Germany To Dedicate 2% Of Its Land To Wind Power Development (cleantechnica.com) 89
The new German government is proposing a bold new initiative to dramatically increase onshore wind power in the country by 2030. "If successful, the plan would add up to 10 gigawatts of new onshore wind capacity every year for the rest of the decade," reports CleanTechnica. "In total, 2% of Germany's land area will be set aside for wind energy generation. [T]he German government also plans to increase its offshore wind target to 30 GW by 2030." From the report: During a press conference, [the nation's new Green Minister for Economics and Climate, Robert Habeck] made it clear that wind energy, particularly onshore wind, will remain the most important source of electricity in Germany and is the key to further emission reductions, according to WindEurope. "The Energiewende is roaring again. Germany wants a huge expansion of onshore wind. And the Government fully understands that that requires faster permitting of new wind farms -- and they intend to deliver this ASAP with a dedicated new 'Onshore Wind Law.' Today's announcements mark the comeback of German leadership on renewables -- fantastisch!" says WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson.
Habeck intends to remove restraints on onshore wind development caused by concerns about radar installations for civilian and military aviation. He estimates the government plan could free up 4 to 5 GW of new wind projects currently blocked by aviation radar, and an additional 4 GW currently blocked by the military. Support for renewable energies will be paid from the state budget, reducing the burden on low income households and small businesses. The package is also said to define the energy transition as a 'matter of public interest' in order to prioritize wind energy projects over other forms of land use -- an important precondition to streamlining the permit process and finding new sites for wind energy projects.
Habeck intends to remove restraints on onshore wind development caused by concerns about radar installations for civilian and military aviation. He estimates the government plan could free up 4 to 5 GW of new wind projects currently blocked by aviation radar, and an additional 4 GW currently blocked by the military. Support for renewable energies will be paid from the state budget, reducing the burden on low income households and small businesses. The package is also said to define the energy transition as a 'matter of public interest' in order to prioritize wind energy projects over other forms of land use -- an important precondition to streamlining the permit process and finding new sites for wind energy projects.
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing they shut down their reactors (Score:2)
Germans have always been a pain in the ass when it came down to nuclear energy...
It's not only about how much energy it produces, but the liability to another country if there is an accident at one of those plants, it would ruin the German economy.
Looks like they're being good neighbors by shutting down nuclear plants that are close to borders of other countries to avoid that scenario.
For them nuclear is probably too risky.
Re: (Score:2)
Once Germany has replaced all their coal with renewables, then perhaps that is time to retire the nukes.
But shutting down a working nuke with no safety issues while continuing to burn lignite is nuts.
Ironically, it was the Greenies that pushed for this insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the existing plants should run longer, but this the specific decision made a decade ago by a conservative government (Merkel after Fukushima).
The greens are right in their general opposition to nuclear power which is certainly not green (mining), nor cost effective, nor is it clear it could be upscaled in an economically way to solve the world's energy needs in the long run. It is also known that nuclear on the grid does not complement renewables well as it is too inflexible. Studies also show that
Re:Good thing they shut down their reactors (Score:4, Informative)
It's all politics. The decision to exit nuclear power was originally a Green party initiative under the Schroeder government. It was majorly stifled by Merkel's government, which extended the licenses of most nuclear power plants by more than a decade. Then came Fukushima and Merkel flip-flopped, i.e. rescinded the extension. The industry profits every time politicians change the rules on them. You can't rescind a license to operate a nuclear power plant without paying for the financial damage. Nuclear power is going to be good for at least two more rounds of subsidies when politicians panic again.
Re: Good thing they shut down their reactors (Score:3)
SchrÃder, in what is bound to be pure coincidence, is a major pusher of Russian energy molecules for Germany on behalf of his Kremlin master
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the existing plants should run longer, but this the specific decision made a decade ago by a conservative government (Merkel after Fukushima).
The original decision was made 15 years earlier under the red/green Government of Schroeder/Kuehnast/Tritin.
Merkel reverted it when she came to power, which nearly caused civil unrests. After Fukushima she reversed it again.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but the original decision is not really relevant (as it has been turned over twice).
If green politics had been dominating in Germany in recent years there would also be more renewables now (expansion stalled in recent years) and turning nuclear off now would be more acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily Germany does not need to rely on foreigners to accept our decission to drop out of nuclear power.
Unfortunately you are right: Merkle delayed the commitment to renewables significantly. That is the reason why her party lost the last election.
Re: (Score:2)
Once Germany has replaced all their coal with renewables, then perhaps that is time to retire the nukes.
But shutting down a working nuke with no safety issues
Seems like a pretty good time to shut down a nuclear facility so it can be decommissioned in a controlled way.
while continuing to burn lignite is nuts.
Ironically, it was the Greenies that pushed for this insanity.
I think you're politicizing the situation unnecessarily. It's crazy talk saying that greenies have that much power and it seems pretty rational way to prevent an accident happening near the border of a neighbor. Germany has a policy to replace nuclear with wind energy so it's no big deal if they shut down a few nuclear plants.
Besides, it mean that we're going to see a great engineering nation
Re: Good thing they shut down their reactors (Score:3)
It wasn't a suggestion to add 10x as much buclear, but shutting down operational plants which could have operated for decades to come (or till near-full renewables) was a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima. Germany has a lot going for it but their behavior in history is so controversial at times, with a level of fanaticization then falling too much on the other side. Like, it has no proper military, and with the UK leaving the EU, only France remained a significant military power. Now they're doing a lot of Kr
Re: (Score:2)
was a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima.
Depends what you call "knee jerk". If she had not reverted her stupid previous decision to let them run longer, she had lost the next election, or would have been deposed more early.
The rest of your post seems to be silly propaganda. What has Germany to do with Ukraine? Nothing. If Russia wants a war there: they will make one.
Regardless of Germany or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
What has Germany to do with Ukraine? Nothing. If Russia wants a war there: they will make one.
Ironically Germany will be one of the war's biggest financial backers.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically Germany will be one of the war's biggest financial backers.
Nope, we wont.
I doubt anyone except the Russian industrial military complex is backing a war there.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a suggestion to add 10x as much buclear
So why are you suggesting it?
shutting down operational plants which could have operated for decades to come (or till near-full renewables) was a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima.
Fukushima was 10 years ago. It's still a big problem. The reasonable reaction to it is horror, especially for those who understand nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
They have been moving in that direction since the year 2000, and in 2011 Siemens decided to pull out of the nuclear industry entirely and focus on renewables. They could see the writing on the wall, the world was shifting away from nuclear power and retaining it would only divert money that could be spent protecting Germany's future prosperity.
Re: (Score:1)
But shutting down a working nuke with no safety issues while continuing to burn lignite is nuts.
There's barely any powerplants in Europe which qualify for the term "no safety issues". All nuclear power plants have had their certification extended over and over and over again due to various political pressures. They are all in a absolutely abysmal state thanks to 60 years of NIMBYism preventing upgrade and decommissioning of old reactors. There's a steady string of safety incidents coming out of the industry on an almost weekly basis.
The "right" time to shut down most of these reactors would have been
Re: (Score:2)
But shutting down a working nuke with no safety issues while continuing to burn lignite is nuts.
Germany has or had no nukes with no safety issues.
Re: Good thing they shut down their reactors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has two pebble bed research reactors.
They failed. And now are nuclear ruins, no one even dares to decommission.
And if you would kindly look on a map, perhaps one with background geo-information like seismic activities: Germany has no safe places to build a nuke (never had).
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like plenty of safe places to put a reactor, especially in northern Germany. Combined with modern modular pebble-bed reactors, seems like a good fit.
I don't know about these two 'nuclear ruins' test reactors, and they aren't showing up search results. Links please?
Re: (Score:2)
Does not show the fault lines.
And as your "northern area" only has two rivers, there hardly can be more than 4 plants in total.
Again: Germany had/has two pebble bed reactors: they did not work and are now a nuclear hazard.
Also: the topic is exiting from _current_ nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables. What have "new modern reactors" to do with that? Obviously: nothing.
PBMR is not a viable technology (Score:2)
Combined with modern modular pebble-bed reactors, seems like a good fit.
Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) is inherently unreliable due to consistency issues in manufacturing the fuel "pebbles". This causes them to jam the mechanisms within the reactor, a design basis issue that could not be resolved. Additionally as the fuel "pebbles" are covered in graphite with no containment building they are subject to the same sort failure scenarios that created the Chernobyl disaster as the PMBR ages.
I don't know about these two 'nuclear ruins' test reactors, and they aren't showing up search results. Links please?
Yes there are two. The second one had such a fuel pebble jam at the same time as the
Re: (Score:1)
Fine, if you're dead set against PBMR and are bringing up examples from *ahem* 30 years ago, then why not TerraPower's designs that are being built now: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/1... [cnbc.com]
These designs do not rely on outside cooling, so you can scrap the need for river space. And they are small enough that earthquakes cease to be a major issue (sure, don't build one on volcano or the San Andreas etc etc)
The plain fact is that renewables will not get us there any time
Re: (Score:2)
No links from either of you... *sigh*
*sigh* will you read it? [psu.edu].
The plain fact is that renewables will not get us there any time soon. The battery tech is not there and will not be for decades, and solar/wind generation is unreliable.
We've barely begun developing geothermal and solar thermal mainly because too much funding goes into nuclear. Bill got to access funding from SEC. 635 (IIRC) of the US Energy Policy act, has the reactor been approved by the NRC? I don't think so.
TerraPower's design is based on storing heat from the reactor in molten salt then running generation off a tertiary cooling loop. It's no different from doing exactly the same thing with solar power except that the TerraPower reactor prod
Re:Good thing they shut down their reactors (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the Germans are not being good neighbours.
Germans make their electricity mainly by coal and gas. But mainly coal. Coal plants emit soot that end up in neighbourhing countries like The Netherlands, Belgium and France. The Poles live in their own coal soot.
https://app.electricitymap.org... [electricitymap.org]
When i was student in Engineering in Belgium. i had a course on energy with a chapter that meant roughly "How not to build an energy grid: Germany". It is where i learnt that at the time Germany wasn't even able to ship its electricity from West to East. It transited through central Europe countries overloading their grid and pissing them to no end. They even threatened to disconnect from Germany.
That and the instability of the German grid destabilizes the EU one. It will worsen with more wind and thus more gas. Definitely not good neighbours.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody can smear a country these days, can they not, "Voice of satan"? Maybe you shouldn't start with an easily disprovable statement though.
Re: (Score:2)
Germans make their electricity mainly by coal and gas.
That is wrong, actually since decades.
At the moment Germany makes far over 50% by renewables, and ~5% with the last two or 3 nukes, no idea - all but one site is closed now I think.
It is where i learnt that at the time Germany wasn't even able to ship its electricity from West to East.
You seem to be an idiot. Why do you think "Germany" was not able to transmit energy from West to East? Hm? the answer is pretty simple and obvious.
That and the instabili
Re: (Score:2)
You are lying through your teeth. I provided a link.
I provide it again: https://app.electricitymap.org... [electricitymap.org]
Coal: 44..31% (25.9 GW)
Gas: 18.06% (10.5 GW)
Biomass :9.11% (5.32 GW)
Nuclear 6.89% (4GW)
Wind: 4.32% (2.52GW)
Stored hydro: 3.38% (1.98 GW)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you pick a link that is right?
Lol - can't be so hard to find an official link.
Do I need you to provide one? Or can you do it yourself?
"Stored Hydro" - rofl. That is not a source for energy production, it is a storage: it is right in the name.
So much to "lying" - stupid idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
That's live data for right now. You'll note that there is no solar energy despite more than 60GW installed capacity. A planet is currently blocking the sunlight. The year-around average has fossil fuels contributing less than half to Germany's electricity production, trending down.
Just in case you want to keep up that "good/bad neighbor" travesty of yours, I also need to point out that Belgium has placed its nuclear reactors close to the Dutch and German borders. One of them, Tihange, is placed so that in t
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case you want to keep up that "good/bad neighbor" travesty of yours, I also need to point out that Belgium has placed its nuclear reactors close to the Dutch and German borders. All Belgian nuclear power plants have serious safety issues.
Well that's on Belgium for being bad neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
B.S.
Real figures for all of 2021 :
Renewables : 43.5%
Coal is only 28,1%
in detail :
Wind 25,6 %
Brown coal : 18,8 %
Atom : 12,5 %
Coal : 9,3 %
PV 5,4 %
Fossil Methane (gas) 16,1 %
Biomass 9,7 %
Hydro 2,8 %
Oil : 0,3 %
https://www.check24.de/strom/s... [check24.de]
Re: (Score:2)
Satan voicing support for nuclear power! Supporting *Belgium* nuclear, which is a disaster waiting to wipe out the EU and widely criticized by its neighbors who adhere to higher standards of safety.
I suppose it's what Satan would do.
Good that they shut down their reactors ! (Score:2)
Nuke is economically obsolete. Each kwh generated by nuke costs approx double the price than each and every renewable kWh.
Closing the nukes is the right decision, Germany or otherwise.
Good idea (Score:1)
Re: Good idea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Any practical wind power plant also includes a gas power plant as a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Any practical wind power plant also includes a gas power plant as a backup.
Gas plants have a place in the grid now and were key in surviving with Nuclear plants which are slow to adjust their output towards demand which is always variable, but as you get to a wind based grid, you can overbuild and use other wind plants in other locations as a backup for wind in one place. Europe already has a grid which stretches from the North of Scotland to Morocco and from Turkey to Norway. If this grid was sufficiently reinforced the need for gas support could be massively reduced.
Gas plants
Re: (Score:2)
There are no plans for a European super grid. People have talked about it, but that is as far as it goes. Does Europe have a grid? Yes of sorts, there are links between countries.
I notice on all these threads a total absence of any utility planners, professionals. But we have lots of people engaging in wishful thinking about (for instance) heat storage, pumped water storage, fantasies about the wind always blowing somewhere so all we have to do is put in enough transmission.
Issues of scale and cost are
Re: (Score:2)
The European union has a unified internal energy market [europa.eu] which is so important that the UK is attempting to rejoin [reuters.com] despite Brexit. Some countries transfer much more electricity than they consume or generate [wikipedia.org] and huge countries have massive levels of transfer e.g. 36% of electricity in Germany (primarily incoming) or 20% of electricity in France (primarily outgoing).
These are easily checked facts. The level of misinformation around power is quite astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany exports far more power than it imports.
You have to be carefully with "incoming" it could be a transit.
The percentages change per year and season anyway greatly, so a cherry picked number of 36% and 20% might be true, but half a year later (or before) it looks completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany exports far more power than it imports.
You have to be carefully with "incoming" it could be a transit.
The percentages change per year and season anyway greatly, so a cherry picked number of 36% and 20% might be true, but half a year later (or before) it looks completely different.
Yeah - that's definitely a fair comment. In fact the Wikipedia table I took those numbers from even has two different ways of calculating the same number with radically different results. I think, in fact, your comment shows exactly where the value is in having such a huge interconnected grid. Demand can change hugely, due to hot or cold weather. Peaks in each country depend very much on culture - people in the UK put on the kettle at the first advertising break in the evening which is completely separate
Re: (Score:2)
Country by country trade is usually announced a day ahead (that is required by law). Or a month ahead if it is a long term contract, e.g. for an aluminium mill or steel mill, and then confirmed every day 24h ahead
Sudden trades to account for some misshape in a different country is rare (but it happens)
Every country has its own reserve power plants responsible to balance the local grid if something goes wrong.
Transport from country to country goes via transport grids. The grids ordinary people and small to m
Re: (Score:2)
Issues of scale and cost are never addressed,
Sorry, which part of Germany is part of Europe, do you not grasp?
Who the fuck cares about cost in Europe? We are rich, and not a third world country.
I notice on all these threads a total absence of any utility planners, professionals.
Who cares? It is a forum for nerds. If you want to talk to "utility planners" go into an professional energy forum. There are plenty.
This is fantasy fiction, its not serious thought about how to run an electricity system or how to
Re: (Score:2)
Europe already has a grid which stretches from the North of Scotland to Morocco and from Turkey to Norway.
Actually Europe is also integrated in the North-Eurpean-Panasian supergrid, from Ireland via Russia, Kazakhstan etc. to Mongolia.
Re: (Score:2)
Any practical wind power plant also includes a gas power plant as a backup.
Usually, nope.
They are backed up by other wind plants.
Gas power is used for dispatching/balancing. We have ten times more wind power in Germany than gas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. Are there discussions of solutions? Can you do much hydro? What about geo-thermal? Seems like solar isn't any help during these periods, so just wondering what's being discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good idea (Score:2)
The idea of European wide and maybe transcontinental power networks is that Finland can still get power from wherever it's windy or sunny. There's plenty of sunshine somewhere, most of the time
Re: (Score:2)
Toss all money into battery research (Score:2)
Not only due wind only, but due our world basically running on em.
A good enough battery basically solve all the power problems we have.
Re: (Score:2)
For an example consider concentrated solar power collector plants, which use the suns rays to super-heat molten sodium to temperatures of 1,000F or so. At night after the sun goes down, the molten sodium contains enough residu
Re: (Score:3)
You can also store potential energy by creating temperature differentials
That is extremely inefficient. Round-trip efficiency of thermal storage is about 40%.
or doing things like pumping water up high
Few places have the appropriate geography for pumped storage.
For an example consider concentrated solar power collector plants
Thermal-solar is a dead technology. A few projects were built a decade ago in Spain and California, but the falling price of PV panels has made thermal-solar obsolete.
which use the suns rays to super-heat molten sodium
No, thermal-solar uses molten salt, not metallic sodium, for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
or doing things like pumping water up high
Few places have the appropriate geography for pumped storage.
But almost everywhere has appropriate geography for drilling deep holes and moving large weights up and down.
Re: (Score:2)
But almost everywhere has appropriate geography for drilling deep holes and moving large weights up and down.
Sure, if money is no object. But in that case, you can just burn money.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal-solar is a dead technology. A few projects were built a decade ago in Spain and California, but the falling price of PV panels has made thermal-solar obsolete.
There is plenty of technology development in thermal solar. That's a really valuable technology in Morocco which generates huge amounts of PV electricity and sells it to Europe. The thermal plants can store energy for when it's dark and then use the transmission links built for the PV basically for free or cover for times when wind is low and they need energy locally. A 0.8GW (!!) plant is currently being built [solarpaces.org]. They use thermal solar to pre-heat salt and then heat it further with excess energy from PV.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a definite problem but the fact is that there's still huge underused potential in Canada, in Norway and in China.
Actually basically everywhere, unless your landscape is like Netherlands or Denmark.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The best way to store thermal energy is to then use it as thermal energy. For example, cool your house at night by an extra couple of degrees, so that you don't need to run the AC during the day.
In China they have deployed municipal A/C that makes use of thermal storage. Water is chilled and pumped around a big loop, serving businesses in the city. Naturally they make use of cheap overnight electricity to reduce the daytime load.
Re: (Score:2)
There is cogeneration: Since only 33% of the heat of a thermal power plant is converted into electricity, it is very tempting to use the heat for heating homes and for industry. There are even a few example of municipal heating which use that principle. Big potential energy savings.
But i am being told the main obstacle to this is the cost of the pipes. Sad. I hear the same things to explain why the are so little insulated buildings: It makes senses technically but it is expensive and there are not enough pe
Re: (Score:2)
If you created a market that allow selling this heat somehow, i bet the pipes etc would just "appear out of thin air"
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget sleds. If you have a nice mountain or hill you can simply move a large enough mass up the hill when power is abundant, than when you need power using a controlled release, you harvest the energy from the shed. This has trade-offs with pumpted hydro. I think the amount of concreate needed is much less and you don't have to deal with evaporation. I think it's a bit more limited though in geography.
Re: (Score:2)
Sisyphus would like a word...
Re: (Score:3)
We are more likely to get fusion power than a battery that can cheaply fuel a city overnight.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that eventually, humans could find ways of storing electrical energy in batteries etc.
The current electricity generation capacity in the world is on the order of 10,000 GW. The total battery manufacturing capacity is expected to get to 2,000 GWh in 2028 (was 290GWh in 2018). To put that in perspective, to store 1 hour of the world's current generation, you would need the equivalent of 5 years' worth of the projected battery production capacity in 6 years time. To have a day's storage will require
That's nothing! (Score:2)
We dedicated the entirety of our government to generating warm wind!
What do you mean that isn't the same?
Re: (Score:2)
We dedicated the entirety of our government to generating warm wind!
I believe you can also generate and burn methane from bull-shit and burn it. Whilst it still generates CO2, it's much better than releasing the output into the world.
Radar noise was always a shitty excuse (Score:2)
Maybe the Germans have ugraded from cold-war era radar.
Why dont we take solar seriously? (Score:1)
Forget two percent. If the US dedicated just one percent of its land to solar, say in the deserts of Arizona, California, New Mexico or Texas, we could surpass the entire US energy demand. Reference: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08... [nrel.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we could not. Obviously we could not.
Yes, we could produce huge amounts of electricity, but only when the sun is shining. So we could not even supply the US electricity demand.
As for supplying the entire US energy demand, that is even more fanciful. You might be able to generate that much electricity, but there is no way you could use it to meet the demand that there is, when and where it happens.
Realistic thinking about this needs to take account of two prime considerations.
One, the rest of the world,
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that solar not generate at night (the so-called dunkelflaute problem) rules it out as a major part of the long term solution is overblown. The technology exists now to solve that problem -- grid storage -- it just has to get much cheaper (which it is about to [intelligentliving.co]). The fact that you "waste" energy in storage losses isn't the real practical problem. It doesn't matter if you lose a joule of energy whose marginal cost was zero. The real challenge is economic. You need to get the cost of operating the
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the positions of China and India as prime examples. They are just not buying into the concept of a climate emergency, and they are consistently refusing to consider lowering emissions. They will do some token gestures, they will install some wind and solar. But they will burn as much coal as is needed to supply their increasing demand for electricity, and they are not making and will not make any serious attempts to limit ICE vehicles.
You seem to be extremely out of the loop.
Who again is world's le
Re: (Score:2)
How much wind and solar they install doesn't show anything. The best evidence of what they think about climate is what they do.
Think about it like this. The Chinese live in a flood prone country which is highly at risk historically of untoward weather events affecting food production. If the more extreme predictions of disasters from climate change come about, China will have a far worse time than most countries. The very low lying ones will perhaps be worst off, but China's disaster will be on a gigant
Re: (Score:2)
German wind turbines have nothing to do with what the rest of the world is doing.
And your pseudo pro nuclear rant is not thought out well.
What the funk is the difference if we produce 100% of our power with wind and solar versus with new reactors? None, obviously. At least regarding CO2 emissions at production side of the electricity.
Regarding China: I would suggest to look on a map.
All regions are flood prone? Hah hah ha ha!
But they seem to be serious. I wish people who think along these lines could explai
Re: (Score:2)
Did you copy that directly from the Heritage Foundation newsletter or did you just get the runs after swallowing it?
In other words... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany will become an awful place to visit, with all those wind towers scattered around what once was a lovely landscape
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure there were complains about the old windmills for milling wheat or water pumping, and now they are tourist attractions.
Re: (Score:2)
...Germany will become an awful place to visit, with all those wind towers scattered around what once was a lovely landscape.
I take it you only visit Germany for the farmland? Must be because ultimately that's where these things are going. If you want to really see a lovely landscape go visit one of the many national parks, you know, places where they won't be putting windfarms. But hey if farmland is what tickles your fancy then more power to you.
Nazis just being themselves (Score:2)
To serve the Americans? (Score:2)
That is the question. If this power will go the Germans, that is perfect, but if it will go Americans, that might not be the best use of German land.
Don't believe me, believe the IEA (Score:2)
https://www.iea.org/reports/el... [iea.org]
Just read the summary.
"After small drop in 2020, global electricity demand grew by 6% in 2021. It was the largest ever annual increase in absolute terms (over 1 500 TWh) and the largest percentage rise since 2010 after the financial crisis. Around half of the global growth took place in China, where demand increased by an estimated 10%. Global electricity demand was boosted by a rapid economic recovery, combined with more extreme weather conditions than in 2020, including a
A bratwurst eating nation (Score:1)
The variability of solar (Score:2)
https://www.solar.sheffield.ac... [sheffield.ac.uk]
By the way, anyone who thinks solar is a real contributor to emission reduction should look at this.
It not only varies from day to night. It varies from day to day. Not predictably.
This is not fit for purpose as a source of electricity generation for an industrialized economy in the north. Maybe for low power small lighting provision in poor countries in very sunny parts of the globe. But not to power homes for cooking, heating, EVs and for powering industry.
By the time
Is Robert Habeck shorter than average? (Score:1)
It would be so fitting if Germany's climate policy was being set by Little Green Men.