I’d like to see actual sources showing total energy consumption in Germany, including all the industry, and how that would be met with 100% renewables today even if the plans from 2000 weren’t shelved.
Germany has hit something like 50%* renewable energy production (averaged over a full year), thanks to the €600B+ Energiewende (“energy turn”). This causes a bunch of problems. A big one is grid instability. By subsidizing rooftop solar so much, grid operators often need to pay neighbouring countries to take additional electricity in the early afternoon. During peak load in the mornings and evenings, as well as overnight, the German grid often gets lots of power from those same neighbouring countries. They have higher baseload capacities and can fill the dips between German supply and load. There is basically no storage capacity to speak of to help with these supply/demand gaps. Pumped hydro is all but a no-go due to NIMBYs and environmental protection. Hydrogen generation hasn’t qualified for subsidies and has had to pay the renewables surcharge on electricity, making it too expensive.
Germany also pressures France to drop nuclear, even though the southern Rhine region (big industrial areas) rely on French nuclear to keep the lights on. The Swiss succumbed to German pressure to phase out nuclear. Both countries will be decommissioning reactors well before their> best-before dates. We can only hope that Poland and Czechia don’t succumb to this same pressure to scrap their nuclear plans.
/* It’s also worth noting what Germany and the EU count as renewable. Much of this 50% renewable production (up to 40% if I’m not mistaken) comes from “biomass.” This biomass is in large part wood pellets, which used to be sourced from European sawmill and forestry scraps. Then it got labeled as renewable and valid for subsidies, meaning demand quickly outpaced supply. Who stepped up to meet this newfound wood demand but the US. They plant some quickly growing trees, cut them down as soon as possible, throw them in a shredder, glue and compress them into pellets, and ship them across the Atlantic where the Germans and others burn them. This whole process emits about as much CO2 as coal, yet per EU regulation is CO2 neutral, as the tree ostensibly absorbed just as much CO2 when it was growing as is released by burning.
I very specifically stated electricity production. Full replacement is sadly not possible as long as the structure of society is as it is. Please learn to read :p
You do realize that industry relies on electricity production. In fact, industry tends to account for far higher electricity consumption than domestic use.
Yes and Germany is already able to cover 100% electricity needs (including industry) with renewables on windy and sunny days, despite the massive lack of storage and political sabotage of new installations and transfer capacity.
The industries with some problems right now are those that need fossil fuels either directly as inputs or because it was cheaper than electricity to heat with it and thus their existing large scale equipment doesn’t work with electricity.
Like I said, let’s see the actual lifecycle numbers that include the total energy consumption per year, the energy costs of producing and maintaining the renewables, as well as the cost of energy storage for days when it’s not sunny or windy. The compare these totals with the renewable infrastructure outputs. You’re doing a lot of hand waving here.
I’m not changing any topics here. Let me try use simpler language to help you understand what’s being said. I challenge your claim that renewables alone are able to match Germany’s electricity production coming from fossil fuels today when you look at the totality of electricity consumption, the operating cost of renewable infrastructure, and the cost of energy storage.
I asked you to provide supporting sources for that claims you’re making. Now you’re weaseling as you always do. Please try for once to read and understand what others are writing :(
It truly pointless discussing with you if you do not even try to read what others are saying. I didn’t say anything of what you claim I did. I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but you are responding to things I never claimed, so how am I supposed to react to that?
This conveniently leaves out that the former & regional governments have been intentionally sabotaging wind and solar energy installations (and energy transfer capacity) on a massive scale in the last 15+ years.
The implication you’re making here is that the actual reason coal mines are being reopened is due to sabotage of wind and solar energy installations. Then you proceed to argue the following:
In the early 2000 they were on a good track to replace a large percentage of the coal electricity production with solar and wind energy, but then the new conservative government under Merkel took power and deliberately killed that off to please their big business energy producers.
And this is where I’m asking you to provide hard numbers for the claim that the plans from 2000, that Merkel derailed, would actually produce sustainable renewable infrastructure that would replace large percentage of fossils. I’m not sure why you keep weaseling here instead of actually substantiating your claims.
