Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

intellinews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 341 posts

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#31

Post by patall »

throw0101d wrote: post #20
throw0101d wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear! Germany has 15.4 GW of hard coal generation, and 14.7 GW of lignite, for a total of 30.1 GW: * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... In 2010, before the shutdowns started, it had 21.5 GW of nuclear. So if all the other rollouts (renewables, etc ) had stayed the same, but the shutdown of nuclear…

(Meta: I understand some folks aren't a fan of nuclear. I disagree, but recognize people have different values and weighing of priorities. But I just find it fucking stupid that coal was left to keep running by people who claim that climate change is a priority. Certainly a discussion can be had about pros/cons of new nuclear, but why the fuck would you prioritize closing current nuclear over coal ?)

Who are those people that kept coal running but claim climate change is a priority? Because they are not the german green party, that much I know.

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#32

Post by QuercusMax »

raphinou wrote: post #17
NishanStepak wrote: post #4

Part of this is about a new way to store energy. In the Netherlands, they have started storing heat energy with sand, in Germany, they are using bricks. This has some advantages. It allows the direct use of heat for industrial processes and heating industrial and commercial facilities. They can either convert energy into electricity or use the heat directly. This technology can be used with a wide variety of energy s…

I think I have read that heat is hard to convert to useful energy. Can someone confirm? But the, if that's true, why use heat as energy storage?

Heat can't be converted losslessly to useful energy, but converting to heat to other forms of energy is extremely common. What do you think a steam turbine, boiler, internal combustion engine, etc. do?

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#33

Post by _visgean »

novaRom wrote: post #18
marcosdumay wrote: post #11

What is not on the title: For an entire year, that year being 2025. Also, yes, absolute generation from fossil fuels is declining quickly. The total generation is changing way more slowly than that share.

But so is German industry - every day in the news either insolvency or workforce reduction and moving production to Eastern Europe - main reason often stated "expensive Energy". I wonder what are the stats for industrial production in 2025 or total energy consumption in Germany?

i am pretty sure its not energy that domaines the move. eg skoda is now way more profitable than rest of VW. The cost of employment is way higher in DE..

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#34

Post by afarah1 »

citrin_ru wrote: post #3

It's a good news and a milestone to celebrate but if we count all energy and not only electricity and not only developed world then the progress is not as fast unfortunately [1]. Not a long time ago I've seen a post arguing based on the data [1] that renewables are irrelevant and should not be taken seriously and fossils will the main source for the lifetime. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-subst…

Also interesting to look at the chart per country. [2] US fossil fuel is 4x entire Germany, while for China just coal is over 8x all of Germany. So good and relevant news at a local scale! But pretty irrelevant at a global one... A scale at which there is more talk than action in parts of the world, probably because it would be too economically painful if not unfeasible to e.g. limit or tax imports, outsourcing etc by emission source.

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-source-bar...

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#36

Post by raphinou »

QuercusMax wrote: post #32
raphinou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I have read that heat is hard to convert to useful energy. Can someone confirm? But the, if that's true, why use heat as energy storage?

Heat can't be converted losslessly to useful energy, but converting to heat to other forms of energy is extremely common. What do you think a steam turbine, boiler, internal combustion engine, etc. do ?

But all the examples you give have a heat source of high temperature and dense energy, and a lot of energy is lost in it's transformation, as illustrated by the combustion engine. How can heat be a good energy storage if so much is lost when you want to use it?

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#37

Post by gregorygoc »

novaRom wrote: post #18
marcosdumay wrote: post #11

What is not on the title: For an entire year, that year being 2025. Also, yes, absolute generation from fossil fuels is declining quickly. The total generation is changing way more slowly than that share.

But so is German industry - every day in the news either insolvency or workforce reduction and moving production to Eastern Europe - main reason often stated "expensive Energy". I wonder what are the stats for industrial production in 2025 or total energy consumption in Germany?

There’s nothing wrong with creative destruction

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#38

Post by throw0101d »

purerandomness wrote: post #25
throw0101d wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear! Germany has 15.4 GW of hard coal generation, and 14.7 GW of lignite, for a total of 30.1 GW: * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... In 2010, before the shutdowns started, it had 21.5 GW of nuclear. So if all the other rollouts (renewables, etc ) had stayed the same, but the shutdown of nuclear…

The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer. No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off…

> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011.

Schröder was talking about it in 2000:

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli...

Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics:

* https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at...

(He did encourage renewables as well.)

> No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear.

The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear.

> Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.

It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found).

See perhaps:

> […] Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.

* https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2...

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#39

Post by hdgvhicv »

novaRom wrote: post #18
marcosdumay wrote: post #11

What is not on the title: For an entire year, that year being 2025. Also, yes, absolute generation from fossil fuels is declining quickly. The total generation is changing way more slowly than that share.

But so is German industry - every day in the news either insolvency or workforce reduction and moving production to Eastern Europe - main reason often stated "expensive Energy". I wonder what are the stats for industrial production in 2025 or total energy consumption in Germany?

U.K. energy is expensive because it’s all based on the cost of gas.

Onshore wind and solar is about £40-50

Offshore wind about £60

Gas about £120

That’s generation cost, before subsidies and levees

But we still haven’t put in an emergency legislation to make it easier to build cheaper energy.

Re: Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in Germany for the first time

#40

Post by RandomLensman »

throw0101d wrote: post #38
purerandomness wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer. No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off…

> The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011. Schröder was talking about it in 2000: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/15/johnhooper * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder#Domestic_poli... Oh, and he was appointed to Gazprom (and other Russian energy companies) after leaving politics: * https://www.dw.com/en/former-chancellor-schröder-sworn-in-at... (He did encourage ren…

Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
Post reply on HN