Archives for posts with tag: energiewende

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
__________________________________________________________________

Dunkelflaute

Der kommer store problemer med strømforsyningen i Tyskland når de sidste kernekraftværker lukker ned i 2022 og de fossile værker i årene derefter.

I perioder hersker der Dunkelflaute i Tyskland, hvilket betyder vindstille når det er mørkt.
I flere dage under Dunkelflaute var nøgletallene for tysk elforsyning omtrent følgende:
bla – De 26 000 vindmøller producerede mindre end 1 GW
bla – De 1,2 millioner solcelleanlæg max 2,3 GW ved middagstid.
bla – De af vejr og vind uafhængige kraftværker, der fyres med
bla – biobrændsler, samt Hydro anlæg, leverede ca. 7 GW.
I alt var den samlede “grønne” produktion godt 10 GW midt på dagen.
Efterspørgslen for El energi, uden varme og med lidt til transport er dog næsten 75 GW.
Det betyder, at ca. 90 % af El produktionen kom fra kernekraft, fossil energi samt import, der for en del vil være kernekraft.
Kilde: Der Spiegel, der er næsten bandlyst af “de grønne”.

ENDNU:
I begyndelsen af det ambitiøse Energiewende, har det kun haft økonomiske konsekvenser.
Mere om de tyske besværligheder.

Hvis man ”sådan bare” vil gemme døgnvariationer i batterier, vil allerede dette blive rasende dyrt.

  • Her vil det være naturligt at spørge om importerede biobrændsler i realiteten er grønt.
    I hvert fald er det ikke grønt når man i Tyskland ødelægger landsbysamfund for at skaffe brunkul til nye kraftværker.
  • Naturligvis er det muligt at gemme biofuel og biogas til brug ved behov for backup.
    Dette, som så meget andet, vil kun blive en dyr dråbe i havet.
    Det er ikke set foreslået – seriøst.
  • Nye muligheder for Hydro er næsten ikke eksisterende.
  • I europæisk sammenhæng er der stort set kun en mulighed for ny og betalelig pumped storage.
    Det drejer sig om et Mega-stort anlæg i Skotland der forudsætter at man pumper saltvand op i en ferskvandssø.

Tysk solkraft variation For solenergien alene haves følgende:
– På den bedste dag: 21. juni
producerede solcellerne
23 GW ved middagstid.
– Tilsvarende: 18. januar
produceredes knapt 1 GW
Også ved middagstid.
Naturligvis ikke så meget resten af dagen og intet om natten.

Hvis solenergi, som planlagt, skal levere en væsentlig del af det tyske behov – også om vinteren.
Så vil der naturligvis blive katastrofal overproduktion om sommeren.
Denne energi kan ikke ”sådan bare” eksporteres til Norge, der selv har rigelig vandkraft om sommeren og gerne vil eksportere.
Måske kan Polen aftage noget.

  • Det er naturligvis forståeligt, at den tyske industri gerne vil have en ekstra gaspipeline etableret fra Rusland, gennem Østersøen, så de i fremtiden har backup til vind og solenergi.
    Dette vil naturligvis forsinke det endelige sammenbrud af det ambitiøse Energiewende.
  • Måske kan det også forstås at der drømmes om en forbindelse til Norge.
    Sådan en forbindelse vil være lang, dyr og have et betydeligt energitab.
  • For mig er det aldeles uforståeligt at ”den tyske opinion” ikke har forstået situationens alvor.
  • Den eneste forklaring jeg kan finde er at al den hurlumhej er resultatet af en dygtig og hæmningsløs propaganda, hvor alt der omhandler atom og radioaktivitet gøres til en stor risiko.
  • I sandhedens interesse nævnes at et tysk studie angives at finde øget forekomst af leukemi blandt børn der boede nær ved kernekraftanlæg.
    Antallet er lille og hvis studiet er pålideligt, må det sammenlignes med skader, der kan henføres til brug af kul og brunkul.

