Germany: 120 Billion Euros For 5% Electricity Supply! And “Huge New Green Movement” Against Wind Power

Only 5% of demand covered

The Swiss online Baseler Zeitung here writes how the country’s Association for Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Biotech Companies is coming out against Switzerland’s recently proposed green “energy strategy”, saying that it is “fundamentally going in the wrong direction“.

The association fears it will lead to higher costs.

Energy politician Christian Wasserfallen “is pleased” about the message, the Baseler Zeitung writes.

The economy is slowly realizing what a threat the energy strategy poses.”

On the problems of supply reliability from sun and wind power, the Baseler Zeitung reports:

Just how little wind and sun really deliver was actually measured for example by Germany yesterday: The more than 120 billion euros worth of solar panels and wind turbines installed since 2000 delivered 4% and 1% respectively of German power demand.”

Huge Resistance Now Mounting Against German Green Energies

In another story, Benny Peiser of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation interviewed Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the founders of the environmental movement in Germany and the Chairman of the German Wildlife Trust. See full interview in the following video:

CO2 reductions backfire

On why CO2 is rising despite the 25 billion dollars annually spent on green energies, Vahrenholt says the system is set up in a way that ends up making coal more competitive, and so squeezes out the cleaner natural gas as the energy to provide the base load. He calls the system “contradictory in itself.”

He adds that the government target of reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020 “will never be achieved”, let alone reaching the CO2 emissions reductions target.

Host Benny Peiser reminds that the Energiewende costs the average household 300 euros annually, all to “subsidize the wealthy landowners, farmers, and the people with big houses who invest in renewables.” People have accepted the burden because they have been told it is to “save the world” and that government has played on the bad conscience of the collective German population for bad things done in the past, Vahrenholt said. On the issue “there is no political opposition in the Parliament. None.”

“New green movement” posing huge resistance

However Vahrenholt says that people in rural areas are now rising up against the destruction of the landscape and forests by wind energy. “What we see now is that biodiversity is destroyed by the measures against climate change.”

He says here there is huge resistance coming from a new green movement that eventually will make its way into the Parliament. He accuses the German Green Party of having abandoned its original mission of protecting nature and wildlife, and tell viewers that the green movement has begun to bicker and splinter.

Complete transformation of the landscape

Later he says plastering the country with over 50,000 turbines, as planned, would de facto mean a complete and profound transformation of the country’s romantic landscape. Already 240,000 bats per year fall victim to wind turbines each year, he notes.

Vahrenholt, a member of the SPD socialist party, reminds viewers that the green party has never really been green, but are in reality leftists disguised as environmentalists who are pursing an anti-industry, anti-technology and anti capitalism agenda in an attempt to fundamentally transform society. He says the energy policy silliness is being driven by an irrational belief in climate catastrophe.

Vahrenholt calls Germany’s exit from nuclear energy misguided and a mistake.

On the prospect of Germany returning to reason, the German professor says that it will depend on three factors: 1) if global temperature fails to rise, 2) on grid stability and 3) the destruction of nature in Germany, which is now “a growing concern”.

 

64 responses to “Germany: 120 Billion Euros For 564 Electricity Supply! And “Huge New Green Movement” Against Wind Power”

  1. DirkH

    “Vahrenholt said. On the issue “there is no political opposition in the Parliament. None.””

    Bundestag members are known to front-run renewable investments as they know what laws will be passed. They all have “wind farm” shares.

    That’s why they all hate Trump. They hate the idea of someone cleaning the ship.

  2. Mark M

    “Renewables are critical in our fight against [Doomsday Global Warming].” IEA chief Fatih Birol.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/iea-chief-fatih-birol-eyes-donald-trump-risk-says-renewables-critical-in-climate-fight-20170115-gtrsxs

    How much renewable energy must Germany install before Germany prevents it’s first drought?

    1. sod

      From your link:

      “”This surge in investment in clean energy is about smart business,” Mr Hochstein told the conference over the weekend. “It is not partisan, it is not political, and it is driven by the private sector.””

      the horribly conservative IEA is finally accepting the facts on renewables. They are cheaper than all other new sources of electricity. So the system driving their advance is called capitalism.

      1. richard verney

        It is subsidy farming, these people reap the benefit of tax payer’s cash/enforced subsidines put on energy bills. They only make financial sense becuse of the subsidy.

