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

81–90 of 341 posts

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

#81

Post by Hnrobert42 »

I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. I believe it's mostly about protecting existing money/power structures, but I don't really know. I mean, where does all Trump's energy on this topic come from? Is it owning the libs or courting donors or the Heritage Foundation/AEI?

If it's really about protecting fossil fuel wealth, is there a long-term plan or are they just juicing quarterly earnings as long as they can? Is there a serious belief that wind/solar is a fad?

This isn't the kind of thought that begets rational discussion, but if you can avoid cynicism and sarcasm, I am curious to hear what the smart people of HN think.

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

#82

Post by bluGill »

foota wrote: post #70
ragebol wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe, but that other 70-80% is waste - we could turn it into useful heat, but instead we vent it to the environment.

I've seen plans to run an engine in your furnace, thus creating both electric (at 20-30%, and capturing the rest as heat to the house. I've never seen this in the real world and experts who have looked as those systems said they won't enter a building that has one using that design. (it is possible to make a design they would trust, but they haven't seen any)

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

#83

Post by adaml_623 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #81

I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. I believe it's mostly about protecting existing money/power structures, but I don't really know. I mean, where does all Trump's energy on this topic come from? Is it owning the libs or courting donors or the Heritage Foundation/AEI? If it's really about protecting fossil fuel wealth, is there a long-term plan or are they j…

I know what you mean. You'd think nationalists would want to put the citizens of their country first but nope they can all go and get cancer from coal power plants.

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

#85

Post by pydry »

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 ?)

Germany was shamed endlessly for not shutting down coal plants fast enough by the same nuclear fans who didn't make a peep about Poland making a decision to be 80% coal for ages.

It raised some interesting questions about priorities.

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

#86

Post by bluGill »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #81

I'm confused by the US conservatives' full court press for fossil fuels and against wind/solar. I believe it's mostly about protecting existing money/power structures, but I don't really know. I mean, where does all Trump's energy on this topic come from? Is it owning the libs or courting donors or the Heritage Foundation/AEI? If it's really about protecting fossil fuel wealth, is there a long-term plan or are they j…

I'm confused too, and I often self-identify as conservative.

Part of the problem is you think there is unity in any large movement. There is not, only tiny movements with no political power have unity. There are multiple factions is always the right answer and you have to understand each. As a short cut, many (often the majority) are willing to live with those in their midst but don't actually care.

Fossil fuel companies have long supported conservative positions. This is their payback, they get support back.

Many do see renewables as the "left", and so they don't care to think, they just oppose anything the left does. (you often see the reverse)

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

#87

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

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?

Nuclear reactors do exactly that

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

#88

Post by artisinal »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #5

Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear! https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/live/fifteen_min... Anyone is free to compare France and Germany here.

Don’t forget the low IQ move that Germany did when they replaced the windfarm in NRW with coal.

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

#89

Post by ZeroGravitas »

foota wrote: post #70
ragebol wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes but by a weird coincidence most of that heat can be provided by heat pumps at a similar 3-5x ratio.

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

#90

Post by raphinou »

atoav wrote: post #30
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?

Use it directly, see my silbling comment.

so all such 'energy' storage are to be used as heat and no other form of energy? The name energy storage is somewhat confusing then, even if not incorrect? Heat storage would be more accurate iiuc.
Post reply on HN