For a couple hours today, all Germany's electrical power will be supplied by renewable energy

For a couple hours this afternoon, all Germany's electrical power needs will be supplied by renewable energy

www.juancole.com

On last Friday afternoon, because of clear skies and good weather, Germany was at one point producing 22 gigawatts of solar power, a new record. Today (Monday) is a holiday in Germany, and electricity needs will be only a third of normal. So, for a couple hours this afternoon, all Germany’s electrical power needs will be supplied by renewable energy. That must be a first for an industrialized, G8 country.

Germany has defied the predictions of those who said that mothballing its nuclear plants would cause it to produce more CO2. Its carbon dioxide production was down 2% in the past year. I

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
in.reuters.com
www.smartmeters.com
www.dailykos.com

If you go to Juan Cole's page you can click on the original source and run a Google translate on the German.

Incredible scenes really. It is only for a few hours and only today, traditionally a holiday in Germany, Pentecost Monday, when energy usage is at its lowest in the year. Added to this they are producing record amounts of Solar Power sourced energy.

All of our governments need to move our countries toward this model. It is of the utmost importance to national and personal security in the long run.

Go Germany!

www.juancole.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a very important revelation to the world! You can see how Solar and wind can do away with Nuclear power completely! It amazes me how Germany has almost become a beacon for real change in the world. They have done away with many harmful things. No microwaves there, or Fluoride, or GMO crops! Makes me want to visit Germany more and more every day! I guess it takes a country that has been so battered over the years, to turn around and show the world what it takes to be a country for the people! I wonder what else it has, or has not got going on for it?

So.... basically - once every planetary alignment... "renewable energy" is capable of providing power needs of a modestly sized country.

Conclusion: "Renewable" energy is therefor practical.

. . . THIS IS WHY THE WORLD IS A MESS!

The energy problem is not just a supply-end issue. Industry requires a lot of power. There's not much of a way around it. That's why Germany's power requirements fell by 60% on the holiday. Notice that it's also late spring and the climate control is not going to be struggling against summer temperatures.

Solar power is simply not practical as a primary power source for industrial nations with centralized populations (cities). The power requirements are too high and the supply too irregular to provide reliable power.

Even so - the major problem is, as I said before, energy use. Energy consumption spikes in the summer and winter (though not necessarily electrical) - when homes are being cooled/heated. Homes are placed above ground where the temperature fluctuates.

There are many other areas that I have discussed at length in other threads about the issue of energy consumption. It doesn't have so much to do with what light bulbs you are/aren't using - but with the overall design of one's house and the inattention to lifestyle choices on energy requirements (and how to optimize your home's cycles/design to your lifestyle).

As far as solar goes - it's horribly expensive and the process of silicon manufacturing (which must be done to produce and maintain the solar farms) is less than environmentally friendly. Unless you're talking about mirror-focused solar plants that produce power using steam - but those come packaged with their own problems.

Bottom line - you need a solid, reliable source of power. An example would be fission or a form of fusion. Both of which are infinitely preferable to coal, oil, and gas.

wind and solar could easily power the world if we had better battery technology

we need to invest hugely in battery research.

reply to post by dmsuse

wind and solar could easily power the world if we had better battery technology

we need to invest hugely in battery research.

No, it can't.

Solar power in Germany only provides about 3% of its total power annually.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

There are some cooked figures that place it at impossibly high 50% marks - but that's not a reliable number.

Wind power pulls in about 11%.

On a good year - you're looking at 15% of Germany's total power production between solar and wind.

It's not a matter of batteries. It's a matter of supply, and a matter of demand. Even with considerably reduced demand for power (by improving efficiency and euthanizing half the population) - you're still having to look at, essentially, being able to produce an average of about 40% more power during the daylight than you consume to use at night.

And that doesn't even begin to cover seasonal changes - where your 50MW solar array in the summer will only pump out 15MW during the winter while dealing with shorter days and much longer nights and spiking demand from electric heating (surely, you don't want to use something as non-renewable as gas to heat things with).

So, unless you plan to store energy over the summer to use during the winter with batteries (LMAO at the very suggestion) - batteries aren't the problem.

The sheer power needs are. Solar and wind can't provide them.

Try again.

reply to post by Aim64C


Who are you supposed to be? Chief engineer at Exxon/General Electric or something?

Quite clearly renewables can supply the power needs for the world. We are just at the beginning of the technology and it is already breaking boundaries.

This report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which indicates renewables can provide 80% of the worlds energy needs within four decades, with solar being at the heart of this forecast.

srren.ipcc-wg3.de...

This report from Stanford University and the University of California at Davis suggest within 30 years, with the right mix of policies and technology.

Part 1 -www.stanford.edu...

Part 2- www.stanford.edu...

Solar panels provide a lot of power at sunny summer noon, news at 11.. Average capacity factor of solar is still cca 0,3, and even less in Germany (a little over 0,1 seems to be the norm). Solar panels do not produce any power roughly half of the time, no matter how many you build. Intermittency is the Achiless heel for most renewables.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Who are you supposed to be?

In this discussion? Compared to your knowledge of the subject?

