4 ms·

Sorry for getting the wrong impression of you, but why are you showcasing your answer as profound by dividing my post into separate quotes and sprinkling your a

Sorry for getting the wrong impression of you, but why are you showcasing your answer as profound by dividing my post into separate quotes and sprinkling your answers with links that lead to anything but "data"? Your first link is just one jpg of a table on a blog of a progressive institute. The second one just a broad publication in German by the the German environmental ministry. Should I refer to its imprint as proof? Then you make un-based broad statements and label critics as adherents to mythical beliefs > Contrary to popular myths the German electricity grid is one of the most stable in the world. To which I'd say, look no further than 10 January 2019 when Germany's policy of legally enforcing right of way for renewable energies almost brought down the whole of Europe's electricity grid. [1] Furthermore the whole year of 2003 the German energy net authority had to perform 2 redispatches to avert a blackout. 2010 they had to perform 290, while in 2017 third quarter alone they had to perform 1.013 [2] No one claims [that Germany is exporting more energy than it is consuming]. What is claimed and what is actually correct is that Germany exports more electricity than it imports. Thats a non sequitur. > This has already happened in 2018. Clearly, your statement of the surpassing of "any goals so far" can't be based on that one data point out of a 140 page document? Or does this mean this was the only goal of the Energiewende? ? [1] https://derstandard.at/2000096185439/Europas-Stromnetz-stand-am-Rande-des-Totalausfalls https://derstandard.at/2000096185439/Europas-Stromnetz-stand... [2] https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Allgemeines/Bundesnetzagentur/Publikationen/Berichte/2017/Quartalsbericht_Q2_Q3_2017.pdf;jsessionid=F9FA1E72A7D8020CAB2E30F894F6EA97?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/All... (page 32)

lispm 8y ago
> Your first link is just one jpg of a table on a blog of a progressive institute. Is 'progressive' a problem for you? You can easily google for SAIDI and SAIFI numbers yourself. They will look the same. > The second one just a broad publication in German by the the German environmental ministry. Should I refer to its imprint as proof? A proof for what? I showed you a publication where the ministry communicated its goal for the share of renewable electricity in 2020. Higher up we already established that the number has been reached in 2018. > To which I'd say, look no further than 10 January 2019 when Germany's policy of legally enforcing right of way for renewable energies almost brought down the whole of Europe's electricity grid. [1] Which is factually wrong. Seems like you are not able to read the German text. It hasn't brought down the net at all, not in Germany and not in the rest of Europe and it wasn't even near that. The reason was a combination of data problem and a demand increase because of two power plants were going offline. Nothing to do with the 'Energiewende'. https://www.montelnews.com/de/story/datenfehler-bedarfsspitze-verursachen-netzvorfall--tennet/971069 https://www.montelnews.com/de/story/datenfehler-bedarfsspitz... If you read the above statements, it was far from bringing down the whole of Europe's grid - as you have claimed - even the French operator denies this. The whole of Europe is actually very large and includes countries like Ireland, Finland, Greece, ... none of which would have seen an effect. It's just a sensational headline. > Thats a non sequitur. What? > Clearly, your statement of the surpassing of "any goals so far" can't be based on that one data point out of a 140 page document? If you cite me, then cite me correctly. I said: 'The share of electricity from renewable energy has surpassed any goals so far.' I was explicitly talking about the goals for the share of electricity as an example and then gave you an example for that. Your statement was this: 'until now the government was great at missing even the most conservative goals on basically anything' I gave you an example where it wasn't missing its goals.
- pvorb 8y ago
  That's the problem with energy policy and most large industries these days. There's enough money in the market, so you can find a supporting study for every argument you want to make.
  - lispm 8y ago
    > That's the problem with energy policy and most large industries these days. There's enough money in the market, so you can find a supporting study for every argument you want to make. That was always the case. It's nothing new. That means also that each change is difficult, because there are established players who are defending their business. In nuclear power industries we have seen that, because it tends to create very large industrial conglomerates who are heavily interlinked with government. There we see then easily an abuse of that power. A part of the Energiewende is about opening up closed energy markets which were shared with only a handful of (often state owned) companies, make it accessible for new providers, create competition and decentralize it.

lispm 8y ago

> Your first link is just one jpg of a table on a blog of a progressive institute. Is 'progressive' a problem for you? You can easily google for SAIDI and SAIFI numbers yourself. They will look the same. > The second one just a broad publication in German by the the German environmental ministry. Should I refer to its imprint as proof? A proof for what? I showed you a publication where the ministry communicated its goal for the share of renewable electricity in 2020. Higher up we already established that the number has been reached in 2018. > To which I'd say, look no further than 10 January 2019 when Germany's policy of legally enforcing right of way for renewable energies almost brought down the whole of Europe's electricity grid. [1] Which is factually wrong. Seems like you are not able to read the German text. It hasn't brought down the net at all, not in Germany and not in the rest of Europe and it wasn't even near that. The reason was a combination of data problem and a demand increase because of two power plants were going offline. Nothing to do with the 'Energiewende'. https://www.montelnews.com/de/story/datenfehler-bedarfsspitze-verursachen-netzvorfall--tennet/971069 https://www.montelnews.com/de/story/datenfehler-bedarfsspitz... If you read the above statements, it was far from bringing down the whole of Europe's grid - as you have claimed - even the French operator denies this. The whole of Europe is actually very large and includes countries like Ireland, Finland, Greece, ... none of which would have seen an effect. It's just a sensational headline. > Thats a non sequitur. What? > Clearly, your statement of the surpassing of "any goals so far" can't be based on that one data point out of a 140 page document? If you cite me, then cite me correctly. I said: 'The share of electricity from renewable energy has surpassed any goals so far.' I was explicitly talking about the goals for the share of electricity as an example and then gave you an example for that. Your statement was this: 'until now the government was great at missing even the most conservative goals on basically anything' I gave you an example where it wasn't missing its goals.

pvorb 8y ago
That's the problem with energy policy and most large industries these days. There's enough money in the market, so you can find a supporting study for every argument you want to make.
- lispm 8y ago
  > That's the problem with energy policy and most large industries these days. There's enough money in the market, so you can find a supporting study for every argument you want to make. That was always the case. It's nothing new. That means also that each change is difficult, because there are established players who are defending their business. In nuclear power industries we have seen that, because it tends to create very large industrial conglomerates who are heavily interlinked with government. There we see then easily an abuse of that power. A part of the Energiewende is about opening up closed energy markets which were shared with only a handful of (often state owned) companies, make it accessible for new providers, create competition and decentralize it.