        Take away all subsidies, no enhanced strike rate price, or no priority of supply (green energy first, fossil fuel energy only when green energy is insufficient), and all would collapse immendiately.

      2. David Johnson

        Sod, how can someone be so wilfully blind to reality as you are?

  3. Dr Tim Ball-Climatologist

    I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    My website is
    Thank you.
    Tim
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
    http://www.drtimball.com

  4. David Johnson

    That sentence alone proves that he is an idiot

    1. DirkH

      Which sentence, and which “he”?

      1. David Johnson

        “Renewables are critical in our fight against [Doomsday Global Warming].” IEA chief Fatih Birol. –

        1. Analitik

          The guy is an ecomomist like Stern and Garnaut so he just parrots what the establishment provides as the consensus view.

  5. mothcatcher

    Pierre –
    ?Do you have any more information on the German ‘New Green Movement’

    I used to consider myself an environmentalist, working in my own small way to protect local habitats and ecosystems. This emerged out of a profound love for the natural world, which still informs everything that I do. But over time I began to feel unwelcome, being expected to espouse beliefs and norms with which I was uncomfortable. Green antipathy towards nuclear power was, I suppose, the real point of departure. That was even before the CO2 thing really began to take hold. I know plenty of people who think like I do – who would like to be green, if only we could get shot of the ‘green crap’
    (expression courtesy of our former UK Prime Minister).

    There’s no organisation in UK which caters for like minds. Should I learn German?

    1. DirkH

      There are small local groups opposing local “wind parks”; the party politicians push the projects through because municipalities reap rent money from them or even own the projects, reaping the subsidies fully.

      All Bundestag parties are for limitless expansion of wind turbines and ongoing subsidation.

      As usual, the Bundestag parties just denounce anyone opposing them as Nazis – they actually use the word “right” and that “the right” must be fought – and for the moment manage to scare enough idiots to cling to their power. All Bundestag parties are leftists / socialist progressives by their own definition therefore, as “the right” is the boogeyman they have decided to use. From time to time the CDU claims that they have also conservative leanings. But does nothing to prove it.

  6. SebastianH

    Daily shares of renewable electricity production in germany:
    https://energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm (switch to daily in the left menu). It never dropped below 13%. The lowest for 2016 was January 21st with 15.7%. The monthly average was lowest in October of 2016 with 27.6%

    It’s not truthful to claim all the money the Germans spent (and are still spending) was/is for just 5% renewables.

    1. DirkH

      We should also point out that the cost for solar panels and wind turbines are dwarfed by the accumulated and ever faster accelerating sum of subsidies.

    2. AndyG55

      from https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

      24.01 22:30 (which makes no sense, must be a time issue?)

      but choosing max solar for the day

      solar… 2.30 GW… that’s 3.6%… WOW !!!
      wind…. 1.04 GW… that’s 1.6%… even WOWWER !!!!
      conventional. 58.36.. that’s 91.8%… useless, hey !!
      import… 1.88

      Thanks for the link Sebo, now take your foot out of your mouth !!

      1. AndyG55

        ps.. that was for week 4 Jan 2017

      2. AndyG55

        screen-capt verification (must have type 2.30 rather than 2.29, oh well)

        https://s19.postimg.org/ywzh9f1wz/wow_to_germany_unreliables.png

      3. AndyG55

        Let’s see, according to another chart there is 48.93 GW of installed wind.

        So wind was providing just 2.1% of nameplate

        who very AWESOME that is , hey seb/sob 😉

      4. AndyG55

        This is great link, seb 🙂

        1. SebastianH

          You are welcome. Go to December 24th 2016 and you’ll see a day with a maximum of 79.8% being produced by wind and solar.

          It is not exactly news that both sources of electricity aren’t steady providers of energy, but they are not just producing 5%. And they happen to be highly predictable as can be seen by comparison of day ahead auction and intraday prices (https://www.energy-charts.de/price.htm). And no blackouts yet, so it still works even with an annual renewable electricity production of 33.9% and it will probably work until it is as high as 60-70% … then storage is the only way to further increase the percentage.

          Here is another interesting link: https://www.netzfrequenz.info/regelleistung

          This displays (in German) the frequency in the German electric transmission network and the currently used power to balance the frequency. Despite wind mills the frequency is pretty stable. The fluctuations haven’t changed much in the last 5 years: https://www.netzfrequenz.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Netzfrequenz_062011-122016-768×525.png

        2. AndyG55

          So it can sometime provide.. SO WHAT.

