News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
This sounds insane.
I would disagree vigorously if the minister said they wanted to build coal power plants, but at least you can make the case for it under the guise of domestic energy security. But methane gas power plants? It doesn't help with climate goals, it's not cheap to purchase LNG and it doesn't help with energy security either.
Is she double dipping from US and Russian oil lobby?
She's continuing the policy of her Green predecessor. Who was continuing a policy drawn up around the turn of the millennium by Fraunhofer: Balance renewables with gas peaker plants which then at one point can be weaned off fossil gas and switched over to synthetic gas. There's other forms of grid storage, but Germany can store three months worth of total (!) energy consumption in its pipeline network so it's ideal for long term, seasonal, storage.
Also see the deals Germany made with Namibia and Canada to supply green hydrogen (in the form of ammonia because easier to transport). Much of the German pipeline network is built to a standard that allows it to transport pure hydrogen (it started out as a hydrogen network) and re-declaring some pipes and building new ones is an ongoing process, there's going to be a full separate network before long.
Why not batteries? First off, those were nowhere near ready when Fraunhofer drew up the plan, secondly, they still don't have the same tradeoffs as synthesising fuel: They generally have higher round-trip efficiency, but also lose energy over time. Synthetic fuel is less efficient, but doesn't lose appreciable amounts of energy over time and it's much easier to store large amounts of it so that's what you want for long-term storage.
Not to mention that we'll need synthetic fuel for some applications anyway, e.g. catastrophe relief: You don't want to rely on electric field kitchens when the grid is down. The current ones run on diesel, just as all the vehicles, and you don't want to be in a situation where you can't use that 70yold semi-mothballed Unimog. The reserves are deep and push come to shove, you want to field them.
Hate that old Unimog, it stinks. Probably also the only one who can't run on HV0100.
Let's not only go back to increasing reliance on fossil fuels but also increasing reliance on some unstable geopolitical actors. A double whammy.
20 GW? This is crazy.
No, that's a rather conservative estimate. My federal state alone has more than 20GW in total capacities. And the backup for the rare days when neither solar nor wind produce relevant amounts needs to be able to cover the demand.
The actual point is having those power plants yet in the end never using them aside from those few days a year. And then producing the gas for them climate-neutrally with reneawable overproduction from the remaining 98% of the year.
PS: That the positive thing about solar and wind prices nowadays. They are actually so low that other production methods simply can't compete and won't be used more than actually needed.
PPS: That also the actual economic reason why nuclear is a bad idea. You also need enough production capacities for a cold winter night without solar and wind... but then producing less the remaining time of the year doesn't actually save you money because fuel is a miniscule part of nuclear costs. Have you never wondered why the two countries in the EU pushing for a properly scaled green hydrogen market are Germany and France? Because both models only work economically with peak-burners based on greenly produced gas.
But there are a lot of gas power plants in Germany already. If you want them just as back up, it would be easier to just convert coal power plants to biomass. For 2% it should be fine.
That's the point. The backup needs to produce (close to) 100% of the demand 2% of the time.
And coal plants are incredibly bad at quickly reacting. It takes a day just from ignition to working temperature, several days to establish the transport chain constantly providing the huge amounts of fuel needed (bonus points for a lot of them being ship-based and possibly suffering from low water levels).
Also there is a lot of industry that will already need climate-neutral gas produced by green energy as their only valid way for electrification. And in the end it's also a cost issue. If the industry already needs huge amounts of gas and the transport network anyway (of which a lot already exists - refitting natural gas networks for hydrogen has already started) the state doesn't need to pay much than just the power plants. And they are comparably cheap (the exact opposite of nuclear where constrution is expensive but fuel and operation are cheap).
There are currently plans for over 226GW of grid sized battery storage in Germany, so a bit of lead time is possible. Weather forecasts are a thing as well, so the grid operators will have a good idea, about how much power is available at any given time.
