Germany's Day in the Sun: Solar Hits 22 GW Mark

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 29, 2012 | 22 Comments

With the sun beaming overhead and the nation hard at work, Germany turned to solar like never before last Friday and Saturday as the nation's PV installations fed 22 gigawatts of electricity into the grid at one point, providing nearly half of the country's energy needs.

In doing so, Germany answered some critical questions as it reshapes its policy away from nuclear power and toward renewable sources like solar, wind and biomass. Chief among the concerns is how much intermittent solar Germany can seamlessly integrate into its grid without causing major disruptions.

During one 24-hour period, Germany’s PV accounted for nearly a third of the nation’s energy needs on midday Friday when the nation’s factories and offices were humming along, and then it approached 50 percent midday Saturday as residents enjoyed a sun-filled weekend.

The milestone comes at a critical crossroads for a country that is eager to move on from its dependence on nuclear power, but has been increasingly at odds over which path to take. If nothing else, the achievement is certain to add to the growing confidence that solar can fill much of the nuclear void. Germany currently gets about 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources, with solar contributing about 4 percent annually.

According to the International Economic Platform for Renewable Energies in Muenster, the power produced at its weekend peak was greater than the capacity of 20 nuclear power plants. The timing of the peak is particularly important since it comes during times when energy use is at its highest.

"It is often underestimated that the sun brings significant power if and when it is needed most. In the peak time for lunch," said institute director Norbert Allnoch. Because of this, the group says that expensive peak load power plants are increasingly rare or no longer used.

Germany is by far the world leader in installed PV capacity with more than 26 GW. Last year alone, the nation added nearly 8 GW and it has continued its rapid expansion through the start of 2012. Concerns over the speed of installation and the growing cost of government support pushed legislators to adopt a steeper than expected cuts to the Feed-in Tariff that is credited with fueling the installation boom in recent years. That cut, however, has run into some political barriers and a separate mediation panel is now charged with finding a resolution.

22 Comments

ANONYMOUS
May 31, 2012

Dimitar:
In reply to your comment #19, why should I not be pessimistic when I read reports such as these:

http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959
http://www.bitsofscience.org/recession-carbon-co2-emissions-rising-records-4261/

The German decision to abandon the 23% of their electricity generation from non-CO2-generating nuclear power is yet another blow to efforts to curb the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Their very modest growth in renewables is not on target to offset this loss in carbon-free generation. The Germans have been dumping massive sums (> $100 Billion) into solar PV via poorly designed subsidies and this won't even solve their energy problems, not the mention the problem of affordable energy needs in the developing world.

The German inspired subsidy strategy has resulted in a death spiral in the solar industry with bankruptcies or market exits for: Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Sterling Energy Systems, Q-Cells, Energy Conversion Devices and a host of project developers. This story on REW:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/bankruptcy-fears-for-chinas-ldk-solar-due-to-market-downturn
suggests LDK Solar is on the brink of failure as well, and First Solar's stock price is 91% lower than its 52-week high. These do not seem like signs of a well designed plan. Of course, as we watch the slow motion train wreck of the European common currency, which is another German supported plan that reasonable economists predicted ahead of time was doomed, we should not be too surprised about the fiascos in the FIT policies.
Steven

Mark Roest
May 31, 2012

I don't work for the company I am recommending, or sell their product, because I live in California, where there is little need for winter heating; I also don't sell stocks. "Cansolair Inc. in Newfoundland, Canada, has developed a forced convection solar heating unit called the Model RA 240 SOLAR MAX", [for high latitudes with minimal winter sun.] "A dwelling of 1000 square feet can have a complete air change in 1.5 hours. Working experience indicates that comfortable room temperature can be maintained in a 1000 square foot dwelling with 15 minutes of sunlight per hour. Newfoundland is at least as far north as Germany. The physics of the spinning column of air induced by the way the fins are made in each can increases the heat transfer, as the colder air is propelled against the surface, and absorbs BTUs faster than the warmer air in the middle of the column. Same idea as a NASA-derived solar water heating design I sold in the 1980s. The special solar-absorbent finish is designed to last 35 years fully exposed, but is protected by a UV-resistant transparent cover "so it should last several lifetimes."
"322 Conception Bay Highway
Spaniards Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador
A0A 3X0
Canada
Telephone: 709-788-3010
Fax: 709-788-3011

Attn: Jim Meaney
jim@cansolair.com

Website:

http://www.cansolair.com"

This eliminates the argument that solar is inappropriate for Germany in winter. All you have to do is use the correct form of solar for the specific challenge it has to meet. QED.