          Coal and gas can ALWAYS provide.

          Its those big dips where wind/solar become useless that are the problem.

          It means you ALWAYS have to have at least 95% installed backup required.

          You are paying for two systems, where one, coal, gas, nuclear, is totally able to do the job.

          It really is the height of stupidity…

          …especially when you consider the massive damage done to the landscape and birdlife by these often useless bird munchers.

          1. SebastianH

            The transission is costly, but the endgame is renewables having a lower per MWh price than conventional power plants.

            If you don’t burn 1 billion € worth of resources and only have to pay 900 million € for renewable energy instead than this is very sensible.

            Here is a link to a study a German research institute published in 2012 how they estimate how a 100% renewable grid will work. They calculate that the costs are in the same order as with the current system. However, they didn’t include costs for the transission itself:
            https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/studie-100-erneuerbare-energien-in-deutschland.pdf (it’s in German, but the figures should work in any language).

          2. sod

            “The transission is costly, but the endgame is renewables having a lower per MWh price than conventional power plants.”

            and the comparison is utterly flawed:

            Renewables are paying the full price (via EEG) and are competing with paid off coal plants (which do not pay for environmental damages).

            The cheap side of renewables will show up, when the expensive first wave is written off but keeps producing electricty.

          3. Analitik

            And what of the shorter lifetimes for the renewables, sod?
            Care to factor in replacing the first wave 2 or 3 times before the coal/nuclear plant require renewing?

          4. Analitik

            The transmission is costly, but the endgame is renewables having a lower per MWh price than conventional power plants.

            If you don’t burn 1 billion € worth of resources and only have to pay 900 million € for renewable energy instead than this is very sensible.

            Here is a link to a study a German research institute published in 2012 how they estimate how a 100% renewable grid will work. They calculate that the costs are in the same order as with the current system. However, they didn’t include costs for the transmission itself

            Go and do the math then for the uncosted but costly transmission (spelling corrected for you), the overbuild and the 2-3 time more frequent replacement interval. There is your missing “1 billion € worth of resources” and more

    3. sod

      “It’s not truthful to claim all the money the Germans spent (and are still spending) was/is for just 5% renewables.”

      They are ignoring hydro and biofuels when ever it is convenient for them.

      1. AndyG55

        Now you want to count hydro.

        Just remember that when China tells us they are already over their renewable target.

        Or does hydro only count when you want it to count ?

        1. SebastianH

          When you mention the total amount of money that is being spent on renewables you have to count biogas, because 26.1% of the money is going to biogas power plants. 38.4% is going to solar/photovoltaics, 22.1% to onshore wind and 13.1% to offshore wind.

          Hydro is a renewable, but it only providing 4.3% of electricity in Germany. Solar is providing 7.8%, wind 16.2% and biogas 10.2% according to https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm

          1. AndyG55

            Again the brain-washed dumbness. nothing wrong with biogas. you know exactly how much it can provide.. you can see it.. steady as a rock, constant.

            It is the pointless ness of wind, which requires absolute back-up. You HAVE to have that back-up available and maintained.. so why not use it all the time and just get rid of the landscape destroying avian wildlife destroying turbines.

            This will of course happen in the long run. Once subsidies and feed-in mandates are removed, the unreliability and irregularity of wind non-power has no place in any major system.

          2. SebastianH

            Because it is more expensive to run the backup all the time? This might sound untrue to you and it surely isn’t the case in this transission phase, but it is how it is going to end.

            The goal if (world wide) subsidies is to make this technology competitive. In the long run solar and wind will be very cheap and the price for electricity on the exchange will only be high enough for other forms of power generation when those two can’t generate.

            If this really happens, I don’t know … but this is the bet a lot of countries are taking.

            Regardings birds and bats: this is a common myth … are you prosecuting cats for causing a much higher count of fatalities, too?

          3. sod

            “nothing wrong with biogas”

            a lot is wrong with biogas. basically the farming lobby highjacked the renewable energy business.

            But biogas has advantages. Future gas will come from “wild flower meadows” or small wood, harvested by machines. This will be environmental friendly (sweet corn for biogas is not). It can also back up other renewables.

            The main problem is, that biogas is a significant part of the total cost and “sceptics” simply ignore it to make renewable percentage of demand look smaller and cost look bigger. I will call that a trick!

      2. Akatsukami

        Since you Green fascisti want to destroy hydro as too reliable, it may justly be excluded.

  7. David Appell

    Germany made a huge mistake by getting rid of nuclear power, by freaking out after Fukushima.

    Nuclear power is by far the safest energy source. I thought the Germans were made of hardier stock.

    1. AndyG55

      For once we agree. Nothing wrong with nuclear….

      …. but coal is easier and cheaper and FAR BETTER for the environment because it provides large amounts of plant food.

      1. yonason

        Nuclear is the only thing he ever gets right. Must be a glitch in the circuitry.

    2. AndyG55

      “I thought the Germans were made of hardier stock.”

      Sorrow, but they also have been infected with the far-left sooky “feel-good” socialism that has affected other parts of the developed world.

      They need someone like Trump to rattle their cage and wake them up to reality

      (sorry Pierre, but truth should be told)

  8. AndyG55

    Simple question, that goes to the heart of reliability.

    What is the maximum percentage of nameplate that wind can guarantee to produce 95% of the time (calculated on an hourly basis for a month).?

    I did this calc for UK windmills a couple of years ago.. it was round about 4-5%.. Ripper reliability, hey 😉

    1. sod

      “What is the maximum percentage of nameplate that wind can guarantee to produce 95% of the time (calculated on an hourly basis for a month).?”

      you are trying to mislead people. What is the percentage that nuclear can guarantee in japan since Fukushima?

      you look at minimum numbers, for one technology in one country. That is called a trick.

      1. AndyG55

        Poor sob, can’t face the FACT that wind is universally USELESS.

        He KNOWS that they will often need 90% back up at least.

        He just refuses to admit it to himself.. DELUSIONAL. !!!

        That really does put them in the “WHY BOTHER”, kiddie’s toys basket.

      2. AndyG55

        misleading.. and you talk about nuclear taken out by a tsunami. You really are a slimy little worm , aren’t you sob

        Japan is building new coal as needed.. they will have a reliable supply

        What was that percentage of nameplate that wind in Germany can GUARANTEE to provide 95% of the time, sob.

        You are the guru with wind.. calculate the numbers..

        Stop running and hiding from the truth. !!!

        ….or we will just leave it at around a very pathetic 4-5% of nameplate

      3. Pethefin

        This is complete ridiculous even coming from you Sod, and you know it.

    2. SebastianH

      I have copied the database of energy-charts.de for the last few years. I should be able to calculate those numbers …

      1. AndyG55

        So you know the methodology?

        Easiest way is to put the hourly figures in order from largest to smallest or each month, then find the 5th percentile. ie right near the bottom.

        It will vary, but probably be in the 5-10 percent range for Germany.

        For this month, looks like there are going to be a lot of very low numbers near the bottom.

  9. sod

    well, the 24.01. is the ultimate cherry pick.

    Lowest day in about a year. Was this the original starting point of this article?

    The claim about security is also simply false. Grid stability in Germany has gotten better with more renewables.

    1. AndyG55

      No cherry pick.. just showing that wind and solar can need 94% back-up

      That is how pathetic it is.

      And you can see that from 23rd to half way through 25th that it really wasn’t much better.

      What a monumental JOKE and a monumental waste of money.

      1. AndyG55

        In fact for all of 23rd to 26th 04:00, wind provided less than 5%

        So it seems that for this month at least the 95% provision will be well less than 5% of nameplate.

        Isn’t wind energy such wonderfully USELESS stuff. !!

        1. SebastianH

          But it’s not 94% fossile fuel backup. About wind being useless: if wind energy becomes cheaper than conventional electricity production, would you still call it useless then?

          1. AndyG55

            You have biogas, nuclear.. no problem with those, As you can see, they are RELIABLE.

            Wind is actually WORSE than useless. It ALWAYS needs a near 100% back-up.

            Coal especially works at its most economical, in terms of cost and coal usage when it is not continually ramping up and down.

            When you have to shut down coal power station at irregular intervals to make way for the irregularity of wind, that makes the uneconomical. If they get too economical from not being allowed to operate in an economical way, they will eventually have to shut down (which is the aim of the anti-CO2 agenda)

            But once they shut down.. they are no longer there as the necessary back-up.. and that is when the cost of electricity starts to go totally manic, because you hit the supply vs demand wall. Electricity systems start to suffer outages, and non-delivery issues, and has to buy electricity from sources that could be both horrendously costly and produce an horrendous amount of real pollution.

            This certainly happens in UK, with its huge banks of diesel generators, South Australia having to beg and plead and pay huge spot prices for old decrepit coal power or power from the brown coal of Victoria,

            This stupidity of building heaps of wind, and then economically destroying its necessary back-up with huge wind subsidies and moronic feed-in rules, means it is only a matter of time before it comes back to bite them, big time.

          2. Will Janoschka

            “if wind energy becomes cheaper than conventional electricity production, would you still call it useless then?”

            Yes indeed as such must still raise the cost of reliable on demand electrical power generation! Wind power likely does raise surface temperature unlike CO2. Earth’s angular momentum (wind) is not renewable ever!!!

          3. yonason
  10. thefordprefect

    how much does nuclear cost?
    https://s25.postimg.org/5bln1e33j/fukushima_cost.jpg
    £151bn ($190bn us) just to clean up a mess

    cost of Chernobyl $235bn (2005) plus
    $1.2bn for new Chernobyl shelter

    just 2 accidents cost $426bn to clean

    Want to look at subsidies then check out Hinkley C in UK
    “The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers under the “strike price” will be £29.7 billion”

    One of the costs of nuclear/conventional not usually considered is the “spinning” reserve required as fast backup when one of the generators trips.
    “By approving Hinkley Point on Thursday, the U.K. government cleared the way for GE to begin building two 1,770-megawatt Arabelle steam ”
    — So 1 turbine trip looks to need 1.8GW of spinning reserve in case it trips This is just about handled by the current NG (it wasn’t when Sizewell and Longannet tripped in 2008
    http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/E19B4740-C056-4795-A567-91725ECF799B/32165/PublicFrequencyDeviationReport.pdf
    When a windmill falls over it removes at most 7Mw from the grid

    The best answer to power generation is conserve heat, improve household efficiency.

    1. Josh

      Cherry picking much? What about things like quality of power supply and density? What about the true costs of so-called ‘renewables’?

      1. SebastianH

        Please define cherry picking in regard to the content of the comment you are replying to.

        What are the true costs of renewables? I don’t see any externalities that aren’t priced in while most other types of power generation aren’t fully payed for by the price on your bill.

    2. yonason

      Speaking of subsidies, t.f.p.

      Greenies have no problem lying. Here are the facts.
      http://euanmearns.com/the-appalling-truth-about-energy-subsidies/

      You may chose to believe the lies, but don’t try to sell them to people who know better.

  11. Jim

    All very interesting arguments. “But” “renewables” depend upon realestate, taking land out of its primary purpose. Creating dead zones. Solar works best where there is sun, nearer to the equator, where the sun is mostly. Wind towers are designed wrong, not being built for the least wind in the areas of use. A prime example of bad engineering. What’s left for small communities is very costly, but fires can and do provide them with the cheaper energy that is in constant supply. That’s what drives the ability for people to produce and stay in extreme environments. Thank God for global warming.

  12. Renewable and Green Energy | Pearltrees

    […] engineers and real-world demonstration projects. Great! But how about the problem of intermittency? Germany: 120 Billion Euros For 5% Electricity Supply! And “Huge New Green Movement” Against Wind…. Only 5% of demand covered The Swiss online Baseler Zeitung here writes how the country’s […]

  13. AndyG55

    Right now, in South Australia, at 11.30AM Sunday, wind power is showing a total power generation of, umm, 15MW.

    At around Midnight, it dropped off considerably from around 270MW to 200MW and then just kept falling to where it is now.

    For some perspective, that current 15MW power delivery in SA, well that’s a Capacity Factor of less than 1%, so of the (approximately) 900 or so wind towers, that means around 9 (yes, that is NINE) of them are actually turning, across the whole State of South Australia.

    Ah! Wind Power. You just can’t beat it. 🙂

    1. AndyG55

      Its a warmish day, so the air-cons will be working, and dragging whatever they can from the brown coal power stations in Victoria.

      There are rumours of brownouts and blackouts starting to happen in areas east of Adelaide……AGAIN !!