4 ms·

> Wind alone produces ~20% of the recent years electricity in Germany. Yearly production means nothing on the night when it produces single-digit percentages o

> Wind alone produces ~20% of the recent years electricity in Germany. Yearly production means nothing on the night when it produces single-digit percentages of its installed capacity, does it?

lispm 3y ago
We can import electricity from the European grids we are connected to. For example my region has recently brought up a 1.4 GW HVDC underwater cable, which can be used in both directions. It connects North Germany to Hydro power in Norway.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > We can import electricity from the European grids we are connected to. Ah yes. The magical grid that will surely have the capacity to supply all of Germany's power if suddenly there's night and no wind just in Germany (and nowhere else in Europe, stopping at the border, apparently).
  - lispm 3y ago
    This is rare and currently we have a diverse mix of electricity production. When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid. Then storage will be more important and also more viable. I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Thus large scale storage will be build up.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      > This is rare This literally happened just 6 days ago. > we have a diverse mix of electricity production. Yes, yes we do: coal and biofuel (so more burning), and corn for biofuel is taking up 6% of Germany's land area. > When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid So, some magical future > I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Max capacity means nothing when production is low. > Thus large scale storage will be build up. More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
      - lispm 3y ago
        > This literally happened just 6 days ago. On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies.. > So, some magical future A nice slogan you have here. It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology. We heard this twenty years ago. This year the share of renewable energy for electricity production is 50%. In a decade it will be much higher. The prices for deployment are going down. The cost for nuclear is going up, nuclear projects often have huge cost overruns and are slow to deploy. Example: The 'new' Finnish EPR reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned (up from 3 billion to 11 billion Euros) and 13 years late. Without government invention the building company from France (Areva) would have been killed - it had to take a 5 billion Euro loss from building the power plant with a fixed-price contract. > Max capacity means nothing when production is low. A high max capacity means that it makes sense to invest in storage and backup technology. > More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided) We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change with more offshore wind farms. That has nothing to do with 'magical thinking', it has to do with investments into technology and the created market conditions. Grid scale in the future means that there will be a large amount of storage options, backup supplies and diverse forms of demand steering.
        illiarian 3y ago
        > On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies.. This was a regular sping night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that for a lot of the rest of Europe it was also a quite night. > It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology. No. It's realistic. Every time you show problems with intermittent generation by renewables, the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot". > The 'new' finnish reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned --- start quote --- Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... --- end quote --- Cost overruns are not unique to nuclear. Especially considering how underinvested nuclera has been for the past 20-30 people who keep spreading FUD. When there's political will, there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD. > We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change. I shudder to think about the future where we depend on whether or not the wind will blow at night. > it has to do with investments into technology There are also laws of physics and reality.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  We - in Sweden - noticed this when we saw our electricity prices go through the roof due to those interconnects enabling German prices to trickle back up the lines. Thanks to the boneheaded "green" politicos in Germany shutting down nuclear power plants we'll be paying more for our electricity in the coming years. Please, German neighbours, vote out those watermelons and put some sense back in to the Bundestag.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lispm 3y ago
    If nuclear is so great in Sweden, why were so many plants closed there?
    - illiarian 3y ago
      Politics. Then politics. Then FUD and more politics. As a result last year energy prices shot up and there was nothing to counterbalance energy shortages.
      - lispm 3y ago
        Energy is always politics. Nuclear has been expensive in Sweden.
        illiarian 3y ago
        And yet power plant closures were entirely due to politics, not the cost. Now the price of energy in Sweden quintuples depending on demand: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1271491/sweden-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1271491/sweden-monthly-w... I am just so glad that the expensive energy is out of the picture. (That was sarcasm, I chose to pay for electricity coming from nuclear, and it's not meanigfully more expensive than other types)
        the_third_wave 3y ago
ben_w 3y ago
Other way around, the installed capacity is the meaningless number, the actual production is the only thing that matters. By way of example: install PV upside down, "capacity" is the same, but now it's useless.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > Other way around, the installed capacity is the meaningless number, the actual production is the only thing that matters. This is beautifully put, thank you
realusername 3y ago
> Yearly production means nothing on the night when it produces single-digit percentages of its installed capacity, does it? It's even worse than that actually because the electricity demand isn't linear during the year. So technologies which can produce reliably during the high loads are inherently worth more than the others.
7952 3y ago
Yes absolutely, if the goal is co2 reduction.

