
The Great German Energy Experiment  - pdelgallego
http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-story/428145/the-great-german-energy-experiment/?ref=rss
======
macavity23
Great article - upvoted. That it's inconceivable that the US or UK government
could think about spending such an amount (~5% of GDP!) on a long-term science
and engineering project speaks volumes about why the Germans are where they
are, and why we're where we are, economically speaking.

From an engineering point of view I think it's foolish to turn off the nuke
plants, but public opinion is what it is, and this causes the regulatory
requirements to prevent nuclear from being economically viable.

The article does a good job of covering the risks, but personally I'd bet on
the Germans here - even if the 'Energiewende' doesn't pay off per se, the
rewards from the science and engineering knowhow will be huge. The only
comparable project I can think of is the Apollo Program, though a quick google
suggests that was never more than 1% of GDP, and the returns from the science
on that were massive and lasted for decades. Likewise, CERN, which was about
as blue-sky as things get, gave us the World Wide Web: completely tangential
to its stated purpose, but what kind of rate of return did that give us?

So here's a question for the peanut gallery: has there ever been a large-scale
public investment program into science and engineering (that ISN'T based on
destroying things in new and exciting ways) that has not proved to be a good
investment in the long run?

(On a side note, I _really_ want to have a stickybeak around a 30MW AC/DC
converter!)

~~~
cturner
Theere's a basic role of government that's widely agreed upon - that it keeps
us from hurting one another and clarity on the use of roads and
telecommunications channels and the like. And I realise that opinions diverge
above that, but I'll put mine.

Generally government is poor at picking winners, and inefficient, and seems
like a bad place to look for inspiration in engineering. When governments set
up things like NASA they become political institutions themselves. It's easy
for them to grow into organisations that seek self-preservation and always
more money to support the glamour of their leadership.

When government gets involved in a field, you get a cross-polination between
field-experts and government people. Often the government people end up on the
side of workers in the field rather than the public that they're meant to be
serving.

Given all these problems, I don't think we should be attracted to the idea of
governments taxing us to spend the money on difficult-to-quantify never-never
projects. They could just not tax us, and then we could pursue our own
projects.

~~~
eru
> They could just not tax us, and then we could pursue our own projects.

Or, if you agree that a low-carbon future would be a good thing: Tax carbon
usage, and, since you don't like the government spending money, just
distribute the proceeds equally among the population. This works out to a net
impact, modulo transactions costs, on the average carbon-emitting person of
zero, but rewards and punishes the outliers.

~~~
anamax
What if I don't agree that a low-carbon future would be a good thing? What if
I think that the tax is too high? What if I have higher priorities?

~~~
eru
> What if I don't agree that a low-carbon future would be a good thing?

Then my comment doesn't apply.

> What if I think that the tax is too high?

The level of the tax should be chosen so, that you get the societal optimal
output of CO_2. Where the measure of optimality is choosen by some mechanism,
e.g. some form of democracy or so, outside of the scope of my suggestion.

If you actually want to have a high carbon-future, you might even opt for a
negative tax, i.e. subsidy. The `proceeds' that get divided equally would turn
into costs. If you want no interference, you set the tax to zero and forget
about it.

> What if I think that the tax is too high?

For the average CO_2 emitting person the level of the tax doesn't matter,
since the scheme's designed to be cash-flow neutral for them. But with a tax
that's too high you would get less CO_2 emissions than your society would
agree on as optimal. With a tax that's too low, you'd get more total emissions
than people would agree on. At the moment our situation is essentially
equivalent to a tax/redistribution of zero.

~~~
anamax
> Then my comment doesn't apply.

You're still going to tax me....

> The level of the tax should be chosen so

In other words, "lump it".

> If you want no interference, you set the tax to zero and forget about it.

You're not going to let me.

> For the average CO_2 emitting person the level of the tax doesn't matter,
> since the scheme's designed to be cash-flow neutral for them.

That can't be true if the result is lower CO2 emissions.

Also, I'm pretty sure that you're not going to compensate small scale CO2
sequestration. (It would be too costly to do so, but the result is the same -
your scheme can't treat all CO2 the same even though your reason for taxing
CO2 says that it is.)

------
kfk
I don't like this. Instead of heavily subsidizing some technologies, they
should tax externalities (i.e. pollution) and let the markets do the rest.
It's annoying having to pay 15% more energy bills because somebody has decided
that wind and solar are the hot thing of the moment.

Bad, really bad. Same way of thinking that brought us to the debt crisi in
Europe.

