this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
77 points (93.3% liked)

Europe

1578 readers
540 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when 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, 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 the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived link

Laying out key priorities for the EU's upcoming Clean Industrial Deal, German Economy State Secretary Sven Giegold said on Monday (30 September) he wants the Commission to prioritise renewable energy, taking a tough line on nuclear power and France’s renewable targets.

Alongside a quicker roll-out of renewable energy facilitated by “further exemptions from [environmental impact] assessments,” Giegold outlined several other German priorities for the EU’s upcoming strategy.

Based on the 2030 renewable energy targets, the EU should also set up a 2040 framework, complemented by new, more ambitious targets for energy efficiency, he said.

“It should include new heating standards, a heat pump action plan and a renovation initiative,” he explained, noting a heat pump action plan was last shelved in 2023.

Hydrogen, made from renewables, should be governed by a “a pragmatic framework,” the German politician stressed, reiterating calls from his boss, Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), to delay strict production rules into the late 2030s.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thepreciousboar@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

There are ways to modulate production even with "flat" production. A clever way is to use water as energy accumulator: you pump water into a dam during the night, that you later let flow through turbines during the day.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If artificial reservoirs were feasible, they would be better used to flatten the production from renewables.

In practice it is only feasible in areas that have existing natural geographic features.

Germany already have hydroelectricity accounting for 3% of their production, however 3% is nowhere near enough to neither flatten renewable or to modulate flat nuclear production to fit the daily volatile consumption.

[–] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If artificial reservoirs were feasible, they would be better used to flatten the production from renewables.

Of course, they require the appropriate geographical features, but those features are relatively widely available in hilly landscapes, which are rather abundant in large parts of Germany.

The reasons why relatively few hydroelectric pump storage power plants have been built in Germany in the recent decades are entirely homemade. For once, the spirit of NIMBY is very strong in Germany, so if you're planning to build something like that, you'll be facing the wrath of a plethora of angry German Spießer forming citizens' initiatives and fighting your project. On top of that, there is German bureaucracy, which will ensure, that the volume paperwork you'll have to file for building your reservoir is sufficient for filling it up, should you happen to drop it in there. Then, there is the privatised power grid and its idiotic circumstances and rules, which make it unlikely for a pump storage power plant to be profitable, but thanks to the ideology of having privatised essential infrastructure, the state isn't going to operate them.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 month ago

It's easier, faster and cheaper to build renewables plus a storage infrastructure to provide power during low production times than to build an infrastructure with nuclear that is able to respond quick enough to fluctuating demands.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Pumpspeicherkraftwerke. We have 31 of them in germany. Which is pretty much the maximum possible because you can't build them just everywhere. And quick search says these things are economically unsustainable because of the extremely high construction costs but very low revenues. It is wasted money.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It is wasted money.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it waste. It's an inherent problem of any energy storage, and we need energy storage if we want to go all in on renewables. Storage has to pay for the energy it stores and can only sell that energy for profit if there is enough demand on the grid, so it sits idle for a lot of time, but you still have the building and maintenance costs.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

My wording was poorly chosen. You are right of course. Its not a waste in that sense. But when better alternatives are available, which will hopefully soon achieve an acceptable level of efficiency, it makes no sense to build more. Apart from the space problem.

[–] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's only wasted money because we deliberately chose to have for profit businesses run infrastructure essential to the functioning of a modern society. In a nationalised power grid, it wouldn't matter that a storage system has to use electricity in order to store it, because all that matters is meeting the demand and keeping the grid stable. Of course, if all that matters is profits, storage systems will only be economical to a very small subset of operators.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure, if you'd wanted to put a lot of money into 30+-year-old nuclear reactors, the power companies could have added storage. However, this is not the only issue of nuclear either and the societal consensus at one point was to phase the reactors out.

(Fwiw, the TerraPower reactors are supposed to store heat — except of course none have been built so far.)