5 ms·

Dunkelflaute simply doesn't exist. It's clearly visible in the charts of the last years that wind and solar almost ideally complement each other in Germany. Why

by atwrk 2y ago

Dunkelflaute simply doesn't exist. It's clearly visible in the charts of the last years that wind and solar almost ideally complement each other in Germany. Why else do you think Germany managed to stay above 50% renewables for every single month this year so far? In which season is the mythical Dunkelflaute supposed to appear?

cyberax 2y ago
> Dunkelflaute simply doesn't exist. Here's one: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=month&year=2019&month=01&source=sw https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&... - look at the dates between 2019-01-16 to 2019-01-25. > It's clearly visible in the charts of the last years I have just provided you an example. Want more? Here's another: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=month&year=2023&month=02&source=sw https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&... - the period between 2023-02-04 and 2024-02-08, then followed by 2023-02-12 to 2023-02-15. But hey, it's all fake news. When the next Dunkelflaute happens, the citizens are supposed to just sit in their cold homes and think how great renewable generation is during the other times.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  And here's the correlation coefficient between countries: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients-of-Dunkelflaute-occurrences-between-eleven-European-countries_fig4_355173603 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients... Like today we will need peaking capacity in the future, likely either based on hydrogen, synfuels or biofuels. What we don't need is nuclear power plants which sit idle at all times unless there is a winter dunkeflaute across half of Europe.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients... The problem is, this is average. You _have_ to plan the grid for the worst case scenario. For Germany, the worst case is 1 month of straight Dunkelflaute. It's estimated to happen once in 100 years. > Like today we will need peaking capacity in the future, likely either based on hydrogen, synfuels or biofuels. It's not peaking capacity. It has to be more than 100% of the current capacity (once Germany switches to electricity instead of gas for heating). And it'll be mostly sitting idle. > What we don't need is nuclear power plants which sit idle at all times unless there is a winter dunkeflaute across half of Europe. Build nukes, remove wind generators. Problem solved.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. Consider an even worse issue and expect 80% to be offline for the 100 year catastrophe. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. That’s a reliability of 99.8%. Building nuclear power plants would mean locking in enormously more expensive energy costs for everyone, stalling the green revolution in terms of electrification of industry. This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. Which means widespread continued fossil use and energy crisis power cost for the general public. But that’s a price you’re willing to pay as long as we spend trillions of dollars on subsidies of nuclear power.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Utterly wrong. Grids _are_ sized for that. > Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. French shutdowns were _planned_. Nobody died as a result, and it only cost more money than planned as a result of unlucky confluence of events. > In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. You have it backwards. Sweden is ready to accept one hour of outage per year. Not more than that. The failure scenario for Germany is not an hour of outage, but a month without energy. Leading to millions of people dead and a total economic collapse. > This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. There's no fucking shame and zero self-reflection with you greenies. Germany _wasted_ close to $500B on useless Energiewende and is still directly _subsidizing_ _new_ _gas_ _powerplants_. And it'll need to spend even more than that to have even a _hope_ of carbon neutrality, contingent on multiple speculative bets coming true. Instead they could have used the same amount of money to build a completely carbon-neutral nuclear-powered grid. That would have been available by now. Using technology that was tried and tested in 2000-s.
- atwrk 2y ago
  You postulated that there are periods existing where there would be no/very low combined and solar for over a month, yet you only posted links to periods of very low wind generation for less than a day. Even better, if you look at energy flow in the EU grid for e.g. the period from 2023-02-12 to 2023-02-15, you'll see that we actually exported energy to nuclear-powered France, and imported from renewables-powered Denmark. That's actually a proof that renewables saved the day there, because lack of wind is always only a regional phenomenon.

by atwrk 2y ago

cyberax 2y ago

> Dunkelflaute simply doesn't exist. Here's one: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=month&year=2019&month=01&source=sw https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&... - look at the dates between 2019-01-16 to 2019-01-25. > It's clearly visible in the charts of the last years I have just provided you an example. Want more? Here's another: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=month&year=2023&month=02&source=sw https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&... - the period between 2023-02-04 and 2024-02-08, then followed by 2023-02-12 to 2023-02-15. But hey, it's all fake news. When the next Dunkelflaute happens, the citizens are supposed to just sit in their cold homes and think how great renewable generation is during the other times.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
And here's the correlation coefficient between countries: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients-of-Dunkelflaute-occurrences-between-eleven-European-countries_fig4_355173603 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients... Like today we will need peaking capacity in the future, likely either based on hydrogen, synfuels or biofuels. What we don't need is nuclear power plants which sit idle at all times unless there is a winter dunkeflaute across half of Europe.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Correlation-coefficients... The problem is, this is average. You _have_ to plan the grid for the worst case scenario. For Germany, the worst case is 1 month of straight Dunkelflaute. It's estimated to happen once in 100 years. > Like today we will need peaking capacity in the future, likely either based on hydrogen, synfuels or biofuels. It's not peaking capacity. It has to be more than 100% of the current capacity (once Germany switches to electricity instead of gas for heating). And it'll be mostly sitting idle. > What we don't need is nuclear power plants which sit idle at all times unless there is a winter dunkeflaute across half of Europe. Build nukes, remove wind generators. Problem solved.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. Consider an even worse issue and expect 80% to be offline for the 100 year catastrophe. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. That’s a reliability of 99.8%. Building nuclear power plants would mean locking in enormously more expensive energy costs for everyone, stalling the green revolution in terms of electrification of industry. This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. Which means widespread continued fossil use and energy crisis power cost for the general public. But that’s a price you’re willing to pay as long as we spend trillions of dollars on subsidies of nuclear power.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Utterly wrong. Grids _are_ sized for that. > Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. French shutdowns were _planned_. Nobody died as a result, and it only cost more money than planned as a result of unlucky confluence of events. > In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. You have it backwards. Sweden is ready to accept one hour of outage per year. Not more than that. The failure scenario for Germany is not an hour of outage, but a month without energy. Leading to millions of people dead and a total economic collapse. > This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. There's no fucking shame and zero self-reflection with you greenies. Germany _wasted_ close to $500B on useless Energiewende and is still directly _subsidizing_ _new_ _gas_ _powerplants_. And it'll need to spend even more than that to have even a _hope_ of carbon neutrality, contingent on multiple speculative bets coming true. Instead they could have used the same amount of money to build a completely carbon-neutral nuclear-powered grid. That would have been available by now. Using technology that was tried and tested in 2000-s.
atwrk 2y ago
You postulated that there are periods existing where there would be no/very low combined and solar for over a month, yet you only posted links to periods of very low wind generation for less than a day. Even better, if you look at energy flow in the EU grid for e.g. the period from 2023-02-12 to 2023-02-15, you'll see that we actually exported energy to nuclear-powered France, and imported from renewables-powered Denmark. That's actually a proof that renewables saved the day there, because lack of wind is always only a regional phenomenon.