Germany Breaks A Solar Record — Gets 85% Of Electricity From Renewables on 30th April - Sensationalist Headlines

[URL="http://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-germanys-record-85-renewables-over-weekend-60743/"]http://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-germanys-record-85-renewables-over-weekend-60743/[/URL] [QUOTE]Germany achieves a record level of 85 per cent renewable energy generation on April 30 – part of the May 1 long weekend – with wind and solar providing significant lifts in output and along with biomass and hydro almost completely sidelining hard coal plants. Patrick Graichen of Agora Energiewende Initiative, which provided these graphs, says a combination of breezy and sunny weather in the north and warm weather in the south saw Germany’s May 1 holiday weekend powered almost exclusively by renewable resources. “Most of Germany’s coal-fired power stations were not even operating on Sunday April 30th, with renewable sources accounting for 85 per cent of electricity across the country,” he said. “Nuclear power sources, which are planned to be completely phased out by 2022, were also severely reduced. Graichen says days like April 30 would be “completely normal” by 2030, as the federal government’s Energiewende (energy transition) initiative continues to add value to the wealth of resources invested in it.[/QUOTE] Still shitty nuclear places are being cut for coal plants, but I view this as a victory. Being able to at-least switch to almost complete renewable energy during the summer months would be great.

What was the argument that some made that solar was not sustainable or economical, again? :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52206006]What was the argument that some made that solar was not sustainable or economical, again? :v:[/QUOTE] Clinton's emails I think [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] Seriously though, why are we not doing this... People can't be that awful to just not realize that every coal job has a new job in renewables, especially solar...

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52206009]Seriously though, why are we not doing this... People can't be that awful to just not realize that every coal job has a new job in renewables, especially solar...[/QUOTE] They're not bad people, just kinda dumb.

[QUOTE=Black Pete;52206027]They're not bad people, just kinda dumb.[/QUOTE] Eh, those in government at least who oppose investment in renewables on the ground of 'expensive and unsustainable' mostly have ties to big coal and oil, only a very few are truly ignorant about what it means to have invested in renewables. The guy on the street does need some education to change that, if that is what they think, though.

[QUOTE=Black Pete;52206027]They're not bad people, just kinda dumb.[/QUOTE] They aren't dumb, they are ignorant. They have every available resource accessible to them for any information they could want or need. They choose to remain ignorant, and that makes them bad people because they are aware of what they are doing. It's certainly not a case of "forgive them, for they know not what they do". It's 2017. You don't deserve that job if you can't be bothered to learn what you're passing laws on. Anyone can do it.

Maybe now people will realise how much energy we're just wasting by not covering everything in solar panels. Regular roof: boring, generates no energy even on the sunniest day in summer, unsexy. Solar roof: looks sci-fi and hella rad, can completely eradicate other power plants' usefulness when used with other renewable sources. I realise there was a lot more that was responsible for this but there's no reason not to have the superior roof.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52206036]Eh, those in government at least who oppose investment in renewables on the ground of 'expensive and unsustainable' mostly have ties to big coal and oil, only a very few are truly ignorant about what it means to have invested in renewables. The guy on the street does need some education to change that, if that is what they think, though.[/QUOTE] I genuinely believe these people are inept, but certainly not the members of the Republican Party. They're obviously in it for the money.

[QUOTE]Patrick Graichen of Agora Energiewende Initiative, which provided these graphs, says a combination of [U]breezy and sunny weather in the north and warm weather in the south saw Germany’s May 1 holiday weekend powered almost exclusively by renewable resources[/U].[/QUOTE] LOL, so people started to turn off heating and it's still not warm enough to need cooling, basically the energy consumption went to a minimum and renewable sources could keep up with the low demand. Better than nothing, but a bit sensationalist.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52206006]What was the argument that some made that solar was not sustainable or economical, again? :v:[/QUOTE] In australia it fucked up their prices

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52206006]What was the argument that some made that solar was not sustainable or economical, again? :v:[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/[/url] [url]http://thebulletin.org/germany%E2%80%99s-energiewende-intermittency-problem-remains9469[/url] [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#4c6ab64554e9[/url] Essentially it fucks up the energy grid by not being a consistent power source. There are a whole host of financial problems that stems from it and it isn't a realistic goal to be 100% renewable.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206306][url]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/[/url] [url]http://thebulletin.org/germany%E2%80%99s-energiewende-intermittency-problem-remains9469[/url] [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#4c6ab64554e9[/url] Essentially it fucks up the energy grid by not being a consistent power source. There are a whole host of financial problems that stems from it and it isn't a realistic goal to be 100% renewable.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure that with a combination of wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, and solar could make it possible