~~~
kfk
Just some quick answers.

* It is difficult, no doubt. But it is also difficult to find a way to efficienlty store solar and wind power. It is difficult is not a good excuse not to do it.

* It does not help innovation. Not true. It does. Taxes will lower the margins of the businesses with externalities and capital holders will look for more efficient technologies. Less cost and/or more profit are the only way you incentivate innovation.

* Energy is cheap. That doesn't mean it couldn't be cheaper. I mean, I prefer to spend my money on what I like, not on energy bills. And again, cheapER, bettER, are the real incentive to innovation.

* Politics. Don't know, don't care. If I had to go with politics, I'd say that solar and wind are mainly politics: it helps with votes and reputation, but only that (at least now).

* Nuclear. There is research also there. There has been progress for decades. Why that research is _not as good_ as the one for solar and wind power I don't understand.

~~~
macavity23
_Politics. Don't know, don't care._

Fair enough - but not caring about this will leave you unable to fix serious
problems, and incurably unhappy with the state of the world. Every problem,
every issue, every project of non-trivial size is critically dependent upon
politics of some stripe or other. History is riddled with excellent ideas that
failed because they didn't consider politics (and for that matter, terrible
ideas that succeeded because they did).

I agree with you that the public revulsion over nuclear power is unwarranted -
but that battle is lost. No reasoned argument can hope to win over emotive
shots of Chernobyl and Fukushima. We have to look forward.

Engineering is about achieving goals within constraints. Good engineering
takes political constraints into account as well as technical and budgetary
ones.

 _Addendum_

Whoever is downvoting this guy, STOP. You might disagree with him, but he is
promoting a debate in a civilised manner, and that's how we move forward.

~~~
kfk
You are right. But we still need to keep in mind that what's happening makes
no sense. We need to know what the real, un-politic, solution is, otherwise we
don't even know how and where to compromise. More public spending _is not_
ground for compromises. We are gambling with our future packing debt on debt
with silly ideas (like this one that throwing money at pig farmers to raise
wind towers is going to save our energy-hungry asses). That's not going to
happen and we will pay for this bad decision making in the future.

------
onli
The article has a heavily biased view. Some points it gets wrong:

>"If you close eight nuclear plants, which were carbon-free, overnight, you
will increase carbon emissions,"

Nuclear plants are not carbon free. Getting the uranium, transporting the
nuclear waste, transporting the people who run the plant costs a lot of carbon
emissions. You need to look at the whole picture.

>Inevitably, some hot July week will come when a high-pressure system stalls
over Europe, stilling turbines just when sunburned Germans reach for their air
conditioners

The summer in Germany isn't that hot. Middle europe, not california.
Accordingly, we don't have air conditioners (in general)

Look at who is cited - People from large companies loosing their monopoly and
Sinn, a conservative "expert".

~~~
sneak
> The summer in Germany isn't that hot. Middle europe, not california.
> Accordingly, we don't have air conditioners (in general)

Germans are always saying this. It was 90F in Berlin yesterday. That is air
conditioner weather, period.

The part about most people not having them is true, though. This US expat is
hooking his up this week, despite power costing twice here what it does in
California.

~~~
Xylakant
Climate differs wildly throughout Germany. Berlin tends to get hot days, but
those are of a moderate number. The upper Rhine valley where I come from has a
warmer climate, but less extreme summer heat (lots of forest area around). The
coastal area is generally cooler during the summer.

So yes, we do get hot days, but it's still rare that people have air
conditioning in their flats. Modern office buildings have air conditioning
though and most shops as well. Still, when the temperature difference is lower
you still need less energy to power them. Another point is that it's a rare
occurrence to have no sun (hence no solar power) and massive heat.

------
pkteison
Can somebody explain to me the part of the article where it says you have to
convert AC to DC to travel long distances (for far offshore wind power)? I
understood it to be the exact opposite, that AC could go long distances
without major loss and DC needed a new station every few blocks.

~~~
eigenvector
You don't 'need' to convert it, but HVDC transmission is emerging as more
efficient and cost-effective than conventional HVAC transmission.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current>

~~~
rmccue
From what I gather from the Wikipedia page, it's due to the transmission
cables being underwater and hence having a much larger capacitance, which is a
larger loss than normal DC loss. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

So, while AC is still more beneficial for transmission via cables in
air/ground, DC appears to have less overall loss for underwater transmission.

~~~
vitaminj
By virtue of their tight bundling, all composite multi-core cables have high
capacitances. However, onshore AC transmission is typically run on overhead
lines, with large line spacings and thus capacitance isn't as much of a
problem.

------
DasIch
I find the criticism torwards the Energiewende quite hard to understand, sure
it is a very difficult problem but unless we find a fundamentally new energy
source or nuclear fusion becomes viable the path Germany is on is without
alternative. It's better to work on the problem now, developing knowledge that
helps our economy and makes us a worldwide leader than holding it off unless
we are near collapse due to oil prices or worse have to engage in a war about
resources, especially since the latter is something Germany must not engage
in.

~~~
lmm
>I find the criticism torwards the Energiewende quite hard to understand, sure
it is a very difficult problem but unless we find a fundamentally new energy
source or nuclear fusion becomes viable the path Germany is on is without
alternative.

There's one obvious alternative: Build and run nuclear power plants. We have
enough uranium to supply our energy needs for centuries, and the overall
environmental impact is better than that of renewables.

~~~
skore
> We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for centuries

That's incredibly short sighted. And not just the measure of 'centuries' (even
if that were true, it's still arguably just postpone the problem). Energy
demand is going up, sharply, as more countries join our standard of living. We
_will_ , definitely, need technologies that are as clean as possible to meet
the demand, eventually. No amount of pollution that is avoidable is acceptable
at the scale we are going to witness. Which brings us to

> the overall environmental impact is better than that of renewables

I've stopped buying this argument and I'm sick of seeing it again and again -
it's complete and utter Bullshit. The only way we have come up in terms of
"dealing" with the highly toxic waste that nuclear energy produces (letting
alone the often brushed over but equally horrifying ecological cost of
_mining_ the fuel) is to store it away "somewhere". The kicker is: We have not
figured out that "somewhere". In Germany, there is exactly one site that is
being developed for this. We literally ship the containers there and they sit
in a holding facility above the salt mine because we have not even figured out
how to get the fuel from the shipment containers into the storage containers.
Oh, and the storage containers haven't been fully developed either. This is a
catastrophe just waiting to happen.

Years and years of politics playing nice with (and pushing money into) the
nuclear industry have produced no results that a reasonable person could
support. What the government had done was basically doubling down on what is
often - in this thread as well - requested: To let the market figure it out.
Oh they have figured it out alright. Just not the part about it also being
reasonable. Or even sane.

And this is only for the waste that was produced _so far_. The technology and
storage capacity for _centuries_ of waste simply doesn't exist. At all.

Story time: They actually did have the "solving" of this in mostly private
hands for a long time - a semi-government agency (under strong, yet curiously
absent oversight) conducted "experiments" on how to store the waste in a
different salt mine [1]. They "experimented" with things like whether they
roll or "throw down" barrels into caves. When they "noticed" that they had a
problem with huge amounts of radioactive water rising up everywhere, they
"solved" it by pumping it down into a deeper cavity. That whole agency was
abolished and replaced and put under proper (and horrified) oversight when the
extent of the disaster came to light in a huge scandal.

They have been "working on" trying to clean up this mess since nineteen
frigging ninety five. They haven't even figured out how to drill into the
closed off cavities to get the improperly stored fuel out of there, for crying
out loud! All while cancer rates are going off around the site.

So yeah, _great_ environmental impact. Go sell your snake oil somewhere else.

Very few things piss me off as much as nuclear defenders selling their
technology as reasonable. Zero Carbon Emissions, Woo! _Give me a break_.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Asse_II> \- the German version is a
lot more in-depth: <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schachtanlage_Asse> \- the
English version seems to brush over much of the issues.

~~~
ars
> Energy demand is going up ... no amount of pollution that is avoidable is
> acceptable

Exactly. And renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear.
It's not even close. Nuclear wins the pollution battle by such a large amount
that's it's not even a race. Everything else is a joke.

