Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

German Energiewende

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby Simon_R » Thu 15 Sep 2016, 13:27:59

Wood Power

I have a small plot of woodland to heat my house, you tell me I cannot use it, the trees will magically die, and I will use the land for something else more profitable. This is the case for my personal use, and I suspect the Biomass companies, so the argument about trees already growing does not really hold water, especially as there are a lot of woodland areas specifically managed for the resource, which would be farmland otherwise.

As far as the maths goes, I would also take umbrage at this.
A tree takes in carbon to form .. a tree
Cutting down and processing a tree 'may' produce carbon (I use an electric chainsaw)
When burnt you have gases and solid waste (ash)

if the amount of carbon released on burning + the amount used in cutting a processing
is greater than
The amount taken in by the tree in growing + the amount of carbon in the solid waste (ash)

then it is using carbon, else it is either carbon neutral or even acting as a carbon sink

thanks

Simon
Simon_R
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu 16 May 2013, 09:28:06

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby regardingpo » Thu 15 Sep 2016, 14:05:57

Hey Simon, I don't know about your specific situation, I am talking about biomass companies who are cutting down existing forests and promising to plant new trees afterwards. The old trees were already there before they came.

Compare these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: No biomass burning
1. Old tree lives and takes in carbon during its lifetime (negative emissions)

Scenario 2: With biomass burning
1. You cut down the old tree and burn it and put carbon into the atmosphere (positive emissions)
2. You plant a new tree
3. New tree lives and takes in carbon during its lifetime (negative emissions)

As you can see, the difference is that in scenario 2 you created positive emissions. Negative emissions are there in both scenarios, so the fact that you have negative emissions in scenario 2 doesn't count as a benefit.
Don't follow this link: http://bit.ly/2dtWSrZ
User avatar
regardingpo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu 20 Aug 2015, 15:36:52

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 15 Sep 2016, 15:07:49

It is true that burning a tree as firewood, emits just as much carbon as that tree absorbed during however many decades it was growing. The small branches, bark, and sawdust either rot on the forest floor - which is just a slower form of chemical oxidation - or in some cases get formed into pellets and burned, or pressed into fireplace logs, along with a wax that all too often is made from petroleum. However, as it rots in the forest, some portion of the carbon is emitted as a gas, but most solid carbon goes right back into the soil in hydrocarbon form.

However, the main purpose of farming wood is not firewood, it is lumber. Such wood is used to build furniture, structures, and in fact any "wooden" object. That carbon is trapped outside of the atmosphere, until the wooden object or lumber is burned or rots away.

Of course corn stalks, bamboo (a grass), and any organic material that is composted (including human and animal wastes) also contain hydrocarbons that ideally should go back into the soil without passing through a gaseous phase in the atmosphere.

Bottom line: trees, food crops, and even ornamental plants all sequester carbon - and if you can avoid burning such materials, it is a good thing. The broadest definition of "burning" is the oxidation of hydrocarbons - which can occur as forest compost, garden compost, animal food and treated sewage, pelletized sawdust in a wood stove, firewood, or a burning house.

However, I would agree that burning recently created biomass is better than burning long fossilized forms of carbon such as oil, gas, and coal.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Wed 02 Nov 2016, 04:32:48

Germany under Merkel have NO CO2 reduction plan 2020 (2050) for Marakesh

Merkels CDU/CSU party blocked any reduction targets offered by SPD "Umwelminister"

Thats the brutal stinky truth in Germany under Chancelor Merkels "Great Coalition"

http://de.reuters.com/article/deutschla ... EKBN12W3E6

Image
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby Jupidu » Thu 03 Nov 2016, 17:21:40

I have to correct a little bit the picture which M_B_S had drawn of the energy situation in Germany:
1. The winter 2013/14 was a very, very mild winter or better: It was a no-winter, so there was burnt a really low amount of fossil energy as well as biomass energy. So it is a very bad statistical trick to compare the winter of 2014 with that of 2015. A good comparison at least in Germany is winter 2012/13 with 2014/15.

2. Even after the shutdown of seven nuclear reactors in Germany due to the catastrophe of Fukushima, Germany remained a NET EXPORTER of electricity, for example to France - especially in February 2012 i think.

