
Solar biggest source of electricity in Germany in June 2019 - bjoko
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-was-biggest-source-of-electricity-in-germany-in-june-46812/
======
radford-neal
This is a meaningless headline, which follows a regrettably common way of
producing misleading statements.

If you look at the article, you'll find that solar generation accounted for
only 19% of the total. It's the "biggest source" only as a result of their
choice of how to group the other sources. If they had decided to have a
"fossil fuel" category, that would have been the biggest. But they decided to
split fossil fuels into brown coal, hard coal, oil, and gas, so it doesn't
win. Similarly, if they'd split solar into subcategories according to exactly
which technology was used, none of them would have been "biggest".

You should similarly ignore misleading statements about "disease X is the
biggest killer of Y", and so forth. They're all meaningless when the division
into categories is arbitrary.

~~~
aurelwu
"Fossil fuel/non-renewables" would not have been the biggest, as you can see
in the chart, "renewables" is bigger. Also they didn't split it into those
subcategories so that solar wins, this technology split is a absolute standard
way to differentiate between technologies which is always used, and it makes
no sense (on that level of detail) to not differentiate between lignite, hard
coal, gas and oil which all need different power plants, have different costs,
different emission factors etc.

~~~
rayiner
Splitting brown coal and hard coal is not standard and would change the
result.

~~~
aurelwu
It absolutely is standard in germany: German Environment Agency does it this
way [0] Fraunhofer Society does it this way [1] German Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy does it this way[2] Agora Energywende (important think
tank) does it this way [3] AG Energiebilanzen does it this way [4]

[0] [https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/bild/strommix-in-
deutschland](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/bild/strommix-in-deutschland) [1]
[https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/daten-
zu-erneuerbaren-energien/ISE_Stromerzeugung_2018_Halbjahr.pdf#page=9) [2]
[https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Energiedaten/ener...](https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Energiedaten/energiedaten-
gesamt-pdf-grafiken.pdf__blob=publicationFile&v=38) [3] [https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/p...](https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/power_generation/11.07.2019/14.07.2019/)
[4] [https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/](https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/)

~~~
radford-neal
Everyone using the same split doesn't make the split non-arbitrary. Aren't
small-scale hydro and large-scale hydro rather different things? Is large-
scale hydro really "renewable", given that reservoirs fill with sediment, and
their creation leads to lots of CO2 being released? Why is nuclear power "non-
renewable"? It's renewable on any reasonable time scale, and doesn't produce
CO2 during operation. Surely photovoltaic and thermal solar power are rather
different technologies?

------
pl-94
Let's not forget that:

\- CO2 emissions of Germany is still 5 times more than a comparable (similar
GDP/flatness/weather) than France for _electricity production_ [1];

\- Electricity production is roughly a third of all final energy and CO2
emissions come mainly from coal and fuel [2]. Two threats for which Germany
has done very little for now.

\- Germany is spending around 2 billions of dollars [3] for renewable
energies, whereas it would have cost more than 50x less with nuclear, allowing
to spend the rest of this investment into building insulation and thermal
renewable energies.

\- PV investments were computed from past market prices, not with the negative
price obtained with non controllable source of energy [3]. Germany is only at
the beginning of energy subsidies.

Investing in photovoltaics is politically efficient, not environmentally
efficient. Please let's stop to focus on renewable electricity. Let's start
focusing on carbon-less solutions. The hard problem is about coal and fuel.

The situation could not be more urgent, since conventional oil has reached its
peak. Not removing our dependency on oil is strongly damaging for our
economies. Focusing on non controllable sources of energy is just accelerating
the damages. Please see [https://jancovici.com/en/](https://jancovici.com/en/)
for more convincing arguments :)

[1] - [https://electricitymap.tmrow.co](https://electricitymap.tmrow.co)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energy_supply,_consumption_and_electricity)

[3] - [http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_re...](http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_renewable_revolution_2301121.html)

[4] - [https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-
prices-...](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-
negative)

~~~
rndgermandude
Your first two claims are mostly correct.

Your third claim is utterly wrong. And it's 2 trillion, of course, over a
period of 20 years, 2011 - 2030, an estimate from 2012 that Siemens made.
Let's assume for a second that the (widely debunked) 2 trillion the former
Siemens CEO/nuclear lobby president literally pulled out of his ass in 2012 is
reality. Replacing those 2 trillion in renewable with nuclear for USD 40
billion? Germany is spending roughly EUR 10 billion a year on nuclear
currently. If we replaced all nuclear stations with with new fancy "cheaper"
ones we'd still be at EUR 7 billion. Let's assume we tripled the capacity to
roughly 35% of total production (from now less than 12%), that's 21 billion a
year. So EUR 420 billion over 20 years. So the factor would be 4x for
renewables (given the worst estimate published by a guy in 2012 who happened
to be the president of the main nuclear lobby group at the time) vs nuclear
(the cheapest estimate I could come up). You're an order of magnitude off at
least and that is when you believe the Siemens numbers.

Regarding your 4th claim about negative price: wrong conclusion. Negative
prices mean an oversupply of generated power. The eventual solution is not to
subsidize producers, but to refine the system not to produce such large
oversupply in the first place, while still making sure that a sudden drop in
supply (because e.g. as a rather blunt example it starts raining and PV output
goes down) can be managed.

