185

The Secret Behind Germany’s Record Renewables Buildout | As most countries struggle to install clean energy fast enough, Germany tackled the industry’s toughest problem: slow permitting. (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/world@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 45 points 3 weeks ago

When I think of cutting red tape, no unnecessary bullshit bureaucracy and fast acting government, I don't usually think of Germany. What happened?

[-] smokinliver@sopuli.xyz 63 points 3 weeks ago

The greens got to design some legislation

[-] hannesh93@feddit.org 47 points 3 weeks ago

And the conservatives attack them on every front because of how much they stir up things - it's so sad how well that propaganda works...

[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 11 points 3 weeks ago

As a German: me neither.

[-] Eiri@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

They got paranoid about nuclear and closed down all their nuclear plants. They intensified fossil fuel power production because they didn't have enough renewable power. Then prices went up due to the war end they had an oh shit moment.

[-] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

This says otherwise. While coal (hard coal+lignite) use had been slightly elevated in 2022, it is already below the level of 2019 now. Natural gas use is mostly for household heating, which is usually non-electric in older houses in Germany, so there is some weather related fluctuation there. There are some gas powered electricity plants for emergency use, but they are only fired if there is no other way.

[-] Eiri@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well that's what I get for not checking my info!

Thanks for the correction.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago

The slow permitting is often by design. The fossil fuel companies are in a lot of governments' pockets.

[-] Neon@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

that sounds very conspiratory. "they up there are out to get you" if you know what I mean
The other way around. A lot of governments in fossil fuel companies' pockets (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/in-someones-pocket)

[-] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

Some regulation changed, and that is great. It is now much easier than before to put a photo voltaic installation on your roof that has a peak energy production above 10 kWp. That used to be the magic barrier beyond which things would get drastically more complicated, beaurocracy wise. Tax hell, basically. So that is gone now, and my SO and me installed a 25 kWp installation on our roof because of it. But let me tell you: it took six month just to get it connected to the net. The local energy net provider did not manage to swap our meter for a two-way meter for six months. We were able to power our home with it, but we could not provide any power to the net. Just because that company was too stupid to click a button somewhere to send instructions to another company to swap that energy meter. That other company was here on an unrelated job a month after our PV installation was done, and I asked them about it. They told me they could theoretically do it right away, but they had no order to do it, so they couldn't.

On the other hand, very small installations ("balcony power stations") are popping up everywhere, the kind that are 600-800 Watts and plug right into your power outlet. In theory, when installing them, you should fill out a form to give your power provider the chance to swap your meter so it doesn't run backwards when you're not using all the power, but nobody I know ever does that. I am guessing that that also has quite a bit of effect on our power mix.

[+] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works -20 points 3 weeks ago

Doesn’t help that they decommissioned all their nuclear plants

[-] norimee@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

It doesnt help the "Record Renewables Buildout"?
No, actually it helped a lot.

I can't believe that Germany is being attacked for creating more renewable, clean energy. I mean, go against those dirty coal mining that is still left, that would be fair.

But an outcry because of the expansion of renewable energies? This is just "Ahrrggg... Germany energy politics bad, BAMM BAMM BAMM."

Please find an actual issue to be angry and shouting about.

[+] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com -37 points 3 weeks ago

What "desperation because you dismantled all your other stable power sources before having an alternative because oh nooo nukular scary" does to a mf

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Always the same bullshit. No, Germany got out of nuclear because it's simply not economically viable. You can delude yourself all you want, that shit is not coming back.

[-] kireotick@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Not economically viable to build new, yes. But to run existing ones until they need major renovations?

Like they already built the damn things. It would be wasteful to just shut them down, especially if replaced with coal and gas.

Or could you provide me with some sources on why running existing nuclear plants is too expensive?

[-] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 30 points 3 weeks ago

Most of our plants were already fairly old and major overhauls would've been necessary.

In 2000 we had plans for a nuclear exit already, intending to phase them out until 2015. In 2010 the government decided to keep some running. IIRC they did that in part so they could shut down coal plants instead.

