Between dreams and realities in Germany

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by Ahmed » 16/05/19, 18:15

@ Sicetaitsimple:
Yes ... And once we say that, what do we do?

We can pretend to ignore reality and go for it ... This is the way chosen! However, certain measures, despite their limits *, are always good to take.

I also find that the promotion of the bicycle presented as a "new mobility" is quite tasty, as well as wind or hydraulic energy which would be, it seems, "new"! :D

To echo your words, Bardal, not everything is overdetermined and the outcome could be different with not other means, but other objectives.

* Limits which often arise simply from the general context and not necessarily of average relevance (I am obviously not talking here about the Segolenian route!).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by sicetaitsimple » 16/05/19, 18:31

Ahmed wrote:I also find that the promotion of the bicycle presented as a "new mobility" is quite tasty, as well as wind or hydraulic energy which would be, it seems, "new"! :D

Well, so cycling can reduce (a little) the denominator if and only if you replace it with a car, and wind and hydraulics (very limited potential for increase for hydraulics at least in France) can increase the numerator.

You see, you know how to be positive!

Well, it may not be enough! Any other ideas?
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by Bardal » 16/05/19, 18:52

sicetaitsimple wrote:
bardal wrote: The denominator is not about to drop compared to today ...


Not really understood? Some solutions, including the electrification of transport that I mentioned and that you quote, lower the denominator and possibly allow an increase in the numerator.

After that, we should not dream, there will be no big night given the figures at stake and the inertia of certain sectors (a vehicle fleet lasts about 20 years, a housing stock around 100). Having "progress rates" of 0,5 or 1% per year is already a good performance.

PS: "rate of progression" being a completely generic term in my head and totally unsuitable depending on what data we are interested in, the idea being just to say that it is necessarily very slow.


For the denominator story, it's simple to understand: if for Germany electricity weighs 600 TWh (this is the denominator), with transport, heating and industry, it will weigh nearly 2000 TWh ... Those who bet on a reduction in the consumption of electricity in the energy transition to increase the rate of RES are completely mistaken in the statement of the problem: even by increasing the numerator, the rate of RES will not increase not...

After, on the rest, I am a little less pessimistic: the annual sale of vehicles is more than 2, on a fleet of 000 or 000 million, that is much more than 32%; the policy followed must also be very proactive; but the French car fleet had been dieselized in about 33 years, mainly due to fashion ...
As for the building stock, it is not a question of replacing it, but of renovating it; there too, with a voluntarist plan, is it utopian to hope to arrive there for the main part before 2050?

The graph published by Izentrop does not prove that the more there is of RE the more we emit GHGs; but it proves that if renewable energy replaces nuclear power, it does nothing in terms of CO2 emissions ... It remains to be seen what goal we are looking for (for the German Greens, I have no questions), and reflect before launching such an expensive program ... what could we have done with such sums, and with what benefits? 1 million homes renovated energetically, that 30 billion per year ... and that saves 10 TWh per year ... and in less than 20 years, we have eliminated all oil heating ... Daydreams against the background of corner calculations of table ? Maybe, but maybe not ... it deserves a little attention ...
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by sicetaitsimple » 16/05/19, 18:58

bardal wrote:For the denominator story, it's simple to understand: if for Germany the electricity weighs 600 TWh (this is the denominator),


Total misunderstanding, maybe I misspoke?
The denominator is in my mind the total energy consumption.

copying: [i] If you choose the green energy / total energy ratio as an indicator of greening[/ I]
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by sicetaitsimple » 16/05/19, 19:56

bardal wrote:The graph published by Izentrop does not prove that the more renewable energy the more GHGs we emit


Admittedly, it does not prove it, but let's say that it could let you think .... I do not know if you have looked at the definition of the ordinate, but it is about CO2 emissions per inhabitant .. ..all sectors combined.

In my opinion, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa would "place" very well in this graph. No?

Let's say that proposing a graph "CO2 emissions from the electricity sector" vs "ENRi penetration rate" would still be a little more correct, right?
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by Bardal » 16/05/19, 22:10

sicetaitsimple wrote:
bardal wrote:The graph published by Izentrop does not prove that the more renewable energy the more GHGs we emit


Admittedly, it does not prove it, but let's say that it could let you think .... I do not know if you have looked at the definition of the ordinate, but it is about CO2 emissions per inhabitant .. ..all sectors combined.

In my opinion, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa would "place" very well in this graph. No?

