Why Solar and Wind cannot power Germany

Electric resistance heating is close to being 100% energy efficient.
The generation of said electricity is unlikely to be anywhere near that.
I don't see how Europe is going to go over to electric resistance heating any time soon, that being said many places in France don't have gas at home, when I stayed in Provence we used electric heating.

The key is actually to think though. Insulating a home properly is cheaper over long term than paying for heating, and thats where your money should be invested.
Finally, a topic that we agree on and South Africa has a particular advantage here, insulting a newly build home in most cases include just changing the construction practices a bit and installing double glazing/other materials.

South Africans of course experience shorter winters and that was always the argument against insulation.

Energy use is actually decreasing per capita. We're moving away from inefficient usage, towards more efficiency - I would argue that this is being driven by costs.
Correct, but some economists do suggest that the falling energy per capita actually reflects wage stagnation. There is also only so much efficiency that you can get out of a said item, eventually you do reach a physical limit.

In the 60's and early 70s' (pre-oil pricing wars) energy was cheap, and things were inefficient. Lighting took up a huge portion of supply, as did other inefficient things like heating drafty houses, with no insulation!

We've moved on from that, and lighting is taking an ever decreasing % of demand, and houses are getting insulated.

I would calculate in my house, its less than 1% of usage for lighting.
Insulation and double or triple glazing is becoming standard, at least oversea's.
I don't get why in SA people don't look into home insulation, if you design it properly then you can just open your windows in summer.
 
Last edited:
Actually there are quite a few places in Johannesburg covered by Egoli gas that make it cheaper to heat with gas, but it's not a lot of areas within Johannesburg :-(.

Gas in SAs inefficient homes is going to be wasted, but SA is going to get more gas from our own supplies and Mozambique (well if Isis allows that)
 
The other thing - that @richjdavies as pointed out -

It’s a waste to turn electricity into heat directly. Not because of efficiency though, but because there are better ways - If you make only one unit of heat from a unit of electricity, that’s a waste. Heatering with heat pumps or ground-source heat pumps can do much better, delivering 3 or 4 units of heat for every unit of electricity consumed.

Already covered though.
 
The other thing - that @richjdavies as pointed out -

It’s a waste to turn electricity into heat directly. Not because of efficiency though, but because there are better ways - If you make only one unit of heat from a unit of electricity, that’s a waste. Heatering with heat pumps or ground-source heat pumps can do much better, delivering 3 or 4 units of heat for every unit of electricity consumed.

Already covered though.
Yes yes a thousand times yes.
I don't understand why in so many places in SA, water and space heating is done by a simple element! Still a philosophy in building that electricity is cheap (it aint!) and buyers are idiots (some aren't :))
Feels so much like there is a big opportunity for small heat pumps that cool in summer, heat in winter and heat your water all year round!

Either that or cryto mining PC with waste heat for hot water? Anyone else or just me :)
 
Actually there are quite a few places in Johannesburg covered by Egoli gas that make it cheaper to heat with gas, but it's not a lot of areas within Johannesburg :-(.
That was news to me. Thanks for the tip!
Any idea where to find prices. Only thing that comes up with Google is a times piece saying how price rises in 2007.were hurting people! There own site doesn't make price obvious!
 
That was news to me. Thanks for the tip!
Any idea where to find prices. Only thing that comes up with Google is a times piece saying how price rises in 2007.were hurting people! There own site doesn't make price obvious!
Don't know the pricing unfortunately as I'm out of their coverage area.
 
1606466318071.png

to further emphasize my point on the space and why I still maintain that it's a problem.
 
View attachment 961316

to further emphasize my point on the space and why I still maintain that it's a problem.
The rebuttal for that would be

Solar Array - install -> usable time in months (weeks even), from 'breaking ground'.
Wind - install -> usable time in months, from 'breaking ground'.
Nuclear - install -> usable time in a decade+, from 'breaking ground'.

