Solar and wind have won technology race

The special minister of state of state Rainer Baake, responsible for Germany’s ambitious Energiewende, or energy transition, from coal and nuclear to renewable energy, states it is clear that solar and wind energy have won the technology race.
He said that so far nobody else has supplied the industrial economy with secure and price-effective electricity from solar panels and wind turbines, and that he's confident Germany can succeed in their goal - having a superior energy system.
Germany created its renewable energy support scheme in 2000, with the main purpose of testing technologies.
Hydro had risen incrementally from 4 per cent to 4.1 per cent, and showed no possibility of further increase; geothermal did not work; and while biomass worked, its expansion has other environmental and food production issues.
So there are two clear winners, and they are wind and solar.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/germany-says-solar-and-wind-have-won-technology-race-91713

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Biomass might see a bit of an upturn though, since a new generation of facilities is coming up which can use biological waste for energy production and is not in immediate competition with foods production (some of the former facilites used corn, or other high energy plant parts, which are usually used for food).

It's still a bit shaky though, energy buffering and distribution need improvement. Also the huge investments had their toll on costs for electricity, but it's to be expected that this will change once the facilities are in use some time.

The only fossil resource that germany has in larger amounts is coal, and the sorts easy to mine are bad quality. Thus the change towards renewable energy sources has the side effect of making Germany less dependent on imports of oil and gas. A point which is not said so often, but since oil and gas often have to be importet from "difficult" regions, it is a welcome side effect.

Denmark has a higher amount of renewable energy in their mix though, than Germany, and some other countries too, I believe.

At the moment my impression is, that the government wants to slow down the transition somewhat, while notable parts of the population want a quicker transition. The government has put a cap on the amount of renewable power sources whcih may be set up each year, thus effectively controlling the speed of the transition.

In a sort of grass-root movement, small scale wind and solar power solutions are set up for individual needs. Be it a summerhouse which needs to be lit in the evenings, or just technology enthusiasts, quite a number of people are installing small scale systems on their own, tailored to their needs.

Wind power generators are offered, starting at about 600 euros for a 100 watts turbine system, les than 100 euros for a 100 watts solar panel. Combined with batteries and highly efficient LEDs such are sufficient to light a few rooms in the evenings.

Interesting is, that these systems are not neccesarily cheaper than electricity from a big supplier, but there are plenty of cases where no cables are avilable (summerhouses), oir just that people want be independant.

There is quite some enthusiasm about renewable energy here, and the debate is not _if_ the transition should be done, but how exactly it's done best. The big factions are "centralized, big power plants/parks of power plants" and "distributed, small scale systems". The government and industry of course favor the first, scientist and technology enthusuasts prefer the second. Likely it will be a mix in the end, with a very slow transition to a more distributed system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is outlawing the alternatives really a "win"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think the alternatives have been outlawed. E.g. geothermal experiements damaged many houses, and are thefore no longer welcome near cities. But there is now law that says "only wind and solar panels must be used". It's just they those have been the most competitive so far - and as said, I expect an upturn in biogas production (better use the gas directly instead of transforming it to electricity).

Water power is already used to at least 95%, that means, there are almost no rivers or other water sources left to power additional water power plants. So wind and sunlight are the prime choices these days.

 

Outlawing? Where do you get that from? I thought all they were doing was tilting the playing filed a bit in favour of renewables - though I could be wrong.

Addendum: posted in parallel with Edont Knoff's latest.

 

I'll be more specific: solar and wind "won" because nuclear and coal were outlawed.

Caveat: but not imported nuclear and coal power, because solar and wind are incapable of filling the gap at this time. So they didn't even complete this race they "won"!

 

I don't think you are being fair. The context makes it clear that the race to be won was which of the various renewable options would prove itself capable of making a real contribution to the "energy transition" that this government minister was responsible for managing. Solar and Wind beat Biomass, Geothermal and Hydro. Coal and nuclear were not in the race in question.

 

Let me expand/hedge a bit: I'm not clear on the status of coal, but nuclear was an explicit policy decision, the exact mechanism of which I don't consider critical. But to be clear, it wasn't "let's incentivize renewable and hope nuclear goes away", it was "we'really shutting down the nuclear plants and incentivizing renewable - hopefully the renewable will be enough." (It isn't)

This was similar to but much less aggressive than what Japan did after Fukushima, which was a self imposed economic disaster larger than the combined effects of the earthquake/tsunami/meltdown.