3. Yes, Germany is constructing new lignite-fired power plant but they are replacing old ones with a lower efficiency.

4. Because of the great surplus of electricity produced by renewable energy the wholesaleprice for maximum capacity around midday is very low. Therefore even very good, very efficient gas power plants (e.g. the biggest and most modern gas power plant in Germany, Irsching, in the federal state of Bavaria) have to run in idle mode at normal days. Not only around midday the wholesale price sale for electricity at the electricity exchange in Leipzig (EEX) is very low, since several years the wholesale price is sinking (around 4 Euro-Cent per kWh).

5. Nevertheless mining of brown coal (huge areas are dug over) isn't as good as growing and using biomass for producing electricity - raw brown coal has a quite low heat value (about 2,2 kWh/kg). After the abandonment of a open brown coal pit the terrain can't be used for decades because of the danger of landslides.
Jupidu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat 03 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 03 Nov 2016, 19:50:46

Thanks for the balancing perspective and ground truthing, Jupidu.

My understanding is that wind generation in the north of the country is quite robust, but that it is hard to get all that power down to the southern cities because of lack of grid infrastructure, which should have been developed long ago, but is way behind schedule for various reasons. Is that your understanding, too?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Fri 04 Nov 2016, 04:54:55

https://www.agora-energiewende.de/filea ... web_EN.pdf

The German
Energiewende and
its Climate Paradox

An Analysis of Power Sector Trends for Renewables,
Coal, Gas, Nuclear Power and CO2
Emissions, 2010–2030

Since 2009 our Co2 Emissions are going up not down.Fig.8

These developments describe an Energiewende paradox:
Despite Germany’s increasing share of renewable energy
sources, its greenhouse gas emissions are rising.


q.e.d.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 04 Nov 2016, 06:23:43

Thanks for that link, MBS. The third paragraph pretty much confirms what Jupidu was saying:

A quarter of Germany’s 2013 power consumption was
met by renewable energies.
In that and previous years,
electricity production from coal fired power plants rose
significantly whereas the power generation of gas and
nuclear plants decreased. Moreover, net electricity exports
from Germany to its neighbours reached an all-time record
.


It also clearly states:

Despite an increasing share of renewable energy
sources, its greenhouse gas emissions are rising.
The reason for this paradox is not to be found in the decision to phase out nuclear power –

the decrease of nuclear generation is fully offset by an increased generation from renewables.


One wonders if they couldn't have foregone some of the extra coal-fired generation and then kept the renewably generated electricity in the country rather than exporting it, if they had had enough grid infrastructure.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby careinke » Fri 04 Nov 2016, 12:44:38

regardingpo wrote:Hey Simon, I don't know about your specific situation, I am talking about biomass companies who are cutting down existing forests and promising to plant new trees afterwards. The old trees were already there before they came.

Compare these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: No biomass burning
1. Old tree lives and takes in carbon during its lifetime (negative emissions)

Scenario 2: With biomass burning
1. You cut down the old tree and burn it and put carbon into the atmosphere (positive emissions)
2. You plant a new tree
3. New tree lives and takes in carbon during its lifetime (negative emissions)

As you can see, the difference is that in scenario 2 you created positive emissions. Negative emissions are there in both scenarios, so the fact that you have negative emissions in scenario 2 doesn't count as a benefit.


Throw making biochar in, and using it to build your soil, with coppicing trees, and you are carbon negative.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4668
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 14:06:45

M_B_S wrote:https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Analysen/Trends_im_deutschen_Stromsektor/Analysis_Energiewende_Paradox_web_EN.pdf

The German
Energiewende and
its Climate Paradox

An Analysis of Power Sector Trends for Renewables,
Coal, Gas, Nuclear Power and CO2
Emissions, 2010–2030

Since 2009 our Co2 Emissions are going up not down.Fig.8

These developments describe an Energiewende paradox:
Despite Germany’s increasing share of renewable energy
sources, its greenhouse gas emissions are rising.


q.e.d.

M_B_S


If you want to make propaganda, then at least try to make intelligent propaganda. :-)

2009 was a year with almost 5% drop in GDP and energy consumption, to take this year as 100% is let's say not so clever, take a 10 year average and you get something quite different.

Electric generation produces less CO2, esp. when corrected for exports. Or better by discussing the issue in a European framework.

And the situation becomes a little bit clearer if temperature corrected data are used for primary energy. :-)

All this is explained in detail in the reports of the Working Group Energy Balances (Arbeitsgruppe Energiebilanzen AGEB), no need to publish crappy conclusions, which BTW are not supported by your source. :-)
Ulenspiegel
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 03:15:29

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 06 Nov 2016, 14:43:25

Thanks, Ulenspiegel (I still love that handle!) for showing up and throwing some light on these issues. I was hoping you would!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Mon 07 Nov 2016, 07:25:34

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26372

Germany’s renewables electricity generation grows in 2015, but coal still dominant

All this dirty CO2 shit is still running in Germany even the XXL SUVs on our streets.

This is the big dirty secret under Merkels "Great Coalition" policy.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby Jupidu » Tue 08 Nov 2016, 10:11:59

dohboi wrote:My understanding is that wind generation in the north of the country is quite robust, but that it is hard to get all that power down to the southern cities because of lack of grid infrastructure, which should have been developed long ago, but is way behind schedule for various reasons. Is that your understanding, too?


Yes that was my understanding till about Summer of 2015 too till i heard a speech of a german professor for economics, Lorenz Jarass:

„Welchen Stromnetzausbau erfordert die Energiewende?“ - Vortrag von Prof. Dr. Lorenz Jarass (48min)
(Wich amount of grid extension is needed for the Energiewende? Speech of Prof. Dr. Lorenz Jarass)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osh-TbC89VQ

He says that this, in the moment, planned grid extension in Germany is far too big, far bigger than needed.
1. The problems in some winters didn't happen because of a lack of electricity infrastructure but because of a lack of trade barriers at the EEX. In Winter 2012/13 brokers in Frankfurt sold a lot of wind energy to Italy at the EEX (European Energy Exchange operated by European Energy Exchange AG) which couldn't be produced as forecasted. So these brokers had to balance their short sellings at high prices. There were enough operable backup power plants in Germany but their operating costs are higher than for example backup power plants in Austria so power plants in Austria were started to fill the gap. Afterwards it was broadcasted that we at least in Germany were near a catastrophe/blackout because of the Energiewende.
2. The future grid extension in Germany is planned on the basis of transporting at the same time the power of coal fired power plants in East Germany as well as in the region of Cologne at full load together with wind energy produced while a stormfront is passing by.
3. It is possible and since decades a standard that e.g. anthracite coal fired plants are driven up or curbed along a daily load curve. So it is also in the future possible to curb certain power plants to allow wind turbine or even wind farms to feed in their produced electricity. That would be a lot cheaper than to build long massive power lines (a lot of regulatory work during several years to get everyone pleased).
4. The laws renewed and created for the Energiewende are supporting the fossil fuel industry as well(!) as the renewable energy industry at the disadvantage of the consumer (higher tariffs).
5. Nevertheless we need about 3-4 GW of flexible power plants (in combination with more power plants driven by renewable energy) in the South of Germany to replace nuclear plants which will all be shut down till 2022.

Once source in english with some statements of Professor Jarass:

SOI Discussion Paper 2012-02
Adaptive Capacities, Path Creation and Variants of Sectoral Change
The Case of the Transformation of the German Energy Supply System
...
Jarass (2010) criticizes the oversized grid extension proposed in these studies. He expects that a large share of the planned extension is to be used to secure the profit ability of new coal power plants Jarass/Obermair 2009). According to Hohmeyer et al. (2011) , there is no need for any grid extension prior to 2015.
...
Jarass, Lorenz (2010): Windenergiebedingter Netzausbau – nicht zu viel und nicht zu wenig! In: Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 60(10), p. 22 – 27.
Jarass, Lorenz/Obermair, Gustav M., 2009: Mehr Übertragungsleistung in Höchstspannungsnetzen. Optimierung geht vor Verstärkung und Neubau – Dena - Netzstudie I ist überholt. In: Energy 2.0, 2009(Februar), p. 53 – 55.

http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/soz/oi/publ ... cities.pdf


My own opinion:
We could harvest a lot of that excess wind energy and produce heat out of that. That's power-to-heat and was at least in Germany used also since decades (night-storage heater powered by chep nuclear energy in the night, managed by so-called ripple controls).
At least in big buildings this would be a quite easy, cheap, scalable and fast to install technique:

Power to heat gets going in Germany
23.06.2015
The city of Münster plans to use excess electricity on the grid to generate heat, which can be easily stored.
The local municipal utility is investing 1.7 million euros in a hot water storage tank that will be charged with electric heaters reacting to price signals on the power market. Symbolically, the heat storage facility is located in an old coal bunker in the town’s port.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/ ... 537/88373/

