Germany’s solar power generation hit record high at weekend
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
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:
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.
[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.
[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...
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&...
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.
...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#...
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).
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...
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.