3 ms·

These numbers are misleading, because wind energy is highly volatile and often goes to waste if unbuffered, which is often the case, because buffering is expens

These numbers are misleading, because wind energy is highly volatile and often goes to waste if unbuffered, which is often the case, because buffering is expensive. Case in point, wind energy makes up 17% of production in Germany, whereas nuclear makes up only 11%. However, wind energy only accounts for 3% of consumption, whereas nuclear accounts for 6%. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
I think you've misread that. Nuclear is 6% of primary power consumption, not electricity consumption. The reduction in both nuclear and renewables is presumably because the other sources are burnt, losing a great deal of energy as heat during conversion to electricity. (Nuclear also loses heat but I don't think anyone keeps track of the initial heat output as it's not a very useful number).
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > I think you've misread that. I don't think so. > Nuclear is 6% of primary power consumption, not electricity consumption. I'm aware of that, but wind energy and nuclear energy almost exclusively account for electricity, that's why it's fair comparison. > The reduction in both nuclear and renewables is presumably because the other sources are burnt, losing a great deal of energy as heat during conversion to electricity. (Nuclear also loses heat but I don't think anyone keeps track of the initial heat output as it's not a very useful number). No, the relative share here is different because energy consumption also includes vehicle fuel and heating, not just electricity. That doesn't really change the relation between nuclear and wind, however.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    I'm still a bit dubious. It's not clear how curtailed wind and solar is being accounted for here (does it count as "produced" in the first place?) Or is the curtailment only being calculated for the Primary power chart? Seems odd that solar would reduce so much more than wind unless that is the case. Yet the curtailment rates of those are both low enough that they can't explain this difference. Possibly the primary chart is using capacity factor for solar and wind? That would roughly explain the greater shrinking of solar compared with wind, but would basically be meaningless (as generally putting renewables on a primary power chart is). I don't think the curtailment rates of German wind and solar support your contention so I still think you're incorrect. A graph further up suggests that renewables together comprise a slightly higher share of consumption than production (37% to 34%) which doesn't match up with the primary power chart.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      I don't know whether curtailment is factored in, but I don't see how any of this makes a difference to my point. Either way, wind energy is worse than advertised, relative to nuclear.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

I think you've misread that. Nuclear is 6% of primary power consumption, not electricity consumption. The reduction in both nuclear and renewables is presumably because the other sources are burnt, losing a great deal of energy as heat during conversion to electricity. (Nuclear also loses heat but I don't think anyone keeps track of the initial heat output as it's not a very useful number).

gridlockd 7y ago
> I think you've misread that. I don't think so. > Nuclear is 6% of primary power consumption, not electricity consumption. I'm aware of that, but wind energy and nuclear energy almost exclusively account for electricity, that's why it's fair comparison. > The reduction in both nuclear and renewables is presumably because the other sources are burnt, losing a great deal of energy as heat during conversion to electricity. (Nuclear also loses heat but I don't think anyone keeps track of the initial heat output as it's not a very useful number). No, the relative share here is different because energy consumption also includes vehicle fuel and heating, not just electricity. That doesn't really change the relation between nuclear and wind, however.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  I'm still a bit dubious. It's not clear how curtailed wind and solar is being accounted for here (does it count as "produced" in the first place?) Or is the curtailment only being calculated for the Primary power chart? Seems odd that solar would reduce so much more than wind unless that is the case. Yet the curtailment rates of those are both low enough that they can't explain this difference. Possibly the primary chart is using capacity factor for solar and wind? That would roughly explain the greater shrinking of solar compared with wind, but would basically be meaningless (as generally putting renewables on a primary power chart is). I don't think the curtailment rates of German wind and solar support your contention so I still think you're incorrect. A graph further up suggests that renewables together comprise a slightly higher share of consumption than production (37% to 34%) which doesn't match up with the primary power chart.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    I don't know whether curtailment is factored in, but I don't see how any of this makes a difference to my point. Either way, wind energy is worse than advertised, relative to nuclear.