The Great German Energy Experiment • Hacker News Board

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#51

Post by adam-a » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:20 PM UTC

toemetoch wrote: post #23

onli wrote: post #20

The article has a heavily biased view. Some points it gets wrong: >"If you close eight nuclear plants, which were carbon-free, overnight, you will increase carbon emissions," Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon emissions. You need to look at the whole picture. >Inevitably, some hot July week will come…

>Inevitably, some hot July week will come when a high-pressure system stalls over Europe, stilling turbines just when sunburned Germans reach for their air conditioners The summer in Germany isn't that hot. Middle europe, not california. Accordingly, we don#t have air conditioners (in general) These scenarios do happen. They're not always as straight-forward as the one suggested (low production/high demand). A few we…

I had no idea too much electricity could be a problem? I was trying to read more about this effect but google has no answers for me.

Also, surely the obvious thing to do would be turn off some of the turbines in that situation?

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#52

Post by maigret » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:23 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #48

onli wrote: post #20

The article has a heavily biased view. Some points it gets wrong: >"If you close eight nuclear plants, which were carbon-free, overnight, you will increase carbon emissions," Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon emissions. You need to look at the whole picture. >Inevitably, some hot July week will come…

> Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon emissions. But shutting them down when you already paid all the costs is clearly stupid. And he didn't say carbon free. He said "increase carbon emissions" (he probably meant carbon dioxide emissions), and it clearly will increase them.

Shutting down was driven by fear, not by cost.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#53

Post by sneak » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:24 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #20

The article has a heavily biased view. Some points it gets wrong: >"If you close eight nuclear plants, which were carbon-free, overnight, you will increase carbon emissions," Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon emissions. You need to look at the whole picture. >Inevitably, some hot July week will come…

> The summer in Germany isn't that hot. Middle europe, not california. Accordingly, we don't have air conditioners (in general)

Germans are always saying this. It was 90F in Berlin yesterday. That is air conditioner weather, period.

The part about most people not having them is true, though. This US expat is hooking his up this week, despite power costing twice here what it does in California.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#54

Post by DasIch » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:25 PM UTC

jorleif wrote: post #45

One of the things that always surprises me when talking about lulls from wind and solar power, is that the assumption always is that we _have_ to provide continuous power. Would it not be possible to have industrial facilities that run in bursts when the energy is available (or more likely cheap), and then turn off again? Sure, this is not as easy as the old way to do things, but seriously, this is not impossible, na…

It is not possible because those industries that consume massive amounts of energy are typically those that operate under the assumption that machines are never and in some cases cannot be turned of.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#55

Post by adam-a » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:28 PM UTC

jorleif wrote: post #45

One of the things that always surprises me when talking about lulls from wind and solar power, is that the assumption always is that we _have_ to provide continuous power. Would it not be possible to have industrial facilities that run in bursts when the energy is available (or more likely cheap), and then turn off again? Sure, this is not as easy as the old way to do things, but seriously, this is not impossible, na…

It seems inevitable that we will have to change some of our fundamental ways of working if we want to get rid of our reliance on fossil fuels. Before the industrial revolution the world didn't have 24/7 assembly lines, it's only since coal/oil/gas that we've been able to work in this way. I guess that's the point, it is a large paradigm shift, comparable to the introduction of the steam engine. We can't expect the world to remain unchanged.

The unfortunate thing with solar panels means that we'd all be at work when the sun shines and get our days off when it's cloudy :)

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#56

Post by skore » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:32 PM UTC

cturner wrote: post #44

lispm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually totally different. In the past the governments and the companies gave a shit about public opinion. Government money was used to research and build the nuclear industry. The electricity companies were huge monopolies. Currently we have four huge electricity producers which nicely divide the market into four regions. Competition? Zero. Government support? Max. That brought us huge coal power plants whic…

> You can see who is the opposition: the four > huge electicity producers. And responsible-budget people. Germany is running in defecit beyond it's European treaty obligations. A factor contributing to the bottom line is expensive energy and expensive energy projects.

Reasonably budgeted? More like recently decreasingly subsidized.

Germany is making an investment towards a more diverse, ecologically sustainable energy market. That's expensive in the short run, simple as that. The four big players don't like it - and they particularly don't like that decades of a very controllable market are drawing to a close.

You should see the desperate advertisements they run, trying to appear "green" and reasonable, lately. Very entertaining.

Also - if you're going to talk deficit, don't forget that Germany had to pay a couple of extra bills since 2008.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#57

Post by DasIch » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:32 PM UTC

cturner wrote: post #44

lispm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually totally different. In the past the governments and the companies gave a shit about public opinion. Government money was used to research and build the nuclear industry. The electricity companies were huge monopolies. Currently we have four huge electricity producers which nicely divide the market into four regions. Competition? Zero. Government support? Max. That brought us huge coal power plants whic…

> You can see who is the opposition: the four > huge electicity producers. And responsible-budget people. Germany is running in defecit beyond it's European treaty obligations. A factor contributing to the bottom line is expensive energy and expensive energy projects.

Almost every country in the EU has deficit beyond the allowed regulations for a huge different number of reasons. Energy is a factor that is so small, if it even is one, that it can be safely ignored.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#58

Post by Xylakant » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:33 PM UTC

jorleif wrote: post #45

One of the things that always surprises me when talking about lulls from wind and solar power, is that the assumption always is that we _have_ to provide continuous power. Would it not be possible to have industrial facilities that run in bursts when the energy is available (or more likely cheap), and then turn off again? Sure, this is not as easy as the old way to do things, but seriously, this is not impossible, na…

The problem with many large industrial processes is that they cannot be run that way. Think a steamcracker for example: Shutdown takes days, starting up as well. It's so (energy) hungry that its cost-efficient to leave all parts in the chain running if one fails and just burn the resulting light oil. (Makes for a spectacular flame on the skyline). Aluminum processing falls in the same category.

There are other processes where this is possible (steel smelting via electric power for example) and where this is already done. Those plants usually run at night and consume large amounts of the base load. The issue with solar/wind-energy is that the availability may fluctuate within very short time frames - sometimes minutes - so that you cannot use this.

In a smaller scale this works the other way round. There are some small-scale fuel-powered plants that can be used to heat/cool a house or a block as well as produce electricity and those power up when electrical power is needed and store the heat for when it's needed (it's somewhat easier to store heat). This can be used to cut off some of the load spikes.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#59

Post by Xylakant » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:39 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #53

onli wrote: post #20

The article has a heavily biased view. Some points it gets wrong: >"If you close eight nuclear plants, which were carbon-free, overnight, you will increase carbon emissions," Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon emissions. You need to look at the whole picture. >Inevitably, some hot July week will come…

> The summer in Germany isn't that hot. Middle europe, not california. Accordingly, we don't have air conditioners (in general) Germans are always saying this. It was 90F in Berlin yesterday. That is air conditioner weather, period. The part about most people not having them is true, though. This US expat is hooking his up this week, despite power costing twice here what it does in California.

Climate differs wildly throughout Germany. Berlin tends to get hot days, but those are of a moderate number. The upper Rhine valley where I come from has a warmer climate, but less extreme summer heat (lots of forest area around). The coastal area is generally cooler during the summer.

So yes, we do get hot days, but it's still rare that people have air conditioning in their flats. Modern office buildings have air conditioning though and most shops as well. Still, when the temperature difference is lower you still need less energy to power them. Another point is that it's a rare occurrence to have no sun (hence no solar power) and massive heat.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#60

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 1:41 PM UTC

adventureful wrote: post #13

pcrh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also wonder how much benefit is to be had by not paying other countries for your energy compared to paying yourself...

In the case of the US, a shockingly massive benefit. We import between $350b and $500b per year worth of petroleum products (depending on the price of oil).

The only way the amount of petroleum we import matter is compared to how much we would have to spend to get the same energy with out importing anything. If the cost of stopping importing oil was that we had to spend $1000b a year on synthesizing oil from corn (for example), then the amount we spend on foreign oil is actually a good deal.