6 ms·

Yes, on the open european electricity market, electricity coming from renewable have the priority "on injection" on the grid above all the other sources of elec

Yes, on the open european electricity market, electricity coming from renewable have the priority "on injection" on the grid above all the other sources of electricity. So when you have spikes of renewable productions (a lot of wind and a lot of sun) Germany sells it to "everyone around" at a really cheap price. Which means that on a yearly average Germany indeed exported a lot of cheap renewable electricity to everyone. Now try to guess what is happening when everyone starts to do what Germany is doing for close to 20 years now ?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pydry 5y ago
Well, they're cheaper than all other forms of electricity. The cost of renewables is mostly capital expenditure. If you have spare you might as well export it and you can probably underbid any other form of power. France is also leaning rather heavily on the capital expenditures it made on nuclear power in the 80s. Unfortunately its gonna be in for a whopping bill when its plants start aging out in 2025: https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos... Germany, OTOH, will be able to coast on what it's already built in the next 10 years while the rest of Europe plays catch up.
- edhelas 5y ago
  The current Germany infrastructure total cost is around 500B€ in 20 years. That's for sure a few brand new nuclear power plants, or a few big investment plans in power efficiency (heat pumps, isolation…). Wind turbines lifespan is around 25 years (some 30 years), mostly limited by structural and physical issues. You can't reinstall a new wind turbine on top of an old one (the concrete base is also fragilized and new turbines are often way bigger than old ones). Solar panels indeed have a way better lifespan and recent ones stay efficient even after decades of use. So one question now: why is Germany building and importing so much natural gaz (~400g of CO²/kwh, it's around 10 for renewable/nuclear) if their renewable plan is working so well ?
  - pydry 5y ago
    They're using about the same amount of natgas they did 10 years ago. I presume they will start scaling down natural gas plants at some point, but they're clearly aiming to shut down nuclear and lignite plants first. Coping with increased electricity demand and switching off two forms of power generation entirely wasn't going to be quick but it is inevitable.
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  >Well, they're cheaper than all other forms of electricity. The cost of renewables is mostly capital expenditure There is a cost to renewables that most advocates don't factor in - balancing. Most studies use the prevailing market rates for energy to prove that renewables are cheaper than coal or gas however, when renewables aren't providing power, something is and that something has a cost. This is a cost paid for by consumers though it isn't attributed to the source of the problem - the variable renewable generators. Similar argument for energy storage. You need storage precisely because renewables are variable and that cost should be factored in to the cost of renewable energy. At the moment, it isn't.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >however, when renewables aren't providing power, something is and that something has a cost. Hence all that electricity imported from, e.g. France in winter. Some people might be under the illusion that this was free but I can assure you I am not. There's a reason Europe is super keen on country interconnectors. It really helps smooth out production. Intermittency of renewables really has become the next Y2k. I suppose we can thank a decade of carbon and nuclear lobby fearmongering for that :/ Like Y2K as a problem it receives relatively too much attention relative to the problems it causes. The rolling blackouts germany was promised ~10 years ago never materialized, for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/23/germany-nuclear-shutdown-winter-blackouts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/23/germany-...
    - eldaisfish 5y ago
      This has no connection to the point i was making. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
      - pydry 5y ago
        No, I was responding to you.
dangerlibrary 5y ago
Total CO2 emissions drop even further, and we get incrementally closer to a world where anthropogenic climate change is a global catastrophe as opposed to a global extinction event?
iSnow 5y ago
>Now try to guess what is happening when everyone starts to do what Germany is doing for close to 20 years now ? I am not a huge fan of Germany's energy policy myself, I see it as misguided giving up nuclear first and coal second. BUT, if everyone built out renewables like crazy, it would create a huge market for storage or electrolysis systems.
layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
Pretty easy to solve. We know that electricity can go around the Earth 7 times in a second. Now, if Germany has excess electricity during the day, they can simply pospone that electricity by wrapping a long cable 302 400 times around the globe (12h * 3600s/h * 7/s = 302 400). During the day they feed the excess electricity into one end of the cable, and then 12 hours later at night, electricity comes out the other end at just the right time, when they need it!
- ben_w 5y ago
  IIRC, antopodal HVDC would have resistive losses of either 70% or 30% — I’d have to recalculate from scratch to find out which, but it doesn’t matter much either way: the real issues are “How much does the line cost?” and “what are the political implications of that size power line in all the places it has to pass through?” Batteries and HVDC to your nearest major desert are what I expect to be the solutions.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    70%, seriously? That's actually really low. What kind of voltage would that require?
    - ben_w 5y ago
      The following claims HVDC transmission losses of 3.5% per 1,000 km @ 800kV, therefore 20,000 km is 100% - ((100% - 3.5%)^20) ~= 51% loss; I guess my previous calculations were a different voltage, but as I’m asserting that even the difference between 30% and 70% doesn’t matter, neither does this :) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97720/ld-na-27527-en-n.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...
hannob 5y ago
> Now try to guess what is happening when everyone starts to do what Germany is doing for close to 20 years now ? What will happen is that people will learn to build an energy system that works well with this situation. Which will likely mean things like industrial plants that shut down when electricity is scarce and get payed for that by the grid operator, because that's cheaper than having a lot of storage. It will mean new industries will be built by using excess renewables (likely hydrogen will be such an industry). I'm excited to see that happen.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pydry 5y ago

Well, they're cheaper than all other forms of electricity. The cost of renewables is mostly capital expenditure. If you have spare you might as well export it and you can probably underbid any other form of power. France is also leaning rather heavily on the capital expenditures it made on nuclear power in the 80s. Unfortunately its gonna be in for a whopping bill when its plants start aging out in 2025: https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos... Germany, OTOH, will be able to coast on what it's already built in the next 10 years while the rest of Europe plays catch up.

edhelas 5y ago
The current Germany infrastructure total cost is around 500B€ in 20 years. That's for sure a few brand new nuclear power plants, or a few big investment plans in power efficiency (heat pumps, isolation…). Wind turbines lifespan is around 25 years (some 30 years), mostly limited by structural and physical issues. You can't reinstall a new wind turbine on top of an old one (the concrete base is also fragilized and new turbines are often way bigger than old ones). Solar panels indeed have a way better lifespan and recent ones stay efficient even after decades of use. So one question now: why is Germany building and importing so much natural gaz (~400g of CO²/kwh, it's around 10 for renewable/nuclear) if their renewable plan is working so well ?
- pydry 5y ago
  They're using about the same amount of natgas they did 10 years ago. I presume they will start scaling down natural gas plants at some point, but they're clearly aiming to shut down nuclear and lignite plants first. Coping with increased electricity demand and switching off two forms of power generation entirely wasn't going to be quick but it is inevitable.
eldaisfish 5y ago
>Well, they're cheaper than all other forms of electricity. The cost of renewables is mostly capital expenditure There is a cost to renewables that most advocates don't factor in - balancing. Most studies use the prevailing market rates for energy to prove that renewables are cheaper than coal or gas however, when renewables aren't providing power, something is and that something has a cost. This is a cost paid for by consumers though it isn't attributed to the source of the problem - the variable renewable generators. Similar argument for energy storage. You need storage precisely because renewables are variable and that cost should be factored in to the cost of renewable energy. At the moment, it isn't.
- pydry 5y ago
  >however, when renewables aren't providing power, something is and that something has a cost. Hence all that electricity imported from, e.g. France in winter. Some people might be under the illusion that this was free but I can assure you I am not. There's a reason Europe is super keen on country interconnectors. It really helps smooth out production. Intermittency of renewables really has become the next Y2k. I suppose we can thank a decade of carbon and nuclear lobby fearmongering for that :/ Like Y2K as a problem it receives relatively too much attention relative to the problems it causes. The rolling blackouts germany was promised ~10 years ago never materialized, for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/23/germany-nuclear-shutdown-winter-blackouts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/23/germany-...
  - eldaisfish 5y ago
    This has no connection to the point i was making. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
    - pydry 5y ago
      No, I was responding to you.

dangerlibrary 5y ago

Total CO2 emissions drop even further, and we get incrementally closer to a world where anthropogenic climate change is a global catastrophe as opposed to a global extinction event?

iSnow 5y ago

>Now try to guess what is happening when everyone starts to do what Germany is doing for close to 20 years now ? I am not a huge fan of Germany's energy policy myself, I see it as misguided giving up nuclear first and coal second. BUT, if everyone built out renewables like crazy, it would create a huge market for storage or electrolysis systems.

layoutIfNeeded 5y ago

Pretty easy to solve. We know that electricity can go around the Earth 7 times in a second. Now, if Germany has excess electricity during the day, they can simply pospone that electricity by wrapping a long cable 302 400 times around the globe (12h * 3600s/h * 7/s = 302 400). During the day they feed the excess electricity into one end of the cable, and then 12 hours later at night, electricity comes out the other end at just the right time, when they need it!

ben_w 5y ago
IIRC, antopodal HVDC would have resistive losses of either 70% or 30% — I’d have to recalculate from scratch to find out which, but it doesn’t matter much either way: the real issues are “How much does the line cost?” and “what are the political implications of that size power line in all the places it has to pass through?” Batteries and HVDC to your nearest major desert are what I expect to be the solutions.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  70%, seriously? That's actually really low. What kind of voltage would that require?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The following claims HVDC transmission losses of 3.5% per 1,000 km @ 800kV, therefore 20,000 km is 100% - ((100% - 3.5%)^20) ~= 51% loss; I guess my previous calculations were a different voltage, but as I’m asserting that even the difference between 30% and 70% doesn’t matter, neither does this :) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC97720/ld-na-27527-en-n.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...

hannob 5y ago

> Now try to guess what is happening when everyone starts to do what Germany is doing for close to 20 years now ? What will happen is that people will learn to build an energy system that works well with this situation. Which will likely mean things like industrial plants that shut down when electricity is scarce and get payed for that by the grid operator, because that's cheaper than having a lot of storage. It will mean new industries will be built by using excess renewables (likely hydrogen will be such an industry). I'm excited to see that happen.