Since the article doesn't say, my back of the napkin math is that is equal to ~11% of the national daily electricity usage. (40,919 MwH / (128,819 GwH * 1000 / 365) = .11 and change but I may be wrong about how that math actually works[0])
If you need any values, check this page [0]. It’s run by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy (the Fraunhofer Society [1] is a large organization for applied science and has lots of different institutes).
So, the line is the demand, the colored areas are the generation by source and the mismatch between both is... the import/export and pumped storage that I've just found that are turned off at the bottom, cool.
What is really depressing when looking at this graph, is that if Germany had kept the same nuclear generation as in 2010, it will be producing electricity almost free of CO2 for a large part of the year... but instead they are burning lignite.
If you look at how many people will have to ride a bike instead of a car to offset that you see how ridiculous this is.
I agree that keeping nuclear would have been the right choice, but it is also easy to see why it was politically impossible.
After years of public debate and negotiations nuclear was accepted as a bridging technology just a couple of months before Fukushima happened. Fresh in the publics mind on already extremely shaky ground Fukushima sealed the fate for the existing nuclear plants.
We have on the other hand gotten new built renewables costing less than the marginal cost of traditional fossil plants. Germany's start may have been slower, but who is fastest in the end? The turtle enjoying exponential development or the hare living on past achievments?
Same in the Netherlands.... sunday had some serious negative prices, at the lowest it hit -30ct/kwh. It was a nice weekend to charge my EV and get payed for it.
For sure, but the negative prices indicate quite clearly that the storage capacity is way too low (unfortunately). In case our storage capacity would be just right, prices would never be negative.
Germany is connected to the largest grid on this planet and there is always need for power on it. Looking at the charts, most of it went to France, Denmark and the Netherlands.
Besides that, the grid pumps energy in reservoirs for example if necessary.
Germany should have about 70GW of PV installed right now [citation needed] - I really wonder where the remaining 30 GW went. Conditions don't get much better than this weekend. So how is the missing capacity explained? Turned off? Facing east/west?
> Germany should have about 70GW of PV installed right now [citation needed]
See [0] for a table of the installed peak power and it was at 66-67GW at the end of 2022. We're half a year into 2023 already, so 70GW sounds pretty reasonable.
> I really wonder where the remaining 30 GW went.
Some capacity is installed already but not connected to the grid yet. This seems to happen disturbingly often but hopefully doesn't explain a difference of 30GW, though.
I am not sure but perhaps Germany had some baseload power, perhaps 30 GW as per your calculation. Because baseload power is not turned on and off easily, they let it run even if they could turn off and have enough power. I don't know.
Some of that is lost due to regulatory 70% limits during peak times.
Also the rated capacity is for some synthetic sun conditions. I have no idea what's the conversion factor between ideal sun in Germany and the PV rating sun.
Then there is the fact that many installations are explicitly using small converters, not all installations face the same way (east-west setups are a big thing for farms and other large scale setups). I live right next to Germany and getting 80% of your installed capacity is considered optimal.
I know, Frqnce is lucly to have a huge nuclear fleet, allowing them a low CO2 foot print. Still, more households, large indutrial foot print play a role. Actual size of a country much less so.
Most CO2 footprints are not meaningful, because they are measuring the total and not per capita, and the CO2 footprint is counted against the producers and not the consumers.
Steel- or car-producing countries, like Germany, will always have higher CO2 footprints than the countries, which consume the steel and cars.
Of course, those producing countries shouldn't burn anything to reap the energy from it.
Might be true (didn't check the numbers) but German coal/lignite plants (which are the biggest contributors to the German CO2 footprint) will be phased off gradually over the next 7 years. So that will change drastically.
It would probably have been wiser to keep the nuclear shut-off at 2030, but Fukushima changed that and when the energy crisis hit it was already too late to change course.
You can't phase them all out, you can only decrease their usage. You need coal and natural gas to cover base load. Germany will never reach or come near the Co2 emissions of France. In theory it can work without nuclear by installing MASSIVE storage for solar/wind energy, but this is still all theory and has enormous costs attached.
