3 ms·

This is NOT a good thing. It is paradoxically driving up _fossil_ fuels. We don't have seasonal energy storage technologies, so in winter when the sun doesn't

This is NOT a good thing. It is paradoxically driving up _fossil_ fuels. We don't have seasonal energy storage technologies, so in winter when the sun doesn't shine, the only reliable energy comes from fossil fuels.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
So the renewable buildout massively decreasing these countries emissions are at the same time increasing it???
- cyberax 2y ago
  Europe's emissions have been mostly flat since ~2014: https://www.iea.org/regions/europe/emissions https://www.iea.org/regions/europe/emissions The lack of reliable winter-time generation is now slowing down the adoption of heat pumps. I'm most familiar with the German situation, and it simply can _not_ transition to heat pumps because there's not enough generating capacity. Even though heat pumps are more efficient than just directly burning gas for heating. So Germany had to outright _subsidize_ new natural gas power plants. But it's all fine because they pinky-swore to make them "hydrogen ready". A better market response is to add _capacity_ markets where operators can buy committed generating capacity. This will de-incentivize adding of cheap low-quality generation, and provide a market boost to energy storage and/or nuclear.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Which is a completely different topic from the grid composition. Go look at these countries grids carbon intensities and tell me they have been ”mostly flat”. https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 You do know that nuclear power takes about 15-20 years from political decisions create horrifically large to an operational plant. What problem in the 2040s are you aiming to solve? Should we just not build heat pumps until then while waiting for this nuclear power to come online? That would be pure insanity.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      Your graph is misleading, as it cuts off at 2020 and starts in 1990. The majority of the decrease is attributable to de-industrialization, the switch from coal to natgas, and energy-efficient lighting. That was mostly pre-2014. If you look at Germany since 2014, the end result is not great: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/ https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/ Compare that to France: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/ https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        What is it with the never ending stream of excuses when reality does not align with the nuclear cult? The graph goes to 2024. In Germany since 2011 coal is massively down, nuclear is down to zero fossil gas is stable. It is all replaced by renewables. Then you go and make the amazing comparison that we should care about one instant, rather than the cumulative emissions and progress towards a decarbonized grid. Given a blank slate with money to spend what does Germany do today to combat their current 330 gCO2/kWh? Do they continue to invest in renewables chipping away at the problem given todays renewable costs or lock in their current emissions, which you decry, for decades while waiting for horrifically expensive nuclear power to come online?
        cyberax 2y ago
        > What is it with the never ending stream of excuses when reality does not align with the nuclear cult? Just show me the pathway to at least 60g/kWh CO2 footprint for Germany. I'm not asking for too much. Otherwise, it's the same old story: "Oh, we already invested $500B in Energiewende, and it didn't deliver. But it's too late now to switch to nuclear, so we need to raise the energy prices more for more Energiewende goodness!" > The graph goes to 2024. In Germany since 2011 coal is massively down, nuclear is down to zero fossil gas is stable. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-dropped-11-2024-ageb-says-2025-03-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-... - natural gas has been rising, even though the overall energy use is dropping. It's directly replacing coal. But wait! There's more! German electricity imports rose by stunning 23% compared to 2023 with net 32TWh imported, total yearly generation is 585TWh. > Do they continue to invest in renewables chipping away If the renewables are chipping away at the problem, then why is Germany _directly_ _subsidizing_ natural gas power plants to the tune of $20B? https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsidy-plans-hydrogen-ready-gas-power-plants-2024-02-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsi... I can actually tell