile Island that's all that happened I think that it's pretty much OK. I'm saying this because coal/thermal have their exhaust pipe problems which affect a much greater percent of the population and hydro is in general an ecological mess that also involves massive population relocation.

      --
      UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
    2. Re:Baseline power? by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      You've got it. What I don't understand is why nuclear electricity is put in the same basket as coal and gas plants.

      Because nuclear industry externalities are less immediate and more severe than coal and gas.

      The incidents that Nuclear has gone through in the past 60 years only reinforce my view that it's a safe solution.

      I'd suggest that much of the information about what has gone on in the nuclear industry has been subjected to PR spin and political interference to minimize the true situation. One only has to look at the regulatory powers the IAEA has over what the WHO can publish on matters nuclear to see an example.

      If given all the fsck-ups that gave us Chernobyl, Fukushima and 3 Mile Island that's all that happened I think that it's pretty much OK.

      Radionuclide releases from any source into the environment have consequences that extend beyond our lifetime. These are the most severe of many plant accidents yet the rest of the industry from mining to spent fuel containment *all* release radionuclides. There is nothing OK about releasing materials that cause cancer, failed pregnancies, introduces transgenic disease by altering the genome of life itself in all species including humans.

      I'm saying this because coal/thermal have their exhaust pipe problems which affect a much greater percent of the population and hydro is in general an ecological mess that also involves massive population relocation.

      If those materials decayed within our generation we may have been excused however, these materials will continue to cause these issues as the different daughter products decay in timeframes lasting hundreds to thousands of generations of humans.

      I'm certain that what we have already done (with the existing nuclear industry mess) will make future generations consider us to be the most selfish and sort sighted generations that have ever existed.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Baseline power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certain that what we have already done (with the existing nuclear industry mess) will make future generations consider us to be the most selfish and sort sighted generations that have ever existed.

      Given the track record of humans to only see that which fits the pre-conceived notions farted from their preferred sacred cow, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism.

      I'd love to see a study which measured the number of minds actually changed on key subjects among Slashdotters.

    4. Re:Baseline power? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      There is nothing OK about releasing materials that cause cancer, failed pregnancies, introduces transgenic disease by altering the genome of life itself in all species including humans.

      Yes I agree, we should stop with coal. Nuclear releases less radioactive waste into the environment.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    5. Re:Baseline power? by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      There is nothing OK about releasing materials that cause cancer, failed pregnancies, introduces transgenic disease by altering the genome of life itself in all species including humans.

      Yes I agree, we should stop with coal.

      So do I, however, do you even know what the difference is between natural and enriched radio-isotopes? Are you stupid enough to think that a chemical fire from burning coal will produce plutonium and actually have a greater radionuclide release than the Nuclear industry? Do you think that a coal plant can release, tritium or radio-cobalt for example. Did you even question that statement when it was made and check for yourself? No, you didn't.

      Nuclear releases less radioactive waste into the environment.

      This statement is a fiction, produced from the statement "In normal operations a nuclear reactor releases less radioactive waste into the environment than a coal plant" into your statement. Converted to create the fiction that you shill, believing it refers to the entire nuclear industry - it doesn't.

      Chernobyl release about 5 tons of pu-239 into the environment and Fukushima released plutonium chloride and oxide. Then there is releases from mining, enrichment and operational releases from reactors every two weeks (check the NRC guidelines for yourself) showing that the original statement itself is only half true.

      You are saying that the coal industry is capable of exceeding these releases because you believe a fiction, not because you have checked the facts.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  21. Re: don't be short-sighted by fygment · · Score: 2

    what it means is we need better ways to spread resources. If Germany could export that power to places that have a lack of power generation capabiity, that would be ideal, no? Same applies for crop surpluses, etc.

    We need a better global infrastructure not more taxes that, like all taxes, will not benefit who they are supposed to.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  22. Like Ontario Canada by fygment · · Score: 1

    A province that, because it has little storage capability, has a rigid hydro system geared to meet peak demand and 'dump' power during low demand periods. It's a province that has paid others to take its surplus power.

    A solution to both Germany's and Ontario's problem is creating storage capability, and that needs innovative research world-wide. Sadly, the focus is mostly on new ways to _produce_ power. Go figure.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Like Ontario Canada by dublin · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's probably more money and effort focused on trying to build grid storage than there ought to be, given that there's really no technology known that's capable of doing the job in a generally viable way. There's a name for that: WOMBAT - Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time.

      (Not saying we shouldn't be looking at all, but realistically, grid-scale storage requires technologies we simply don't have, and largely, can't yet even envision or propose. We're a smart society with a few centuries of intense technology and engineering development under our belts, and there is no known viable solution to this problem. If there was, then billions, or even trillions, of dollars would be flowing into it. This isn't like most hard problems, which can be solved by throwing enough effort and money at them - we really just don't know how to do this!

      For all its faults, Hydrogen may be the best of the bad options - but the most (only?) economically viable source of hydrogen at large scales today is natural gas. Both environmentally and from an energy loss point of view, you're better off just burning the natural gas (our cleanest fuel in the first place) than taking the hit converting it to H2. Any effort to split water will result in H2 that is *much* more expensive than making it from natural gas, especially given the benefits of the fracking revolution - water is an *extremely* stable molecule...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  23. Common mistakes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burn that coal and irradiate your atmosphere 100 times more than a nuke, brilliant! Nuclear design mostly frozen for 50 years, brilliant! What we need is World War 3, that'll get people in gear.

  24. Renewables? Pfffttt ! by fygment · · Score: 1

    Germany like Ontario (to a much lesser extent) invested in wind farms and solar.
    In Ontario, all wind farms have to be installed with back-up generators, gas-turbines for the most part.
    Why?
    On hot, windless days of summer, when demand peaks for air conditioning, the back-ups kick-in for the useless wind turbines.
    In winter, when the skies are mostly grey, the solar is mostly useless to meet the demand peak caused by electric heating. When the wind does blow in winter, the speeds are usually above the wind turbine limits.
    Renewables in Ontario, mostly a feel-good but large waste of money. Maybe it's the same in Germany. Either way, ways to store hydro power would help stabilise things and bring costs down ... and maybe make renewables viable.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  25. Sorry, Having a hard time with this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does Germany's electricity glut have to do with the price of beans in China?

  26. Yeah reich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like I want German electricity. /s

  27. Re:Renewables? Pfffttt ! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Either way, ways to store hydro power

    Ontario? OK, I'll cut you some slack. In the rest of the world, 'hydro power' refers only to power generated by hydroelectric plants. Not a term for electrical power in general. Storing hydro power is (in the rest of the world) typically done with a lake.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. My biggest savings/payoff was LED bulbs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Where I use them for 8 hours or more per day, they pay for themselves in about 6 months even at much lower electricity rates than in Europe. Proportionally longer payoffs for areas where i use them less.

    And I don't have to replace them. None of them. My first ( a 20w) is still on the porch after more than a decade.

    After trying them all (GE, Sylvania, Phillips, Ecolight)- I've settled on the G7 3100k 65 watt replacement bulbs.

    2700k and 2900k look pink or orange.
    5000k looks blue.

    3100k look "right". In blind tests with friends- they couldn't tell which one was an incandescent and which one was the G7.

    I also like the 3500k CFL bulbs from Home Depot (red package). They look "superwhite" and not blue.

    The G7's are slightly larger than incandescent bulbs and will not fit in six inch glass bulb lights so I use the blue/white Ecolights in them. The extra 50 lumens makes a huge difference to my aging eyes.

    My electric bill has been lowered enough by using LED lights (with a few CFL's) that I basically get a "free" LED bulb every two months. My old 52 dollar winter electric bills were 45 dollars this winter. The summer bill is harder to break out (ac is a huge factor) but it seems lower by 5 to 10 bucks too.

    I continue to try all new LED's that come on the market but for now the G7 is my favorite.

    For someone paying 29 cents per kwh, it seems like they would pay off even faster.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  29. Over the border by tsa · · Score: 1

    I live in the Netherlands at 5 km distance from the border. The Netherlands and Germany are both members of the EU, where there is free travel of people and goods across all borders. So why can't I get my electricity from Germany?

    --

    -- Cheers!

  30. Replacing nukes with coal-fired plants... by kenh · · Score: 1

    How 'green' of Germany - this is gonna blow a big hole in the 'see, Germany is doing fine without Nukes' argument, since an argument to follow Germany's lead inevitably leads to new coal-fired power plants... At least as a bridge until solar/wind become more affordable.

    --
    Ken
  31. So not a total ripoff anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Netherlands, we don't have a feed-in tariff for solar, so one would expect lower (consumer) electricity prices. Unfortunately this is not the case, our government just adds more taxes and then adds a 21% sales tax over those taxes, ending op with a consumer electricity price similar to Germany, but without the advantages for renewable energy.

  32. Yay flamebait! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The more compelling your argument, the more likely that your comment will be moderated Troll or Flamebait in an attempt to hide that fact. Sadly, that only deprecates the value of moderation itself.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Yay flamebait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because there is natural forms of desertification and you're trying to act like there isn't while acting like a jackass at the same time?
       
      Or are you so stupid that you think the world's ecosystems are static?
       
      Just get per yourself, fucktard. We see your shit constantly here and you're just not that smart.

    2. Re:Yay flamebait! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe because there is natural forms of desertification and you're trying to act like there isn't

      Ahh, there you are. I knew it would be possible to draw you out. You're too chickenshit to actually examine the argument. See, mentioning natural desertification is irrelevant when compared to the speed at which human activity has caused it. Cataclysm aside, natural desertification happens at a relatively sedate pace. I knew that your argument went even further into bullshit territory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. This glut will last only until mid-October by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Uncle Frost will arrive and will bring with himself plenty of cold air.

  34. Energy stuff people forget to talk about by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    1) Cutting waste in demand is a huge huge factor-- migrating to light bulbs from incandescent heaters was a BIG DEAL no matter the power sources; which do not get cheaper over time. You waste power because it was cheap; it is going up overall and for most, incomes have been in decline. Population rise = more demand; cheap fuels are running out, expensive coal and oil are plentiful; ignoring the high indirect costs of their continued over use. Fixating on old tech is ignoring the underlying problems. Even with cheap fusion power, if 7 billion people used the power of an American we'd have global warming just from the heat loss all that energy use produces. In the USA, we had to have a big fight just to kill the stupid light bulbs and raise car millage; hell just getting seat belts was a huge fight and even involved espionage.

    2) Next Generation grid - no, not the "smart grid"; but a modern smartly designed grid which Germany has also been working on. Wind and sun happen somewhere in the nation. You can't route power around the earth cheaply enough (yet) but you can run it 100s of miles and have been for a century - it can be done smarter, cheaper, and more distributed.

    3) Power storage. Germany just started a huge initiative that will move storage technology forward in a huge way just like their Solar policies did. From household to local to regional power storage, Germany is going to be leading on it.

    4) Solar power surpassed nuclear power in cost. It doesn't need heavy regulation to keep it safe and risk the neglect and corruption nuclear power always brings (government run plants have significantly less risks.)

    5) Initial Costs; aka long term investment. Without somebody jump starting it, we'd never be "ready" -- see Tesla. Germany can afford to be early adopters and smart enough to have an economic boom at the same time instead of taking a loss.

    6) German power is more democratic, more distributed. It seems to be getting more so with time. A different kind of market is forming. They may even get to having their backup baseload being actual public utilities where the gov runs them at a loss for energy emergencies. It's not going to be profitable to run a conventional power company in the climate they are creating. WHY SHOULD THEY DEFEND AN OUT OF DATE INDUSTRY?

  35. What I read from this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Prices are plummeting, which is good for consumers (which is also pretty much everyone).
    - Green energy is up, which is good for the human race in general. Clean air, less pollution, that sort of thing.
    - Other countries may get inspired by this example, but even if they don't, if the Germans export their surplus to other countries, that's good for those other countries too.

