Germany and renewable energy
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Yup, always two sides to every story. But the thumbs of society are weighted, whether real or as a facade, towards renewables on the world scale.
Wind and solar renewables are what they are, an unpredictable power source on a daily scale, but practically free once installed. Coal plants are predictable producers, but can't be ramped up and down as fast as wind and solar production can change. Instead of paying to dump excess power(be it renewable or fossil) they need to build some storage for it. Problem solved.
I don't know why the planners thought they could implement renewable energy without some storage, I guess they hoped most of the time things would "average out" on a national grid scale?
Anyone living off grid spends almost as much on storage as they do on production. And has a fossil fuel back up, but a gas generator as no limitations in starting up and shutting down, and typically is used at peak efficiency to charge the battery storage and then shut off.
The next step is to implement grid scale storage and then renewables won't need much in the way of fossil fuel back up. Right now we seem to have only half the renewable system we need.
I don't know why the planners thought they could implement renewable energy without some storage, I guess they hoped most of the time things would "average out" on a national grid scale?
Anyone living off grid spends almost as much on storage as they do on production. And has a fossil fuel back up, but a gas generator as no limitations in starting up and shutting down, and typically is used at peak efficiency to charge the battery storage and then shut off.
The next step is to implement grid scale storage and then renewables won't need much in the way of fossil fuel back up. Right now we seem to have only half the renewable system we need.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The German system, like the Ontario one, is a situation of forced growth through FIT subsidies which has led to a similar outcome with respect to soaring consumer rates and excess generation all due to poor planning as a result of an agenda-driven initiative pushing unrealistic timelines.
The logical approach would have involved waiting for a viable storage medium to appear on the market that could be leveraged as a companion to the intermittents, which, when coupled with a progressive growth pattern that could adapt and be adapted to, would have allowed for a far less expensive and far more structured approach to reducing reliance on fossil fuel sources.
At least Germany, like Australia did, is talking about ditching their FIT subsidy.
The logical approach would have involved waiting for a viable storage medium to appear on the market that could be leveraged as a companion to the intermittents, which, when coupled with a progressive growth pattern that could adapt and be adapted to, would have allowed for a far less expensive and far more structured approach to reducing reliance on fossil fuel sources.
At least Germany, like Australia did, is talking about ditching their FIT subsidy.
Its a chicken and egg issue I guess. Why would anyone develop energy storage solutions without renewables already in place?
Also I think it was a way to sell green power, with a lower initial buy in of just the production side.
I would think with cost of dumping excess power that building storage wouldn't cost that much more, atleast in an area with some hills. Or something like Toronto hydro is studying, http://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electr...ageProject.aspx
Also I think it was a way to sell green power, with a lower initial buy in of just the production side.
I would think with cost of dumping excess power that building storage wouldn't cost that much more, atleast in an area with some hills. Or something like Toronto hydro is studying, http://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electr...ageProject.aspx
Natural Gas is relatively clean, comes from a different well than oil, and gives you your ramp-able power with a known minimum generating capacity at a cost and a construction time frame that is a fraction of Nuclear, which is the true 'Green" choice, as ironic as that may be. But 25 years to build a plant & infrastructure plus massive cost-plus expenditures makes Nuclear a marginal option with too many question marks. Then you can do your wind / solar / tidal generation for the last 30% or whatever it works out to be. Coal is dead or dying; the so-called "Clean Coal" is in theory there as an option but the actual cost to generate that kind of power is higher than any of the other options, including Nuclear.
So Natural Gas, scrubbing and CO2 sequestering in porous subterranean rock (possibly the same rock where the gas comes from; the CO2 can be part of the production regimen) or some alternate "clean" method (make it a requirement) plus alternative to cover the variable demand portion and away you go.
Solar is promising but it's worth noting that the panels start deteriorating the day they're installed, more or less ... the generating capacity is a down-sloping line, although it's fairly flat at first. Wind is more promising, and tidal might be ideal.
I absolutely HATE the idea of Carbon Taxing but you won't get any movement on the greener options until we start paying the real cost of greenhouse gases. I'm all ears if someone has a better method, but as long as some energy gets away with the true environmental cost of it's production and use you won't get these alternative electricity generation methods in any meaningful levels. Just the way it is ... money makes the choices, not good intentions.
So Natural Gas, scrubbing and CO2 sequestering in porous subterranean rock (possibly the same rock where the gas comes from; the CO2 can be part of the production regimen) or some alternate "clean" method (make it a requirement) plus alternative to cover the variable demand portion and away you go.
Solar is promising but it's worth noting that the panels start deteriorating the day they're installed, more or less ... the generating capacity is a down-sloping line, although it's fairly flat at first. Wind is more promising, and tidal might be ideal.