Do you know how much waste nuclear produces? Very very little - it's tiny. The
entire waste from a person's lifetime of energy use could fit in a teacup. Do
you know how much waste _every_ other energy source produces? Huge, huge,
staggeringly large amounts.

> letting alone the often brushed over but equally horrifying ecological cost
> of mining the fuel

Horrifying? Really? You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you
realize how little uranium you need? Compared to just mining iron, (never mind
coal, or oil, or natural gas) the amount is a rounding error globally.
Everything you do has consequences, the idea is to pick the best one.

We don't have to solve the storage problem. What we will eventually do is burn
the waste, and gain energy from it. You burn the nuclear all the way down to
iron and lead. We can't do it today, no, but if people would stop running
screaming from nuclear we could. The technology is known, we just need the
engineering.

~~~
skore
> renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not
> even close.

There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste. It's not
a even race indeed.

And yes, I know how "little" waste nuclear produces, they drive it around on
rails every couple of years.

> We don't have to solve the storage problem. What we will eventually do is
> burn the waste, and gain energy from it.

Sure, I'd totally bet on that. When do you think that will happen?

> Horrifying? Really?

Yes. Really.[1]

> Do you realize how little uranium you need?

Again, yes.

> Compared to just mining iron, (never mind coal, or oil, or natural gas) the
> amount is a rounding error globally.

Ah great, relativism, always enjoy that coming up.

> Everything you do has consequences, the idea is to pick the best one.

Yup, and I'd rather NOT pick the one were we put money into a dead-end
technology that has the potential of devastating pollution at worst and hardly
solvable storage problems at best and instead invest that money in technology
that will actually be of use in the future and for the rest of mankind.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining)

~~~
ars
> There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste.

Oh really? Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive, and there is a
LOT more of it. The pollution sent up smoke stacks is also much worse since
it's actively spread to people, and there is a lot of it.

In contrast nuclear waste is very small, and stays far away from anyone.

> they drive it around on rails every couple of years.

A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it
every few years? Does it get more ideal?

> When do you think that will happen?

Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the
nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.

> Yes. Really.[1]

Did you actually read that link yourself? I did - it sounds very low risk to
me. Why would you link to something that supports my position?

> Ah great, relativism, always enjoy that coming up.

I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about:
"Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"

> Yup, and I'd rather NOT pick the one were we put money into a dead-end
> technology that has the potential of devastating pollution at worst and
> hardly solvable storage problems at best and instead invest that money in
> technology that will actually be of use in the future and for the rest of
> mankind.

And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can
not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait. Instead of the "potential
of devastating pollution" you have devastating pollution _right now_ \- and
you just want to ignore that? I'll take potential over actual any day.

Renewables will be of no use in the future since they can not ever produce
enough energy. It doesn't matter how badly you want them to, they just can't
do it. It's a dead-end technology. Nuclear power is not a dead end technology
- it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even
cleaner.

~~~
skore
> Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive

My apologies, I was indeed talking about radioactive waste in general being
hard to top in terms of pollution. It goes without saying that I'm not
terribly happy with how this country is getting into coal lately. So yes, fly
ash is definitely a concern as well. I just happen to think waste from nuclear
fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.

> A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it
> every few years? Does it get more ideal?

Yes, they ship it around and it radiates. Remember - in the US, they recently
had to scrap plans for that one site because it meant the fuel had to travel
there a long way. I was also off a little - it's pretty much an every year
event, but I guess that's still not a threshold trigger for you.

Still, again, the real problem here is that nobody really knows where to ship
this _to_ and what to do with it once it's there. And how safe it will be the
next couple hundred thousand years.

> Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick
> the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.

See - I'm just not really satisfied with that answer and I guess I don't see
how anybody can be. Sorry.

> Why would you link to something that supports my position?

You were asking me to qualify 'horrifying' - seems like we have a different
measure there. I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer
horrifying.

> I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about:
> "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"

Nope, sorry, that's not the same. Comparing two things is one thing -
Relativism is something else entirely. That branch discussion was about
discussing how extracting fuel from the earth is polluting. You qualified that
by saying: Hey, there are a lot of things that are polluting, like
iron/coal/oil/gas. Yes - I understand that - but that's not adding to the
discussion.

It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place. No matter
which one, you have to keep digging it up to keep it going and that's bad.
It's also the crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of
energy. No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail
with 100% certainty, eventually.

> And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can
> not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait.

Now I'm not even sure we read the same article anymore. That's not really a
defensible statement in light of how widely used this technology already is.
Or are you still hung up on solar?

> Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we
> have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.

Dead-end in terms of: "What technological progress does this provide on the
side?". Sure, making it "cleaner" may be one form of progress, but I think
"green" energy simply has more potential for innovation and collateral
technological benefit for everybody.

~~~
ars
> radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution

What? It's extremely easy to top radioactive waste. Every single pollution
tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits in a storage cask, and the
other types of pollution go in the air I breathe. Your position makes no
sense.

> I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce"
> right now.

So instead you want more fly ash? Picking "don't make electricity" is not an
option.

> what to do with it once it's there

Don't do anything with it, just leave it there. When technology improves, use
it for fuel.

> I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.

And I guess coal dust doesn't bother you? Or ozone leading to lung cancer? Or
particulate matter (PM2.5)? It has to be radiation I guess.

> It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place ... you
> have to keep digging it up to keep it going ... crucial difference between
> renewable and fossil sources of energy

Not exactly. Renewable fuels are not actually renewable since you need to
build the machine to get that energy, and that building material is not free.
Nor is the land area free - I prefer to use land for other things, not cover
the earth in energy harvesting machines.

You need to include everything when looking at an energy source, not just the
"fuel".

> No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with
> 100% certainty, eventually.

I think an energy source that will last more than 1000 years is good enough.
And consider that we use barely 5% of the energy in uranium, and using that
measure we have enough for more than 1000 years.

Use all the energy in uranium and it'll last 20,000 years. Then we can start
using thorium, and we have even more of that than we do uranium. By that time
we can start mining asteroids.

> how widely used this technology already is

Maybe I missed something but what technology are you talking about?

~~~
skore
> Every single pollution tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits
> in a storage cask

Of course, preferably, every type of pollution should sit in a storage cask. I
was under the impression that we were discussing the _potential of pollution_
of different pollutants. If we compare storage casks, we get to actually
compare how dangerous they are. In that comparison, radioactive waste should
win the battle for what is most dangerous.

> So instead you want more fly ash? Picking "don't make electricity" is not an
> option.

Fly Ash is mostly produced by coal plants. Where did I say I support those?
Capturing fly ash in other processes is comparatively simple when you do it
right - although writing that may just spin into another discussion of why you
think it's actually the other way round and it's radiation that is more easily
contained and managed.

> Don't do anything with it, just leave it there. When technology improves,
> use it for fuel.

No, that's the point - it's not even "there", it's in _holding facilities_
right now, because we still haven't decided what this "there" actually is.

Also - if you ask me to grant you that we will develop this improved
technology - why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy?

> And I guess coal dust doesn't bother you? Or ozone leading to lung cancer?
> Or particulate matter (PM2.5)? It has to be radiation I guess.

Well, that's again putting words in my mouth. _Pollution_ bothers me - there.
Radioactive pollution bothers me _most_. That's all there is to it. I should
be allowed to not be OK with multiple types of pollution, right?

> Not exactly. Renewable fuels are not actually renewable since you need to
> build the machine to get that energy, and that building material is not
> free. Nor is the land area free - I prefer to use land for other things, not
> cover the earth in energy harvesting machines.

Note that I wrote "renewable source", not "renewable fuel". Once you've built
a wind turbine, it kind of keeps going (save for repairs along the way). You
don't have to rebuild it at the rate that you have to go back to the mine to
dig up more fuel. Which you have to do for energy from fossil fuels - for
which you _also_ have to build the facilities.

> Use all the energy in uranium and it'll last 20,000 years. Then we can start
> using thorium, and we have even more of that than we do uranium. By that
> time we can start mining asteroids.

Not sure how to respond to that other than that it sounds very old fashioned
and boring and I'm still not convinced it will hold pace. Not to mention that
it is in no way a justification, just an excuse to use the fuel. Renewable
sources of energy are also just "lying around" ready to be "mined" by us. And
they are, to me, universally _less concerning_ in terms of environmental
impact when compared to nuclear energy.

> Maybe I missed something but what technology are you talking about?

The article talks about 17% usage of renewable energy sources in Germany for
2010 - most of it in wind, followed by hydro and your dreaded solar at a
distant third place. In any case - I would think that's substantial enough to
render your original assertion moot.