 

If in your opinion that is fair, you are entitled to it, but I disagree and that's my opinion, which I am also entitled to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, I see your point. A majority of the people here want this transition though. Nuclear power was never very welcome, and coal power is seen a big source of polluted air.

So you are right, fossil energy sources are being faded out, intentionally, but this is what the people wanted (and want).

If new ideas for renewable "clean" energy sources come up, I'm positive that they will be investigated and if possible, also used. In this regard, wind and solar power won - they won over geothermic power sources and some others.

Last but not least: Being less dependent on oil and gas imports from Arabia and Russia is something that might be worth some money in the eyes of some people. So while you say, certain power sources were outlawed, the other point is, that we bought some freedom this way.

Same for nuclear power - handling the waste has shown to be problematic. We have noo good way to store it, and no good way to recycle it. So quite some people say it is alright to pay more for the clean power, instead of paying for long term storage of nuclear waste with unknown consequences. You can already buy electric power with is 100% free of nuclear power, and these contracts sell well. Quite some people do not want cheap energy, they want clean energy.

Call us crazy. But the change is still welcome to a majority of people here, and I dare to repeat it - many would rather see a faster and more drastic transition, than what is actually happening. And, in terms of economics, all calculation say, that in the end, electricity will not be more expensive than it is today, rather cheaper. Because the sun shines for free, as does blow the wind. Mining coal is expensive, and destroys the land (which is a sort of cost, too), oil and gas must be imported anywas and nuclear waste is too problematic.

I'm 100% sure that the change will strengthen Germany in the long term. At least at the moment I see things this way.

 

Yes, and therein lies the key flaw I'm referring to. What matters here, the vaguely defined "renewable" or clean? If clean is what matters - objectively - then Germany has taken/is taking a giant step backwards based on the vague/emotional "never very welcome" view of nuclear power.

That's not really true: it is a political fiction. I live 10 miles from a plant that has been storing it's waste just fine for 30 years. There is no fundamental issue beyond capacity that would prevent them from storing it indefinitely.

Ironically, Obama screwed up and accidentally appears to have eliminated the problem when he illegally destroyed the Yucca Mountain repository. With no new solutions and no plans, they've basically decided to just extend the one that already works fine.

 

Do you have a reference for the economic disaster self-imposed by Japan's closing of its nuclear plants? I don't believe I have read of such a thing.

 

I read an article a year or so ago about it, but can't seem to find a coherent accounting of it. I'll continue looking, but for right now:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

Disaster direct cost: $300B
Disaster economic loss: 180B
(Totals)

Nuclear shutdown direct cost: 28B/yr in fuel imports, 60B one time shutdown cost.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/08/3...-costs-of-closing-reactors.html?referer=&_r=0
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Oil%20and%20gas/PDFs/Japans%20uncertain%20energy%20future%20in%20the%20post-Fukushima%20era%20Co-B.ashx&ved=0ahUKEwisj4D1ycrKAhVBv4MKHU8VBOUQFggyMAg&usg=AFQjCNGnEE-OABDohDuaYYAAdPZq9rbrGw&sig2=zxgHlAF0LY2WMw72yCr89Q

The larger costs are from unnecessarily building new fossil plants and the economic output lost to the higher prices (money that is exported from the economy). The latter is the big one I'm having trouble finding. I'll keep looking.

 

Solar PV & wind have won in part as to power a car very big capital investment in batters is required, so Big Oil is not much scared by them; but Big Oil is very scared of sugar cane based alcohol. Switching to cane based alcohol is much cheaper than to electric cars. (Less than 10% of the cost of their batteries alone!) Conversion of car now using gasoline costs less than $300 in volume - mainly replacing some gaskets and resetting of fuel injectors, plus a fuel sensor so any mix of gasoline and alcohol can be used. That is essential in US until all fuel stations sell alcohol, as they do in Brazil.

