10 ms·
Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
- guard-of-terra 14y agoBy the way, I wonder why biomass is green while coal is not? I mean, in the end you burn organic materials? Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for that kind of money you could make like really nice coal plants.
- Avshalom 14y agoIf it is considered green by some it's probably because biomass doesn't result in things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagebau_Garzweiler_Panorama_2005.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagebau_Garzweiler_Panoram...
- guard-of-terra 14y agoWell, it might still result in refitting agricultural areas for biofuels, increased food prices and people starving.
- Loic 14y agoBiofuels is also destroying ecosystems because of the use of pesticides and fertilizers you a sharp decrease of the number of insects living in fields, decreasing the number of birds. In Germany, in 30 years, we had a 90% decrease of the number of "field birds". This is really worrying but at least, it is now a known fact and the EU agricultural subventions are going to shift to help prevent such issues. Still a long way to go...
- tomgallard 14y agoFor the same reason burning wood is green- as long as you are regrowing it. So - if you're burning timber from a forest which is sustainably managed (so you're renewing wood at the same rate you're using it), then there is no net carbon released.
- dijxtra 14y agoThat would be true if carbon dioxide was the only greenhouse gas. But it isn't. Burning biomass could be sustainable if we make sure that new biomass is grown at the same rate as it is burned. I have yet to see a document assuring me that is the case. In any case burning biofuel is not greenhouse gas neutral. And hence not green.
- tomgallard 14y agoWhat other greenhouse gases does burning biofuel create?
- dijxtra 14y agoSulphur and nitrogen oxides.
- plehoux 14y agoBecause biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing. Burning it won't add to the footprint. On the other hand, when you are burning coal, you released CO2 that was previously sequestered.
- huggyface 14y agoBecause biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing Add that biomass usually releases CH4 (methane) which is a considered a much more potent greenhouse gas. Even simply burning the methane to CO2 -- ignoring energy recapture -- is an environmentally beneficial action, which is why landfills sometimes have flares.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoBut you have to grow that biomass first. After you did that, you can let is decompose (bad) or burn it (less bad), but you could just skip growing it entirely.
- nosse 14y agoAnd you would get..? Nothing? So instead of forest and some energy you get just nothing.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoForest? It's not forest, it's an endless plain of monoculture - no insects, no birds, no ecosystem.
- plehoux 14y agoEnergy can be extracted from forestry waste, thus creating more value from logging activities.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
- gonvaled 14y agoPutting long-accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere does not look green to me (unless reaching the very-high levels of CO2 that were present several hundreds of millions of years ago can be defined as 'green') Biomass is green because it does not change the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere: it fixes it into wood first, to put it back later. The net effect is zero over the human timescale. Burning coal has also a net effect of zero, but over the Earth lifespan timescale, which is not very good for the current ecosystem (including us).
- rmc 14y agoBiomass is renewable. Depending on one's definition of 'green' it may or may not be green. However it is renewable (in a sensible time frame).
- coldarchon 14y agoBecause we don't understand to use CO2 as fertilizer. We could easily make our deserts green,we could easily have more fish in our oceans, but then we had more conflicts about the resources. And psshht, coal plants release much more nuclear material than nuclear plants ..
- rmoriz 14y agoIf you drive through Bavaria, especially the area between Munich and the Alps, it's very hard to find 4 houses/farms in a row that do not have photovoltaic cells on their roofs.
- crusso 14y agoI heard at a power conference last week that Germany halted installation of new solar panels on homes recently due to the problems integrating solar onto the grid. As the lecturer put it: We've spent the last hundred years building systems to safely and reliably send power on a one-way trip from the utilities to businesses and homes. Modifying the electrical distribution system to be multi-directional is not an easy problem to solve. Anyone know more?
- geogra4 14y agoProbably things like this[0] are designed to help. [0]http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2012/infrastructure-cities/smart-grid/icsg201204017.htm http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pres...
- maebert 14y agoThat would be new to me - people here have been able to feed in excess energy to the grid for more than two decades. The real problem however is that the traditional power suppliers are forced to pay users that _feed in_ a very lucrative amount per kWh they produce in excess and recently started to rebel against that policy. So I wouldn't be surprised if the "technical problems" are somewhat politically/economically motivated.
- crusso 14y agoYes, I did also hear about overly-generous power buy-back policies, but that was mostly for Canada.
- mtgx 14y agoI was surprised the energy they get from wind is more than twice what they get from solar. Isn't Germany like a good country for solar? Also, this is the first time I see that they want to get only 35% of the energy from renewables by 2035. So they want to improve it only by 10% in the next 23 years? That's sounds like a very small improvement in a lot of time. I thought their original goal was 40% as renewable energy by 2020.
- ThomPete 14y agoThat sounds very impressive. But I wonder at what cost overall. For instance there is a great deal of talk about windenergy, but the primary customers are states and these windmills seems to require quite a lot of maintenance. So the questions of course is. Even if the energy is sustainable, is the economic model?