why. The day-ahead electricity spot price markets are getting murderous. The last year, the maximum price rose to almost $1000 per MWh: https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/215556 https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/215556 And even the pinky-swear promises to be "hydrogen ready" are not enough: https://www.energyconnects.com/news/renewables/2025/january/germany-opens-way-for-gas-beyond-2035-with-subsidy-extension/ https://www.energyconnects.com/news/renewables/2025/january/... The proof is in the pudding. The German "green energy" transition has reached its practical limits. We can see some variations in the CO2 intensity due to weather and business cycle effects, but it won't go down much more than the current level.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  The renewables buildout is actually not "massively decreasing" these countries emissions. Germany's emissions are largely flat, most of the little decrease has come from reduction in total electricity production. Emissions are around 10x that of France.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Why are you lying? Can’t you even find it good that renewables are massively decreasing grid emissions around Europe? Here’s the data: https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 This doesn’t even take into account energy efficiency measures lowering total grid demand.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      What I wrote is absolutely correct. After more than 20 years of renewables build out, Germany still has 10 times the CO₂ emissions of France. And France achieved that in 15 years, 40 years ago. Again, we've been at it well over 20 years and have barely moved the needle. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333217852/figure/fig5/AS:765097723064323@1559424920973/CO2-per-kWh-electricity-generated-in-different-European-countries-2014-own-compilation.ppm https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333217852/figure/fi... And still the 2nd or 3rd dirtiest grid in Europe. So no, what I wrote absolutely stands.
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        Why are you lying? Have you gone so far into the nuclear cult that you can't even accept reality anymore? Let me cite you: > Germany's emissions are largely flat, most of the little decrease has come from reduction in total electricity production. Here's the data: https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 That is anything but flat.
epistasis 2y ago
It's driving up the cost of fossil fuels? Is that supposed to be bad? The cheap energy future will not come from seasonal storage. It will come from massive amounts of overcapacity. This is exactly what we already have now, even combined cycle gas turbines have capacity factors that are only about 50%. We will see the same for solar and wind: during the seasonal peak, not all of that free energy will be used. And during the seasonal valley of renewable generation, almost all of the renewable energy will be used. This is going to be far cheaper than fossil fuels. And by having all the storage we're building out, we will see massive increases in electricity reliability that are simply not possible with traditional big grids and large single points of failure.
hnaccount_rng 2y ago
> so in winter when the sun doesn't shine, the only reliable energy comes from fossil fuels. Sure but we also don't have to care. The production capacity is already there, the CO2 to build it has already been spend. It's only running it, that's adding to the badness. And if we do that for 5% of the year. Then we have gotten 95% of the way there. But what it does is: 1) it makes fossil fuel based electricity extremely expensive (about 20x except for the fuel) and 2) it endangers secondary uses of those plants. We currently use a significant fraction of the coal-fired power plants (at least 5GW) mainly for their heat. And _those_ needs will need to be covered before we can really turn coal off. Nevertheless: Reducing fossil's capacity factor is a good thing and buys time for other bridges (e.g. power-to-heat and storage) to arrive.
tfourb 2y ago
You do realize that it is winter in much of the inhabited world? Temperatures still drop below 0°C every night where I live and day length is still ways away from summer months. It is a great sign that we get negative electricity prices in these conditions quite regularly now. It means that we actually don't need nearly as much "seasonal" storage as many people seem to think. The capability to store for days and weeks is much more relevant than the capability to store for months.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

