5 ms·

Would people that minus a post stating facts backed by sources deign to explain why ? I am aware that reality can be harsh to accept sometimes. And that a worl

by adev_ 3y ago

Would people that minus a post stating facts backed by sources deign to explain why ? I am aware that reality can be harsh to accept sometimes. And that a world where renewable are our only source of energy is more seducing to our collective imagination. But unfortunately, it is still the reality. And we have to deal with it, even if it is pretty unpleasant.

troupo 3y ago
In a different discussion a few days ago someone told me I was lying when I pointed out that Germany is burning 20GW of coal to compensate for their 140GW of renewables working at only 15% capacity.
- adev_ 3y ago
  I am half surprised. People are often shocked when they discover the real number about the Carbon intensity of the German electricity production. There is years of green washing to digest before accepting the truth.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I am not at all surprised, why would I? Looking atvtha numbwers for installed capacity by source so Germany is on a good way (despite all the head wind regarding wind mills, grid extensions and so in and so forth), even if we could, and absolutely should, move faster. It is nowhere near the desaster people like to make it seem so. Also, isn't this thread about Portugal?
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    And electricity usage is only a minor part of CO2 production. Primary energy usage in Germany is split 25% is electricity, 25% is traffic and 50% is heating and cooling. As proven by the article the whole discussion is a huge red herring. Amdahl's law applies [0], if I reduce CO2 from electricity production by 50%, my overall reduction is only 12.5% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
    - hef19898 3y ago
      See, that is why the switch to heat pumps for heating makes sonmuch sense: you can store oversupply of renewable electricy in the form of hot water, cutting down significantly on the CO2 emissions currently produced by heating with oil and gas.
      - KingOfCoders 3y ago
        Yes.
    - sergiosgc 3y ago
      Obviously these aren't independent domains. Make electricity cheap and it takes over the other energy domains. Heat pumps for heating, BEV/hydrogen for transportation.
  - natmaka 3y ago
    This is not because renewables cannot tackle the challenge, but because this is a work in progress (not quick enough) => not enough electricity produced => it offers a path for coal which is important for social and financial reasons. Add the Ukraine crisis (less imported methane). From 2010 to 2020 (crisis) Germany burnt less and less fossil fuels for its electricity, and methane (gas) isn't booming (from 90 to 96), while renewables do: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source?time=2010..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by... it induced a decrease in its carbon intensity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?tab=chart&time=2010..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric... Comparing it to France implies to take every pertinent parameter into account, for example GDP/capita, climate (heating needs) and the fact that France imports more, and exports less (it lost approximately 50% of its industry since 1980) and therefore "avoids" emitting by using products built in other nations: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&region=Europe&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra...
    - troupo 3y ago
      > This is not because renewables cannot tackle the challenge, but because this is a work in progress (not quick enough) => not enough electricity produced What is the end of this work in progress? 1000% overprovisioning of renewables?
      - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        Generally models of fully renewable grids aim for about a 4x overprovisioning (based on peak demand), though of course since that's based on achieving the lowest cost way to provide energy, you could debate whether the phrase "overprovisioning" really applies. Some have taken to calling it "superpower" (terrible name) because by overbuilding to meet the peak demand, you end up with masses of cheap energy at all non-peak times. https://www.rethinkx.com/energy https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
        troupo 3y ago
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  The main challenge is not production but storage - e.g. several people I know have solar panels on their roof, sometimes with 5x their electricity peak usage without a way to store that electricity for later/night usage. The slow uptick of EVs in Germany is partialy part of the problem, it would be the easiest way to increase storage. As a tought experiment, if all cars in Germany would be EVs, those could store 2 days of electricity usage. For flat owners solar panel usage increased a lot, but battery production is way behind, the first usable ones arrived this year, but it will take some more years to get out of BETA. Also energy providers in Germany fight this tooth and nails, e.g. there is no easy way to get to the current usage data of your flat to regulate battery usage from solar storage ("zero feed-in").