If we acknowledge the inevitability of distributed energy storage (stationary and mobile batteries), as nuke advocates are so keen to insist on the inevitability of distributed microreactors, we might actually get somewhere in our conversations.
Only they don’t exist and it ain’t viable… You want to run a steel mill or a chemical plant on batteries? Lol.
How much battery would you need to sustain Germany 3-4 days?
That's true -- neither do the "necessary" reactors however.
> it ain't viable
Citation needed.
> You want to run a steel mill or a chemical plant on batteries?
No, obviously certain industries with different power requirements will be treated differently in the grid... just like they are now. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that. Furthermore, there are some interesting and not-too-exotic designs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32006791) that seem better suited to industrial high-energy applications than your typical lithium-ion. In fact, lithium only makes sense in mobile applications: you can use heavier (and higher capacity) materials for storage which doesn't need to move at all.
> How much battery would you need to sustain Germany 3-4 days?
Bad faith argument that misinterprets the point of energy storage to the point that it's arguing against something that is not relevant here.
The decision to phase all of them out has already been made, the next plant will be turned off in a couple of weeks.
Also, massive storage capacity is being installed already: 1 GWh of small-scale home storage was added in the first quarter of this year alone. When it comes to larger-scale batteries Germany is currently a bit behind, but that is just a matter of time since the business opportunity is just too great. So this is already happening right now in front of our eyes.
Base load is a concept of the past, flexible grids is the future, and that is exactly where the journey is already going.
Renewables are not an option to rely on entirely with an industrialized nation consuming a lot of electricity 24/7.
They look financially attractive if storage and grid flexibility aren’t factored in.
Full disclosure: I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.
I would think that the region where I live (north Germany) could be driven two-three times with renewable energy. Added storage is a matter of time and money. Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.
> I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.
That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years.
> I would think that the region where I live (north Germany) could be driven two-three times with renewable energy.
I suspect not a very economically strong region then?
> Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.
It’s pick your poison: that or global warming. Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power; Korea gets em up and running in 2 years…
> That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years
PVs are horrible for grids to handle and for every installed PV we also need to have the gas equivalent if PV doesn’t deliver. If we are really optimistic and assume we would only need to cover 3 days we probably need around 3600 GWh or storage which is equal to 12 million tons of batteries assuming 300 Wh per kg of battery (if I got the math right on my phone).
> It’s pick your poison: that or global warming. Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power; Korea gets em up and running in 2 years…
Everytime a nuclear advocate mentions Korea their build time seemingly gets shortened by a year, all the while Flamanville 3 adds another year of delay.
Sadly the South Korean model seems to require falsifying certification documents so following their lead seems supremely unwise.
> In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[25] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[26] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[25][27]
> In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[28] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[29] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[30]
> Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power
Almost.
Before the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Japan had 54 nuclear reactors with 30% of Japan’s electricity output. Of that only 33 reactors are currently possibly operable and of those only 10 are actually currently online.
The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake was the most devastating event in the nuclear history: a single event caused the shutdown of all 50+ reactors of a country, with much of the nuclear electricity production capacity lost for a decade - and longer.
While the country is spending billions to keep the wrecks under control.
“ Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is one of several world leaders aiming to ramp up the use of nuclear power, with plans to restart more reactors that have been standing idle since the Fukushima crisis.”
Shutting down all reactors and then a decade later restarting a few is really not a sound strategy to solve climate change problems. Remember, the example of Japan was yours.
? So, instead you propose the German strategy to restart coal and double gas capacity to achieve 140 g/kWh of carbon emissions by 2030 (e.g., twice of France)?
So restarting coal plants in Germany is wise in comparison?
According to the Fraunhofer, German’s carbon footprint will be approx. 140 g CO2/kWh by 2030 (twice of France TODAY) if we manage to double renewables AND gas. The German electric grid cannot rely on renewables alone and we will have installed about 5-6x the peak capacity in renewables and the peak capacity in gas by 2030 in the best case. Germans CO2 emissions in the electricity sector are crazy.
