Skip to main content

View Diary: New German Data Shows No End in Sight for Coal (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here, let's cover more distortions (7+ / 0-)

    Solar's so awful because of it's low capacity factor, eh?  Well according to your own report:

    Less gas due to peak load production of PV
    Wait a minute, what's that?  Gas is generally used for peaking, for filling that load during the day when everyone turns on their lights.  But now solar is doing that job more and more.   Solar is reducing the demand for peaking.  It is stabilizing the grid.  You can see this quite nicely on the graphs around, say, page 80.

    Also from the same page:

    More run of river and less wind due to different weather conditions
    Once again, we see the fact that the more diverse your sources, the more they average out into consistent, stable production.

    What are their conclusions about coal and uranium?

    * Brown coal and hard coal almost constant, less gas due to high gas prices.
    * Significantly less uranium due to switch-off of 8 nuclear power plants.
    * Energetic compensation of uranium through renewable energies.
    Amazing, you took this document and argued exactly the opposite of what it says.

    Well, gee, why is there more coal being used this year if renewables are compensating for nuclear?  Your answer is sitting right on the next page:

    The export surplus in 2012 will be approx. 22 TWh.
    That's 15TWh more than last year.  Germany consumed more coal because it consumed more power because of exports, which vary from year to year.  Which is the problem with you looking at one year variations.

    Oh, hey, what does that say on page 32, right next to the graph?

    Solar and Wind compliment one another quite good
    Oh, hey, what was that I was saying about demand fluctuations?  Turn to page 36 to look at day-to-day total generation (aka, matching demand).  Variable enough for you?

    In short, you're arguing exactly the opposite of what the report says.

    Oh hey, let's go into your other article versus your summary, shall we?  You say:

    Adding insult to injury, Bloomberg reported that Germany is planning to construct 10GW of new coal and gas-fired generation this decade
    Wow!  They're planning to burn more coal?!  Damn them!  Oh, wait...
    Merkel’s government wants utilities to build 10,000 megawatts of coal- and gas-fired generators this decade to replace older, dirtier generators and underpin a growing share for wind turbines and solar panels.
    They're building it to replace older, less efficient, dirtier plants.  You do know what the word "replace" means, right?  Hint: it does not mean "additional".  And what do they mean by "underpin"?  Right at the top of the article:
    BoA, which has an efficiency of 43 percent, can raise or lower output by 500 megawatts per unit within 15 minutes, Peter Terium, RWE’s CEO, told reporters in a call on Aug. 14.
    First off, the European average coal plant efficiency is 34%.  The oldest, dirtiest (which would be the ones being replaced) are in the 20s.  This is a massive reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the older plants.  But more noteworthy is the line about rapidly raising and lowering output.  That means that these are designed to be peaking plants.  As wind and solar take up an increasing share, their plan is, to have these increasingly be plants that fire up quickly when there's a gap and shut down when the gap is gone.  Peaking plants tend to have very low capacity factors, meaning that they spend most of their time sitting around, emitting little or nothing.

    Yes, gas peaking plants would be better.  Energy storage would be even better.  But a "damned efficient coal peaking plant" replacing a "damned inefficient coal baseload plant" isn't even remotely a step backwards.  It's just not as big of a step fowards as we'd like.

    •  Dear Rei (0+ / 0-)

      I'm lost, what documents are you citing to for pp 32, 36,and so on?

      Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

      by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:52:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Does it really matter why Germany (0+ / 0-)

      used more coal? It did and that's bad.

      For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

      by Anne Elk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:50:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess you missed the following in the comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        translatorpro

        that you were responding to:

        Brown coal and hard coal almost constant, less gas due to high gas prices.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:44:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, my apologies. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lawrence

          For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

          by Anne Elk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:20:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (68)
  • Media (33)
  • Elections (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Science (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site