I absolutely HATE the idea of Carbon Taxing but you won't get any movement on the greener options until we start paying the real cost of greenhouse gases. I'm all ears if someone has a better method, but as long as some energy gets away with the true environmental cost of it's production and use you won't get these alternative electricity generation methods in any meaningful levels. Just the way it is ... money makes the choices, not good intentions.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Its a chicken and egg issue I guess. Why would anyone develop energy storage solutions without renewables already in place?
Also I think it was a way to sell green power, with a lower initial buy in of just the production side.
I would think with cost of dumping excess power that building storage wouldn't cost that much more, atleast in an area with some hills. Or something like Toronto hydro is studying, http://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electr...ageProject.aspx
I think you are assuming I am not encouraging the installation of renewables, that's not the case
I'm simply opposed to artificially increasing the rate of their market share growth through subsidy, which has created most of the issues we face at this point. Renewables were already being installed before FIT subsidies were put in place, and would have continued, simply at a slower, and I would argue, more manageable rate. The innovation with respect to storage would still have taken place, there simply would not have been the market distortions and price spikes we've witnessed, which are the result of the rate subsidies.
I personally don't see a lot of promise with compressed air in huge bags under the water in lake Ontario, as I think the density would be poor when compared to something like hydro electric banked storage, however that carries with it a suite of significant logistical challenges as well. Widespread reliance on massive batteries made of difficult to acquire metals like Lithium, which requires extensive mining to procure, seems a bit short sighted as well
Current/tidal generators also seem to show some promise but the output is quite low at this point. There are some interesting technologies being pursued right now, but there are side effects to all of them of course. That impact/benefit analysis is an important one and cannot be discounted for anything that could see widespread adoption.
Its a chicken and egg issue I guess. Why would anyone develop energy storage solutions without renewables already in place?
Also I think it was a way to sell green power, with a lower initial buy in of just the production side.
I would think with cost of dumping excess power that building storage wouldn't cost that much more, atleast in an area with some hills. Or something like Toronto hydro is studying, http://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electr...ageProject.aspx
I think you are assuming I am not encouraging the installation of renewables, that's not the case
I personally don't see a lot of promise with compressed air in huge bags under the water in lake Ontario, as I think the density would be poor when compared to something like hydro electric banked storage, however that carries with it a suite of significant logistical challenges as well. Widespread reliance on massive batteries made of difficult to acquire metals like Lithium, which requires extensive mining to procure, seems a bit short sighted as well
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The German system, like the Ontario one, is a situation of forced growth through FIT subsidies which has led to a similar outcome with respect to soaring consumer rates and excess generation all due to poor planning as a result of an agenda-driven initiative pushing unrealistic timelines.
The logical approach would have involved waiting for a viable storage medium to appear on the market that could be leveraged as a companion to the intermittents, which, when coupled with a progressive growth pattern that could adapt and be adapted to, would have allowed for a far less expensive and far more structured approach to reducing reliance on fossil fuel sources.
At least Germany, like Australia did, is talking about ditching their FIT subsidy.
Not meaning to be political but why aren't the politicians responsible for these boondogles held responsible financially. They are criminals
The German system, like the Ontario one, is a situation of forced growth through FIT subsidies which has led to a similar outcome with respect to soaring consumer rates and excess generation all due to poor planning as a result of an agenda-driven initiative pushing unrealistic timelines.
The logical approach would have involved waiting for a viable storage medium to appear on the market that could be leveraged as a companion to the intermittents, which, when coupled with a progressive growth pattern that could adapt and be adapted to, would have allowed for a far less expensive and far more structured approach to reducing reliance on fossil fuel sources.
At least Germany, like Australia did, is talking about ditching their FIT subsidy.
Not meaning to be political but why aren't the politicians responsible for these boondogles held responsible financially. They are criminals
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CT8
Not meaning to be political but why aren't the politicians responsible for these boondogles held responsible financially. They are criminals
I've asked the same question. The pylon who conceived the policy that would lead to the disaster in Ontario is now providing guidance at the Federal level. So not only was he not punished for blatantly lying to an entire province, but he was in fact REWARDED through the appointment of a position of stewardship so that he could take his incompetence national. It truly blows my mind
Not meaning to be political but why aren't the politicians responsible for these boondogles held responsible financially. They are criminals
I've asked the same question. The pylon who conceived the policy that would lead to the disaster in Ontario is now providing guidance at the Federal level. So not only was he not punished for blatantly lying to an entire province, but he was in fact REWARDED through the appointment of a position of stewardship so that he could take his incompetence national. It truly blows my mind
Politicians have a good deal. They play with someone else's money and when the screw things up they say, "oops". Or they say, "I misspoke". Then we pay the bill. What's not to like for them. We go to jail for our crimes, they get re-elected. Imagine the terror if they had to get a job. And behind it all, we are to blame for letting it all happen.
- Status
Similar threads
