Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Germany's Solar Power Generation Hit Record High at Weekend (bloomberg.com) 90

Germany's thousands of solar panels set a new production record on Saturday. From a report: Output reached as high as 40,919 megawatts early afternoon, according to data from the European Energy Exchange AG. Germany is already the European leader in renewable energy. In the wake of the war in Ukraine, the nation brought forward by more than a decade to 2035 its goal of getting to 100% renewable power. BloombergNEF forecasts that wind and solar will reach 76% of total generation by 2030.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany's Solar Power Generation Hit Record High at Weekend

Comments Filter:
  • by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @02:12PM (#63561667)
    Last time I checked...like a year ago...solar was approaching 10% of Germany's total energy portfolio.
    • Depends on the size of the panel. A panel could be several meters long for commercial installations or a single meter for residential. Or they could be calling the entire array a panel.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

      Was that before or after they had to reopen the coal plants?

    • In 2022 solar provided 11.4%

      https://www.enerdata.net/publi... [enerdata.net]

    • 50% of electricity in germany is renewable.
      Biggest share is wind power.
      Solar grows like crazy.

      • by Askmum ( 1038780 )
        Not only in Germany. The Netherlands even has a larger amount of PV per capita. Last year it grew 30% to some 18 GWp installed (normal demand is 7-8 GW). Energy prices on the hourly auction regularly drop below 0 because there is too much supply and not enough demand while rising to 10-15 cent during peak load and night hours (battery storage could help here).

        As an indication: 2022 saw 25 days and 85 hours with prices below 0. 2023 has 23 days and 105 hours and we're not even halfway. We still have to add

        • The Netherlands, as well as Germany, depends on their neighbors to provide nuclear and coal based electricity, as well as absorb their excess.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Germany's thousands of solar panels set a new production record on Saturday.

    Well we know what to thank for this rise in output - without global warming, Germany would not have the increase in sunny warm days it needs to increase solar power generation.

    • "Well we know what to thank for this rise in output "

      Putin?

    • You, uhhh, know global warming isn't about the energy input from the sun changing.... right?
      • This is a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. Due to global warming Germany has fewer overcast days hence the solar panels can indeed capture more sunlight despite the energy input from the sun staying the same. Germany used to be very rainy a couple of decades ago, but nowadays there are droughts every year.

        • Would have to see actual numbers to buy that.
          Higher average temperatures == more water in the air, which should equal more overcast days, at least on average.

          Note that water in the air doesn't mean water falling from the air.
  • https://www.iea.org/reports/no... [iea.org]
    Norway has an almost entirely renewables-based electricity system, with renewable resources accounting for 98% of generation in 2020, of which hydro is the dominant source at 92%.

    https://www.umweltbundesamt.de... [umweltbundesamt.de]
    In 2022 renewable energy sources provided 254 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and account for 46.2 per cent of German electricity demand.

    • by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @06:56PM (#63562525)

      Norway has an almost entirely renewables-based electricity system, with renewable resources accounting for 98% of generation in 2020, of which hydro is the dominant source at 92%.

      It's easy to get to such high reliance on renewable energy when there's climate and geography beneficial to hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric dams can adjust output quickly, unlike big steam power plants like coal or nuclear fission. Hydroelectric dams offer long term energy storage, much like the big tanks of natural gas, piles of coal, or rods of uranium ceramics for these same steam power plants that most nations use for the base of their electricity supply. With plenty of hydroelectric dams to make up for the intermittent nature of wind and solar power there's a lot of growth potential by using hydro power as a battery of sorts instead of base load power. This can become an even greater energy storage mechanism by adding pumped hydro storage to these same hydroelectric dams.

      There's few places in the world that enjoy such an abundance of hydroelectric power. Again, having the climate and geography for hydroelectric dams makes it easy to get low CO2 energy, then on top of that hydroelectric dams makes it easy to add intermittent wind and solar to the grid. Germany doesn't have that luxury.

      What Germany has been doing is selling electricity from wind and solar to neighboring nations when there is an abundance of production, only to have to buy that back when there's a deficit. Nations with water behind a dam, natural gas or fuel oil in tanks, and to some extent uranium in fuel rods, can buy electricity from Germany while reducing output from their own production to save on this energy they have saved up. They buy electricity cheap from Germany when there is an abundance, then sell it at a higher price when there is a shortage. This is great for nations like Norway, Poland, and France but not great for Germany.

