Live data from Hacker News

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

intellinews.com

131–140 of 341 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is clear to everybody that wasn't an possible option. There are consequences for it that though.

Sorry, but I think it is absurd to say there was a Russian reaction because Germany did not join their invasion of Ukraine,

The absurdity is intentional.

However it is still correct. If Germany had joined Russia (and got away with it!), there is every reason to think the pipeline would still be flowing.

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

#132

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?

"Low grade heat", less than the boiling point of water (often), can be stored in a sand system and recovered efficiently and distributed later. But low grade heat cannot efficiently drive a heat engine to produce other, more useful and transferable versions of energy, like electricity. For that you need "high grade" heat. The reason is, heat engines do not operate on heat. They operate on heat flow. You must have a h…

The "grade" you refer to is simply temperature. To efficiently extract energy from a heat flow you want a really hot hot side and a really cold cold side. On earth we can't get a cold side much colder than outside air temperature (not without wasting more energy than you gain) but luckily that is cold enough when the hot side is thousands of degrees. But you can't get much energy from roomtemp and roomtemp+10. A warm cup of coffee will run a Stirling engine for a party trick, but it's not going to charge your phone, much less your car.

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

#133

Breaking news: "Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in for the first time" for the 10th time this year. Also on other unrelated news German economy is rocketing to the bottom, their industry is dying with thousands of layoffs, closing factories, and complains on energy prices and they can't even maintain their rail and road networks for the first time since forever. The signs of decline are not even signs anymore th…

[flagged]

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

#134

Breaking news: "Wind and solar overtake fossil fuels in for the first time" for the 10th time this year. Also on other unrelated news German economy is rocketing to the bottom, their industry is dying with thousands of layoffs, closing factories, and complains on energy prices and they can't even maintain their rail and road networks for the first time since forever. The signs of decline are not even signs anymore th…

The continent is literally on fire due to global warming. Europe does not produce any fossil fuels and needs energy independence. It's because politicians dragged their feet for so long on net zero that we are even in this mess in the first place. Better now than never.

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

#135
post #76
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hailing from Germany's eastern neighbor, where part of the industry went to and where energy is even more expensive, I call BS. The main reason Germany was so hooked on gas wasn't because Hans Müller needed to run his Bosch washer-dryer and heat his home to a comfortable 24°C. It was because natural gas is an great source of hydrogen, which in turn serves as feedstock for the production of all kinds of chemicals used…

> Energy has a whole spectrum of solutions - not the case with hydrogen.

Oh my, where ever else will we be able to find hydrogen, the (checks notes) tenth most common element on our planet ?

No, there's actually plenty of hydrogen, what people who say they "need" methane to make hydrogen actually mean is that they don't want to pay what this really costs.

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

#136
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you know of any major German industry for which energy costs amounts to even 10% of the labor costs? It's a rhetorical question intended to engage the common sense pathways of your cognitive system.

Realistically, without running the numbers, only few industries come to mind that may come close. Chemical manufacturing, steel production and maybe glass production as well.

For the remainder, the wage costs - more specifically - the overhead costs are the true killer. If you want to pay someone 80k a year in Germany, the actual costs are closer to 100k a year in purely salary overhead costs, not to mention the other bureaucratic overhead in Germany

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

#137
The headline should state this is about electricity generation.

If you compare e.g. with a country like Sweden or France they have been free from fossil fuels for electricity since the build outs in the 70s-80s.

Also Germany is an importer of significant electricity (e.g nuclear power from France).

But due to a stagnant economy and no increase in electricity demand - yes, I guess this milestone is now passed...

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

#138

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?

It's inefficient, but still better than completely losing out on it. Better yet would be direct reuse or remote heating.

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

#139

The next frontier will be meat consumption. Particularly red meat. A single 1/4 beef hamburger emits 7-12 kg of carbon[1]. Compared to ~1.5kg of carbon driving your car 3 miles[2]. Not telling you to go full vegetarian, but I'm personally far less interested in a beef product unless you're going to guarantee its an extremely expert prepared steak. Most beef is mediocre. 1 - https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-im…

How many miles does the burger drive my car? Not to question your numbers but they lack context. Also, it would be good for nature if there were fewer or no humans on this planet. But then there would be no human here to enjoy nature.

Sorry but this is just such an ignorant comment. You really need to read up on how agriculture contributes to global warming and loss of land/deforestation. What do you think cows eat, air?

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

#140

The next frontier will be meat consumption. Particularly red meat. A single 1/4 beef hamburger emits 7-12 kg of carbon[1]. Compared to ~1.5kg of carbon driving your car 3 miles[2]. Not telling you to go full vegetarian, but I'm personally far less interested in a beef product unless you're going to guarantee its an extremely expert prepared steak. Most beef is mediocre. 1 - https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-im…

How many miles does the burger drive my car? Not to question your numbers but they lack context. Also, it would be good for nature if there were fewer or no humans on this planet. But then there would be no human here to enjoy nature.

Burgers don't drive cars.

People drive cars, and people eat burgers. Is that the context you were looking for?

We've identified two ways to reduce carbon production. 1) reduce production per human. 2) reduce humans.

Only the first one is being argued for here. Conflating it with the second is just a confusion.

Post reply on HN