5 ms·

Is Germany's experience a success or failure? What is the counter to this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-thr

by 99_00 6y ago

Is Germany's experience a success or failure? What is the counter to this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/?sh=3237d9368e48 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05...

haberman 6y ago
"What is the counter to this article?" does not deserve downvotes.
- merb 6y ago
  well the problem in our grid is mostly coal. it's cheap (in germany since it's subsidized for the next x years) but it generates exactly the problems in the article. basically mckinsey study is not against green energy, it's more of a "politics do way too less" i.e. mckinsey analyzes the co2 targets for germany and it critizes it for doing way too less and having unrealistic expectations. news article basically love such studies besides that the studies in question want to show that we need to do even more. tbf between '19 and '20 we atleast reduced lots of lignite/hard coal in favor of wind (onshore) but 2019 (year of the article) it was really really bad for renweable in germany, we actually only talked about green energy, but internally we were really dirty... but we are still behind norway, sweden, denmark and lots of other countries.
zdragnar 6y ago
A charitable reply would be advances (real and predicted) in energy storage- I dont think anyone is deluded into thinking that wind or solar alone form a good baseline. That said, Germany's investments are clearly a failure, IF you go by the desired carbon reduction goals for 2020-2030. I also don't know anyone who genuinely believes any of those carbon goals are feasible, or that we have high odds of hitting them... but that might just be that I tend to have cynical friends.
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  I honestly think the goals are technically feasible. I would even go so far as to say easily so. But ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I put my money on the world failing horribly and plan accordingly.
  - aaronblohowiak 6y ago
    What’s that plan look like?
    - _carbyau_ 6y ago
      Anecdotally, where I currently live in an apartment in Australia. We have occasional brownouts/blackouts in summer when everyone is running their aircon. Not often, but likely to happen more with higher temperatures. I am keeping an eye on things like Tesla's Powerwall as a luxury item for that concern. Especially for when I am over 60 years old... (20 years away but still a thought.) I plan to visit the Great Barrier Reef now, while it is living. Operating temperatures for outdoor mechanicals. For me, small aircon, cars. But big building infrastructure, factories, farmers etc buying and building for the future will have to expand their operational parameters, if only slowly and only a comparatively small amount. Highly underrated though is more energy in the system will mean more extreme weather events more often. Floods, heat waves, hail storms, but also with large shifting air cycles it often surprises people to realise that blizzards or cold snaps will happen differently too. They may be "warmer" but with faster moving air they will travel more to areas that didn't experience them. Or they may be colder as the air travels faster carrying air from the poles. Weather is not an easy thing to predict. But I think it will be even less predictable. In the US it may mean that hurricanes or tornados are a thing more often. Here in Australia Queensland will get hit more often. Insurance premiums will adjust accordingly. I suspect international migration will also be a thing. People moving away from the equator and to the poles more. TL;DR: Plan for slightly more hot, windy and extreme weather events. :-P NB: rereading this almost casts a picture of drastic disasters every day. But I want to clarify that it will be incrementally more than now over time and only a bit more by the end of my lifetime. But who wants "a bit more" hurricanes in their life? And where does it stop for the future? PS: maybe this question should be asked of an insurance company quant?
mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago
Great question! Here's what Germany did: They invested a vast amount in local renewables, at above market prices, that had the effect of dramatically driving down the global price of wind and solar. Because they radically expanded production capacity. Effectively, Germany gave the world a 'gift'! This had the long-term affect of dramatically increasing global solar + wind deployments (b/c prices fell) and transferring a huge economic boom to China, who actually made the solar panels and who's government subsidized production. Unfortunately, for domestics political reasons, Germany also shut down their nuclear plants and kept burning coal. So their total CO2 emissions have been roughly constant and about 10x higher, per person, than France or Sweden. The article is correct in that vastly more electrical transmission is needed to effectively integrate renewables. The article is misleading in describing price spikes. Yes, there are 2-45 days a year of price spikes for a few hours, but on average price is lower b/c of renewables outside of Germany. (Again, Germany did everyone the favor of buying renewables before they were economic.) Texas average prices are some of the lowest in the world. CA wholesale power prices are very low globally, while retail prices are sky high b/c PG&E is a monopoly combined with an inadvertent domestic terrorist organization. Something the article only eludes to, the energy transition covers many more areas than just power production. Germany has done a bad job in both transportation and building emissions. They're overly reliant on Russian natural gas for heating and have been slow to embrace electric cars (VW is doing 'ok' but not great). Both issues are separate to renewables but major failings of German policy to either reduce emissions or increase energy security. Overall, the German investment in renewables electricity production is a massive success and global gift. Completely underrecognized. Everything else sits in the category between "failure" and "didn't even try."
- 99_00 6y ago
  So basically German "failure", but global success? And everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?
  - mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago
    "everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?" Yes on both your points. Sadly, German industry didn't get the benefit. Which makes it harder to convince the country to do stuff like this again. Very different from Tesla, where a bunch of silicon valley people ate the cost (e.g. VCs, roadster, 2012 model-S) and then many benefitted as they own stock.