Mark Roest, Design Earth

Carl Fern
May 31, 2012

To Steven:

Statistics never lie, the one who lies is the one who writes the statistics!
You are too many numbers and half-trues.
You can't care less about the environment and "scientist" like you have to pay dearly for Exxon, Valdez, BP ,the Golf of Mexico,Hot nuclear rods in Japan and many many more cases.
Where are you from? are you an American?
you cited several countries in renewable energy, but Germany still # one.
Once again, How many panels do you have?
You are a talker nor a doer.

Dimitar Mirchev
May 31, 2012

Steven

Why shouldn't I be optimistic when I read articles like this:

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/31/in-depth-germanys-22-gw-solar-energy-record

It appears that in 3-5 years home batteries capable of storing 20 kWh will be affordable and will solve the curtailment problem. Also the EVs are finally starting appear. The future is bright.

ANONYMOUS
May 31, 2012

Carlos writes in comment #13:
"Anonymous is full of verbal .....
He is the typical "ugly american" fox follower.
I am going to ask him you one more time
home many solar panels do you have in your home?
I am producing 80% of my electrical bill
We (Germans) are number one in solar and renewable energy."

Isn't Carlos charming? Perhaps he is unaware that insulting someone during a discussion is usually taken as a clear sign that the insulter was devoid of credible counterarguments. Carlos' gifts for prophesy are as well developed as his manners: he predicts I am a homeowner and that I watch Fox news, making his batting average 0 for 2. His awareness of renewable energy statistics is also quite limited: Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and Brazil (to name just a few countries at random) all produce a larger share of their electricity from renewables than Germany does.
Steven

Gerry Wootton
May 31, 2012

BTW: with respect to integration costs of variable generation "cost goes down as penetration increases" - this is based on real world data, not theory - this stuff has actually been studied. Interestingly, it is more difficult to find studies on the cost of integrating other types of generation. It would be wrong to assume that new capacity of any kind can be added or old capacity removed from the grid at no cost - although this is often an underlying assumption in many back-of-the-envelope arguments. It's human nature to accept the status quo and only question the new - common practice frequently masquerades as common sense.

Gerry Wootton
May 31, 2012

Let's be clear: average cost of 0.006 $/kWh for integrating large scale wind is based on compilation of over 20 case studies. Wind is instructive at this time because it presents many practical examples of large scale variable generation being integrated. Theory is great, but ...

'These types of problems could have been easily modeled long before implementation' - modeling may be easy, accurate modeling not so much. If modeling was all that, you could trust weather forcasts. I do a lot of modeling, but, only models validated by real world data should be trusted to any degree and it's rare when it correlates precisely with the real world. For example, modeling PV yield is difficult - it's certainly not a simple matter of seasonal and diurnal solar variation: strong factors include ambient temperature, wind speed, exposure, humidity and cloudiness where best available modeling consists of inventing mathematical relations that seem to mimic real world data while not necessarily being understood. The grid is a very complex entity where macro behavior is not so easily linked to micro economics. One aspect that is assured is the power of numbers: by analogy, if 6 roofers are roofing a house and one has a doctor's appointment, the roof still gets finished in more or less the same time.
Unlike wind, solar's capacity is well synchronized with seasonal and diurnal variation of demand in many locations, the US southwest being a very good example. This is a region where, until PV represents nearly 50% of peak capacity, the diurnal and seasonal variation of solar would have no impact on base load generators.

Meanwhile, Germany's per capita consumption is less than the best states in the US, 52% of the average and 22% of the worst performers. Germany is another data point supporting the case that energy efficiency goes hand in hand with high per capita GDP. Negawatts are still the most profitable kind of sustainable energy.

Dimitar Mirchev
May 31, 2012

Steven

"These types of problems could have been easily modeled long before implementation; trial and error is a very low order of reasoning."

True. However no one actually believed that this can be done. Even now IEA and EIA do not project big increase in renewable penetration. Imo leading by example (not by modeling :) ) is more worthy. Time will tell. I just dont see this as that big problem for Germany.

The big grid will also enable Germany to sell its electricity at higher prices. At the moment there is a big risk for a big jump in the EEG Levy:

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-fit-surcharge-could-explode/150/537/38113/

all beacuse peak prices have dropped down dramatically and EEG electricity will be sold at bigger losses leading to jump in the EEG levy.. This is the bigger problem to Germany renewables in my opinion. Again time will tell.

Benjamin Gorman
May 31, 2012

Regarding Germany's "winter problem," I wonder how much of their traditional (nuclear, ngas) capacity Germany will mothball, and how (presumed) steady increases in efficiency (in all sectors) will tend to counterbalance the baseload losses. Their goal would seem to be to end all nuclear production-- what % of baseload does nuke account for there now (or as of a few years ago, before the solar boom)?

Secondly, what about integrating small-scale, localized storage from PV production for winter? Either neighborhood battery banks or flywheels, or even per-household storage. Costly now, perhaps, assuming adding battery backup to existing household PV systems, but perhaps at a local level and assuming presumed gains in storage efficiency. Might that be helpful?