Network operators got requests to connect 226GW, which is a completely different thing. The bulk of those is not even going to have fleshed out financing plans. Also that's connection power, which might not be how much power the batteries can realistically deliver for more than seconds before overheating, much less over a whole day.
Generally speaking current battery tech isn't suitable for longer-term storage. Synthetic fuel is, which is why those gas plants were planned for from the very start of the energy transition and they're all going to be able to run on pure hydrogen without expensive modifications.
Network operators got requests to connect 226GW, which is a completely different thing.
So why would you request to connect a battery storage plant, without having any sort of plans for them? It needs to be realistic enough to invest the resources to look into it. Peak load was 75.775GW this year, so 226GW is roughly three times peak load or a lot more then needed. Usually they have an hour or two of storage capacity. So you do not need the power plants to meet peak load, but just enough to have them run 24/7 and then meet peak demand with batteries. So for a winter week Germany consumes about 9500GWh of electricity. So you need 56.5GW of power plants to run all the time to produce that. As of right now Germany has 36.7GW of gas, 6.4GW of hydro and 9.2GW of biomass. That means 4.2GW are missing. That is presuming no wind and solar generation at all and no grid connection with other countries.
Honestly just built hydrogen power plants right now. No need to make them methane gas powered in the meantime.
So why would you request to connect a battery storage plant, without having any sort of plans for them?
Because it's a bunch of paperwork you need to get in order to see whether what you have in mind is practical. One of the cheaper parts of the whole process so you do it first.
So for a winter week Germany consumes about 9500GWh of electricity. So you need 56.5GW of power plants to run all the time to produce that.
That's not how the maths works demand changes by hour of the day. Basic load generally fluctuates between 40 and 60GW so we're missing at least 4GW more plus safety buffer. And that's Germany's load, we also export electricity and when the lot of Germany has issues with renewable generation then it figures that Poland isn't likely to be in any better shape. If you catch a large enough geographical area then you'll never have trouble in all places at the same time but to capitalise on that we'd need network connections we don't have, and won't have for some time.
Add to that increased electricity demand as companies are switching from gas to electric. Things like glass smelters, things you can't even shut down: You either have 1600C in there or a very expensive write-off.
Honestly just built hydrogen power plants right now. No need to make them methane gas powered in the meantime.
They're quite literally the same thing. Burner nozzles might be different but that's not the expensive part, and it's not like making them able to burn all kinds of hydrogen/methane mixtures would be rocket science (it's turbine science).
Unless you mean fuel cell plants but those don't run on biofuel and municipal utilities have sewage to ferment (those produce methane). They also don't produce (much) heat which thus couldn't be put towards district heating which TBH we should have a whole lot more of.
Then there's yet another factor, and that's inertia: Gas plants have big heavy spinny things that act as dampeners on frequency fluctuations, buying operators precious time to increase or lower production to match demand without the whole network crashing. Yes you can regulate frequency in other ways, like capacitor banks or flywheels, but if you already have a flywheel why not accelerate it with a turbine?
Because itβs a bunch of paperwork you need to get in order to see whether what you have in mind is practical. One of the cheaper parts of the whole process so you do it first.
So the problem is money, which again can be fixed, with for subsidies. Like the subsidies paid to gas power plants.
Basic load generally fluctuates between 40 and 60GW so weβre missing at least 4GW more plus safety buffer.
With battery storage it is possible to charge up batteries, when you only need 40GW and then power the grid, when you need 60GW. So storage reduces the amount of peak power plants needed. Btw peaks in summer are lower, as a good number of consumers use rooftop solar, lowering grid demand, so 40-60GW is too little.
Theyβre quite literally the same thing.
Hydrogen and methane are not the same thing and especially when you plan for a mix of the two, you need two sets of pipelines. We are talking years until they are finished. Again might as well built hydrogen first. That creates demand for hydrogen, expands that grid making it easier for chemical companies and the like to connect to it as well. With a connection to the electricity grid, those sites would also be prime sites for electrolysis units.