    Oh, and of course

    - CEO of power company complains about their bottom line.

    Well, I guess we should all go back to burning coal and other fossil fuels then.

  36. Re: don't be short-sighted by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    The countries of Europe do import and export electricity between themselves. Germany is a big exporter.
    http://www.neurope.eu/article/...

    Of course electricity suffers transmission losses, so there are limits to how far it makes sense to export it.

  37. Not so good by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

    So what all this is saying is that at the times when the solar panels are producing the most power they can only sell it for peanuts? If it wasn't for feed in tariffs that guaranteed a big payment no matter what the selling price they'd be stuffed.

    That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for solar power.

  38. Dumb is expensive by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 0

    What you subsidize, you get more of, though not economically.

  39. This means that they need electricity Storage by golodh · · Score: 1
    The problem is: solar energy is too volatile.

    Intense research indicates that the sun doesn't usually shine at night in Germany and that solar cells operate at greatly reduced power levels in the dark. In other news, electricity production varies significantly from one day to the next, due to strange weather conditions such as clouds.

    The upshot is that during some hours and on sunny days there is a glut of electric power which drives the spot-market price to zero.

    This of course is bad news for companies that operate coal, gas, or oil-fired power plants because such plants are expensive to build and maintain and can't compete during the hours of abundant sunlight leaving insufficient hours during which to make enough to service debts and recoup investments.

    Dirty old base-load plants powered by coal can usually continue to compete on price. Expensive modern gas-powered peak-demand plants on the other hand will operate at a loss.

    Having caused a volatile energy form to gain prominence, the next thing for the Germans to do is to shift their subsidies from solar cells to storage capacity. They're already doing that, but in the mean time their conventional power plants will bleed red ink.

    I'm happy to watch their experiments from afar and eager to learn how they will solve this particular problem, aren't you?

  40. Nice problem to have. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I live, it would be quite easy to put solar panels on every roof. They don't block the view. They don't change the aesthetics of the house, they don't kill birds, they don't make an ungodly hum, and they don't blight the landscape. A typical roof should generate about 3KW/h of power every hour the sun is shining (on average through the year, this is 12 hours per day), so 36KW of power per day. Does it work at night? No. What if I want power at night? And I reply: go to the grid. You don't use 3KW most of the time, and if electricity prices could drop by 50% where I live, I would be happy.

  41. The solution is obvious by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    Germans need to start using more energy in order to raise the market price for energy to a level that can make the new power stations viable. Or how about a new tax whose proceeds will be passed onto the electricity companies as a subsidy?

  42. Electric vehicles..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will eventually eat in to that glut.

  43. Re: don't be short-sighted by Agripa · · Score: 1

    The same places that lack power generation capacity also lack baseline power generation capability. Exporting excess dynamic power to places *with* base load capacity will just make their base load capacity less economical.

  44. Gotta love that socialism by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Provides an EXCESS of what Capitalists have limited in order to get a profitable price
    Germany, France, China, Sweden, even the Brits seem to have the sense to keep Capitalists on a short leash in order to serve the needs of the many ahead of the privileges of the few.

  45. Re:Renewables? Pfffttt ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany like Ontario (to a much lesser extent) invested in wind farms and solar.
    In Ontario, all wind farms have to be installed with back-up generators, gas-turbines for the most part.

    It is not true that gas turbines are co-located with wind turbines.

    It is true that gas turbines are installed thoughout Ontario for peak-filling, for reliability and to reduce load on the transmission system, but these plants are completely separate from the wind turbines and are built by different people.

  46. Re:Renewables? Pfffttt ! by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    On hot, windless days of summer, when demand peaks for air conditioning, the back-ups kick-in for the useless wind turbines.

    Nope, that's when solar is at it's peak power.

    store hydro power

    Hydro power is stored. You open the gates when you need power, you (mostly) close them when you don't need power.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.