4 ms·

>The energy transition is about to thrust us into a world where for long periods of time, we have massive energy abundance of zero-marginal cost energy generati

by iqanq 5y ago

>The energy transition is about to thrust us into a world where for long periods of time, we have massive energy abundance of zero-marginal cost energy generation. Well, by now, it seems like completely the opposite: thanks to nuclear plants shutting down and CO taxes, we are starved of energy.

_ph_ 5y ago
The abundance of cheap energy is based on renewable sources. They need to be built in the form of wind power and photovoltaics and others first. Blocking this of course raises the energy costs.
- iqanq 5y ago
  Nobody has blocked wind power or photovoltaics. If anything, they are pretty well subsidised as it is. They don't (currently?) provide enough power.
  - Semaphor 5y ago
    I think the poster might have meant "blocking" as in planning/building? Not quite sure how to parse the comment otherwise.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    In Germany, the previous government has done a lot to stall further builtup of renewable energies. The builtup was only a fraction in recent years compared to the top years. If the builtup had continued (or even accellerated), Germany would be an even larger exporter of electricity than it is.
    - fivea 5y ago
      > In Germany, the previous government has done a lot to stall further builtup of renewable energies. I find this assertion hard to believe. Merkel has been in charge of Germany's federal government for the past two decades, and throughout this period Germany's energy production from renewable sources has skyrocketed from virtually none to the leading energy source, with a share of over 60% of the nation's energy production. In fact, if anything, Germany's production from renewables has been accelerating. https://vizzlo.com/gallery/time-series-graph/example/power-generation-by-energy-source-in-germany https://vizzlo.com/gallery/time-series-graph/example/power-g... Could you provide any source that supports your assertion that the previous government has been stalling renewables?
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Well, the new distance requirements for wind parks are stricter, than for a garbage burning plant, for example. And there are still villages being removed, because of coal - so it is far from 100% support, but overall I would not agree, that the previous government was stalling renewables. But there was and is lots of general movement into renewables, so maybe there would have been a wind and solar boom, despite governments efforts.
      - _ph_ 5y ago
        Well, for one, I don't understand it either, why Merkel didn't see the change through. It was, however, started by the red-green government before Merkel. They set up the system which guaranteed a price for any renewable energy producted (initiall very high, decreasing for later installations). The production did indeed skyrocket, with the peak of over 50% renewable power in 2020. But in the last 3 years the built-up of new wind generators has stalled. Hitting a peak of 5GW/year in 2017, it went down to below 1 in 2019. This was due to several changes by the government. On the one side they replaced the flat fee which was paid for electricity produced to a complex auction schema, on the other side there were more and more restrictions about where one could build wind generators. Also the amound of solar power was even capped. It seems that the situation has improved somewhat, the build-up of renewables was a bit higher in 2020 than in 2019, but hasn't reached the past peaks again yet.
        fivea 5y ago
        > On the one side they replaced the flat fee which was paid for electricity produced to a complex auction schema (...) Aren't you referring to the initial subsidized program where private companies were enticed to invest their own cash in renewable energy sources in exchange for assured profitability during the initial period?
endymi0n 5y ago
I still remember the outcry when the EU banned incandescent bulbs in 2009. CFLs were crappy and full of heavy metals, Halogen was half-assed, LEDs were expensive, too blue and too weak. People were defending their radiant heaters in full force, but everybody underestimated exponential development in a market suddenly put into full force solving this. By the last stage where 40W bulbs were being phased out, nobody was interested in them anymore, because LEDs were simply better with cheaper TCO. Solar and battery are still on exponential track down the cost curve (with wind saturating, but still going strong). Nuclear and fossils are not. The energy world will look very different 10 years from now.
- hiptobecubic 5y ago
  I think nuclear would be, if the seventies had not happened.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Well, Chernobyl was a bit later as far as I am aware.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      Yes, 26 of April 86. And mushrooms and wild boar in Bavarian forests are still contaminated.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        I’ll take contaminated mushrooms and wild boar to climate change and the large scale disease brought on by fossil fuels. Nuclear is much safer, even accounting for these absolute outliers.
        fivea 5y ago
        > I’ll take contaminated mushrooms and wild boar to climate change and the large scale disease brought on by fossil fuels. It's a good thing, then, that that's a false dilemma and nuclear and/or fossil fuels are clearly not the only options on the table. As a reference, Germany already relies on renewables to supply around 60% of their energy needs, and it's production is still ramping up.
fivea 5y ago
> thanks to nuclear plants shutting down and CO taxes, we are starved of energy. There are countries which already started transitioning to renewable energies which not only endured long periods of energy independence from renewable sources alone but also already reported energy production surpluses which even led to null and negative energy prices. Therefore your baseless assertion regarding shutting down nuclear and coal plants seems to be totally made up and completely unfounded. Can you provide any basis for your assertion, and point out any rational basis for that so-called "energy starvation" scenario?
- coryrc 5y ago
  Where are consumers able to get paid for using electricity? Spot market prices don't matter when the users' bill goes up every year.
  - fivea 5y ago
    > Where are consumers able to get paid for using electricity? You mean the kind of service companies like PG&E are already providing their customers? https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/green-energy-incentives/getting-credit-for-surplus-energy/getting-credit-for-surplus-energy.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/gre...
    - coryrc 5y ago
      I said using, but generating.

