4 ms·

Don't read the clearly partisan sources uncritically, they are generally misleading. "The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein

Don't read the clearly partisan sources uncritically, they are generally misleading. "The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are already operating on 100% net renewable energy, mostly wind. The ‘net’ indicates trading with each other and their neighbours. They do not rely on baseload power stations." These rather sparsely populated states combined make up for only 4.5 million of Germany's 83 million population. Germany still supplies 50% of its power with fossil fuels, of which coal makes up 35%. It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? It couldn't be a problem of financing, they spent a huge amount of money on subsidizing renewables already. "In 2014 the state of South Australia had 39% of annual electricity consumption from renewable energy (33% wind + 6% solar) and, as a result, the state’s base-load coal-fired power stations are being shut down as redundant. For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas with only small imports from the neighbouring state of Victoria." Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. To even out peaks from renewables, natural gas is used. The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up.

Krasnol 7y ago
> It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. The nationwide peaks are also impressive: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=4&day=22 https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=... > Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. You don't want to lose those votes. There are also long running contracts with energy suppliers that force Germany to pay for coal plants who are not producing power at all. Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. Adding to that, there is a movement of people who are afraid of power lines nearby...and yes, there are many and they are slowing down the expansion of north-south infrastructure. > Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. Yeah same story, Australia relies on their coal industry. Who wants to tell the voter that they'll cut those jobs and coal is being mined everywhere throughout the continent. > The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up. As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. Most of them are political and this is surely no reason to turn back to nuclear. Especially because the growth is there and it's unstoppable: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. It is clearly misleading to point at an island of green energy when there's coal all around it. > Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. That still doesn't add up. Just because you want to keep coal jobs alive doesn't mean you have to burn it at home. You can just export it, coal is valuable. The only reason you need subsidies is because extraction is too expensive when done by German labor. > Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. That's an "interesting" way to frame the high volatility of wind energy against the low volatility of other methods, when having to buffer that volatility is the main problem. > As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. I haven't "seen" anything. No numbers, no calculations. I'm sure there's some impact of coal lobbying, but that can't be what prevents the development of alternatives. Germany has blown an incredible amount of subsidies into wind energy, so now you're telling me there's none left to solve its problems because of coal?
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    > It is clearly misleading to point at an island of green energy when there's coal all around it. ...which is the reason why they have to turn off turbines. And the reason why they keep this coal running is because nobody want's to kill jobs when there are elections incoming and the right wing party is on the run in the region. > You can just export it, coal is valuable. No, it's not. It's already heavy subsidized and coal in Poland or even further east is so cheap, it's still cheaper if you carry it through half of Europe. Most of the mines in Germany has been closed down because of this even before the environmental movement got popular. How do you not know this? > That's an "interesting" way to frame the high volatility of wind energy against the low volatility of other methods, when having to buffer that volatility is the main problem. No it's not. If I have cheap renewable energy but can't transfer it because I have to pay for coal, it's clogging the infrastructure. So just what I wrote. > I haven't "seen" anything. No numbers, no calculations. It's not like those are the 90s. You didn't even know how cheap coal is. Maybe you should invest some time googling. The information is out there. > that can't be what prevents the development of alternatives. Germany has blown an incredible amount of subsidies into wind energy, so now you're telling me there's none left to solve its problems because of coal? What are you talking about? https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&... This is the development of alternatives and it's not stopping or anything like that. Coal power plants are being turned off and there is already a deadline for them all. There is not even theoretical space for nuclear there.

Krasnol 7y ago

> It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. The nationwide peaks are also impressive: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=4&day=22 https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=... > Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. You don't want to lose those votes. There are also long running contracts with energy suppliers that force Germany to pay for coal plants who are not producing power at all. Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. Adding to that, there is a movement of people who are afraid of power lines nearby...and yes, there are many and they are slowing down the expansion of north-south infrastructure. > Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. Yeah same story, Australia relies on their coal industry. Who wants to tell the voter that they'll cut those jobs and coal is being mined everywhere throughout the continent. > The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up. As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. Most of them are political and this is surely no reason to turn back to nuclear. Especially because the growth is there and it's unstoppable: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...

gridlockd 7y ago
> They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. It is clearly misleading to point at an island of green energy when there's coal all around it. > Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. That still doesn't add up. Just because you want to keep coal jobs alive doesn't mean you have to burn it at home. You can just export it, coal is valuable. The only reason you need subsidies is because extraction is too expensive when done by German labor. > Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. That's an "interesting" way to frame the high volatility of wind energy against the low volatility of other methods, when having to buffer that volatility is the main problem. > As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. I haven't "seen" anything. No numbers, no calculations. I'm sure there's some impact of coal lobbying, but that can't be what prevents the development of alternatives. Germany has blown an incredible amount of subsidies into wind energy, so now you're telling me there's none left to solve its problems because of coal?
- Krasnol 7y ago
  > It is clearly misleading to point at an island of green energy when there's coal all around it. ...which is the reason why they have to turn off turbines. And the reason why they keep this coal running is because nobody want's to kill jobs when there are elections incoming and the right wing party is on the run in the region. > You can just export it, coal is valuable. No, it's not. It's already heavy subsidized and coal in Poland or even further east is so cheap, it's still cheaper if you carry it through half of Europe. Most of the mines in Germany has been closed down because of this even before the environmental movement got popular. How do you not know this? > That's an "interesting" way to frame the high volatility of wind energy against the low volatility of other methods, when having to buffer that volatility is the main problem. No it's not. If I have cheap renewable energy but can't transfer it because I have to pay for coal, it's clogging the infrastructure. So just what I wrote. > I haven't "seen" anything. No numbers, no calculations. It's not like those are the 90s. You didn't even know how cheap coal is. Maybe you should invest some time googling. The information is out there. > that can't be what prevents the development of alternatives. Germany has blown an incredible amount of subsidies into wind energy, so now you're telling me there's none left to solve its problems because of coal? What are you talking about? https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&... This is the development of alternatives and it's not stopping or anything like that. Coal power plants are being turned off and there is already a deadline for them all. There is not even theoretical space for nuclear there.