Extreme Market Distortion: German Power Prices Could Be Negative 1000 Hours A Year!

Germany’s Energiewende is faltering badly.

At least that’s what Christoph Eisenring of the Zurich based daily NZZ writes here, claiming the Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) is a false model for the rest of the world.

The truth is that the Energiewende is on the same path as the construction of the Berlin BER airport – racing down the highway to total debacle – something that everyone is doing their damnedest to ignore and wishing it would just go away.

Moreover, Eisenring writes, it is causing “collateral damage” to Germany’s neighboring countries, as huge supply fluctuations threaten to destabilize their grids and electricity markets.

Only 1% of rated capacity!

The Energiewende has led to some of the most expensive electricity prices in the world, and it is not difficult to understand why. Eisenring uses the example of German power production on January 24, 2017 when at 7 a.m. German demand was at 70 gigawatts but the country’s 84 gigawatts of installed solar and wind capacity were putting out a mere 0.8 gigawatts, i.e. only about 1% of capacity.

That means doubling or even ten-folding German solar and wind capacity would still not be enough at times. That in turn means that Germany is forced to run two separate systems: a renewable one and a conventional system. “That’s costly,” Eisenring comments.

Highly inefficient

The highly erratic supply of wind and sun means the conventional power plants are constantly being slowed down or cranked up in a desparate race to keep the grid stable. Eisenring illustrates:

It is as if you would constantly be putting on the brakes and accelerating on the highway while driving from Bern to Zürich: It is a highly inefficient way of production.”

Adding more renewables is only going to mean more hours of oversupply when the wind blows and the sun shines, Eisenring reminds. It will lead to even greater inefficiency and instability.

1000 hours of negative prices possible annually

To unload the excess power, wholesale prices have been increasingly falling into the negative range, which means the grid operator has to pay buyers to “buy” the unwanted power. Eisenring reports that last year German power prices on the wholesale exchange markets were negative for 97 hours, which is close to 2 hours a week. But that figure will only grown as more wind and solar come online. Eisenring writes:

However, there are estimates that this could be the case for 1000 hours by 2022.”

That comes out to be about 20 hours a week. No market can survive that.

Another problem, Eisenring writes, is the havoc that Germany’s bucking bronco power grid is wreaking on the grids of neighboring countries like the Czech Republic, Poland, France, Austria or Switzerland, to name a few – all caused by the “exorbitant subsidization of renewables.”

€520 billion per year by 2025!

Germany’s Energiewende and its high costs are hammering consumers, many of whom are no longer able to pay their electric bills and are thus losing power by the tens of thousands of households. Eisenring cites one study that estimates the Energiewende cost Germany 150 billion euros in 2015 alone, and by 2025 it could cost 520 billion euros.

Storage still a pipe dream

Storing surplus electricity is also currently unfeasible, noting that German renowned economist Hans-Werner Sinn calculated 125 million Tesla automobile batteries would be needed. Yet, even such a huge quantity of batteries still would not be enough to allow wintertime driving, Sinn calculates!

Eisenring also writes that so far Germany’s Energiewendehas led to very little protection of the environment, as much of the CO2 emissions have been offshored and have fallen only 6% in the electricity sector since the feed-in act was enacted in 2000.

Eisenring writes that Germany will not meet its 2020 40%-emissions-reductions target. Currently the country has reduced emissions by 27% since 1990, but most of that coming from shutting down the shoddy old industries of former communist East Germany after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall.

Government still insisting it’s “our success story”

Yet, this glaring failure has not made any impression on the German government, as it recently released a propaganda brochure extoling the virtues of the Energiewende, calling it “our success story“, “sustainable and safe“, affordable and plannable” and “reliable and intelligent“.

Eisenring comments on the government’s propagandist self-assessment:

With this assessment Berlin is quite alone.”

Early this year Germany’s federal budget office determined that “the Ministry of Economics had in fact no overview of the financial impacts of the Energiewende” and that policymakers had “underestimated the impacts of renewable energy on the entire energy system“.

 

54 responses to “Extreme Market Distortion: German Power Prices Could Be Negative 1000 Hours A Year!”

  1. sod

    Thanks for linking this article. The NZZ is a brilliant (though pretty conservative paper) and has a really impressive comment section (with “official” remarks, keeping the discussion going. I think they are ahead of other papers there!

    https://www.nzz.ch/leserdebatte/leserdebatte-wie-kann-die-energiewende-in-deutschland-doch-noch-gelingen-ld.1290629

    The article has a bg problem though: it is repeating the same old arguments, even though they have less and less meaning over time.

    If you look at this article (Energiewende, das falsche Vorbild…)

    https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/energiepolitik-das-falsche-vorbild-deutschland-ld.1290233

    you will see that Eisenring has written nearly exactly the same last year (die entzauberung der energiewende):

    https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/berlins-jahrhunderprojekt-in-schieflage-die-entzauberung-der-energiewende-ld.88968

    and the year before (opfer der Energiewende):

    http://www.pro-kulmerauerallmend.ch/files/NZZ-2015-03-30-NZZ-Opfer-der-deutschen-Energiewende.pdf

    the problem wit repeating the same argument is simple: The reply also keeps the same, but is actually getting better over time.

    so here a brilliant article taking it down, also from NZZ: [-snip Sorry, but Kemfert is a green energy industry hack and I refuse to allow this site to become a forum for her BS. Again, facts don’t change and Eisenring tell s it the way it is. -PG]

    1. DirkH

      Your mental contortions are getting more and more twisted as you try to explain away the Maduro-size failure of Green Energy Communism.

      We’re headed for sophistry of infinite length. At that point, the warmunist fanboys will become ineffective as they will never reach the point where they can click the POST COMMENT button.

    2. tom0mason

      But sod how do they keep Energiewende going …
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3AoLrFXEAAxfKU.jpg

      Keep the coal fires burning!

    3. Kurt in Switzerland

      sod,

      What’s your point?

      You seem to want to suggest that the NZZ journalist was repeating himself.
      But what about the validity of his arguments? Were they bad a few years ago? Are they worse now? Care to take a stab?

      Do you have some positive news to report about Deutschland’s Energiewende?

      1. sod

        “You seem to want to suggest that the NZZ journalist was repeating himself.”

        yes.my argument was: his arguments have been refuted in the past. You will have to google it for yourself.

        The good news? Germany is building wind offshore without any subsidy. Nobody here would have thought that this was ever possible. Now it already is.

        http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/offshore-windpark-101.html

    4. Felix Schweizer

      … and has a really impressive comment section …
      In the real world the NZZ has shut down free commenting recently because its anti-conservative editors couldn’t stand the conservative-leaning, anti-climatealarmism comments anymore. Now every-one-and-then a sentence is thrown to the readers to be commented on, with the “community-editor” interfering and guiding the discussion of the liberal stalwarts who still take part in this charade; even the leftist Tagesanzeiger in Zürich is more open for free commenting nowadays.
      Christoph Eisenring is to be commended for his informative and fearless reporting.
      Claudia Kempfert could not take down anything, even if if she wanted, because she has a facts-phobia.

      1. sod

        thanks for the information, i do not know how open the discussion process is. But it is pretty obvious that a conversation is the future of the press.

        The last comment says it all.

        “Durch das EEG Gesetz wurde doch nachhaltig die Photovoltaik günstig in der Herstellung, und zwar derart, dass 2016 der Weltrekord bei 2,46 cent/KWh für Stromherstellung war (in einer Großanlage in Chile und vergleichbar auch in Saudi Arabien). Das ist doch Sensationell. Regenerativer Strom für 2,46 cent pro KWh, ein Preis der alles unterbietet. Bleibt nur noch das Problem der Speicherung, dann ist alles geschafft. Und auch hier gibt es Fortschritte.”

        https://www.nzz.ch/leserdebatte/leserdebatte-wie-kann-die-energiewende-in-deutschland-doch-noch-gelingen-ld.1290629

        Germany has driven the prices of renewables down, They are now the cheapest source of electricity. fact.

  2. AndyG55

    Here is a nice little graph..

    https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/img1.png

    look at the percent of wind and solar

    and that is after how many trillions of waste ???

    1. sod

      look at this graph:

      https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&week=17

      2/3 coming from renewables. But it is just facts.

      1. tom0mason

        Germany is the dirty man of Europe in the first week of the year.

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1zrlvFUkAUF4QI.jpg

      2. tom0mason

        sod,

        Germany made a hash of it for February.
        The dirty man of Europe strikes again…
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4As3EaUEAAWuAl.jpg

        1. AndyG55

          Wow, so even with all its useless wind turbines, hacking avian life throughout the country, destroying the once gorgeous hinterland, ..