Area used for Nuclear cannot be used for anything else. Externalities are also not catered for - eg cleanup costs in 40-60years time.

Solar and Wind area can be used for other things concurrently. Farming, etc.
 
The rebuttal for that would be

Solar Array - install -> usable time in months (weeks even), from 'breaking ground'.
Wind - install -> usable time in months, from 'breaking ground'.
Nuclear - install -> usable time in a decade+, from 'breaking ground'.

Area used for Nuclear cannot be used for anything else. Externalities are also not catered for - eg cleanup costs in 40-60years time.

The same goes for the area of using mining, not a concern,

I agree that Nuclear's construction cost is an issue, but my view is it will come down with the new investments and reskilling,

The 60 year limit of plants can be extended to 80 years (Koeberg is now getting a 20 years extension), the challenge is at the politicians try and get involved and they screw it all up. (like with Fessenheim in France)

Decommissioning costs is around 10% of the construction cost (well it's proejcte to be that), it's also not as complicated, for most of it you just use a diamond blade and cut up the steel and the concrete. The Chinese has a better perspective with decommissioning ie they test everything that is radioactive on the site and only waste treat those parts, the Germans are as usual paranoid and consider almost everything from the site as radioactive (hence their skyrocketing costs).


Fesseinheim is now going to be replaced by a mix of renewables and coal (it feels like the German story all over again).

From google translating that article,
"Since September, France has rekindled four coal-fired power stations with high CO2 emissions to partially compensate for the shutdown of Fessenheim and the lack of wind for the wind turbines. Also since September, because of the Fessenheim shutdown, EDF has had to import gas and coal-fired electricity into Germany at a very high cost."

Solar and Wind area can be used for other things concurrently. Farming, etc.

I will put this compromise with you though, I do think that Solar and Wind will be expanding at a rapid rate in the next 5-10 years, but lets see on the long term how it works out.
 
Last edited:
Energy density, land density. It just doesnt matter.
Its like looking at the light to wheel size ratio for a new car; a metric yes, possibly trending in a particular way, but of no consequence!

Cost, carbon, jobs - these are important things...

The karoo is huge and empty and has huge HV power lines across it already.
 
Energy density, land density. It just doesnt matter.
Its like looking at the light to wheel size ratio for a new car; a metric yes, possibly trending in a particular way, but of no consequence!

Cost, carbon, jobs - these are important things...

The karoo is huge and empty and has huge HV power lines across it already.
And when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing? What do you do then? Expensive peaking plants are fired up to take the load, everyone complains about when Eskom uses the OCTGs to prevent load shedding.
But that's what their jobs are for, to take over when base load cannot meet demands and when your demands are early morning and early evening the sun isn't generating enough power.
The wind is also not reliable can even see it by looking at the Eskom data portal, sometimes we can hit high peaks of 1Gw same as at the peak of sun we hit 1.7Gw, but by the evening when demand is needed PV is non existent and CSP is maybe 100Mw and wind can be as low as 400Mw so a massive 500Mw from renewables, out of a possible 4Gw
 
And when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing? What do you do then? Expensive peaking plants are fired up to take the load, everyone complains about when Eskom uses the OCTGs to prevent load shedding.
But that's what their jobs are for, to take over when base load cannot meet demands and when your demands are early morning and early evening the sun isn't generating enough power.
The wind is also not reliable can even see it by looking at the Eskom data portal, sometimes we can hit high peaks of 1Gw same as at the peak of sun we hit 1.7Gw, but by the evening when demand is needed PV is non existent and CSP is maybe 100Mw and wind can be as low as 400Mw so a massive 500Mw from renewables, out of a possible 4Gw

As I said, let's see how long this hype lasts before the real costs set in, building 79skm of wind farms or solar panels to match Koeberg sounds nice on paper, I want to see how you clean the panels spread over an area of that size, once the Karoo wind blows.