God.

Chief engineer at Exxon/General Electric or something?

They could only hope.

Quite clearly renewables can supply the power needs for the world.

Simply; No.

Solar power only produced single-digit percentages of the regional demand on an annual average. Wind is not much better. You need hundreds of square miles dedicated to solar power production if you even hope to begin to supply cities via solar power. It's not just an issue of "build more." It's an issue of "where CAN we build more?"

More troubling is that a lot of these renewable resources are very region specific. Solar panels are best placed along the equator... which means most of North and South America are always going to be very dependent upon seasonal shifts - unless you want to start building large floating solar power plants that somehow transmit that energy back to land. That's not an obvious national security vulnerability or anything. A strategic yield nuclear warhead dropped above a gulf full of solar power collectors with thousands of miles of power cabling couldn't possibly cause a national power crisis on the scale feared if the middle east shut down oil production.

Someone is going to have to cough up a lot of space for these wind and solar farms. And someone is going to have to import it - at their expense.

We are just at the beginning of the technology and it is already breaking boundaries.

What boundaries would those be?

This report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which indicates renewables can provide 80% of the worlds energy needs within four decades, with solar being at the heart of this forecast.

They're full of #, to put it bluntly.

In a world of theories - yes, it's more than doable. You would simply re-purpose much of the world's crop land into solar farms and distribute the energy from a more centralized architecture. You would force the redesign of homes and entire cities to make use of underground habitats and mandate every roof have solar panels for shingles.

Then you would have enough power to meet the world's energy demands with solar. You may not have to cut too deep into crop lands - but you'll need a few hundred thousand square miles, or so. You would probably be better served moving farming operations to Canada where the cooler environment is easier to work around than trying to put solar farms up there (which wouldn't make much sense at all - so they will have to buy power from the U.S. - unless they do something rebellious like use nuclear energy).

This report from Stanford University and the University of California at Davis suggest within 30 years, with the right mix of policies and technology.

Meaning trillions of dollars of tax payer spending to fund financial insanity. Solar power will not be practical as a primary source of power unless photovoltaic cells can achieve an average efficiency of around 70%. The best in existence currently hit around 20 - and only theories exist about how to double their efficiency.

You're simply looking at far too vast of an infrastructure (you would need an area more than triple the size of Spain spread across the planet to provide energy needs from solar - since the sun doesn't shine on any one place 24/7 and solar panels are only peaking in production for about three hours of the day). The amount of maintenance on those is going to be astronomical by comparison to that done on nuclear plants. Supporting infrastructure for power regulation and storage is going to be a nightmare. You're looking at lithium or lead-acid production/processing on an unprecedented scale. Nuclear waste concerns pale in comparison to the prospect of maintaining solar and wind electric battery supplements.

On that note - I could solve world hunger if everyone instated my policies and did exactly what I told them to do. And the energy problems... and a lot of other things.

But the world doesn't work that way - strangely enough.

reply to post by Aim64C


Thing is mate you are just typing stuff with no evidence, no studies no scientific fact to support it. In the UK windfarms can be offshored. The EU/green tech companies could set up a whole string of wind turbines offshore circling the continent.

Solar plants could be set up in deserts across the world and linked into grids. There are options.

Bottom line - you need a solid, reliable source of power. An example would be fission or a form of fusion

Yes we would all love Fusion to become viable, but we cannot pin our hopes soley on that, even as advances continue and co-operation gathers pace in that field, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Meaning trillions of dollars of tax payer spending to fund financial insanity. Solar power will not be practical as a primary source of power unless photovoltaic cells can achieve an average efficiency of around 70%. The best in existence currently hit around 20 - and only theories exist about how to double their efficiency.

Theories can turn into realities over night. Yes it will cost money, what other option is there? Just sit around saying this won't work, that won't work, no you can't do that while the climate continues to runaway and energy supplies continue to dwindle.

All you are doing is pointing out problems rather than offering viable solutions.

Clearly countries can supply their energy needs with a mix of renewables. Look at Denmark,

Danish government proposals on Friday called for sourcing just over half of its electricity from wind turbines by 2020 and all of its energy from renewable sources in 2050.

uk.reuters.com...

Yes its a small country but it is showing the way forward. The IMF/World Bank instead of indebting nations even further should encourage a massive building project across the world toward a mix of renewables. A linked up strategy which could really free the world and its inhabitants of a great deal of the toxins and pain unleashed through fossil fuels.

But the world doesn't work that way - strangely enough.

Well things have to change. People have to force that change.

reply to post by Aim64C


So what's your answer?

More gas?
More coal?
More pollution?
More global warming/climate change denial?

What answers do YOU have?

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Thing is mate you are just typing stuff with no evidence, no studies no scientific fact to support it.

This is where I'm truly a frightening individual in these sorts of discussions. I type from memory. I've had this debate countless times before.

Don't worry. I'll source my claims on my terms.

In the UK windfarms can be offshored. The EU/green tech companies could set up a whole string of wind turbines offshore circling the continent.

And do you really think such a thing is sustainable?

