2 ms·

What fruits? German co2 emissions per capital are similar to coal heavy Poland. Energiewende is a massive failure and a great example of politics screwing peopl

by kgabis 4y ago

What fruits? German co2 emissions per capital are similar to coal heavy Poland. Energiewende is a massive failure and a great example of politics screwing people and environment over.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Which is amazing considering that Germany has 2.8x the GDP per capita of Poland. As I said, I do not agree with phasing out nuclear before renewables. Short of that transforming the electricity sector of Germany from all fossil and some nuclear to 50% renewables in 15 years is nothing short of incredible. Add the current exponential growth in renewables to that, now when the cost side does not require subsidies anymore, and we have an incredible future ahead of us. Or as wiki puts it, they choose after Fukushima to not use nuclear as a bridging technology. > The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident.[1] Legislative support was passed in September 2010. On 6 June 2011, following Fukushima, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status
- kgabis 4y ago
  Per capita per gdp it's 70% higher than France. Going 50% renewables was a huge undertaking but it's clear it wasn't the right thing to do considering this money could've been spent on building more nuclear. It's all about decarbonisation, not about increasing share of renewable energy. Climate doesn't care about your share of renewables. Another thing to consider is that this transistion was in large part built on gas imported from Russia which funded the current war in Ukraine. And I would argue that growth of renewables in Germany has largerly stalled, barely any new wind farms are added to the grid nowadays. More solar has been added in recent years but Germany is so far north that it doesn't make much sense to build solar there (esp. considering energy requirements for winter). Energiewende is a big failure and the faster Germans notice the better.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    You are stuck in the mindset of a blank slate with Energiewende as one of the options ahead of you. That decision is done, you can not revert it. The cost is paid. We are now in 2023. This is how the cost for solar PV and wind have transformed, since that decision. https://www.lazard.com/media/451886/grphx_lcoe-09.png https://www.lazard.com/media/451886/grphx_lcoe-09.png We are at the end of that graph. The outlook is not 2009, it is 2023. In 2023 renewables are the only choice, economically. When we hit 70-90% penetration depending on country there will be new problems to solve, but we are extremely far from that. The current large build-out is off-shore wind, since that has higher capacity factors. We will see to what percentage of penetration that brings us. Then some sprinkling of solar on top because it is essentially free. Nuclear and renewables both compete for the slice of the energy market being the most inflexible cheapest power source. Renewables win that by a landslide. Now nuclear becomes load following, and that horrific investment became even worse.
    - kgabis 4y ago
      LCOE doesn't account for storage, backup and grid costs, please don't use it as a go to indicator that renewables are cheap. How much offshore capacity was added in the last 3 years in Germany? Zero? Or am I mistaken?
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        Energy grids tend to converge to LCOE of the producers. Just look at the average prices before the current crisis haphazardly replacing Russian gas with alternatives. We are also talking about the 70-90% case here, for that case no storage is needed. That is the point. A stupid solution, which is cheaper than nuclear, is simply burning hydrogen in turbines like todays peaker plants. We are not at the point where it is needed, so everyone is instead looking for smarter solution. The European grid is interconnected. UK awarded contracts to add 7 GW @ 60% capacity factor = 4.2 GW average last summer. Germany seems to have added ~500 MW in off-shore wind in the last three years, so with that generations capacity factor about 230 MW in average power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...

by kgabis 4y ago

What fruits? German co2 emissions per capital are similar to coal heavy Poland. Energiewende is a massive failure and a great example of politics screwing people and environment over.

Gwypaas 4y ago

Which is amazing considering that Germany has 2.8x the GDP per capita of Poland. As I said, I do not agree with phasing out nuclear before renewables. Short of that transforming the electricity sector of Germany from all fossil and some nuclear to 50% renewables in 15 years is nothing short of incredible. Add the current exponential growth in renewables to that, now when the cost side does not require subsidies anymore, and we have an incredible future ahead of us. Or as wiki puts it, they choose after Fukushima to not use nuclear as a bridging technology. > The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident.[1] Legislative support was passed in September 2010. On 6 June 2011, following Fukushima, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Status

kgabis 4y ago
Per capita per gdp it's 70% higher than France. Going 50% renewables was a huge undertaking but it's clear it wasn't the right thing to do considering this money could've been spent on building more nuclear. It's all about decarbonisation, not about increasing share of renewable energy. Climate doesn't care about your share of renewables. Another thing to consider is that this transistion was in large part built on gas imported from Russia which funded the current war in Ukraine. And I would argue that growth of renewables in Germany has largerly stalled, barely any new wind farms are added to the grid nowadays. More solar has been added in recent years but Germany is so far north that it doesn't make much sense to build solar there (esp. considering energy requirements for winter). Energiewende is a big failure and the faster Germans notice the better.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  You are stuck in the mindset of a blank slate with Energiewende as one of the options ahead of you. That decision is done, you can not revert it. The cost is paid. We are now in 2023. This is how the cost for solar PV and wind have transformed, since that decision. https://www.lazard.com/media/451886/grphx_lcoe-09.png https://www.lazard.com/media/451886/grphx_lcoe-09.png We are at the end of that graph. The outlook is not 2009, it is 2023. In 2023 renewables are the only choice, economically. When we hit 70-90% penetration depending on country there will be new problems to solve, but we are extremely far from that. The current large build-out is off-shore wind, since that has higher capacity factors. We will see to what percentage of penetration that brings us. Then some sprinkling of solar on top because it is essentially free. Nuclear and renewables both compete for the slice of the energy market being the most inflexible cheapest power source. Renewables win that by a landslide. Now nuclear becomes load following, and that horrific investment became even worse.
  - kgabis 4y ago
    LCOE doesn't account for storage, backup and grid costs, please don't use it as a go to indicator that renewables are cheap. How much offshore capacity was added in the last 3 years in Germany? Zero? Or am I mistaken?
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Energy grids tend to converge to LCOE of the producers. Just look at the average prices before the current crisis haphazardly replacing Russian gas with alternatives. We are also talking about the 70-90% case here, for that case no storage is needed. That is the point. A stupid solution, which is cheaper than nuclear, is simply burning hydrogen in turbines like todays peaker plants. We are not at the point where it is needed, so everyone is instead looking for smarter solution. The European grid is interconnected. UK awarded contracts to add 7 GW @ 60% capacity factor = 4.2 GW average last summer. Germany seems to have added ~500 MW in off-shore wind in the last three years, so with that generations capacity factor about 230 MW in average power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...