      Germany is going to have to figure out lower cost energy solutions, continue to export wealth in exchange for energy, or turn to nuclear fission as that provides reliable and low CO2 energy. There's other options but they are not pleasant. They can see their economy shrink from a lack of energy, or return to burning fossil fuels. They are doing a bit of both right now.

      • Ok forget Norway, France has the same conditions as Germany and is outputting 10-20 times less CO2 the whole day

        https://i.imgur.com/oAE5aPI.pn... [imgur.com]
        (from https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com])

        How about Czech Republic, same conditions (except no off-chance of shore wind and poorer): just around 50-100g/kWh worse on average during the last 12 months despite having almost no wind and little solar.

        • The manufacturing output of Germany is three times larger than France's. The Czech republic is not even in the same ballpark.

          • The manufacturing output of Germany is three times larger than France's. The Czech republic is not even in the same ballpark.

            And what does that have to do with CO2 emissions per kWh of energy generated?

      • by shilly ( 142940 )

        For once, I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I would point out one thing. In your following sentence, the third option is a subset of the second:
        "Germany is going to have to figure out lower cost energy solutions, continue to export wealth in exchange for energy, or turn to nuclear fission as that provides reliable and low CO2 energy."
        Using nuclear fission is an example of exporting wealth in exchange for energy. The fissile materials (and lots of the expertise) is found overseas. I'm sure you'

      • by steveha ( 103154 )

        Germany is going to have to figure out lower cost energy solutions, continue to export wealth in exchange for energy, or turn to nuclear fission as that provides reliable and low CO2 energy. There's other options but they are not pleasant.

        There's another option: grid-scale storage.

        Historically, the only practical grid-scale storage was pumped hydro. But that has changed. The Tesla Megapack, and similar products from other countries, are truly practical grid-scale batteries. They are expensive... but they

        • There's another option: grid-scale storage.

          Well, it appears I made a huge typo. I meant to mention "lower cost energy storage solutions" but I missed that very important distinction even after a proofread before posting.

          ...plus get two to four days of battery storage...

          Battery storage on that scale is not likely to be practical on a grid scale. We see that big "giga" battery in Australia as part of a wind farm project but that is apparently for phase correction, not for any kind of long term storage. This battery is credited with correcting for a large sag in voltage and frequency long enough t

          • by steveha ( 103154 )

            Just running on battery power for a few peaks and valleys over the day will be a problem, running all night on batteries is likely a fantasy.

            Yeah, well, let's see where a few years of doubling the amount of batteries in the world takes us. I'll bet that 120 years ago, paving all the roads needed for automobiles looked like a fantasy too. That happened with surprising speed.

            It's all a lot of work to avoid nuclear fission when there's nothing wrong with using nuclear fission.

            Tony Seba is predicting that sol

  • Leader? (Score:5, Informative)

    by brianerst ( 549609 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @02:56PM (#63561829) Homepage

    Norway is sitting out there with 97.2% of its energy from renewable resources vs 46.2% for Germany.

    "But that doesn't count!" you say, "it's all hydro!"

    OK, Denmark is sitting out there at 60.5% from renewables, and only 0.1% from hydro.

    "But Germany is the leader in solar!" you say.

    No, that's Malta - 14.6% vs 9.0%.

    Germany is third in Europe for Wind % (behind Denmark and Lithuania).

    But, hey! Germany is the leader in one category across Europe - coal!

    "But Germany is the leader in number of GWh of renewables!"

    Only true of Europe - China, US, India, Canada, Brazil all beat it.

    But hey! Germany can claim to be the leader in one energy category in Europe - coal! It uses almost as much coal as the rest of the EU combined. Way to go, Germany!

    • (grumble, grumble Slashdot editing bugs...)

    • by etash ( 1907284 )
      i'd mod this up if i had points!
    • Germany is the leader in communication strategy. They are massively behind targets for CO2 emissions (I am talking about actual emissions, not any % of reduction), are still burning tons of coal, and their masterplan is to replace coal with gas. Gas, which although emits 2-3 times less CO2 than coal, is still a fossil fuel, and still emits a shit ton of CO2...

      But I guess they like to send their subsidies to China, by buying their solar panels/batteries.

      • by Uecker ( 1842596 )

        The official targets are in % reduction. So what targets are you talking about?

        • Climate doesn't care if you reduce your emissions by 23%, or 43%, or 77%. It only cares about how much CO2 are emitted in total in the atmosphere.

