
Renewables now account for 25% of German energy production - geogra4
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/germany-renewables-idUSL6E8IQIA720120726
======
danielharan
There's a lesson here for startup folks.

Years ago, people said renewables wouldn't ever amount to much. Sure, it's
growing exponentially, but look at how small it is! And yes, costs keep going
down but it will take forever before it's competitive with coal and nuclear.

Forever's come and gone. Oil and gas went up in price. Exponential growth
generated a nice experience curve
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects>

Now some critics and skeptics will go around saying no one could have
predicted how quickly wind and solar took over. They'll say it was due to the
rapid increase in oil prices ( _no one_ saw that coming either) or subsidies
(German feed-in tariffs were very generous, though not as much as tax breaks
for oil co's).

So the lesson: humans are really bad at forecasting the results exponential
growth. If you can find one that people are ignoring and time it well, you can
entrench yourself in a market before most people even realize it exists.

~~~
ThomPete
As someone else said here a while back "The current alternative energies are
linear solutions to an exponential problem."

I have another lesson.

15 years ago before anyone knew it existed. Denmark invested heavily in wind.
It created one of the biggest windmill companies in the world.

It did all the right things. Took it to the stock market allowed normal people
to invest in it, created lots of new jobs and the stock surged in the early
zeros.

Today stock is struggling and most of the jobs have been outsourced to other
countries much less expensive to produce in.

The windmill technology in itself is not hi-tech but "low-tech" so there isn't
even som IP that the Danes benefit from.

The only customers worth talking about is countries and there is no revolution
in efficiency happening.

My guess is that wind will be surpassed by other more beneficial technologies.

So the lesson: Alternative energy as we know it right now is far from being a
solution to the problems we have. The politicians should not pick the winners
but instead set goals that can be won.

~~~
danielharan
linear solution? Please explain. Wind and solar are growing double digits per
year... how is that not exponential?

If you're taking about Vestas, it's still worth $5 Billion, going up or down
depending on the results of big sales. That share price was worth 20X more is
a disappointment to investors, _but it does not prove that no one can make it
in that sector_.

~~~
ThomPete
That's only because the investment are going up in the same curve.

Exponential means you get much more out of it than you invest.

I.e. Nuclear, Thorium etc.

------
zerostar07
In terms of renewables, i think Norway and Brazil are higher up there, with
85% and 95% of their energy coming from renewable sources such as hydroelectic
plants.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway>

~~~
nattofriends
Hydroelectric power is not something all countries are lucky enough to have.

~~~
exDM69
Hydroelectric power is not very environmentally friendly either. Like the
giant dams of China that destroy the whole ecosystem near the power plant.

~~~
zokier
The damage of hydro is fairly localized afaik, both spatially and temporally.
Fossil fuels cause damage globally (in addition to the local damage of oil
fields/coal mines, and the power plants), and the damage is much more long
lasting. Also the damage of hydro does not accumulate over time afaik.

~~~
maxerickson
Hydro plants have huge impacts on stream and river ecosystems. A good case
study would be the impact on salmon in the pacific northwest of the U.S.

------
jbellis
In related news, German electricity is 30% more expensive than French, and
300% more expensive than American.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_elec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison)

~~~
lispm
In other news German electricity is heavy taxed and Germans consume half the
electricity than an American.

~~~
adestefan
I'm curious to see how much of that difference is actually caused by
environmental factors.

Most of the continental US gets down right hot for 2-5 months out of the year.
So hot that air conditioning accounts for the largest share of commercial and
residential electricity usage. This is probably becoming an even bigger factor
when you consider there has been a mass migration from more temperate climates
of the upper Midwest to areas such as Texas, Florida and the Southwest. This
migration began in the mid 20th century with the advent of reliable central
air conditioning.

My question is are Americans consuming more electricity than the average
German because of environmental factors or because we're really guzzling power
like gasoline in the 1960s and 70s?