Naturligvis også i Danmark.


Nul vindkraft - næsten

Klik på diagrammet for fuld størrelse og detaljer.

Man ser at der var en periode på over 48 timer hvor vindmøllerne nøjes med at køre i tomgang.
Senere, da vinden kom tilbage, var der en kort periode hvor højeste ydelse nåde op på 1450 MW – svarer til en udnyttelsesgrad på 27 %

Et forsøg på at vurdere de få tilgængelige talværdier kan findes nederst på en anden blog http://wp.me/p1RKWc-DA

Og en vurdering af en “super-grøn” drøm: https://wp.me/s1RKWc-4u

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
_________________________________________________________________

Dunkelflaute

We can expect huge problems for the power supply in Germany, when the last nuclear power plant shut down in 2022 and the fossil plants in the years thereafter.
At times there is Dunkelflaute in Germany, which means windless when it is dark.
For several days during Dunkelflaute, the key figures for the German electricity supply were approximately the following:
– 26 000 wind turbines produced less than 1 GW
– 1.2 million solar panels (PV) max 2.3 GW at noon.
– The power plants not depending on wind and weather and instead
– ..- depending on biofuels and Hydro supplied about 7 GW.
In all, the total “green” production was less than 10 GW at midday.
Demand for Electric energy, not considering heat and a little for transport, is almost 75 GW.
More at peak times.
This means that approximately 90% of electricity production came from nuclear power, fossil fuels and imports, some of this will be nuclear.
Source: Der Spiegel, which is almost banned by “the greens”.

YET:
Still, at the beginning of the ambitious Energiewende, it only has economic consequences.
More about the German difficulties.

If you want to save, just the day-night variations, in batteries, already this will be furiously expensive.

  • Here it is natural to ask wether imported biofuels in fact is green.
    At least, it is not green when we see how Germany destroys villages in order to get space for strip mining for brown coal to feed the new power plants.
  • If you want to store biofuels or biogas for backup, it will be nothing but a very expensive drip in the ocean.
    Until now I have not seen anything in this direction.
  • New opportunities for Hydro are almost nonexistent.
  • In the European context, there is virtually only one opportunity for new and affordably pumped storage.
    This is a Mega-sized plant in Scotland which assumes that we can pump brine into a fresh water lake.

Tysk solkraft variation For solar energy alone we have the following:
– The best day: June 21 the solar
cells produced 23 GW
at noon.
– Similarly, 18 January the
production was less than
1 GW, also at noon.
Of course, not so much the rest of the day and nothing at night.

If solar energy, as planned, should provide an essential part of the German needs – even at wintertime.
Then, of course, there will be disastrous overproduction in summer.
This energy can’t “just” be exported to Norway, which have abundant hydropower in the summer and would like to export.
Perhaps Poland may buy something.

  • It is of course understandable that German industry would like to have an extra gas pipeline established from Russia through the Baltic Sea.
    Then, in the future, they have backup for wind and solar energy.
    At least until the final collapse of the ambitious Energiewende.
  • Perhaps it can also be understood that there are dreams of a connection to Norway.
    Such a connection will be long, expensive and have a considerable energy loss.

To me it is utterly incomprehensible that the “German public opinion” has not understood the seriousness of the situation.

  • The only explanation I can find is, that all this hubbub is the result of a skillful and relentless propaganda, where everything dealing with nuclear and radioactivity has been done to be a major risk.

Greetings and good reflection
Thorkil Søe

Strong European Grid

But there are times when the European Wind power will not provide more than a fraction of what is needed.
The assumption used in the diagram below is that 50% of each country’s electricity generation would be supplied by a combination of wind and hydro.
In tis way you get Wind -- To uger med lav
Hourly wind surpluses and deficits by country, January 2016
Call it baseload or what you like. But click on the diagram.

Englisch Übersetzung http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11F

In gewisser Weise war es Deutschland, die erste ging, weil nach der Wiedervereinigung Kernenergie in Europa zu begrenzen begann.
Es ist schwer, etwas anderes als politische Motive zu finden.

Zunächst ist eine Zusammenfassung von Informationen aus Organisation REO, die plädieren für eine ausgewogene Beurteilung der Energie, insbesondere der Kernenergie.

  • Fünf Reaktoren in der ehemaligen DDR Deutschland wurden während der deutschen Wiedervereinigung geschlossen.
  • Vier Reaktoren in Bulgarien und Slowenien wurden als Bedingung für den Zugang zum EU geschlossen.
  • Drei Reaktoren in Deutschland wurden vor der Katastrophe in Fukushima geschlossen.
  • Acht weitere deutsche Reaktoren nach der Katastrophe von Fukushima waren geschlossen.
  • Ein kompletter Reaktor in Österreich und ein anderer in Deutschland wird nie zum Einsatz.

Zusätzlich geschlossen zwei Reaktoren in Barsebäck, auch wegen des politischen Drucks.
Mit keinem anderen Rechtfertigung als eine aufgeblähte, aber äußerst unfaire öffentliche Meinung in Dänemark.

So wurde für 15 GW Energie geschlossen, die leicht verfügbar heute sein könnte.

Um die Versorgung und das grüne Modell zu halten hat große Menge an Solarenergie und Windkraft ausgegeben.
Trotzdem war es notwendig, den Einsatz zu beginnen
12 MW neuer Kohlekraftwerke.

Eine Folge davon war:

Brunkul i TysklandVon vielen Seiten kritisiert der ehrgeizigen Pläne.
Vorläufige was Vorläufige was darauf hindeutet, all dies zu Deutschland nicht nur ihre Wirtschaft zu ruinieren, sondern zerstört auch das Klima zu speichern.

All dies kann in einem reichen Land natürlich tun.
 
In Deutschland fühlt sich offenbar wird die Welt untergehen, wenn es in einem Atomkraftwerk ein schwerer Unfall ist.

Tilbageflyttere ved Tjernobyl.pngTjernobyl dyreliv.pngAber dann (März 2016) beginnt der Spiegel zu erklären, wie all diese teuren Maßnahmen waren nicht erforderlich und so viel Angst vor der Kernenergie war stark übertrieben.

und Tiere sie verstehen nichts.
.
Mit dem folgenden von Der Spiegel (März 2013), gibt es keinen Anhaltspunkt dafür, dass die “Grünen” zu verstehen beginnen – langsam.

Selv dieser Konflikt berührt alle politiska Parteien, keiner ist mehr påvirket als die Grünen.
Seit der Gründung der Partei im Jahr 1980 verfocht har ein Atomausstieg und Kämpfte für saubere Energie.
Aber jetzt ist thatthis phaseout im Gange, sind die Grünen einen großen Teil von sina Traum zu verwirklichen – die utopische Idee einer Gesellschaft, die auf “gute” Leistung betrieben wird – wird sich in Luft verschwinden.
Grüne Energie, theyhave gefunden, kommt zu einem enormen Kosten.
Und die Umwelt også zahlen einen Preis, wenn die Dinge in Gang halten, wie sie havebeen.

In Deutschland haben Sie Das Bürokratie-Monster erreicht:
Von Der Spiegel Oktober 2013 zitiert:
“Vergessen wir nicht, dass die deutschen Bürokraten über 4.000 verschiedene Subventionskategorien für erneuerbare Energien entstanden sind und anscheinend an dem Prinzip festhalten, dass das, was besonders teuer ist, großzügig subventioniert werden muss.”

