Now that Germany is phasing out its solar subsidies, how much ENERGY does solar power produce there?

Ten years and tens of billions of EUROS later, Germany is http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2262661/shares-tumble-germany-slashes">Phasing Out Solar Subsidies.

How much ENERGY does the Gazprom subsidiary that the entire nation has become produce from solar energy?

The EIA has begun separating the solar scam from the general rubric of "renewable energy." As of 2008, the entire nation of Germany produced http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=36&aid=12&cid=&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=BKWH">3.8 billion kwh of electricity from solar energy.

Sounds like a lot right?

Bull. There are 8766 hours in a year. This means that the average continuous power out put of all of the solar PV plants in Germany was the equivalent of a 434 MW gas plant operating at 100% of capacity utilization.

However, this figure is disingenous, since solar energy requires gas fired spinning reserve - and inherent redundancy - to function, meaning that the number of gas plants shut by German solar energy is, um, zero.

For perspective, the AES gas fired power plant in Redondo Beach California, past which one can bicycle in 5 minutes - I've done this many times - produces 1310 MW of power. Note, unlike former German Gerhardt Schroeder, who after promising that solar energy would save Germany, went to work for, um, Gazprom whose pipelines were subsidized by German taxpayers, I am not happy about the Redondo Beach AES plant, since unlike Gerhardt, I favor the immediate phase out of gas power plants.

The 619 MWe Oyster Creek Nuclear Station near where I live would only need to function at 434/619 = 70% to produce more energy than all of the solar installations in Germany. However, unlike German solar PV plants, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Station need not have a gas plant to back it up. It's actual capacity utilizaiton was, in 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/oyster_creek.html">86%

Many people - most of them, like Gerhard Schroeder owned outright by the gas industry - want to shut the Oyster Creek Nuclear energy.

For example:

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:



Suncor, by the way is not a solar PV energy company. It is a joint venture between Sunoco and Petro Canada which is developing http://www.suncor.com/default.aspx">Canadian Oil Sands.

One may assume that Lovins "consulted" with another of his funding companies, BP, to help them to create new oil sands all along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico so they too, can post pictures of trees next to the oil sand rhetoric.

The billion euro German solar subsidies took place on a planet where almost half the population has limited or no access to clean water, health care, clothing or food.

That's assuming an insolation of 1000 watts/m^2 and 8 hours insolation per day average.

Germany has a total area of 356,910 km^2

Edited for speling.

And you don't get to count the entire square area of Germany as a solar cell.

And Germany would get awfully cold very quickly without the heat coming from the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1,366 watts per square meter<1><2> (see solar constant). The radiant power is distributed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, although most of the power is in the visible light portion of the spectrum. The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass though the atmosphere, thus reducing the insolation at the Earth's surface to approximately 1,000 watts per square meter for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day.

Quite impressive considering you quoted the definition ;)

The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass though the atmosphere, thus reducing the insolation at the Earth's surface to approximately 1,000 watts per square meter for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day.

Germany isn't perpendicular to the sun's rays, it at an angle: Call it 51° on average, but there are variations with latitude & season. So the insolation is 1000W/m² x cos51 = 629W/m².

That's noon covered: To get the 8 hours I assume you're ball-parking half the RMS of the sun's inclination (ie, a capacity of 35.35%), but that only works under ideal conditions - such as a treeless vacuum and panels that absorb 100% of the incident energy, even at an angle of 0.01°. Real-world PV clocks up a capacity of 25% at best, so that's 6 hours.

The figure then comes out at 629*6*356,910,000,000 = 1.34x10¹⁵Wh. So, not a quarter, but just under half.

Solar power can be heat as easily as electricity so PV efficiency doesn't enter into it.

My calculations were strictly Back Of The Envelope and not meant to be absolutely accurate (which is impossible anyhow given the number of variables involved).

Not to mention that I was just making a point to NNadir, who seems to be on some sort of personal jihad against all forms of power that are not nuclear.

...I'm rather fond of BotE sums myself: it's just my inner physics nazi coming out. :)

To be fair though, I think NN was making a point about the economics involved: If Germany had committed around $100 billion for a couple of AP1000's (about the same amount of energy) we'd never hear the end of it.

edit: Energy, not power. Dumbass. :dunce:

Although developed nations moving to renewable energy helps people in impoverished countries, since they have the highest impact from food shortages and when weather effects occur.

Although, candlelight is very romantic.

We're glossing over the world's supplies of cadmium, tellurium, indium & gallium, I assume.

And battery technology is the holy Grail.

Strangely, comparing future storage tech to a mythical object invented by illiterate goat-herders doesn't set my mind at ease.

from http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-much-subsidy-for-german-solar-power.html - Haven't checked the math but the sources are linked.

That pans out at US$4-5 billion, with US$76-99 committed. To be fair, these are 2010 figures so you should probably double the energy produced.

who is correct?

as it's tens of billions whichever currency you use. You could reasonably emphasize the 'later' since I don't think they've spent it yet, although they are committed to it.