So the renewable buildout massively decreasing these countries emissions are at the same time increasing it???

cyberax 2y ago
Europe's emissions have been mostly flat since ~2014: https://www.iea.org/regions/europe/emissions https://www.iea.org/regions/europe/emissions The lack of reliable winter-time generation is now slowing down the adoption of heat pumps. I'm most familiar with the German situation, and it simply can _not_ transition to heat pumps because there's not enough generating capacity. Even though heat pumps are more efficient than just directly burning gas for heating. So Germany had to outright _subsidize_ new natural gas power plants. But it's all fine because they pinky-swore to make them "hydrogen ready". A better market response is to add _capacity_ markets where operators can buy committed generating capacity. This will de-incentivize adding of cheap low-quality generation, and provide a market boost to energy storage and/or nuclear.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Which is a completely different topic from the grid composition. Go look at these countries grids carbon intensities and tell me they have been ”mostly flat”. https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 You do know that nuclear power takes about 15-20 years from political decisions create horrifically large to an operational plant. What problem in the 2040s are you aiming to solve? Should we just not build heat pumps until then while waiting for this nuclear power to come online? That would be pure insanity.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Your graph is misleading, as it cuts off at 2020 and starts in 1990. The majority of the decrease is attributable to de-industrialization, the switch from coal to natgas, and energy-efficient lighting. That was mostly pre-2014. If you look at Germany since 2014, the end result is not great: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/ https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/ Compare that to France: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/ https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      What is it with the never ending stream of excuses when reality does not align with the nuclear cult? The graph goes to 2024. In Germany since 2011 coal is massively down, nuclear is down to zero fossil gas is stable. It is all replaced by renewables. Then you go and make the amazing comparison that we should care about one instant, rather than the cumulative emissions and progress towards a decarbonized grid. Given a blank slate with money to spend what does Germany do today to combat their current 330 gCO2/kWh? Do they continue to invest in renewables chipping away at the problem given todays renewable costs or lock in their current emissions, which you decry, for decades while waiting for horrifically expensive nuclear power to come online?
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > What is it with the never ending stream of excuses when reality does not align with the nuclear cult? Just show me the pathway to at least 60g/kWh CO2 footprint for Germany. I'm not asking for too much. Otherwise, it's the same old story: "Oh, we already invested $500B in Energiewende, and it didn't deliver. But it's too late now to switch to nuclear, so we need to raise the energy prices more for more Energiewende goodness!" > The graph goes to 2024. In Germany since 2011 coal is massively down, nuclear is down to zero fossil gas is stable. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-dropped-11-2024-ageb-says-2025-03-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-... - natural gas has been rising, even though the overall energy use is dropping. It's directly replacing coal. But wait! There's more! German electricity imports rose by stunning 23% compared to 2023 with net 32TWh imported, total yearly generation is 585TWh. > Do they continue to invest in renewables chipping away If the renewables are chipping away at the problem, then why is Germany _directly_ _subsidizing_ natural gas power plants to the tune of $20B? https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsidy-plans-hydrogen-ready-gas-power-plants-2024-02-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-agrees-subsi... I can actually tell why. The day-ahead electricity spot price markets are getting murderous. The last year, the maximum price rose to almost $1000 per MWh: https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/215556 https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/215556 And even the pinky-swear promises to be "hydrogen ready" are not enough: https://www.energyconnects.com/news/renewables/2025/january/germany-opens-way-for-gas-beyond-2035-with-subsidy-extension/ https://www.energyconnects.com/news/renewables/2025/january/... The proof is in the pudding. The German "green energy" transition has reached its practical limits. We can see some variations in the CO2 intensity due to weather and business cycle effects, but it won't go down much more than the current level.
mpweiher 2y ago
The renewables buildout is actually not "massively decreasing" these countries emissions. Germany's emissions are largely flat, most of the little decrease has come from reduction in total electricity production. Emissions are around 10x that of France.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Why are you lying? Can’t you even find it good that renewables are massively decreasing grid emissions around Europe? Here’s the data: https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 This doesn’t even take into account energy efficiency measures lowering total grid demand.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    What I wrote is absolutely correct. After more than 20 years of renewables build out, Germany still has 10 times the CO₂ emissions of France. And France achieved that in 15 years, 40 years ago. Again, we've been at it well over 20 years and have barely moved the needle. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333217852/figure/fig5/AS:765097723064323@1559424920973/CO2-per-kWh-electricity-generated-in-different-European-countries-2014-own-compilation.ppm https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333217852/figure/fi... And still the 2nd or 3rd dirtiest grid in Europe. So no, what I wrote absolutely stands.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Why are you lying? Have you gone so far into the nuclear cult that you can't even accept reality anymore? Let me cite you: > Germany's emissions are largely flat, most of the little decrease has come from reduction in total electricity production. Here's the data: https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 https://imgur.com/a/eCxUpZ2 That is anything but flat.

epistasis 2y ago

It's driving up the cost of fossil fuels? Is that supposed to be bad? The cheap energy future will not come from seasonal storage. It will come from massive amounts of overcapacity. This is exactly what we already have now, even combined cycle gas turbines have capacity factors that are only about 50%. We will see the same for solar and wind: during the seasonal peak, not all of that free energy will be used. And during the seasonal valley of renewable generation, almost all of the renewable energy will be used. This is going to be far cheaper than fossil fuels. And by having all the storage we're building out, we will see massive increases in electricity reliability that are simply not possible with traditional big grids and large single points of failure.

hnaccount_rng 2y ago

> so in winter when the sun doesn't shine, the only reliable energy comes from fossil fuels. Sure but we also don't have to care. The production capacity is already there, the CO2 to build it has already been spend. It's only running it, that's adding to the badness. And if we do that for 5% of the year. Then we have gotten 95% of the way there. But what it does is: 1) it makes fossil fuel based electricity extremely expensive (about 20x except for the fuel) and 2) it endangers secondary uses of those plants. We currently use a significant fraction of the coal-fired power plants (at least 5GW) mainly for their heat. And _those_ needs will need to be covered before we can really turn coal off. Nevertheless: Reducing fossil's capacity factor is a good thing and buys time for other bridges (e.g. power-to-heat and storage) to arrive.

tfourb 2y ago

You do realize that it is winter in much of the inhabited world? Temperatures still drop below 0°C every night where I live and day length is still ways away from summer months. It is a great sign that we get negative electricity prices in these conditions quite regularly now. It means that we actually don't need nearly as much "seasonal" storage as many people seem to think. The capability to store for days and weeks is much more relevant than the capability to store for months.