4 ms·

Sure :) 500B€ (yes, half a trillion !) invested in wind turbines in Germany over 20 years. Check the result https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://www

Sure :) 500B€ (yes, half a trillion !) invested in wind turbines in Germany over 20 years. Check the result https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE, Germany is ~300g of CO²/kwh, France is 50g. Why ? Because when there is no wind, no sun, you need power. And then you're burning gaz or coal. So you "erase" all those 0CO² days. Also solar panel efficiency fades over time, you loose 50% of efficiency after a few decades. Wind-turbines have 25y life expectancy.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I thought it was because Germany shut down its nuclear power plants and ramped its coal generation up? [1] Germany poorly managing its power grid doesn’t imply that renewables aren’t economically rational; it implies Germany makes irrational national policy. France is primarily nuclear powered, as you point out with their low CO2 emission footprint (compare the generation mixes of both countries in ElectricityMap, I’m familiar having contributed generation data for Europe). Solar panels retain 90% of their production rating after 25 years, and can be recycled at end of life, as can wind turbine blades (with the turbines repowered, typically generating more power than the previous equipment). What’s with the FUD? Definitely feels like there’s an agenda when the data is objectively clear. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-and-deadly-emissions-spiked/ https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-a...
- coryrc 5y ago
  How I look at it, had they spent the same amount of money in a different way, they could be carbon neutral. Climate change is an emergency but no one is acting like it. It's one thing to say "we don't think it's worth the money" and another to spend the money but not achieve much, it's even worse IMO!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    > Climate change is an emergency but no one is acting like it. Yes, it sometimes makes me wonder what the real agenda is.
- Someone 5y ago
  Wind turbine blade recycling is hard. I wouldn’t call it a proven technology. For example, all recycling options discussed in https://designedconscious.com/plastics-in-the-ocean/sustainability-news-stories/is-fiberglass-recyclable-who-is-recycling-fiberglass https://designedconscious.com/plastics-in-the-ocean/sustaina... are into inferior products (shorter glass fibers, ash, etc)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    I think this notion of recycling turbine blades is a bit of a fetish. Why do they have to be recycled?
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Germany's fossil fuel use for grid generation was steady after Fukushima. Coal use declined. After 2017, coal use fell off a cliff (as CO2 allowances became more expensive in Europe.)
the_why_of_y 5y ago
> Also solar panel efficiency fades over time, you loose 50% of efficiency after a few decades. Perhaps it's more relevant that the solar panels that were installed decades ago were 50% less efficient; that's technological progress. https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/history-of-pv-technology/ https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/histo... Progress that was enabled substantially by there being a market that would buy the early inefficient solar panels, providing capital for further research.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

I thought it was because Germany shut down its nuclear power plants and ramped its coal generation up? [1] Germany poorly managing its power grid doesn’t imply that renewables aren’t economically rational; it implies Germany makes irrational national policy. France is primarily nuclear powered, as you point out with their low CO2 emission footprint (compare the generation mixes of both countries in ElectricityMap, I’m familiar having contributed generation data for Europe). Solar panels retain 90% of their production rating after 25 years, and can be recycled at end of life, as can wind turbine blades (with the turbines repowered, typically generating more power than the previous equipment). What’s with the FUD? Definitely feels like there’s an agenda when the data is objectively clear. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-and-deadly-emissions-spiked/ https://www.wired.com/story/germany-rejected-nuclear-power-a...

coryrc 5y ago
How I look at it, had they spent the same amount of money in a different way, they could be carbon neutral. Climate change is an emergency but no one is acting like it. It's one thing to say "we don't think it's worth the money" and another to spend the money but not achieve much, it's even worse IMO!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  > Climate change is an emergency but no one is acting like it. Yes, it sometimes makes me wonder what the real agenda is.
Someone 5y ago
Wind turbine blade recycling is hard. I wouldn’t call it a proven technology. For example, all recycling options discussed in https://designedconscious.com/plastics-in-the-ocean/sustainability-news-stories/is-fiberglass-recyclable-who-is-recycling-fiberglass https://designedconscious.com/plastics-in-the-ocean/sustaina... are into inferior products (shorter glass fibers, ash, etc)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pfdietz 5y ago
  I think this notion of recycling turbine blades is a bit of a fetish. Why do they have to be recycled?
pfdietz 5y ago
Germany's fossil fuel use for grid generation was steady after Fukushima. Coal use declined. After 2017, coal use fell off a cliff (as CO2 allowances became more expensive in Europe.)

the_why_of_y 5y ago

> Also solar panel efficiency fades over time, you loose 50% of efficiency after a few decades. Perhaps it's more relevant that the solar panels that were installed decades ago were 50% less efficient; that's technological progress. https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/history-of-pv-technology/ https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/histo... Progress that was enabled substantially by there being a market that would buy the early inefficient solar panels, providing capital for further research.