2016 August lesen wir, dass Deutschland die Subventionssystem ändern.
Es bedeutet, dass Sie das bestehende System verlassen wird basierend auf
Einspeisetarif zugunsten eines Systems nach Plänen auf Auktion Verträge zu liefern” erneuerbaren “Strom an den billigsten Anbieter.
Die verdorbene A-Kraft ist nicht als hartnäckig definiert.
Es ist nur billig und stabil.

und vieles mehr

Das Energy Collective gibt Januar 2017 ein sehr langer Versuch einer Bewertung.
Informationen und Ansprüche sind in alle Richtungen.

Aber die wirklich verheerende Regel ist, dass “Green Energy” Netzwerkpriorität hat.
Das bedeutet, dass “Die anderen” nur Backup sein sollten.
Obwohl es die Wirtschaft zerstört, wird davon ausgegangen, dass “das traditionelle” weiterhin vorhanden sein muss.
Dies ist “so nur” angegeben, um $ 24 Milliarden pro Jahr zu kosten.
Wenn die Informationen von Die kollektive Energie ist zuverlässig, es entspricht die Kosten für vier neue Reaktoren pro Jahr zu bauen.
Aber egal, was das Risiko einer Xenon-Vergiftung (Xe135) und eine Katastrophe von Tschernobyl, machen es unmöglich, die Kernenergie kann als back-up verwendet werden.

Agora Energiewende Bewertung 2014 bietet eine Fülle von Daten, die offenbar sorgfältig ist ausgewählt.
Aber egal was passiert, kann man sehen, dass die deutschen „traditionelle Kraftwerke“ geschickt worden sind bei den Netto-Ausgleich.

Der Spiegel, dass forkætres der grünen, bietet Informationen über Dunkelflaute, „dunkle Wind Arten“ bedeutet.
Das habe ich versucht, auf einer anderen Seite zu behandeln .

„Mehr Es folgt aus dem vorstehenden, dass Deutschland, die schwer zu grün, und kontaminationsfrei arbeitet –
Ja, sie kann das Hinterrad aus der „Atom-France“ nicht einmal sehen.

März 2017 die deutsche Energiewende wieder auf die The Energy Collective kommt.
Sie lesen, dass wir entweder wiederholen kann Deutschland die Fehler oder
von ihnen zu lernen.
Offenbar lernen die Bevölkerung nicht.

​​Auf einer anderen Seite, auch von die Energie gemeinschaftlich, sieht, dass in Deutschland Strom fast 10mal mehr verschmutzenden ist im Vergleich zu dem Französisch.
Man bekommt die Daten aus dem 2016.
Deutschland erzeugten 545 TWh und entladen im April 560 g CO2 pro kWh
Frankreich erzeugt 530 TWh und entladen im April 58 g CO2 pro kWh

Und dann.
Obwohl ich gesagt habe es viele Male:
Der Spiegel schreibt, dass die gefürchtete Radioaktivität nicht so gefährlich sein kann, wie wir dachten.

Netzwerkprobleme


Sehr selten gibt es Informationen über die Kosten von Energiewende zur Verfügung.
Von Das Energy Collective Collective , wie folgt:

Redispatch (Umverteilung)

In Perioden gibt es nicht genügend Kapazität, die Energie zu übertragen.
Dies bedeutet, dass die billigste Energie nicht verkauft werden kann und das “Netz” bedeutet teurer werden.
Zum Beispiel, wenn es in Norddeutschland viel Wind und ein großes Bedürfnis in Süddeutschland gibt.

År – – Antal dage Energimængde Omkostninger
2013 – – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 137 million €
2014 – – 330 – – – – – 5.197 GWh – – – 187 million €
2015 – – – – — – – – 16.000 GWh – – – 412 million €

Hier sind die folgenden:
Jahr
2013 – – 555 GWh
2014 – – 4.722 GWh

Die folgende Abbildung gibt einen Überblick über die Kosten (Mio € / Jahr).
Deutsch omkostninger.png

Gesamt

Bis 2015 stiegen die Gesamtausgaben auf 715 Mio. €

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
______________________________________________________________________
In a way, it was Germany that took the lead, when Europe, after the German reunification, began to limit the use of nuclear energy. .
It’s hard to find anything but political motives.

