That's your claim. Enough people here have been thinking the opposite.
> otherwise it wouldn't have needed massive subsidies that made Germany have the most expensive electricity in Europe.
Actually Germany a) does not have generally the most expensive electricity in Europe - check out industry prices for electricity in Europe.
If you followed recent protests in France, then you have seen that is also about higher energy prices for the public - which has been kept artificially low so far.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/yellow-ves...
b) its also useful to make energy expensive - it helps to keep energy consumption low and the money gets invested back into modern infrastructure, research&development, build-up of new industries, ...
> The storage requirements are massive
That's a very shallow study about a non-goal (100%). A more detailed study from 2013:
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2013/s...
a shorter english version
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2013/s...
The current big picture of the Energiewende for 2030...
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2017/B...
Agora Energiewende is by no means a neutral organisation, with even proponents of green energy repeatedly criticizing agora for deliberately “making false assumptions out of unambiguous datasets”. [1]
[1] “Aus zum Teil eindeutigem Datenmaterial werden falsche und zudem nicht im Einklang mit bisherigen politischen Aussagen und Zusicherungen stehende Schlüsse gezogen.” https://senertec-center-nrw-sued.de/File/MR%207b_Stellungnah...
Instead of trying to understand what the study describes (which is not 'data') you attack their so-called 'political alignment'. Then you deflect it to a totally different topic.
> Agora Energiewende is by no means a neutral organisation.
There are no neutral organizations. The goal of the foundation is well documented.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/about-us/agora-energiew...
> even proponents of green energy
B.KWK Bundesverband Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung e.V. are proponents of cogeneration - which is a technology independent of 'green energy' and widely used with fossil-fuel or nuclear power plants.
The Bundesverband KWK is lobbying about lots of money - often for gas-powered power plants - while there was pressure from the EU to reduce/remove the special treatment by the German government.
That's only fair to say, therefore you must not mind me quoting some facts highlighted by "the other side":
"From the viewpoint of security of supply, so far wind power in Germany has replaced conventional power plant output of no more than 150MW. For comparison: In terms of the stability of the electricity grid in Germany, a power plant capacity of about 77,000 to 82,000 MW is required at the time of the annual peak load, which can occur usually on a late afternoon on a day in the period from November to February and is not known in advance"
https://docs.wind-watch.org/VGB-Windstudie-2017-Teil-1-EN.pd...
Your source just doesn't really deal with base load at all, even though that's the giant pink cigar-smoking elephant in the room. It can't be taken serious. It's starting with a premise ("Energiewende" is necessary) and works its way backwards, carefully avoiding to deal with the real issues. It's implying significant technological breakthroughs coming out of left field. It's all supposed to happen with taxpayer/consumer money, thrown around like candy. There's profiteering everywhere, lots of PR and lobbying, lots of moral grandstanding. In that environment, I can almost guarantee you, the money will be in the wrong hands. It won't be there when the real opportunities appear.
You can actually find zillions of studies/articles discussing this problem and proposing various scenarios.
Thanks for mentioning it, but that problem is well known and widely discussed.
That's common sense. If something is both economically useful and necessary, it finances itself. You don't need subsidies at all, at most you need loans.
> Enough people here have been thinking the opposite.
So what? If "enough people" believe in Santa Claus, does that mean he'll all bring us presents on Christmas?
> Actually Germany a) does not have generally the most expensive electricity in Europe - check out industry prices for electricity in Europe.
Yes, industry is exempt because of lobbying. If industry had to pay those horrendous prices, it would damage Germany's competitiveness. Therefore, more to pay for the average citizen.
> If you followed recent protests in France, then you have seen that is also about higher energy prices for the public - which has been kept artificially low so far.
First of all, France has the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. Those protests were sparked by a "green tax" on fuel. I don't know what your point is, but it sounds like "green policy causes civil unrest in France". It's not helping your argument.
> That's a very shallow study about a non-goal (100%).