~~~
lispm
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_air_conditioning>

> Superior energy efficiency can be designed into new construction (or
> retrofitted to existing buildings). Since the U.S. Department of Energy was
> created in 1977, their Weatherization Assistance Program[25] has reduced
> heating-and-cooling load on 5.5 million low-income affordable homes an
> average of 31%. A hundred million American buildings still need improved
> weatherization. Careless conventional construction practices are still
> producing inefficient new buildings that need weatherization when they are
> first occupied.

Compare that with German standards for energy efficient buildings.

------
rmc
This article describes the power Germany produced, but doesn't mention the
power Germany consumed. Does Germany import a lot of power? If so, that would
be a good way to tweak the numbers, just import more non-renewables, and
produce less non-renewables at home.

~~~
cygx
Germany has been a consistent net exporter of electrical energy since 2003.

The circumstances have changed, though: In addition to two nuclear plants
which were dormant since 2007 and 2009, six plants were shut down in mid-May
2011, and all of them are now gone for good.

The balance was still positive in 2011, and I suspect it will be this year as
well, but it might be a close thing.

~~~
Someone
On the other hand, they are huge oil and coal importers
(<http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=DE>)

~~~
cygx
That's a pretty useless metric, though: every industrialized nation 'burns
stuff', and if it happens that you can't produce at home, you need to import.

While not a poster child, Germany is far from the worst offender as far as CO2
emission per capita goes.

~~~
Someone
I answered the grandfather's question "Does Germany import a lot of power?"

Also, I think that is highly relevant. If you do not include imports,
countries with few natural sources automatically will appear to be green. For
example, I bet many small island groups will have close to 100% renewable
energy production, including those with huge navy bases such as Truk and Diego
Garcia.

~~~
cygx
> If you do not include imports, countries with few natural sources
> automatically will appear to be green.

Consider the flip side: Tracking imports won't help you with countries that
have their own resources. What you need to track is energy consumption and
production modes.

------
mxfh
Here is the breakdown by type, Q1+Q2 2011 in TWh, Q1+Q2 2012 in TWh and % of
total | Wind Energy: 21.0 TWh, 24.9 TWh, 9.2% | Biomass: 14.5 TWh, 15.3 TWh,
5.7% | Hydropower: 8.7 TWh, 10.8 TWh, 4.0% | Photovoltaics: 9.8 TWh, 14.4 TWh,
5.3% | Garbage and others: 2.4 TWh, 2.5 TWh, 0.9% | together: 56.4 TWh, 67.9
TWh, 25.1%

[http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20120726-pi-
erneuerbare-e...](http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20120726-pi-erneuerbare-
energien-liefern-mehr-als-ein-viertel-des-stroms-
de/$file/Strom_Erneuerbaren_Energien_1_Halbjahr_2012.pdf) [pdf, german]

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdew.de%2Finternet.nsf%2Fid%2F20120726-pi-
erneuerbare-energien-liefern-mehr-als-ein-viertel-des-stroms-
de%2F%24file%2FStrom_Erneuerbaren_Energien_1_Halbjahr_2012.pdf) [english
translation]

------
zenon
According to the CIA World Factbook, Germany consumed 545 billion kWh of
electrical energy in 2008. 67.9 billion kWh is only 12.5% of that. I suppose
they import a lot of their electrical energy? Also, electrical energy
consumption is only a small fraction of total energy consumption (about 4
trillion kWh for Germany in 2007 according to Wikipedia.).

~~~
lispm
67.9 TWh in a HALF year.

Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

~~~
zenon
Oops, important difference there. 2 x 12,5% is pretty close to 25%, yes :-)

------
crusso
I heard at a power conference last week that Germany halted installation of
new solar panels on homes recently due to the problems integrating solar onto
the grid.

As the lecturer put it: We've spent the last hundred years building systems to
safely and reliably send power on a one-way trip from the utilities to
businesses and homes. Modifying the electrical distribution system to be
multi-directional is not an easy problem to solve.

Anyone know more?

~~~
mtgx
I was surprised the energy they get from wind is more than twice what they get
from solar. Isn't Germany like a good country for solar?

Also, this is the first time I see that they want to get only 35% of the
energy from renewables by 2035. So they want to improve it only by 10% in the
next 23 years? That's sounds like a very small improvement in a lot of time. I
thought their original goal was 40% as renewable energy by 2020.

~~~
bhousel
Germany's solar insolation is actually not good at all.. See maps here:
<http://www.soda-is.com/eng/map/maps_for_free.html>

They actually get about the same amount of sun as northern Canada. Which makes
their commitment to solar and other renewable energy even more impressive. If
solar can work in Germany, it can work anywhere.

Here is a pretty good article from earlier this year:
[http://greenmien.knowledgemosaic.com/2012/01/11/germany-
puts...](http://greenmien.knowledgemosaic.com/2012/01/11/germany-puts-
everyone-elses-solar-efforts-to-shame/)

------
ThomPete
That sounds very impressive. But I wonder at what cost overall.

For instance there is a great deal of talk about windenergy, but the primary
customers are states and these windmills seems to require quite a lot of
maintenance.

So the questions of course is. Even if the energy is sustainable, is the
economic model?

~~~
bhousel
You can read through some data on this site: <http://www.wind-energy-the-
facts.org>

It's maintained by the European Wind Energy Association, so it is predictably
pro-wind power. But their data does seem to indicate that wind can be
economical if: 1. you put the windmills in good places, 2. the price of oil
and gas goes up (which it has done), 3. technology improvements drive
operation and maintenance costs down (which it has done).

Their economic comparisons include CO2 emissions costs, since it is a European
study and they do have an emissions trading program there.

------
rmoriz
If you drive through Bavaria, especially the area between Munich and the Alps,
it's very hard to find 4 houses/farms in a row that do not have photovoltaic
cells on their roofs.

------
chm
In case you guys missed it:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-
looks-a...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-
alternative-energy/0)

Interesting read.

------
guard-of-terra
By the way, I wonder why biomass is green while coal is not? I mean, in the
end you burn organic materials?

Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for that kind of money you
could make like really nice coal plants.

~~~
tomgallard
For the same reason burning wood is green- as long as you are regrowing it.

So - if you're burning timber from a forest which is sustainably managed (so
you're renewing wood at the same rate you're using it), then there is no net
carbon released.

~~~
dijxtra
That would be true if carbon dioxide was the only greenhouse gas. But it
isn't.

Burning biomass could be sustainable if we make sure that new biomass is grown
at the same rate as it is burned. I have yet to see a document assuring me
that is the case.

In any case burning biofuel is not greenhouse gas neutral. And hence not
green.

~~~
tomgallard
What other greenhouse gases does burning biofuel create?

~~~
dijxtra
Sulphur and nitrogen oxides.

------
at-fates-hands
I still can't get Carter's speech from 1978 out of my head about getting off
of oil and expanding renewable resources. I can only imagine how far along
we'd be if the US started investing and developing these resources then.

Also, keep in mind, most of the countries being referenced are smaller
Scandinavian countries. Getting proper delivery of resources is a major hurdle
for US companies and their customers.

------
ta12121
Energy or Electricity? There's a big difference. Transportation accounts for a
large amount of energy use and it is not electricity.

------
beefman
Renewables accounted for 25% of their _electricity_ production, not their
total energy production, and certainly not their total consumption: Germany
imports about twice as much primary energy as it produces, almost all in the
form of fossil fuels. Source: IEA.

------
te_chris
Here in NZ we're 35% overall and 70% of electricity produced from renewables
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealand>

------
jeromegn
This is good.

Also, Quebec relies on hydroelectricity for 97% of its energy.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec> (need to search for "97%" on that page)

------
rayiner
The U.S. still produces 50% of its electrical energy from coal.

