Hydro is very variable power output. If drought last year then can be a huge jump this year. Hydro in general, globally, averages 45% capacity.

Yeah that could make sense, although the article doesn’t have enough information to know whether or not that is a factor.

A good way to boost that is to use solar to power pumps bringing water up to the high side during the day.

Pump storage is indeed very cool. However if one would count it twice when it is produced by solar and then again when getting it back from the storage, then that would majorly distort the statistic. You’d effectively count the produced amount of energy double (minus whatever efficiency loss you have from storing it).

Europe is mostly densely populated. Onshore wind is struggling in west due to noise, but best locations are already taken is an issue as well.

That is definitely true, however at least where i am from in Germany the NIMBY mentality is still going strong regarding onshore wind turbines. So i am reasonably confident that there would still be some decent spots left.

Overall that seems like great news.

I am kind of surprised to see that hydropower grew more than solar. I’d have thought that solar with falling prices and relatively easy/flexible installation would be easier to scale, compared to hydro that probably needs specific locations and nowadays might also be under more scrutiny regarding the impact on local ecology.

Onshore only growing by 6% is disappointing and I imagine a lot of it still has to do with resistance from nimby people and the likes?

I recently read a plausible reason that I hadn’t thought of yet:

Apple would need to include a specific flexible cable rated for continuous movement with the mouse. If the port was in the regular spot, then people would ofc also use it wired at times. However if buyers would use regular charging cables, then the experience would both be worse and the cables might get damaged over time from bending.

I still think the main reason is simply that they value form over function, otherwise the shape would be more ergonomic, but it’s another interesting factor to consider.

It was more the relation between them (40x) that struck me as bigger than I expected given the relative performance between photovoltaic and photosynthetic efficiency.

Honestly i was suprised aswell by the difference. I did some further digging and while i think i found the german source they used, it was a bit harder to comprehend.

But i also looked at this paper which forexample seems to support the rough numbers for energy/hectare biomass (it’s also on scihub if you dont have institutional access). It’s using fast growing tropical tree varieties as an example, but i imagine that if anything this would influence results favorably for biomass. If you look at figure 5 the yield is between 15-25 MWh/hectare.

As a swede, energy usage in the winter is warm at heart which is something that is hard to compare and muddles the numbers. In Dec-Jan energy (kWh) output from solar is at best 9-10% of their peak output during summer at my latitudes, (further north, this goes towards zero as there is no sunlight in winter), so with that in mind, the stored 20MWh/hectare, available round the clock, looks apetizing until we find a better solution to store energy.

Yeah, in the end there probably isn’t one solution. In Sweden for example area efficiency probably doesn’t matter as much due to your low population and large areas of woodland (that wouldn’t be suitable for much else). And you are right that PV probably wouldn’t work, so wind/hydro or maybe even tidal power generation would be the more appropriate competitors to compare biomass to, although those have more specific needs in terms of location.

I’ll try to track it down, but am kind of having a hard time finding their methology for those stats. Which ones do you think are unsure about? the 20MWh/year/hectare biomass, 800 MWh/year/hectare solar or the energy loss through stroage with batteries/hydrogen? Or something else?

I’ll try a bit further to find their specific methology when i find the time. But for the solar part i also did a quick google search and found for example this paper. To quote from their conclusion:

Based on empirical observations drawn from a large, nearly complete sample of utility-scale PV plants built in the United States through 2019, we find that both power and energy density have increased significantly over the past decade. Modelers and analysts, policymakers and regulators, and others who continue to rely on outdated benchmarks from the last comprehensive U.S.-based assessment of power and energy density conducted nearly a decade ago [6] will, therefore, significantly overstate the land requirements, and by extension perhaps also the land-use impacts, of utility-scale PV.

Updated benchmarks as of 2019 established by this study are as follows.

• Power density: 0.35 MWDC/acre (0.87 MWDC/hectare) for fixed-tilt and 0.24 MWDC/acre (0.59 MWDC/hectare) for tracking plants.

• Energy density: 447 MWh/year/acre (1.10 GWh/year/ hectare) for fixed-tilt and 394 MWh/year/acre (0.97 GWh/year/hectare) for tracking plants.

It is about the US and not Germany, but i wouldn’t expect there to be massive differences. If we assume that Germany has slightly worse conditions for solar, then 800MWh/year/hectare seem in the right ballpark.

I’m learning a lot about energy in Germany this way. Thanks!

Glad to hear it, by doing some more digging i am learning new things aswell. I actually came across this site (sadly only available in German) by one of our environmental agencies, which i found quite good and mirrors pretty much my opinion (but maybe that is why).

One particularly interesting piece of information is that they give specific numbers for the energy yield per hectare of biomass vs solar. They estimate using corn as an example crop that for biomass it is on average 20MWh/hectare vs 800MWh/hectare for solar, so a difference by a factor of 40x. Further for load balancing renewables they estimate 10% loss for short term storage through batteries and 40% loss when converted to chemical energy sources (presumably hydrogen).

And while biomass currently plays a substantial role particularly in electricity production, they link to studies that long term (2050 being the target date) energy demands can be met completely without biomass useage.

So basically farmers in Germany grow food to make fuel for cars? Like ethanol? Thats an abundance of agricultural lands!

I mentioned E10 fuel earlier, which mixes 10% bioethanol into petrol. Seems like according to wikipedia it is also a thing in Sweden/Finland/Denmark. So that would be an example where plants ultimately get fed into cars. I think this is also a case where demand is induced by some EU directive that requires reduced emissions in the transport sector, and mixing in biofuels was one of the solutions to achieve this goal.

I am not 100% certain on the specifics and i assume that it isn’t a pure play where literally nothing from those plants is used for other purposes. But it’s still fair to say that these crops are primarily planted for extracting energy from them, not for feeding livestock or food. So they are directly competing with those and without this demand farmers would plant different things.

But if I’ve understood correctly from the TEN-T directive, Germany and Switzerland has invested pretty much in H2?

Yeah, seems like we are investing a good amount in clean hydrogen. That includes storage and pipelines. I wasn’t particularly aware of the ten-t directive, but if i undestand it correctly this is about transportation? I think as far as hydrogen goes here in Germany the main focus for that is on use in industrial settings (particularly stuff like chemical processes and steel production). But ofc it’ll also be used in other areas.

but most common is district heating. (I got the name wrong in translation earlier)

Instead of one boiler in every house, there is one boiler per 50-100000 inhabitants or so. Efficiency is great and heat is pipes to where it is used. When it’s cold (-20 or so) those boilers go through tens of semitrucks of wood every day. And as I said, it’s a fairly common set up in parts of Europe, although i understand its not common i Germany.

Not as common, but Munich for example has a large network, which currently is still mostly based around fossil fuels, but they are investing a lot in renewables (particularly geothermal) and plan to get it climate neutral in the longterm while expanding its reach.

Also because of a recent law every municipality has to create a strategy paper for heating (until mid 2026 for larger, 2028 for smaller ones), which includes feasibility studies for district heating. So we might see them become more widespread.

That’s a whole lot of extra steps you added there

I added those steps, because it is exactly what is currently done at least here in Germany and at scale. Although we might need to clarify here if we want to limit the discussion to just wood and heating specifically, or also other plants such as corn/rapeseed that are grown for biomass often converted into gas/biofuels (like with E10 petrol) to make existing technologies use less fossil fuels without need to immediately replace them.

And it is a way better solution than trying to produce electricity to heat your home,

Yes, directly heating with electricity e.g. with infrared heating panels is not the way to go and uses a ton of energy.

But heat pumps are a great piece of technology and pretty popular in nordic countires aswell, aren’t they? With well designed ones having a COP (coefficient of performance) of 3-5. Technically they aren’t creating heat, but moving it, however i think we can ignore this distinction, since both leads to the desired effect of a warm house. Added bonus that depending on the device they might also work for cooling, which will sadly become more relevant.

As for energy storage: Electricity can not practically be stored between seasons

There definitely are ways to store energy, although of course this comes at a price and the conversion steps are associated with energy losses. Besides the obvious batteries (which are improving, but admittedly probably not at a point sufficient enough to fully scale as needed), there are other options. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a in my opinion cool solution. You can also convert excess to hydrogen gas and store that.

Obviously a tree standing in the forest is stored great, but between the time to grow and sufficient supply for each season, how much space would we actually need for this solution if it were actually adpoted at scale (enough to replace existing fossile solutions)? Probably hard to estimate, but i’d imagine it would be a lot. And comercial forests like that probably aren’t great for bio diversity either, and not risk free looking at the current health of existing ones and the increase in wildfires.

At least it will not add CO2, unlike the coal that would have been used instead.

That is true for sure. Although being better than coal in regard to climate impact is a low bar.

68 million Europeans heat their home with some kind of central heating system. It not common in west, or central Europe, but it is in the Nordics and in the eastern part.