Would I prefer if we would have kept the nuclear plants running for longer? Yes! Is that the reality? No.
So instead of crying after an energy source of the last century (nuclear) I'm all for now building a 100% emission-free, decentralized and flexible grid. I am convinced this is the future and the journey to get there has already begun.
You have three choices:
1) Deindustrialisation
2) Renewables with gas & coal and a high carbon footprint
3) Renewables and nuclear
Decentralization, flexible grid, local storage are as viable and realistic as “cold fusion” for Germany as of today. You underestimate the tremendous need for electricity the industry has.
So, realistically: either you chose global warming or nuclear power.
As the foreposter said, stop crying for what is in the past now. Even if we wanted to restart old, or even crazier, build new plants: that window has passed and it wouldn't help much for a long time.. despite all the issues, the whole world could.not even sustain 50% nuclear.. so some countries just need to do it. You overprovision renewables and storage, and fossil backups usage needs will not completely go away, but diminish much quicker than thought.. it is just a scaling issue right now and a goal, at least.
This hand-wavy thinking can and will cause shifts in wealth, prosperity and future of Germany and Europe. Ignoring it or feeling good about it won’t change reality very much like the central banks “laissez faire print money” led to (unavoidable yet very predictable) inflation putting individuals, families, companies and countries in a pretty delicate situation.
I would suggest reading up on the difference between the household and wholesale electricity market. German households pay among the most expensive electricity in the EU while the commercial wholesale market is at the lower end.
The difference comes from taxes and fees.
Germany briefly hit 45 cents/kWh last year due to the war. We are getting back to normal and in March the average price was 10 cents/kWh.
In other words, even during the tail ends of winter and war induced supply crunches the average price was too low to support nuclear.
New built nuclear is having energy crisis prices all year around.
Given the state of Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3 if Germany had chosen nuclear instead of renewables they would still be running close to 100% fossil fuels today.
Yes, coming from the oil crisis in the 70s France chose energy independence through nuclear while Germany at the same time chose coal. Today nuclear is a black hole of cost while Germany is building the future.
Yes. France relies only on Flamanville 3, and only Flamanville 3 powers the entire country.
Germany keeps polluting. Nature cares about co2, nature doesn't care about your economical strategy. Co2 is what matters the most, and your renewable, while being 75% of your electricity, doesn't help at all.
Also, you forget to mention why Germany really gave up on nuclear. Enjoy Russian's blood money, Schröder, people are willing to defend your treason act, even in 2023.
If you are not seeing it already, give it ten more years and watch.. (not talking about Germany, though should have a look at them too again, but about a bigger manifesting failure).
Going from an entirely fossil grid to on average having 78% renewables last week
It wasn't entirely fossil - they used to have fossil free nuclear power.
That 78% is an extreme case during a warm, sunny and windy week. Almost half of the electricity generation on an annual basis still comes from fossil fuels. This is after two decades of effort to turn that around:
fossil-free, but not emission-free and also not independent from other countries. I am not against nuclear at all, but I am convinced that the future belongs to renewables for a multitude of reasons. Germany should have kept their reactors running longer (where reasonable and possible) but here we are.
The fourth largest economy in the world transitioning from 8% renewables 20 years ago to more than 50% now while maintaining it's position as having one of the most stable grids in the world is IMHO a pretty decent achievement.
Monday was a holiday. I was outside with the bicycle in the afternoon here in North Germany. Strong winds and lots of sunshine. Some wind turbines were not operating -> there was more electricity from renewable energy than Germany could consume.
I then saw an old grain windmill (originally built in 1828) operating, with its windmill blades rotating. The first windmill on that location is dated back to the year 1318.
It was a really wonderful day, that Whit Monday in North Germany in May 2023.
Here in Denmark we had negative electricity prices over the weekend. Its a surreal feeling: suddenly, turning on all the equipment is good, and not just financially -- the energy was coming mostly from wind and solar, so it wasn't even a bad thing from a carbon footprint perspective.
