[Upper5Percent]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...rankfurt-motor-show-bmw-mercedes-benz-renault

< When Angela Merkel addressed the Frankfurt motor show, it was not to a backdrop of revving engines but an exhibition of noiseless electric Golfs, South Korean hybrids and Japanese fuel-cell cars.

The silence should have pleased the chancellor, who in the wake of the VW emissions scandal has hinted at a possible ban on sales of the diesel cars for which German manufacturers are renowned. German cities plagued by air pollution, including Munich, home of BMW, are mulling over the banning of diesels from their centres.

Internationally, the UK and France recently promised to ban sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040, while carmakers including Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover have raced to pledge electrification of their future models.

The summer of love for battery cars prompted newspaper editorials heralding the end of the internal combustion engine. One bank even forecast that all new car sales in Europe would be electric within two decades. Meanwhile, diesel car values have plummeted.

So it should perhaps come as no surprise that electric cars have taken centre stage at the Frankfurt motor show, which opens to the public on Saturday.>

 

[Mister Dave]

Are electric cars crowding out traditional engines?

No, not yet and not any time soon. This is hyperbolic feel-good nonsense from politicians. And if you think car maker executives aren't politicians too, think some more.

Merkel for one needs to cover up how her country is evicting and demolishing whole towns to get at their lignite coal.

Going in for reports like this?

Germany got 85% of its electricity from renewable sources in April

Sounds great, right? Well...... in there is.....

Germany recently broke its record for renewable energy generation by having 85 percent of its electricity come from renewable sources over the last weekend of April.

And here's a more sobering chart on solar production in Germany (possibly from 2014 - not sure)

So what's Germany's real mix of power generation?

But if Merkel's green buzz hasn't worn off yet, there's a sobering article here: Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels

An even more sobering comparison, given Germany’s much trumped green credentials, is with the growth of coal power plants this decade. At the end of last year Germany had a total of 36 gigawatts of installed solar capacity, and this produced 28.3 terawatt hours of electricity. However, between 2011 and 2015 Germany is opening 10.7 gigawatts of new coal power plant capacity. The consulting company Poyry projects that these new coal power plants will have average capacity factors of 80%. If so, they will have a combined average annual output of 75 terawatt hours. In other words, in five years Germany is opening coal capacity which will have an annual output of more than double that from all of its solar panels. However, this comparison is perhaps too generous. Solar panels typically last twenty to twenty five years, but coal power plants easily last twice that long.

What we are seeing in Germany, then, is much more of a coal lock-in than a solar revolution.

More electric cars you say? Sounds like a plan for burning more dirty lignite.

 

[RndPrecision]

Germany decided to raise CO2 output by shuttering nuclear power plants

Germany’s pollution problem (their CO2 emissions are climbing) is a direct result of their decision to shutter their emissions-free nuclear reactors. The dumbest environmental move a country can make. If you want to add solar and wind because it makes you feel good, fine. But you will not successfully replace the clean power generation from nuclear with renewables without spending fortunes that are unsustainable.

 

[Upper5Percent]

So what's Germany's real mix of power generation?

But if Merkel's green buzz hasn't worn off yet, there's a sobering article here: Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels



More electric cars you say? Sounds like a plan for burning more dirty lignite.

Looks like coal is still king in Germany...

One wonders if there is a german equivalent of "46" to run for office on protecting coal mining jobs...

 

[Upper5Percent]

Are electric cars crowding out traditional engines?

No, not yet and not any time soon. This is hyperbolic feel-good nonsense from politicians. And if you think car maker executives aren't politicians too, think some more.

C'mon...I posted the other article pointing out that Germany's EVs are UP TO TWO PERCENT!!!!....DOUBLE US EV usage!!!...

 

[Mister Dave]

C'mon...I posted the other article pointing out that Germany's EVs are UP TO TWO PERCENT!!!!....DOUBLE US EV usage!!!...

Lotsa room to grow and the planned coal plants will be up to it. One wonders if the mining operations can keep up the supply though.

I remember watching a Mega Machines show on the History Channel about this monster:

They said it could barely keep up with the demand from the power plant and it ran 24/7.

......And from the article linked above:

The rise of the Internet means that simple factual issues can be checked quicker than would have been believed possible a generation ago. The rise of social media means that facts are not checked, they are retweeted.