          For instance, to meet the target for the +1.5C scenario (sources in last IPCC report) by 2100, we have to limit our emissions to 3000 billions tons of CO2 since basically the period of WW2 (CO2 being extremely stable, cumulative emissions are a very good first order approximation for temperature/climate change). Of those 3000 billions tons of CO2, we already emitt

          • by Uecker ( 1842596 )

            You realize that if you start from high emission and reduce a certain percentage, then this is more reduction in absolute numbers than if you start with less emission.

            So your complaint is that they could have reduced more. This is true but if you compare - say - the US then the US is much worse in terms in any measure (including cola use).

            • Why do you compare with the US at all? Does Germany have control over what the US does? Or the other way around? Or is it just a way to shift the discussion.

              And yes, the argument is that they could have reduced more since 50 years now. Their engineers were as good as the french ones, and technology was shared with them. They are a big economy, which needs a lot of energy, and last time I did the maths, if they had followed the same path as France, it means they would have saved the equivalent CO2 emissions

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Germany started with a very dirty grid. Part of that was by design, to make them dependent on other European countries. The origin of the EU was a coal treaty between Germany and France.

      They are making far more effort to transform their energy supply than many other countries. They deserve credit for that.

    • by Uecker ( 1842596 )

      All true. But what Germany actually did was investing into renewables when they were still expensive, helping to create an economy of scale which brought cost down substantially.

    • The story does say "European leader," but then the link in the article says "G20," which does not include Denmark, Norway, Malta, or Lithuania. (What particular benchmark Germany leads in the G20, I don't know.. the link is paywalled.)

      Roughly the G20 Is "large" economies. I would guess the "% of energy from renewables" leaderboard is dominate at both the high and low end by small nations, since they are basically taking an average of a smaller number of things (less variation in climate, natural resource

  • by IYagami ( 136831 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @03:03PM (#63561871)

    If you take a look at https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
    * France had 85 gr CO2 per kWh in 2022
    * Germany had 386 gr CO2 per kWh in 2022 (4.5 times more)
    Germany should reopen its nuclear reactors... but they won't.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Nice lie you have there. Simply ignoring all the electricity France had to import will give you that. How repulsive.

      • by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @04:04PM (#63562095)

        Nice lie you have there. Simply ignoring all the electricity France had to import will give you that. How repulsive.

        Let's expose some actual lies.

        France only imported 16.5 TWh of electricity in 2022 [euractiv.com], to be put into perspective with the total of 445.2 TWh they used in 2022 (I will save you the trouble, that means they had to import 3.7% of their electricity in 2022). After being a net low-carbon electricity exporter for the past 50 years. For instance, in 2021 they exported 43 TWh, so ~3 times what they imported in 2021...

        Also, most of the imports in 2022 were concentrated in July, August and September (same article I previously linked), which means the electricity was mostly coming from low-carbon energy sources (solar/wind, see I am actually in favor of both renewables AND nuclear), mainly from Spain in that case.

        Funnily enough the French never bragged when they exported all that electricity to their neighbors in the past 50 years. But as soon as they import a tiny amount of it for 1 year (2023 looks like a year where they will be net exporter again), crazy people like gweihir start to make a scene.

        With all those facts and data, let me tell you that it is indeed a fact that the CO2 emissions from Germany linked to electricity generation are a lot higher than France, as the original poster pointed out.

        • Fixing my typo:
          "in 2021 they exported 43 TWh, so ~3 times what they imported in 2022"

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          How about we look at France as a model for other countries to emulate? There should be several if France's nuclear fleet offered affordable clean energy.

          In reality, French nuclear power has been a drain on public finances from the start. Now that those plants are reaching end of life and need replacing, there is great reluctance to build dozens more nuclear plants. EDF, the state-owned company that builds and operates those plants, is currently struggling with some new ones in Europe, all of which are massi

          • Please, keep on spreading the same lies again and again, it makes it easier to debunk them. And it allows people to do actual research (because unlike you, I tend to provide sources and links for people to check them out).

            there is great reluctance to build dozens more nuclear plants

            This is not about reluctance, but about successful lobbying by "green" parties and associations, like greenpeace. This is changing though, because people started to actually look at the science, and advantages/disadvantages of energy sources. If you speak french, there have been auditions

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              If the green lobby is really that powerful, why are so many countries not doing enough to tackle climate change? Why aren't we seeing vast wind farms everywhere? The UK actually has a virtual ban on on-shore wind, with even Ukraine having built more than we did last year. Yet the UK also has two new nuclear power plants under construction. Well, one is still in the planning stages, hopefully it gets cancelled.

