The Great German Energy Experiment • Hacker News Board

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#181

Post by onli » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 7:07 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #121

onli wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation for that? The only source for that I found is http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html , which is most probably biased. Most other sources seem to rank wind better - but not sun (maybe you are mixing those two up?).

http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/kentish-flats.htm 500 tons of materials for 1MW (actual) wind turbine. That would imply a 1GW reactor should be less than 500,000 metric tons in order to use less materials, and while I can't find figures for the weight of a nuclear reactor, they certainly are not that large! A proposed thorium reactor: http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.p... 500 tons, for 100MW…

It's absolutely absurd to calculate the emissions based on the weight of the material.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#182

Post by LiamMcCalloway » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 7:08 AM UTC

toemetoch wrote: post #119

LiamMcCalloway wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the 2003 E.U. directive on renewable energy, renewables have priority access to the rid to offload their production. This is makes sense because it ensures full utilization of the assets and helps reduce their costs. EDIT: grammar

Both the 2003 directive [0] and the 2009 directive [1] state that member states may give priority - with notion of exceptions for security. Maybe priority was indeed the factor, but it's not mandated on a European level. [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2... [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...

The 2003 Directive you quote (2003/30) is for biofuels, whereas 2003/54 deals with renewable electricity. Both refer to 2001/77, which details the condition of access to the grid for renewables. The language is relatiely clear Art. 7 - 1, if we distinguish between "access to the grid" meaning in the first part "right to connect" and "right to output" in the second part.

> Without prejudice to the maintenance of the reliability > and safety of the grid, Member States shall take the necessary > measures to ensure that transmission system operators and > distribution system operators in their territory guarantee the > transmission and distribution of electricity produced from > renewable energy sources. They may also provide for priority > access to the grid system of electricity produced from renew-able energy sources. > When dispatching generating installations, > transmission system operators shall give priority to > generating > installations using renewable energy sources insofar as the > operation of the national electricity system permits.

However, it is superseded by 2009/28, which states in Art. 16 - 2 (a):

> Member States shall ensure that transmission system operators and distribution system operators in their territory guarantee the transmission and distribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources

I believe the confusion stems from the distinction between right to connect to the grid and right to offload power to the grid. It seems clear the latter is indeed mandated at the E.U. level.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#183

Post by Loic » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 7:56 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #138

I guess the problem with a long article, even an interesting long article like the one submitted here, is that it is hard to read to the end. Near the end of the submitted article is this paragraph: "A second problem is that even when it comes to alternative energy sources, Germany doesn't reward carbon dioxide reduction. Rather, its policy establishes well-defined subsidies for specific technologies: a kilowatt-hour…

You and the article are missing several things, Germany is already one of the most energy efficient industrial country in the world and the regulations are drastically forcing companies and people to save energy. Houses which are built nowadays are nearly passive house and this by law. Also, the German bank for development is giving everybody around 100k€ loan at about 1% to improve the energy efficiency of old and new houses.

Germans are extremely serious about energy use and savings and they know how to do an energy balance. I wish this level of engineering would cross the border to France a bit more often.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#184

Post by marvin » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 8:03 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #149

marvin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sure I'm reading that number wrong? EROI=6.5, expected panel lifetime 30 years => 30/6.5=4.6 years to earn back the energy required to create the panel. Expected panel lifetime of 20 years gives a payback time of 3 years. For instance, panel lifetime of 20 years and EROI of 1 would give your number, 20 years, to pay back the energy required to produce one panel. Regardless, your original claim of 20 years to get…

Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. If the EROI is indeed 6.5 then yes you are correct. But last time I looked at EROI they always cherry picked the best results. (Bright sun, perfect angle, clean new panels, etc.) They also usually ignored installation costs (inverter, wires, framework). Additionally as the cells age they produce less energy. In more typical installations the number I remember was 20 years after…

I agree with you that if you only get an EROI of 6.5, that's in itself just barely worth it. But to be fair, things are changing really fast. The United States has just added import taxes on Chinese solar panels, to prop up the US solar industry, from 30 to 250 percent depending on the manufacturer. This seems to me a really obvious sign that solar cells are getting a _lot_ cheaper. This might or might not change the energy question, but the economic viability of solar cells is getting better. Can't find the source on this, but I read somewhere that the newest Chinese solar panels are clearly economically viable even without subsidies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/u-s-solar-tariffs-o...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18112983

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#185

Post by ars » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 8:22 AM UTC

onli wrote: post #181

ars wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/kentish-flats.htm 500 tons of materials for 1MW (actual) wind turbine. That would imply a 1GW reactor should be less than 500,000 metric tons in order to use less materials, and while I can't find figures for the weight of a nuclear reactor, they certainly are not that large! A proposed thorium reactor: http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.p... 500 tons, for 100MW…

It's absolutely absurd to calculate the emissions based on the weight of the material.

I wasn't. It's a calculation of resources used in construction, not emissions which is a different issue.

I was saying that wind might have no emissions, but you still use lots and lots of resources in building it, so you have to include those when analyzing environmental impact.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#186

Post by ars » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 8:25 AM UTC

mkaltenecker wrote: post #126

ars wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A: Yes, and wind. Wind has a reasonably good energy ROI, but it's not possible to collect enough energy from it without covering the country in turbines, and people don't want that. Offshore is interesting, but the costs (financial and energy invested in building them) are much higher. B: Market at work, sure, but the end result is the same: They are claiming low CO2 by simply sending the CO2 to China. C: It is true…

Modern solar cells produce the energy that was needed to make them in about three to five years, that’s well below their lifetime.

Where can I buy some? They would make a great investment if I could actually do that.

If it really only took 3 to 5 years you would expect everyone to install them - you don't often see such great ROI's.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#187

Post by kaybe » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 10:36 AM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #62

macavity23 wrote: post #2

Great article - upvoted. That it's inconceivable that the US or UK government could think about spending such an amount (~5% of GDP!) on a long-term science and engineering project speaks volumes about why the Germans are where they are, and why we're where we are, economically speaking. From an engineering point of view I think it's foolish to turn off the nuke plants, but public opinion is what it is, and this caus…

Being German and having voted Green most of my life (until the pirate party came along), I still watch those energy subsidies with suspicion. I am just not certain the money is spent in an efficient way here. As for the jobs in the green energy sector, apparently China already (or still) is cheaper than Germany in producing solar power cells. So much for that investment.

Other countries ripping the technology off is part of the plan, as far as I understood it.

We can talk them into using less fossil fuels (probably won't work), or use incentives (which would again cost money), or we can create a by then cheap technology for getting Co2-free energy which will be stolen by everyone.

Comparing costs from climate change adaption and avoidance shows that avoidance is far cheaper - and in both cases the developed countries will have to carry the majority. (Just imagine the situation if half of Asia and Africa's harvests fail.)

The investment here is not just an economic one, it goes much further.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#188

Post by kaybe » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 10:39 AM 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.

Do you have a normal German house, with shutters and thick stone walls? Normally they're good for at least a week when it gets hot - only open up at night and during the day close the shutters and don't open the windows. And heat waves that last longer than a week are very rare. All of Europe lives like this, even in the southern countries. There are some places where this doesn't work though, like the flat directly underneath the roof..

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#189

Post by corford » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 10:50 AM UTC

pcrh wrote: post #19

adventureful wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

There is, however, the rule of comparative advantage, which means that it is better to import energy than to produce the same amount domestically, if the import is cheaper. How that is balanced against the benefit for domestic producers, I wouldn't know...

There's also a geopolitical advantage to producing it at home. Doing so provides less reason to interfere in the internal politics of foreign producer states.

Re: The Great German Energy Experiment

#190

Post by Xylakant » Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 10:53 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #138

I guess the problem with a long article, even an interesting long article like the one submitted here, is that it is hard to read to the end. Near the end of the submitted article is this paragraph: "A second problem is that even when it comes to alternative energy sources, Germany doesn't reward carbon dioxide reduction. Rather, its policy establishes well-defined subsidies for specific technologies: a kilowatt-hour…

We do have quite a couple of taxes and regulations aimed at improving energy efficiency, so the subsidies for renewable energies are a more of a complement for those. We have tax breaks for cars that use less fuel, we do have extra tax for fuel consumption, we do have support for energy efficient housing, ... All in all we're doing pretty fine on that side. Primary energy usage in Germany has been dropping since the eighties and is now close to what we consumed in 1970 (309 mio toe in 1970 vs 319 mio toe in 2010) while the USA have been rising pretty steadily with a small drop-off since 2008 (1627 mio toe in 1970 vs 2285 mio toe in 2010). [1] There's a limit where the ROI in reducing energy consumption is lower than the ROI in producing renewable energy and after that we're still going to need energy, so I think while reduction should be the first priority, we still need to invest into second and third priorities pretty much right now. And that's what we're doing.

The different subsidies are explained by the fact that the subsidies are intended to support the uptake of those technologies. Solar energy just needed more of a push to achieve critical mass and so does offshore wind. Now that solar panels are cheaper and more efficient, the subsidies get lower and lower each year. There are still a plethora of problems surrounding this approach, but I must admit that I don't see how other approaches would have less problems.

[1] see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Staaten_mit_dem_h%C3...