- bhousel 14y agoYou can read through some data on this site: http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org It's maintained by the European Wind Energy Association, so it is predictably pro-wind power. But their data does seem to indicate that wind can be economical if: 1. you put the windmills in good places, 2. the price of oil and gas goes up (which it has done), 3. technology improvements drive operation and maintenance costs down (which it has done). Their economic comparisons include CO2 emissions costs, since it is a European study and they do have an emissions trading program there.
- rayiner 14y agoCost is obviously important, but whenever cost does come up in these discussions the massive externalized costs of coal and gas energy are always ignored. E.g. in Illinois, we have four major sources of energy: coal, gas, wind, and nuclear. Nuclear is of course dirt cheap on a per kWh basis. Wind is about twice as expensive as coal. However, if you factor in the enormous externalities of coal power generation (probably billions of dollars in Illinois alone) as well as coal mining, the real per kWh price of coal power is double the nominal price, and that's assuming that there is nothing to this whole "global warming" thing.
- zerostar07 14y agoIn terms of renewables, i think Norway and Brazil are higher up there, with 85% and 95% of their energy coming from renewable sources such as hydroelectic plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
- nattofriends 14y agoHydroelectric power is not something all countries are lucky enough to have.
- exDM69 14y agoHydroelectric power is not very environmentally friendly either. Like the giant dams of China that destroy the whole ecosystem near the power plant.
- nosse 14y agoNorwegian hydroelectric plants usually don't destroy a ecosystem, just some nice looking waterfall. They have so long and steep falls that ecosystem would be naturally separated by it anyway.
- avar 14y agoThat's not the only damage hydroelectric does. The damns normalize naturally occurring floods with a view to maximizing electricity production, and material that would have been carried to sea gets trapped behind the dam.
- rprasad 14y agoIn a traditional hydroelectric generator, yes. Norway has the advantage of numerous, steep cliffs and waterfalls. It is my understanding that the Norwegian HEG's are placed in the middle of the waterfalls, so that no dam is necessary...
- rmc 14y agoThis article describes the power Germany produced, but doesn't mention the power Germany consumed. Does Germany import a lot of power? If so, that would be a good way to tweak the numbers, just import more non-renewables, and produce less non-renewables at home.
- cygx 14y agoGermany has been a consistent net exporter of electrical energy since 2003. The circumstances have changed, though: In addition to two nuclear plants which were dormant since 2007 and 2009, six plants were shut down in mid-May 2011, and all of them are now gone for good. The balance was still positive in 2011, and I suspect it will be this year as well, but it might be a close thing.
- Someone 14y agoOn the other hand, they are huge oil and coal importers (http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=DE http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=DE)
- cygx 14y agoThat's a pretty useless metric, though: every industrialized nation 'burns stuff', and if it happens that you can't produce at home, you need to import. While not a poster child, Germany is far from the worst offender as far as CO2 emission per capita goes.
- Someone 14y agoI answered the grandfather's question "Does Germany import a lot of power?" Also, I think that is highly relevant. If you do not include imports, countries with few natural sources automatically will appear to be green. For example, I bet many small island groups will have close to 100% renewable energy production, including those with huge navy bases such as Truk and Diego Garcia.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ralfd 14y agoNuclear power is not counted as "renewable" in Germany. So this number will only go up.
- exDM69 14y agoYou're right. Or actually we're both wrong. Coal is not renewable either, so replacing nuclear with coal megawatt-per-megawatt is going to keep the number at present levels. However, greenhouse gases and other nasty emissions will go up if you start burning coal instead of splitting atoms. I will not open the can of worms about nuclear waste vs. greenhouse gases.
- nkoren 14y agoNope, you're still wrong. What will go up is emissions, as nuclear is replaced with coal. However the percentage of renewables will continue to rise, as new wind and solar is installed. It's just a bit curious that for a while, at least, emissions and renewables percentage will both be rising simultaneously.
- exDM69 14y ago> However the percentage of renewables will continue to rise, as new wind and solar is installed. True, but not related to replacing nuclear with mostly coal and other fossil fuels. If the trend of solar power and other renewable sources of energy continues, the percentage of power produced that way will, of course, go up.
- antr 14y agoNuclear will be replaced primarily with CCGTs. It's publicly available information. I really don't understand how/why you make such statements, demonstrating no idea of Germany's energy investment/infrastructure roadmap.
