Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

Germany Aims To Get 100% of Energy From Renewable Sources By 2035 (reuters.com) 153

Posted by BeauHD from the energy-of-freedom dept.
Germany aims to fulfill all its electricity needs with supplies from renewable sources by 2035, compared to its previous target to abandon fossil fuels "well before 2040," according to a government draft paper obtained by Reuters on Monday. From the report: Economy Minister Robert Habeck has described the accelerated capacity expansion for renewable energy as a key element in making the country less dependent on Russian fossil fuel supplies. According to the paper, the corresponding amendment to the country's Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) is ready and the share of wind or solar power should reach 80% by 2030. By then, Germany's onshore wind energy capacity should double to up to 110 gigawatts (GW), offshore wind energy should reach 30 GW - arithmetically the capacity of 10 nuclear plants -- and solar energy would more than triple to 200 GW, the paper showed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany Aims To Get 100% of Energy From Renewable Sources By 2035 More

Germany Aims To Get 100% of Energy From Renewable Sources By 2035

Comments Filter:

  • But they will have to resist the US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SciCom Luke ( 2739317 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2022 @05:14AM (#62314493)
    When there is lost of green energy, the US companies will wish to plant data centers is.
    We, the Dutch, the western neighbors of Germany, are ideal for US data centers.
    We are politically stable, have very few religious fanatics or warring tribes, very little seismicity and no volcanoes. Also we have the major connection point of transatlantic internet cables: the Amsterdam Internet Exchange; the biggest IX in the world.

    For example, our government in its infinite wisdom has awarded 13 billion euro (14.3 billion US$) in subsidies to Facebook to build a data center in our country that will use a considerable amount of our renewable energy to serve the Middle East and Africa. This one and several other data centers will make it nearly impossible to reach our climate goals. If the Germans could fall into a similar trap, they are in for a treat and will never make this proposed climate goal.
    • And most of the Netherlands is already below sea level in a time of rising seas due to climate change. Planting critical infrastructure in a place with such a flood risk seems short-sighted. Yes, the Dutch are very good at dealing with water. The amount of water we’re talking about in the future could still easily overwhelm the nation.

    • When there is lost of green energy, the US companies will wish to plant data centers is.

      No, when green energy fails, batteries will be used.

      This seems to be a common trope amount the anti-renewable crowd: ReNeWaBlEs ArE uNrElIAbLe!
      It's no secret that renewables are intermittent, which is why battery systems are installed, to pick up the slack when it's out. It will take time to fully deploy enough grid-scale batteries but Germany is aiming to accomplish this by 2035. In the mean time, deploying enough renewable energy harvesters is the issue.

      • When there is lost of green energy, the US companies will wish to plant data centers is.

        No, when green energy fails, batteries will be used.

        This seems to be a common trope amount the anti-renewable crowd: ReNeWaBlEs ArE uNrElIAbLe! It's no secret that renewables are intermittent, which is why battery systems are installed, to pick up the slack when it's out. It will take time to fully deploy enough grid-scale batteries but Germany is aiming to accomplish this by 2035. In the mean time, deploying enough renewable energy harvesters is the issue.

        Ah yes, the common trope of greenies: BaTtRIAs wIlL FixXorZ EvryThUnG!!! In actual real reality, batteries which are cheap enough to be installed on a grid scale do not exist, and are like cold fusion, always 5 years away. So, please point out any actual, real, existing, like you know, in actual real reality, not on paper or in greenie wet dreams, BaTtRIAs installation that could sustain even a mid-sized town through a windless night. Much less an entire fcking country. I'll wait.

        • Ever heard of the Hornsdale Power Reserve, the Gateway Energy Storage and the Victorian Big Battery?

          And your argument is kind of disingenuous since there is no single power installation in the world that can sustain an entire country.

          Now I await the ambulatory goal post...

          • LOL. Yeah, so let's take Hornsdale. 200 MWh storage capacity, Let's assume a 12h night, so that's 16MW and you're dry come sunrise (and never mind this is overtly generous because PV don't start producing any appreciable amount of energy at sunrise, the sun needs to climb above the horizon quite a bit. But I said night, so night it is). 1000 households need between 1MW and 2.5, I'll be generous for you and take the less than half of this to simplify calculations, 1.6MW. So, 10k households. Mid-size town? On

            • Who said anything about only feeding the battery with PV? There's wind and there's hydro too, the point is to have diverse generation.

              And using the metric "mid-sized town" is a bit ambiguous. In Australia a mid-sized town is somewhere between 5000-50000 residents (note, not residential homes). The average consumption in Australia during the night (12h, 9pm to 9am) is about 6 kWh which equates to about 32000 homes. (Source: ahd.csiro.au).

              The cost of Lion-batteries is projected to drop between 1/3 to 1/2 in 2

            • "But, most importantly: it cost 172M AU$ to build." yes, but paid for itself after a year and is now making loads of money. You've got a lot of research to do.

            • generous because PV don't start producing any appreciable amount of energy at sunrise, the sun needs to climb above the horizon quite a bit.
              that is wrong. If they point directly east, PV works just fine.

              1000 households need between 1MW and 2.5, I'll be generous for you and take the less than half of this to simplify calculations, 1.6MW.
              No they don't. That would mean each household is drawing 1kW to 2.5kW simultaneously: and no set of households is doing that.

              You are dump as shit.

              10k households. Mid-size t

              • generous because PV don't start producing any appreciable amount of energy at sunrise, the sun needs to climb above the horizon quite a bit. that is wrong. If they point directly east, PV works just fine.

                LOL. People building PV pointing east. Got any other bright ideas? A mean, shit, are you for fucking real?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Klaxton ( 609696 )

          You don't have to wait long, I'll be glad to point out at least one economical storage technique that's being built now. No batteries involved and installations are being built now..

          "Energy Vault’s gravity energy storage solutions harness the fundamental principles of gravity and kinetic energy to store and dispatch energy by lifting and lowering composite bricks or “mobile masses” made from recycled and locally sourced materials. "

          https://www.energyvault.com/gr... [energyvault.com]

          • You don't have to wait long, I'll be glad to point out at least one economical storage technique that's being built now. No batteries involved and installations are being built now..

            "Energy Vault’s gravity energy storage solutions harness the fundamental principles of gravity and kinetic energy to store and dispatch energy by lifting and lowering composite bricks or “mobile masses” made from recycled and locally sourced materials. "

            https://www.energyvault.com/gr... [energyvault.com]

            uhh, that website looks more like something to scam VCs out of their money than something real. Especially utter lack of any numbers (though I admit I didn't bother to dig deeply) and also that "bricks from recycled and locally sourced materials". It won't be cheaper and more efficient to use rocks or sand, noo, we have some green buzzword bingo to win!

            Still, this is exactly my point. We can't blindly trust one technology to save us, we have to diversify research and options. Nuclear, hydro, geo, sequestr

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Klaxton ( 609696 )

              Looks to me like your point was "please point out any actual, real, existing, like you know, in actual real reality".

              The company went public last year and has raised about $500 million, they have several projects under development.

              https://renewablesnow.com/news... [renewablesnow.com]

        • batteries which are cheap enough to be installed on a grid scale do not exist,

          Guess you should have "done your own research".
          https://menafn.com/1103778195/... [menafn.com]

          US Utility-Scale Energy Storage Installation Tripled in 2021

          The American Clean Power Association recently released its latest yearly figures for utility-scale battery energy storage system installations in the United States. The figures show a significant increase in installations, highlighting that last year, this number increased by more than 195% to 2.6GW.

          It's small now but it's growing fast because costs are plummeting. [nrel.gov]

        • Pumped storage does exist and si considerable cheap.
          Next?

          BaTtRIAs installation that could sustain even a mid-sized town through a windless night.
          Basically every large scale battery does exactly that.
          Google is your friend, dumbass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • Yawn, another leftist idiot bringing up Hornsdale. See my other post, CBA to answer every leftist idiot separately.

  • I don't believe the total generating capacity is doable, either offshore or on. For why, read this, on the UK plans:

    https://chrisbond.substack.com... [substack.com]

    But leave that aside. How much storage will be needed, at what cost, to make this viable?

    More than they can afford, can buy, or can install.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The obvious flaw in this analysis is that it assumes the UK will only tap a small fraction of the available wind energy available to it. That would be madness, all that energy could be harvested and exported for some nice fat profits.

      It also assumes that the UK will cut all interconnects with other countries and try to become self sufficient, which is also madness.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Budenny ( 888916 )

        Its impossible for the UK to even build out the wind capacity it requires itself for the Net Zero project. The idea that it could build more and export the power it is simply absurd.

        Peaks and dips are fairly synchronized across Europe. When there is a wind surplus in the UK, there will be elsewhere in Europe too. And when there is a dearth, similarly. The other countries from whom they would conceivably import in a dip will not have any to supply. The more reliant they all become on wind, the worse the

        • Scotland has already built a lot of wind power to the point it will soon become a net exporter, let alone a frequent one. So you are saying that it will be impossible to do what part of the UK has already a achieved. It is true that there will be a lot of work to do, but there have been some massive wind farms built in the North Sea, with more being built. Other locations around the coast are already being built. Grid ties are an issue at the moment, and Brexit is an impediment. Nuclear is also on the cards

        • Peaks and dips are fairly synchronized across Europe.
          Nope that is not how wind works. And I suggest to look on a map. You seem to have a problem not grasping the size of Europe.

          And when there is a dearth, similarly.
          Nope, that is not how wind works. Perhaps you should make a sailing class to learn the basics. Also: I suggest to look on a map. You seem to have a problem not grasping the size of Europe.

          And you do not answer the basic question about Germany. How much storage will be required to move the cou

          • It seems to escape you that Germany roughly produces 60% of its electricity with renewables already. We gradually phase out nuclear and coal, and gas. We build gradually what the market offers. For that you do not need any scientific or engineering degree: but a business plan and money.

            Holy crap! German citizens need money too, what with the highest electricity prices in Europe.

            https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]

            For comparison I'm in Canada and paying 9.32 cents CDN = 0.066EUR/kWh, though I'll admit we are lucky to have abundant hydropower.

      • I think it's good to plan for no interconnects in any strategy. One massive interconnected grid is great for buying and selling energy to make money and offset costs, but if you depend on it to stabilise your bursty generation then expect to be disappointed by lack of availability at prices the people will bear. The current issue with gas prices going to the moon is very bad and we shouldn't plan to replicate that misfeature in a new grid built out at great expense.

  • Understandable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2022 @06:41AM (#62314575)

    With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Germany realizes they need to move away from depending on Russia for natural gas and oil. Other European countries are further ahead in renewable energy so this timetable for Germany's transition seems a bit aggressive. But who knows. Maybe German efficiency will come into play.

    Besides, Russia's oil and gas industries are being crippled. The banks they relied on have had their foreign assets frozen while foreign investors are both divesting their interests [thehill.com] and stopping any further financing [marketwatch.com].

    Russia already can't meet its current OPEC oil quota [bloombergquint.com]. With the sanctions taking hold and no money available for exploration or production, let alone replacement parts, it's understandable Germany would want to make sure it doesn't get left out in the cold.

    • With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Germany realizes they need to move away from depending on Russia for natural gas and oil.

      Fukin' finally. apparently the invasion of Georgia and um the other invasion of Ukraine wasn't enough. Instead they were all like "This cheap gas is awesome! Let's keep funding Putin's war machine!". So much for nuclear energy being dangerous. I guess they're finally seeing the true cost of "cheap".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The idea was that after the cold war ended and Germany re-unified, Russia could become dependent on gas revenue from western Europe and war would become impossible. The same technique is how the EU itself started, by making France and West Germany economically dependent on each other.

        The problem is Putin seems to be willing to destroy the Russian economy, or at least didn't anticipate that would happen.

        • The idea was that after the cold war ended and Germany re-unified, Russia could become dependent on gas revenue from western Europe and war would become impossible. The same technique is how the EU itself started, by making France and West Germany economically dependent on each other.

          I understand the principle and it certainly can work, but Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and then annexed Crimea in 2014. France and Germany have been at peace since 1945, but it's been pretty clear for 14 years that Putin doe

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Yeah, they did perhaps rush into it. France and Germany started doing it in the 1950s though, it wasn't that long after WW2. I guess the idea was to seize the opportunity and lock in the peace. Someone like Putin was not supposed to take power in a newly democratic and open Russia. There was a lot of optimism, especially in Germany.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Renewable energy is why Germany is so dependent on Russia. You need 100% backup, unless you're willing to have a 3rd world "random blackouts a few times a week" grid.

      Polish export of coal power is likely going to see best prices and demand in coming years it has ever seen due to this disconnect.

      • Dude, you made that the fuck up. You didn't bother to even see if you're right, you just invented some horseshit to fit your fucking narrative. Fucking pathetic.

        A small fraction of Germany's electricity production is natural gas. They use the shit to heat their homes.
        Their natural gas requirements are entirely disconnected from their electricity requirements.

      • Renewable energy is why Germany is so dependent on Russia.
        Wow, one of your dumb ass statements again.

        So, Russia is controlling the wind over Germany? Is that right?
        Or Russia is controlling the Sun over Germany?

        Perhaps you should check a dictionary what the word "dependent" means. If Russia disappears: nothing happens to Germany.

        You need 100% backup
        a) no you don't
        b) we have the back up power plants. They are those who at the moment produce power.

        Perhaps you should read some books about energy grids instead

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Germany realizes they need to move away from depending on Russia for natural gas and oil.

      Do they? Germany needs the gas and Russia needs the money, so they can't go to war with each other.
      Wasn't the EU founded for exactly this reason, except France and Germany?

      I suspect Germany closing all their nuclear and coal power infrastructure to be interdependent with Russia was a deliberate maneuver. They just might not have thought it through as well as Putin did.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cowdung ( 702933 )

        Well switching from nuclear to natural gas is the worst thing you can do if you're worried about global warming. Natural gas is a greenhouse gas that's worse than CO2.

        • German's natural gas usage has been pretty much flat since 2005, that is before nuclear started to be decommissioned. So so far it hadn't had much effect on usage. The next tranche of decommissioning might be different, of course. In terms of net electricity, Germany is net self-sufficient, pretty much, just not necessarily on a day-to-day basis. Some of if is generated with imported fossil fuels, though.

        • Natural gas is a greenhouse gas that's worse than CO2.
          Only if you let the natgas escape into the atmosphere, which is obviously not happening when you "burn" it.

          Well switching from nuclear to natural gas
          And who exactly did that? Did I miss some news?

      • Germany does not use much gas for electricity production.
        Everyone knows that, just not you ... you must be American.

    • One thing you can say about Germans though, they've shown they are willing to pay extra for electricity if it comes from a clean source. So they have as much chance of succeeding in their goal as anyone else.

    • Other European countries are further ahead in renewable energy
      Nope. Unless you call Scotland a country.
      Perhaps Denmark and Portugal are a glimpse ahead.

  • ... to have a pony.

  • This is typical of politicians that will be long gone by 2035

    What are they doing for today's needs?

  • And that is how you get to be the future (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2022 @08:58AM (#62314697)

    Yes, this will be somewhat expensive. But the advantages in experience and respective industrial capabilities gained compared to those that are stuck in the past will be invaluable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fazig ( 2909523 )
      I'd like to see some more hydro electricity.
      While it's a lot more location dependent than solar and wind (while these themselves are also quite dependent on location), producing a lot less overall, they produce electricity at a much more reliable rate.


      If we take a look at energy generation, for which we have the useful Fraunhofer Energy Charts that provide values with a 15 minute temporal resolution, we can find cases like this from 2021:
      January: https://www.energy-charts.info... [energy-charts.info]
      I recommend to go thr

  • Hope they can accomplish even half of that, but I doubt it. This again is where the capacities quoted are extremely misleading... 30 GW of wind farms aren't going to end up equivalent to 10 nuclear plant "arithmetically". They're going to end up equivalent to about 10% of their nameplate (and probably should be closer to 5%) for the purpose of capacity planning. This is what crucified Europe this last year with high energy prices... the winds in the north sea and the baltic stalled. So really, estimate

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Klaxton ( 609696 )

      Offshore wind farms routinely get about 65% of capacity, onshore it is about 40% so I don't know where you got 10%.
      https://css.umich.edu/factshee... [umich.edu]

      Meanwhile coal and NG plants in N/A have a utilization factor of only about 55%.

      • Offshore wind farms routinely get about 65% of capacity, onshore it is about 40% so I don't know where you got 10%.
        https://css.umich.edu/factshee... [umich.edu]

        Meanwhile coal and NG plants in N/A have a utilization factor of only about 55%.

        It's not about averages or how much a resource is utilized when doing capacity planning. Every system does that planning a little differently, but typically you'd be looking at an intermittent resource and calculating what is the minimum sustained output that can be expected for X length of time. So, as an example, in MISO in the US, wind power on the MISO system can and routinely does drop to about 5% of output for extended periods. So in capacity space, wind would be credited at a prorated output of so

    • 30 GW of wind farms aren't going to end up equivalent to 10 nuclear plant "arithmetically".
      They do end up "arithmetically" that is why they used the term "arithmetically".

      They're going to end up equivalent to about 10% of their nameplate
      That is nonsense.

      This is what crucified Europe this last year with high energy prices... the winds in the north sea and the baltic stalled.
      That is wrong. The wind on land was a bit low. Over the north sea the wind never stalls. And over the baltic it happens rarely in sum

  • What kind of nuke plant only produces 4GW of electricity? Sounds like the continuing beat of anti-nuke FUD, or maybe Germany just uses backyard nuke plants.

    • What kind of nuke plant only produces 4GW of electricity?

      Less than 4GW, and most of them.
      The average is a bit under 1GW/reactor, and 3-4 reactors.

      That isn't to say there aren't bigger ones, of course, just that your cheerleading is bullshit.

    • What kind of nuke plant only produces 4GW of electricity?
      Every old school German plant?
      A single reactor is in the 500MW range, later models close to 1GW.

      Just because it contains the word "nuke" does not mean it is particular powerful. Most coal plants produce more.

      or maybe Germany just uses backyard nuke plants.
      Exactly that is the reason why the German population forced the German government to exit the nuclear program, (* facepalm *)

  • Is there anywhere that shows how much will still be used to heat homes and power vehicles, or any other current usages?

  • "100% of Energy" is not the same as 100% of electricity.

    Also, it will never happen.

    • Yes, the headline is accurate, TFS is at least accurate.
    • Some countries in Europe are on the cusp of achieving the goal right now, just not any of the size of Germany. But then the issue you might consider per capita and this look possible. However, Germany has relatively little coastline for offshore wind which may be problematic. I'm not sure what the legal aspects would be in terms of floating wind farms further out in the Baltic. France and Portugal could be well placed.

      • Germany has relatively little coastline for offshore wind which may be problematic.
        I suggest to look on a map, and activate the scale in the lower right of the corner.

  • Hitting the target is another.

    Ask everyone about their target weight.

  • Turbines and storage (Score:3)

    by ishmaelflood ( 643277 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2022 @03:24PM (#62316223)

    Germany is simultaneously knocking down 20 year old turbines, and clearing old growth forest to build new ones.

    Meanwhile, given winter (little pv) and wind dorughts across the whole of Europe, at least 30 days of power needs to be stored. All the good hydro sites are gone, that leaves you with batteries. There is not enough lithium mined to build batteries on that scale. So Germany will continue to rely on polish coal and France's nuclear to see it through winter. Hypocrites.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Close