Germany sets solar power record: 50% of electricity demand - Polidicks

[url]http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20120527/germany-sets-solar-power-record-50-electricity-demand[/url] [quote]German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour—equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity—through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank said. The German government decided to abandon nuclear power after the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year, closing eight plants immediately and shutting down the remaining nine by 2022. They will be replaced by renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass. Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50 percent of the nation's midday electricity needs. "Never before anywhere has a country produced as much photovoltaic electricity," Allnoch told Reuters. "Germany came close to the 20 gigawatt (GW) mark a few times in recent weeks. But this was the first time we made it over." The record-breaking amount of solar power shows one of the world's leading industrial nations was able to meet a third of its electricity needs on a work day, Friday, and nearly half on Saturday when factories and offices were closed.[/quote]

I remember when I went to Germany there were panels all over the place, it was really cool coming from Canada where the only panels are on the roofs of every ten thousandth house

Solar power plants everywhere. Learn from that "rest of the world"!

Its a think tank making sensationalist headlines. That Wednesday was exceptionally hot/sunny/very clear skies also, and to say 50% of the countries energy demands were met at a specific point in time (aka midday) is cherry picking the best time to maximize the apparent effect of solar power generation. I am all for renewable energy, but think tanks are usually full of biased as fuck results anyway, like the above, so take it with a grain of salt.

While that's cool, how will they store the energy for a rainy day?

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;36111716]While that's cool, how will they store the energy for a rainy day?[/QUOTE]Batteries usually work well

I wish that there wasn't such a problem with Solar power here in America. It's a big fucking slippery slope with it here.

What kind of solar powerplant is it?

[QUOTE=TehWhale;36111733]Batteries usually work well[/QUOTE] Except they're not generating excess energy. You'd have to either have over 100% of your energy requirements from solar panels and save the excess, or use other power supplies - either wind power which again is at the mercy of the elements, or biomass (which will still release carbon). Or you could combine solar/wind/biomass energy with nuclear energy instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster (which is unlikely to happen in Germany, what with it being away from a fault line and all).

My house has solar panels. On a sunny day we get all of our electricity from them. So in the future you could just have solar panels on everyone's house and then you just have nuclear power plants running the industrial/commercial buildings. Then during the winter/early spring/late autumn, you have more use of nuclear power/wind power for residential buildings.

Almost every house in my hometown has solar panels and there's a ton of sun, even in the early evening so there's definitely a lot of power around.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36111800]Except they're not generating excess energy. You'd have to either have over 100% of your energy requirements from solar panels and save the excess, or use other power supplies - either wind power which again is at the mercy of the elements, or biomass (which will still release carbon). Or you could combine solar/wind/biomass energy with nuclear energy instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster (which is unlikely to happen in Germany, what with it being away from a fault line and all).[/QUOTE] Not to mention that Fukushima's NPP wasn't up to the standards that modern NPPs (like the ones in Germany) are held to. It was a kneejerk reaction on a massive scale by Germany, "oh god, a 41 (bear in mind, the plans were drawn a decade before then) year old power plant that wasn't held up to proper safety standards failed to survive both an earthquake and tsunami, clearly the whole concept of nuclear power is flawed" It was a case of neglect on the Japanese front, and mass hype by western media that led to a publicity stunt.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36111982]Not to mention that Fukushima's NPP wasn't up to the standards that modern NPPs (like the ones in Germany) are held to. It was a kneejerk reaction on a massive scale by Germany, "oh god, a 41 (bear in mind, the plans were drawn a decade before then) year old power plant that wasn't held up to proper safety standards failed to survive both an earthquake and tsunami, clearly the whole concept of nuclear power is flawed" It was a case of neglect on the Japanese front, and mass hype by western media that led to a publicity stunt.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it was a kneejerk reaction but I guess you're better safe than sorry, NPPs are supposed to be completely retired from Germany by 2014 by the way.