Then Fukushima happened and we went full panic mode, deciding to shut all of them down ASAP. Then the Ukraine war got reignited and the timeline got slightly stretched out a little again for practical reasons.

The last three reactors got shut down last April, about eight years later than the 2000 plan intended.

[-] kireotick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Then we agree, nice. I don't know the costs of those repairs so I'll take your word for it.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Germany got out of nuclear because it’s simply not economically viable.

Factually incorrect. Germany began the process of shuttering all their nuclear plants as a knee-jerk response to the Fukushima disaster in 2011..

" The nuclear disaster in Fukushima on 11 March 2011 was the cause for the vote in the German Bundestag - and the subsequent decision to phase out nuclear power. "

They had no renewables replacement plan in place when they made this decision- they mostly just bought power from the euro grid as a stop gap (and france's nuclear reactors, lmfao) until they built their own gas plants.

They replaced it with natural gas fired combined cycle plants that - conveniently! - were fuelled with Russian gas. Gas that they were desperately dependent on, and gas that instantly disappeared when flows were cut off in 2022 due to Ukraine's invasion. Extremely short sighted decision at best, actively stupid and likely sponsored by Russia at worst.

I am glad they are building out renewable capacity, but it's only under duress and explicitly in reaction to a huge energy and economic crisis of their own making by being stupidly shortsighted.

[-] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago

It's a bit more complicated. We were already planning to get out of nuclear because our plants were aging and new ones weren't economical. Then the government decided to freeze those plans for the time being. (IIRC one reason was that they wanted to close some of our terrible coal power plants first.) Then Fukushima happened and the Greens got everyone to panic.

We could've gone with a measured response but a combination of the Greens believing that nuclear power is infinitely bad and plenty of old people still having vivid memories of fallout-related health warnings from Chernobyl was enough to drive most of the country into an antinuclear frenzy. It's almost a miracle they didn't force all of the plants to scram immediately.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, the conservatives really fucked that one up, like everything they touch. But that doesn't change the fact that it was the right decision. The end of nuclear had already been decided years before and then the CDU government went back on that. Then after Fukushima they reversed the reversal. And of course they had also slowed down the build-out of renewables before which landed us in the mess where fossil fuel usage went up. But that was just bad policy not an argument to keep the outdated and ever more creaky nuclear reactors running.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago

So even if we assume it is not economically viable... I would rather not have another few billion tons of CO2 just to save some money.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

It's not economically viable because renewables are drastically cheaper and also far quicker to build out. So if you want to cut CO2, renewables are the way to go.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago

Okay and did you add all the extra cost to make that work? Like when talking about nuclear we do not just look at the reactor itself. For example you need lots of storage and distribution to make renewables work.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Then renewables are still a lot cheaper.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world -5 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, thanks for that detailed reply, let me try: Nuclear is still a lot cheaper.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Here's a source. What's yours?

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is the report where you got that picture from. On page 44 are the assumptions for storage costs: 100 to 400 MWh of storage, assuming they are charged and discharged 315 times per year (so eg. 31'500 MWh storage output per year for 100 MWh capacity). Those do not need to be 100% cycles, but given that a year has hardly more days than 315 and some days even see no production, they need to be cycled pretty much every day the sun is shining. Anyway, what is my point? We need more than a few hours of storage to make it work. But the more storage you have, the less you actually use it, making it disproportionaly more expensive. Note what they say:

Lithium-ion batteries remain the most cost competitive short-term (i.e., 2 – 4-hour) storage technology

We need more than 2 or 4 hours. A single night is already far longer than that. The shorter the storage duration, the cheaper it is. Of course this skewes the numbers. It is like calculating the storage cost of nuclear waste for only 2 years. Of course it looks better.

[-] HairyHarry@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

But you know what? It's working for us mfs.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

The biggest problem I see about nuclear apart from it being extremely slow to build even if permitting is not holding things up is that it's just relying on another non-renewable resource.

this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024

185 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38575 readers

2799 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.