- 14y ago
- mxfh 14y agoHere is the breakdown by type, Q1+Q2 2011 in TWh, Q1+Q2 2012 in TWh and % of total | Wind Energy: 21.0 TWh, 24.9 TWh, 9.2% | Biomass: 14.5 TWh, 15.3 TWh, 5.7% | Hydropower: 8.7 TWh, 10.8 TWh, 4.0% | Photovoltaics: 9.8 TWh, 14.4 TWh, 5.3% | Garbage and others: 2.4 TWh, 2.5 TWh, 0.9% | together: 56.4 TWh, 67.9 TWh, 25.1% http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20120726-pi-erneuerbare-energien-liefern-mehr-als-ein-viertel-des-stroms-de/$file/Strom_Erneuerbaren_Energien_1_Halbjahr_2012.pdf http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20120726-pi-erneuerbare-e... [pdf, german] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdew.de%2Finternet.nsf%2Fid%2F20120726-pi-erneuerbare-energien-liefern-mehr-als-ein-viertel-des-stroms-de%2F%24file%2FStrom_Erneuerbaren_Energien_1_Halbjahr_2012.pdf http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js... [english translation]
- zenon 14y agoAccording to the CIA World Factbook, Germany consumed 545 billion kWh of electrical energy in 2008. 67.9 billion kWh is only 12.5% of that. I suppose they import a lot of their electrical energy? Also, electrical energy consumption is only a small fraction of total energy consumption (about 4 trillion kWh for Germany in 2007 according to Wikipedia.).
- jeromegn 14y agoThis is good. Also, Quebec relies on hydroelectricity for 97% of its energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec (need to search for "97%" on that page)
- chm 14y agoIn case you guys missed it: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-a... Interesting read.
- ta12121 14y agoEnergy or Electricity? There's a big difference. Transportation accounts for a large amount of energy use and it is not electricity.
- jbellis 14y agoIn related news, German electricity is 30% more expensive than French, and 300% more expensive than American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_elec...
- rayiner 14y agoIn related news: American electricity is artificially cheap.
- anewguy 14y agoThe United States has an abundance of cheap natural gas and the will to drill it. Incidentally, substituting gas for coal has allowed the US to lead the world in reducing CO2 emissions[1]. Yes, that's right, the US has reduced its emissions more than any other country in the last five years, thanks to technical innovations that have lowered the price of natural gas. [1]http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/05/americas-falling-carbon-dioxide-emissions http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/05/americas-f...
- lispm 14y agoReduced. In absolute terms you still lead. Negatively.
- rayiner 14y agoIt's not gas, it's coal. Coal accounts for half of US electric production, versus a negligible amount of French production. Coal, however, is only seemingly cheap. Most of the actual costs of coal are externalized, and not seen at the meter. Rather, they show up at the doctor's office: http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_ful... http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/12/hiding-the-costs-of-coal http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/12/hiding-the-costs-of-c... The Princeton professor in the second article estimates that accounting for the externalities of coal would more than triple the meter price of coal power. The Harvard study in the first article estimates a somewhat greater cost based on looking at a wider range of factors.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 14y agoThe U.S. still produces 50% of its electrical energy from coal.
- danielharan 14y agoThere's a lesson here for startup folks. Years ago, people said renewables wouldn't ever amount to much. Sure, it's growing exponentially, but look at how small it is! And yes, costs keep going down but it will take forever before it's competitive with coal and nuclear. Forever's come and gone. Oil and gas went up in price. Exponential growth generated a nice experience curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects Now some critics and skeptics will go around saying no one could have predicted how quickly wind and solar took over. They'll say it was due to the rapid increase in oil prices (no one saw that coming either) or subsidies (German feed-in tariffs were very generous, though not as much as tax breaks for oil co's). So the lesson: humans are really bad at forecasting the results exponential growth. If you can find one that people are ignoring and time it well, you can entrench yourself in a market before most people even realize it exists.
- ThomPete 14y agoAs someone else said here a while back "The current alternative energies are linear solutions to an exponential problem." I have another lesson. 15 years ago before anyone knew it existed. Denmark invested heavily in wind. It created one of the biggest windmill companies in the world. It did all the right things. Took it to the stock market allowed normal people to invest in it, created lots of new jobs and the stock surged in the early zeros. Today stock is struggling and most of the jobs have been outsourced to other countries much less expensive to produce in. The windmill technology in itself is not hi-tech but "low-tech" so there isn't even som IP that the Danes benefit from. The only customers worth talking about is countries and there is no revolution in efficiency happening. My guess is that wind will be surpassed by other more beneficial technologies. So the lesson: Alternative energy as we know it right now is far from being a solution to the problems we have. The politicians should not pick the winners but instead set goals that can be won.
- danielharan 14y agolinear solution? Please explain. Wind and solar are growing double digits per year... how is that not exponential? If you're taking about Vestas, it's still worth $5 Billion, going up or down depending on the results of big sales. That share price was worth 20X more is a disappointment to investors, but it does not prove that no one can make it in that sector.
- at-fates-hands 14y agoI still can't get Carter's speech from 1978 out of my head about getting off of oil and expanding renewable resources. I can only imagine how far along we'd be if the US started investing and developing these resources then. Also, keep in mind, most of the countries being referenced are smaller Scandinavian countries. Getting proper delivery of resources is a major hurdle for US companies and their customers.
- beefman 14y agoRenewables accounted for 25% of their electricity production, not their total energy production, and certainly not their total consumption: Germany imports about twice as much primary energy as it produces, almost all in the form of fossil fuels. Source: IEA.
- te_chris 14y agoHere in NZ we're 35% overall and 70% of electricity produced from renewables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand