Germany Produces Record-Breaking 5.1 Terawatt Hours of Solar Energy In One Month 687
oritonic1 writes "Germany is rapidly developing a tradition of shattering its own renewable energy goals and leaving the rest of the world in the dust. This past July was no exception, as the nation produced 5.1 TWh of solar power (PDF), beating not only its own solar production record, but also eclipsing the record 5TWh of wind power produced by German turbines in January. Renewables are doing so well, in fact, that one of Germany's biggest utilities is threatening to migrate to Turkey."
"Renewables are doing so well, infact..." (Score:4, Insightful)
"...that one of Germany's biggest utilities is threatening to migrate to Turkey."
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:3, Insightful)
"i prefer the prieces of nuclear power..."
Ask the people of Fukushima how they feel about those low-low prices.
Re:Uneconomics 101 (Score:2, Insightful)
But at what cost?
Apparently Germans pay 2+ times the price that Americans pay.
So essentially this news story is stating that Germans are setting new records at getting fucked by their inefficient electricity generation strategy.
Re: NO NO NO (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At what cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Subsidies and negative externalities of the fossil fuel and other non-renewable energies and future return to scale of the solar energies are distortions to the economic picture and must be excluded for an honest discussion on the topic.
FTFY
Re: NO NO NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear subsidies are in your taxes, where you don't see them. Solar subsidies are in the electricity price, where you see them.
In other words, both those subsidies are in the same place. Whether you "see" them or not depends on what "see" means and how you spin it.
Re: Uneconomics 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany's electricity prices are about the same as California's.
Residents in Germany are paying ~$0.35/kWh while residents in Californian are paying ~$0.16/kWh, and California isnt a good example of efficiency either.
In Europe, only the people of Denmark pay more than Germans and most of Europe pays ~40% less than Germans.
But lets not let facts get in the way of a good P.R. piece about solar power, right?
Re:NO NO NO (Score:5, Insightful)
It can, only problem is last time I checked (a few years ago though) it took about 6 TW of energy to produce solar cells that could deliver that much energy.
Don't you mean TWh? TW is the rate of energy production.
The good news is that the cells last for longer than a month. From your guesstimate figures it seems like they break even remarkably quickly, and then are energy positive for decades.
Re:"Renewables are doing so well, infact..." (Score:3, Insightful)
If you buy power only at night or when wind generators are not working but require us to keep our plants available 24/7 there is a problem. When you need power from conventional plants you really need it but we can't charge extra to keep up the infrastructure.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
You will say something different during a winter storm where solar is almost zero and wind generators are shut down due to over speed. It does not matter if you use fossil fuel heat if the electric controls don't work. Welcome to the problem with green energy; you ca not turn it up on demand.
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Any mention of solar or any other renewable energy on Slashdot brings out an army of trolls, dolts, nincompoops and people who haven't commented on a story in ages, but suddenly have a pressing need to hold forth on solar energy. People who say, "It takes 7TW just to build a goddamn solar panel!" or, "Solar's no good because it's only 10%, and since coal is 30%, then that means coal is better because clouds!!" as if we'd passed the limits of technology in the 1890's and had better just get used to what we've got. I don't know what motivates people, or what brings them out for these stories, but it's pretty clear that if there is a concerted corporate effort to spread disinformation about energy, it's definitely working.
The same people who will discuss seriously the best type of deep space drive for a manned mission to the Cygnus constellation will aver with absolute certainty that solar energy is just a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream.
If I was a sociologist, I'd study the phenomenon. But that would just depress me.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:4, Insightful)
The lifetime risk of contracting certain types of cancer rose slightly for a small group of people because they were exposed to radiation from the nuclear disaster, the WHO said Thursday.
The notable exception was young emergency workers at the plant, who inhaled high doses of radioactive iodine, probably raising their risk of developing thyroid cancer. But since the thyroid is relatively resistant to cancer, the overall risk for these people remains low, the report said.
Otherwise, any increase in human disease after the partial meltdown triggered by the March 2011 tsunami is "likely to remain below detectable levels," the WHO said in its report.
So basically the tsunami and resulting devastation from the tsunami's aftermath are what the people in Fukushima are really concerned about...not growing extra arms or dying of cancer any sooner than they already would have. The real question for people there is whether or not they are willing to pay double price for their power and be safe from the apparent nuclear menace that is destroying lives...I'm betting people like cheap power.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. While I'm asking the people of Fukashima, you go ask the four thousand US coal miners each year with blacklung, or if its easier, the six thousand that die each year in China from coal mine accidents. While you're doing that, don't forget to check out the uranium and thorium that gets upchucked into the atmosphere where it can't be contained in a discrete area. http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html [ornl.gov]
Re:Tell me when the subsidie run out (Score:2, Insightful)
As you wish, Comrade. We'll just run everything as a government program under the aegis of our glorious fearless leader.
Seriously? You don't know why it has to be self sustaining? If things aren't self sustaining then they have to draw energy and money from other things to sustain. Especially in matters of FOOD and POWER you need things to be self sustaining because you cannot have disruptions in food or power.
But you know what... I don't care. We'll see what happens. In california, what has happened every time is that the subsidies eventually ran out. And when they did... when they couldn't operate 50 percent on government welfare they shut down. Another ruin.
So we'll see what the germans do here. If the big power companies say "f' it" and walk will the green power be able to pick up the slack? Remember, it has to be subsidized which means everyone's power bill will go up MASSIVELY. And don't forget germany has big industry with big power needs. Germany's industry is already getting lots of tax breaks and subsidies. They'll need their power costs subsidized. Which will mean all those costs will slam down on the German citizen. Not the corporations.
How much do you want to pay?
Green energy is great. I'm all for it. IF it can compete. If it can't... then it can't. I'm not crying over that. I'm moving on.
In the real world you have to pay your bills.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another example how socialism fails.
You have a weird definition of socialism.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Page 71 (Score:4, Insightful)
What if every country tried to do that? There would be shortages at dawn and dusk and massive surpluses at noon.
Good thing we live on a sphere then. Instead of, you know, on a flat two-dimensional surface.
And then there's this. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Tell me when the subsidie run out (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't quantify those costs and your position is almost entirely ideological.
There is no point in getting into a debate with you about your beliefs. They're not empirical or factual. They're opinions. And that's fine. You are entitled to your opinions such as your favorite color and what songs you like to hum along to... but that's all you've got on that point, chum.
The costs of petroilum are VASTLY outstripped by the benefits. It is a product used throughout our society in many industries. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, fuels, pesticides, etc.
Remove this from our supply chain and indifferent to gasoline and fuel it would bring our industry to its knees and BILLIONS would suffer.
You don't care or think about that though. It doesn't matter to you. You have your precious little beliefs and reality is someone else's problem. Fine.
Hold what beliefs you like. But while you're entitled to have them you're not entitled to anyone else's respect for holding on to irresponsible, irrational, and ignorant positions.
Want to ACTUALLY disagree with that? Present some facts that deal with the meat of my argument. Short of that... continue to rhetorically masturbate.
Re:Solar power reduces electricity price .. (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow, the SOLAR POWER INDUSTRY study says solar power is cheaper! Who knew? Can you try for a less biased source?
Re:Meanwhile coal generation is rising in Germany. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, crony capitalism. Like all of the cronies who have collected the ~$10T we've pissed away over the past decade on such national treasures as our multiple ongoing wars, an unmatched prison-industrial complex, corporate welfare and bailouts for billionaires, and national defense and security. A hefty price tag, but I guess we did get a lot for our money. We got a new surveillance state, militarized police forces, dismantling of the constitution, and a recession bordering on depression while the elite have never been richer or contributed less. Let's also not forget that we nailed down the #1 spot on the Incarceration Rate Hot 100 (not to mention the #1 spot on many other prestigious charts), and as a bonus, our global resentment is at an all time high!
But I hear you, let's focus on the negative waste like green energy subsidies that cost less than what is filtered to war profiteers every month to keep Operation Occupy Afghanistan running indefinitely. We should also probably bitch about even thinking about providing healthcare to our citizens, and don't even get me started on those leeching retirees who demand a monthly cash handout just because they worked their whole lives paying into social security. What a waste.
Re: NO NO NO (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm, I think the state of California should be footing some of that bill since it is their updated regulation which is part of that cost. I really dislike how "chasing the nuisance" can lead to unrealistic costs for industries that generate unintentional or illusory externalities through the actions of the parties which experience (or merely think they experience) the externality.
The State of California caused the station to discharge radioactive waste into the environment and the steam tubes to corrode out prematurely? The shareholders, not the ratepayers or taxpayers, should be shouldering that cost.
Re:NO NO NO (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you haven't noticed: This is an article about SOLAR power, not COAL. Nobody in their right mind is proposing to keep using coal to get off nuclear. You don't have to chose between the two. Germany plans to get rid of both. And consistently bringing up the radiation danger of coal plants (which are based on a single study from the 70s and does not take current technology into account) in discussions about renewable energy is a straw man.