11 ms·
Germany to Introduce Bill to Accelerate Wind Energy Expansion
- anovikov 4y agoFinally. And yes it will be a good answer to NIMBYsts: "if you don't like to see windmills on the horizon, next year they will be standing right in the middle of your village".
- Ekaros 4y agoI hope they start to place these in downtown. There is plenty of parks and green areas where you could easily fit a few. Maybe top of buildings too. After all we all must make small sacrifices for green energy right?
- mrtksn 4y agoIn London, there's this skyscraper with wind turbines on the top[0]. It was supposed to generate some of its energy from these, however due to the vibrations and noise it creates they were turned off. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_SE1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_SE1
- throwaway894345 4y agoClimate justice demands no less.
- blisterpeanuts 4y agoWind turbines are rather noisy and would become an irritation to people living or working nearby. I would think there are limits to how much people should sacrifice for the sake of clean energy production.
- Ekaros 4y agoShouldn't the ones doing that sacrifice be the primary users of the energy? That is people living in cities? It should not be forced to those on country side.
- caoilte 4y agoPeople in the countryside are also primary users of the energy. And they're lifestyle is only made possible by people living in cities. Maybe we could compromise and put them on golf courses?
- 7952 4y agoIt probably isn't worth it as rural sites will just be cheaper and easier. Also, there is more of a safety risk when people can go underneath a turbine. In the unlikely event that it topples over it count hurt people. There is also a risk of ice falling off the blades.
- TonyTrapp 4y agoWhat I'd really like to yell at those people: "if you don't like to see windmills on the horizon, how about a coal mine instead?" - maybe a windmill is the lesser evil after all...
- laputan_machine 4y agoWhat is even more bizarre to me, is that: 1. Wind turbines look really slick in my opinion 2. These people don't complain about power transmission pylons, which are uglier to look at!
- throwaway894345 4y agoIt took me a bit to come around to windmills, but I got used to them. It would be pretty tragic if the landscape was homogeneously windmills though (of course, if that's the only way to stave off climate change, so be it).
- martin_a 4y agoLook here, this is what coal has brought us: 50.90272214735486, 6.530962108759532 Lovely. Would take loooooots of windmills instead.
- martinald 4y agoIt's clearly not th e only solution though, nuclear can and is providing that.
- epistasis 4y agoIt did in the past, and could in the far future, but nuclear is incredibly expensive, and the construction logistics are so difficult and slow that it is not a feasible solution for the energy interchange. Perhaps in 2060 or 2070, we could build enough. Our ability to manufacture has so outpaced our ability to construct that nuclear doesn't really fit modern economies very well.
- mountainb 4y ago
- SubiculumCode 4y ago
- xor99 4y agoWhere do they plan to put them...NW? They give out about Bavaria and south but most estimates I've seen only support northern sites as being actually worthwhile. The biggest wind related fallacy apart from farting in public is putting windmills where theres not enough bluster. Could be wasteful and a little late from the German greens imo given recent events.
- cedilla 4y agoThe south has almost a third of the viable area for wind power generation. The only reason why the expansion there is slow are ideological opposition and NIMBYism.
- xor99 4y agoSeems a bit quiet https://map.neweuropeanwindatlas.eu/ https://map.neweuropeanwindatlas.eu/ + others
- cedilla 4y agoI will bother to reply if you bother to formulate an argument. Edit: what's with the downvotes? A URL is not an argument, and neither is some raw data without any interpretation.
- gibolt 4y agoIf anything the link makes it look like everything is equally viable. Even if a plot is not perfect, consistent wind (well above the ground) can be tapped by tall wind turbines and still be net positive. Ground wind speed is very different from up where they operate
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ovi256 4y ago> If states fail to meet the targets by certain deadlines, the government will wave regulations on the minimum distance between residential areas and wind farms. That sounds like a way to make lots of people hate wind farms.
- the8472 4y agoThe incentive here is for them (or their local governments whom they lobbied on the minimum distance rules, which are quite excessive in some cases) to look for alternatives if they insist on NIMBY. It will only escalate if they don't meet goals and it is telegraphed in advance.
- onion2k 4y agoIt's an incentive to accept wind farms in places where they can go within the regulations. Essentially it's a threat - if people reject wind farms far away from them, then they might end up with wind farms much closer.