Let's say that proposing a graph "CO2 emissions from the electricity sector" vs "ENRi penetration rate" would still be a little more correct, right?


If it was CO2 emissions from the electricity sector, France's place would be much more favorable ... As for the countries of black Africa, I don't know, but they would be at the extreme margins of the table; but this picture is unstoppable for countries with a comparable level of development. Concretely, in (geographic) Europe 4 countries stand out: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and France, and none has a high rate of EnRi; two energies are in competition, hydraulics and nuclear ...

On the other hand, what is missing in this table, and distorts international comparisons, is the absence of the carbon footprint of the countries concerned; it is obvious that if we make our junk elsewhere, we will be cleaner while importing the products of these junk. This is obviously unfair.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by sicetaitsimple » 16/05/19, 22:36

bardal wrote:If it was CO2 emissions from the electricity sector, France's place would be much more favorable ...


It is absolutely certain!

But that was not the subject I was talking about. The subject was the correlation ENRi / CO2 emissions per capita. It is certain that in Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, the incentive to develop ENRi is relatively limited given the massive share of hydraulics, even if it is developing, at least in Scandinavia.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by izentrop » 17/05/19, 15:47

sicetaitsimple wrote:Let's say that proposing a graph of "CO2 emissions from the electricity sector" vs "ENRi penetration rate" would still be a little more correct, wouldn't it?
The article does not stop at this graph ...
Share of nuclear in the electricity mix and CO2 emissions
Image Among European countries, only Sweden, with nuclear power and hydropower, does better than France because it has, more than France, used electricity or wood for heating.
The European Commission has long displayed the ambition to build a European energy policy. We do not see how such a policy would be possible without a clear choice being made between the German and French models. With the German model Europe would emit 4,5 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, while with the French model these emissions would be reduced to 2,2 billion tonnes per year.

In the last report of the IPCC (Special Report 1.5, SR1.5) it is specified that to limit the increase in the average surface temperature to 1,5 ° C, the CO2 emissions should not exceed 43 billion tonnes per year. year in 2025, before decreasing, while in 2018 emissions have already reached 37 billion tonnes. For a world population of 9 billion, the 43 billion tonnes correspond to 4,8 tonnes per inhabitant. The French emit 4,38 tonnes per inhabitant and are therefore already on target, unlike the Germans who emit 8,88 tonnes per year and per inhabitant.

In these conditions how can we understand that the choice of Europe is not the French model? ...

waste is managed correctly and safely, without dispersion in the biosphere, unlike CO2, toxic discharges from coal and plastic power plants, for example. Action on CO2 emissions is urgent, in the opinion of all climatologists.
The rest is very interesting https://lenergeek.com/2019/05/09/rechau ... allemagne/
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by sicetaitsimple » 17/05/19, 17:25

izentrop wrote:
sicetaitsimple wrote:Let's say that proposing a graph of "CO2 emissions from the electricity sector" vs "ENRi penetration rate" would still be a little more correct, wouldn't it?
The article does not stop at this graph ...
Share of nuclear in the electricity mix and CO2 emissions
Image Among European countries, only Sweden, with nuclear power and hydropower, does better than France because it has, more than France, used electricity or wood for heating.


Once again, I am not questioning the figures that appear in these graphs, I am just saying that it is the "correlations" that seem to me doubtful. In this one, the title is "influence of the percentage of nuclear in the mix ", with the CO2 emissions from all sectors per pipe head on the y-axis. It is obvious that nuclear power plays a role, but if we use the term "influence", we imply that there is a direct correlation, which would only appear legitimate to me if, as I said above, we drew a graph "CO2 emissions
of the electricity sector "vs" part of nuclear "or" part of renewable energies "
However, Germany and France do not have the same climates, the same industrial structure, the same hydraulic potential, ... etc ... all of which contribute also to explain differences.
That said, it doesn't change the numbers.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Between dreams and realities in Germany




by sicetaitsimple » 17/05/19, 19:22

Complement: just try to place the figures of Italy, even of the United Kingdom on this graph (I chose significant European countries and not particularly provided with an exceptional hydraulic potential) and tell me then what can deduce?

PS: I had not seen the article and especially the name of its author. So indeed the members of "let's save the climate", including its founding president and author of the article, are generally very competent people in their field, who most often participated in the development of the French nuclear program, including intellectual honesty is not to be questioned. But they are most often very stale retirees, who revolve around their old battles without necessarily realizing that the world is changing.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 255 guests