Examples in Denmark:

25-09-2015
The role of power to heat – Heat pumps, electrical heat boilers and heat storage
Lessons from Denmark

https://www.agora-energiewende.de/filea ... 092015.pdf

The opposite (Power to cool) is used since several years in different utilities in Europe:

Project acronym: Night Wind
Night Wind: Storage of wind energy in cold stores
First Period (1st july 2006 – 30th june 2007), Date of preparation: Feb. 12th, 2009
Final Activity Report – Night Wind - summary

http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/docum ... 181EN6.pdf
Jupidu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat 03 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 08 Nov 2016, 10:16:49

Thanks, J.

Things are always more complicated than they seem.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Sat 03 Dec 2016, 07:31:13

http://hambachforest.blogsport.de

TWO MORE PEOPLE IN PRISON
1. Dezember 2016 in Generally, Repressions, Actions und Solidarity 0 Kommentare
from https://abcrhineland.blackblogs.org

Since December 1st there are two more activists from Hambach Forest in custody jail.

According to the police, both have been at a treehouse close to the entrance of the forest, when firework was set off towards police officers. Noone got hurt. They are accused of causing an explosion. They are now in the cologne women’s prison.

Both are spanish and english speaking.
*****************

Under the forest millions of tons dirty coal are allowed to burn by Merkels "Great Coalition" meanwhile the the forest is cut off dispite heavy international resistance.

But who cares the planet goes and so we all......

CO2 > 410ppm in 2017

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 13 Jan 2017, 16:48:27

Lots of very impressive graphs at link below quote demonstrating just how stupid it was for Germany to adopt the anti-nuclear path. Electricity in Germany is now twice as expensive and three times as dirty in Germany as it is in France where Nuclear Fission provides nearly all baseload capacity and allows the country to export cheap electricity to all of its neighbors that have turned away from fission.

German emissions increased in 2016 for a second year in a row as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas, a new Environmental Progress analysis finds.

German emissions would have declined had it not closed a nuclear plant and replaced it with coal and natural gas.

Not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the percentage of time during 2016 that solar and wind produced electricity declined dramatically.

Germany added a whopping 10 percent more wind turbine capacity and 2.5 percent more solar panel capacity between 2015 and 2016, but generated less than one percent more electricity from wind and generated one percent less electricity from solar.

The reason is because Germany had significantly less sunshine and wind in 2016 than 2015.

As such, 2016 is a dramatic illustration of the limits of energy sources that depend on the weather. Their output varies dramatically not just hour-to-hour but also year-to-year.

Anti-nuclear advocates have long insisted that this radical intermittency can be solved through more transmission and storage. But there's a problem: neither more transmission lines nor more storage would have made Germany any sunnier, or windier, in 2016.

The analysis is based on two sets of data and analysis by three German sources, two of which are think tanks that promote Germany's transition away from nuclear and toward fossil fuels and renewables. The data are preliminary and subject to change, but there is significant alignment between the different estimates. The Franhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, January 6, 2017, derives its numbers from the German Statistical Office Data through Oct 2016, and Agora Energiewende, 2017 from AG Energiebilanzen, Dec. 2016. The two estimates are mostly aligned on all generation estimates with the exception of small differences in wind and solar and large differences in natural gas generation estimates.


http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... ar-closure
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby kiwichick » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 00:33:52

Nuclear is not the answer .....better connectivity with other countries like Norway and Iceland ...Hydro and geothermal ....and Spain / Portugal / Italy / Greece / Morrocco/ Tunisia .....Solar ....is a far better option

France's nuclear fleet is aging and at risk from rising temperatures ...... if cooling water is not cold enough the plants can't operate.....and solar/batteries are constantly improving output and reducing cost

the risk of failure of nuclear plants , combined with the decommissioning cost makes nuclear a non starter in MHO
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby M_B_S » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 02:44:48

@kiwichick
E²=(pC)²+(mC²)²

We need both parts of E² :idea: Einstein knew it.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Germanys dirty secret under Chancelor Merkel

Unread postby kiwichick » Sat 14 Jan 2017, 03:26:02

@ mbs.....in English ??

sorry maths isn't my strong suit!!!
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests