8 ms·

Primary energy consumption looks quite a bit different though: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/image

Primary energy consumption looks quite a bit different though: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2021.png?itok=XmYkdZD_ https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... Also worth noting that "biomass" often gets hidden in the "clean energy" part, but that just means burning something other than oil/coal/gas.

animal_spirits 5y ago
In my opinion I think biomass can be considered cleaner since the burning of it releases only recently stored carbon as opposed to taking huge carbon reserves from fossil fuels that might not have ever seen the atmosphere again. In my mind biomass is "carbon neutral" where fossil fuels are "carbon positive"
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  It is not neutral, it takes tens of years for standard sources of biomass to accumulate to useful amounts. Fast biomass would use something like hemp or other grass but it's still problematic. And it does increase CO2 and NOx levels when burned, not to mention soot - it's dirtier than quality coal. The growth itself does not capture nearly enough to cover for it.
  - fsh 5y ago
    Biomass is mostly wood. If the forest is in steady-state (as is the case in Germany), this is carbon neutral. The main issue is that plants are much less efficient at light harvesting than solar cells. This means that there is probably not much scaling potential left.
jhgb 5y ago
There's a reason why electrification of transportation and low-energy buildings are major topics in Europe. You see them on the top and on the left of your chart, respectively.
ucha 5y ago
I understand that energy consumption includes things that aren't electricity so the proportion of oil is higher but everything else is different too. For example, in the parent comment, more wind than biomass is produced but in this comment the consumption is the other way around. Is it because biomass is used for cars as well (ethanol)? Maybe wood for heating too?
- elcapitan 5y ago
  Yes, I think it's a mix of Biodiesel and wood stoves. Not sure why the rape seed production wouldn't count into the biomass production then. It makes sense that you see private-only things like wood stoves only on the consumption side. I think another factor is that private sector (heavy industry) production of energy (with private coal plants etc) probably doesn't count into the production side either.
fsh 5y ago
Yes, heating and transportation are huge and almost entirely fossil fueled. Low-tech solutions such as heat pumps and better insulation alone could probably make a large impact.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Not "could". They're legally mandated in pretty much all new buildings.
alkonaut 5y ago
So germans are still buying (some) Russian gas for heat, while shutting down nuclear plants? That just seems wrong. > biomass" often gets hidden in the "clean energy" part, but that just means burning something other than oil/coal/gas. That's usually CO2 neutral if it's waste/wood pellets etc. Whether it's "clean" or "sustainable" is a hot topic, but in terms of climate it's a lot better than fossil fuel.
- monopoledance 5y ago
  You make an argument that only works in theory. In reality you cannot switch heating modalities like underwear for whatever seems reasonable at the moment. Most houses are build with gas and oil heating systems. In some places like Berlin the gas infrastructure is very old and established. Even streetlights run on gas in some places and houses have generators in the basement to combine heat and electricity supply.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    But this argument has been made for years. For decades. We are talking about banning the sales of combustion engine vehicles within 10 years. Surely in 10, 20 or 30 years one should be able to see pretty significant progress in the conversion of building heating systems? I’m assuming old multi story houses with gas heating typically use a water system (radiators) and only a single basement furnace? In that situation, switching the boiler to anything else or even better just using central heating should be a reasonably sized investment. It’s not like German cities are unique in how they are built and heated. Lots of other cities have done this conversion in the latest decades. Gas infrastructure was old and established in all major European cities. Now it’s electrical stoves and central heating in many places.
    - quelltext 5y ago
      > Now it’s electrical stoves and central heating in many places. What's "central heating"? I believe Germany already uses central heating in most places. The question is what powers it. Can it be efficiently replaced by renewable-energy (!) electric heating vs. fossil? Other commenters have posited "no". The way I see it, investing in nuclear should have been part of the plan, instead of replacing it with renewables (vs. doing so for those uses of fossil where renewables make sense). The fear of nuclear energy in Germany is just ridiculous IMO, and arguably has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. With nuclear power on its way out know how and effort to research and to maintain existing plants and investment in it are at a minimum making continued operation now a liability.
xxgreg 5y ago
Primary energy consumption isn't a great metric for comparing with renewable electricity, since for conventional plants it includes the unused energy lost as heat. A fossil power plant wastes ~60% of the energy, a nuclear plant ~75%, a small petrol engine ~75%. Once you take this into account, the stats look a little better.

