8 ms·

Transportation of electricity around the globe is not neccessary. Electricity usage is considerably lower during nighttime. Thus solar and wind fit in with our

Transportation of electricity around the globe is not neccessary. Electricity usage is considerably lower during nighttime. Thus solar and wind fit in with our natural rhythm quite nicely. And it is also produced near the place there it is being consumed. Another plus. But still the author is right, we need ways to store electricity and we will also need a much more flexible grid than the one we have today. The neo liberal FDP here in Germany is trying to kill off the solar market by drastically reducing the fee you get for feeding solar electricity into the system. But we already have net parity, therefore it is feasible to put up a photovoltaic system on your house, when you size it carefully and consume much of the energy by yourself. It simply reduces your utility bill. If this new technology really halves the price of modules, people for sure will continue installing new systems. Yay!

stfu 15y ago
Germany's solar stimulus is highly questionable. Sure, it gets solar panels installed on a large scale, but government forced diffusion of an innovation is a questionable idea. Pumping money in a relatively narrow market and creating an artificial demand situation leads to a lot of side effects, i.e. Germany's quasi-stimulation of the Asian component manufacturing market.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  Compared to pumping money into pointless wars I think pumping money into subsidized solar panels is an excellent use of money. Sure there are many other ways to spend that money, and some of them may even be better. But this is definitely long term thinking on their part. Already Germany is the current world leader when it comes to renewables as a percentage of total generating power. As the price of power goes up this 'stupid' strategy starts to look smarter by the day.
  - blendergasket 15y ago
    I agree. And when people talk about the money required for solar being so much more than the money required for carbon based fuels they don't take into the costs of controlling the resources in the middle east, the costs to take care of the people with lung problems, the cost of cleaning up the gulf coast and all the problems related to that (not to mention the costs of similar problems worldwide, such as in Nigeria). I'm sure there are similar external costs to solar but I highly doubt they're nearly as much.
    - jsilence 15y ago
      The problem is that these costs actually add to the GDP, which makes them look like a good thing, because they "make the economy grow".
  - ajuc 15y ago
    Germany also shut down sth like 60% of their nuclear power plants in response to Fukushima hysteria, even thought in central Europe there are no tsunami, nor big earthquakes. Then, January/February this year cold snap happened, and they had to buy power from neighborns that still have regular obsolete power plants, because they couldn't provide enough energy for themselves. Green energy means you hope for good weather or neighborns to have enough electricity. Germany is now protesting Poland new nuclear power plant, when Poland is trying to change its dependence on fossil fuels (sth lik 96%, I don't remember exactly). This isn't smart. This is hysteria-motivated energy policy.
    - jsilence 15y ago
      Sorry, but you are not correct. During the very cold days this winter it was very sunny. Because of this, Photovoltaic could compensate. It went through the local media, that even though most of the nukuhlar powerplants were shut down, we could still export (!) electricity to our neighours. For exmple to France, where they are heating a lot with electricity and had a shortage because of the cold. Bazinga!
      - ajuc 15y ago
        Thanks. I remember reading it the way I've posted aboove, but now I can't find that article, and I've found corrections all over the web: http://enenews.com/scandal-germany-not-restarting-nuclear-reactors-due-to-cold-in-fact-germans-now-massively-exporting-electricity-to-help-nuclear-powered-france-this-winter-reuters http://enenews.com/scandal-germany-not-restarting-nuclear-re... EDIT: one source http://rt.com/news/germany-reactors-cold-weather-927/ http://rt.com/news/germany-reactors-cold-weather-927/
mbarkhau 15y ago
To be fair, one could equally frame what they're doing as removing the subsidy to people who put photovoltaic systems on their roof. Arguably that same money would have been better invested in research of improved solar technology such as this.
derda 15y ago
The reduction of the solar subsidy is right. It is not killing the solar market at all, but your new solar-panels on the roof of your house won't give returns as nice as 10% anymore. Also those returns are paid by every electricity consumer in the country which at the current rate isn't fair at all. Also the adaption of solar panels on homes went far faster, then most people expected. The grids in single-family home neighborhoods simply are not designed to handle much power being fed into the system at this point. The problem is that at daytime, when the sun shines there is not much power needed in residential neighborhoods, since everyone is at work. This is why self-consumption is the desired use-case for solar-energy on family homes. That's why I think there is a market for home-control right there. -> "Start washing machine WHEN solar energy > X"
- onemoreact 15y ago
  IMO, as long as the tax is inline with the actual external costs it of other forms of energy generation it's not a bad thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) It's basically renaming a sin tax as a green subsidy but there is value in having that tax even if it's revenue is mostly wasted.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    I agree in principle with the idea that carbon-based energy has a ton of negative externalities (megatons, in fact...), so there should exist a relative subsidy between it and green. The issue is that creates even distortion between the energy sector as a whole and the rest of the economy, since fossil fuels are already subsidized (through not pricing in the negative externality) and we're adding a separate subsidy to green energy. So we're distorting the market to favor creating green energy over reduced consumption of energy. When what's really needed is simply an effective tax on carbon, and then let people decide the most efficient way to respond.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      I think they are taxing existing energy sources to pay for the subsidy so on net people using electricity pay the actual cost for green power and other sources based on the actual mix of energy sources used in production. It only the producers who notice the cost difference this tax / subsidy creates.
dmoo 15y ago
Store electricity like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill - pump the water uphill during daylight and let it flow down when needed.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Germany has a plan to use Norway as a huge energy store, adding pumping capacity to the hydroelectric plants.
  - stromstad 15y ago
    Really? I would be very interested in reading more about this. Got any sources? (Preferably in English or Norwegian ;) )
    - justincormack 15y ago
      There is a presentation here http://norwegen.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_norwegen/Dokumente/Presentasjoner/wasserkraft/Design_of_Future_Pumped_Storage_CEDREN_Killingtveit.pdf http://norwegen.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_norwegen/Dokumente/Pres... And an article here about building the necessary cabling http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/27/us-norway-seacable-idUSTRE67Q4CF20100827 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/27/us-norway-seacable...
TeMPOraL 15y ago
> Thus solar and wind fit in with our natural rhythm quite nicely. It's not that nice, because power output from wind/solar plants is random (depends on things like cloud cover or wind strength) and it causes problems in power grid, where power demand must meet the supply exactly, or bad things will happen. "Without Hot Air"[1] covers this, and other renewable-related issues quite nicely and with real data. I recommend it, it's a good read. It has some good ideas on how to solve power supply/demand problems. On TED2012 there was a talk about a new kind of batteries designed to solve those kind of problems in the power grid; the video from the talk is not yet up, though (but I think it should be soon, at [2]). [1] - http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ [2] - http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=2012&duration=&sort=newest&tag= http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=2012&duration...
- ctdonath 15y ago
  power output from wind/solar plants is random (depends on things like cloud cover ...) and it causes problems in power grid, where power demand must meet the supply exactly The biggest power cost for us in warmer climates is cooling. When the sun is out, we need lots of power; when it's not, not so much. Solar power sufficient to run A/C from rooftop panels costing less than grid electricity would be wonderful, lining up perfectly with the inconsistencies of available sunlight.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    Especially if one would switch to heat pumps, which can do both heating and cooling, providing/removing 3 to 5 times more heat than electricity they use up to do so. Amazing technology, by the way :).
    - maxerickson 15y ago
      Most air conditioners are heat pumps configured to work in one direction, using outside air as a temperature sink. (I realize that this is at least borderline pedantry)