So the problem is money, which again can be fixed, with for subsidies. Like the subsidies paid to gas power plants.
Money is never the problem. Not in the current climate where money is looking for safe havens. It's also about production and building capacity. These are project firms, funds managers etc. trying to find way to sink money. With "fleshing out the plans" I didn't mean "try to scrounge up money" but "put ink on paper that says who gets how much".
With battery storage it is possible to charge up batteries, when you only need 40GW and then power the grid, when you need 60GW.
And how many GWh do those batteries store.
Hydrogen and methane are not the same thing and especially when you plan for a mix of the two, you need two sets of pipelines. We are talking years until they are finished.
Germany already has a complete natural gas network, the hydrogen network already exists in patches and is going to be connected up... any year now. Most of it is re-using existing pipelines (they're often doubled up, if not even triple or quadruple), some of it is new construction. Have a look at a map, page 42, that's the core network. With the exception of the very south everything can be connected up using existing pipelines (solid lines), that thing won't have proper transmission capacity but it's already perfectly suitable to transmit the initial, lower, volumes.
Initial hydrogen demand is coming from steel smelters, they can't use methane. Dunno about hydrolizers going online in Germany on a grand scale, but we're certainly shipping them to Canada and Namibia.
This is Germany. The problem isn't that noone has done the maths, the problem, for the longest time, has been the CDU ignoring the maths that has been done. They seem to be finally getting on board though, not in the least because the energy giants told them to get on board as they've already switched over their investments.
You need something like 200-250GWh of storage to do that. Germany already has something like 39GWh of pumped hydro storage. So roughly 160-210GWh of new battery storage. China added 91GWh of grid scale batteries to its grid last year alone and they can be added very quickly. So this is actually realistic.
250GWh, at 50GW draw, last five hours. You're off by at least an order of magnitude if you want the backup to last two days.
When do I need 50GW? I do have the already built methane, hydro and biomass power plants to give me a sort of baseload. Then I modulate on that using batteries to meet peak demand. So I only need enough to meet the difference between that baseload and the actual load. In the case of no wind and solar I charge at night, when load is low and power the grid at day, when the load is high.
Doing that a grid can use less flexible power plants, like biomass power plants converted from coal power plants and it means I only need enough power plants to meet average daily demand and not peak demand. It is also possible to predict, when those plants are needed using a weather forecast.
Batteries are incredibly useful anyway for say summer nights without wind. Just store some solar electricity from the day, for the night. That is actually the more likely situation.
When do I need 50GW? I do have the already built methane, hydro and biomass power plants to give me a sort of baseload. Then I modulate on that using batteries to meet peak demand.
You're right, brainfart.
So I only need enough to meet the difference between that baseload and the actual load.
Nope you need more because transmission capacity isn't infinite, you cannot serve local demand spikes with far-away sources. those 60GW max are still an average. I don't have access to data of that level of detail, if it's public, then I don't know where.
All in all we're at the point where, for one of us to have an argument better than the other, we'd have to run an analysis over the actual market data taking all those various factors into account. The nitty-gritty.
So what I'm going to say instead is that that analysis has been run, and the Greens never had an issue with building these plants. You can say a lot about the Greens, but not that they're be bought by big fossil fuel, including Russia or the US.
20GW is way too much. Peak coal this year was 22GW and there is a huge wave of battery power plants coming as well. Seriously if you have to, just keep coal plants connected to the grid, in case of an emergency.
Fuck the US. We should buy from anyone but them. Canada would be the next best option from that direction.
Canada has no capacity to liquify natural gas. There's a shared Canada-US natural gas pipeline system, so some molecules one gets may be coming from Canadian extraction, but it'll pass through a US-based liquification plant, so from Germany's standpoint, that'd be where an export would come from, as that's where it'd be loaded onto a ship.
EDIT: Warren Buffett spent years trying to build one Canada-based LNG plant and fighting environmentalists opposed to it in Canada. He eventually threw in the towel.
