Split Renewable Energy in Europe and rest of world (was Ukraine war)

[bilby]

Germany falsely believed that economic ties and trade with Russia would tame the Russian desire to expand and plunder.

Germany falsely believed that wind and solar could power a modern industrial nation, and didn't realise that in fact they would just render that nation completely dependent upon large amounts of gas, rather than (or in practice, as well as) coal.

Trade with Russia became unavoidable once Energiewende was implemented; The idea that "ties and trade with Russia would tame the Russian desire to expand and plunder" was more a rationalisation of an unavoidable reality than an actual policy.

Believing things that are not true has consequences. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is, to a non-trivial extent, a consequence of the German belief that intermittent renewable energy can power a modern society.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...
Dec 12 (Reuters) - Germany's power production from renewable energy rose in 2022, but it is still below the threshold needed to reach the target of generating 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030, the Environment Agency said on Monday.

Renewable energy is expected to account for around 46% of German power consumption this year, up from 41% a year earlier, the agency said in its annual report.
...

2030 is seven years away. By 2050, Germany should be pretty much all renewable.

 

[bilby]

it is still below the threshold needed to reach the target of generating 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030

...and it always will be.

That 46% of consumption; Is it actually 46% of consumption?

If Germany uses electricity imported from France (nuclear) or Poland (coal) at great expense during periods of low wind and high wholesale prices, do the people compiling that "46%" figure then subtract from those imports the electricity exported to those countries during periods of high wind and low wholesale prices?

If I eat 100kg of potatoes a year, and grow 46kg of potatoes in March, did I grow 46% of the potatoes I ate?

Or did I grow 100% of the potatoes I ate in March, and 0% of the potatoes I ate the rest of the year (for a total of 8.5% "grown myself"), sell 37.5kg of potatoes for 10c a kg in March (when everyone is selling potatoes), and buy 91.5kg of potatoes at an average of $2 a kg across the rest of the year, when potatoes are expensive because they're being imported from the other side of the world?

I suspect that there's a lot of creative accounting to get that 46% figure.

But let's charitably assume it's true. Is 46% more than half way to the 80% target? It looks like it, to the ignorant. 46 is more than half of 80, right?

But it doesn't work like that. If you're lighting your home without electricity, you can just open the curtains and blinds, and get light for ~50% of the time with very little effort. But getting from ~50% to ~60% requires a lot of effort (FAR more than was needed to get from 10% to 50%), because opening the blinds and curtains at night does nothing.

"46% of electricity from renewables" is FAR further from 50% than it is from 5%, in terms of the costs (both financial and environmental) required to achieve these figures. The bigger the number, the harder it gets to increase it any further.

In seven years, my bet is that Germany won't have reached 50% renewable power generation. 80% is a joke.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Germany is presently at 46% renewable. The recent problems with Russia means a bit more urgency and effort on Germany's part. If by 2030 Germany achieves only 70% rather than targetted 80%, that does not mean the march to eventual 100% renewables stops, does it?

 

[bilby]

Germany is presently at 46% renewable. The recent problems with Russia means a bit more urgency and effort on Germany's part. If by 2030 Germany achieves only 70% rather than targetted 80%, that does not mean the march to eventual 100% renewables stops, does it?

It never started. You can march from LA to New York, but that doesn't imply that you can therefore march from LA to London, or from LA to the Moon.

Germany has already demonstrated that their renewables goals are unachievable, the only question now is how long it will take for the true believers to accept this fact.

My guess is "forever"; True believers are rarely swayed by mere reality.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

46% renewables is not a failure. Progress has been made and will be made.

UK in 2022 got 39.6% of electrical needs from renewables. UK aims at 100% renewable by 2050.

U.S. lags at 20%. Much of that thanks to moron politicians.

 

[crazyfingers]

U.S. lags at 20%. Much of that thanks to moron politicians.

I was talking to a multinational IT company in Kentucky a few years ago and they were saying they have a hard time keeping up with their competitors on sustainability goals because by law electricity generated in Kentucky must use coal.

 

[bilby]

46% renewables is not a failure. Progress has been made and will be made.

UK in 2022 got 39.6% of electrical needs from renewables. UK aims at 100% renewable by 2050.

U.S. lags at 20%. Much of that thanks to moron politicians.

Notice how the achievements are all around 40%, with creative accounting?

The 80s and 90s and 100s of percent are all "goals" and "aims".

I aim to be a billionaire by 2030.

The only worthwhile goal is minimising carbon emissions. Maximising renewables isn't a goal, nor is it a step towards that goal. You're using a proxy (renewables), when you could just directly measure progress by looking at carbon emissions from electricity generation.



Why anyone would care about "% renewable", when you can simply look at CO₂ emissions themselves, I cannot fathom. Have you lost sight of the objective?

There's a far more effective and efficient way. We could stop supporting Russia and Germany in pursuit of the impossible, and start to follow France and Sweden towards the actual goal instead.

Here's the last 30 day's data. Which one is working towards a (probably unachievable) goal of 80% low carbon electricity "by 2030", and which has already achieved and exceeded that objective?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In Montana the GOP made it illegal for state agencies to buy electricity from renewable sources. Another big stumbling block is HOAs who will not allow solar panels proclaiming them to be aesthetically unpleasing.

 

[TV and credit cards]

These space cowboys want to set up a moondust ejector apparatus on the moon to shoot moondust at LaGrange Point L1 (point of gravitational equilibrum between the sun and earth) to attenuate the sun's rays 1-2%.

