6 ms·

> But the Energiewende actually changed Germany. Suddenly everywhere you go you have solar panel farms and many houses have them on their roofs and there are wi

> But the Energiewende actually changed Germany. Suddenly everywhere you go you have solar panel farms and many houses have them on their roofs and there are wind turbines. It was a cool time to live in germany to see these projects realized everywhere Does it really matter to see all those solar panel farms if the end result is they were not much helpful? The money which went into this is absolutely massive and could have been used in a better way to fight climate change.

hef19898 8y ago
At least you can say that Germany kickstarted mass manufacturing of PV modules. So even if Germany itself didn't benefit, everybody else did. Including Chinese manufacturers. So I'd argue that the money was well invested.
- sisu2019 8y ago
  and how are these PV users going to cover their baseload?
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Long term? Some kind of storage solution in combination with hydro power and, my preference, natural gas as it burns much cleaner than coal. Short to mid term? Same as above, only that storage will have to be replaced with something else. Since coal is clearly favoured by the system in Germany coal has to replaced by itself. Coal is just the worst alternative. Unfortunately nuclear is no option in Germany, until storage tech is sufficient it could nicely close the gap.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Natural gas is not a sustainable long-term solution. World emissions need to be brought to zero, in the next five years, in order for us to avoid a climate castrophe. If we are still positive at the five-year mark, that means zero at, say, the ten-year mark, and negative emissions for many decades. Natural gas has no place in this long-term.
      - temp1831 8y ago
        If you think we are going to bring world emissions to zero in 5 years you are hopelessly idealistic.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "Natural gas has no place in this long-term." Carbon sequestration is possibly a viable solution. There seem to be solutions in trial (there are numerous questions around it), and even with added costs of capture, it's considerably cheaper and more reliable than other form of energy - moreover, we have it in abundance. Natural Gas is as viable for the horizon of our future we're able to predict. In 100 years, every dimension of our tech will have changed so much it's hard to predict. Maybe we solve the nuclear wast problem. Maybe we get fusion. Maybe we have uber cheap solar. Maybe we have dirty easy sequestration. Maybe we have alternatives.
        ccffph 8y ago
        We have already solved the nuclear waste problem. The issue is that nobody wants to bury it in their backyard, so to speak. Waste containers are incredibly safe and secure, and modern fuel waste is much safer than gen 1 fuel waste. People like feel-good shiny solar panels and wind turbines over concrete near-zero emission solutions.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        We haven't solved the 'waste problem'. 1) Long term storage has some existential risks. Over very long time horizons, these risks become real. 2) Transportation, processing and storage: all of this operational stuff is totally ripe for accidents.
        wbl 8y ago
        It doesn't. The impact of radiation is a rise in cancer rates which even if they substantially shorten lifetimes aren't X risk.
  - jhayward 8y ago
    The concept of `baseload' is entirely a creation of the system of extremely large thermal plants that are essentially a path-dependent outcome of the electric grid's development. There is no intrinsic usefulness in the concept. In other words it would be good to stop acting as though the only possible grid is one that looks exactly like the one that was developed in the early 1900's. There are many other arrangements of generation resources and economic structures to pay for them than the existing grid. That is what renewables are moving toward.
    - sisu2019 8y ago
      well we certaintly aren't moving towards that in Germany so I wonder where they actually are and what that looks like in reality. If everyone else is also just going to burn more coal than ever before all of this is nothing but a very expensive step backwards.
      - jhayward 8y ago
        What makes you say that? Take a look at the summary in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19913933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19913933 That looks like progress to me. Why do you say "everyone else is just going to burn more coal?"
  - rasz 8y ago
    They will power the infrastructure of the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline build against EU interests, obviously. That and strip mined Hambach forest.
netsharc 8y ago
I'm pretty sure if the survival of human race is at stake, money is no object. If someone in a foreign country invented a machine that everyone can buy to make themselves carbon-positive, the logical move for any government would be subsidize the purchase, even if that means great debt: but as the planet continues surviving, the country will go on collecting tax revenue from productive citizens/businesses and will be able to pay its debt back. Being afraid of government debt if you're a stable country is illogical: it's also why Germany can borrow money at negative interest rates, meaning people would actually rather lend money to Germany and get less back in a few years, rather than park it at a bank. Unlike a business or an individual, the lender has very little risk that the stable country will go bust/get hit by a car and can't earn money to repay the bank.
- hackeraccount 8y ago
  The point is that while you can spend a lot of money you can't spend infinite money. There's a finite pile of euros. Every euro you spend on something stupid is one less euro you can spend on something smart.
  - cygx 8y ago
    Money is a tool of social organization that lacks instrinsic value. Any time we as a society refuse to do something worthwhile for the sole reason that it would cost too much, that's a capitulation to human stupidity and/or greed.
    - ehaliewicz2 8y ago
      It's not so much about money, the implication is that making solar panels costs some amount of resources that according to the parent, could possibly be spent in better ways. The money just represents, indirectly, the amount of resources.
      - cygx 8y ago
        The question is, what's the limiting factor: Availability of manpower, natural resources, etc, or 'merely' the money to pay for them? The latter is an artificial constraint. Take nuclear fusion as an example: Supposedly, this is a case where the projected investments necessary to go from theory to practice just haven't been made. With return of investment only anticipated in the far-off future, it was decided that the money could be spent in better ways.
est31 8y ago
> Does it really matter to see all those solar panel farms if the end result is they were not much helpful? Sure, putting them further into the dry south would certainly have improved yields, e.g. putting them into Spain or even further south like DESERTEC envisioned. And still, they produce a non-trivial chunk of German electricity now. Not sure what you are suggesting, compared to stuff like fusion, we actually know that solar works. Also, there is a political component of having them on own soil: energy independence. A lesson learned in the oil crisis.