Big Oil has spent nearly a billion dollars to suppress use of sugar cane alcohol as fuel for your car. For example, paid generously to US Congress men/woman's campaigns, who made importation of this cheaper and net CO2 negative fuel illegal. Also Big Oil tells lies, like "switching to sugar cane alcohol would destroy the rain forests" despite there being more than enough abandoned pasture, if planted in sugar cane to supply all the liquid fuel cars of the world - 10 years from now. It would take that long to build, in many poor tropical lands, near the cane fields the required distillation plants. (Unlike oil, cane is too bulky and low in value per ton to transport more than about 150 miles from the growing fields. So nearly a million low-skill jobs would be created and several hundred new distillation plants made.)

Sugar cane based alcohol fuel for cars, as widely used in Brazil (for last 30+ years) is a CO2 negative fuel as every gram of carbon (mainly in CO2) coming out of the car's tail pipe was earlier removed from the air by the growing cane, part of which remains in the roots or discarded leaves. - Why it is a net CO2 negative car fuel, not like gasoline, a major contributor to global warming. Not only that, it is slightly more powerful (more HP) in you car's IC engine, and cheaper per mile driven than gasoline (perhaps not now with artificially depressed oil prices as Saudi Arabia tries to economically kill fracking producers in US.)

This cleaner burning alcohol also saves significant cost in car maintenance. Only disadvantage is a tank full will only take you 70% as far - so more frequent fill up of the tank is required.

A big advantage of switching to cane based alcohol is nearly a millions low skill jobs are created in tropical third world regions, making these now unemployed workers buyers of first world's higher value added products. Sugar cane based car fuel is a "win-win" proposition for all, but Big Oil, which is economically screwing you now.

SUMMARY: The win by PV and wind, but not sugar cane alcohol, another form of solar energy, against nuclear and coal is because they did not have Big Oil bribing law makers, and telling lies to the public. In a "level playing field" contest, Sugar Cane Alcohol would have been the clear winner as much less costly to switch to it for powering cars (including existing ones!) and a CO2 net negative fuel, plus many other advantages.

 

Given that they are still burning rain forest to create new pastures, I don't believe you.

 

Yes they burn rain forest, but not for the reason you suggest. If you want this stopped, you need to understand why it is done.

People trying to make a living in the rain forest area are quite poor, usually with no salary at all. Many illegally capture some wild animals, especially birds like parrots, and sell them by the road side. But to make a couple of year's wages at the minimum salary rate in one week, you find a large mahogany tree not too far from a road and cut it down into 8 to 10 foot sections (what ever will fit on the flat-bed truck your friend has or can rent for a week) and delivery them to the sawmill.

This is highly illegal with several years in jail at least, even for the first offense, if you get caught. So to insure your crime is not discovered, you set fire to the forest where you cut the tree down. After a few days, or weeks, it will naturally burn out - how long depends on the wind direction changes and amount of rain. Just cutting down the tree, without setting a fire, would not be even a month in jail.

Some one else will then try to eek out a living in the fire burn clearing, mainly raising a couple of cows, sheep or goats, for their meat, but the soil is very poor and they can not afford to fertilize it (or even to clear it of burnt stumps and logs). So after a few years of living there, they sort of have a "squatter’s title" to the land, which some richer man will become the absentee owner by paying them for their claims. He will properly clear the land, fertilize it and seed it with good grass seed. The squatter continues on the land to take care of the much larger herd of cattle it will now support.

It is the love of beautiful hard wood furniture, mainly by non-Brazilians, living in US and Europe who can pay much more, that causes the illegal man-made burning of the rain forest. It certainly is not the low value per ton and bulky sugar cane. It can not be transported a 100 miles from where grown to the fermentation / distillation plant with profit. These plant are all more than 800 miles for the Amazon rain forest as most of them are located near the large markets for alcohol fuel of Rio or Sao Paulo. (Minimum alcohol tanker truck to “gas-station” delivery cost.)

If there is any sugar cane grown in the fire made clearing it is a few sticks in the squatter’s garden, for him and his kids to suck on. The absentee owner can pay the squatter and make a small profit off of beef, often cut up in the field to save transportation costs. A truck full of freshly cut up beef can be driven several 100 miles to some modest sized city with profit. That is why several years after the fire was set to hid the jail-time crime of cutting one valuable hard wood tree, the fire clear land is often in pasture for beef.