> suddenly, turning on all the equipment is good, and not just financially
I assume you have the same type of energy taxes in Denmark as we have in Sweden and that as such "negative electricity prices" only apply to the wholesale market (Nord Pool [1])? In that case you still pay:
1: market surcharge (påslag)
2: energy tax (energiskatt)
3: renewable energy surcharge (certifikatavgift)
4: transmission charge (överföringsavgift)
5: VAT on the previous (moms, 25% in Sweden)
Here in Sweden this means that "free" electricity costs around ((6 + 39 + 1 + 31) * 1.25 = ) ~ 0.85 kr (Swedish crowns or 'kronor') per kWh.
Negative electricity prices do affect those who have solar panels since - depending on the contract - it can actually cost money to push more energy into the network. In our case we'd pay when the price goes below ca. -0.35 kr/kWh which has not happened - yet.
What this says to me is that Denmark has underinvested in energy storage. Don't worry, this is true of most every country on Earth at the moment. Generation tech has outpaced the storage tech for a few years and now we are getting pathological cases like this cropping up from time to time. The good news is that battery factories are coming online all the time and there is a possibility of closing the gap in the next few years. This is also a prerequisite for transitioning away from dirty fossil fuels.
Even just 20 years ago renewable generation was barely a blip on the national power grid, because they were so expensive as to be completely impractical. Our era of affordable solar is less than a decade old. No demand for storage meant no activity in the market, hence the lag now that wind and solar have become so cheap that everybody can install it.
Energy storage is good, but there's nothing wrong with "We've got more electricity than we can use, go be productive with it."
I don't know what industries could take advantage of that -- smelt some extra aluminum, make some extra fertilizer, sequester some extra CO2. But time-shifting production is also a valid way to "store" energy. It's a problem that could be an opportunity.
The German solar industry died because it was run naive worpd savers, grifters and subsidy junkies. That combination stood no chance against push from Chinese companies. At least one of the big entrepreneurs from back than managed to keed his chateau.
Just like our power bills - the highest in the world. Electricy has turned into a luxury good here thanks to our focus on "renewables".
Germany's energy policy is the worst in the world by any standard.
Not only has it lead to extremely high energy prices, it does not even have a good CO2 footprint.
Thing is, wind and solar do not provide sufficient power 24/7, especially not in a German winter - when Germany needs the most power - so what does happend? We fire up the coal plants because "nuclear power bad".
Last winter wind and solar only provided 10% of Germany's energy, and that number is not going to go up by much, because there is little sun and wind in Germany during winter.
Nuclear power isn't bad, they buy loads of it from France. They're being NIMBY, but if France actually had a bad meltdown, Germany would probably be heavily impacted anyway.
Yes, that's the typical hypocrisy of Germany's green-left ruling class. They closed down our own nuclear power plants only to import more nuclear power from France (and coal power from Poland).
Again, our energy policy is horrible.
People should look to nations like Finland instead if they want a good example of a climate friendly energy policy. They just finished the most powerful nuclear reactor in Europe, it alone will provide about 1/3 of the energy Finland needs, cheap and climate friendly.
> They just finished the most powerful nuclear reactor in Europe, it alone will provide about 1/3 of the energy Finland needs, cheap and climate friendly.
OL3 does not provide anywhere near to 1/3 of Finnish needs. It's producing 1600 MW.
Finland's average production this year has been 9187 MWh/h, and average consumption 9435 MWh/h.
Your claims are wildy misleading. Last winter, renewables contributed almost 50% to the German electricity mix. You're using the value for overall _energy_ though, which includes heating which is of course still using fossil fuels for the most part in Germany.
Also, Germany does not have the highest power bills in the world.
Solar and wind don't provide energy 24/7 which is why you need storage. Which Germany adds at a breathtaking speed (1+ GWh of storage added just in the first quarter of this year).
I am not against nuclear, but this bs is also completely unnecessary.
> While I agree with everything else you said, this is only technically true, last I checked. Only small island nations had more expensive electricity.
That's probably right if you take last year's prices (these were insane, that's correct). But right now you can buy electricity again for 2X ct/kwh, which is still on the more expensive side but certainly not the highest price in the world.