The first is a summary of information from the Danish organization REO, who advocate a balanced assessment of energy, particularly nuclear energy.

  • Five reactors in the former East Germany were closed during the German Reunification.
  • Four reactors in Bulgaria and Slovenia were closed as a condition of access to the EU.
  • Three reactors in Germany were closed before the disaster at Fukushima.
  • Eight other German reactors were closed after the disaster at Fukushima.
  • A complete reactor in Austria and another in Germany have never been put to use.
  • One more reactor was closed December 2017.
    Also this reactor had been running without problems.

In addition, two reactors at Barsebäck (Sweden) were closed, also due to political pressure.
Thus we have closed for 15 GW of clean energy that could easily be available today.

In order to maintain the supply and the green model, Europe, and especially Germany, has spent huge amounts on solar energy and wind power.
Nevertheless, it has been necessary to start the construction of
12 GW of new coal-fired power plants.
Equivalent to about eight modern reactors.

The consequence of this has been:

Now slowly:
A basic understanding of the fact that it will not even be green.
AND
From many sides a beginning distrust in the sustainability of the ambitious plans.
Brunkul i Tyskland

Repeated concern that Germany is ruining both land-shapes and economy.
But even destroys the climate
In order to save it.

.

And now, after many years, we start to understand, that most of the horror-stories about radiation at Chernobyl is nothing but the usual falsifikations from Greenpeace and followers.

All this can naturally be done in a rich country.
Still it may be difficult.

But in Germany it is apparently felt that it will be the end of the world if there should be a serious accident at a nuclear power plant.

And then, (March 2016) Der Spiegel got the curage to explain how all these expensive measures were unnecessary and that the fear of nuclear energy was grossly exaggerated.

Tilbageflyttere ved Tjernobyl.png
Tjernobyl dyreliv.pngBut no matter what:
Some live happily in the highly contaminated area of Chernobyl.
They are more afraid of starving than they are for radioactivity.

And the animals,
they understand nothing.

BUT
It is high time, we should understand

With the following, from Der Spiegel (March 2013), there are signs to suggest that the “Greens” are beginning to understand – Slowly.

Although this conflict touches all political parties, none is more affected than the Greens.
Since the party’s founding in 1980, it has championed for a nuclear phaseout and fought for clean energy.
But now, that this phaseout is underway, the Greens are realizing a large part of their dream – the utopian idea of a society operating on “good power” – is vanishing into thin air.
Green energy, they have found, comes with an enormous cost.
And, the environment will also pay a price if things keep going as they have been.

In Germany they have reached a typical ”Bureaucracy Monster”:
From Der Spiegel October 2013 I quote:
And let’s not forget that the German bureaucrats have come up with over 4,000 different subsidy categories for renewable energy, apparently adhering to the principle that what is particularly expensive has to be lavishly subsidized.
Therefore:
August 2016 we read that Germany will change the subsidy system.
It will mean that they will leave the existing system based on
feed-in tariff in favor of a system based on plans to auction contracts to deliver “renewable” electricity to the lowest bidder.

The controversial nuclear power is clean.
You will have enough uranium and thorium for some 100,000 years.
Still it can not be defined as renewable / green.
Only reliable.

Now, 2018

the “Green” in Finland starts to support Nuclear Power as the way forward to cheap and pollution-free power.
I dare to ask: When will Germany surrender?

The not so distant future:
Trillion-euro cost of German energy transition

German energy and environment minister Peter Altmaier said that costs for the plans to reform and restructure the country’s energy sector by the end of the 2030s could reach $ 1 trillion.
This amount will correspond to the fact that every German – children as old – will pay 1.5 Euro daily in the period from 2010 when Energiewende was launched, until 2030 where it can no longer be hidden that the money was wasted.