[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;36112038]Yeah, it was a kneejerk reaction but I guess you're better safe than sorry, NPPs are supposed to be completely retired from Germany by 2014 by the way.[/QUOTE] Ironically, even factoring in Fukushima and Chernobyl, nuclear power causes less deaths per terawatt than solar and wind energy. [URL="http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html"](Source)[/URL] [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76499769/energysafety.PNG[/IMG] Admittedly not the greatest comparison as solar plant farms are safer to install than rooftop panels, but still interesting.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36111982]Not to mention that Fukushima's NPP wasn't up to the standards that modern NPPs (like the ones in Germany) are held to. It was a kneejerk reaction on a massive scale by Germany, "oh god, a 41 (bear in mind, the plans were drawn a decade before then) year old power plant that wasn't held up to proper safety standards failed to survive both an earthquake and tsunami, clearly the whole concept of nuclear power is flawed" It was a case of neglect on the Japanese front, and mass hype by western media that led to a publicity stunt.[/QUOTE] Don't forget it was an absolutely massive earthquake and tsunami, and there still wasn't a real catastrophic meltdown. It's not much of a knee-jerk reaction, but more like it gave the so-called environmentalists (who would be for nuclear power if they understood anything from energy demands and what clean/renewable energy means) a platform to make a huge fuss and just make a mess of things.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36112152]Ironically, even factoring in Fukushima and Chernobyl, nuclear power causes less deaths per terawatt than solar and wind energy. [URL="http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html"](Source)[/URL] [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76499769/energysafety.PNG[/IMG] Admittedly not the greatest comparison as solar plant farms are safer to install than rooftop panels, but still interesting.[/QUOTE] I don't really think it's the death rate that is making people concerned about nuclear power plants.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;36112330]I don't really think it's the death rate that is making people concerned about nuclear power plants.[/QUOTE] Well, those death rates also included deaths caused by contamination and pollution, which is the what these people seem to be concerned by. As for effects on the ecosystem, nuclear waste from modern plants can be contained or reprocessed easily, and there's loads of checks and security place to prevent waste leaking. You also have to consider the environmental impact both of securing uranium for nuclear fission, and the huge amounts of material needed for the mass production of solar panels (particularly the more efficient models, which require elements like Cadmium).

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36112455]Well, those death rates also included deaths caused by contamination and pollution, which is the what these people seem to be concerned by. As for effects on the ecosystem, nuclear waste from modern plants can be contained or reprocessed easily, and there's loads of checks and security place to prevent waste leaking. You also have to consider the environmental impact both of securing uranium for nuclear fission, and the huge amounts of material needed for the mass production of solar panels (particularly the more efficient models, which require elements like Cadmium).[/QUOTE] No, I mean the critics are probably more worried about the results of a Chernobyl scaled disaster. Of course the powerplants are much more secure nowadays, but just [I]if[/I] such a thing happens again it would be disastrous.

These 'renewable' energy sources all have measurable impact on the environment. Wind power, solar power, wave power, hydroelectric power stations (etc) are never entirely 'clean'. Solar power contributes to global warming in that you're providing a surface that stores and radiates heat throughout the night, reducing the cooling effect of that period. It is better than gas/coal but it's still not environmentally friendly

Sounds like a massive waste of space. . .

[QUOTE=Swebonny;36112502]No, I mean the critics are probably more worried about the results of a Chernobyl scaled disaster. Of course the powerplants are much more secure nowadays, but just [I]if[/I] such a thing happens again it would be disastrous.[/QUOTE] On that basis, why do we still use aeroplanes? If they have an accident, as we've all seen, it's devastating. However, it's because of that very danger that so much work has been put into making air-travel safer, to the point where you're probably safer flying rather than walking here. I'm not suggesting that you subscribe to that point of view, but it does seem silly to go: "Nuclear power is dangerous and can cause a huge accident - if you ignore the huge amount of effort and energy put into making sure that sort of accident can't happen". Fukushima is graded as being as 'serious' as Chernobyl, yet the health and environmental impacts were tiny compared to Chernobyl - and that was in a 41 year old plant in conditions it wasn't designed to survive in.