animal_spirits 5y ago

In my opinion I think biomass can be considered cleaner since the burning of it releases only recently stored carbon as opposed to taking huge carbon reserves from fossil fuels that might not have ever seen the atmosphere again. In my mind biomass is "carbon neutral" where fossil fuels are "carbon positive"

AstralStorm 5y ago
It is not neutral, it takes tens of years for standard sources of biomass to accumulate to useful amounts. Fast biomass would use something like hemp or other grass but it's still problematic. And it does increase CO2 and NOx levels when burned, not to mention soot - it's dirtier than quality coal. The growth itself does not capture nearly enough to cover for it.
- fsh 5y ago
  Biomass is mostly wood. If the forest is in steady-state (as is the case in Germany), this is carbon neutral. The main issue is that plants are much less efficient at light harvesting than solar cells. This means that there is probably not much scaling potential left.

jhgb 5y ago

There's a reason why electrification of transportation and low-energy buildings are major topics in Europe. You see them on the top and on the left of your chart, respectively.

ucha 5y ago

I understand that energy consumption includes things that aren't electricity so the proportion of oil is higher but everything else is different too. For example, in the parent comment, more wind than biomass is produced but in this comment the consumption is the other way around. Is it because biomass is used for cars as well (ethanol)? Maybe wood for heating too?

elcapitan 5y ago
Yes, I think it's a mix of Biodiesel and wood stoves. Not sure why the rape seed production wouldn't count into the biomass production then. It makes sense that you see private-only things like wood stoves only on the consumption side. I think another factor is that private sector (heavy industry) production of energy (with private coal plants etc) probably doesn't count into the production side either.

fsh 5y ago

Yes, heating and transportation are huge and almost entirely fossil fueled. Low-tech solutions such as heat pumps and better insulation alone could probably make a large impact.

jhgb 5y ago
Not "could". They're legally mandated in pretty much all new buildings.

alkonaut 5y ago

So germans are still buying (some) Russian gas for heat, while shutting down nuclear plants? That just seems wrong. > biomass" often gets hidden in the "clean energy" part, but that just means burning something other than oil/coal/gas. That's usually CO2 neutral if it's waste/wood pellets etc. Whether it's "clean" or "sustainable" is a hot topic, but in terms of climate it's a lot better than fossil fuel.

monopoledance 5y ago
You make an argument that only works in theory. In reality you cannot switch heating modalities like underwear for whatever seems reasonable at the moment. Most houses are build with gas and oil heating systems. In some places like Berlin the gas infrastructure is very old and established. Even streetlights run on gas in some places and houses have generators in the basement to combine heat and electricity supply.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  But this argument has been made for years. For decades. We are talking about banning the sales of combustion engine vehicles within 10 years. Surely in 10, 20 or 30 years one should be able to see pretty significant progress in the conversion of building heating systems? I’m assuming old multi story houses with gas heating typically use a water system (radiators) and only a single basement furnace? In that situation, switching the boiler to anything else or even better just using central heating should be a reasonably sized investment. It’s not like German cities are unique in how they are built and heated. Lots of other cities have done this conversion in the latest decades. Gas infrastructure was old and established in all major European cities. Now it’s electrical stoves and central heating in many places.
  - quelltext 5y ago
    > Now it’s electrical stoves and central heating in many places. What's "central heating"? I believe Germany already uses central heating in most places. The question is what powers it. Can it be efficiently replaced by renewable-energy (!) electric heating vs. fossil? Other commenters have posited "no". The way I see it, investing in nuclear should have been part of the plan, instead of replacing it with renewables (vs. doing so for those uses of fossil where renewables make sense). The fear of nuclear energy in Germany is just ridiculous IMO, and arguably has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. With nuclear power on its way out know how and effort to research and to maintain existing plants and investment in it are at a minimum making continued operation now a liability.

xxgreg 5y ago

Primary energy consumption isn't a great metric for comparing with renewable electricity, since for conventional plants it includes the unused energy lost as heat. A fossil power plant wastes ~60% of the energy, a nuclear plant ~75%, a small petrol engine ~75%. Once you take this into account, the stats look a little better.