~~~
pl-94
I am not pretending to have exact numbers but we should have some orders of
magnitude in our heads.

Let's pretend that our electricity is running fully in nuclear wrt. fully in
wind turbines/PV: load factor is around 0.7/0.8 (against 0.2) so costs
increase by x3-4, life expectancy is 60-80 y against 20-30 years (x2-3),
nuclear does not require a new electric grid, whereas renewable energies does
(cost ~x1.5), nuclear works better with a low storage (10%) whereas PV/WT want
50-60% of storage (cost x2-4) and cost of building/recycling for a kwh is
around 3-5k€ against 1-1.5k€ for WT (idk for PV) (cost %2-4). At the end of
the day, the capex/kWh is indeed one order of magnitude higher for WT/PV than
for nuclear. I am not pretending those numbers are exact but I think it
reflects the order of magnitude.

For the 4th claim, the issue is that prices are much lower that what they were
supposed to be, and that is why, the field will need to be heavily subsidized
for a long term.

What I support, it is not to globally spending less money into energy
transition. I really hope governments will spend much more than nowadays. But,
I just hope we focus on reducing our economical dependency on fuels/coals to
preserve a bit of our current comfort while not killing every year several
millions of people with fine particles
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents)).

Give me USD 2 trillions, and I will 1) ban coal generated electricity, 2) ban
any vehicles that consume more than 2L/100 km, 3) insulate any existing
buildings (and not only new buildings as our policy makers do, since old
buildings stay for roughly 100 years), 4) subsidy heavily heat pomp. But I
will certainly not close any nuclear power plants.

I know it is almost impossible to ask such requests to Europeans, but this is
the only plausible solutions I have heard of.

~~~
rndgermandude
>load factor is around 0.7/0.8 (against 0.2) so costs increase by x3-4

This is a double-red herring. First load factors do not correlate with cost,
and second comparing the load factor of a nuclear power plant to a PV system
is comparing apples with... not even oranges... more like comparing apples
with seahorses. The interesting number would be: how much money did I have to
put into that thing divided by how much MWh can I get out of a thing.

>life expectancy is 60-80 y against 20-30 years (x2-3)

Next red herring. If I buy a pair of shoes that last me 10 years but costs 200
bucks, that's 20 bucks/year. If I buy a pair of shoes that costs me 10 bucks
and lasts one year, well, 10 bucks/year. Recycling/trashing a pair of shoes
adds another 5 EUR/pair, so the cheap pair is 15/year and the expensive one is
20.5 EUR/year. The 10x higher life expectancy by itself does not mean shit to
the annual cost.

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for nuclear in France (who are supposed to
be doing nuclear really well) was 50 EUR/MWh in 2017, but that's with the
state covering the insurance costs already, which are huge, so a massive
hidden-in-plain-sight subsidy. (France EDF and IEA calculations). The Hinkley
Point C project in the UK is about 100 EUR/MWh, which the state had to
guarantee the operators, or else the operators would have dropped the entire
project, probably because their analysts told them that the chances that their
plant will be competitive on price over it's lifetime are slim to none.

On top of that, a longer life expectancy means a longer commitment, which can
work in your favor, or against you.

The LCOE in 2018 for large-scale PV in Germany was 37-63 EUR/MWh. Onshore Wind
40-82, Offshore 75-138 (Fraunhofer). Prices are still dropping rapidly as both
the technology and construction/maintenance requirements and processes
improve, actually dropping, not just "estimated" drops. Prices for nuclear are
said to drop too with new fancy technology, maybe... the nuclear lobby said...
but so far that's pure speculation and e.g. the fancy EPR-type nuclear plants
in France/UK for now actually do not show lower costs.

The US has PV at roughly 75 USD/MWh, and nuclear at roughly 96 USD/MWh.

I'd call the PV/Wind LCOE at the very least "competitive" to the LCOE of
nuclear, sometimes already cheaper, and otherwise estimated to be cheaper
soon.

Now, you got a point that switching to renewables requires additional and/or
refined infrastructure, like changes to the power grid, energy storage/backup
power plants, etc. which requires quite a bit of additional research and
investment.