by 99_00 6y ago

haberman 6y ago

"What is the counter to this article?" does not deserve downvotes.

merb 6y ago
well the problem in our grid is mostly coal. it's cheap (in germany since it's subsidized for the next x years) but it generates exactly the problems in the article. basically mckinsey study is not against green energy, it's more of a "politics do way too less" i.e. mckinsey analyzes the co2 targets for germany and it critizes it for doing way too less and having unrealistic expectations. news article basically love such studies besides that the studies in question want to show that we need to do even more. tbf between '19 and '20 we atleast reduced lots of lignite/hard coal in favor of wind (onshore) but 2019 (year of the article) it was really really bad for renweable in germany, we actually only talked about green energy, but internally we were really dirty... but we are still behind norway, sweden, denmark and lots of other countries.

zdragnar 6y ago

A charitable reply would be advances (real and predicted) in energy storage- I dont think anyone is deluded into thinking that wind or solar alone form a good baseline. That said, Germany's investments are clearly a failure, IF you go by the desired carbon reduction goals for 2020-2030. I also don't know anyone who genuinely believes any of those carbon goals are feasible, or that we have high odds of hitting them... but that might just be that I tend to have cynical friends.

_carbyau_ 6y ago
I honestly think the goals are technically feasible. I would even go so far as to say easily so. But ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I put my money on the world failing horribly and plan accordingly.
- aaronblohowiak 6y ago
  What’s that plan look like?
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    Anecdotally, where I currently live in an apartment in Australia. We have occasional brownouts/blackouts in summer when everyone is running their aircon. Not often, but likely to happen more with higher temperatures. I am keeping an eye on things like Tesla's Powerwall as a luxury item for that concern. Especially for when I am over 60 years old... (20 years away but still a thought.) I plan to visit the Great Barrier Reef now, while it is living. Operating temperatures for outdoor mechanicals. For me, small aircon, cars. But big building infrastructure, factories, farmers etc buying and building for the future will have to expand their operational parameters, if only slowly and only a comparatively small amount. Highly underrated though is more energy in the system will mean more extreme weather events more often. Floods, heat waves, hail storms, but also with large shifting air cycles it often surprises people to realise that blizzards or cold snaps will happen differently too. They may be "warmer" but with faster moving air they will travel more to areas that didn't experience them. Or they may be colder as the air travels faster carrying air from the poles. Weather is not an easy thing to predict. But I think it will be even less predictable. In the US it may mean that hurricanes or tornados are a thing more often. Here in Australia Queensland will get hit more often. Insurance premiums will adjust accordingly. I suspect international migration will also be a thing. People moving away from the equator and to the poles more. TL;DR: Plan for slightly more hot, windy and extreme weather events. :-P NB: rereading this almost casts a picture of drastic disasters every day. But I want to clarify that it will be incrementally more than now over time and only a bit more by the end of my lifetime. But who wants "a bit more" hurricanes in their life? And where does it stop for the future? PS: maybe this question should be asked of an insurance company quant?

mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago

Great question! Here's what Germany did: They invested a vast amount in local renewables, at above market prices, that had the effect of dramatically driving down the global price of wind and solar. Because they radically expanded production capacity. Effectively, Germany gave the world a 'gift'! This had the long-term affect of dramatically increasing global solar + wind deployments (b/c prices fell) and transferring a huge economic boom to China, who actually made the solar panels and who's government subsidized production. Unfortunately, for domestics political reasons, Germany also shut down their nuclear plants and kept burning coal. So their total CO2 emissions have been roughly constant and about 10x higher, per person, than France or Sweden. The article is correct in that vastly more electrical transmission is needed to effectively integrate renewables. The article is misleading in describing price spikes. Yes, there are 2-45 days a year of price spikes for a few hours, but on average price is lower b/c of renewables outside of Germany. (Again, Germany did everyone the favor of buying renewables before they were economic.) Texas average prices are some of the lowest in the world. CA wholesale power prices are very low globally, while retail prices are sky high b/c PG&E is a monopoly combined with an inadvertent domestic terrorist organization. Something the article only eludes to, the energy transition covers many more areas than just power production. Germany has done a bad job in both transportation and building emissions. They're overly reliant on Russian natural gas for heating and have been slow to embrace electric cars (VW is doing 'ok' but not great). Both issues are separate to renewables but major failings of German policy to either reduce emissions or increase energy security. Overall, the German investment in renewables electricity production is a massive success and global gift. Completely underrecognized. Everything else sits in the category between "failure" and "didn't even try."

99_00 6y ago
So basically German "failure", but global success? And everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?
- mrDmrTmrJ 6y ago
  "everyone else who tries it will do better because Germans ate the costs?" Yes on both your points. Sadly, German industry didn't get the benefit. Which makes it harder to convince the country to do stuff like this again. Very different from Tesla, where a bunch of silicon valley people ate the cost (e.g. VCs, roadster, 2012 model-S) and then many benefitted as they own stock.