Renewable Energy in Germany Now 25% of Energy Production

[time space]

Germany has stepped up their game in renewable energy and now produces a full quarter of their energy needs via green technology (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/germany-renewables-idUSL6E8IQIA720120726).

That's up from last year's 19.5% - and their goal is 35% by 2035.

Interestingly, Germany produces more than a third of the world's solar energy.

Canada is right up there in producing renewable energy too - we have the world's third largest portion of our energy produced from renewable sources at 17% (http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/industry-sectors/renewableenergy.aspx) (in no small part due to our being blessed with some excellent hydroelectric river topography).

Canada's goal is to have 25% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Canada) of our energy produced from green sources by 2025.

Maybe there's some faint hope for our species yet...

[Syne]

Good vibe, good article.

Thanks.

[Ziggy007]

I always thought it would be a good idea for Canada ot sink huge investment into renewable energy sources.

The future trend will be natural energy as it is essentially free. They should have taken some of the car manufacturing factories and retrofitted them to generate things like solar panels and wind turbines to become a world leader for it down the road.

[vero95]

why would you invest money into renewable energy if you have natural gas that will last for 100 years
Germany does not have resources to produce energy. why would you follow a country that it in totaly different situation
so what that Germany produces one third of solar energy. the price is 53 times higher than conventional energy

[time space]

why would you invest money into renewable energy if you have natural gas that will last for 100 years
Germany does not have resources to produce energy. why would you follow a country that it in totaly different situation

One reason might be that even one of the most outspoken critics of global warming theory today said that there is now proof that it is real and caused by humans (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all).


CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

- Professor Richard A. Muller, Berkeley




so what that Germany produces one third of solar energy. the price is 53 times higher than conventional energy

Do you have a source for this number?

[vero95]

One reason might be that even one of the most outspoken critics of global warming theory today said that there is now proof that it is real and caused by humans (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all).



Do you have a source for this number?


oh no. another prof thinks we have a global warming :facepalm:


using photovoltaics in emission reduction is 53 times more expensive than the European Union Emission Trading Scheme's market price, while wind power is 4 times more expensive, thereby discouraging other industries from finding more cost-effective methods of reducing emissions;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

[gizmo8]

China is the largest user of green energy...but they still dont have enough.......they one of the biggest oil consumers and the coal plants is really killing the people slowly......

[mjl_toronto]

Too bad we can't all be like Iceland....well at least in terms of renewable energy. We could all benefit from some more hot springs!

[flyinggonzo]

Germany has stepped up their game in renewable energy and now produces a full quarter of their energy needs via green technology (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/germany-renewables-idUSL6E8IQIA720120726).

That's up from last year's 19.5% - and their goal is 35% by 2035.

Interestingly, Germany produces more than a third of the world's solar energy.

Canada is right up there in producing renewable energy too - we have the world's third largest portion of our energy produced from renewable sources at 17% (http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/industry-sectors/renewableenergy.aspx) (in no small part due to our being blessed with some excellent hydroelectric river topography).

Canada's goal is to have 25% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Canada) of our energy produced from green sources by 2025.

Maybe there's some faint hope for our species yet...

Germany has no choice.

Germany's baseload supply is nuclear and they've decided to curtail their nuclear program. Since they have no secure gas supply into the country their only immediate electricity solutions are wind and solar so their push into renewables is as much as an energy security issue vs an environmental issue. The other reason they can do this is because they can rely on neighbouring countries to backstop their electricity grid.

The biggest joke in the power industry is that the increase in renewables is the biggest driver of natural gas plant development in recent years because you need the natural gas plants to backstop the electricity grid when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.

[DiceMan]

I wish the nuclear fusion programs will come to fruition soon.

[abu_sme]

The problem with wind and solar is that it is an intermittent power supply. For this reason there is a need to have backup power supplies, usually running on natural gas, to pick up in case the wind dies or the sun goes behind a cloud. For this reason, Germany still produces copious amounts of CO2 despite billions in subsidies to the wind industry.

[Rainne]

The problem with wind and solar is that it is an intermittent power supply. For this reason there is a need to have backup power supplies, usually running on natural gas, to pick up in case the wind dies or the sun goes behind a cloud. For this reason, Germany still produces copious amounts of CO2 despite billions in subsidies to the wind industry.