After considering a variety of dust types and deployment strategies, we settle on one scenario as most promising for Earth-climate impact: Lunar dust can be mined and launched on ballistic trajectories that cross near the Earth-Sun line of sight. We have identified orbits that allow dust grains to provide shade for days, almost as long as for dust deployed near L1, the Earth-Sun Lagrange point. Advantages of this concept include a ready supply of lunar dust, as well as a low kinetic energy cost as compared to an Earth launch. Individual dust grains on these trajectories rapidly drift out of alignment, clearing the Earth-Moon system with no impact on Earth’s atmosphere. There is no need to actively manipulate orbits to remove dust when sun shielding is no longer beneficial.

 

[Harry Bosch]

These space cowboys want to set up a moondust ejector apparatus on the moon to shoot moondust at LaGrange Point L1 (point of gravitational equilibrum between the sun and earth) to attenuate the sun's rays 1-2%.

After considering a variety of dust types and deployment strategies, we settle on one scenario as most promising for Earth-climate impact: Lunar dust can be mined and launched on ballistic trajectories that cross near the Earth-Sun line of sight. We have identified orbits that allow dust grains to provide shade for days, almost as long as for dust deployed near L1, the Earth-Sun Lagrange point. Advantages of this concept include a ready supply of lunar dust, as well as a low kinetic energy cost as compared to an Earth launch. Individual dust grains on these trajectories rapidly drift out of alignment, clearing the Earth-Moon system with no impact on Earth’s atmosphere. There is no need to actively manipulate orbits to remove dust when sun shielding is no longer beneficial.

Dang! Very cool story.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Other than the issue that this seems like a real stupid idea... isn't this a real stupid idea? Lagrangian points are cool and awesome and we exploit them, but they aren't magic and are unstable (for objects in it). HOw is dust supposed to stay within it. I can't imagine it'd take much for either it to be destabilized by the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, a passing by duck, or to settle on a nearby small rock also sharing space in the Lagrangian spot.

And this assumes it stops there.

I'll let a scientist here tell me I'm wrong, but it just sounds real dumb.

 

[thebeave]

Other than the issue that this seems like a real stupid idea... isn't this a real stupid idea? Lagrangian points are cool and awesome and we exploit them, but they aren't magic and are unstable (for objects in it). HOw is dust supposed to stay within it. I can't imagine it'd take much for either it to be destabilized by the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, a passing by duck, or to settle on a nearby small rock also sharing space in the Lagrangian spot.

And this assumes it stops there.

I'll let a scientist here tell me I'm wrong, but it just sounds real dumb.

You forgot to mention Elon Musk's Tesla which is currently floating around out in space.

Good Rule of Thumb: Never miss an opportunity to attibute malice to a billionaire. Especially Elon.

I do agree though. Shooting dust to L1 sounds a bit ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

Other than the issue that this seems like a real stupid idea... isn't this a real stupid idea? Lagrangian points are cool and awesome and we exploit them, but they aren't magic and are unstable (for objects in it). HOw is dust supposed to stay within it. I can't imagine it'd take much for either it to be destabilized by the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, a passing by duck, or to settle on a nearby small rock also sharing space in the Lagrangian spot.

And this assumes it stops there.

I'll let a scientist here tell me I'm wrong, but it just sounds real dumb.

Well, you could just read the quoted part of the abstract, which very clearly sets out that the plan is NOT to use L1, but instead to launch it "on ballistic trajectories that cross near the Earth-Sun line of sight. We have identified orbits that allow dust grains to provide shade for days, almost as long as for dust deployed near L1, the Earth-Sun Lagrange point".

The paper appears to be suggesting that earlier proposals for a sun shield at L1 would produce sub-optimal results, in comparison to a new plan of simply feeding a continuous stream of material into less stable orbits.

This also provides the benefit of being rapidly adjustable (by simply turning off the launchers) in the event that less cooling is required for any reason.

In summary, you're not wrong that it's real dumb to try to put dust at L1; but you are wrong to imagine that you disagree with the authors of the paper on that point.

Either way, the placing of dust or other shielding to reduce insolation would be a half-measure. These kinds of solutions are a way to address temperature rise due to excess CO₂, but do nothing to mitigate other problems that it causes, such as ocean acidification.

The optimum solution is to reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentrations to pre-industrial levels. This can be achieved by decreasing the amount of new CO₂ we put into the atmosphere, or by increasing the amount of CO₂ we remove from the atmosphere for geological timescales.

The first part is straightforward enough; We just need to burn less fossil fuel. But it's like losing weight by eating less food - it only works if you actually burn less fossil fuel. Hiding the fossil fuel burning behind intermittent generation of low emissions power is like refusing to eat your dinner in order to lose weight, but then sneaking a donut after everyone has gone to bed.

The atmosphere, like your waistline, doesn't respond to propaganda, or to public displays of virtue; It responds to what actually happens in aggregate over the long term.

Nobody cares how much of your dinner you left on your plate, or how many wind turbines or solar panels you installed. All that matters is the total amount of food you eat from all sources over the long term, or the total net amount of CO₂ you emitted, from the aggregate of all activities.

There's no mystery here. We can see what electricity generation strategies are effective against CO₂ emissions, and which are not. The countries with effective strategies are consistently coloured green on the maps I posted above, and the ones whose strategies are less effective are yellow, brown, or (for the least effective ones) black.

It's easy to see that investing in hydroelectric and nuclear power gets good results; Investing in gas as an alternative to coal gets poor results (but is better than nothing); and that investing in wind and solar gets good initial results, but that the return on further investment in these technologies drops off dramatically as they reach ~30% of supply.

That really should not be a surprise, because these technologies only operate about 30% of the time.