          …. they STILL output nearly TEN TIMES the amount of CO2 as France per unit of electricity generated.

          Well done Germany.

          Keep that TOTALLY BENEFICIAL CO2 flowing.

          The planet needs it. ! 🙂

        2. sod

          “Germany made a hash of it for February.
          The dirty man of Europe strikes again…”

          That nuclear graph is quite fun. we will have another discussion in a couple of years, when EDF is bancrupt and the people of france will carry the cost.

          1. AndyG55

            Ah the sob-sob fantasy imagination comes to the fore.. yet again.

            The poor little ZERO-proof trollette.

          2. AndyG55

            seb might be batting 1 from 1000+..

            but you aren’t even in the same ballpark, or city for that matter, as reality.

      3. AndyG55

        A TINY, TINY amount of primary energy consumption in Germany. Wind 2.1%, Solar 1.2%

        https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/img1.png

        Seems sob-sob is having difficult reading a simple chart from a member of the AGW cult.

        Yes sob-sob.. one of your “believer” crowd is responsible for the FACTS in that graph.

        ENJOY !! 🙂

        1. AndyG55

          Just think, sob-sob, despite all the environmental devastation wrought by wind turbines, and all the massive waste of funding that could have solved many REAL problems around the world…..

          …. Germany still uses only 2.1% wind in its Total Primary Energy Consumption, and is still totally reliant for 80% of its energy on FOSSIL FUELS.

          What a sick and twisted religion is the AGW cult. !!!

      4. AndyG55

        Because of massive political interference and a huge waste of funds through subsidies, wind and solar have made small, but unsustainable, inroads into the electricity supply sector.

        But they are totally useless for real energy. They can NEVER replace coal, gas and oil in real industry, that actually manufactures things.

        That is why they will remain just a rather small percentage of total primary energy use.

      5. richard verney

        26th April is illuminating and demonstrates the problem.

        Wind during that day peaked at 2.74 GW. ie., about 3.6%. Solar was significantly better peaking at 13.39GW, but over 24 hours only managed about 6.5GW on average. Overall, these did not produce as much power as Biomass and Hydro, and of course, Biomass produces the most CO2 emissions since Biomass has a very low calorific value.

        The renewables are costing a lot of money and are not effectively reducing CO2 emissions. The increased CO2 emissions from Biomass more thhan offsets any saved CO2 from wind and solar.

  3. DirkH

    “At least that’s what Christoph Eisenring of the Zurich based daily NZZ writes here, claiming the Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) is a false model for the rest of the world.”

    Well, it’s also wrong for Germany.

    The question at this point is simply; are the CDU politicians braindead or are they an enemy commando. (For their coalition partner SPD we have the answer: They are Marxists and no further questions are needed.)

    1. tom0mason

      DirkH, if you are real unlucky this may influence the governments policy —
      https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/press/agoranews/news-detail/news/cheap-heating-oil-pricey-electricity-current-levies-and-surcharges-hamper-clean-energy-transition-3/News/detail/

      I wonder how they’ll try and levelize the cost, make heating oil more expensive?

  4. sunsettommy

    Not only poor economically, it is highly unproductive,at least in America:

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/energy/renewables/050317Slide1-m.gif

    Here is the post with excerpt:

    “The New York Times tells us that Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal. But watch the pea – these jobs are “energy jobs”, not jobs that use energy.

    Apparently it takes 79 people to create the same energy through solar as one person does through coal. (And that would be cheaper, how? )”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/one-coal-worker-or-79-solar-ones-same-electricity/

    1. sod

      Solar is currently being BUILD, while coal is only USED.

      Is this really too complicated for you and Jo Nova?

      1. sunsettommy

        Is it too hard for you to read the article?

        Since your reply indicate that either you didn’t read, or you are deliberately trying to fog the it up with misleading B.S.

        Either way,you are incorrect.

        1. sod

          “Is it too hard for you to read the article?”

          i understand the article, you do not. It is simply comparing number of jobs to electricity output. This is total garbage.

          Th majority of solar and wind workforce are not working on solar and wind plants which are operating but on those that are NOT operating yet.

          How many workers do you think are currently working on the solar PV panels on the roof of our house?

          1. Dave Ward

            “How many workers do you think are currently working on the solar PV panels on the roof of our house?”

