Solar panels are usually cleaned by rain, but even in absence of rain as in California the small increase in efficiency is usually not not considered to be worth it.
For example, it could still be economical for investors if it gets enough direct subsidies. For related reasons, this information is also useful for policy makers. It would not usually make sense to have subsidies for something like this.
You average with wind power somewhere else and with solar and also balance with sources which can react quickly to changing demand, i.e. biomass, hydro, natural gas,... For example, there is the concept of a virtual power plant which logically combines smaller plants to meet certain garantuees.
If you had done only a little bit of research, you would know that only a very small part of this price difference can be explained by the increased use of renewables. The additional cost which funds the renewables is about 6 cents (EUR) in 2014. The actual energy price on the market (before adding fees and taxes) was reduced by renewables.
Also one has to point out that other energy sources also receive subsidies (in all countries) but this is usual paid with general taxes.
No. You will understand the world much better if you dig deeper and rely on primary sources with hard data (I posted links elsewhere) and not just google something which already fits your opinion. Coal use in Germany is on a similar (high) level as always. This is not good, but has nothing to do with "returning to massive building of coal plants" which is a myth.
What do you mean by Germany is reducing its reliance on wind turbines? Germany is scaling up all kinds of renewables. They way you get reliable energy out of it by averaging over large areas, by having a mix of energy production (e.g. solar and wind complement each other fairly well in Germany) and by having additional plants which can quickly adapt to demand (i.e. not nuclear and coal, but gas or biomass). This works well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Germany's investment in renewables is huge, but not unreasonable to when compared how much money has been spent for example to develop nuclear. Because of these investments, solar gets cheaper and has just achieved grid parity in Europe.
This is simply not true. There was a shift from gas to ignites due to a change in relative prices unrelated to the decision to end nuclear, while the missing nuclear power was compensated for by an increase in renewables. Actual numbers are:
The reason Germany is investing so much in solar not so much because it is so efficient now but because it becomes more efficient by creating a large market and triggering innovations. Considering the efficiency gains in recent years this strategy seems to work.
But maybe you are right and it would make more sense to spent the money for other solutions. But I have to say it is not obvious too me that money for solar is misspent. Germany invests in various different green technologies and it seems solar is one technology where there has been substantial progress in efficiency
I meant during one day. You are right that solar is low during winter but wind power production is usually higher in winter and that currently levels it out pretty well in Germany.
Energy is imported when it is cheaper to import it than to produce more yourself. That does not imply a dependency. Germany still exports far more electricity than it imports and I doubt very much that there was ever a point in time where it could not have produced enough energy all by itself.
Consumers buy electricity from the grid. They don't run to other more polluting sources. They price is determined by the market price plus taxes and fee. Also CO2 emissons are obviously not going up when you produce more electricity with renewables, they went slighly up in 2013 because natural gas has been replaced by more coal consumption, but this has nothing to do with renewables, but with the relative cost of gas and coal. Coal consumption has gone done in the first month of 2014 relative 2013.
No, expensive is expensive when there are cheaper and better options available.
With external costs to society and unclear investment risks, it is not always easy to say what cheaper and better is.
If I can cut a ton of carbon emissions by switching to solar for a $40 subsidy or by adding insulation to an attic for $20 why chose the more expensive option?
This is only a useful comparison if you heat with electricity, which almost nobody does in Germany.
Why not opt for more wind power or more efficient appliances?
As Germany does. Wind and solar complement each other fairly well. By sudsiding solar with a tax on energy price, Germay also encourages more efficient appliances. With nuclear, the subsidies came from general taxes, which reduces energy price and encourages more energy use.
I have found that many Greens focus on feel good actions instead of focusing on the cold hard results.
Germany's energy policy is producing convincing results.
Actions (and money) is spent on nice sounding projects with mushy ill-defined goals and measurements.
Really? Energy policy has been debated for decases in Germany and there is a well-defined goals and a lot of monitoring (and there have been many feasibility studies).
In particular, why spend money subsidizing solar if adding more solar is not going to reduce carbon emissions or other issues with coal?
I am not sure what you are talking about. Scaling up solar obviously reduces carbon emissions. It does not automatically solve the issues with coal - which in Germany is really cheap and secures a lot of jobs. The problem with coal in Germany is that it competes with gas. But this is a different problem.
Now you are just burring money for no good reasons
I don't think so and you did not bring forward any convincing argument.
In Germany's case, it implies that money needs to be spent in other areas such as upgrading the power grid to efficiently use the solar and wind power that they already currently have.
True. But you haven't really pointed out how spending the money on other areas would be better... Most things you mentioned Germany is also doing and the mix seems reasonable to me.
This is one of the reasons why I advocate a carbon tax. Or, if you have a different concern, tax & reg
There is a carbon tax in Europe. You have to buy carbon certificates. Unfortunately the price is low because of lobbying and the recession.
Slashdot Mirror
Solar panels are usually cleaned by rain, but even in absence of rain as in California the small increase in efficiency is usually not not considered to be worth it.
For example, it could still be economical for investors if it gets enough direct subsidies. For related reasons, this information is also useful for policy makers. It would not usually make sense to have subsidies for something like this.
You average with wind power somewhere else and with solar and also balance with sources which can react quickly to changing demand, i.e. biomass, hydro, natural gas, ... For example, there is the concept of a virtual power plant which logically combines smaller plants to meet certain garantuees.
If you had done only a little bit of research, you would know that only a very small part of this price difference can be explained by the increased use of renewables. The additional cost which funds the renewables is about 6 cents (EUR) in 2014. The actual energy price on the market (before adding fees and taxes) was reduced by renewables.
Also one has to point out that other energy sources also receive subsidies (in all countries) but this is usual paid with general taxes.
No. You will understand the world much better if you dig deeper and rely on primary sources with hard data (I posted links elsewhere) and not just google something which already fits your opinion. Coal use in Germany is on a similar (high) level as always. This is not good, but has nothing to do with "returning to massive building of coal plants" which is a myth.
Yes, but they already took a capacity factor into account.
The energy storage thing is red herring. You balance with other sources.
What do you mean by Germany is reducing its reliance on wind turbines? Germany is scaling up all kinds of renewables. They way you get reliable energy out of it by averaging over large areas, by having a mix of energy production (e.g. solar and wind complement each other fairly well in Germany) and by having additional plants which can quickly adapt to demand (i.e. not nuclear and coal, but gas or biomass). This works well.
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, ...
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.
You can find the actual numbers here: www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/
But feel free to stick to your own bias....
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Actually, there is a nice article debunking a lot of this FUD:
http://energytransition.de/201...
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.
You might not have realized this, but nuclear is simply not economical. In reality, it looks like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Germany's investment in renewables is huge, but not unreasonable to when compared how much money has been spent for example to develop nuclear. Because of these investments, solar gets cheaper and has just achieved grid parity in Europe.
This is simply not true. There was a shift from gas to ignites due to a change in relative prices unrelated to the decision to end nuclear, while the missing nuclear power was compensated for by an increase in renewables. Actual numbers are:
2010 -- 2013 ....
ignites 145.9 TWh 150.1 TWh 160.7 TWh 161.0 TWh
nuclear 140.6 TWh 108.0 TWh 99.5 TWh 97.3 TWh
coal 117.0 TWh 112.4 TWh 116.4 TWh 122.2 TWh
natural gas 89.3 TWh 86.1 TWh 76.4 TWh 66.7 TWh
renewables 104.8 TWh 123.8 TWh 143.5 TWh 152.0 TWh
(source: http://ag-energiebilanzen.de/)
The reason Germany is investing so much in solar not so much because it is so efficient now but because it becomes more efficient by creating a large market and triggering innovations. Considering
the efficiency gains in recent years this strategy seems to work.
But maybe you are right and it would make more sense to spent the money for other solutions. But I have to say it is not obvious too me that money for solar is misspent. Germany invests in various different green technologies and it seems solar is one technology where there has been substantial progress in efficiency
I meant during one day. You are right that solar is low during winter but wind power production is usually higher in winter and that currently levels it out pretty well in Germany.
Energy is imported when it is cheaper to import it than to produce more yourself. That does not imply a dependency. Germany still exports far more electricity than it imports and I doubt very much that there was ever a point in time where it could not have produced enough energy all by itself.
Consumers buy electricity from the grid. They don't run to other more polluting sources. They price is determined by the market price plus taxes and fee. Also CO2 emissons are obviously not going up when you produce more electricity with renewables, they went slighly up in 2013 because natural gas has been replaced by more coal consumption, but this has nothing to do with renewables, but with the relative cost of gas and coal. Coal consumption has gone done in the first month of 2014 relative 2013.
No, expensive is expensive when there are cheaper and better options available.
With external costs to society and unclear investment risks, it is not always easy to say what cheaper and better is.
If I can cut a ton of carbon emissions by switching to solar for a $40 subsidy or by adding insulation to an attic for $20 why chose the more expensive option?
This is only a useful comparison if you heat with electricity, which almost nobody does in Germany.
Why not opt for more wind power or more efficient appliances?
As Germany does. Wind and solar complement each other fairly well. By sudsiding solar with a tax on energy price, Germay also encourages more efficient appliances. With nuclear, the subsidies came from general taxes, which reduces energy price and encourages more energy use.
I have found that many Greens focus on feel good actions instead of focusing on the cold hard results.
Germany's energy policy is producing convincing results.
Actions (and money) is spent on nice sounding projects with mushy ill-defined goals and measurements.
Really? Energy policy has been debated for decases in Germany and there is a well-defined goals and a lot of monitoring (and there have been many feasibility studies).
In particular, why spend money subsidizing solar if adding more solar is not going to reduce carbon emissions or other issues with coal?
I am not sure what you are talking about. Scaling up solar obviously reduces carbon emissions. It does not automatically solve the issues with coal - which in Germany is really cheap and secures a lot of jobs. The problem with coal in Germany is that it competes with gas. But this is a different problem.
Now you are just burring money for no good reasons
I don't think so and you did not bring forward any convincing argument.
In Germany's case, it implies that money needs to be spent in other areas such as upgrading the power grid to efficiently use the solar and wind power that they already currently have.
True. But you haven't really pointed out how spending the money on other areas would be better... Most things you mentioned Germany is also doing and the mix seems reasonable to me.
This is one of the reasons why I advocate a carbon tax. Or, if you have a different concern, tax & reg
There is a carbon tax in Europe. You have to buy carbon certificates. Unfortunately the price is low because of lobbying and the recession.