~~~
ars
> discussing the potential of pollution

No, the actually of pollution, not the potential.

> coal plants. Where did I say I support those?

You didn't - except that by blocking nuclear power you end up with it by
default, so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.

> why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy?

Because there aren't any. Sun and wind can do a portion, and I'm glad for it
(except photovoltaics).

But what about the rest? There is no renewable source of energy than can do
the rest of the job, so we need something, and it's either natural gas, coal,
or nuclear.

> Pollution bothers me - there. Radioactive pollution bothers me most.

But why?! Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better! Why
do you look at the potential instead of the actuality?

> sounds very old fashioned and boring

???

> Renewable sources of energy are also just "lying around" ready to be "mined"
> by us.

But there is not enough of it. Not unless we cover the earth with energy
collectors, and I don't want that. I assume you don't either.

> most of it in wind, followed by hydro and your dreaded solar at a distant
> third place. In any case - I would think that's substantial enough to render
> your original assertion moot.

It's not moot though. Hydro is maxed out. Wind could probably take a larger
share - but then what? What about the final 70%?

~~~
skore
> so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.

Nope, I don't have to do that. You don't just get to claim I'm in a catch 22.

Actually, this appears to be what the article echoes as well: Everybody is
telling Germany they can't do it, but they just do it anyways.

> But what about the rest?

Increase in efficiency of what is existing, smarter use of the energy that we
have. That should get us quite a long way.

> Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better!

Which is why I don't think we have to increase 'potential' to make sure that
the 'actually' stays that way.

> Not unless we cover the earth with energy collectors, and I don't want that.
> I assume you don't either.

No, totally terrible plan - creating all those jobs and encouraging all that
innovation. I've already said it before in this thread - I'm _very much_ OK
with setting up as many collectors as it takes.

> but then what? What about the final 70%?

In the short term, Germany is gunning for 35% - once we are there, we will
reassess. I don't claim to be able to predict the future like you apparently
do, but I sure know which path sounds better. To me, at least.

------
tokenadult
I guess the problem with a long article, even an interesting long article like
the one submitted here, is that it is hard to read to the end. Near the end of
the submitted article is this paragraph:

"A second problem is that even when it comes to alternative energy sources,
Germany doesn't reward carbon dioxide reduction. Rather, its policy
establishes well-defined subsidies for specific technologies: a kilowatt-hour
of solar power is rewarded more than power from offshore wind, which in turn
earns more than power from onshore wind. Even though solar subsidies have been
reduced to rates far lower than the ones Leurs locked in, solar power still
pays the highest rates. If reducing emissions were the focus, however, more
money would be directed toward reducing energy use. 'If you could choose the
optimal instruments, focusing on those areas first where you can achieve your
goals most inexpensively, you would focus not so much on renewables but much
more on efficiency,' says Pittel, the energy economist from Munich."

This ignores the advice of Amory Lovins

<http://www.rmi.org/Amory+B.+Lovins>

(Amory Lovins profile page at Rocky Mountain Institute website)

<http://www.ted.com/speakers/amory_lovins.html>

(TED profile)

[http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_ene...](http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html)

(TED Talk video "A 40-year plan for energy")

and generally the advice of any thoughtful scholar on how to improve worldwide
energy efficiency. The German Energiewende plan is a remarkable example of
intentionally wrong policy choices that waste the money of German taxpayers
and utility rate-payers and delay innovation. It's a good thing that other
countries have differing policies that better encourage innovation, especially
innovation to reduce energy consumption.

AFTER EDIT:

Another subthread here talks about the economics of importing energy versus
producing it domestically. An astute HN participant mentioned the principle of
comparative advantage. For onlookers who may not have seen a good reference on
comparative advantage, I suggest "Ricardo's Difficult Idea,"

<http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html>

by an economist who has been awarded the Nobel memorial prize in economics, an
essay that explains why trading for resources is generally much, much better
than trying to produce all resources within national borders.

There are some other good explanations of the principle of comparative
advantage easily found via an online search:

[http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadv...](http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html)

<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/cadv_e.htm>

<http://iang.org/free_banking/david.html>