I am also curious to see how none of these panels are going to be stolen, copper wires going to go missing etc etc. Not to mention that the cost of gas will likely increase as they will need to be deployed to different locations in the country,


Theoretically all these problems can be overcome, you can technically adopt your grid for intermittence etc, but it is one massive exercise in complexity, compared to 1 single source that provides base load at a reliable rate and competitive cost. This sounds to be as one massive exercise in futility, but engineers and scientists have historically had a tendency to overcomplicate systems.

I still maintain that the LNG companies love Wind and Solar, because they know that the system will ultimately allow them to sell gas when the intermittence fails. This massive craze deployment is one big subsidy for them and that is why I am not surprise that the Koch Brothers are also funding the Sierra club.

To illustrate what I mean, France recently closed down its Fessenheimer Power Plant, and it could easily have had its life extended for another 20 years.


The proponents of Renewables promised us that it is going to be Unicrons and Rainbows, but in practice France now has to relight some coal power plants to make up for the intermittency.

You see this pattern repeating itself in Germany, the UK, California, etc, but when we point this out, the evidence is caveated away.

The Chinese are slowly and steadily building more Nuclear Power plants and perfecting the technique, while putting the renewable face on. They know that the western countries have lost their know-how on building these power stations and it is just one more step in the direction of outcompeting everyone else.
 
Last edited:
This is why the guys who got into Solar / Wind early are paying the price... it's different if you start doing solar/wind now:

They are down to $40/MWh = about R0.60/kWh -- that's cheaper than Eskom does OLD coal for.
1606908320941.png
 
This is why the guys who got into Solar / Wind early are paying the price... it's different if you start doing solar/wind now:

They are down to $40/MWh = about R0.60/kWh -- that's cheaper than Eskom does OLD coal for.
View attachment 965594
Add in the peaking plant as well, don't forget that cost.
 
Add in the peaking plant as well, don't forget that cost.

and the needed upgrades to the grid,

but that being said in SA at this stage no one has any choice but going Solar, it does have that advantage of not having to rely on Eskom.
 
and the needed upgrades to the grid,

but that being said in SA at this stage no one has any choice but going Solar, it does have that advantage of not having to rely on Eskom.
Yup and it will need to be done for yourself and battery packs.
 
Add in the peaking plant as well, don't forget that cost.
If you have to run the gas peaker 4 hours per day every day it would still be cheaper:
175/6 = about 30usd
+ Solar or wind at $40
= Less than $100 coal!

This time it REALLY is different! Solar and wind are not just cheaper, they are MUCH MUCH cheaper.
Grid cost, meh... Put the solar where the grid is!
 
Here is a visual image of the land required for the Wind Turbine, so that we know what we are talking about. (they are probably more efficient along the coast).

As I say, I would like to get back on this after 5 years, since every 2nd company is on the let's go solar, let's go wind sauce train.

We've been here before, but I remain skeptical that we can just rapidly expand it on an area that size.
 

Attachments

  • land area.jpg
    land area.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Here is a visual image of the land required for the Wind Turbine, so that we know what we are talking about. (they are probably more efficient along the coast).

As I say, I would like to get back on this after 5 years, since every 2nd company is on the let's go solar, let's go wind sauce train.

We've been here before, but I remain skeptical that we can just rapidly expand it on an area that size.
Where did you pull that from?

8GW could be done with a total of 620 offshore 13MW turbines.
GE claim capacity factor of 60-64%, which is lower to than Koebergs high 70%.

Koeberg on the other hand is 1.8GW. Apples to apples for 1.8GW you'd need 140 turbines. Or 165 turbines to be equivalent to the same capacity factor as Koeberg. 1km distance recommended distance turbine to turbine, so you wouldn't need that much space.


For comparison the worlds largest farm is Jiuquan Wind Power Base in China, with a planned installed capacity of 20GW and 7000 turbines.

So that graphic is more than a little bit bogus.

The other important point is that the land (or sea) is still usable now, and in the future even with a turbine on it.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X