Real but not too sexy alternative is use of small-scale heat pumps. Sweden has plenty of them installed and it is catching interest in other nordic countries too. The advantage lies in cheap and small scale compared to massive projects traditional geothermal systems require. I personally believe that heat pumps will have tremendous growth in next few years.
The heat generation is soon becoming the primary deal for geotheraml power. The heat pumps are best for that as they save tremendously in heat generation for houses (and thus in heating energy bills). This is the reason why heat generation with geothermal is rising rapidly (and has already achieved EU 2010 targets). So, if you look at the geothermal power generation, you looking at "old tech" :)
The 11% is not too shabby and within expectations (in 2003 some 8.98% of German primary energy generation was produced with renewable sources). Ofcourse there are always fluctuation with hydropower (depends on annual weather). The 2010 EU goal for Germany was 12.5% I think.
I am also somewhat sceptical at biofuel as sole replacement but I have seen both numbers and economic case for biofuel generation for EU and it does work on level of few percentages of total fuel bill. Anything more than that requires drastic changes to to way agriculture works so they are not realistic in EU level.
There is a chance for technological breakthrough. There are test factories for wood material based biofuel generation and if it works, the agriculture and forestry industry waste could be recycled. The economic logic lies in idea that since the operators and infrastructure already works, the waste is simply recycled alongside normal facilities to create fuel. It might be next step in biofuels but I've not seen real calculations on wood material based gasefication processes. It might shave off few more percentages of fuel consumption if process actually works (based on back of envelope economic calculations I've seen).
You (and, if I recall the same study, the EU) seem to focus on the economic angle, and that 3-to-5-times market price I wrote about is not at all rosy - in free-market terms. Medium-term expectations of price decreases as the technology enters series-production stage are still way above market prices, too.
However, as I gave ample indications at EuroTrib that I am not at all a free-market enthusiast, in this case too I would favor choosing an expensive solution - for the environmental benefit. I take global warming that seriously. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
There are 3 kinds of geothermal energy:
The world leaders are the USA, Italy and the Philippines, where enough cost effective sites (typically 3-6cEUR/kWh cost for electricity generation) were found. I don't really know about the availability of more expensive sites, but if there are massive "reserves" available at 3-5 times current costs (presumably 10-20cEUR/kWh), that would make it a serious contender for reasonably cheap electricity if we go into crisis mode. (Wind costs 4-7cEUR/kWh.
DoDo- a small correction. I seriously doubt that Germany's base load is only 35 GW. France's is more like 50 or 60. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I translated "Grundlast" to 'baseload', a literal translation, tough AFAIK the latter is used to mean pre-planned power generation rougly following an expected consumption curve, while the former (again AFAIK) is used to mean a steady flat power that supplies the minimal electricity need.
The total generating capacity in Germany is above 100 GW, and total annual generation is just above 600 TWh - i.e. an average power of 70 GW.
BTW, thanks for your additions on geothermal! As it looks, these new, now also electricity generating plants in Germany are in your second category. (Some of them are actually conversions of older, heating-only plants.) *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
The real reason why all this stuff works is that the steps done are all slightly more expensive than alternative, i.e. tolerable level. A good example of break through is wind, where technology made it possible for it to work in tolerably higher costs than coal (the difference is now almost nothing). So yes, it all starts and ends with economic factors (which is why I admire EU's very rational strategies with alternative energy sources).
Ofcourse, the economic factors can also be thrown out of window when it is absolutely necessary to national survival. For example Third Reich and South Africa created fuel (oil) out of coal because they had no choice no matter the cost. Same technology is still available for use in case of emergencies. For example China is right now building similar oil factories (obviously to ensure minimum necessary oil production) while EU has not done such a move. EU's current choice of strategy has been diversification of suppliers.
There is a weakness in EU's energy strategy in sense that while it has been realistic it has also been somewhat uncapable of following breakthrough in some renewable energy technologies. For example if you look at size of wind power vis a vis projections it is obvious that wind allready has fullfilled what was "realisticly" expected for entire renewable energy sector by 2030. Time for a new EU energy strategy anyone?
