German coal-fired power rises above 50% in first-half 2013 generation mix

[FBaggins]

Coal-fired power plants contributed 52% of Germany's first-half electricity demand as output from natural gas-fired power plants and wind turbines fell, research organization Fraunhofer Institute (ISE) said.

Coal plants increased production by about 5% to 130.3 TWh in the first six months of 2013 as output from gas-fired power plants fell 17% to 21.9 TWh, said ISE, which collated data from Germany's statistical office and the EEX transparency platform. Wind turbine output fell 10% to 22.4 TWh, while solar output was unchanged at 14.3 TWh. Hydro output rose 3% to 9.2 TWh, with nuclear output up 1.8% to 46 TWh.

...snip...

In 2012, coal-fired power plants generated 45% of total electricity, followed by renewables with a 22% share, nuclear at 16%, and gas at 11%.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/german-coal-fired-power-rises-above-50-in-first-26089429

But hey! Solar provides a greater percentage of their power needs for an hour or two a few days a year! Who cares if coal produces more than half over an entire six months????

[Yo_Mama]

1. Maybe after the election

something will really change, but right now I don't see anything that will alter this trend.

[kristopher]

4. Really? How about the fact that they are continuing to build out renewable infrastructure.

Save your handwringing for someplace that needs it - like us in the US.

[NickB79]

2. Anyone know why wind dropped so much? nt

[FBaggins]

5. Sure! It's called "weather".

Variability is not just a moment-by-moment or day-by-day thing. There are also significant differences between one month and the next and even one year to the next.

This is actually the second year running that wind power has declined in Germany. Last year it declined a bit over 6%.

The good news is that weather works in the other direction as well. The second half of this year could just as easily show superior performance. From 2010 to 2011, Germany increased her wind capacity by about 7%... but actual power generated from wind climbed an astounding 29%. Even more impressively, solar capacity grew by 43%... but production actually climbed by 65%.

[kristopher]

3. Debunking the Renewables “Disinformation Campaign”

Debunking the Renewables “Disinformation Campaign”

According to Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, renewables are successful in Germany and not in the U.S. because Germany has “got a lot more sun than we do.” Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded during her now-infamous flub, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work." (She recanted the next day while adding new errors.)

Actually, Germany gets only about as much annual sun as Seattle or Alaska; its sunniest region gets less sun than almost anywhere in the lower 48 states. This underscores an important point: solar power works and competes not only in the sunniest places, but in some pretty cloudy places, too.

A PERVASIVE PATTERN
The Fox Business example is not a singular incident. Some mainstream media around the world have a tendency to publish misinformed or, worse, systematically and falsely negative stories about renewable energy. Some of those stories’ misinformation looks innocent, due to careless reporting, sloppy fact checking, and perpetuation of old myths. But other coverage walks, or crosses, the dangerous line of a disinformation campaign—a persistent pattern of coverage meant to undermine renewables’ strong market reality. This has become common enough in mainstream media that some researchers have focused their attention on this balance of accurate and positive coverage vs. inaccurate and negative coverage.

Tim Holmes, researcher for the U.K.’s Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC), points out press coverage is important because it can influence not only “what people perceive and believe” but also “what politicians think they believe.” PIRC’s 2011 study of renewable energy media coverage surveyed how four of the highest-circulation British daily newspapers reported on renewables during July 2009. A newspaper’s balance of positive and negative renewables coverage tended to align with its editorial ideology. The difference was astounding. In one instance, negative coverage of renewables was just 2.5 percent; in another, upwards of 75 percent.

A follow-up 2012 study by public relations consultancy CCGroup examined five of the most-read newspapers in the U.K. during July 2012. Researchers found more than 51 percent of the articles featuring renewables were negative, 21 percent positive...

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_07_31_debunking_renewables_disinformation_campaign

Sad to say that this progressive forum is a prolific outlet for this same disinformation campaign.

In their presentation to the UK government (PDF), researchers at Pöyry say there are three main reasons for the "apparent surge" in new coal plant construction, which is "due to highly unusual historic reasons": a favorable market environment in 2007/2008; excess carbon allowances; and an "inability or reluctance of developers to cancel projects" when circumstances changed.

... the researchers say "there will be no major new unabated coal or date night projects in Germany for the foreseeable future beyond those currently under construction."

...running "thermal plants has become increasingly difficult" in Germany because renewable power is "reducing output of all thermal plants and depressing wholesale electricity prices." In other words, Germany's GW of coal power will increasingly translate into fewer GWh; the plants may be built, but they will be running less and less. The experts speak of "net increase of 8.9 GW" by 2015, but it remains to be seen whether Germany will increase its consumption of coal power in the process ...

Starting in 2009, the experts find that "developers' appetites" for new coal projects has died down significantly so that there will be no further investment in coal plants "in this decade." By 2035 (see chart above), installed coal power generating capacity will have fallen from around 42 GW to around 15 GW – and again, that installed capacity is likely to be running at lower utilization levels.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/no-additional-coal-plants-in-germany/150/537/62691/





Germany has set a goal of 40% carbon reductions over 1990 levels by 2020, 55% by 2030 and 70% by 2040. They are on track with their infrastructure to meet those goals and this is


The Poryr study is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194335/Poyry_Report_-_Coal_fired_power_generation_in_Germany.pdf



What's the US plan? That's right, we don't have one.

Germany does however and it is one of the most successful countries at reducing emissions. And yet, the nuclear acolytes spend all of their time pointing fingers at anything in Germany they can pretend is a crisis; when in fact what they hyperventilating over is an expected part of the complex process brought on by the move from a centralized coal/nuclear generating system to a distributed renewable system that uses neither coal nor nuclear.

Their panties are in a wad because they know this move shows how nuclear is a core economic element in maintaining the centralized coal based grid and forms a blueprint for other nations to follow. This transition is going to be successful and nothing scares them more, so prepare for the flood of FUD instigating posts to continue.

[FBaggins]

6. "This whole who-is-a-paid-shill witch hunt is disruptive nonsense"

Intellectual Laziness.



And no... it is to no lesser degree "disruptive nonsense" if the "paid" part of the accusation is omitted.

This is an article filled with facts. No matter how inconvenient they are to your position, they don't become "disruption" just because you wish reality were different.

[bananas]

7. Wow - Skinner really opened up the welcome mat with that one.

Might as well call it "astroturfunderground.com", he's practically inviting them in.

Well, at least it's not as bad as change.org : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=60241

"Then late last year, Change.org was furtively taken over by the PR industry, monetizing the credibility Change.org had built up and making it available to front-groups, the public relations industry and advertisers."

[NickB79]

8. "the plants may be built, but they will be running less and less."

In other words, Germany's GW of coal power will increasingly translate into fewer GWh; the plants may be built, but they will be running less and less.

snip

The experts speak of "net increase of 8.9 GW" by 2015, but it remains to be seen whether Germany will increase its consumption of coal power in the process ...

Which clearly explains why this thread freaked you out so badly: it introduced real-world data into your theoretical models: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=50567

Two years running now of increased carbon emissions from extra coal consumption, no "remains to be seen" about it

Oh wait, that's right, short-term blah blah free market yada yada.......

[kristopher]

9. "...you didn't build that!"

The right wing loves to take ambiguous statements out of context and twist the meaning. You're clearly arguing that fact that the new coal generation (that was in the pipeline since before Fukushima) is designed to ramp up and down quickly so that it is compatible with increased renewable penetration isn't relevant and tells us nothing.

You are clearly arguing that the fact that there was an expectation that there would be a short period of increased coal consumption followed by steadily declining consumption as renewables continued to ramped up into a grid that had been made ready to enable their increase is irrelevant.

You are arguing that even though the expansion of renewables in Germany has already forced German utilities to file for the shut down of dozens of fossil plants this year, their buildout is not having the desired effect the structure of energy generation and delivery.

You are arguing as unimportant the fact that pressure on fossil plants (both natural gas and coal) is ALREADY so great that they see the need to subsidize a few of those fossil plants in order that they don't shut down before renewables are ready to take over. That is really the only surprising news in the stories that are coming out about coal.

No, the nuclear club can totally ignore the context of the actual situation and the content of the very recent attached study (that shows decades of steadily increasing renewable generation and steadily declining coal) and state that this tic up is a definitive trend.

Not only that you can pretend you actually believe the tripe you are writing.

You've cherry picked a quote from what is actually an article focused on the idea that the type of arguments you have been making about the German Energy Transition are not accurate. I don't suppose it occurred to you that the "remains to be seen" verbiage is intended to convey that it is your claims about coal which are obviously not supported by the evidence? That far from the net increase in coal generation you might expect to see with all the cries of "they are building 8.9GW of new coal" the fact is that these plants were built to deliver fewer and fewer GWH of coal as the buildout of renewables continues.


So let me repeat:

Germany does however and it is one of the most successful countries at reducing emissions. And yet, the nuclear acolytes spend all of their time pointing fingers at anything in Germany they can pretend is a crisis; when in fact what they hyperventilating over is an expected part of the complex process brought on by the move from a centralized coal/nuclear generating system to a distributed renewable system that uses neither coal nor nuclear.

Their panties are in a wad because they know this move shows how nuclear is a core economic element in maintaining the centralized coal based grid and forms a blueprint for other nations to follow. This transition is going to be successful and nothing scares them more, so prepare for the flood of FUD instigating posts to continue.

What's the US plan? That's right, we don't have one.

But hey we haven't shut down our nuclear plants, have we? So there is no sense in focusing your attention on our stumbling progress, is there? My, you certainly did learn a lot from Pam - about ethics.

