Talk:Renewable energy in Germany/Archive 1

Proposed Merger
Support: I believe that the Wind power in Germany article would fit well merged with this article. It would help give more information to renewable energy in Germany, enhancing that project. In addition, it would be a step towards removing it's "stub" status. As a side note, I've taken an interest in this project, because I'm translating stuff from the Spanish version of this article. If you see that I've added anything that conflicts with current information or that's just plain wrong, let me know. At this point, if there is a conflict in info, I am just leaving this page's current version of it (keeping it as is in English).

Oppose: I think it's great that you're planning to expand this page, but Germany is the world's largest user of wind power, so if any country deserves a separate wind power article it is Germany. It is one of a series of wind power articles, see Wind power in Denmark, Wind power in Spain, Wind power in the United States, which has been usefully linked to many other articles. I am presently in touch with two German Wikipedians in an effort to get more info about wind power in Germany and expect to expand that article in a week or so. -- Johnfos 05:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Initial expansion of Wind power in Germany complete, and original content moved here. -- Johnfos 08:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

SupportIt is just a fork.So it should be merged.&#91;&#91;User:Yousaf465&#93;&#93; (talk)

Renewable Energy in Germany Translation from Spanish
Hi, I'm writing this note because I was interested in doing the translation of the (more complete) article from Spanish. I had wondered if this article in Spanish in the Spanish Wikipedia http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energías_renovables_en_Alemania had been translated into the English article Renewable energy in Germany. There's a lot of info in the Spanish article that isn't in the English article, especially regarding governmental policy and biofuels. However, I saw in the Translation/Renewable energy in Germany Request for Translation that Icehcky8 started to do the translation. However the status bar indicated '0'. I was wondering if Icehcky8 had completed it and relevant sections were shifted to other articles. If it has been finished, perhaps you could drop me a note at my userpage. Otherwise I may assume it hasn't been finished and I may start to try to figure out what has already been done and go from there. However, a note either way at User talk:AnFu would be very helpfull. Thank you very much. AnFu 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Translator's Notes To Other Editors
In the Spanish article, often 'energy' was used and I wasn't sure if what was really meant was 'electricity'. Maybe the Spanish editors meant 'energy' in the general sense of all types of 'energy'. Therefore I usually left it as 'energy', except in cases when i felt sure that it most likely, or could only, refer to one type of 'energy' that is 'electricity'. I will leave it to editors who are more familiar with the subject to modify 'energy' as needed.AnFu 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation Of Spanish Article
Please leave this copy here as is in order to provide a constant, stable reference for other editors and to reduce the chances of important information or details being deleted into non-existence in the article. Please leave for several months to maybe a year. I will be inserting translated parts as I progress. Thank you.AnFu 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

N.T.: Please note there is a footnote/reference imbeded in the text. Maybe someone who knows how can duplicate the citation in the 'references' section, if needed.AnFu 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy
The renewable energy sector benefited when the European Free Alliance Alliance '90/The Greens party joined the Federal Government between 1998 and 2005. The renewable energy sector was aided especially by the law that required businesses to buy energy generated from renewable sources first before buying energy from non-renewable sources. People who produce energy in their own homes have a guarantee by the government that they can sell their 'product' at fixed prices for a period of 20 years. This has created a surge in the production of clean energy.

For the 2005-2010 period the Federal Government set aside nearly  800 millon euros for scientific research in the country. That research is going to be earmarked for policies of long-lasting development.

Additionally, in 2001 a law passed requiring the closing of all nuclear power plants within a period of 32 years. The idea is that in 2020 nuclear energy will not be used anywhere in the country.

The German energy policy is framed within the  European Union, and the  March 2007 European Council in Brussels aproved an mandatory energy plan that requires a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions before the year 2020  and the consumption of renewable energies to be 20% of total EU consumption (compared to 7% in 2006). The accord indirectly acknowledged the role of nuclear energy -- which is not renewable -- in the reduction of the emission of  Greenhouse gas, allowing each member state to decide whether or not to use nuclear generated electricity.

Also a compromise was reached to achieve a minimum quota of 10% Biofuels in the total consumption of gasoline y Diesel in transport in 2020.

