A very expensive game of Power Grid

A friend pointed me to this Bloomberg piece, titled "Germany Has Built Clean Energy Economy U.S. Rejected in 80s". The article describes the commitment Germany has to renewable energy, and the ambitious projects Germany has underway to transition large amounts of their economy to renewable energy. I'm a big fan of clean energy, and would love Germany, the US, and the rest of the world to use more of it. But let's look at the article critically for a moment.

To start with, let's look at another Bloomberg piece, which details how Germany's energy shift is forcing Germany to burn more coal. Actually, scratch that - what Germany is doing is worse than burning coal. They're burning Lignite, which is the lowest grade of coal, and consequently is the most carbon intensive form of coal. In 2009, Germany was getting 18% of its electricity from coal, and an additional 25% of its electricity from lignite. Since Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power, its dependence on coal (and lignite) is increasing. German coal-fired electricity is up 10% in the first half of 2012 compared to 2011.

Coal has other problems besides carbon emissions - burning coal emits large amounts of toxins like mercury, soot (which causes asthma and lung cancer), and significant amounts of radioactive thorium and uranium.

In contrast, the shift towards natural gas has significantly reduced US dependence on coal, and also our carbon emissions, which this year were at their lowest level in two decades.

The German stereotype is one of practicality, pragmatism, and prudence. So I find it a little strange that their rush to renewable energy has been so misdirected. The subsidies are especially strange: Germany has large subsidy programs for renewable energy that do not reward reducing carbon emissions, but instead set rewards for particular technologies: solar power is rewarded more than wind power, for example. This despite the fact that Germany is a terrible place for solar power - it's cloudy two-thirds of the year. Why has Germany invested so much money building infrastructure that everyone knows cannot work?

And why do credulous reporters keep talking about Germany's green energy revolution based on peak renewable energy capacity, rather than delivered renewable energy performance?  The Bloomberg piece breathlessly reports about solar panel installations in the Black Forest, but never asks the question: If a Gigawatt of solar panels is installed in the Black Forest, can you light a bulb?  The article does note that "A third of the world's installed solar capacity is found in Germany, a nation that gets roughly the same amount of sunlight as Alaska", but then never finishes the thought: why has Germany wasted so much money on solar panels that will never be lit?  Alaska, after all, is completely dark for half the year and cloudy for the other half.
 
It doesn't matter how many GW of nameplate renewable energy you have, if the sun is not shining and the winds are not blowing, forcing you to burn lignite.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the preoccupation with status and signaling that often accompanies renewable energy is harmful to the cause. Why the attention in this article to superstar architect Norman Foster and the Reichstag, solar panels on the White House, or the US Capitol power plant? Green has become a status symbol, with all the hypocrisy and shallowness that entails.  It's a shame. The world needs real solutions for the very real environmental problems we face, not celebrities and showy games of Power Grid.