For the naysayers-Germany sets solar power record

[Bikewer]

Slashdot posted a Reuters article indicating that Germay has set a record as far as solar power production, generating nearly 50% of it's daytime needs last weekend by solar alone:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUKBRE84P0FI20120526

Not that this solves all the attendant problems of cloudy days, storage, and transmission, but it does rather strongly indicate that solar is not the pie-in-the-sky impossibility that is so often portrayed.

A "smart" power grid with a variety of local generation devices would seem to be quite possible if only we develop the political will to actually do it.

 

[quarky]

Yup.

Germany isn't exactly a sunny place either.
A Renaissance of design needs to co-evolve with alternate power generation.
There's some good TED talks regarding novel architecture.

We've got a long way to go.

 

[Beerina]

Not quite such a long way anymore, I think is the point

 

[mhaze]

Not quite such a long way anymore, I think is the point

Gosh, I thought the records Germany were setting were in importing Soviet natural gas. <google, google, google>

And they are one of the top ten importers of hard coal.

Sure 'nuff.

And..

http://theenergycollective.com/node/74847

The inefficient, Rube-Goldberg, EEG subsidizing scheme of robbing Peter (the 97% without solar systems) to pay Paul (the 3% with solar systems) creates unacceptable inequities, especially for lower income households without solar systems, and inefficiencies throughout the economy. The PR mantra of renewables promotors justifying subsidies, because they are saving the world from global warming/climate change, is self-serving in the extreme. See URL.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/69710/will-germany-make-global-warming-difference
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

 

[nvidiot]

So at what percentage solar power grid would actually impress you mhaze?

 

[mhaze]

So at what percentage solar power grid would actually impress you mhaze?

Wrong question, but good attempt to frame the argument.

 

[MG1962]

Wrong question, but good attempt to frame the argument.

Well it was a better attempt than your "Taint the well" and call it good

 

[nvidiot]

Wrong question, but good attempt to frame the argument.

Wrong? It's just a question. You're obviously not impressed by the solar figure now. What would impress you?

 

[Aepervius]

So at what percentage solar power grid would actually impress you mhaze?

22 Gigawatt, in a very sunny month, is not impressive knowing how much solar is subventionned. Still better off then a few more brown coal work at Braunschweig...

Now I will be *deeply* impressionned when the same happens in december, during a stormy day. Heck , or just even in december.

 

[mhaze]

Wrong? It's just a question. You're obviously not impressed by the solar figure now. What would impress you?

I've provided links and evidence showing why the OP article is not at all impressive. Quoting:

Conclusion: The above data indicates Germany’s (quixotic?, misguided?, irrational?) exuberance towards renewables will make no global warming and/or climate change difference, but will adversely affect Germany's future economic well-being, because it will end up with an energy systems setup that will have at least 2 times the levelized (owning+O&M) cost of competitor nations that did not follow Germany.

Germany is implementing renewables through subsidies more so than other nations, because it has the excess capital to do so, and because it claims to want to set an example to the world. A bit of chest beating; gorillas do it in the jungle. Other nations, especially the developing nations, do not have the resources, and/or the willingness, to follow Germany.

 

[Corsair 115]

Slashdot posted a Reuters article indicating that Germay has set a record as far as solar power production, generating nearly 50% of it's daytime needs last weekend by solar alone...

And what's the percentage during the work week when all those businesses and factories are consuming power?

 

[quarky]

Day time needs in summer must be quite low in Germany. Cool enough for no a.c.; not cold enough for heat; long days and less lighting, etc.

Still, pretending with these technologies is the start that's needed to get to refine everything.
Its analogous to the beginnings of the space program, or computers.
Don't dump out the baby with the bath water, as they say, and in this case, its pv.
Direct use (daytime) saves a lot of hassles, and there are obvious applications.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wrong question, but good attempt to frame the argument.

Yeah, about that framing thing,...

From the OP cite:

22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity - through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday

Your citation claims, "oh noes it costs too much".

Well about that cost framing, if you leave out the costs of the consequences of global warming you can frame the success one way.

If you only compare current costs which include a whole lot of infrastructure investment you can frame the success one way.

If you only compare the relative value of the competitiveness of solar with cheap oil and gas that, no matter when we run out, is not a renewable source, you can frame the success one way.


I think the citation you posted was worth reading, the points worth noting but there are a myriad of ways to look at cost.

 

[shadron]

22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity - through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday

Just so everyone is on the same sheet, Fukushima Daiichi has a combined generating power of 4.7 GWe with 6 reactors; F Daini, it's sister plant, is rated at 4.2 GWe with 4 reactors. Reactors commonly generate 1 to 1.6 GWe each. The amount of solar generated is about 4 Daichi stations.

The phrase "gigawatts of electricity per hour" is an error. A power reading (watts) is an instantaneous measurement. It would be impressive if they had been able to say "22 GWe for 8 hours". Very likely it made a peak power of 22 GWe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just so everyone is on the same sheet, Fukushima Daiichi has a combined generating power of 4.7 GWe with 6 reactors; F Daini, it's sister plant, is rated at 4.2 GWe with 4 reactors. Reactors commonly generate 1 to 1.6 GWe each. The amount of solar generated is about 4 Daichi stations.

I appreciate the correction. It doesn't change my perspective but it is relevant.

It would seem the argument against alternative energy is twofold, one, there will never be enough and two, it is too expensive. If there are other arguments, feel free to add.

The idea there will never be enough reminds of the claim they should close the patent office, everything that can be invented has been. We all know how silly that was.

Re the cost, what is the alternative? Pretending we will never run out of fossil fuels? Go all nuclear because it's cheap and just work on better safeguards? (I'm not against nuclear power but I do think the events in Japan and Chernobyl must be considered.)

Why not invest in the infrastructure and the R&D of alternative energy? Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[TimCallahan]

I think Daniel Nocera has the answer to solar energy storage problems.

However, there are a number of ways solar, working only on sunny days, without any energy storage system, could make significant contributions to making the world a better place in which to live. One example would be intensive, modular development of solar powered, reverse osmosis, desalination plants along the Red Sea and the coasts of Africa in general.

 

[Aepervius]

Skeptic Ginger. Those 22 GW were generated during a week end during a sunny day no cloud. That's pretty rare in germany . Now , see the things is that those solar stuff were subventionned over the last 10 years to the tune of 100 billion euro about. And that is for about 3% of the total energy generated yearly today. This does not look as good as the reporting pretend it is when you look more carefully. Sure it is a good step because every watt gained that way is one a coal brown work won't have to generate, and frankly I am much much more afraid and warry of coal plant (read the stimate on the number of cancer worldwide and number of death caused by coal. Very edifying. CHernobyl is child play in comparison) than nuclear plant.

Also considering fukushima, and chernobyl, I am sorry, but at the moment the risk of nuclear plant meltdown is truly overstated by the media making a climate of fear. That is particularly true in germany, where the risk of tsunami (quasi nil) and earthquake (one slightly above average earthquake in 800 years in a very localized region, the rest being as small activity as one can be in europe).

And frankly, if one starts to fear about meltdown with nuclear plant, they should also think of all those chemical plants which are not even 1/100 of the standard of security a nuclear plant is. Think seveso/bhopal and the likes. If you think the nuke plant can't resists the local earthquake, hink of the total nightmare with the chemicals plants.

Bottom line, people are being manipulated by the media into fear mongering at least in germany. And solar/wind is being praised with people saying or using imagery saying they will replace nuclear by wind (or solar). They are simply being lied to, or at least the truth that it is not feasable without humongous ruinous investiment is not properly shown.

 

[mhaze]

Yeah, about that framing thing,...

From the OP cite:

Your citation claims, "oh noes it costs too much".

Well about that cost framing, if you leave out the costs of the consequences of global warming you can frame the success one way.

If you only compare current costs which include a whole lot of infrastructure investment you can frame the success one way.

If you only compare the relative value of the competitiveness of solar with cheap oil and gas that, no matter when we run out, is not a renewable source, you can frame the success one way.


I think the citation you posted was worth reading, the points worth noting but there are a myriad of ways to look at cost.

The three links I provided have a great deal of material on this subject. But since you want to talk about cost, let's just do that.

How much value, in euros, of electricity were generated

...for those two days
...per year

by that 200B euro solar investment in Germany?

Assuming what they meant was 22GWatt/Hours for a total of 8 hours (re Shadron's post). At 0.22 Euro per kwhour (highway robbery) this looks like about 5M euro per hour or 40M total take for those two days. In 2011 the total production was 18B kwh. The value of that was about 40B.

So we've got $200B invested, for $4B total consumer paid in revenue. I don't know what the "wholesale cost" might be, since the $4B has to pay for all aspects of getting power to the consumer - power line maintenance for example. Let's assume it's 50%, so the value that can retire the debt and pay principal is 2B.

2b on 200B would pay 4% interest and no principle.

See a little problem here?



In other words, if you want a really, really bad business deal, go ahead, put your solar collectors under clouds. But Germany's not stupid so why would they do this?

Answer: Export sales of solar and wind equipment is big business for them, so they need or could benefit from "showcasing it". Interesting - the government buys massive amounts of this junk from it's own industries, promotes it, tries to develop a export business model - while in actuality, increasing their natural gas imports to the point where they are Russia's biggest customer.

Increasing coal imports, too.

 

[mhaze]

....people are being manipulated by the media into fear mongering at least in germany. And solar/wind is being praised with people saying or using imagery saying they will replace nuclear by wind (or solar). They are simply being lied to, or at least the truth that it is not feasable without humongous ruinous investiment is not properly shown.

The backlash against this, when it gets figured out by the public, is likely to be destructive to the future of the very industries promoted.

Think Solyndra, but way more massive.

 

[Reality Check]

The three links I provided have a great deal of material on this subject. But since you want to talk about cost, let's just do that.

Actually Skeptic Ginger was talking about cost framing: "Well about that cost framing, if you leave out the costs of the consequences of global warming you can frame the success one way."

The idiocy contained in the blog posts that you linked to is that they are just about the costs of photovoltaic solar power. Using the same "logic" the high costs of every form of generating power means that every country in the world should stop generating power !

IMO the costs of photovoltaic solar power in general are not currently worth the benefits, e.g. in CO2 reduction, for the simple reason that it is too inefficient. The future looks better though since the cost of PV power has already dropped by a factor of 50 since 1976 (IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources) and should follow this trend.