Sounds like a Prius out of electricity.

[IceBlueShoes]

why would you invest money into renewable energy if you have natural gas that will last for 100 years
Germany does not have resources to produce energy. why would you follow a country that it in totaly different situation
so what that Germany produces one third of solar energy. the price is 53 times higher than conventional energy
The key word is RENEWABLE. Natural gas is NOT renewable. It'll only last 100 years at current rates. Demand can always go up.

oh no. another prof thinks we have a global warming :facepalm:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
New tech always costs more initially and then drops down.
Stop thinking short term and look at the big picture.


The problem with wind and solar is that it is an intermittent power supply. For this reason there is a need to have backup power supplies, usually running on natural gas, to pick up in case the wind dies or the sun goes behind a cloud. For this reason, Germany still produces copious amounts of CO2 despite billions in subsidies to the wind industry.
Still 25% less, is a big chunk.

[stealth]

The key word is RENEWABLE. Natural gas is NOT renewable. It'll only last 100 years at current rates. Demand can always go up.

New tech always costs more initially and then drops down.
Stop thinking short term and look at the big picture.


Still 25% less, is a big chunk.

I'm not agreeing with Vero, but 100 yrs is a long time in terms of energy usage...wasn't much more than that many years ago when whale oil was a major source of energy.
I'm confident 100 yrs from now, dependence on natural gas will have been eclipsed by something else.

Interesting and promising article nonetheless.

[Syne]

I wish the nuclear fusion programs will come to fruition soon.

Barring some monumental breakthrough in experimental physics, I don't see this happening in our lifetimes.

[rageking]

Actually using lasers they already achieved it. Was news I think 1-2 weeks ago. But they said it would take 15 years or longer to bring it to use commercially

[Agafaba]

Barring some monumental breakthrough in experimental physics, I don't see this happening in our lifetimes.

Several groups have figured out the basics already, most simply need to refine the technology on a larger scare or they require materials that are super rare here but abundant on the moon.

[Agafaba]

why would you invest money into renewable energy if you have natural gas that will last for 100 years
Germany does not have resources to produce energy. why would you follow a country that it in totaly different situation
so what that Germany produces one third of solar energy. the price is 53 times higher than conventional energy

Are you sure about that? From what I can find the general assumption is that we are at or just a few years from peak oil. Yes we might be mining oil for 100 years but there wont be enough for everyone in 10-20 years.

[vero95]

Are you sure about that? From what I can find the general assumption is that we are at or just a few years from peak oil. Yes we might be mining oil for 100 years but there wont be enough for everyone in 10-20 years.

we are not talking about oil

In the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (Early Release), the EIA reports there are 2,214 Tcf of technically recoverable natural gas resources as of January 1, 2010. At the current rate of consumption in the U.S., which is about 24.1 Tcf per year, the EIA estimates domestic natural gas resources will supply over 90 years of use.
http://www.ngvc.org/naturalgas/index.html
some sources give larger estimates

[vero95]

The key word is RENEWABLE. Natural gas is NOT renewable. It'll only last 100 years at current rates. Demand can always go up.

New tech always costs more initially and then drops down.
Stop thinking short term and look at the big picture.

Still 25% less, is a big chunk.

I look at the big picture. 100 years is a big picture
when I was saying subways are the way to go for Toronto it was also a big picture. why do you think it's not a big picture?

even if the current demand goes up, the technology does too. in the past we were not able to recover shale gas but now it's the major contributor
http://www.naturalgas.org/images/resources_clip_image002.jpg
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

[IceBlueShoes]

I look at the big picture. 100 years is a big picture
when I was saying subways are the way to go for Toronto it was also a big picture. why do you think it's not a big picture?

even if the current demand goes up, the technology does too. in the past we were not able to recover shale gas but now it's the major contributor
http://www.naturalgas.org/images/resources_clip_image002.jpg
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

Oh, sure, because fracking, will make up for it...
Sure it might buy some more time, but there will be no one around to use the gas because everyone will be dead from all waste getting into the ground water.

Again, renewable is the way to go. Short term pain, for long term gain.

Subways, are a better option, in the core, not up in the burbs where there is not enough density. But that's another topic altogether...

[vero95]

Oh, sure, because fracking, will make up for it...
Sure it might buy some more time, but there will be no one around to use the gas because everyone will be dead from all waste getting into the ground water.

Again, renewable is the way to go. Short term pain, for long term gain.

Subways, are a better option, in the core, not up in the burbs where there is not enough density. But that's another topic altogether...

so we should look ahead of the 100 years timeframe with energy sources but no subways
typical lefties logic fail :facepalm:

[arm2000]

Unfortunately with data like this ppl start thinking that this is the way to go, this is the future and don't think at what it really is: a temporary solution. The danger is, like many other things in life, temporary solutions tend to become permanent solutions. And there is only one solution to the energy problem: the nuclear reactors, either enhanced classic fission ones or new fusion devices. But when you put in balance the so called green vision of solar/wind energy with the nightmare the nuclear generates very few are willing to go that way. This was and will be a political decision due to the large funds needed and large impact nuclear energy has (or is supposed to have) on the environment. And few politicians are willing to take this fight, especially when this kind of data are available

[UrbanPoet]

Thats amazing! Environmentally friendly stuff always gives me a fuzzy feeling inside.

[time space]

Unfortunately with data like this ppl start thinking that this is the way to go, this is the future and don't think at what it really is: a temporary solution. The danger is, like many other things in life, temporary solutions tend to become permanent solutions. And there is only one solution to the energy problem: the nuclear reactors, either enhanced classic fission ones or new fusion devices. But when you put in balance the so called green vision of solar/wind energy with the nightmare the nuclear generates very few are willing to go that way. This was and will be a political decision due to the large funds needed and large impact nuclear energy has (or is supposed to have) on the environment. And few politicians are willing to take this fight, especially when this kind of data are available

Solar energy is a form of nuclear energy - the reactor just happens to be safely located 150 million kilometers away.

[Agafaba]

I dont see the world converting all their power over to solar anyway, its just too expensive at this time. More realistically when solar is affordable we will see it on top of more and more houses and businesses.

[vero95]

Unfortunately with data like this ppl start thinking that this is the way to go, this is the future and don't think at what it really is: a temporary solution. The danger is, like many other things in life, temporary solutions tend to become permanent solutions. And there is only one solution to the energy problem: the nuclear reactors, either enhanced classic fission ones or new fusion devices. But when you put in balance the so called green vision of solar/wind energy with the nightmare the nuclear generates very few are willing to go that way. This was and will be a political decision due to the large funds needed and large impact nuclear energy has (or is supposed to have) on the environment. And few politicians are willing to take this fight, especially when this kind of data are available

I sort of agree with you. I guess people got scared by the recent disaster in Japan. Germany relied a lot on nuclear power
solar or wind energy does not seem to be a replacement but an addition. they should focus on nuclear power more to make it safer and more environmently friendly
anyaway, I do not see why we should waste too much money in solar or wind just because another country is doing that

[time space]

http://www.jc-solarhomes.com/PV/PV1/cost1.gif

http://www.worldalmanac.com/blog/Heating_oil_prices.gif

[vero95]

A recent study, co-authored by Fraser Institute energy economist Gerry Angevine, found that Ontario residents will pay an average of $285-million more for electricity each year for the next 20 years as a result of subsidies to renewable energy companies.

By the end of 2013, Ontario household power rates will be the second-highest in North America (after PEI), and they will continue to accelerate while they level off in most other jurisdictions. Even more alarming for Ontario’s economic competitiveness, businesses and industrial customers will be hit by almost $12-billion in additional costs over the same period.


Ontario isn’t the only place where grand green-power dreams have turned into a nightmare.

Several European countries began doling out subsidies nearly a decade ago. Germany has given away $130-billion, mostly to solar-power companies. Yet solar power makes up a minuscule 0.3 per cent of German power supply, while doing almost nothing toward the original objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In February, Germany’s Minister of Economics and Technology, Philipp Roesler, announced a pullback from green-power subsidies saying the cost was “a threat to the economy.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-sorry-lessons-of-green-power-subsidies/article4103467/

[stealth]

Instead of just eating up this technology, Id like to see Canada at the forefront of CREATING some of it...i.e. cashing in on it. At some point we have to start bringing money into the country, not just sending it out, or all the warm and fuzzy green initiatives in the world wont save us from being a 3rd world country.