by iqanq 5y ago

_ph_ 5y ago

The abundance of cheap energy is based on renewable sources. They need to be built in the form of wind power and photovoltaics and others first. Blocking this of course raises the energy costs.

iqanq 5y ago
Nobody has blocked wind power or photovoltaics. If anything, they are pretty well subsidised as it is. They don't (currently?) provide enough power.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  I think the poster might have meant "blocking" as in planning/building? Not quite sure how to parse the comment otherwise.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  In Germany, the previous government has done a lot to stall further builtup of renewable energies. The builtup was only a fraction in recent years compared to the top years. If the builtup had continued (or even accellerated), Germany would be an even larger exporter of electricity than it is.
  - fivea 5y ago
    > In Germany, the previous government has done a lot to stall further builtup of renewable energies. I find this assertion hard to believe. Merkel has been in charge of Germany's federal government for the past two decades, and throughout this period Germany's energy production from renewable sources has skyrocketed from virtually none to the leading energy source, with a share of over 60% of the nation's energy production. In fact, if anything, Germany's production from renewables has been accelerating. https://vizzlo.com/gallery/time-series-graph/example/power-generation-by-energy-source-in-germany https://vizzlo.com/gallery/time-series-graph/example/power-g... Could you provide any source that supports your assertion that the previous government has been stalling renewables?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Well, the new distance requirements for wind parks are stricter, than for a garbage burning plant, for example. And there are still villages being removed, because of coal - so it is far from 100% support, but overall I would not agree, that the previous government was stalling renewables. But there was and is lots of general movement into renewables, so maybe there would have been a wind and solar boom, despite governments efforts.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      Well, for one, I don't understand it either, why Merkel didn't see the change through. It was, however, started by the red-green government before Merkel. They set up the system which guaranteed a price for any renewable energy producted (initiall very high, decreasing for later installations). The production did indeed skyrocket, with the peak of over 50% renewable power in 2020. But in the last 3 years the built-up of new wind generators has stalled. Hitting a peak of 5GW/year in 2017, it went down to below 1 in 2019. This was due to several changes by the government. On the one side they replaced the flat fee which was paid for electricity produced to a complex auction schema, on the other side there were more and more restrictions about where one could build wind generators. Also the amound of solar power was even capped. It seems that the situation has improved somewhat, the build-up of renewables was a bit higher in 2020 than in 2019, but hasn't reached the past peaks again yet.
      - fivea 5y ago
        > On the one side they replaced the flat fee which was paid for electricity produced to a complex auction schema (...) Aren't you referring to the initial subsidized program where private companies were enticed to invest their own cash in renewable energy sources in exchange for assured profitability during the initial period?

endymi0n 5y ago

I still remember the outcry when the EU banned incandescent bulbs in 2009. CFLs were crappy and full of heavy metals, Halogen was half-assed, LEDs were expensive, too blue and too weak. People were defending their radiant heaters in full force, but everybody underestimated exponential development in a market suddenly put into full force solving this. By the last stage where 40W bulbs were being phased out, nobody was interested in them anymore, because LEDs were simply better with cheaper TCO. Solar and battery are still on exponential track down the cost curve (with wind saturating, but still going strong). Nuclear and fossils are not. The energy world will look very different 10 years from now.

hiptobecubic 5y ago
I think nuclear would be, if the seventies had not happened.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Well, Chernobyl was a bit later as far as I am aware.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    Yes, 26 of April 86. And mushrooms and wild boar in Bavarian forests are still contaminated.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I’ll take contaminated mushrooms and wild boar to climate change and the large scale disease brought on by fossil fuels. Nuclear is much safer, even accounting for these absolute outliers.
      - fivea 5y ago
        > I’ll take contaminated mushrooms and wild boar to climate change and the large scale disease brought on by fossil fuels. It's a good thing, then, that that's a false dilemma and nuclear and/or fossil fuels are clearly not the only options on the table. As a reference, Germany already relies on renewables to supply around 60% of their energy needs, and it's production is still ramping up.

fivea 5y ago

> thanks to nuclear plants shutting down and CO taxes, we are starved of energy. There are countries which already started transitioning to renewable energies which not only endured long periods of energy independence from renewable sources alone but also already reported energy production surpluses which even led to null and negative energy prices. Therefore your baseless assertion regarding shutting down nuclear and coal plants seems to be totally made up and completely unfounded. Can you provide any basis for your assertion, and point out any rational basis for that so-called "energy starvation" scenario?

coryrc 5y ago
Where are consumers able to get paid for using electricity? Spot market prices don't matter when the users' bill goes up every year.
- fivea 5y ago
  > Where are consumers able to get paid for using electricity? You mean the kind of service companies like PG&E are already providing their customers? https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/green-energy-incentives/getting-credit-for-surplus-energy/getting-credit-for-surplus-energy.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/gre...
  - coryrc 5y ago
    I said using, but generating.