This is good.
Also, Quebec relies on hydroelectricity for 97% of its energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec (need to search for "97%" on that page)
Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
41–50 of 132 posts
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear power is not counted as "renewable" in Germany. So this number will only go up.
You're right. Or actually we're both wrong. Coal is not renewable either, so replacing nuclear with coal megawatt-per-megawatt is going to keep the number at present levels. However, greenhouse gases and other nasty emissions will go up if you start burning coal instead of splitting atoms. I will not open the can of worms about nuclear waste vs. greenhouse gases.
Nuclear will be replaced primarily with CCGTs. It's publicly available information.
I really don't understand how/why you make such statements, demonstrating no idea of Germany's energy investment/infrastructure roadmap.
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#43I heard at a power conference last week that Germany halted installation of new solar panels on homes recently due to the problems integrating solar onto the grid. As the lecturer put it: We've spent the last hundred years building systems to safely and reliably send power on a one-way trip from the utilities to businesses and homes. Modifying the electrical distribution system to be multi-directional is not an easy…
I was surprised the energy they get from wind is more than twice what they get from solar. Isn't Germany like a good country for solar? Also, this is the first time I see that they want to get only 35% of the energy from renewables by 2035. So they want to improve it only by 10% in the next 23 years? That's sounds like a very small improvement in a lot of time. I thought their original goal was 40% as renewable energ…
Germany is a horrible country for solar. It's like putting solar panels in the middle of the Quebec province. (http://www.solarpanelsindustry.com/2012/04/solar-radiation-m...)
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing. Burning it won't add to the footprint. On the other hand, when you are burning coal, you released CO2 that was previously sequestered.
Because biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing Add that biomass usually releases CH4 (methane) which is a considered a much more potent greenhouse gas. Even simply burning the methane to CO2 -- ignoring energy recapture -- is an environmentally beneficial action, which is why landfills sometimes have flares.
Methane does not last all long and 'quickly' degrades into CO2 which is vary stable. (2xO2 + CH4 => 2xH20 + C02)
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#45In terms of renewables, i think Norway and Brazil are higher up there, with 85% and 95% of their energy coming from renewable sources such as hydroelectic plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
95% of energy production is hydro or nuclear in Switzerland, which depending on your views on nuclear either makes them very progressive or terrible.
How is nuclear renewable?
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#46This article describes the power Germany produced, but doesn't mention the power Germany consumed. Does Germany import a lot of power? If so, that would be a good way to tweak the numbers, just import more non-renewables, and produce less non-renewables at home.
Germany has been a consistent net exporter of electrical energy since 2003.
The circumstances have changed, though: In addition to two nuclear plants which were dormant since 2007 and 2009, six plants were shut down in mid-May 2011, and all of them are now gone for good.
The balance was still positive in 2011, and I suspect it will be this year as well, but it might be a close thing.
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hydroelectric power is not something all countries are lucky enough to have.
Hydroelectric power is not very environmentally friendly either. Like the giant dams of China that destroy the whole ecosystem near the power plant.
Norwegian hydroelectric plants usually don't destroy a ecosystem, just some nice looking waterfall. They have so long and steep falls that ecosystem would be naturally separated by it anyway.
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#48By the way, I wonder why biomass is green while coal is not? I mean, in the end you burn organic materials? Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for that kind of money you could make like really nice coal plants.
For the same reason burning wood is green- as long as you are regrowing it. So - if you're burning timber from a forest which is sustainably managed (so you're renewing wood at the same rate you're using it), then there is no net carbon released.
That would be true if carbon dioxide was the only greenhouse gas. But it isn't.
Burning biomass could be sustainable if we make sure that new biomass is grown at the same rate as it is burned. I have yet to see a document assuring me that is the case.
In any case burning biofuel is not greenhouse gas neutral. And hence not green.
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hydroelectric power is not very environmentally friendly either. Like the giant dams of China that destroy the whole ecosystem near the power plant.
Norwegian hydroelectric plants usually don't destroy a ecosystem, just some nice looking waterfall. They have so long and steep falls that ecosystem would be naturally separated by it anyway.
That's not the only damage hydroelectric does. The damns normalize naturally occurring floods with a view to maximizing electricity production, and material that would have been carried to sea gets trapped behind the dam.
Re: Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing Add that biomass usually releases CH4 (methane) which is a considered a much more potent greenhouse gas. Even simply burning the methane to CO2 -- ignoring energy recapture -- is an environmentally beneficial action, which is why landfills sometimes have flares.
But you have to grow that biomass first. After you did that, you can let is decompose (bad) or burn it (less bad), but you could just skip growing it entirely.
And you would get..? Nothing? So instead of forest and some energy you get just nothing.