stfu 15y ago

Germany's solar stimulus is highly questionable. Sure, it gets solar panels installed on a large scale, but government forced diffusion of an innovation is a questionable idea. Pumping money in a relatively narrow market and creating an artificial demand situation leads to a lot of side effects, i.e. Germany's quasi-stimulation of the Asian component manufacturing market.

jacquesm 15y ago
Compared to pumping money into pointless wars I think pumping money into subsidized solar panels is an excellent use of money. Sure there are many other ways to spend that money, and some of them may even be better. But this is definitely long term thinking on their part. Already Germany is the current world leader when it comes to renewables as a percentage of total generating power. As the price of power goes up this 'stupid' strategy starts to look smarter by the day.
- blendergasket 15y ago
  I agree. And when people talk about the money required for solar being so much more than the money required for carbon based fuels they don't take into the costs of controlling the resources in the middle east, the costs to take care of the people with lung problems, the cost of cleaning up the gulf coast and all the problems related to that (not to mention the costs of similar problems worldwide, such as in Nigeria). I'm sure there are similar external costs to solar but I highly doubt they're nearly as much.
  - jsilence 15y ago
    The problem is that these costs actually add to the GDP, which makes them look like a good thing, because they "make the economy grow".
- ajuc 15y ago
  Germany also shut down sth like 60% of their nuclear power plants in response to Fukushima hysteria, even thought in central Europe there are no tsunami, nor big earthquakes. Then, January/February this year cold snap happened, and they had to buy power from neighborns that still have regular obsolete power plants, because they couldn't provide enough energy for themselves. Green energy means you hope for good weather or neighborns to have enough electricity. Germany is now protesting Poland new nuclear power plant, when Poland is trying to change its dependence on fossil fuels (sth lik 96%, I don't remember exactly). This isn't smart. This is hysteria-motivated energy policy.
  - jsilence 15y ago
    Sorry, but you are not correct. During the very cold days this winter it was very sunny. Because of this, Photovoltaic could compensate. It went through the local media, that even though most of the nukuhlar powerplants were shut down, we could still export (!) electricity to our neighours. For exmple to France, where they are heating a lot with electricity and had a shortage because of the cold. Bazinga!
    - ajuc 15y ago
      Thanks. I remember reading it the way I've posted aboove, but now I can't find that article, and I've found corrections all over the web: http://enenews.com/scandal-germany-not-restarting-nuclear-reactors-due-to-cold-in-fact-germans-now-massively-exporting-electricity-to-help-nuclear-powered-france-this-winter-reuters http://enenews.com/scandal-germany-not-restarting-nuclear-re... EDIT: one source http://rt.com/news/germany-reactors-cold-weather-927/ http://rt.com/news/germany-reactors-cold-weather-927/

