Germany's wind and solar is only possible because neighbouring countries compensate for when there's no wind and sun; which happen a lot of the time. On top of that wind and solar production must be bought first on the EU market, effectively ruining CO2-free capital that was there beforehand (read: nuclear).
So these charts that you show only demonstrate that Germany was first to jump on wind and solar production. Great for them, but now wind and solar in neighbouring countries are much less profitable when they'd be less correlated to Germany's huge wind and solar capacity.
Perfect play in a game-theoretic setting, but damaging to the neighbours and the actual goal of CO2 reduction.
> I'd imagine that somewhere there is always enough wind and sun in Europe.
* wind: wind power production scales with the cube of the wind speed [1], so actual production only occurs about 25% of the time [2]. Also huge areas produce at the same time: the size of the average depression [3] can often be as large as the continent.
* sun: solar panels don't produce at night. I don't think I need to source that claim. Cloudy weather is not good either.
And the nice thing about nights is that they are quite predictable. So not a very difficult problem to solve.
Tesla power wall (I'd argue overpriced...): $10k [1]
Cost of an average nuclear plant today: $20bn [2] (+operating costs)
So you could buy and install 2Mio powerwalls for thr price of one nuclear plant. How many powerwalls (or more cost-effective solutions) would you need to balance the demand vs availability of electricity at night?
Nothing in the article you linked to supports your claim that "Cloud is not really such a problematic factor". In fact, the article explicitly states:
> However, clouds can block light from the sun. So, do clouds affect the creation of energy by solar panels? Yes, but it depends on the types of clouds and where those clouds are in the atmosphere.
> When sunlight hits low clouds, a lot of that light – and heat – is reflected back into space. […] So, if you live in a place that commonly has a lot of low clouds, solar panels might not be able to produce as much energy as they would somewhere else.
——
> And the nice thing about nights is that they are quite predictable. So not a very difficult problem to solve.
Non-sequitur. The fact that it's predictable doesn't mean it's not a difficult problem.
What is the lifetime of a Tesla power wall? Do we even know?
New nuclear reactors are expected to run for 60-100 years.
This is one of the neglected parameters of such calculations. CAPEX for nuclear is high, but the resulting structure is long-lived, much more so than solar panels (25-30 years) or wind turbines (20 years).
I'd imagine that somewhere there is always enough wind and sun in Europe.
The problem with this approach is that you need to overbuild the total installed capacity massively, so that every "somewhere" could, in need, play the role of an energy producing and exporting center for all the other regions.
If 70 % of Europe is calm and dark at one point, the remaining 30 % would need to produce enough energy for the entire continent. (This also means having very high capacity cross-continent links to move that energy around from anywhere to anywhere else. Not easy to build or maintain.)
It would be great to have that infrastructure of course, but if we're going to say "OK we need to do mammoth projects which require lots of up front capex and ongoing administrative competence", that same argument applies to old-school nuclear reactors too.
The most grating thing about the renewable fad is that "herp durp churn out more wind and solar at the margins decentralized" and "massive coordinated grids and/or huge batteries" are utterly different modes of infrastructure production. There is no sense in which getting really good at the former makes one any better at the latter.
No. Currently (20:56 UTC) there is no sun shining in Europe.
As for wind, in the UK (it's the country where I know where to find the real-time data easily), wind is only producing about 1/3 of its capacity--about 7GW of 24GW capacity. https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live Overall renewables are generating about 1/4 of total generation.
In simplified terms, most EU countries have either ample sun (Mediterranean area), wind and ocean (north, west ) or wind and space (Poland & neighbors). Most also have a coast, mountains or both so some hydro potential. Even Luxembourg managed to find thermal power for heating.
With wind turbines improving steadily and available in different sizes there is also no big barrier to having them interspersed. Germany or the Netherlands are in large parts densely populated but still manage to put up wind turbines everywhere.
Ummm, Europe is close enough together that night falls over the whole continent before it rises again. So no there's not always sun somewhere in Europe.
So these charts that you show only demonstrate that Germany was first to jump on wind and solar production. Great for them, but now wind and solar in neighbouring countries are much less profitable when they'd be less correlated to Germany's huge wind and solar capacity.
Perfect play in a game-theoretic setting, but damaging to the neighbours and the actual goal of CO2 reduction.
Now, let's review some live data: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE