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

61–70 of 341 posts

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

#61

Post by plastic-enjoyer »

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?

> 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?

Every First World country seems to be following the path from industrialisation, through deindustrialisation (which, when I was at school, was still called ‘structural change’), to a service-based society. It seems to be the price we pay for economic prosperity and cheap goods - and it is not the first time in Germany this happens.

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

#62

Post by cyberax »

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?

Yes. This is sometimes called "Carnot tax".

The efficiency of any heat engine is bounded by the Carnot cycle. In simplified form, it depends on the temperature differential between the cold and the hot parts. So if your hot part is at 300C (572 Kelvin), and the cold part is at 30C (300 Kelvin) then the absolutely best possible efficiency is around (572-300)/572*100% = 47%.

You see that it quickly becomes inefficient as the differential goes down. E.g. if you use 90C to store the heat, then the maximum efficiency is just 17%.

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

#63

Post by GuB-42 »

I have heard this news many times, technically not wrong, but each time with a different metric. This time it is production over a year.

It reminds me of the Voyager probes that left the solar system half a dozen times, each time taking a different definition of what marks the edge of the solar system.

Anyways, we are now getting to sensible metrics, which is good.

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

#64

Post by pydry »

RandomLensman wrote: post #47
freehorse wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussion about nuclear reactors aside, energy in germany became expensive when they cut off russian gas and they had no good alternative. There was no other source of cheap fossil fuels for electricity production. If anything, renewables are promoted as a solution to that energy problem. The discussion about fossil fuels vs renewables is a bit different within countries which produce fossil fuels than within those…

Germany cut off Russian gas? Gazprom suspended supply indefinitely via NS1 before it was destroyed.

Canada sanctioned the repaired gas turbines needed to operate NS1. They flip flopped on their decision some time later though.

This was spun as a Russian decision, but western countries were clearly trying to force Germany's hand.

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

#65

Post by RandomLensman »

freehorse wrote: post #60
RandomLensman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What German political decision back then do you mean that cut off supply via NS1?

Political decisions that lead to that point and geopolitical situation. The russians cut the gas on their terms because it would have happened anyway and they were not stupid. Then somebody else blew the pipe up and the whole discussion conveniently ended. The divestment from russian economy and blocking imports was already established, but germany and others could not phase out the gas that fast.

Still, when did Germany cut off Russian gas back then? I don't think there is particular complexity in the sequence of events back then. Germany back then was not seeking an end to supplies then and there, if I recall correctly.

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

#66

Post by Veedrac »

ragebol wrote: post #6
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…

When looking at hat kind of graphs, it's good to keep in mind that burning hydrocarbons is relatively inefficient: only ~20-30% of the energy in the fuel turns into useful work, while electricity is much, much more efficient. So, we need much less of it. Still a long ways to go regardless, but much less bleak. And also, exponentially growing deployments of wind and solar are harder to spot on this 2-year old graph wh…

They account for this.

> Primary energy is based on the substitution method and measured in terawatt-hours.

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

#67

Post by cyberax »

Krasnol wrote: post #58
throw0101d wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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). Maybe you should take a closer look how those prices come to be. Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades. Last time they wanted to play the free market game, they h…

> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.

So is everything else.

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

#68

Post by RandomLensman »

pydry wrote: post #64
RandomLensman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany cut off Russian gas? Gazprom suspended supply indefinitely via NS1 before it was destroyed.

Canada sanctioned the repaired gas turbines needed to operate NS1. They flip flopped on their decision some time later though. This was spun as a Russian decision, but western countries were clearly trying to force Germany's hand.

I don't think the turbine that was serviced in Canada was causal there. The turbine thing was earlier, as far as I recall it. Gazprom announced its decision in early Sep 2022, btw.

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

#69

Post by bildung »

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 ?)

Well first, coal went down, too, if we are still discussing Germany. In parallel with shrinking nuclear generation. See the cleanenergywire link upthread for the numbers. So the coal vs. nuclear discussion is baseless already (again, if we still talk about Germany).

Secondly, energy != electricity. Coal is mostly used for central heating (a plant heats water, water is then transported to a whole neighborhood). Electricity is sometimes also produced, but usually not the primary reason for the plant to exist in the first place. Nuclear plants are usually used for generating electricity (in Germany). Germanys carbon problem is the heating infrastructure being dependant on fossil fuels (mostly gas), but it has no lack of electricity sources.

Thanks for stating your openmindedness re/ nuclear discussion, BTW, IME statements like this can really lift the whole level of discourse.

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

#70

Post by foota »

ragebol wrote: post #6
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…

When looking at hat kind of graphs, it's good to keep in mind that burning hydrocarbons is relatively inefficient: only ~20-30% of the energy in the fuel turns into useful work, while electricity is much, much more efficient. So, we need much less of it. Still a long ways to go regardless, but much less bleak. And also, exponentially growing deployments of wind and solar are harder to spot on this 2-year old graph wh…

> only ~20-30% of the energy in the fuel turns into useful work, while electricity is much, much more efficient. So, we need much less of it.

Isn't a lot of energy used for heating, not work?

Post reply on HN