4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- petre 7y ago
  Come on, coal is not clogging your infrastructure. Coal plants can be fired at will (3 hrs hot stratup, 6% of full load per minute ramp up) when there's demand. Gas turbine fired plants are event better in this regard (quicker startup and/or ramp up). There's no point in firing up coal plants if you already have renrewable electricity in the infrastructure. Which means that they're only fired when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. 40% nuclear in the mix would definitely fix that. Just look at France's power mix. They have legally capped the nuclear power in the mix based on the premise that they'll go from >70% nuclear now to about 50% in 2035 and replace the rest with renewables. It looks like a much more sensible option. Germany uses something like 47% coal and 13% gas [2]. It's energy mix is much more dirtier, even though half of it is renewables. 1. https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/france-s-overall-energy-mix https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/france-s-ov... 2. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    > Come on, coal is not clogging your infrastructure. Coal plants can be fired at will (3 hrs hot stratup, 6% of full load per minute ramp up) when there's demand. Coal is clogging up the infrastructure...this is why wind generators have to be stopped. It's a very known fact here we even get it explained by power providers at the end of the year when they explain the bills and this is also the reason there are huge projects to expand the infrastructure. We even have to pay for coal plants which HAVE been turned off (especially in states which do not produce coal) because of the ongoing contracts. We have coal plants which never have been turned on and the company which build it now tries to sue for money from the tax payer for all those Euros lost or at least to cover the costs to remove it again...and no those lignite-fired plants are not that easy to fire up/down. That's why they run through even in East Germany where there is more then enough renewable energy. And why should I look at Frances power mix (calling it "mix" is ridiculous...)? It's dangerous remains of a dead technology. Germany can only hope Fessenheim will finally be turned off before it falls apart and Luxembourg can hope that Cattenom doesn't eradicate it completely one day. Meanwhile Germany is exporting energy and has to turn off renewables after they dropped nuclear. There is no way back to that and only because France doesn't care about their nuclear waste (especially if it disappears in Sewersk),doesn't make it less of a problem. Germany will have to deal with that for decades and millennia to come even without a single new plant. Nobody wants the shit back here and all over the world. You need to finally face the facts. Meanwhile renewables grow further and further. https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/power_import_export/14.05.2018/14.05.2019/ https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/p...

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.

petre 7y ago
Come on, coal is not clogging your infrastructure. Coal plants can be fired at will (3 hrs hot stratup, 6% of full load per minute ramp up) when there's demand. Gas turbine fired plants are event better in this regard (quicker startup and/or ramp up). There's no point in firing up coal plants if you already have renrewable electricity in the infrastructure. Which means that they're only fired when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. 40% nuclear in the mix would definitely fix that. Just look at France's power mix. They have legally capped the nuclear power in the mix based on the premise that they'll go from >70% nuclear now to about 50% in 2035 and replace the rest with renewables. It looks like a much more sensible option. Germany uses something like 47% coal and 13% gas [2]. It's energy mix is much more dirtier, even though half of it is renewables. 1. https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/france-s-overall-energy-mix https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/france-s-ov... 2. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
- Krasnol 7y ago
  > Come on, coal is not clogging your infrastructure. Coal plants can be fired at will (3 hrs hot stratup, 6% of full load per minute ramp up) when there's demand. Coal is clogging up the infrastructure...this is why wind generators have to be stopped. It's a very known fact here we even get it explained by power providers at the end of the year when they explain the bills and this is also the reason there are huge projects to expand the infrastructure. We even have to pay for coal plants which HAVE been turned off (especially in states which do not produce coal) because of the ongoing contracts. We have coal plants which never have been turned on and the company which build it now tries to sue for money from the tax payer for all those Euros lost or at least to cover the costs to remove it again...and no those lignite-fired plants are not that easy to fire up/down. That's why they run through even in East Germany where there is more then enough renewable energy. And why should I look at Frances power mix (calling it "mix" is ridiculous...)? It's dangerous remains of a dead technology. Germany can only hope Fessenheim will finally be turned off before it falls apart and Luxembourg can hope that Cattenom doesn't eradicate it completely one day. Meanwhile Germany is exporting energy and has to turn off renewables after they dropped nuclear. There is no way back to that and only because France doesn't care about their nuclear waste (especially if it disappears in Sewersk),doesn't make it less of a problem. Germany will have to deal with that for decades and millennia to come even without a single new plant. Nobody wants the shit back here and all over the world. You need to finally face the facts. Meanwhile renewables grow further and further. https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/power_import_export/14.05.2018/14.05.2019/ https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/p...