I’d like to see actual sources showing total energy consumption in Germany, including all the industry, and how that would be met with 100% renewables today even if the plans from 2000 weren’t shelved.
Germany has hit something like 50%* renewable energy production (averaged over a full year), thanks to the €600B+ Energiewende (“energy turn”). This causes a bunch of problems. A big one is grid instability. By subsidizing rooftop solar so much, grid operators often need to pay neighbouring countries to take additional electricity in the early afternoon. During peak load in the mornings and evenings, as well as overnight, the German grid often gets lots of power from those same neighbouring countries. They have higher baseload capacities and can fill the dips between German supply and load. There is basically no storage capacity to speak of to help with these supply/demand gaps. Pumped hydro is all but a no-go due to NIMBYs and environmental protection. Hydrogen generation hasn’t qualified for subsidies and has had to pay the renewables surcharge on electricity, making it too expensive.
Germany also pressures France to drop nuclear, even though the southern Rhine region (big industrial areas) rely on French nuclear to keep the lights on. The Swiss succumbed to German pressure to phase out nuclear. Both countries will be decommissioning reactors well before their> best-before dates. We can only hope that Poland and Czechia don’t succumb to this same pressure to scrap their nuclear plans.
/* It’s also worth noting what Germany and the EU count as renewable. Much of this 50% renewable production (up to 40% if I’m not mistaken) comes from “biomass.” This biomass is in large part wood pellets, which used to be sourced from European sawmill and forestry scraps. Then it got labeled as renewable and valid for subsidies, meaning demand quickly outpaced supply. Who stepped up to meet this newfound wood demand but the US. They plant some quickly growing trees, cut them down as soon as possible, throw them in a shredder, glue and compress them into pellets, and ship them across the Atlantic where the Germans and others burn them. This whole process emits about as much CO2 as coal, yet per EU regulation is CO2 neutral, as the tree ostensibly absorbed just as much CO2 when it was growing as is released by burning.
Yeah, the whole policy is completely incoherent.
I very specifically stated electricity production. Full replacement is sadly not possible as long as the structure of society is as it is. Please learn to read :p
You do realize that industry relies on electricity production. In fact, industry tends to account for far higher electricity consumption than domestic use.
Yes and Germany is already able to cover 100% electricity needs (including industry) with renewables on windy and sunny days, despite the massive lack of storage and political sabotage of new installations and transfer capacity.
The industries with some problems right now are those that need fossil fuels either directly as inputs or because it was cheaper than electricity to heat with it and thus their existing large scale equipment doesn’t work with electricity.
Like I said, let’s see the actual lifecycle numbers that include the total energy consumption per year, the energy costs of producing and maintaining the renewables, as well as the cost of energy storage for days when it’s not sunny or windy. The compare these totals with the renewable infrastructure outputs. You’re doing a lot of hand waving here.
No, you are trying to change the topic and arguing against a strawman again. Please try for once to read and understand what others are writing :(
I’m not changing any topics here. Let me try use simpler language to help you understand what’s being said. I challenge your claim that renewables alone are able to match Germany’s electricity production coming from fossil fuels today when you look at the totality of electricity consumption, the operating cost of renewable infrastructure, and the cost of energy storage.
I asked you to provide supporting sources for that claims you’re making. Now you’re weaseling as you always do. Please try for once to read and understand what others are writing :(
It truly pointless discussing with you if you do not even try to read what others are saying. I didn’t say anything of what you claim I did. I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but you are responding to things I never claimed, so how am I supposed to react to that?
Let’s look back at what you actually said then:
The implication you’re making here is that the actual reason coal mines are being reopened is due to sabotage of wind and solar energy installations. Then you proceed to argue the following:
And this is where I’m asking you to provide hard numbers for the claim that the plans from 2000, that Merkel derailed, would actually produce sustainable renewable infrastructure that would replace large percentage of fossils. I’m not sure why you keep weaseling here instead of actually substantiating your claims.