hef19898 8y ago

At least you can say that Germany kickstarted mass manufacturing of PV modules. So even if Germany itself didn't benefit, everybody else did. Including Chinese manufacturers. So I'd argue that the money was well invested.

sisu2019 8y ago
and how are these PV users going to cover their baseload?
- hef19898 8y ago
  Long term? Some kind of storage solution in combination with hydro power and, my preference, natural gas as it burns much cleaner than coal. Short to mid term? Same as above, only that storage will have to be replaced with something else. Since coal is clearly favoured by the system in Germany coal has to replaced by itself. Coal is just the worst alternative. Unfortunately nuclear is no option in Germany, until storage tech is sufficient it could nicely close the gap.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Natural gas is not a sustainable long-term solution. World emissions need to be brought to zero, in the next five years, in order for us to avoid a climate castrophe. If we are still positive at the five-year mark, that means zero at, say, the ten-year mark, and negative emissions for many decades. Natural gas has no place in this long-term.
    - temp1831 8y ago
      If you think we are going to bring world emissions to zero in 5 years you are hopelessly idealistic.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "Natural gas has no place in this long-term." Carbon sequestration is possibly a viable solution. There seem to be solutions in trial (there are numerous questions around it), and even with added costs of capture, it's considerably cheaper and more reliable than other form of energy - moreover, we have it in abundance. Natural Gas is as viable for the horizon of our future we're able to predict. In 100 years, every dimension of our tech will have changed so much it's hard to predict. Maybe we solve the nuclear wast problem. Maybe we get fusion. Maybe we have uber cheap solar. Maybe we have dirty easy sequestration. Maybe we have alternatives.
      - ccffph 8y ago
        We have already solved the nuclear waste problem. The issue is that nobody wants to bury it in their backyard, so to speak. Waste containers are incredibly safe and secure, and modern fuel waste is much safer than gen 1 fuel waste. People like feel-good shiny solar panels and wind turbines over concrete near-zero emission solutions.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        We haven't solved the 'waste problem'. 1) Long term storage has some existential risks. Over very long time horizons, these risks become real. 2) Transportation, processing and storage: all of this operational stuff is totally ripe for accidents.
        wbl 8y ago
        It doesn't. The impact of radiation is a rise in cancer rates which even if they substantially shorten lifetimes aren't X risk.
- jhayward 8y ago
  The concept of `baseload' is entirely a creation of the system of extremely large thermal plants that are essentially a path-dependent outcome of the electric grid's development. There is no intrinsic usefulness in the concept. In other words it would be good to stop acting as though the only possible grid is one that looks exactly like the one that was developed in the early 1900's. There are many other arrangements of generation resources and economic structures to pay for them than the existing grid. That is what renewables are moving toward.
  - sisu2019 8y ago
    well we certaintly aren't moving towards that in Germany so I wonder where they actually are and what that looks like in reality. If everyone else is also just going to burn more coal than ever before all of this is nothing but a very expensive step backwards.
    - jhayward 8y ago
      What makes you say that? Take a look at the summary in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19913933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19913933 That looks like progress to me. Why do you say "everyone else is just going to burn more coal?"
- rasz 8y ago
  They will power the infrastructure of the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline build against EU interests, obviously. That and strip mined Hambach forest.

netsharc 8y ago

I'm pretty sure if the survival of human race is at stake, money is no object. If someone in a foreign country invented a machine that everyone can buy to make themselves carbon-positive, the logical move for any government would be subsidize the purchase, even if that means great debt: but as the planet continues surviving, the country will go on collecting tax revenue from productive citizens/businesses and will be able to pay its debt back. Being afraid of government debt if you're a stable country is illogical: it's also why Germany can borrow money at negative interest rates, meaning people would actually rather lend money to Germany and get less back in a few years, rather than park it at a bank. Unlike a business or an individual, the lender has very little risk that the stable country will go bust/get hit by a car and can't earn money to repay the bank.

hackeraccount 8y ago
The point is that while you can spend a lot of money you can't spend infinite money. There's a finite pile of euros. Every euro you spend on something stupid is one less euro you can spend on something smart.
- cygx 8y ago
  Money is a tool of social organization that lacks instrinsic value. Any time we as a society refuse to do something worthwhile for the sole reason that it would cost too much, that's a capitulation to human stupidity and/or greed.
  - ehaliewicz2 8y ago
    It's not so much about money, the implication is that making solar panels costs some amount of resources that according to the parent, could possibly be spent in better ways. The money just represents, indirectly, the amount of resources.
    - cygx 8y ago
      The question is, what's the limiting factor: Availability of manpower, natural resources, etc, or 'merely' the money to pay for them? The latter is an artificial constraint. Take nuclear fusion as an example: Supposedly, this is a case where the projected investments necessary to go from theory to practice just haven't been made. With return of investment only anticipated in the far-off future, it was decided that the money could be spent in better ways.

est31 8y ago

> Does it really matter to see all those solar panel farms if the end result is they were not much helpful? Sure, putting them further into the dry south would certainly have improved yields, e.g. putting them into Spain or even further south like DESERTEC envisioned. And still, they produce a non-trivial chunk of German electricity now. Not sure what you are suggesting, compared to stuff like fusion, we actually know that solar works. Also, there is a political component of having them on own soil: energy independence. A lesson learned in the oil crisis.