Nah, that’s where I see us on "cost of electricity by country" lists for consumer prices. The first time I looked was a few years ago. FWIW, I currently pay the (government capped) max, 0.4€/kWh
Germany is middle of the pack for electricity production cost in the EU. They have more taxes/less subsidies than others though so the consumer price is higher.
If you want to achieve a meaningful coverage with renewables, you need to install excessive capacity (e.g., imagine 5-6x the required capacity) AND install 100% in coal/gas/nuclear. Thats pretty expensive and pretty wasteful in terms of resources.
Even with twice the renewables (and twice the gas capacity due to phasing out of coal and nuclear), we will emit twice the carbon emissions of France (today) in 2030.
“Flexible grid and storage” are just nonsense that is thrown in to mask the ugly truth: 1) Deindustrialization, 2) Global Warming or 3) Going Nuclear.
Overprovision yes, install 100% as fossil backup no... scale fixes your fav-renewable cannot produce enough, because somewhere they will produce, and the different techs combine also well, and then storage a lot, yes, and some backup sure, but even worst pessimists go not with 100%.
> Thats pretty expensive
Longterm the other alternatives are more expensive.. and that's not even calculating in that they are less sustainable. You keep repeating dogmas.
There is the dogma again.. did you once had a look for how long whole Europe had neither sun or wind? Despite them being not the only renewables.. and why are you ignoring storage as backup completely?
Anyway, reference for Frauenhofer claim please, didn't know they are now heavy industry or a grid player? Confused..
I know what Frauenhofer is.. so we agree Frauenhofer does not "provision" 100% fossil, or what sense should this sentence have made then?? If anything (I mean they have very different branches, with different stances, I worked with one back then in partnership student time) they are generally an advocate of renewables? At least the ISE, IBP, IEE.. which not please???
Also think big for the future, I asked about Europe... it is about scale. Sure if I limit it down, I can also claim: Sun never shines in my backyard.
The Fraunhofer acknowledges in their simulations that doubling gas by 100% and having 100% covered by gas plants is necessary. That is if we double the renewables and install 500-600% of the required capacity by 2030.
You cannot run Germany solely on renewables. It has one of the highest carbon footprints per kWh in Europe and will continue to have twice the carbon footprint of France by 2030 IF all the expansion plans for renewables work out.
Oh come on, you make up new limits and constraints each time on each response..
You can run the world solely on renewables given enough effort and time, is a similar ridiculous counter to you now bringing up 2030..... pathetic really.
Building new nuclear plants, or just recertifying the old ones accordingly to current standards and supplying them with enough fuel
would have been possible til 2030, right?
Again, Frauenhofer is a diverse large body with multiple branches, they have also studies about cost and way to Germany on fully renewables 2050, without 100% gas backup - which study are you citing please?
Agree with you on nuclear, but Germany isn’t the most expensive. While US per kwh is lower, there are so many surcharges and various schemes that the effect rate when you actually need it (day for air conditioning, evening for everything else because that’s when people are back from work) is really high: https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/Time-Of-Use-Residentia...
And remember, CA has no harsh winters and inland is usually all sunshine and good amount of wind too. Still, we are not doing all that much better and still burn fossil fuels (and of course shutting down nuclear).
Of course California is not different; the high prices are a consequence of their "100% renewables or bust but 0% nuclear first" approach to energy policy. California hasn't even increased their hydro/resovoir capacity for half a century despite massive industry and population growth and consistently worsening dry spells.
Why is it not done today? Probably because of this: Mining rigs are a larger capital investment. They would have to compete with rigs in countries that don't care about CO2. Additionally, why would they be turned off if the energy prices are positive, but still below the cost of mining crypto elsewhere?
Recently Poland was in a similar situation. We produced too much energy from renewables. As a consequence we had to pay a few millions to other countries to take the energy. Moreover we had to compensate to individuals who have FV but their energy was not allowed to the grid. This is absolutely insane to me. Mining crypto sounds way better than this chaos. If not on country level then on individual level. I'd happily start mining myself if electricity prices were not fixed but followed the real demand.
In Finland we had to scale back nuclear because wind + solar were producing too much for the grid to handle. And still the cost of electricity was negative, I only had to pay for the transfer charges (which are the same no matter what the actual electricity costs)
113 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] thread[0]: Annual electricity usage from here, using 2018 numbers - https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Enviro...
[0] https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society
After years of public debate and negotiations nuclear was accepted as a bridging technology just a couple of months before Fukushima happened. Fresh in the publics mind on already extremely shaky ground Fukushima sealed the fate for the existing nuclear plants.
Renewables share for the whole last week in Germany was 77.4%.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
You can get a feel for how the production is composed over the day here https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&...
We're fine. Thank you.
[1] https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilung...
[2] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...
None, which you undoubtedly knew already.
Germany is connected to the largest grid on this planet and there is always need for power on it. Looking at the charts, most of it went to France, Denmark and the Netherlands.
Besides that, the grid pumps energy in reservoirs for example if necessary.
At this moment the Swedish reservoirs are storing ~12 000 GWH with 100% full being 34 000 TWh which the spring melt is currently filling.
In Swedish: https://www.energiforetagen.se/globalassets/energiforetagen/...
See [0] for a table of the installed peak power and it was at 66-67GW at the end of 2022. We're half a year into 2023 already, so 70GW sounds pretty reasonable.
> I really wonder where the remaining 30 GW went.
Some capacity is installed already but not connected to the grid yet. This seems to happen disturbingly often but hopefully doesn't explain a difference of 30GW, though.
[0] (de) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik_in_Deutschland#En...
Also the rated capacity is for some synthetic sun conditions. I have no idea what's the conversion factor between ideal sun in Germany and the PV rating sun.
Thanks to solar Germany is mostly in the middle of the pack right now.
Steel- or car-producing countries, like Germany, will always have higher CO2 footprints than the countries, which consume the steel and cars.
Of course, those producing countries shouldn't burn anything to reap the energy from it.
It would probably have been wiser to keep the nuclear shut-off at 2030, but Fukushima changed that and when the energy crisis hit it was already too late to change course.
That's true -- neither do the "necessary" reactors however.
> it ain't viable
Citation needed.
> You want to run a steel mill or a chemical plant on batteries?
No, obviously certain industries with different power requirements will be treated differently in the grid... just like they are now. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that. Furthermore, there are some interesting and not-too-exotic designs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32006791) that seem better suited to industrial high-energy applications than your typical lithium-ion. In fact, lithium only makes sense in mobile applications: you can use heavier (and higher capacity) materials for storage which doesn't need to move at all.
> How much battery would you need to sustain Germany 3-4 days?
Bad faith argument that misinterprets the point of energy storage to the point that it's arguing against something that is not relevant here.
Also, massive storage capacity is being installed already: 1 GWh of small-scale home storage was added in the first quarter of this year alone. When it comes to larger-scale batteries Germany is currently a bit behind, but that is just a matter of time since the business opportunity is just too great. So this is already happening right now in front of our eyes.
Base load is a concept of the past, flexible grids is the future, and that is exactly where the journey is already going.
Our industry would probably disagree that “base load is a concept of the past”.
In 2021, electricity production from renewable grew by 9%
Nuclear production grew by 2%. The capacity declined. World wide.
It's much better to invest into renewable.
Full disclosure: I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.
> I deliver more electricity to the grid with my PV than I consume.
That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years.
I suspect not a very economically strong region then?
> Given that nuclear energy will be slow and extremely expensive to build, we'll better look for alternatives sooner than later. Plus: spent fuel storage / reprocessing costs how much for what option? We have nuclear power since the 50s, but dealing with nuclear waste is still largely unsolved.
It’s pick your poison: that or global warming. Japan and Korea are ramping up their nuclear power; Korea gets em up and running in 2 years…
> That's fine. We'll see more people doing it and we'll see many GWh distributed storage capacity added over the next years
PVs are horrible for grids to handle and for every installed PV we also need to have the gas equivalent if PV doesn’t deliver. If we are really optimistic and assume we would only need to cover 3 days we probably need around 3600 GWh or storage which is equal to 12 million tons of batteries assuming 300 Wh per kg of battery (if I got the math right on my phone).