Fine, you may rely on 20% fossil fuels and maybe you'll be able to reduce the required storage cost from "absolutely infeasible" to "monumentally expensive". All to the end of removing a smidgen (less than 1%) from global CO2 emissions. The rest of the (developing) world isn't going to follow suit with that kind of pretentious nonsense.
> A more detailed study from 2013
That's all projections on what should happen, based on lots of ifs and maybes. It's utterly useless.
That's an illusion, especially in the energy sector. It has been for decades.
> France has the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.
Because the costs are hidden and paid by the tax payer. The energy industry is mostly state owned and the price is political. That makes it not possible to charge the consumer with the real costs (like finding billions for the aging and expensive nuclear reactor fleet or for replacing them with newer reactors) - any president trying to do so would and does face mass protests. Additionally, the industry would be dead in a second if the government wouldn't finance the costs and hide it from the consumer.
One can see how this works in the UK with EDF's reactor:
"If Hinkley really comes on stream by 2025 as planned, it will sell electricity at a guaranteed price that is double the current market level, with the excess cost passed to every UK consumer"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/an-energy-crisis-is-loom...
That's the future of France...
> The rest of the (developing) world isn't going to follow suit with that kind of pretentious nonsense.
Actually quite a lot of countries are.
It's not an illusion, it's the basis of the economy. If something is known to be both useful and necessary, there is a profit to be made and capital will be allocated to it. That's the financial side. Of course for the energy sector there are lots of ideological, environmental and political concerns that need to be dealt with for things to actually happen.
> Because the costs are hidden and paid by the tax payer. The energy industry is mostly state owned and the price is political. That makes it not possible to charge the consumer with the real costs (like finding billions for the aging and expensive nuclear reactor fleet or for replacing them with newer reactors) - any president trying to do so would and does face mass protests.
Hard to ascertain. If it was really that unprofitable to produce nuclear energy compared to the (clean) alternatives, France could just build the alternatives. After all, the state foots the bill either way, unlike a private company that can just go bankrupt and not clean up their mess.
> One can see how this works in the UK with EDF's reactor:
> "If Hinkley really comes on stream by 2025 as planned, it will sell electricity at a guaranteed price that is double the current market level, with the excess cost passed to every UK consumer"
Yes, but the "current market level" is lower because of fossils, not because of renewables, which also need heavy subsidy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we're just arguing about market price, then clearly coal is the winner.
> Actually quite a lot of countries are.
None of the countries that really matter (have a significant share in CO2 emmissions) are.
Maybe in a simple model of capitalism.
> Of course for the energy sector there are lots of ideological, environmental and political concerns that need to be dealt with for things to actually happen.
Example: no one invests in a nuclear power plant - unless the state insures the thing, finances (incl. all the costs that come from technological and construction problems) the thing all through from inception to research to design to construction to bringing it online AND (!!!!!) creates the economic conditions for profits to be made (like dictating prices, reducing competition, financing all costly technological and construction risks, providing cheap infrastructure, ...). -> Example: currently the UK.
The energy sector it's very different from selling beans to consumers.
> France could just build the alternatives
But it hasn't. France has built nuclear for many reasons - for example France is a country with nuclear weapons and thus has an interest in nuclear technology. There is also an ideological trend to large state-driven/owned technologies.
Now France is looking to expand its share of renewables - while at the same time trying to find hundreds of billions for their reactor fleet.
> After all, the state foots the bill either way, unlike a private company that can just go bankrupt and not clean up their mess.
That's not how it works in the energy landscape. Check out TEPCO. The Japanese state does not let it die.
> None of the countries that really matter (have a significant share in CO2 emmissions) are.
You are shifting the goal post all the time. If enough countries do it (for example in the EU), then it matters.
You may call it capitalism, but even the birds and the bees "understand" the concept of investing now for future gains.
> Example: no one invests in a nuclear power plant - unless the state insures the thing, finances (incl. all the costs that come from technological and construction problems) the thing all through...