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206306][URL]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/[/URL] [URL]http://thebulletin.org/germany%E2%80%99s-energiewende-intermittency-problem-remains9469[/URL] [URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#4c6ab64554e9[/URL] Essentially it fucks up the energy grid by not being a consistent power source. There are a whole host of financial problems that stems from it and it isn't a realistic goal to be 100% renewable.[/QUOTE] Besides being inconsistent (solar is definitely not going to be a primary power source, just a very flexible, easy to implement secondary or point-of-load source), it doesn't fuck it up if you don't have a grid-feedback solar setup (i.e. what excess power you make is injected back into the grid). Usually this is due to frequency differences of the inverters, where a few tenths of a hertz difference can really fuck up a grid. Ideally if you want to not have that sort of variability you have two options: [B]1)[/B] All grid-tied systems cannot generate their own frequency and must follow a master 50/60Hz signal. (Do able but logistically problematic) [B]2)[/B] Don't allow grid-tied systems but allow battery charging systems (i.e. [B]Grid[/B] => [B]Battery Charger[/B] => [B]Battery[/B] => [B]Home Inverter[/B] => [B]All Home Appliances.[/B] ................................................. ^ [B]Solar Panel[/B] => [B]Solar Controller/Battery Charger [/B] This way the grid isolated and people can still draw from the grid in the cases of low illumination).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52206368]i'm pretty sure that with a combination of wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, and solar could make it possible[/QUOTE] Except geothermal all these are also unreliable and you must have a backup system to compensate for times when some of them don't give full output. Then you might as well just focus on building those reliable systems. Even though I don't like it, nuclear is probably the best way to go.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;52206144]LOL, so people started to turn off heating and it's still not warm enough to need cooling, basically the energy consumption went to a minimum and renewable sources could keep up with the low demand. Better than nothing, but a bit sensationalist.[/QUOTE] A lot of places here actually get heating via district heating, rural areas use central heating like gas, oil or biomass if they dont use furnace heating. Air conditioners are also pretty rare. Not saying that it didn't reduced the energy consumption to a degree but things like electronic heating/cooling is rare here.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52206368]i'm pretty sure that with a combination of wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, and solar could make it possible[/QUOTE] Your assumption is whimsical, but wrong for a whole host of reasons. Just saying Hydro alone indicates to me you have no clue of the einviroment all impact Dams can also have on ecosystems. Which going by your list of energy sources, you seems to only care about energy sources that atleast seem einviromentally sound. A modern country needs an energy source that can deliver consistent and variable power to the grid. Nuclear is a clear choice unless you are a die hard hippy.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206449]A modern country needs an energy source that can deliver consistent and variable power to the grid. Nuclear is a clear choice unless you are a die hard hippy.[/QUOTE] what about all the countries which already get most of their power from renewables for the most part? (norway, iceland, ethiopia, austria, brazil, new zealand, canada, sweden, etc) if they can do it, what is there exactly stopping the rest of the world from trying to do so?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52206480]what about all the countries which already get most of their power from renewables for the most part? (norway, iceland, ethiopia, austria, brazil, new zealand, canada, sweden, etc) if they can do it, what is there exactly stopping the rest of the world from trying to do so?[/QUOTE] Because he doesn't really believe in climate change and thinks that Trump is gonna bring back the coal jobs. Somehow.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206449]Your assumption is whimsical, but wrong for a whole host of reasons. Just saying Hydro alone indicates to me you have no clue of the einviroment all impact Dams can also have on ecosystems. Which going by your list of energy sources, you seems to only care about energy sources that atleast seem einviromentally sound. A modern country needs an energy source that can deliver consistent and variable power to the grid. Nuclear is a clear choice unless you are a die hard hippy.[/QUOTE] The country below my feet disagrees with that entirely. It's like you're obligated to argue for anything bad.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52206480]what about all the countries which already get most of their power from renewables for the most part? (norway, iceland, ethiopia, austria, brazil, new zealand, canada, sweden, etc) if they can do it, what is there exactly stopping the rest of the world from trying to do so?[/QUOTE] The point you are jumping over is that a nation still needs a stable power source to fall back on when these other energy sources have shortages. I'm not saying certain nations can't have renewables make a huge chunk of their energy system, but they aren't free to problems, and alot of the nations you listed buy stable energy from surrounding nations alot of the time during these shortages. For example, some nations have huge geographical advantages to using alternative energy sources that makes sense. Norway and Iceland are good examples of that, but you can't just apply Geothermal and Hydro as being viable for the majority of energy production in alot of areas in the world. Then you list countries like Ethiopia, New Zealand, and Brazil that has problems with Hydro. It isn't all sunshine and carbon free emissions just because a country uses a majority of renewable energies like Hydro. [quote]The construction of large dams entails many tangible and intangible costs. The financial cost itself is already substantial. Resettlement adds to the social costs of the dams. Sedimentation from unchecked erosion in the upper watershed of rivers reduces the lifespan of reservoirs. Environmental costs are imposed on communities living downstream of the dams in Ethiopia. And neighboring countries, in particularly Egypt, see their historical water rights affected and threaten to take action against the dams. The almost exclusive reliance on hydropower makes electricity generation vulnerable to droughts, which may be exacerbated by climate change. Earthquakes can also endanger the dams and associated tunnels. There were a total of 16 recorded earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 and higher in Ethiopia's seismic active areas in the 20th century.[1] Last but not least, the dams are built in an environment of poor governance: Most contracts have been awarded without competitive bidding, raising the suspicion of corruption. The above concerns have hampered access to financing from international financial institutions, slowing down the dam building program.[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dams_and_hydropower_in_Ethiopia[/url] Brazil [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-energy-idUSBRE9060MS20130107[/url] New Zealand [url]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/09/alternativeenergy.energy[/url] And finally, you are expecting that these nations represent the energy consumption needs of nations like China, India, the US, Japan, etc. Which all consume huge amounts of energy and don't necessarily have the geography to install facilities like geothermal or hydro in great quantities or in a way that doesn't hurt the ecosystem. The US for example has huge problems with dams and how they affect the Salmon/fish populations across the nation. America actually has a huge amount of differing ecosystems, and thus represents a need for a comprehensive approach, but also the need to rely on energy systems like Nuclear to be the backbone for high-density areas/high-consumption areas. [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52206614]The country below my feet disagrees with that entirely. It's like you're obligated to argue for anything bad.[/QUOTE] It is more like I am obligated to argue with idealists that think "If this one spec of energy production works here, we should just paintbrush it across the world without looking into the bigger picture."

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52206480]what about all the countries which already get most of their power from renewables for the most part? (norway, iceland, ethiopia, austria, brazil, new zealand, canada, sweden, etc) if they can do it, what is there exactly stopping the rest of the world from trying to do so?[/QUOTE] LOL, you listed countries insanely rich with natural resources, especially rivers, which is a gray area since you need to flood large areas: Sweden -> 40% nuclear, 50 % hydro Norway -> 95% hydro Austria -> 65% hydroelectric Iceland -> whole island is basically a volcano, you can boil lunch in a geysir in your back yard Canada -> 60% hydro Ehtiopia - I can't find the numbers, but is also mostly hydroelectric New Zealand - abundance of hydro and geothermal sources

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52206527]Because he doesn't really believe in climate change and thinks that Trump is gonna bring back the coal jobs. Somehow.[/QUOTE] I actually believe in climate change and pretty big on conservation. I just don't respect the Left's position and approach on the matter. Alot of it is backed on government subsidies that keep the downsides not obvious. The Right doesn't get it right alot of the time, and I don't respect them on the issue either, but they're the only ones who aren't totally ignoring Nuclear energy, or willing to fuck over local economies to implement power sources that can't work everywhere such as high-density/high-consumption areas.

Fixing the variability of renewable power sources is easy with various energy storage solutions such as batteries and pumped hydro storage.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52206774]Fixing the variability of renewable power sources is easy with various energy storage solutions such as batteries and pumped hydro storage.[/QUOTE] Easy scientifically, but economically and financially not viable for now.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206721]It is more like I am obligated to argue with idealists that think "If this one spec of energy production works here, we should just paintbrush it across the world without looking into the bigger picture."[/QUOTE] You said: [I]"A modern country needs an energy source that can deliver consistent and variable power to the grid. Nuclear is a clear choice unless you are a die hard hippy."[/I] Norway doesn't need or use nuclear energy. Norway is a modern country. 2 + 2 = You're wrong.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206779]Easy scientifically, but economically and financially not viable for now.[/QUOTE] The Tesla gigafactory is bringing battery costs down in a pretty huge way already, and California just started adopting the technology in a pretty large way, with projects starting to come online earlier this year. After the Aliso Canyon disaster it's something they really needed to do.

Dams are awful for the environment and shouldn't be considered a clean source of renewable energy. They come at the expense of the local ecosystem.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52206784]You said: [I]"A modern country needs an energy source that can deliver consistent and variable power to the grid. Nuclear is a clear choice unless you are a die hard hippy."[/I] Norway doesn't need or use nuclear energy. Norway is a modern country. 2 + 2 = You're wrong.[/QUOTE] I am wrong for stating it in such a way, but it is a good rule of thumb unless a country has a huge geographical advantage to using such power sources. But most of the world isn't Norway or like it geographically and so it is an exception.

I think the future will depend on solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear fusion with grid battery storage.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206721]The point you are jumping over is that a nation still needs a stable power source to fall back on when these other energy sources have shortages. I'm not saying certain nations can't have renewables make a huge chunk of their energy system, but they aren't free to problems, and alot of the nations you listed buy stable energy from surrounding nations alot of the time during these shortages.[/quote] renewables have varying levels of output. if we consider a country as vast as the United States with all of its different geographies and climates and weather conditions, then localized shortages or surpluses won't matter too much if you have a decent national grid and infrastructure as for smaller countries, then there's nothing stopping them from exporting during times of surplus and importing during shortages is there? [quote]It is more like I am obligated to argue with idealists that think "If this one spec of energy production works here, we should just paintbrush it across the world without looking into the bigger picture."[/QUOTE] and yet you have the testicles to say "nuclear works, therefore it should be the primary source of power"?