- sojournerc 4y agoSounds like mob extortion. "It'd be a shame if we had to build a windmill in your backyard, so just support it over there, or else!"
- mastax 4y agoIt's extortion in the same way that "obey the law or go to prison" is extortion.
- testmasterflex 4y agoHow long does it take for wind turbines to pay for itself?
- Y-bar 4y agoWind has some of the lowest levelized costs among all energy sources. There is a great link with breakdowns and charts at the Further Reading in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Further_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... See "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis"
- bluedino 4y agoDoes this take into consideration the massive government subsidization
- justincormack 4y agoThere isn't massive government subsidization of wind power any more. It really is very cheap.
- Y-bar 4y agoIt has a headline named "Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison—Unsubsidized Analysis" on page 2 and I hope you can draw your own conclusions from that.
- cedilla 4y agoSubsidies for some wind energy farms in Germany are set by auction. They are now negative, i.e. developers pay for the privilege of building plants.
- gibolt 4y agoOil and gas are the only heavily subsidized energy sources. To the tune of multiple Trillions USD per year
- layer8 4y ago
- RektBoy 4y agoWhy this looks like another idiotic wind farm spamming, without any plan for other sources of energy. Because, you know, you need other sources.
- red_trumpet 4y agoI dunno, why do you think it looks like they don't have plans for other sources of energy?
- martinald 4y agoThere really aren't any other major sources for wind apart from natural gas, at least in Europe. Wind output tends to drop massively in the coldest bits of winter (when demand is highest), and solar output is also very low there. It is also insanely expensive to store energy in batteries for multiple days of low solar/wind output.
- red_trumpet 4y agoBut that is no argument for not using wind energy during the rest of the year. So we don't have to burn as much natural gas, emitting less CO2.
- martinald 4y agoI agree. But let's be clear, in Europe for the forseeable future installing solar & wind basically 'locks in' natural gas as a backup source. Also, the price of the natgas plant will be much higher than otherwise - if it's only getting used 10-20% of the year, as capex and opex will be spread over a far fewer amount of kWhs.
- cedilla 4y agoSolar energy is even competitive in Norway. In Germany, even flat layed panels (i.e. not angled towards the sun, or even on the side of buildings) are viable. Technology marched on. Panels and installation are dirt cheap and solar is highly effective.
- seltzered_ 4y ago"Germany’s economy and climate ministry will present a package of measures to speed up the expansion of wind energy, documents reviewed by Reuters showed on Wednesday, as the country turns to renewables to cut its use of Russian fossil fuels." A reminder that Vaclav Smil has called wind turbines 'the perfect embodiment of fossil fuels' : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&t=2033s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&t=2033s (Václav Smil at Driva Climate Investment Meeting 2019)
- stefan_ 4y agoWhat a brilliant take. Use fossil fuels to make wind turbines? No, let's continue using them to make some other thing, not specified here. Refusing to build green energy because doing so consumes natural resources does not stop those resources from being exploited. It leads to more exploitation.
- seltzered_ 4y agoThats a good point. There is a problem around critics guiding only towards a 'reentrenchment' narrative rather than offering (and applying themselves to) some other paths. I'm not against renewables, but I bring up the above point to proffer that it needs to come with some social niche changes to facilitate less overall energy load. Papers like http://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/ http://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/ help point out the differences between nations/cultures.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mklarmann 4y agoVaclav Smil told me personally on a conference in Switzerland, Zürich (he was presenting at the european food service summit), that he does not believe in climate change. That's it for me.
- glogla 4y agoOh boy, thanks for sharing that. I had a book from him on to-read list. Not anymore!
- bpodgursky 4y agoI don't have anything against wind power, wind power is worth investing in, but Germany is really king of half-ass energy measures right now. This isn't going to make up for decommissioning their nuclear plants, and it's not going to wean them off of Russian gas and oil before... 2050 or so. I really don't think German leadership is serious about the energy dependence crisis they are in, and feel-good measures aren't going to cut it.