mbarkhau 15y ago

To be fair, one could equally frame what they're doing as removing the subsidy to people who put photovoltaic systems on their roof. Arguably that same money would have been better invested in research of improved solar technology such as this.

derda 15y ago

The reduction of the solar subsidy is right. It is not killing the solar market at all, but your new solar-panels on the roof of your house won't give returns as nice as 10% anymore. Also those returns are paid by every electricity consumer in the country which at the current rate isn't fair at all. Also the adaption of solar panels on homes went far faster, then most people expected. The grids in single-family home neighborhoods simply are not designed to handle much power being fed into the system at this point. The problem is that at daytime, when the sun shines there is not much power needed in residential neighborhoods, since everyone is at work. This is why self-consumption is the desired use-case for solar-energy on family homes. That's why I think there is a market for home-control right there. -> "Start washing machine WHEN solar energy > X"

onemoreact 15y ago
IMO, as long as the tax is inline with the actual external costs it of other forms of energy generation it's not a bad thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) It's basically renaming a sin tax as a green subsidy but there is value in having that tax even if it's revenue is mostly wasted.
- scarmig 15y ago
  I agree in principle with the idea that carbon-based energy has a ton of negative externalities (megatons, in fact...), so there should exist a relative subsidy between it and green. The issue is that creates even distortion between the energy sector as a whole and the rest of the economy, since fossil fuels are already subsidized (through not pricing in the negative externality) and we're adding a separate subsidy to green energy. So we're distorting the market to favor creating green energy over reduced consumption of energy. When what's really needed is simply an effective tax on carbon, and then let people decide the most efficient way to respond.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    I think they are taxing existing energy sources to pay for the subsidy so on net people using electricity pay the actual cost for green power and other sources based on the actual mix of energy sources used in production. It only the producers who notice the cost difference this tax / subsidy creates.

dmoo 15y ago

Store electricity like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill - pump the water uphill during daylight and let it flow down when needed.

justincormack 15y ago
Germany has a plan to use Norway as a huge energy store, adding pumping capacity to the hydroelectric plants.
- stromstad 15y ago
  Really? I would be very interested in reading more about this. Got any sources? (Preferably in English or Norwegian ;) )
  - justincormack 15y ago
    There is a presentation here http://norwegen.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_norwegen/Dokumente/Presentasjoner/wasserkraft/Design_of_Future_Pumped_Storage_CEDREN_Killingtveit.pdf http://norwegen.ahk.de/fileadmin/ahk_norwegen/Dokumente/Pres... And an article here about building the necessary cabling http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/27/us-norway-seacable-idUSTRE67Q4CF20100827 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/27/us-norway-seacable...

TeMPOraL 15y ago

> Thus solar and wind fit in with our natural rhythm quite nicely. It's not that nice, because power output from wind/solar plants is random (depends on things like cloud cover or wind strength) and it causes problems in power grid, where power demand must meet the supply exactly, or bad things will happen. "Without Hot Air"[1] covers this, and other renewable-related issues quite nicely and with real data. I recommend it, it's a good read. It has some good ideas on how to solve power supply/demand problems. On TED2012 there was a talk about a new kind of batteries designed to solve those kind of problems in the power grid; the video from the talk is not yet up, though (but I think it should be soon, at [2]). [1] - http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ [2] - http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=2012&duration=&sort=newest&tag= http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=2012&duration...

ctdonath 15y ago
power output from wind/solar plants is random (depends on things like cloud cover ...) and it causes problems in power grid, where power demand must meet the supply exactly The biggest power cost for us in warmer climates is cooling. When the sun is out, we need lots of power; when it's not, not so much. Solar power sufficient to run A/C from rooftop panels costing less than grid electricity would be wonderful, lining up perfectly with the inconsistencies of available sunlight.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  Especially if one would switch to heat pumps, which can do both heating and cooling, providing/removing 3 to 5 times more heat than electricity they use up to do so. Amazing technology, by the way :).
  - maxerickson 15y ago
    Most air conditioners are heat pumps configured to work in one direction, using outside air as a temperature sink. (I realize that this is at least borderline pedantry)