> Wind alone produces ~20% of the recent years electricity in Germany. Yearly production means nothing on the night when it produces single-digit percentages of its installed capacity, does it?

lispm 3y ago

We can import electricity from the European grids we are connected to. For example my region has recently brought up a 1.4 GW HVDC underwater cable, which can be used in both directions. It connects North Germany to Hydro power in Norway.

illiarian 3y ago
> We can import electricity from the European grids we are connected to. Ah yes. The magical grid that will surely have the capacity to supply all of Germany's power if suddenly there's night and no wind just in Germany (and nowhere else in Europe, stopping at the border, apparently).
- lispm 3y ago
  This is rare and currently we have a diverse mix of electricity production. When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid. Then storage will be more important and also more viable. I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Thus large scale storage will be build up.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    > This is rare This literally happened just 6 days ago. > we have a diverse mix of electricity production. Yes, yes we do: coal and biofuel (so more burning), and corn for biofuel is taking up 6% of Germany's land area. > When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid So, some magical future > I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my region (Northern Germany) is around 2 to 3 times larger than the max demand. Max capacity means nothing when production is low. > Thus large scale storage will be build up. More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided)
    - lispm 3y ago
      > This literally happened just 6 days ago. On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies.. > So, some magical future A nice slogan you have here. It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology. We heard this twenty years ago. This year the share of renewable energy for electricity production is 50%. In a decade it will be much higher. The prices for deployment are going down. The cost for nuclear is going up, nuclear projects often have huge cost overruns and are slow to deploy. Example: The 'new' Finnish EPR reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned (up from 3 billion to 11 billion Euros) and 13 years late. Without government invention the building company from France (Areva) would have been killed - it had to take a 5 billion Euro loss from building the power plant with a fixed-price contract. > Max capacity means nothing when production is low. A high max capacity means that it makes sense to invest in storage and backup technology. > More magical thinking (there are currently no grid-scale storage solutions that would've survived just one night from the link I provided) We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change with more offshore wind farms. That has nothing to do with 'magical thinking', it has to do with investments into technology and the created market conditions. Grid scale in the future means that there will be a large amount of storage options, backup supplies and diverse forms of demand steering.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        > On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies.. This was a regular sping night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that for a lot of the rest of Europe it was also a quite night. > It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology. No. It's realistic. Every time you show problems with intermittent generation by renewables, the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot". > The 'new' finnish reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned --- start quote --- Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... --- end quote --- Cost overruns are not unique to nuclear. Especially considering how underinvested nuclera has been for the past 20-30 people who keep spreading FUD. When there's political will, there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD. > We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change. I shudder to think about the future where we depend on whether or not the wind will blow at night. > it has to do with investments into technology There are also laws of physics and reality.
the_third_wave 3y ago
We - in Sweden - noticed this when we saw our electricity prices go through the roof due to those interconnects enabling German prices to trickle back up the lines. Thanks to the boneheaded "green" politicos in Germany shutting down nuclear power plants we'll be paying more for our electricity in the coming years. Please, German neighbours, vote out those watermelons and put some sense back in to the Bundestag.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lispm 3y ago
  If nuclear is so great in Sweden, why were so many plants closed there?
  - illiarian 3y ago
    Politics. Then politics. Then FUD and more politics. As a result last year energy prices shot up and there was nothing to counterbalance energy shortages.
    - lispm 3y ago
      Energy is always politics. Nuclear has been expensive in Sweden.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        And yet power plant closures were entirely due to politics, not the cost. Now the price of energy in Sweden quintuples depending on demand: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1271491/sweden-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1271491/sweden-monthly-w... I am just so glad that the expensive energy is out of the picture. (That was sarcasm, I chose to pay for electricity coming from nuclear, and it's not meanigfully more expensive than other types)
      - the_third_wave 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

Other way around, the installed capacity is the meaningless number, the actual production is the only thing that matters. By way of example: install PV upside down, "capacity" is the same, but now it's useless.

illiarian 3y ago
> Other way around, the installed capacity is the meaningless number, the actual production is the only thing that matters. This is beautifully put, thank you

realusername 3y ago

> Yearly production means nothing on the night when it produces single-digit percentages of its installed capacity, does it? It's even worse than that actually because the electricity demand isn't linear during the year. So technologies which can produce reliably during the high loads are inherently worth more than the others.

7952 3y ago

Yes absolutely, if the goal is co2 reduction.