That's just not true, lots of private capital has financed reactors before. Note that I never claimed that nuclear reactors are economically sensible (especially counting in disasters), but that if they were they would finance themselves. Indeed, there's a lot of hard-to-calculate risk in a nuclear reactor, which is bad from an investment standpoint.
> But it hasn't. France has built nuclear for many reasons - for example France is a country with nuclear weapons and thus has an interest in nuclear technology.
So what? The U.S. has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet they barely do nuclear at all.
> There is also an ideological trend to large state-driven/owned technologies.
So why don't they build giant state owned wind turbines?
> That's not how it works in the energy landscape. Check out TEPCO. The Japanese state does not let it die.
Whatever they do, the company isn't going to (be able to) pay the bill, unless they're not in fact bankrupt.
> You are shifting the goal post all the time. If enough countries do it (for example in the EU), then it matters.
Not really. Which countries are you talking about? The EU makes up maybe 10% of CO2 emissions and a big part of that isn't related to electricity. Think of all the research you could fund with the money spent on that forced premature rollout of renewable energy in Germany. Think of all the money that still needs to be spent to make it work. Think of what you actually achieved in terms of CO2 goals, so far. It's an absolute embarrassment.
Mostly not. For example France's reactors were 100% state financed and state owned. Incl. the electricity distribution and the building company (Areva).
In Germany the whole nuclear industry was state directed and the power plants were belonging to a few companies - with electricity companies being 'forced' by the government to invest in nuclear electricity production. The whole research around nuclear technology (fuel production, reactor technology, storage, ...) was state financed. The electricity companies were given huge distribution areas where they had a monopoly without any competition. Politicians were given well-paid jobs in the industry.
> economically sensible (especially counting in disasters), but that if they were they would finance themselves
The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms. The financing is set up by the government and there is no market. To build them is a political decision and the UK government sets the market accordingly. Well, it tries to.
> So what? The U.S. has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet they barely do nuclear at all.
What does it have do with France what the US does?
> unless they're not in fact bankrupt
They are not bankrupt while they get more government money.
> Think of all the research you could fund with the money spent on that forced premature rollout of renewable energy in Germany.
There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ... nut now much more on renewable energy. The research was already instrumental to bring PV prices down and make the technology applicable on a large scale. The impact of that was far beyond Germany.
> Think of all the money that still needs to be spent to make it work.
Well invested.
>Think of what you actually achieved in terms of CO2 goals, so far. It's an absolute embarrassment.
It's not. The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions.
It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy - starting with electricity, starting with getting rid of nuclear power. Coal is next. It has a five decade horizon.
Doesn't matter. Your claim, as written, was wrong.
> The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms.
Again, I didn't say that it would. I said that anything that is economically sensible finances itself, pretty much by definition. I didn't say nuclear power is sensible and I didn't say that it finances itself.
> What does it have do with France what the US does?
If your explanation doesn't generalize to the US, then it is wrong. You might as well say France builds nuclear reactors because it is France. You only need a single reactor to build a nuclear arsenal, so having an interest in nuclear weapons is no explanation for why France (or any other country) would invest in building out lots of civil nuclear infrastructure.
> They are not bankrupt while they get more government money.
You are supporting my thesis. Go back and read it. It's about a private company, contrary to a state, being able to relieve itself of the bill. That's exactly what's happening here, whether Tepco is formally bankrupt or not.
> There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ...
Way to miss the point...
> The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions. It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy.
What's the point of switching electricity to renewables if not CO2 reduction? There's enough coal for hundreds of years.
> Coal is next.
Good Luck with that.
The whole thing wasn't economically useful or necessary from the very beginning, otherwise it wouldn't have needed massive subsidies that made Germany have the most expensive electricity in Europe.
> It's not 'unsolved' in the sense that we don't know what to do. It's just that storage needs are just starting to increase.
You don't know what to do. The storage requirements are massive:
https://www.oulu.fi/blogs/how-much-storage-does-the-energiew...
Think about it, if you did know what to do, why aren't all the politicians pointing to some clear-cut roadmap on how to achieve the goal, using all the great engineering prowess that Germany is famous for?