Everytime a nuclear advocate mentions Korea their build time seemingly gets shortened by a year, all the while Flamanville 3 adds another year of delay.
Sadly the South Korean model seems to require falsifying certification documents so following their lead seems supremely unwise.
> In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[25] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[26] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[25][27]
> In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[28] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[29] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#H...
Almost.
Before the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Japan had 54 nuclear reactors with 30% of Japan’s electricity output. Of that only 33 reactors are currently possibly operable and of those only 10 are actually currently online.
The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake was the most devastating event in the nuclear history: a single event caused the shutdown of all 50+ reactors of a country, with much of the nuclear electricity production capacity lost for a decade - and longer.
While the country is spending billions to keep the wrecks under control.
Relate that to the 400g/kWh of carbon emissions coal produces or the radioactive fallout from coal plants.
I prefer a nuclear power plant to the coal plants that smog up my air and pollute everything around the Rhine area.
In Japan majority is supporting it again and the articles don’t read like nuclear is on the decline in Japan these days: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/03/06/national/nuclea...
“ Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is one of several world leaders aiming to ramp up the use of nuclear power, with plans to restart more reactors that have been standing idle since the Fukushima crisis.”
So I think what you state is wrong!?
So restarting coal plants in Germany is wise in comparison?
April 2023: 9,4 kWh electricity from coal
decreasing coal usage, despite the sanctions due to the Russian invasion...
So instead of crying after an energy source of the last century (nuclear) I'm all for now building a 100% emission-free, decentralized and flexible grid. I am convinced this is the future and the journey to get there has already begun.
Decentralization, flexible grid, local storage are as viable and realistic as “cold fusion” for Germany as of today. You underestimate the tremendous need for electricity the industry has.
So, realistically: either you chose global warming or nuclear power.
Ideology doesn’t replace reality.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
The difference comes from taxes and fees.
Germany briefly hit 45 cents/kWh last year due to the war. We are getting back to normal and in March the average price was 10 cents/kWh.
In other words, even during the tail ends of winter and war induced supply crunches the average price was too low to support nuclear.
New built nuclear is having energy crisis prices all year around.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
26gr of Carbon intensity vs 260gr. Check it out live here:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Germany has failed, and keeps pushing for its failure so that it can turn into a miracle, and it won't.
Yes, coming from the oil crisis in the 70s France chose energy independence through nuclear while Germany at the same time chose coal. Today nuclear is a black hole of cost while Germany is building the future.
So what are you even arguing about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Germany keeps polluting. Nature cares about co2, nature doesn't care about your economical strategy. Co2 is what matters the most, and your renewable, while being 75% of your electricity, doesn't help at all.
Also, you forget to mention why Germany really gave up on nuclear. Enjoy Russian's blood money, Schröder, people are willing to defend your treason act, even in 2023.
It wasn't entirely fossil - they used to have fossil free nuclear power.
That 78% is an extreme case during a warm, sunny and windy week. Almost half of the electricity generation on an annual basis still comes from fossil fuels. This is after two decades of effort to turn that around:
https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
The graph is a bit misleading since it shows the renewable share, not the fossil-free share. Had it shown that the progress would looked even slower.
fossil-free, but not emission-free and also not independent from other countries. I am not against nuclear at all, but I am convinced that the future belongs to renewables for a multitude of reasons. Germany should have kept their reactors running longer (where reasonable and possible) but here we are.
The fourth largest economy in the world transitioning from 8% renewables 20 years ago to more than 50% now while maintaining it's position as having one of the most stable grids in the world is IMHO a pretty decent achievement.
I then saw an old grain windmill (originally built in 1828) operating, with its windmill blades rotating. The first windmill on that location is dated back to the year 1318.
It was a really wonderful day, that Whit Monday in North Germany in May 2023.