Interesting problem to have! Cheers, Germany!

Carl Fern
May 31, 2012

Anonymous is full of verbal .....
He is the typical "ugly american" fox follower.
I am going to ask him you one more time
home many solar panels do you have in your home?
I am producing 80% of my electrical bill
We (Germans) are number one in solar and renewable energy.

ANONYMOUS
May 31, 2012

Dimitar writes in comment #11:
"It is a cause for celebration because FINALLY we have a big industrial country with high level of renewable penetration and we can see what the problems are and how to address them. Until now everything was theoretical."

He sounds like a measure once cut twice kind of guy. These types of problems could have been easily modeled long before implementation; trial and error is a very low order of reasoning.

Dimitar also writes:
"The solution I see is to build one integrated EU grid. With a very well connected EU electricity grid Germany will have no problems to import t solar energy from Italy, Spain, South France etc in the winter..."

I point out that during a Winter evening in Germany there isn't much chance of importing solar generation from Italy and France. A robust grid will help with wind intermittency but is going to be much less effective with solar variability.

Dimitar also writes:
"Also, unlike France, the Germans use natural gas for heating instead of electricity as it is the case with France."

True, but if the Germans ever get serious about greenhouse gas emissions they will need to transition away from natural gas for heating and this will increase the demand for electricity during winter evenings and nights.
Steven

Dimitar Mirchev
May 31, 2012

Steven

'it is not cause for celebration.'

on the contrary. It is a cause for celebration because FINALLY we have a big industrial country with high level of renewable penetration and we can see what the problems are and how to address them. Until now everything was theoretical.

The solution I see is to build one integrated EU grid. With a very well connected EU electricity grid Germany will have no problems to import t solar energy from Italy, Spain, South France etc in the winter or export to its neighbors during excess production at competitive(lower) cost.

Also, unlike France, the Germans use natural gas for heating instead of electricity as it is the case with France. So I don't expect problems with cold winters in Germany. We had a very well documented case this very winter in February - Germany exported record amount of electricity to nuclear France during the cold snaps.

In fact it is nuclear France that has problems with peak electricity consumption not Germany.

William Fitch
May 30, 2012

Hi: Very good for them!! Nice to see "someone" going in the right direction...
Meanwhile back here in the USA....

.....Bill

Donald Wagner
May 30, 2012

With time of day use and forced curtailment, it won't be long before the solar electricity producers start using flywheels (or more unlikely batteries) to save the energy that would be sold cheaply or curtailed and sell it later at a higher cost. If there is a big enough price differential (about 15%) between the lowest cost at night and the highest cost in the morning, then they could also be buying the electricity when it is low and selling it when it is high in the morning. It looks like the bottom line is that what was the peak prices (hot summer afternoons) may now become low price points. Eventually this may but pressure on the infrastructure to carry the electricity, but this can be alleviated by having micro stations (which could be where the flywheel for a subdivision would be). This would allow the people in these subdivisions to buy and sell power without having to go through a middle man most of the time which should put no load on the long haul power lines and be cheaper.

Eventually as solar becomes more prominent, then the peak costs will be during the winter. Then you will start seeing some long haul high efficinecy electric lines running North-South where the areas closer to the equator will be selling electricity to areas farther from the equator. Interestingly, this puts North Africa, Saudi Arabia as energy producers for Europe and Mexico and the Southern United States in the role of power producers for North America. For intra-country power, Chile could benefit the most from an efficient long haul power line.

ANONYMOUS
May 30, 2012

GeraldR writes in comment #4:
"I don't see the concern over curtailment of PV or wind for that matter - with extremely low run rates and no ramp losses, it's a minor expense. "

You might see this more clearly if you were a developer hoping to turn a profit. Whenever you production must be curtailed you earn less return on the capital invested in the PV panels and wind turbines. In parts of Texas curtailment is already a major concern for wind farm developers. With rooftop PV you have the additional technical problem of how you would even achieve curtailment--you can't phone all the homeowners and ask them to throw blankets over their roofs if production exceeds needs. If solar generation is already occasionally 50% of needs at a 4% total market share clearly curtailment issues are going to occur a significant amount of the time for high market penetrations.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
May 30, 2012

continuation of #5
Solar is a very poor match for replacing baseload nuclear production. Wind is a better fit, but the buildout of new offshore capacity if off to a very slow start.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
May 30, 2012

GeraldR writes in comment #4:
"- cost goes down as penetration increases (not the other way around as the seat-of-the-pants theorists suggest)."