And much more

January 2017 The Energy Collective gives a very long attempt at an assessment.
Information and claims are pointing in all directions.

But the truly devastating rule is that “Green Energy” has got
Network Priority.
This means that “The Others” are reduced to be backup and ‘shall just’ stay idle until they are called up when suddenly needed.
Although it is destroying the economy, it is ‘just’ assumed that “the traditional” must continue to be available.

If information from The Energy Collective is reliable, the cost associated with this will amount to € 20 billion per year, corresponding to the price of building four new reactors annually. As exported from Korea.

New reactors are better when it comes to ramp-up and down.
More than enough to follow the changes in the load.
Still:
The risk of Xenon poisoning (Xe135) and a disaster like at Chernobyl
will make it very difficult for nuclear power to be used as backup for the unreliable solar and wind.

Agora Energewende Review 2014 provides a wealth of data that seems to be carefully selected.
But, no matter what, it can be seen that the German “traditional power plants” have still been able to balance the network.

Der Spiegel, despised by the green, provides information on Dunkelflaute, which means “dark windless”.
I’ve tried to evaluate this on another page.

Although I have said it many times:
Der Spiegel writes that the dreaded radioactivity may not be as dangerous as we have been told.

More KK less Pollution It appears from the above that Germany, although they are working hard to become green and free of pollution – – –
Yes they can not even see the rear wheel from “Atom-France”.
An interactive diagram can be seen by clicking here.
The page is slow, but it is worth the efforts.

March 2017, you read on The Energy Collective that we can either repeat Germany’s mistakes or learn from them.
Apparently, the German population does not want to learn.

​​On another page, also from The Energy Collective, shows that Germany’s electricity is almost 10 times more polluting, compared to the French.
You get data from 2016.
Germany generated 545 TWh and polluted 560 g CO2 per kWh
France generated 530 TWh and polluted 58 g CO2 per kWh

CO2 Tyskland og Frankrig - Kopi
Also.
Although I have said so many times:
Der Spiegel writes that the feared radioactivity may not be as dangerous as we have believed.

Problems related to management of the network.

Very rarely we find information about the costs of Energiewende.
From The Energy Collective Collective, I have the following information.

Redispatch (Redistribution)

In periods, there is not enough capacity to transfer the energy.
This means that the cheapest energy can not be sold and the “net” is forced to use more expensive supplies.
For example, if there is a lot of wind in northern Germany and a great need in southern Germany.

bla Year Number of days Energy – – – – Costs
bla 2013 – – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 137 million €
bla 2014 – – 330 – – – – – 5.197 GWh – – – 187 million €
bla 2015 – – – – — – – – 16.000 GWh – – – 412 million €

Curtailed energy

In periods, there has been more energy (from the sun) than the demand.
Here we have the following:
bla Year
bla 2013 – – 555 GWh
bla 2014 4.722 GWh

The figure below gives an overview of the costs (Million €/year).German costs.pngTyske omkostninger

What has been the costs for all this?

From The New York Times Dec. 25, 2017, I quote:

  • Germany has spent $ 200 billion over the past two decades to promote cleaner sources of electricity.

I dare to correct: Not even clean.

This amount ($ 200 billion) corresponds to the price of 40 new reactors similar to those exported from Korea to the UAE.
And about the same if considering export from Russia.
Or about 15 of the unreasonably expensive reactors under construction in England.

May be the realities will be seen.

Especially when we consider that the “green energy” does not come for free.

But also in the United States


Duck c
Without having more than a suspicion, I claim, that “own use” of electricity from solar is excluded from the data used for the figure above.

Conclution

Dear unknown reader:
Try to consider the above and draw your own conclution.

In the meantime I ask:
Are we, in Denmark and especially in Germany, behaving as the man, jumping out of an airplane – without a parachute – saying:
“Look it is fine. Soon I will be halfway and everything is going well.”