  - troupo 3y ago
    > As a tought experiment, if all cars in Germany would be EVs, those could store 2 days of electricity usage. If you didn't need to, you know, use those cars. Storage is a huge unsolved problem.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I wouldn't say lying, but misrepresenting decribes that claim rather well.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Which of the following was misrepresented do you think: - that Germany has 135 GW combined installed capacity of wind and solar? - that wind and solar, combined, were only producing 15% of their installed capacity aka 20GW? - that Germany needed 61 GW of electricity? - wind and solar, combined, were producing only 30% of Germany's needs? - that Germany needed to burn 20 GW of coal to cover this? - that Germany needed to also burn gas, biomass, and import electricity to cover the remaining 20 GW?
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The conclsion.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      > - that wind and solar, combined, were only producing 15% of their installed capacity aka 20GW? This is a misrepresentation. Solar for example is only ever planned for to achieve about 30% of its "capacity" (due to the whole sun going down at night thing). And even that varies with seasons. So if you're claiming the German grid planners were expecting the solar to magically 4x overdeliver, and were suddenly let down then that's nonsense. Onshore wind has a similar number (again, varies by season).
      - troupo 3y ago
        > Solar for example is only ever planned for to achieve about 30% of its "capacity" (due to the whole sun going down at night thing). And even that varies with seasons. 1. 30% is avaerage number which is a useless because at 10 in the morning when I was writing my text solar was even below that. 2. You're literally confirming what I was saying. > So if you're claiming the German grid planners were expecting the solar to magically 4x overdeliver I was claiming no such thing. I said, and it is backed by reality, that at 10 o'clock in the morning on a cloudy quiet day 135GW worth of renewables were producing only 20GW. Which is a fact. I know it's an unpleasant fact, but reality has the unfortunate tendency to be unpleasant. > Onshore wind has a similar number (again, varies by season). So, again. What exactly was I misrepresenting? The fact that renewables are overprovisioned in Germany? Or the fact that they were producing significantly less than both their capacity and the needs of the country? Or the fact that Germany had to burn 20GW worth of coal to keep up with the demand? Or the fact that even if you provision 400% capacity (4x times the demand), and it still produces 15%, you will still need to burn coal through the night. So it's 18:44 when I'm writing this. Wind is at 12.69% and solar is at 3% capacity. In total 16% of Germany's eletricity demand. It's lower than when I was writing these numbers in the comment when someone called me a liar. 40% of electricity (26 GW) is coming from coal. Reality has the unfortunate tendency to be unpleasant. Funnily, but when I keep asking "how much more do we need to overprovision renewables" to meet the demands, I'm met with silence or wishful thinking.
icy_deadposts 3y ago
Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high. The actual metric that reflects the total embodied energy, which is a much better proxy for CO2 intensivity, is Levelized Cost of Energy, and nuclear is typically one of the worst. Not only does the high cost of nuclear reflect all the embedded energy, that high cost is taking money away that could be used for other energy saving and therefore CO2 reducing activities, like better insulation, upgrading equipment, smart grid, etc. Also, lets look at the posts that are "minused" without explanation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300495
- himinlomax 3y ago
  > Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high. That's complete bollocks, because all those CO₂ emissions are proportional to the amount of fuel, and the power density of nuclear fuel is such that the total amount is indeed tiny. Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included. Additionally, while enrichment requires a lot of energy, to spin turbines or fuel gas separation, it's electrical energy, and in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment.
  - icy_deadposts 3y ago
    > Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included. You traced every aspect of the supply chain of both technologies to come to this conclusion? > in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment. And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?
j-a-a-p 3y ago
Just recently I got downvoted questioning the reason behind that logic that e-fuel is bad, because when you burn it, CO2 is produced. Climate and energy are complicated things, but even the simple stuff seems to be difficult to grasp for a lot of people.