~~~
Xylakant
We do have quite a couple of taxes and regulations aimed at improving energy
efficiency, so the subsidies for renewable energies are a more of a complement
for those. We have tax breaks for cars that use less fuel, we do have extra
tax for fuel consumption, we do have support for energy efficient housing, ...
All in all we're doing pretty fine on that side. Primary energy usage in
Germany has been dropping since the eighties and is now close to what we
consumed in 1970 (309 mio toe in 1970 vs 319 mio toe in 2010) while the USA
have been rising pretty steadily with a small drop-off since 2008 (1627 mio
toe in 1970 vs 2285 mio toe in 2010). [1] There's a limit where the ROI in
reducing energy consumption is lower than the ROI in producing renewable
energy and after that we're still going to need energy, so I think while
reduction should be the first priority, we still need to invest into second
and third priorities pretty much right now. And that's what we're doing.

The different subsidies are explained by the fact that the subsidies are
intended to support the uptake of those technologies. Solar energy just needed
more of a push to achieve critical mass and so does offshore wind. Now that
solar panels are cheaper and more efficient, the subsidies get lower and lower
each year. There are still a plethora of problems surrounding this approach,
but I must admit that I don't see how other approaches would have less
problems.

[1] see
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Staaten_mit_dem_h%C3...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Staaten_mit_dem_h%C3%B6chsten_Energieverbrauch)

~~~
ralfd
Crazy. The United States have only four times the population of Germany, how
can they spend 7.5 time as much energy?

~~~
Xylakant
There certainly a couple of contributing factor to that:

Geographical factors:

* larger distances. In Germany you can barely travel 1000km in one direction without leaving the country. This implies higher population density which keeps energy consumption for travels and transports at a lower level.

* milder climate: We don't need as much heating as the people in Alaska do and less air conditioning than California or Florida

Man-made/political factors:

* higher energy costs. We pay roughly 2USD per liter fuel. That implies that people are actually trying to buy fuel efficient cars. We don't drive pickups - in fact, I couldn't really afford the fuel cost if I would. Same is true for all sorts of energy.

* better insulation on houses. The standard american house seems to be the wood-frame-kind that's cheaper and quicker to build but is not expected to last for centuries. Here, houses are expected to last for ages. The one I currently live in dates back to somewhere around 1900, the one I'll move to was built in the late 1850s. This is quite common for Berlin actually. That implies thick, well insulated stone or brick walls.

There's certainly more things that affect energy usage, but the important
point is that there are some factors that can be influenced while others
can't. The Canadians for example will always have a higher need for primary
energy since it's pretty cold there on average. The more interesting point is
whether the consumption rises or falls and how we produce that energy.

------
wakoumel
I liked the article but think that it's missing the point: very soon there
will be no other choice of what direction to take. We are saying "It's risky!
Let's just sit back and watch." as if the status quo can go on as our energy
consumption and populations both continue to grow. There will be mistakes made
along the way, but mark my words, the Germans are going to be eating our lunch
faster than you can say Energiewende.

------
justwrote
I'm living in Germany and to support this 'Energiewende', I'm only buying
green electricity. It is more expensive but I'm happy to pay more if I can
boost the industry around it and also help our environment. Many young people
think like this.

------
rumcajz
> [They] decided to build a polysilicon plant in Tennessee, partly because
> energy costs in Germany were so high.

This makes USA look like a 3rd world country being used as a haven for
environmentally harmful industry installations.

~~~
maxerickson
Not really. Undeveloped countries tend not to have cheap abundant electricity
and are generally less politically stable than the U.S. (both of those things
are part of a desirable context for billion dollar investments).

I suppose if you decide that U.S. environmental standards are useless you
might have a point.

------
jorleif
One of the things that always surprises me when talking about lulls from wind
and solar power, is that the assumption always is that we _have_ to provide
continuous power. Would it not be possible to have industrial facilities that
run in bursts when the energy is available (or more likely cheap), and then
turn off again? Sure, this is not as easy as the old way to do things, but
seriously, this is not impossible, nature essentially works in this way. Prime
candidates would include extremely energy intensive industrial processes with
short runtimes.