Such is the case with renewable energy in Germany, where it appears almost anything is to be believed.

Here is the most popular meme: “Germany now gets half of its energy from solar panels.” This does the rounds of Twitter and Facebook almost every day. In fact, it has now spread to more reputable outlets such as Popular Mechanics, and has even appeared on the website of Richard Dawkins, the inventor of the term meme, under the headline “Germany Now Produces Half Of Its Energy Using Solar.” The problem, of course, is that Germany does not get half of its energy from solar panels, and will not do so any time soon.

Do we not see similar behavior here on a regular basis?

Reality bites, but no more so than when you believe the bull, and then reality comes in and ruins your rainbow.

 

[hellsop]

Germany’s pollution problem (their CO2 emissions are climbing) is a direct result of their decision to shutter their emissions-free nuclear reactors. The dumbest environmental move a country can make. If you want to add solar and wind because it makes you feel good, fine. But you will not successfully replace the clean power generation from nuclear with renewables without spending fortunes that are unsustainable.

Nope. Replaced with "renewables". Which other sources say is mostly wind and photovoltaics.

 

[Mister Dave]

Nope. Replaced with "renewables". Which other sources say is mostly wind and photovoltaics.

Biomass (7%) produces more than solar (5.9% - chart above) and I would suggest it's more reliable (chart above). When wind and solar aren't producing coal has to take over. I'm not a fan of nukes, but they could have helped there.

 

[jbakerjonathan]

Mister Dave, would your attitude toward nuclear energy be changed to "I'm a fan!" if development of molten salt reactors is brought to fruition? I happen to think that it would be a perfect engine for generating electricity. This technology can even use spent uranium as a fuel, consuming the waste that has built up over the last 75 years. It's a win-win technology in my book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/

 

[DonC]

No, not yet and not any time soon. This is hyperbolic feel-good nonsense from politicians. And if you think car maker executives aren't politicians too, think some more.

Always so cynical! And usually right. The problem for Germany is that their economy depends on the auto industry, and it's unclear how the industry will shake out if disrupted by electrics, which at this point seems inevitable.

Merkel is 110% aligned with the auto execs on this issue. They're all on the same page, which is to put some window dressing on the diesel cheating while continuing the legal maneuverings to keep diesel technology alive. The problem for Merkel is that even in Bavaria people are looking for solutions to climate change and other pollution issues, and diesel technology isn't a good fit.

 

[DonC]

Mister Dave, would your attitude toward nuclear energy be changed to "I'm a fan!" if development of molten salt reactors is brought to fruition?

I'd be a fan of perpetual motion machines if that was possible. Or batteries with an energy density and cost which was 1/10th of what we currently have.

I think nuclear is an expensive way of producing electricity. In fact I think Germany produces enough electricity via wind and solar, or could. The problem is these sources aren't sufficiently consistent. But I think storage will become affordable sooner than anything nuclear.

 

[DonC]

Biomass (7%) produces more than solar (5.9% - chart above) and I would suggest it's more reliable (chart above). When wind and solar aren't producing coal has to take over. I'm not a fan of nukes, but they could have helped there.

Germany stopped its solar program because there was more solar than the grid could handle. The German subsidy was different. Nothing up front but a guarantee that the operator would buy back any excess at a set high price per kWh. The result was building and out buildings packed with solar panels. Lots of windmills as well but that's a different story.

The German opposition to nuclear is more about thinking it's not a green solution than anything. Again, not to press the point, but even in Bavaria this is a popular meme.

 

[Mister Dave]

Mister Dave, would your attitude toward nuclear energy be changed to "I'm a fan!" if development of molten salt reactors is brought to fruition? I happen to think that it would be a perfect engine for generating electricity. This technology can even use spent uranium as a fuel, consuming the waste that has built up over the last 75 years. It's a win-win technology in my book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/

I'm liking the newer, more promising tech a lot more, yes. I'd like to see some time in action to prove its viability. Perhaps eventually we'll have something that has no waste and is reliable 24/7.

We're not there yet but at least we know what to do with poop. It seems the Germans for one are putting theirs to very good use. No, that wasn't a weird type of insult, they really do use biomass to good effect. Los Angeles does too.

I'd be a fan of perpetual motion machines if that was possible. Or batteries with an energy density and cost which was 1/10th of what we currently have.