I assume you have the same type of energy taxes in Denmark as we have in Sweden and that as such "negative electricity prices" only apply to the wholesale market (Nord Pool [1])? In that case you still pay:
Here in Sweden this means that "free" electricity costs around ((6 + 39 + 1 + 31) * 1.25 = ) ~ 0.85 kr (Swedish crowns or 'kronor') per kWh.Negative electricity prices do affect those who have solar panels since - depending on the contract - it can actually cost money to push more energy into the network. In our case we'd pay when the price goes below ca. -0.35 kr/kWh which has not happened - yet.
[1] https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/#/nordic/table
It's more like storage tech went nowhere for decades.
> and now we are getting pathological cases like this cropping up from time to time.
It's not pathological at all to have more generation capacity than you can use when the source varies so much. It's just reality.
I don't know what industries could take advantage of that -- smelt some extra aluminum, make some extra fertilizer, sequester some extra CO2. But time-shifting production is also a valid way to "store" energy. It's a problem that could be an opportunity.
Germany's energy policy is the worst in the world by any standard.
Not only has it lead to extremely high energy prices, it does not even have a good CO2 footprint.
Thing is, wind and solar do not provide sufficient power 24/7, especially not in a German winter - when Germany needs the most power - so what does happend? We fire up the coal plants because "nuclear power bad".
Last winter wind and solar only provided 10% of Germany's energy, and that number is not going to go up by much, because there is little sun and wind in Germany during winter.
Again, our energy policy is horrible.
People should look to nations like Finland instead if they want a good example of a climate friendly energy policy. They just finished the most powerful nuclear reactor in Europe, it alone will provide about 1/3 of the energy Finland needs, cheap and climate friendly.
OL3 does not provide anywhere near to 1/3 of Finnish needs. It's producing 1600 MW.
Finland's average production this year has been 9187 MWh/h, and average consumption 9435 MWh/h.
https://www.fingrid.fi/sahkomarkkinainformaatio/kulutus-ja-t...
Also, Germany does not have the highest power bills in the world.
Solar and wind don't provide energy 24/7 which is why you need storage. Which Germany adds at a breathtaking speed (1+ GWh of storage added just in the first quarter of this year).
I am not against nuclear, but this bs is also completely unnecessary.
While I agree with everything else you said, this is only technically true, last I checked. Only small island nations had more expensive electricity.
That's probably right if you take last year's prices (these were insane, that's correct). But right now you can buy electricity again for 2X ct/kwh, which is still on the more expensive side but certainly not the highest price in the world.
“Flexible grid and storage” are just nonsense that is thrown in to mask the ugly truth: 1) Deindustrialization, 2) Global Warming or 3) Going Nuclear.
> Thats pretty expensive
Longterm the other alternatives are more expensive.. and that's not even calculating in that they are less sustainable. You keep repeating dogmas.
Anyway, reference for Frauenhofer claim please, didn't know they are now heavy industry or a grid player? Confused..
Fraunhofer is a leading (independent) research institute: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/daten-zu-erneuerbaren-energ...
Also think big for the future, I asked about Europe... it is about scale. Sure if I limit it down, I can also claim: Sun never shines in my backyard.
You cannot run Germany solely on renewables. It has one of the highest carbon footprints per kWh in Europe and will continue to have twice the carbon footprint of France by 2030 IF all the expansion plans for renewables work out.
Building new nuclear plants, or just recertifying the old ones accordingly to current standards and supplying them with enough fuel would have been possible til 2030, right?
Again, Frauenhofer is a diverse large body with multiple branches, they have also studies about cost and way to Germany on fully renewables 2050, without 100% gas backup - which study are you citing please?
Page 25 (page number not PDF page) They also have some comprehensive tools for simulation - but I’m a bit too lazy to dig up all the explanation.
And remember, CA has no harsh winters and inland is usually all sunshine and good amount of wind too. Still, we are not doing all that much better and still burn fossil fuels (and of course shutting down nuclear).
...and it was the nuclear plant we've waited for 18 years to come online :D -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/EE