~~~
Xylakant
The problem with many large industrial processes is that they cannot be run
that way. Think a steamcracker for example: Shutdown takes days, starting up
as well. It's so (energy) hungry that its cost-efficient to leave all parts in
the chain running if one fails and just burn the resulting light oil. (Makes
for a spectacular flame on the skyline). Aluminum processing falls in the same
category.

There are other processes where this is possible (steel smelting via electric
power for example) and where this is already done. Those plants usually run at
night and consume large amounts of the base load. The issue with solar/wind-
energy is that the availability may fluctuate within very short time frames -
sometimes minutes - so that you cannot use this.

In a smaller scale this works the other way round. There are some small-scale
fuel-powered plants that can be used to heat/cool a house or a block as well
as produce electricity and those power up when electrical power is needed and
store the heat for when it's needed (it's somewhat easier to store heat). This
can be used to cut off some of the load spikes.

~~~
jorleif
I know very little about heavy industrial processes, but probably in many
cases there are alternative processes that are not optimal in the case of
continuous power, but with fluctuating power supplies they might become
viable.

A possible alternative would be running some process which produces some
valuable output, which can be stockpiled. What I'm thinking about is that
rather than trying to store energy, one could rather make e.g. PET bottles
(probably a stupid idea). Then if there is too many PET bottles, they are
burned for energy, but otherwise they are slowly consumed.

What about making a small piece of some ridiculously grand project, slowly,
little by little. For instance, building a train tunnel across the Atlantic
with robots that only run when power is available? The bad points with that is
that it will only be useful when ready, but perhaps a similar kind of mining
operation? Dig a little deeper every time energy is cheap enough.

Surely most industrial operation would not work, because the startup costs are
large, making the returns convex in the size of investment. But maybe there
are concave operations? Many human operated tasks are. It is easy to make a
good meal for 4 people, but much more difficult for 40. With robotics at
least, one would think that operations with similar properties would be
available.

------
mohawk
This is not an 'experiment'. But please go on telling us that it is
impossible, we'll get it done it even quicker. For an engineer, there is no
better motivation.

------
adventureful
Stephan Reimelt, CEO of GE Energy Germany: "Germany is forcing itself toward
innovation. What this generates is a large industrial laboratory at a size
which has never been done before. We will have to try a lot of different
technologies to get there."

It has been done before, at far greater scale. WW1 and WW2. Some of the best
innovations or inventions are derived out of a person or a nation having their
back to the wall. Hence the famous saying: "necessity, who is the mother of
invention" (dating back a mere 2400 years or so, and it's probably older as a
known premise).

I would anticipate very impressive industrial breakthroughs in renewable
energy coming from the German experiment.

~~~
pcrh
I also wonder how much benefit is to be had by not paying other countries for
your energy compared to paying yourself...

~~~
adventureful
In the case of the US, a shockingly massive benefit. We import between $350b
and $500b per year worth of petroleum products (depending on the price of
oil).

~~~
pcrh
There is, however, the rule of comparative advantage, which means that it is
better to import energy than to produce the same amount domestically, if the
import is cheaper. How that is balanced against the benefit for domestic
producers, I wouldn't know...

~~~
adventureful
Only if the calculation includes the vast benefits of domestic energy
production, properly sourced, and not just the basic price of energy.

Such as keeping First Solar and SunPower in business (FSLR has lost 95% of its
value).

The jobs created through installation, maintainence, R&D, manufacturing, and
so on.

For example: let's say your import cost is $250 billion, but your domestic
cost is $300 billion. I'd argue that you're radically better off spending the
$300 billion domestically, than losing the jobs likely involved and exporting
$250 billion off shore to benefit some other nation/s. There's no doubt some
inflection point on that benefit, but I think it's a wide margin.

~~~
twoodfin
That doesn't make economic sense. That $250B isn't being vaporized: it's going
to foreign consumers who are going to spend some fraction of it buying
imported goods. Your goods are likely to be more competitive if an extra $50B
worth of energy costs weren't spent making them. This is basic comparative
advantage stuff.

~~~
excuse-me
Actually the $250Bn never existed - you printed the dollars and gave the
Saudis pieces of paper for the oil.

They essentially loaned you the oil - and if they ask fro the money back you
can just democratize them.

------
soc88
"just when sunburned Germans reach for their air conditioners"

I hope the rest of the article wasn't researched as "good" as this.