I think nuclear is an expensive way of producing electricity. In fact I think Germany produces enough electricity via wind and solar, or could. The problem is these sources aren't sufficiently consistent. But I think storage will become affordable sooner than anything nuclear.

Problem: Durability of "renewables" (which hydro really isn't. Hydro is more of a constant). You may have read in an article above that coal plants last much longer than the others. When you figure cost you have to take into account replacement. That's something that is hard to know the cost on with tech that's too new to have been replaced yet.

Germany stopped its solar program because there was more solar than the grid could handle. The German subsidy was different. Nothing up front but a guarantee that the operator would buy back any excess at a set high price per kWh. The result was building and out buildings packed with solar panels. Lots of windmills as well but that's a different story.

On a good day anyway. Solar produces very little in (for example) January in the north.

The German opposition to nuclear is more about thinking it's not a green solution than anything. Again, not to press the point, but even in Bavaria this is a popular meme.

When Fukushima happened everyone went to look for GE Mark I reactors. We have one 25 miles south of here (yes I looked too). Merkel had a child (that's a joke - she's childless) and announced she was shutting down the nukes. People really believe she will too. Not me. If you think our pols are liars, try Europe for a while. If they did what they promise to do I'd be in shock.

Always so cynical! And usually right.

USUALLY????? LOL - not cynical, pragmatic and thanks for the sort of compliment.

The problem for Germany is that their economy depends on the auto industry, and it's unclear how the industry will shake out if disrupted by electrics, which at this point seems inevitable.

Merkel is 110% aligned with the auto execs on this issue. They're all on the same page, which is to put some window dressing on the diesel cheating while continuing the legal maneuverings to keep diesel technology alive. The problem for Merkel is that even in Bavaria people are looking for solutions to climate change and other pollution issues, and diesel technology isn't a good fit.

Got that right.

 

[DonC]

Problem: Durability of "renewables" (which hydro really isn't. Hydro is more of a constant). You may have read in an article above that coal plants last much longer than the others. When you figure cost you have to take into account replacement. That's something that is hard to know the cost on with tech that's too new to have been replaced yet.
...
USUALLY????? LOL - not cynical, pragmatic and thanks for the sort of compliment.

It's not as if nuclear plants have proved low maintenance! Generally they've been offline far more often than projected, make far less electricity than projected, and have a shorter life than projected. That's in addition to costing 5X more and taking 2X longer to come on line. Coal plants are robust but coal is the worst possible fuel. Coal is simply too dirty. In addition to all the particulates and greenhouse gases, you have a lot of toxic waste. For example, I believe you end up with more radioactive waste from a coal plant than a nuclear plant.

Germany will be OK on the electricity front. Its problem is heating. For that is depends on Russia which is not a good thing.

It was a compliment not a backhanded complement. My only other choice than "usually" was "always", and none of us can possibly meet that standard. LOL

 

[Mister Dave]

It's not as if nuclear plants have proved low maintenance! Generally they've been offline far more often than projected, make far less electricity than projected, and have a shorter life than projected. That's in addition to costing 5X more and taking 2X longer to come on line. Coal plants are robust but coal is the worst possible fuel. Coal is simply too dirty. In addition to all the particulates and greenhouse gases, you have a lot of toxic waste. For example, I believe you end up with more radioactive waste from a coal plant than a nuclear plant.

All true, but you use what you have and Germany has coal. Newer nuclear tech may solve some of the current issues. It's too soon to say really. I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying. Technology is going to produce the real answers, as it usually does.

I'd like to see Europe as a whole doing more with natgas, but that hooks them up with Putin and no one likes that. The Tsar already has too much influence.

Germany will be OK on the electricity front. Its problem is heating. For that is depends on Russia which is not a good thing.

I was just thinking that.

The EU-28 has really been ramping up the outsourcing of their energy fuels as a whole. They're not exactly "sustainable" from that angle.

It was a compliment not a backhanded complement. My only other choice than "usually" was "always", and none of us can possibly meet that standard. LOL

I know - I can be a wise guy too. And yes it's an impossible standard.

Aside, I was reading last night that 90% of new energy sources added last year in the EU-28 were renewables. How's that for one-sided spin? I also found that the EU-28 still depend on fossil fuels for more than half of their power. That's not good considering that Norway is quite the hydro powerhouse and France is up to their gills in nukes.