Re:Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
by lispm on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @03:03PM
(#11904449)
The article is mostly misleading.
> In fact, Germany is giving the rest of the world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.
Germany did much more than that. But: the purpose of the Energiewende was not to reduce carbon emissions first. The purpose was to get rid of the nuclear power plants asap. Phasing out coal is the next goal. Getting rid of nuclear had several advantages (for example one can stop early investing even more billions into a failed and costly technology. Nuclear is only provided by large monopolistic utilities, which had to get out of the way. The Energiewende is as much an experiment in getting a much more diverse landscape of energy producers and opening up the huge monopolies for competition from companies of all sizes). Getting rid of coal is also politically difficult, since coal production and usage has a long tradition in Germany and it employed a lot of people and local politicians block closing coal production where they can. But the coal phase out is already starting.
So already the description of the goal of the Energiewende is wrong.
> And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal.
"Is phasing out." But hasn't yet. There are several nuclear power plants running.
> The country is now the world’s largest solar market. Germany’s carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.
Which is already basically half from US carbon emissions per capita.
> Because fossil-fuel power plants cannot easily ramp down generation in response to excess supply on the grid,
Actually fossil fuel plants can. But those who can are not profitable currently.
> on sunny, windy days there is sometimes so much power in the system that the price goes negativ
That's because there is not enough grid capacity to transport the electricity to South Germany. The grid is being expanded to do so, but this is taking time.
> Germany’s Parliament is expected to soon eliminate the government-set subsidy for renewable energy, known as a feed-in tariff, that has largely fueled the growth in wind and solar.
It is expected that local government in Germany will block this.
> But not only are the coal plants used to even out periods when wind and solar aren’t available, they’re also lucrative and thus politically hard to shut down.
Actually coal power plants in Germany are no longer lucrative and many many of them are losing money. Energy companies are threatening to close those. The mentioned Vattenfall coal power plant is a dinosaur planned long ago. It doesn't fit into the current energy landscape and is a very costly investment which looks like a huge failure.
> In fact, Germany is giving the rest of the world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.
Germany did much more than that. But: the purpose of the Energiewende was not to reduce carbon emissions first. The purpose was to get rid of the nuclear power plants asap. Phasing out coal is the next goal. Getting rid of nuclear had several advantages (for example one can stop early investing even more billions into a failed and costly technology. Nuclear is only provided by large monopolistic utilities, which had to get out of the way. The Energiewende is as much an experiment in getting a much more diverse landscape of energy producers and opening up the huge monopolies for competition from companies of all sizes). Getting rid of coal is also politically difficult, since coal production and usage has a long tradition in Germany and it employed a lot of people and local politicians block closing coal production where they can. But the coal phase out is already starting.
So already the description of the goal of the Energiewende is wrong.
> And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal.
"Is phasing out." But hasn't yet. There are several nuclear power plants running.
> The country is now the world’s largest solar market. Germany’s carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.
Which is already basically half from US carbon emissions per capita.
> Because fossil-fuel power plants cannot easily ramp down generation in response to excess supply on the grid,
Actually fossil fuel plants can. But those who can are not profitable currently.
> on sunny, windy days there is sometimes so much power in the system that the price goes negativ
That's because there is not enough grid capacity to transport the electricity to South Germany. The grid is being expanded to do so, but this is taking time.
> Germany’s Parliament is expected to soon eliminate the government-set subsidy for renewable energy, known as a feed-in tariff, that has largely fueled the growth in wind and solar.
It is expected that local government in Germany will block this.
> But not only are the coal plants used to even out periods when wind and solar aren’t available, they’re also lucrative and thus politically hard to shut down.
Actually coal power plants in Germany are no longer lucrative and many many of them are losing money. Energy companies are threatening to close those. The mentioned Vattenfall coal power plant is a dinosaur planned long ago. It doesn't fit into the current energy landscape and is a very costly investment which looks like a huge failure.
Doesn't look like the author did its homework...