- pydry 4y agoI always find it weird that Germany persistently gets a LOT of flak for doing this: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2021.png?itok=15hkw6zI https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... ("not reducing CO2 emissions fast enough", because nuclear) While nobody really cares that Poland (along with so many other countries) is doing this: https://aleasoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190724-aleasoft-poland-installed-capacity.png https://aleasoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190724-ale... ("80% coal now and forever? meh, who cares?") It's almost as if Germany proving the model that you can reduce CO2 while turning off nuclear plants that is attracting flak.
- Ericson2314 4y agoGermany greenwashing stupidity is more irksome than other countries just dragging their feet. It's like being stabbed in the front vs the back. Germany's behavior also makes it harder for other countries to do what they do. Since it's a unified grid, Germany gets to virtue signal without getting serious about the centralized storage needed to make all renewables possible. Other countries hit the storage needs way sooner because the grid as a whole is already trying to buffer Germany's intermittent power.
- pydry 4y agoThey've taken the low cost, fast approach to cutting CO2 emissions rather than the high cost, incredibly-so-very-slow approach of commission a bunch of nuclear plants and then burn a LOT of coal and send a lot of money to Russia until they're finally done, over-budget and over-time circa 2040. Storage is kind of a moot point when half of your grid energy is provided by burning gas. A megawatt provided by wind in 3 years time is 100 euros not sent to Putin - no matter how intermittently it is produced. The graph above refutes any idea of this being virtue signalling. % renewables is only going up, fast.
- ManuelKiessling 4y agoOn my device the line break on the headline makes it easy to read it as „Germany to Introduce Bill to Accelerate Wind“. I chuckled.
- squarefoot 4y agoThanks, now I have visions of the German Zeppelin Racing Championship taking over Formula One in 2050:)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tomp 4y agoWhen you fail, double down and fail some more! It’s the German way!
- schmeckleberg 4y ago
- Markoff 4y agoEho needs cheap and reliable energy (you know from where as in last half century) or safe a bit more expensive one (wink wink France) when you can build useless wind farms and room whole landscape! Germany FTW, the suicide way, inflation FTW, people can handle anything to die for green energy. Can't wait for more exits from this union detached from reality.
- schmeckleberg 4y agoI wonder why nuclear fanboys always attack low-carbon, low-capital renewables with a ferocity that they spare incumbent and well-financed, carbon-spewing fossil fuel power providers. i don't know if we could ever figure out "cui bono"!
- Markoff 4y agoas I said it's expensive (per MWh), unreliable (can you provide guaranteed output 24/7/365?) and it ruins vast landscapes
- chmod775 4y ago> as I said it's expensive (per MWh) The cost has been going down steadily, and even now onshore wind only costs half as much per MWh as nuclear[0], whose cost has been going up. And that isn't even factoring in the long term cost of nuclear. > unreliable (can you provide guaranteed output 24/7/365?) Fair. You can only do that with a globally distributed, modern, energy grid that combines solar and wind. Not really a problem with HVDC losses being only 3.5%/1000km nowadays. On a global scale solar and wind are a remarkably stable energy source. > and it ruins vast landscapes I present to you, a brown coal mine[1]. I think wind turbines actually look pretty cool, but I guess that's subjective. I like nuclear as much as much as the next reasonable person, but your stance on wind energy doesn't strike me as reasonable. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-levelized-capital-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-leveliz... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine#/media/File:Banneraktion_von_JunepA_im_Tagebau_Hambach,_2017.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine#/media/Fi...
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoWind is great. But consider: at 1.5MW generation capacity max per generator, it takes 600+ of them to produce 1GW. Other commercial generation plants produce many GW (30? 50?) Wind power may be a red-herring as a generation option for our civilization as a whole. Sorry if this is disappointing to readers. But unless you want 10,000 wind towers in your county I don't know what other option to suggest.
- z3t4 4y agoModern nuclear power plant around 1GW. Modern wind 8MW per pole (175m propellar)
- scarab92 4y agoNo facility can produce 30 GW. The new Vogtle reactors are 1.1 GW each, which is pretty typical for nuclear or fossil fuel plant. Steam turbines over 2 GW don't exist afaik. Also, the median new wind turbine in the US is over 3 MW now.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoSorry, got a denominator wrong. Half a GW is about par? So we're talking what, only 150-300 1.5MW towers per reactor?