~~~
pl-94
I think there is a misunderstanding in my calculation. If one pair of shoes
last 3 times longer, then you investment is divided by 3. The same for load
factor. If you use your shoes one every 2 days, you need to buy 2 times more
shoes.

~~~
rndgermandude
You are not comparing the load factor of shoe A against the load factor of
shoe B. We are comparing the load factor of shoe A against the load factor of
teaspoon B... which doesn't make much sense.

And even if you compared shoe A against shoe B, you'd still have to factor in
load initial and maintenance cost (and a bunch of other things). Sure, shoe A
might have have a 3x better load factor, but the manufacturer of shoe A also
wants 10x the money compared to shoe B.

That's why I referred to the LCOE because it is a good estimation of what a
MWh of actual (not nameplate) output will cost you. It already includes all
the tricky bits like initial investment, operation and maintenance cost incl
fuel where needed, load factors, disposal, life expectancy and even stuff like
carbon taxes (where applicable).

So here is an amended (increasingly silly) shoe example, now with load
factors:

If I buy a pair of shoes _that I can wear every day_ (factor 1.0) that last me
10 years but costs 400 bucks, that's 40 bucks/year. If I buy a pair of shoes
that costs me 10 bucks, _but that I can only wear every other day_ (factor
0.5) and lasts one year, well, 20 bucks/year because I need two pairs to have
something to wear every day. Recycling/trashing a pair of shoes adds another 5
EUR/pair, so the cheap pairs are 30/year and the expensive one is 40 EUR/year.
The 10x higher life expectancy by itself does not mean shit to the annual
cost, and the higher "load factor" I can get from the more expensive shoe
model by itself doesn't mean shit either.

------
Faark
Seems like installations doubled in 2018 compared to the last few years [0].
That surprised me a bit, since, while there still are gov incentives, they
only seem to go down after the big push ended around 2012. So that bump is
likely caused by falling cost. That's great to see.

[0] [https://energy-
charts.de/power_inst.htm?year=all&period=annu...](https://energy-
charts.de/power_inst.htm?year=all&period=annual&type=inc_dec)

------
ChuckNorris89
My friends in Germany still have the most expensive electricity in all of
Europe, including Scandinavia.

They should have stayed on nuclear until renewable would be cheaper since the
households are the ones feeling the pinch while big corps negociate lower fees
or import cheaper electricity from France that's big on nuclear.

It's cool to be ECO and all but that's just taking the piss on the middle
class and my priority is putting food on the table for my family not footing
the bill for political-corporate ECO circle jerk.

~~~
lqet
Household of 3 people in one of the most expensive cities in Germany here,
with multiple Raspberry Pis, a laptop and a small server running 24/7\. We are
not actively doing anything to save energy. We pay between 20 and 30 EUR per
month for electricity. The average net income per household in Germany is 3314
EUR per month [0], so this is less than 1% of the average household income. I
would not call that expensive. Regardless of the cost, it will especially not
prevent you from putting food on the table of your family, because if you have
problems to do that, social security will pay the bill for you.

[0] [https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/datenreport-2018/private-
hau...](https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/datenreport-2018/private-haushalte-
einkommen-konsum-wohnen/278177/nettoeinkommen-privater-haushalte)

~~~
cmenge
This is hard to believe. I'm paying more than that for a household of 1. For 3
ppl, the typical comparison platforms quote EUR 900 p.a. as the cheapest
option (3,500kWh estimate). At EUR 360,- a year, you'd get a mere 1000kWh
which hardly supplies a fridge, lighting and cooking every now and then. The
average price in Germany is close to 30ct per kWh, plus some kind of fixed
base fee...

~~~
lqet
Why is that hard to believe? I just checked my bill. Last year, we consumed
1,402 kWh, which came down to around 33 EUR per month (a bit higher than my
number above, which was the cost in 2017). We cook at least 6 days per week.
Our washing machine is a cheap model from 2015.

The third person in our household is a little child, so we are more in the 2
persons range. But even for 2 persons, Google states as the average 3,000 kWh,
which _I_ find hard to believe. Even if we tried, I just cannot think of
anything we could do to consume even more electricity.

~~~
merb
> 1,402 kWh, 33 EUR per month

no way. not even close. 1400 is never ever 33 euro not even in the east side
of germany.

~~~
lqet
This translates to 0.285 EUR/kWh, with 0.30 EUR/kWh being the current average
in Germany, according to Google.

~~~
merb
he said he pays that monthly. unfortunatly all electricity provider have a
base price. also 0.30eur/kWh is the lower bracket in west germany (not the
average). and for more than 1 person 1400 kWh also seems a little bit off,
too. Ok granted maybe he is roughly at 1800, but 1400 is like having a
fridge+washing machine (every 3 days)+cooking (every second day)+led lamps for
like 4 hour per evening.

------
onetimemanytime
....brought to you by taxes /subsidies: _" Taxes and fees now amount to 52
percent of the monthly power bill for retail consumers....The renewable energy
levy alone adds 18 euros to the average monthly bill."_
[https://www.dw.com/en/german-electricity-price-is-half-
taxes...](https://www.dw.com/en/german-electricity-price-is-half-taxes-and-
fees/a-17849142-0)

~~~
rndgermandude
So? We heavily subsidize every energy source here in Germany, having done that
since forever. Coal subsidies, nuclear subsidies (incl massive hidden, defacto
ones), now renewables. If there were no subsidies the price would be in the
same ballpark anyway, except the state would have no influence over where that
money gets spent.

The "renewables levy" isn't meant to be permanent high at the same level. It
is meant to be seed money for research and initial construction to get the
ball rolling. Startup money basically. It works by guaranteeing companies a
minimum price for renewable power to reduce their investment risk.

~~~
mqus
but the green energy subsidy (EEG) fee is ridiculously distributed. Anyone in
the industry who really needs a lot of electricity doesn't have to pay it at
all while it makes up 20-25% of the price for citizens.

I can see that they don't want to scare off these companies but the way it
works now is not good.