by adev_ 3y ago

troupo 3y ago

In a different discussion a few days ago someone told me I was lying when I pointed out that Germany is burning 20GW of coal to compensate for their 140GW of renewables working at only 15% capacity.

adev_ 3y ago
I am half surprised. People are often shocked when they discover the real number about the Carbon intensity of the German electricity production. There is years of green washing to digest before accepting the truth.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I am not at all surprised, why would I? Looking atvtha numbwers for installed capacity by source so Germany is on a good way (despite all the head wind regarding wind mills, grid extensions and so in and so forth), even if we could, and absolutely should, move faster. It is nowhere near the desaster people like to make it seem so. Also, isn't this thread about Portugal?
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  And electricity usage is only a minor part of CO2 production. Primary energy usage in Germany is split 25% is electricity, 25% is traffic and 50% is heating and cooling. As proven by the article the whole discussion is a huge red herring. Amdahl's law applies [0], if I reduce CO2 from electricity production by 50%, my overall reduction is only 12.5% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
  - hef19898 3y ago
    See, that is why the switch to heat pumps for heating makes sonmuch sense: you can store oversupply of renewable electricy in the form of hot water, cutting down significantly on the CO2 emissions currently produced by heating with oil and gas.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      Yes.
  - sergiosgc 3y ago
    Obviously these aren't independent domains. Make electricity cheap and it takes over the other energy domains. Heat pumps for heating, BEV/hydrogen for transportation.
- natmaka 3y ago
  This is not because renewables cannot tackle the challenge, but because this is a work in progress (not quick enough) => not enough electricity produced => it offers a path for coal which is important for social and financial reasons. Add the Ukraine crisis (less imported methane). From 2010 to 2020 (crisis) Germany burnt less and less fossil fuels for its electricity, and methane (gas) isn't booming (from 90 to 96), while renewables do: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source?time=2010..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by... it induced a decrease in its carbon intensity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?tab=chart&time=2010..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric... Comparing it to France implies to take every pertinent parameter into account, for example GDP/capita, climate (heating needs) and the fact that France imports more, and exports less (it lost approximately 50% of its industry since 1980) and therefore "avoids" emitting by using products built in other nations: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-trade?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&region=Europe&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra...
  - troupo 3y ago
    > This is not because renewables cannot tackle the challenge, but because this is a work in progress (not quick enough) => not enough electricity produced What is the end of this work in progress? 1000% overprovisioning of renewables?
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      Generally models of fully renewable grids aim for about a 4x overprovisioning (based on peak demand), though of course since that's based on achieving the lowest cost way to provide energy, you could debate whether the phrase "overprovisioning" really applies. Some have taken to calling it "superpower" (terrible name) because by overbuilding to meet the peak demand, you end up with masses of cheap energy at all non-peak times. https://www.rethinkx.com/energy https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
      - troupo 3y ago
KingOfCoders 3y ago
The main challenge is not production but storage - e.g. several people I know have solar panels on their roof, sometimes with 5x their electricity peak usage without a way to store that electricity for later/night usage. The slow uptick of EVs in Germany is partialy part of the problem, it would be the easiest way to increase storage. As a tought experiment, if all cars in Germany would be EVs, those could store 2 days of electricity usage. For flat owners solar panel usage increased a lot, but battery production is way behind, the first usable ones arrived this year, but it will take some more years to get out of BETA. Also energy providers in Germany fight this tooth and nails, e.g. there is no easy way to get to the current usage data of your flat to regulate battery usage from solar storage ("zero feed-in").
- troupo 3y ago
  > As a tought experiment, if all cars in Germany would be EVs, those could store 2 days of electricity usage. If you didn't need to, you know, use those cars. Storage is a huge unsolved problem.
hef19898 3y ago
I wouldn't say lying, but misrepresenting decribes that claim rather well.
- troupo 3y ago
  Which of the following was misrepresented do you think: - that Germany has 135 GW combined installed capacity of wind and solar? - that wind and solar, combined, were only producing 15% of their installed capacity aka 20GW? - that Germany needed 61 GW of electricity? - wind and solar, combined, were producing only 30% of Germany's needs? - that Germany needed to burn 20 GW of coal to cover this? - that Germany needed to also burn gas, biomass, and import electricity to cover the remaining 20 GW?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The conclsion.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    > - that wind and solar, combined, were only producing 15% of their installed capacity aka 20GW? This is a misrepresentation. Solar for example is only ever planned for to achieve about 30% of its "capacity" (due to the whole sun going down at night thing). And even that varies with seasons. So if you're claiming the German grid planners were expecting the solar to magically 4x overdeliver, and were suddenly let down then that's nonsense. Onshore wind has a similar number (again, varies by season).
    - troupo 3y ago
      > Solar for example is only ever planned for to achieve about 30% of its "capacity" (due to the whole sun going down at night thing). And even that varies with seasons. 1. 30% is avaerage number which is a useless because at 10 in the morning when I was writing my text solar was even below that. 2. You're literally confirming what I was saying. > So if you're claiming the German grid planners were expecting the solar to magically 4x overdeliver I was claiming no such thing. I said, and it is backed by reality, that at 10 o'clock in the morning on a cloudy quiet day 135GW worth of renewables were producing only 20GW. Which is a fact. I know it's an unpleasant fact, but reality has the unfortunate tendency to be unpleasant. > Onshore wind has a similar number (again, varies by season). So, again. What exactly was I misrepresenting? The fact that renewables are overprovisioned in Germany? Or the fact that they were producing significantly less than both their capacity and the needs of the country? Or the fact that Germany had to burn 20GW worth of coal to keep up with the demand? Or the fact that even if you provision 400% capacity (4x times the demand), and it still produces 15%, you will still need to burn coal through the night. So it's 18:44 when I'm writing this. Wind is at 12.69% and solar is at 3% capacity. In total 16% of Germany's eletricity demand. It's lower than when I was writing these numbers in the comment when someone called me a liar. 40% of electricity (26 GW) is coming from coal. Reality has the unfortunate tendency to be unpleasant. Funnily, but when I keep asking "how much more do we need to overprovision renewables" to meet the demands, I'm met with silence or wishful thinking.

icy_deadposts 3y ago

Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high. The actual metric that reflects the total embodied energy, which is a much better proxy for CO2 intensivity, is Levelized Cost of Energy, and nuclear is typically one of the worst. Not only does the high cost of nuclear reflect all the embedded energy, that high cost is taking money away that could be used for other energy saving and therefore CO2 reducing activities, like better insulation, upgrading equipment, smart grid, etc. Also, lets look at the posts that are "minused" without explanation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300495

himinlomax 3y ago
> Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high. That's complete bollocks, because all those CO₂ emissions are proportional to the amount of fuel, and the power density of nuclear fuel is such that the total amount is indeed tiny. Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included. Additionally, while enrichment requires a lot of energy, to spin turbines or fuel gas separation, it's electrical energy, and in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment.
- icy_deadposts 3y ago
  > Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included. You traced every aspect of the supply chain of both technologies to come to this conclusion? > in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment. And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?

j-a-a-p 3y ago

Just recently I got downvoted questioning the reason behind that logic that e-fuel is bad, because when you burn it, CO2 is produced. Climate and energy are complicated things, but even the simple stuff seems to be difficult to grasp for a lot of people.