3 ms·

"From 2002, German nuclear production declined from 156.3 TWh to 65.4 TWh in 2021. During this time wind and solar increased from 19 TWh to 161.5 TWh. Or the 90

by guerby 4y ago

"From 2002, German nuclear production declined from 156.3 TWh to 65.4 TWh in 2021. During this time wind and solar increased from 19 TWh to 161.5 TWh. Or the 90.9 TWh decrease in nuclear power was offset by a growth of 142.5 TWh in solar + onshore +offshore wind. At the same time coal, both hard and lignite decreased from 251.9 TWh to 146.5 TWh for a reduction of 109.4 TWh. So Germany reduced both coal and nuclear at the same time, coal did not grow, and the coal reduction was actually larger than the nuclear reduction. "

cbmuser 4y ago
Germany has tripled its electricity generation from natural gas since 1990 from ~30 to 95 TWh. Also, Germany is bringing more and more coal-fired power stations back online despite a combined 120 GW of wind and solar installations. Neither wind nor solar provide dispatchable electricity and therefore cannot replace conventional power plants.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Saying that electricity generation from natural gas has tripled is misleading because it is starting from a small base. It's more meaningful to compare the absolute amounts of generation added and subtracted from the various sources. I would be interested to know how many coal-fired power stations you mean by "more and more", but the more relevant number is how much extra energy is being generated by them this year, compared to last year. Another interesting question is "How much extra low-carbon energy would they have if they had taken the investment in renewables over the past 11 years (since the Fukushima nuclear disaster) and spent it on a new nuclear power plant?". If Flamanville unit 3 is anything to go by, the answer to that question would be "zero" (or negative, if you subtract the amount that renewables have been generating in that time). As for "dispatchable" electricity, I think you are trying to perpetuate a variant of the baseload power myth[0]. Maybe in Germany right now it might not be possible to 100% replace fuel-based power plants, but keeping a few gas plants around to cover the 10% of annual hours that are too cold/calm/dark to be powered by (over-provisioned) wind and solar still leaves a lot of room for increasing renewable production. Anyway, if you care about dispatchability, then you really need to look at annual capacity factors. Offshore wind was roughly equivalent to gas[1] back in 2018, but the latest offshore models now offer[2] capacity factors "ranging between 60% and 64%". [0] https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... [1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annual-capacity-factors-by-technology-2018 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua... [2] https://www.power-technology.com/projects/dogger-bank-c-offshore-wind-farm-north-sea-uk/ https://www.power-technology.com/projects/dogger-bank-c-offs...

by guerby 4y ago

cbmuser 4y ago

Germany has tripled its electricity generation from natural gas since 1990 from ~30 to 95 TWh. Also, Germany is bringing more and more coal-fired power stations back online despite a combined 120 GW of wind and solar installations. Neither wind nor solar provide dispatchable electricity and therefore cannot replace conventional power plants.

dane-pgp 4y ago
Saying that electricity generation from natural gas has tripled is misleading because it is starting from a small base. It's more meaningful to compare the absolute amounts of generation added and subtracted from the various sources. I would be interested to know how many coal-fired power stations you mean by "more and more", but the more relevant number is how much extra energy is being generated by them this year, compared to last year. Another interesting question is "How much extra low-carbon energy would they have if they had taken the investment in renewables over the past 11 years (since the Fukushima nuclear disaster) and spent it on a new nuclear power plant?". If Flamanville unit 3 is anything to go by, the answer to that question would be "zero" (or negative, if you subtract the amount that renewables have been generating in that time). As for "dispatchable" electricity, I think you are trying to perpetuate a variant of the baseload power myth[0]. Maybe in Germany right now it might not be possible to 100% replace fuel-based power plants, but keeping a few gas plants around to cover the 10% of annual hours that are too cold/calm/dark to be powered by (over-provisioned) wind and solar still leaves a lot of room for increasing renewable production. Anyway, if you care about dispatchability, then you really need to look at annual capacity factors. Offshore wind was roughly equivalent to gas[1] back in 2018, but the latest offshore models now offer[2] capacity factors "ranging between 60% and 64%". [0] https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... [1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annual-capacity-factors-by-technology-2018 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua... [2] https://www.power-technology.com/projects/dogger-bank-c-offshore-wind-farm-north-sea-uk/ https://www.power-technology.com/projects/dogger-bank-c-offs...