Consider the following simplified model where demand is constant and the system has no storage capacity. 50% of the year there will be darkness so the maximum solar market penetration one can achieve would be 50%. Demand on sunny summer afternoons will be saturated at the lowest market penetrations and after that you will have to deal with curtailment. Going from 49% coverage to 50% coverage will require a vast amount of additional PV panels because you will be trying to harvest in dawn and dusk conditions where PV's effectiveness is very low. This is a trivial counterexample to the claim that costs must go down as penetration increases. Solar variability is very different from that of wind (which is the source GeraldR's variability mitigations cost estimates were obtained for). Wind has a modest seasonal variability and produces power all day. Seasonal variability for solar generation is quite high. The US data from the last few years shows a factor of ten higher production in July than in January. Once can, of course, reduce this ratio considerably by choosing facing to optimize Winter production, but you will still get much less solar in winter than in summer, and nothing in winter nights, which is when peak demand will be in the near future for Germany. Even for wind, GeraldR's cost estimates assume that there is an abundance of good sites to place wind turbines. In the US this may be a good approximation, but in Germany most of the really good land-based turbine sites are already taken. This is why they are planning a major push into off-shore wind which involves much higher expense. In the near term the lost capacity from the nuclear shutdown will have to be met mainly by imports and increased used of fossil fuels or biofuels.
CONTINUED

Gerry Wootton
May 30, 2012

How about the companion story: US produces a record 0.3% of its electricity from solar? That should be news considering that the US has a far superior solar resource.

A lot of Germany's solar is rooftop - not by accident. Distribution in Germany adds ~80% to the cost of central power so local generation is a great advantage. Another interesting fact is that Germany has eliminated growth in electricity consumption since 2008.

I don't see the concern over curtailment of PV or wind for that matter - with extremely low run rates and no ramp losses, it's a minor expense. The same can't be said for many other generators. It's costly and a major headache to curtail a nuclear plant. If you look at hourly markets, you find them selling off excess power at a loss. Ontario experiences nuclear curtailment charges in excess of $100M/year. Also, cycling drags down the efficiency of thermal plants.

As integration of variable generation goes, somehow they seem to be coping with San Onofre being unexpectedly offline for months so it seems technically possible to deal with variable generation. The cost has been studied. There are examples of large scale wind farms, which might be considered worst case variable generators, in regions where they have high penetration. Studies show that the average cost of integrating this variable source is 0.006 $/kWh, never more than 0.012, and that there is an economy of scale - cost goes down as penetration increases (not the other way around as the seat-of-the-pants theorists suggest). Solar has the advantage of being in sync with daytime peaks. The double peak phenomina is a hallmark of jurisdictions with good energy efficiency - not a problem anywhere in the US. The early evening peak in these jurisdictions does have a cost which is the low capacity factor of natural gas peakers although Baltic Europe has a HVDC net that allows them to use the fjords of Norway as a storage system.

ANONYMOUS
May 30, 2012

Dimitar:
Regarding comment #2, there is a double maximum in the demand curve for only some days and even when this is true the daytime minima is often pretty shallow. There are significant storage losses for pumped storage so you need a significant price differential to operate profitably. In the near future the most problematic time for German electricity production is going to be Winter evenings when solar can contribute almost noting and the lost nuclear power will be greatly missed. Pumped storage is fine for addressing inter-day intermittency issues but it is useless for addressing the very large seasonal variability of solar PV. That solar PV already occasionally provides 50% of needed generation when its mean annual contribution is a mere 4% is an indication that variability is going to be a significant problem as market share increases--it is not cause for celebration.
Steven

Dimitar Mirchev
May 30, 2012

Steven

Nucelar, infact all base load, is going down. Coal Plants capacity factor is decreasing all the time and nuclear plant are accumulating losses.

The bright side is that Storage technologies appear to be twice as effective as before:

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/29/solar-power-can-double-pumped-hydro-output-nice/

Since now there are 2 peaks (morning and evening) and 2 lows (night and afternoon) during one day-night cycle instead of one peak at afternoon and one during night.

Which means that the profits of the Grid Energy Storage will increase in the future hence more and more diverse energy storage technologies will be deployed.

Same applies for Japan.

ANONYMOUS
May 29, 2012

The article contains this quote: "'It is often underestimated that the sun brings significant power if and when it is needed most. In the peak time for lunch,' said institute director Norbert Allnoch."

Even at a ~4% market penetration (solar was 3% of total generation last year but much of the new capacity came on line late in the year so 4% for 2012 is a fair estimate) the mid-day demand peak has largely been eliminated and the new demand peak is likely in Winter evenings. This winter peak will likely further increase as heating is transitioned to renewable technologies. Thus any ADDITIONAL solar PV will produce power at off-peak-demand in the spot markets. Furthermore, if 4% solar occasionally provides 50% of needed power 8% market penetration will lead to a need for occasional curtailment, something that isn't especially easy to do for distributed solar PV. Further growth in solar PV is not going to provide Germany with an easy way to phase out its nuclear power.
Steven

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.