[NickB79]

10. And the filings to shut down those old plants are being DENIED

By the German government, as Yo Mama pointed out to you in the previous thread I linked to, under the claim that their loss would be too destabilizing to the nation's electrical grid:

The situation has gotten so bad that utilities are applying for permission to shut conventional power plants down, and many of them are going to be denied under the new law. But under the new scheme, they will have to be paid to keep them open. A lot of this is explained here:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=13691

Your hypothetical situation would work, IF those old plants were in fact being closed down and replaced by the new, high-efficiency coal-fired generators.

In the real world, however, they are not. They now have the worst of both worlds: new coal-fired plants, AND old plants still chugging along. Subsequently, CO2 emissions are RISING, and coal consumption is RISING. That's why your claim of "increases in coal and emissions remains to be seen" is so laughable; we're SEEING IT RIGHT NOW.

Like I said, injecting real-world data into your hypothetical worldview is clearly very uncomfortable for you.

[kristopher]

11. Let's clarify - just what, precisely, do you assert is happening?

Are you saying this rise is evidence that the German Energy Transition has failed?

Are you saying that their carbon emissions are going to continue rising? If so, for how long do you think?

Are you saying that this is a temporary rise - a fluctuation on a trend line?

The specific amount of carbon represented by the increase itself is very small in the overall scheme of the problem so it doesn't seem likely your point is that Entity A emitted Z tons of carbon or you would be making a steady stream of such posts 24/7, so what exactly is the significance you are trying to bring to everyone's attention.

Make yourself clear, please.

[FBaggins]

12. Why overcomplicate it? Haven't they said what their intentions are?

What does the next decade of renewabled expansion in Germany look like? Haven't they announced their targets and haven't you posted them here?

Given the existing capacity factor performance they've seen in recent years, you should be able to tell whether a decade from now leaves them with more or less new generation than the nuclear plants that they have yet to shut down plus additional demand growth.

No point in asking NickB79 what he thinks is going to happen... and no point in making up your own spin. What do they say they're going to do?

[kristopher]

13. Of course you don't want that answered

Unfounded implications are far more effective when you are a nuclear acolyte engaged in peddling misinformation.

My request was directed at Nick and still waits his reply.


Are you saying this rise is evidence that the German Energy Transition has failed?

Are you saying that their carbon emissions are going to continue rising? If so, for how long do you think?

Are you saying that this is a temporary rise - a fluctuation on a trend line?

The specific amount of carbon represented by the increase itself is very small in the overall scheme of the problem so it doesn't seem likely your point is that Entity A emitted Z tons of carbon or you would be making a steady stream of such posts 24/7, so what exactly is the significance you are trying to bring to everyone's attention.

Make yourself clear, please.

[FBaggins]

14. I don't?

Well gee... if you knew the answer and knew that I didn't really want it answered... one would think that answering would be the first thing you would do.

Instead... you dodge. Think anyone wonders why? Just being polite?

[kristopher]

15. For NickB79

Are you saying this rise is evidence that the German Energy Transition has failed?

Are you saying that their carbon emissions are going to continue rising? If so, for how long do you think?

Are you saying that this is a temporary rise - a fluctuation on a trend line?

The specific amount of carbon represented by the increase itself is very small in the overall scheme of the problem so it doesn't seem likely your point is that Entity A emitted Z tons of carbon or you would be making a steady stream of such posts 24/7, so what exactly is the significance you are trying to bring to everyone's attention.

Make yourself clear, please.

[NickB79]

17. I felt that I'd already been very clear

But for you, kris, I'll repeat myself.

Are you saying this rise is evidence that the German Energy Transition has failed?

Not failed, but delayed as they have to compensate for unexpected increases in carbon emissions and coal consumption.

Are you saying that their carbon emissions are going to continue rising? If so, for how long do you think?

Well, at least you're now admitting that their carbon emissions are indeed rising, and not saying that "it remains to be seen" like you were previously. And yes, I now expect their carbon emissions to slowly keep rising for a few more years, and level out for the next few years after that for the rest of the decade. And no, I don't have 500-page PDF's to back up that claim; it's just a gut feeling/educated guess.

Are you saying that this is a temporary rise - a fluctuation on a trend line?

Yes, it will be temporary, of that I'm fairly sure. My biggest gripe is that, by the time they get their carbon emissions back on a downward slope, a lot more carbon than originally expected will have been released from increased coal consumption. It will be a climatic "lost decade", so to speak.

[Yo_Mama]

16. Try Frauenhofer data

http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf

There is literally everything about 2013 production in here. You can see that coal is not being displaced, especially when you look at the graphs including import/exports.

The wind is too variable to be much use, and when solar kicks on they seem to be running hard coal to provide reactive power on either side of the solar peak.

That, btw, is from the Frauenhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, which is truly not dedicated to disinformation regarding renewables.

The pity of it is that the offshore wind farms were planned to provide a much steadier flow of power from wind as a key to displacing some of the conventional. But right now offshore wind is at a standstill, and it's not clear what's going to happen after the elections.

I can't find out why wind production is down so much YoY. I doubt it's just the weather.