Wind turbines are good for remote applications and powering low-demand systems. Each individual unit can require minimal maintenance for the a few years after installation. This works out very well if you are looking at small towns and the like.

Powering a city with thousands of these things? ... The maintenance picture is a little different. Considering there are 365 days in a year, and you would be looking at around three thousand of these things to make some impact on the UK's power demands and figure the average is that one of these things needs to have serious overhauling once every five years (1780 days) - you are looking at about two of these needing to be overhauled every day with crews capable of doing this (on the water?).

That doesn't include lighter maintenance (preventative should be done - particularly in a salt-water environment. Further - the gears are going to take a beating and will require routine inspection and applications of grease).

Solar plants could be set up in deserts across the world and linked into grids. There are options.

Thousands of square miles of solar panels or mirrors (take your pick). Those require routine inspection. An unavoidable amount will fail due to "gremlins" while others will be damaged from weather. You also have to look at the difficulty of porting power from, say, Nevada to high-draw areas like New York.

You would be taking massive transmission losses.

Theories can turn into realities over night. Yes it will cost money, what other option is there? Just sit around saying this won't work, that won't work, no you can't do that while the climate continues to runaway and energy supplies continue to dwindle.

We can use what is already available.

Nuclear power supplemented by thorium re-reactors. Would provide the world's energy through the next millennium.

All you are doing is pointing out problems rather than offering viable solutions.

No, you are consciously making an effort to avoid the most sensible and realistic solution available.

You are proposing that "green" energy is the way to go. Yet you counter my reasons for stating it isn't with wishful thinking and "let's fund research and hope for the best."

How do you expect a modicum of respect when you can't even begin to fathom just how monumental of a task you are proposing and can only defend it with wishful thinking?

Clearly countries can supply their energy needs with a mix of renewables. Look at Denmark,

Not going to happen. For the reasons I just stated above.

Not that it's going to stop them from trying. I will laugh when their country lay in financial ruin because of the stupidity of their legislators who fail to listen to engineers.

Yes its a small country but it is showing the way forward. The IMF/World Bank instead of indebting nations even further should encourage a massive building project across the world toward a mix of renewables.

The world bank would do no such thing. Even if they don't understand exactly why it's a suicidal idea - they won't go for it.

Stop and think about it a minute. The kind of infrastructure you are proposing would require absolutely massive numbers of maintenance workers to check on the thousands of square miles of solar panels and the -billions- of wind turbines world-wide. What is everyone else going to do that is going to be able to pay for that kind of industry?

It's insanity. Pure and simple. It would be a step backwards; people would be spending more time and money getting energy than they would under the current system (which is more than nuclear would cost).

Not to mention: banks don't operate as charities... but whatever.

Well things have to change. People have to force that change.

If it isn't obvious - I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I am intellectually superior to all but a hand full of individuals in the human race (overall - not counting individuals of abnormal mastery over single subjects). If people did what I said - we would not have problems. It's very simple.

But there's a difference between a manager and a leader. A leader has people who follow him/her. It's getting late here. I'll follow up with sources in another post tomorrow.

reply to post by The Sword


Thorium Breeder Reactors



LFTR

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Listen to reason cartoon dude.
I use solar power myslelf (just look at my most recent thread) and there's no getting around the fact that solar isn't viable during winter months or heavy cloud for a large urban population...

It's good to have but you need a fail-safe like nuclear etc.
Also some people need the jobs that the heavy power-industry provide.
Solar panels don't have working parts or complex mechanical devices, that means next to zero workers compared to a power-station like nuclear etc...

reply to post by Maslo


Why not FREE ENERGY instead?

Why pay some schmuck for access to heat, hot water and electricity when all three are basic human necessities for survival?

And while we're at it, those same schmucks get off scot-free when they make cars/appliances that will break on purpose in order to keep themselves in business fixing them!

reply to post by The Sword

Why not FREE ENERGY instead? Why pay some schmuck for access to heat, hot water and electricity when all three are basic human necessities for survival?

Because all free energy devices to date were a scam. If you show me one thats proven to work, I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon. But that most probably wont happen, since free energy violates the laws of physics.

reply to post by WatchRider


Reason?

Don't you understand? Climate change is going to make vast areas of this planet uninhabitable for humans, creating a massive refugee population.This is REASON to do something, immediately.

There is scientific paper after scientific paper published about the effects these changes are going to have. Here are just a few.

environmentportal.in...
eprints3.cipd.esrc.unimelb.edu.au...
online.liebertpub.com...:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I am not advocating Solar alone, and neither is anyone else. It would have to be a mix depending on the country/continent situation.

reply to post by Maslo


What if the laws of physics are not as solid as we think they are?

Still, I would much rather live off the grid (if I could afford it!) than pay someone for the privilege to LIVE.

It's definitely encouraging, but of all the forms of renewable energy, solar is one of the least reliable, due to weather. Germany should work on tidal power, among others. I don't know exactly how much coastline the country has, but from memory I don't think it is completely landlocked.

Do they have any appropriate hydro sites, I wonder?

reply to post by Peruvianmonk



you see into the future and know exactly the extent of "climate change" and exactly how much was due to mans' energy usage?