I’m not certain if i understand what exactly you mean with “central heating system”. Do you just mean having something like a boiler that uses e.g. gas or wood pellets in the basement? If so those are common in Germany aswell. Particularly the gas boilers are something we want to move away from (there was huge outcry when the green party of our government moved to ban new installation of those).

So i guess in the context of our discussion the question would be if the better replacement for those would be a wood pellet burner or something like a heat pump. And at scale my opinion is that the later is the way to go. As stated both because i doubt that wood production could scale that large and air quality is also a factor; see e.g. here. If too many people in dense residential areas would start to use them it could have health impacts. Not that we don’t have those already from ICE cars, but no need to replace those as a source with something else, now that we are finally starting to get rid of them.

I’m sure if bigger batteries sold better there would be more (any) options. The issue is not enough people care.

This in my opinion is only true to some degree. The real world doesn’t reflect the idealistic demand->supply concept, and instead there are many other factors that play a role. There’s the reverse supply->demand effect aswell, where companies especially through marketing steer consumer demand into the direction that suits them.

The issue is not enough people care.

Here the big issue is that not all qualities are equally easy to experience.

When you go into a store you can immediately see and feel the effect a larger, brighter screen or a thinner device has, the difference in real world battery life for your own specific use case is impossible to quantify. Even more so when asked to extrapolate it into the future and factor in degrading capacities. You can’t even directly translate a concrete number like the mAh size of the battery into it, since hardware/software efficiency and useage patterns can distort it substantially.

You could be right that that this may lead to more biomass demand due to regulations, but honestly i hope it doesn’t. It’s great when done with actual waste, but when done purposely it just seems much less efficient than the solar/wind alternative.

“Growing plants -> carrying them to a biomass facility -> converting it to gas/biofuels -> using those in cars, for heating with gas or conversion to electricity in gas power plants” seems so much less efficient than just “put solar panels/wind turbine on a field -> use the electricity for EVs or heat pumps”. The former has just so many extra conversion steps where energy is lost.

Wood is a great energy store, as well, which we need more of.

Another point that i have somewhat mixed feelings about, but it probably depends on the context.

If we are talking use for energy production e.g. heating with wood chips/biomass, then as mentioned above it is imo only useful when done with waste (the production of which you’d ideally reduce in search for efficiency). If done by purposely growing trees to cut down and completly burn for their stored energy then logically you are at best carbon neutral (you release the CO2 that was stored), but realistically slightly worse because of transport costs and so on. Plus depending on your setup it may lead to air polution, particularly an issue if done in urban settings.

It is however great as carbon storage and to reduce emissions when used as building material to replace something like concrete.

How is agricultural land defined if it isn’t used to grow biomass?

I can see how i wasn’t specific enough with my wording. This is what i am talking about. Basically growing plants for the purpose of energy production, rather than e.g. food or material useage.

On the contrary, I’m afraid. Land is in very short supply. The issue is that even if the land is not currently developed it is doing vital stuff already. If it’s used for food production, if it’s a bit of forest storing massive amounts of CO2, if it’s home the insects pollinating our food supply, if it’s…

I won’t claim to be an expert, but I’m gonna push back on this point. Local conditions will ofc always vary, but take Germany for example, which is probably one of the more densely populated countries.

Based on the numbers i can find anywhere from 14%-16% of our agriculturally used land is used to produce biomass. This is significantly less efficient than if even a fraction of this area were used for photvoltaics. And those rapeseed or corn monocultures probably have close to zero value for biodiversity, on the contrary i’d imagine that pesticide use will negatively impact nature overall. With solar panels on the other hand you can still use the underlying land to plant stuff like wild flowers and so on, if you wanted. There are also the already mentioned hybrid uses in agriculture where you plant crops below the panels or just use the land for grazing.

On a side note since you mention forests. Just recently there was a number of articles on how due to their poor condition german forests have actually gone from being carbon sinks to carbon sources, releasing more CO2 than they bind.

One more limiting factor that i forgot to mention above is lack of qualified contractors to actually build solar farms or put panels on roofs. Particularly with residential homes that seems to be another common complaint.

As always with these fancy ideas it is a solution for something that is not a problem: We aren’t even close to running out of suitable space to put solar panels. The problems for solar are usually just willingness, bureaucracy, or the electrical grid not being able to handle the additional load.

We’ve also had proposals for solar bricks for paving roads/parking lots, putting the panels as dividers between highway roads. It just doesn’t make sense to overcomplicate things.

Come back once every single parking lot, large roof, unused radom patch of land, or even agricultural land (there are some interesting setups where the shade provided by solar panels is actually beneficial for the plants) is fully utilized. But chances are that at that point we already have more than enough capacity.

I am not sure how up to date and accurate this Wikipedia article, but that seems like another substantial step. Looking at the list I am quite surprised by the speed the size of these wind turbines seems to progress.

Can someone more knowledgeable answer me a few questions:

How likely is it that China takes over this industry world wide similar to solar? Specifically what role does (if at all) play logistics in this. Those turbines are massive compared to easily shippable solar panels. So I imagine they’d be much harder to transport and local production could have some advantages, but how much does that matter?

It does seem like all the new largest turbines in prototype phase are from China, but when you scroll to commercially deployed the western manufacturers show up more. Is this just due to different timings in their development cycles or have they dropped out of/can’t keep up with development for larger turbines?

Most will probably use USB-C and it’s just a good law in general. But I think one reason to adopt it instead of just assuming that it will happen anyways is that if they don’t, they might end up being the dumping ground for whenever someone has a product that uses an older connector like micro USB simply because they are that tiny bit cheaper or just excess inventory.

I think it was slightly ahead of it’s time and had terrible marketing. At least here in Germany it was marketed as “Dredd 3D” at a time where the hype had died down, and probably turned into the opposite due to all movies getting unnecessary and poorly made 3D conversions.

Yeah, hadn’t heard about it until today either. But Steam also kind of torpedoed their launch by lifting their NDA for Deadlock on the same day. Not sure how similar they are, but that’ll grab most of the attention from gamers right now.

Photo manipulation has been around as long as the medium itself. And throughout the decades, people have worried about the veracity of images. When PhotoShop became popular, some decried it as the end of truthful photography. And now here’s AI, making things up entirely.

I actually think it isn’t the AI photo or video manipulation part that makes it a bigger issue nowadays (at least not primarily), but the way in which they are consumed. AI making things easier is just another puzzle piece in this trend.

Information volume and speed has increased dramatically, resulting in an overflow that significantly shortens the timespan that is dedicated to each piece of content. If i slowly read my sunday newspaper during breakfast, then i’ll give it much more attention, compared to scrolling through my social media feed. That lack of engagement makes it much easier for missinformation to have the desired effect.

There’s also the increased complexity of the world. Things can on the surface seem reasonable and true, but have knock on consequences that aren’t immediately apparent or only hold true within a narrow picture, but fall appart once viewed from a wider perspective. This just gets worse combined with the point above.

Then there’s the downfall of high profile leading newsoutlets in relevance and the increased fragmentation of the information landscape. Instead of carefully curated and verified content, immediacy and clickbait take priority. And this imo also has a negative effect on those more classical outlets, which have to compete with it.

You also have increased populism especially in politics and many more trends, all compounding on the same issue of missinformation.

And even if caught and corrected, usually the damage is done and the correction reaches far fewer people.

Also Nixon and prolonging the Vietnam war

I guess marketing getting rolled into that number, as opposed to movie budgets where it is usually separate could make up for it. Or it includes lots of long-term investments similar to the huge stage surrounded by screens (“the volume”) that they used for the mandalorian. Although I am not aware that acolyte did something like that.

Countless examples of movies and shows with way smaller budgets that end up looking a lot better than most of the recent Disney slop.

Yeah, but that just goes to prove that money doesn’t solve every problem. It didn’t fix the writing either. The spending part is easy enough.

Yeah it’s pretty insane, for that kind of money it better be fantastic. Although I think nowadays the link between money and quality (to whatever degree it ever existed) is weaker than it’s ever been.

I’ve always wondered, how do streaming movies make money at all? Does Netflix really make enough money to justify spending this much on a movie?

Well they certainly make enough money, last quarters revenue was roughly 9.5 billion dollar. Sure you got server costs, salaries and licensing for old content that eat up a lot, but if you are getting over 3 billion per month from your subscribers you should be able to find some budget for expensive content.

I don’t think a movie like this will be efficient in $/h watched, those will go to cheap series and people putting on their favorite comfort show in the background for the 10th rerun. But they probably still need those big tent pole movies for psychological reasons. It’s good for marketing towards new subscribers and for user retention you will need the occasional blockbuster movie. Don’t need to be that many per year, since as said the vast majority of time will be spend watching some simple stuff, but you do need fresh content for the occasional movie night. Or people will start looking at the competition that offers those and which also has plenty of mindless entertainment.