See also: Nuclear energy policy,  Berlin Declaration (2007), Common Foreign and Security Policy

Photovoltaic solar power
I added a request for citation because I couldn't find the numbers quoted on the page in the source and it looks like the numbers in the last paragraph of this section don't add up. Here is another source which might help. 131.89.192.111 11:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Table
The table incorrectly listed the units as GWh when in fact they are TWh. This probably arose from a mistranslation of "Milliarden" into million instead of billion. wagsbags (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

-

There are some problems with the table, I added a warning. Probably the point should be a decimal separator, not a thousands separator as it is now. I'm not sure if the error is exactly this one, but there is clearly something wrong. Give a look to the document that is linked just above the table http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/ee_hintergrund2007_en.pdf in page 6 for example total power in 2007 is stated as 87.5 TWh while the table says 87.450 TWh (and the point can't be a thousands separator because for example photovoltaic in 2004 is 557 and in 2005 rise to 1.282) My opinion is that everything should be divided by 1000, for example solar power in 2004 should become 0.557 TWh, probably this was due to a misunderstanding of decimal point that is ambiguous

Probably the whole article should be checked for similar errors, I've noticed these incongruent data but there might be others

--Fedcas (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

- Why do a user edited my warning in the article page? Table data IS WRONG, that is is matter of fact, at least unless the values are stated to be TWh. I'll correct it to GWh, I don't know if this way it is correct but for sure it is more likely to be correct than leaving it to TWh.

As you can read here for example http://www.wind-energie.de/en/wind-energy-in-germany/ "39.5 TWh of wind electricity were generated during this year [in germany]"

or http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=47322 "Renewable sources of energy installed through Germany's feed law produce about 50 TWh of electricity per year"

and you can find many other similar pages with google. So what we are talking about is thousands of GWh, thousands of TWh is simply not possible.

In addiction, the source of the table (pdf file) is not reachable anymore, someone that is able to understand german should look for it in the website.

Fedcas (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of sub-sections
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Renewable energy about the order of the renewable energy types sub-sections in all related articles. Currently in most articles there is no recognisable order. It is proposed to adopt either alphabetical order or order by importance. Alphabetical order would help legibility of the article and consistency with other articles and templates. Order by current importance (electricity generation) for Germany would be Wind, Bio, Hydro, Solar. Your feedback is welcome. Elekhh (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm actually pretty happy with the ordering as it is. Germany is a world leader in wind and solar power, so these come first. And then the stragglers. Johnfos (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Query
I was wondering how the article 'Energy in Germany' can say only 1.6% of Germany's energy use is derived from renewables in 2008, but in this article on Renewable energy in Germany, it says that as of 2007, renewables accounted for 14% of their energy needs. This seems very discrepant. 174.101.224.4 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The page Economy of Germany now says: Probably most of the "others" is renewable sources. Tropical wind (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hydro- and wind power 1.5%
 * Others 9.0%

Change the first sentence
"Germany is the world's first major renewable-energy economy. "

I would propose changing this. It's only the opinion of the used source, and I don't see indications of it being the general consensus. I believe wikipedia pages should not engage in hype. Tropical wind (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation link broken
Citation #12 is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.6.65 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the biomass ?
So according to the chart,  about a third of the "renewable" energy is biomass and biogas,  but there is no more information about what this actually is. Whats is it ? Garbage ? Crop residue ? Firewood ? Is peat a renewable resource ? Is it really renewable and how much emission does it create.Eregli bob (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Renewable energy world
Is not a reliable source as (1) what was attributed to it | Here is incorrect, as other countries, such as Iceland, and of comparable size the Electricity sector in Brazil are the number 1 renewable energy countries. German's just produce ~20% of their electricity from renewable sources, so on the factual basis it is just flat out wrong-i.e a statement with no firm basis in reality is worse than mere spin. (2) It is a biased source, therefore not reliable when the encyclopedia page is about renewable energy.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/germany-the-worlds-first-major-renewable-energy-economy?cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-April8-2009