[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;36111661]I remember when I went to Germany there were panels all over the place, it was really cool coming from Canada where the only panels are on the roofs of every ten thousandth house[/QUOTE] Try the United States, where it's every millionth. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;36111716]While that's cool, how will they store the energy for a rainy day?[/QUOTE] Solar panels actually store excess energy into large batteries which can be used at night and on rainy days and can be used over the winter.

Heh, even on my roof is a solar panel.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36111800]Except they're not generating excess energy. You'd have to either have over 100% of your energy requirements from solar panels and save the excess, or use other power supplies - either wind power which again is at the mercy of the elements, or biomass (which will still release carbon). Or you could combine solar/wind/biomass energy with nuclear energy instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster (which is unlikely to happen in Germany, what with it being away from a fault line and all).[/QUOTE] I don't have this on me right now because that class is over, but in my environmental science class, I watched a video on this guy in Montana who had a system of solar panels and he actually managed to sustain his household electric power on battery storage alone. He still gets some energy during rainy/snowy days, just not as much as he does during the summer. But the energy that he obtains during the summer actually lasts him the winter. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] However, if you're talking about using it for vehicles, powering a home electric system and powering a vehicle are two different things. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Maloof?;36112503]These 'renewable' energy sources all have measurable impact on the environment. Wind power, solar power, wave power, hydroelectric power stations (etc) are never entirely 'clean'. Solar power contributes to global warming in that you're providing a surface that stores and radiates heat throughout the night, reducing the cooling effect of that period. It is better than gas/coal but it's still not environmentally friendly[/QUOTE] Until we can completely bend matter and energy, we pretty much just have to do whatever damages the environment the least.

[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;36111661]I remember when I went to Germany there were panels all over the place, it was really cool coming from Canada where the only panels are on the roofs of every ten thousandth house[/QUOTE] I've never seen a single solar panel in the US except on a calculator so...

In a few decades we'll be back to nuclear power once they start mining thorium from the moon.

[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;36113176]I don't have this on me right now because that class is over, but in my environmental science class, I watched a video on this guy in Montana who had a system of solar panels and he actually managed to sustain his household electric power on battery storage alone. He still gets some energy during rainy/snowy days, just not as much as he does during the summer. But the energy that he obtains during the summer actually lasts him the winter.[/QUOTE] It's more the fact that providing electricity for your house and for the national grid are two different things. Solar energy is great for passive or self contained uses, like street lighting, particularly because you know roughly how much energy you need. However, particularly in temperate climates, electrical demand will go up during periods when the solar panels can't run efficiently. For example, the UK sees roughly 30% of the maximum sunshine it could get due to cloud cover (not counting nights), which means solar panels would only be operating efficiently 15% of the time - not great for power supply. In the Germany, the brightest city manages 41% of the maximum sunshine possible, which leaves solar panels running efficiently for 20% of the year, and Montana can have solar panels running efficiently for 30% of the year. It just doesn't seem feasible for a system that has to cater for wildly varying demand that changes both day to day and month to month to run solely on solar power. [URL="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html"]Source 1[/URL], [URL="http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Germany/annual-hours-of-sunshine.php"]Source 2[/URL], [URL="http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Montana/annual-days-of-sunshine.php"]Source 3[/URL]

Nuclear power isn't the answer, anyone who disagree's is a fucking dolt. I don't even need to begin explaining why; anyone whose taken a basic environment class should know better.

[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;36113105]Try the United States, where it's every millionth. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] Solar panels actually store excess energy into large batteries which can be used at night and on rainy days and can be used over the winter.[/QUOTE] batteries who wear out and need to be replaced every 2000 charge cycles. And the materials needed to build a solar panal and a battery far exeed the CO2 gain of the solar panel to begin with. This is also the reason why the hybrid cars have a bigger carbon footprint then most normal cars. The battery's take so much energy to make. Better option would be to store the energy in hydrogen. Just need to find a way to make fuel cells cheaper. (currently use platina as a katalyst). Then again this would cause a whole lot of other problems.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36114081]Nuclear power isn't the answer, anyone who disagree's is a fucking dolt. I don't even need to begin explaining why; anyone whose taken a basic environment class should know better.[/QUOTE] Wow you sure won that argument! You have completely changed my outlook on Nuclear power!