Cost of Germany's Energiewende - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: RandallMcRee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 12:45:49 am
content: There is an interesting article in IEEE Spectrum:https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/germanys-energiewende-20-years-laterThe executive summary comes at the beginning:QuoteDoes anyone in Germany have a different perspective on this? This is the first I have heard about the topic.Thanks,Randall

author: all_repair
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 01:29:30 am
content: The chart and the statement are not in agreement.https://spectrum.ieee.org/image/MzcyMTI4OQ.jpeg

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 01:42:58 am
content: Quote from: all_repair on December 17, 2020, 01:29:30 amThe bigger explanation is that the headline is referring to "primary energy" sources, which was driven more by electricity generation changes in DE vs US.DE moves to green electricity production (only being a small part of their total primary energy use)US largely ignores green electricity production (but makes changes elsewhere and ends up with similar overall "green" energy result)

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 09:59:43 am
content: Much of the costs in Germany were for the initial phase of support for PV and wind power. It was kind of jump-starting mass production and lower prices there. It was not Germany alone, but AFAIR with some delay China also started quite some support and even later other parts of Europe joined.The US also did some subsidies, even earlier, but at a more limited scale. They got there reduction in C02 emissions by changing from coal to natural gas from fracking - but this comes at the price of unwanted methane emissions at quite some scale. So at least on a short time scale this is not a real improvement. Much of the build up in PV and wind power was with low subsidies as the prices were already down quite a bit.Bringing the prices for PV and Wind power down was a combined effect and also helped other countries. So it is rather difficult to tell apart which support was decisive, how fast the prices would have gone down anyway and also which improvements are due to the reduced cost. So it is really hard to tell the effect of the German program on the global perspective. I consider it rather effective, like speeding up the global transition by some 20 years.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 10:19:47 am
content: Comparing primary energy share is slightly misleading for several reasons:1) power from wind and PV directly gives electricity, while gas and coal need about 3 times the primary energy for the same effect. I doubt they count incoming light for PV.Using the same logic as with Coal one would have to multiply the PV contribution by about a factor of 7.2) In Germany there is also quite some reduction in nuclear power, in the US this will come in a few years when they shut down because of age.3) The overall energy consumption in the US is rising. So in absolute numbers there was not much reduction in the fossil energy.

author: all_repair
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 10:26:00 am
content: Quote from: Someone on December 17, 2020, 01:42:58 amI think the German government focus on the electricity generation is logical and should be the most effective. As the author seem to suggest he knows better, assuming he has concrete and believable data, he would do a lot of good to list out the missing puzzles that slipped the obvious assumption. Looking at the various charts, there are obvious gaps in his analysis and conclusion.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 08:39:02 pm
content: Quote from: all_repair on December 17, 2020, 10:26:00 amThey obviously don't want to talk about what the cost of those other changes were, its a thinly veiled attack on renewable energy which as you say doesn't support its headline claims. Comparing completely different things but not making it clear. The comments on the article reflect this and the author makes a reply that simply digs their heels and and says something along the lines of: "its all accurate figures, stop complaining" when people are clearly unimpressed with the misleading conclusions and inferences the author makes.Assuming renewables are needed to meet "net 0 emissions" as there are a lack of other credible methods, then DE is simply putting in the investment now. The headline could equally be US fails to green their electricity grid, pushing back billions in required spending. Just as true and just as political. Without knowing the costs of the other reductions the US made, its a blind comparison. Was farming changing their methods and increasing food prices? Did manufacturing take some big steps and increase product costs? All the article talks about on the cost front is the consumer price of electricity, but then fails to compare that to changes in the other markets where the renewables comparison is.What could/should be highlighted is how electricity is only a small part of overall energy consumption, just moving all electricity generation to proven wind/solar/hydro still leaves a massive job to reach country wide net 0. Neither country is making significant inroads there given the 2050 targets.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 09:06:31 pm
content: Electricity is only a part if the current energy needs, but there are plans to move other energy demands away from fossil to electricity, like in electric vehicles and also heating with heat pumps and even steel production with hydrogen or directly electricity instead of coal.Just looking at the percentage one also has to keep in mind that the first 50% EE are the easy part as this can be done without much extra storage. With a high percentage one starts to need storage capacity in addition to PV or wind.The subsidies for EE in Germany were expensive (and we still pay for this - some 7 cents per kWh), but it was an investment worth it. This does not mean that the transition to EE is very expensive. The costs have come down and in many areas PV or wind are competitive to coal or gas - so the first 50% are more like cheap now, especially at the current low interest rates.