              It just doesn't add up.

              • Because most green parties (can't speak for your countries, you can check it up yourself) have in their written motivations to ban nuclear. Same for greenpeace. This is usually one of their main written goal. Same for greenpeace, because historically, it was in direct opposition with nuclear weapons, and as people are dumb, they tend to confuse nuclear weapons with nuclear plants (although the two have little in common, a nuclear plant can never explode like a bomb...).

                Funnily enough, most of the green part

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  The German Green party's policy is to end coal powered generation by 2030.

                  https://www.gruene.de/themen/e... [gruene.de]

                  • And replacing it by gas? Genius.

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      "Für KlimaneutralitÃt werden wir unsere Energieversorgung komplett auf erneuerbare Energien umstellen."

                      You can use Google Translate if you don't understand German. It says that their goal is to be a fully renewable grid, not to use gas.

                    • That's the goal, but the result is that they'll be building 25GW worth of gas power plants to be powered with natural gas. At least until some undefined point int the future where there'll be a surplus of green hydrogen that could be burned instead.

                      https://www.cleanenergywire.or... [cleanenergywire.org]

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      You will note that the Green Party is not in full control of policy, they are part of a coalition.

      • by atomicalgebra ( 4566883 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:07PM (#63562245)
        The worst day for France was cleaner than the best day for Germany.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If Germany can't clean up without nuclear power, we are all screwed.

      There a lot of countries that can't have nuclear power. They don't have the infrastructure, it's too expensive, or other countries don't want them to have access to the technology.

      We can't expect them to forego a Western lifestyle and standard of living. If nuclear is required, they will use cheaper fossil fuels instead.

      • There a lot of countries that can't have nuclear power

        Say you.

        The fact that you are leading a personal vandetta against a proven technology, and would rather see people die from climate change is on you.

        Fortunately, the trend we are seeing is more countries taking a sensible approach with intermittent electricity sources(solar/wind) AND baseload ones (nuclear and hydro where possible). But please keep on renting on slashdot, I am sure that makes a difference to actual politics in play.

        • Says common sense. Also, legacy of colonialism across the globe, particularly in Africa.

          Most of the increase in global population in coming decades will be centered in Africa.
          A region famously known for its political stability and access to water needed to run the steam engines that are nuclear reactors.

          Nuclear is only viable for developed countries with a nuclear fleet and arsenal - thus being heavily subsidized under the guise of "national security".
          That is why France, despite being further to the south r

          • A region famously known for its political stability and access to water needed to run the steam engines that are nuclear reactors.

            Water is needed for fossil fuels power plants too... The original poster was expressing the postulate that for those countries, if nuclear was required then they would use fossil fuels instead. This is just not true. For those countries though, more solar in their energy mix than for northern Europe for instance, makes a lot of sense. For the rest of their baseload needs, which can't be covered with day-to-day batteries, nuclear is preferable to gas or coal plants.

            Nuclear is only viable for developed countries with a nuclear fleet and arsenal - thus being heavily subsidized under the guise of "national security".

            No it is not, and that is not how history i

            • Water is needed for fossil fuels power plants too...

              No. Water is needed for COAL power plants. Gas turbines and diesel engines work just fine without it.
              Granted, if you want more bang for your buck, a combined cycle power plant will get you that - but you still don't have to use that part when you can't.
              E.g. When in drought.

              Oh and building something that just burns gas/oil directly is a LOT cheaper.

              if nuclear was required then they would use fossil fuels instead. This is just not true. For those countries though, more solar in their energy mix than for northern Europe for instance, makes a lot of sense.

              You misunderstood OPs point. Granted, OP "accidentally a word" there. Try this.
              "If nuclear level of, and centralized approach to electricity production is require

              • Meanwhile, renewables are cheaper and cleaner, fossil fuels are cheaper and more affordable. Both are far, far, FAR safer and secure.

                Sorry, I started with that sentence, and knew it was pointless to read the rest of your post. If you are willing to say such absurdities, there is no point arguing with a deceptive and delusional person like you.

                But I do sincerely hope you enjoyed spending your time to write all that.

        • aaaahh.. the baseload myth.. an euphemism for fossil plants that can't shutdown down/turn on in a timely manner
    • Nuclear power is economically obsolete.
      It will fade away as soon as the kleptocrats focus on some better business models

  • absolute 0 at night

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." -- Vince Lombardi, football coach

Working...