(3) I'm getting pretty suspicious of encountering the usual double standards here, and having to explain every edit I make on the talk page whilst those who meanwhile only days ago just | made the page appear like one giant advertisement, with the WP:SYNTH cherry picking of 2007 data to fit a POV, go completely unopposed. Boundarylayer (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's Focus on content shall we? Please quote me the text in WP:RS which you believe says that errors in a source make it an "unreliable source" as that concept is used in the WP:RS policy.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What the source states can be described as a fringe theory, i.e a statement not based in reality - Verifiability WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
 * Do you acknowledge this? Furthermore another editor on this talk page also noticed this bull**** hype all the way back in 2010. Talk:Renewable_energy_in_Germany
 * Secondly, we should of course focus on content, such as doing something about the editors who - | made the page appear like one giant advertisement, with the WP:SYNTH cherry picking of 2007 data to fit a POV
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are shifting the goalposts. Whether a source is a "reliable source" is the first step.   You challenged it on the basis of reliability and I rebutted.  You are no longer talking about reliability but about "exceptional claims".  These are different concepts in the wikipedia analysis process.   I would be perfectly happy to see text comparing what Germany has done to these other countries.   As yet, the disputed text hardly strikes me as "exceptional" because the world's nations' comparative renewable energy status is not really common knowledge.  Compare "the earth is flat" colliding with common knowledge.  Now THAT is an exceptional claim.   In sum, whatever you based your Iceland and Brazil stats on are probably good RSs and all of these could be combined into something meaningful.   Simple reversions based on your personal knowledge are not OK, and doubly so now that you have apparently conceded the source meets our "reliable source" definition after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable has a lot of meanings, some of which are common knowledge. Renewable energy world is not a reliable source because it is flat out wrong on very basic common knowledge facts- it does not meet my definition of reliable, does it meet yours? Now, If you want to keep renewable energy world in, and make the entire article look silly, pushing an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, by all means go right ahead.  Moreover, I'll assume good faith that you do not know which countries are No.1 in renewable energy. Here is an actual reliable source breaking it down for you.
 * | OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics
 * Here is a quote, notice not a single mention of Germany here, at all . - ''For the OECD as a whole, the contribution of renewables to energy supply increased from 4.8% in 1971 to 7.6% in 2010. The contribution of renewables varied greatly by country. On the high end, renewables represented 85% of energy supply in Iceland, 39% in New Zealand and 37% in Norway. On the low end, renewables contributed 3% or less of the energy supply for Japan, Korea, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.


 * In general, the contribution of renewables to the energy supply in non-OECD countries is higher than in OECD countries. In 2009, renewables contributed 46% to the energy supply of Brazil, 34% in Indonesia, 26% in India, 12% in China, 10% in South Africa and 3% in the Russian Federation. ''


 * With one exception, no one cares how you or I define "reliable" because the only relevant definition is already set forth in the policy on reliable sources.  The exception is that everyone is equally invited to propose policy changes.  Until then, no editor's opinion that an otherwise WP:reliable source is "flat out wrong on very basic facts" is persuasive.  If you want to shoot it down, find some WP:reliable sources that say Renewable energy world has a poor reputation of fact-checking, or something like that.  Making decisions here on Wikipedia based on editors' alleged personal expertise is an impermissible form of original research.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)


 * I really don't have the time to look up what others think of renewable energy world(REW) as a source, if you're up for it, that might be a decent contribution on your behalf. Really, I think the OECD stats I added debunk what it is suggesting nicely enough. As I have written to you already, another editor here, on this very talk page in 2010, called the sentence attributed to REW as hype, I agree with them.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These various references talk about "percent" ... but percent of what exactly? Total energy?   Total energy per capita?   Total energy per GDP?   It is easy for me to imagine an entirely different line up of who is #1, 2 and 3 depending which statistic we are talking about.   I don't pretend to be familiar with the RSs in this area.  I'm only saying you can't shoot down something that otherwise complies with WP:RS just on your statement that its flat-out wrong.   And when you try to establish that it is wrong, you need to think deep and provide enough info from other RSs to gain a consensus regarding WP:WEIGHT or some other applicable guideline. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is stated as percentage of total energy requirements in the article. If you think what the percentages are, is not clear, then feel free to clarify it, in fact I urge you too. I also don't think the line up will be much different if you look those stats up as they're all dependent on each other. Moreover Germany isn't even a leader in renewable energy technology either, or even in sales numbers. The USA and China are. Even the articles questionable statements - Every third wind turbine and German hydro is popular doesn't strike me as saying that Germany is even the world leader in sales of renewable energy devices. Especially considering that hydro is the single largest source of renewable electricity, by far.


 * As you are eminently aware, I am not entirely clear about the intricacies of wiki policy, so I'm curious, what would occur if I show renewable energy world to be full of nonsense hyperbole? Would that mean it is never again allowed to be in a wikipedia article?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll make more headway if you set your opinion aside and show a parade of other RSs dissing it, and although there isn't really a final say anywhere that I know of, you might also generate momentum for a consensus by making a strong showing at the reliable sources noticeboard. .NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Monsters and Critics
The first reference in the article is from a dead link to a Monsters and Critics page, a source which I don't think is a reliable source, as it is regarded as a blog entertainment vendor. What do all you think? Reliable or not?

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter since the article was a UPI wire - the link appears to have been a courtesy link. I've corrected it to the original UPi release. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead
What is all that text doing in the lead? Specifically the statistics doesn't have anything to do in the lead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To show the nation's standing in respect to other countries.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs clarification as to current percent of energy that is renewable
There is one source which lists the percentage in 2012 as under 10%, yet others that list it at around 20% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.120.105 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent definition of "renewable" ?
It appears that in some contexts, "renewable energy" includes hydro-electric power,  and it other contexts, it doesn't.   For example, at the article "nuclear power in germany",  the graph shows hydroelectric and renewable as separate categories. But the figures quoted in this article have figures where the "renewable" total clearly includes hydroelectricity.Eregli bob (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt about energy matters, consult what the authoritative International Energy Agency has said, as a starting point... The IEA says that renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides, plant growth, and geothermal heat: "Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources."

So hydro and many newer technologies are classified as renewable. There is no inconsistency. But sometimes the renewables category will be broken down for the purpose of presentation and analysis. For example, REN21 gives this type of breakdown, which I think is quite useful:

-- Johnfos (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Shutdown nuclear and increase in coal
It is quite often claimed that after the shutdown of eight nuclear power plants the energy gap was filled by coal. See debate section and links. This is far from the truth. Actual numbers can be found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung Martin.uecker (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great point. The fact that renewable energy has also led to LESS coal, not more, is also illustrated here: http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution. Bksovacool (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you two look at the Stromerzeugung article, the rise in renewables from 2010 to 2012 was not as large as the drop in nuclear energy; something had to take its place and it wasn't gas (which in fact shrunk too), it was coal. Note "“The increase of coal is disastrous for climate policy and a bad signal for progress of Germany’s energy switch,” said Gerald Neubauer, a campaigner for Greenpeace" You can argue that this is a temporary situation and will improve in the future, (note again from the article "Germany emitted the equivalent of 931 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents last year, which was up from 917 million tons the year before, the Environment Ministry said in February. “We must make sure that this was an exception and that it doesn’t become a trend that’s repeated,” Environment Minister Peter Altmaier said then.") but it does not change the fact that Germany *is* currently burning more coal now than it was over the last few years. Suggest note  by Mark Lynas: "The Energiewende, it is probably fair to say, is not really about the climate at all. It is about getting rid of nuclear power, a singular obsession of the German Greens since their birth in the European anti-nuclear movement 1970s." -- Limulus (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a remark: The energy production was not constant over time. What you see in this diagram are only percentages. In TWh: 2010: coal 263, nuclear 140, renewables 105 – 2013: coal 286, nuclear 97, renewables 147. The reason for the increase of coal is more complicated: more renewables let the price drop, gas became less attractive. So in 2010 Gas made 89 TWh, in 2013 only 66. You can find all the numbers here--130.149.124.48 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The drop in nuclear (-41 TWh) from 2010-2010 was almost completely compensated for by the increase in renewables (+38 TWh). While the increase in coal (+14.6 TWh) almost completely corresponds to a drop in gas (-12.9 TWh). The idea that the nuclear was replaced by coal is clearly wrong. If Germany would have been in a desperate need to replace nuclear with anything, gas and coal (both kinds) would have gone up. Instead, only brown coal went up while gas went down. And it is known that this was caused by a relative shift in prices. Martin.uecker (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the same graphic in English: RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)