Germany Shatters Monthly Solar Generation Record With 5.1 Terawatt Hours of Clean Energy

Josh Marks Germany Shatters Monthly Solar Generation Record With 5.1 Terawatt Hours of Clean Energy

inhabitat.com

Germany just broke its monthly solar generation record by clocking over 5.1 terawatt hours (TWh) in July, according to data from the EEX Transparency Platform. The accomplishment proves once again that a lack of sunshine is no obstacle to scaling up solar energy – and if the Teutons can produce record amounts of solar power under grey skies, then the potential for countries with sunnier weather and more land mass (like the United States) is limitless.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
ww w.ise.fraunhofer.de

Nuclear subsidies are in your taxes, where you don't see them. Solar subsidies are in the electricity price, where you see them.

Nuclear energy is not cheap energy, and while it does work for base load, you only need to look at France in the winter and in the summer to see that relying on nuclear does not cover all loads, so you also need other power plants on standby, so nuclear does not have an advantage over wind and solar there.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we simply combined all resources into a global grid:

• Tidal energy
  
• Solar Energy
  
• Wind
  
• Geothermal energy
  

inhabitat.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by RageAgainstFascism


Indeed, and still the frackers frack

Good for them! I'd be curious to see the cost per output ratio. An honest one.

Nice.

My Question.

Whats the cost of switching over to alternative energy like this, as a Country.

Are there any study's out there?

Nuclear is too dangerous. MHO

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


Out of curiosity, and perhaps off topic, but am i the only one just a little depressed that i cannot light my tap water on fire. I know it's not healthy, but i have to admit i think it looks real pretty.

Perspective.

5.1 twh is the equivalent of one 7,100MW generator running for one month.

German has spent roughly $110 billion on solar in the past 10 years just in subsidies alone!

That means they spent $15,500 $/kw in subsidies alone

Compare this to the installed cost of other forms of electricity:

4,000-9,000 $/kw nuclear
3,000-5,000 $/kw coal
1,500-2,000 $/kw combined cycle gas
900-1,200 $/kw gas peaker

And what really puts solar at a disadvantage is it is non-dispatchable, meaning you cant regulate its generation to match grid demands.

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

Out of curiosity, and perhaps off topic, but am i the only one just a little depressed that i cannot light my tap water on fire. I know it's not healthy, but i have to admit i think it looks real pretty.

I think you need to get out more mate

reply to post by SirMike


Wow, thanks. That clears that up nicely.



And i get out plenty, i just wanna see my water burn. It's not like i would be stupid enough to actually drink tap water and it might make doing the dishes a little more spectacular.

Imagine the fun you could have with a slip-n-slide during a Kegger.


OMG I found it and it is even funnier then i thought it would be.
Man some of the people in America are stupid....
Slip n Burn

reply to post by Thorneblood


Well Gives Farmer Both Water and.Gas - New York Times - May 3, 1937

Thats one of DOZENS of examples ... but I assume you blame slick water hydrofracking for these incidents?

reply to post by SirMike


Nah...i don't blame em for that....progress has its price after all.

Besides I have heard stories that you could set certain rivers in America on fire since i was 15

Albert Sequin, a farmer living on the Marcy Road, waters his cows and gets gas for cooking from the same well.

That should make for some interesting BBQ's LOL

Originally posted by SirMike
Perspective.

5.1 twh is the equivalent of one 7,100MW generator running for one month.

German has spent roughly $110 billion on solar in the past 10 years just in subsidies alone!

That means they spent $15,500 $/kw in subsidies alone

Compare this to the installed cost of other forms of electricity:

4,000-9,000 $/kw nuclear
3,000-5,000 $/kw coal
1,500-2,000 $/kw combined cycle gas
900-1,200 $/kw gas peaker

And what really puts solar at a disadvantage is it is non-dispatchable, meaning you cant regulate its generation to match grid demands.

You forgot to add decommisioning costs to nuclear which takes it above solar. You also forgot to cost the storage of nuclear waste. Waste from solar zero.

There is a lot of BS around nuclear and renewables that is intended to con the public into supporting nuclear . Micro generated renewables are the solution. But they cannot be taxed and that is why governments dismiss the idea.

You mean this?
Mircogenerated Renewables

Or were you talking about Microwave energy?

Originally posted by SirMike

Germany has spent roughly $110 billion on solar in the past 10 years just in subsidies alone!

That means they spent $15,500 $/kw in subsidies alone

Compare this to the installed cost of other forms of electricity:

4,000-9,000 $/kw nuclear
3,000-5,000 $/kw coal
1,500-2,000 $/kw combined cycle gas
900-1,200 $/kw gas peaker

And what really puts solar at a disadvantage is it is non-dispatchable, meaning you cant regulate its generation to match grid demands.

Did you consider in the average lifespan of a solar panel, which is over 20 years? These investments produce somewhat similar amount depending on the weather for 20 years in a row from a one-time investment of 110 billion.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
add decommisioning costs to nuclear which takes it above solar. You also forgot to cost the storage of nuclear waste. Waste from solar zero.

There is a lot of BS around nuclear and renewables that is intended to con the public into supporting nuclear . Micro generated renewables are the solution. But they cannot be taxed and that is why governments dismiss the idea.

The EIA calculates all costs from construction, O&M, fuel, and decommissioning when calculating levelized costs. Here is how they stack up:

3.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by RageAgainstFascism


Tidal energy - Requires topographical suitable areas suitable for the turbines to be built, which are few and far between.

Solar Energy - Poor efficiency, currently limited by in inadequate technology (Not for long though with developments with respect to graphene ]

Wind - Inconsistent and everyone complains they are an eye sore.

Geothermal energy - I actually have the most hope for this one as it could eventually the most reliable, long lasting and economically feasible. However we run into topographical and technological limitations again.

No doubt we need to get away from fossil fuels for energy and stay away from nuclear power until we develop better technology. I applaud any attempt to use alternative energy sources, especially on a national scale.

I just have two points.

Germany is a relatively small country compared to US in size (geographically and population). Easy to develop/test/implement technologies compared to the vastness of the US and not to mention Political BS.

Solar is dependant upon SUN. How many parts of the US gets adequate sunshine to generate sufficient energy consumption at an adequate cost and feed it back to the grid?

Originally posted by hp1229
I just have two points.

Germany is a relatively small country compared to US in size (geographically and population). Easy to develop/test/implement technologies compared to the vastness of the US and not to mention Political BS.

Solar is dependant upon SUN. How many parts of the US gets adequate sunshine to generate sufficient energy consumption at an adequate cost and feed it back to the grid?

I could be wrong but in the US don't they see this mostly as something a state must do and not the government?
There are allot of states, not 1 state doing it?

Originally posted by hp1229
I just have two points.

Germany is a relatively small country compared to US in size (geographically and population). Easy to develop/test/implement technologies compared to the vastness of the US and not to mention Political BS.

Solar is dependant upon SUN. How many parts of the US gets adequate sunshine to generate sufficient energy consumption at an adequate cost and feed it back to the grid?

1) Germany is one of the largest countries in the Western hemisphere. By size or population, of course it is smaller than USA, although it is the largest country by population in Europe (depends whether Russia is considered Europe or not, as half of it is in Asia). An advanced economy (not 3rd world country) with over 80 million people is not a small country and Germany is probably one of the few countries in the world which are actually comparable to USA.

2) USA has far more sun than Germany, believe me. 90 degrees Fahrenheit is considered part of an heat wave in these parts of Europe. The climate is quite soft round there, winters average around 25-30 Fahrenheit, summers around 77-80 F.

Originally posted by Plugin

Originally posted by hp1229
I just have two points.

Germany is a relatively small country compared to US in size (geographically and population). Easy to develop/test/implement technologies compared to the vastness of the US and not to mention Political BS.

Solar is dependant upon SUN. How many parts of the US gets adequate sunshine to generate sufficient energy consumption at an adequate cost and feed it back to the grid?

I could be wrong but in the US don't they see this mostly as something a state must do and not the government?
There are allot of states, not 1 state doing it?

Depends on the undertaking and ofcourse the money received from the Federal Government to the State during the Budgets