Germany steps closer to the 100% renewables dream

Posted by bex - 9 January 2008 at 5:17pm - Comments

New coal, new nuclear - the government here seems to be doing everything in its power to avoid facing up to the reality that our energy system is archaic, our energy policy is a disaster, and the new large-scale, centralised coal and nuclear power plants they want won't stop climate change or ensure energy security.

But at least we can glean hope from a more forward thinking European neighbour. Scientists have proved that Germany - which is already way ahead of us on renewables (14 per cent in 2007) - can power itself entirely by renewable energy sources. Completely. 100 per cent.

From Biopact:

In an ongoing experiment called the KombiKraftwerk ('Combined Power Plant'), they link 36 decentralised biogas plants, wind, solar and hydropower installations in a robust network to demonstrate that distributed power can replace both fossil fuels and nuclear power. The network is just as reliable and powerful as a conventional large-scale power station.

The joint project supplies electricity around the clock regardless of weather conditions and electricity demand. It takes advantage of the unequally distributed energy potential across Germany and of a permanently stored source of solar energy, biomass.

Here's the video:

Article tagged as: climate change, coal, decentralised energy, nuclear power, renewable energy

Comments Commenting is now closed

So if the suggestion is that every nation should drop what they're doing and start building only renewable supplies, who's going to make up for the energy shortfall that will undoubtedly ensue?

As good in principle a renewable energy based economy would be, the practicalities are almost always brushed over, to the detriment of the arguments.

By pragmatic_realist - 10 January 2008 at 3:29pm

In terms of the transition to a low carbon model of electricity generation, combined heat and power is crucial. It's the most efficient way possible to burn fossil fuels, and also allows us to burn greener fuels as they become available (eg biomass).

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 10 January 2008 at 5:38pm

I found something very different when i was in Germany for 3 days, every room in the hotel I was in had personal recycling bins in, EVERY ROOM. Last time i was in a hotel here there seemed to be one wheelie bin for the whole hotel. Also the streets seemed to be so much cleaner than ours (although it might have been the town I was staying in). lastly everyone also seemed to have somewhat of a eco-concious, they all seemed to care about the environment. Compared to most people here who couldn't care less.

By Negvar - 11 January 2008 at 12:25pm

It’s an interesting case study, details at:

http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/fileadmin/
downloads/Technik_Kombikraftwerk_EN.pdf

The annual demand of the sample set is stated to be 41.1GWh, from which I calculate there to be an average load of 4.7MW. Unfortunately there are no details of how variable this loads is; a strange omission considering its importance in this kind of study.

To meet this demand, the following generation was selected:
Wind: 12.6 MW
Solar: 5.5 MW
Thermal (Biogas/CHP): 4 MW
Hydro storage: 1.06 MW
Interconnections: +/- 1 MW

So the total installed capacity is about five times the average load. The “combined power plant” incorporates plant across Germany (wind in the north, PV in the south), so is very dependant on the transmission grid. It also requires 20% of the power to be traded with other networks. I’ve seen other studies that seem to suggest decentralising generation can make significant savings by avoiding the need for the grid. I can only assume these savings could not be applied here.

Other interesting data is that onshore wind generates 32% of potential capacity, offshore wind is 46% and photovoltaics are at 10%. I assume the 6MW of potential wind should read 60GW (to match the annual potential) and similarly the offshore wind should be 30GW. In order to balance the system, 22.3% of the energy was required from biomass. As this requires 17% of the agricultural land, if all power were to be from biomass, three quarters of the agricultural land would be required.

Does it debunk the “baseload fallacy”? I would say no in the case of wind and PVs.

By simrek - 20 January 2008 at 3:40pm

...but while Germany is developing these renewable solutions, it will be heavily reliant on energy imports (and will be for a significant length of time, given the time it would take to construct all these renewable energy plants). So if the suggestion is that every nation should drop what they're doing and start building only renewable supplies, who's going to make up for the energy shortfall that will undoubtedly ensue? As good in principle a renewable energy based economy would be, the practicalities are almost always brushed over, to the detriment of the arguments.

By pragmatic_realist - 10 January 2008 at 3:29pm

Renewables have a strong advantage over nuclear (or any other large scale power plant) in terms of timescale. They're quicker to build, so start coming online more quickly. (Add to that the fact that government figures show that wind, wave and tidal power could deliver more than twice as much electricity than the new fleet of nuclear reactors being debated in the same timescale). In terms of the transition to a low carbon model of electricity generation, combined heat and power is crucial. It's the most efficient way possible to burn fossil fuels, and also allows us to burn greener fuels as they become available (eg biomass). Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 10 January 2008 at 5:38pm

By Negvar - 11 January 2008 at 12:25pm

It’s an interesting case study, details at: http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/fileadmin/ downloads/Technik_Kombikraftwerk_EN.pdf The annual demand of the sample set is stated to be 41.1GWh, from which I calculate there to be an average load of 4.7MW. Unfortunately there are no details of how variable this loads is; a strange omission considering its importance in this kind of study. To meet this demand, the following generation was selected: Wind: 12.6 MW Solar: 5.5 MW Thermal (Biogas/CHP): 4 MW Hydro storage: 1.06 MW Interconnections: +/- 1 MW So the total installed capacity is about five times the average load. The “combined power plant” incorporates plant across Germany (wind in the north, PV in the south), so is very dependant on the transmission grid. It also requires 20% of the power to be traded with other networks. I’ve seen other studies that seem to suggest decentralising generation can make significant savings by avoiding the need for the grid. I can only assume these savings could not be applied here. Other interesting data is that onshore wind generates 32% of potential capacity, offshore wind is 46% and photovoltaics are at 10%. I assume the 6MW of potential wind should read 60GW (to match the annual potential) and similarly the offshore wind should be 30GW. In order to balance the system, 22.3% of the energy was required from biomass. As this requires 17% of the agricultural land, if all power were to be from biomass, three quarters of the agricultural land would be required. Does it debunk the “baseload fallacy”? I would say no in the case of wind and PVs.

By simrek - 20 January 2008 at 3:40pm