The real "villains" in the story are those who pay well for beautiful hard wood furniture - look in a mirror and you may see one. The man who set the fire was just trying to feed himself and his family as best as he could. Selling some wild nuts and captured parrots, etc. did not provide for his needs and as had to be frequently done, exposed him (or his kid) for hours on the side of the road, it was with greater risk of going to jail.

 

The the definition is not so vague, "renewable" mans that the resources build up again quite quickly, as opposed to coal ot oil which took millions of years to form - a time frame which mankind can't wait if the current resources are depleted. Basically the vague point is the timeframe, but seeing wind and sunlight renew constantly (daily) while oil and coal need millions of years, it's clear enough what it means. Similar applies to bio mass/energy plants which renews over the course of a year usually, or in a shorter frame of time, depending on the way it is is planted and harvested, and the location. Same for rivers which have a yearly rhythm, but will provide power quite steadily without being used up by harvesting the power.

So we have "continuously" or "less than a year" on one end, and "millions of years" on the other. Even that there is no sharp line, it looks pretty easy to me, to tell "renewable" from other resources - the difference is a million of years or more.

Sun and wind both are renewable and clean. So while one can ask which point is the more important one, actually it doesn't matter so much - because both groups will support wind and solar power, and like it, even if they like different aspects of it. To me, both points are important.

The third point, independance from (expensive) imports should not be forgotten either. For a country like Germany which has very few resources left, this point is more important than for countries like the USA which are huge and have many resources left on their territory.

 

Yes, you've captured the usual definition and basic flaw: wind and solar don't "renew" in that they don't "build up again". They just don't deplete in a fairly short timeframe like oil (decades, presumably) and coal (hundreds of years, presumably). That's why it is an imperfectly chosen word at best. But per the article we're discussing either that isn't the definition they are using or they are using it wrong: They have explicitly excluded nuclear power from that categorization. Often (as you do), people add "clean" as a separate criteria or part of the definition of "renewable". Sometimes the word used is "sustainable" which you can better fit "clean" into. But either way, nuclear is improperly excluded from that, as well, since nuclear power is essentially 100% clean: It's only emission is warm water or water vapor. And depending on the form it takes, it can "sustain" us indefinitely.

Basically, it comes down to "renewable" is energy sources that aren't in the vague/unscientific "never very welcome" category. And that's a really bad basis for energy/environmental policy.

And one of the reasons why I don't like the word "renewable" is that "clean" is, imo as well, just as important if not more important. Biomass, if not done properly, is extraordinarily dirty.

 

Good point. I think this is why "sustainable" has entered the ring, and also became a label ...

Question: Which words would you suggest? I see the point that you want to make, and I'm interested which words actually are there to cover the meanings more precisely.

And I agree to some extend about nuclear power. We are of different opinions about the storage of nuclear waste, but I'm willing to agree that there indeed are safe ways to store nuclear waste - but not the ways that are used in my home country these days. We already have like 100.000 of barrels of nuclear waste which are rotting and leaking. The barrels clearly were the wrong choice as container, and the place where they were put was not optimal either. But yes, e.g. nuclear waste embedded in glass has shown to be a very durable and safe way of storage, unfortunately it was not used in time.

So "clean" depends on the actual handling of the wast, but nuclear power is renewable and sustainable, due to the option to breed elements for fission in fission reactors (which was never used in larg scale, though).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

In regard to your point of politics: Germany is a democracy. Surely not a perfect or even particularly well working one, but still. If there is a majority of the population in favor of "clean", "renewable" and "sustainable" energy sources, it indeed is the job of the government to respect this wish of the majority, and work towards these goals - even if there might be better words, better definitions, and even if it can be debated, if this is the right strategy overally- but it is the will of the majority, and in a democracy, the will of the majority is the main guideline for the government.

Otherwise it'd be a dictatorship, where a "knowing" leader decides the right way to do things regardless what the people think and want.

We have enough of that already, and it's good to see that at least sometimes the government really does what the majority wants it to do.

 

The second sentence appears to contradict the first.

Apparently what this German bureaucrat is doing is talking up his agency's energy R&D agenda, which aims to someday make solar and wind energy "secure and price-effective", hence competitive with the more practical but less politically-correct energy sources, namely nuclear and coal.

Did they "win" because they are effective and economically viable on the scale needed, or because they are the only potential options still standing?