            Dunno about YOUR house, but the signs are not looking good in the US:http://uk.businessinsider.com/solarcitys-solar-installations-crash-nearly-40-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

            Long may it continue…

          2. sod

            “Dunno about YOUR house, but the signs are not looking good in the US”

            Tesla is building solar and batteries on the islands now:

            https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/8/14854858/tesla-solar-hawaii-kauai-kiuc-powerpack-battery-generator

            i am not too surprised that the insane policies of Donald Trump are dampening the solar markets n parts of the USA.

            Just wait and see…

          3. sunsettommy

            Here is what you missed Sod,

            “In 2016, 1.9 million Americans were employed in electric power generation, mining and other fuel extraction activities, according to the report – a field we’ll call power creation for short.

            More than 373,000 Americans worked part or full time in solar energy, and just over 260,000 of them – or about 70 percent – spent a majority of their time on solar projects.

            Most solar energy jobs were in installation, construction and manufacturing, as the relatively new industry continued to add capacity. Solar power still generated a small share of United States energy output last year.

            The coal industry, which has shed jobs since 2012, primarily due to competition from cheap natural gas, employed just over 160,000 workers nationwide. About 54,000 coal jobs were in mining.”

            Still 1/3 of the entire Coal workforce is in Mining and another percentage not mentioned, maintains the distribution lines.

            Now you understand why I said your earlier statement is misleading?

            “Solar is currently being BUILD, while coal is only USED.”

            You are incorrect. I think you lied about claiming you read the article,I don’t think you read it at all, since you sure missed that quote I pointed out badly.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “I think you lied about claiming you read the article,I don’t think you read it at all, since you sure missed that quote I pointed out badly.”

            It’s possible it was skimmed, but he didn’t understand what he read.

          5. sod

            “Here is what you missed Sod,”

            so can you explain and compare the numbers for me?

            how many people are working producing solar electricity and how many people do the same for coal and how do those numbers compare per kwh?

          6. sunsettommy

            Sod, you still don’t read well since I destroyed your misleading statement, by showing that Coal employs a large portion of their work force to MINING,and unmentioned distribution lines,not just power production.

            YOU stated this,which is why you are incorrect:

            “Solar is currently being BUILD, while coal is only USED.”

            The rate of employee productivity per power generated,is obviously in coals favor.

            THINK Sod!

        2. AndyG55

          Just his juvenile sob-sob trolling… as usual.

          Always wrong, but yapping anyway.

          1. sunsettommy

            Sod, misses so much evidence that Solar is not a viable industry when it still fails despite massive subsidies given.keep in mind this article was in year 2014.There has been more since then:

            Rest in Peace: The Fallen Solar Companies of 2014

            “This is an updated list of (mostly U.S. and EU) solar companies that have closed, gone bankrupt, become insolvent, ended up in assignment for benefit of creditors, or have been acquired in less than positive circumstances”

            http://www.theenergycollective.com/eric-wesoff/2165821/rest-peace-fallen-solar-companies-2014
            ==========================================================
            112 companies listed in the link.

      2. sunsettommy

        Meanwhile Solar companies go bankrupt quite easily once their massive government subsidies dry up:

        “Sungevity cut 350 jobs last week, according to The Mercury News, as is expected to start selling assets at the end of April.

        Another solar company called Beamreach went bust in January after it received $3 million in Department of Energy funding in 2008. The major solar company SunEdison also recently declared bankruptcy. Roughly five major solar companies closed up shop in 2015, which follows the historic tendency that solar power companies tend to go bankrupt as soon as the subsidies are cut off.”

        Massive up front incentives at no cost to the consumer:

        “Solar power companies are heavily supported by financial invective from the government. Most subsidies go to residential installations payments called net metering or a 30 percent federal tax credit. Previously, solar subsidies were so lucrative that solar-leasing companies installed rooftop systems, which run at minimum $10,000, at no upfront cost to the consumer. This naturally favors relatively wealthy consumers.”

        MIT says,Solar is NOT an economically viable industry:

        “Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

        http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/another-solar-company-goes-bankrupt/

    2. sunsettommy

      To follow through on the Jo Nova link is this comment,that is from that same Jo Nova link:

      Tony from Oz writes,

      “I notice that Joanne linked to the EIA data in the body of her text, and that data is always a great reference, because, what it does is to provide actual data that can be readily accessible whenever renewable acolytes spruik up how good their renewables of choice are, wind and solar.

      Because the U.S. has the second largest power generation on Earth, that data is invaluable because it gives large scale figures for those renewables, and you can show just how ineffective they are. The EIA now operates with a two to three month lead time, so the data is relatively up to date.

      China (now far and away the largest power generator on Earth) now does exactly the same thing, with a two Month lead time, so we have access to the largest two generation totals on Planet Earth, always a good thing for comparison.

      So, then, that EIA page Joanne linked to is the main page for (most) generation totals. There is a second page that just handles all the renewables only, and that page is at this link.

      Now, there’s something here I would draw your attention to, and it has to do directly with the main topic, Solar Power.

      See that third column from the left, Solar Thermal Power, well that’s the one I want to draw your attention to.

      Now, down the left side at the top are the power generation Annual Totals for each of the last ten years, so here, go to 2016, and yes, so that’s at the end of December last year, so the most recent full year data, only 5 Months old.

      The total for Solar Thermal here is 3388, and that’s GigaWattHours. (GWH, the same thing as thousand MegaWattHours at the top of the page as the unit expressed)

      That total comes in at 0.083% of the total generated power in the US, so less than one tenth of of one percent.

      How many times have you heard that CSP (Concentrating Solar Power, same thing as Solar Thermal) is the way of the future to replace coal fired power, you know, able to supply baseload power, as Dr. Hewson so admirably told us.

      Okay then, that total power generation of that figure of 3388GWH is generated from a Nameplate (Capacity) of 1822MW from many of these solar plants, and that’s just solar thermal alone here, so I’m not adding in all solar, just this one, CSP.

      So then, that total generation from that total Nameplate gives ALL of these CSP plants a CF (Capacity Factor) of 21.2%, which is worse even than the CF for wind power in the U.S. which is currently 31.1%.

      So, when those greenies smugly say that solar thermal will soon replace coal fired power for baseload power, you are now officially entitled to laugh in their faces.

      Isn’t it amazing how the rhetoric always leads the way, towing the truth along behind it at the end of a very very very long rope.

      Tony.”

      http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/one-coal-worker-or-79-solar-ones-same-electricity/#comment-1910675

      ===================================================================
      Wonder if Sod will bother to follow his comment to the end?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        “That total comes in at 0.083% of the total generated power in the US, so less than one tenth of of one percent.”

  5. tom0mason

    And …

    “Within the EU, most of the CO2 is emitted by its largest member. Last year, Germany accounted for 22.9 percent of the EU’s CO2 emissions. Germany’s CO2 emissions had increased by 0.7 percent compared to the year before.”

    https://euobserver.com/environment/137777

    Thank-you Germany for helping to green the globe!

  6. tom0mason

    Of course part of the energy market distortion that is still alive in Germany is the industrial end of the market.
    Up until 2016 large industrial energy consumers were encouraged to generate their own electricity (and supply the local community with the ‘waste’ heat generated), and therefore were paid some of cost from the Government’s Energiewende subsidy budget(EEG allocation). After 2016 new plant were not allowed to claim for the EEG allocation but already installed in-house power production still gets a large allocation. Vehicle manufactures have long enjoyed this subsidy however —

    In 2017, the EU Commission will likely rule on the existing regulations for in-house power production in Germany. It has approved protection for existing facilities, but demands that the regulation be adapted by the end of 2017. The EU Commission thereby expressed disapproval of the exemption of in-house power from the EEG allocation. German industry demands that the burdens for industrial in-house power production not be further increased. The Federal Economics Ministry also determined in a study that burdens on in-house power production could drastically reduce Germany’s competitiveness. A detrimental change would also be legally questionable, as investments that have already been made in in-house power plants should enjoy protection as existing facilities.

    https://www.vda.de/en/topics/economic-policy-and-infrastructure/energy/in-house-power-production.html

    Can the Germany Automotive industry survive such a change, or is their profits so dependent on energy subsidy?

    1. DirkH

      Their profits depend on the Euro and the TARGET2 system. Basically their profits are guaranteed by the German taxpayer via this system. (Guy in Greece buys Mercedes Taxi. Takes out credit at Greek bank. Central bank prints according amount of Euros. German central bank has according TARGET2 demand against Greek central bank AND sends according amount of Euros to Daimler. Daimler sends car to Greece. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. The TARGET2 imbalance is now 800 bn Eur open demands of the German central bank against all others. IF Germany were to EXIT the EU, the remaining countries WOULD HAVE TO PAY US 800 BN. Which won’t happen. THIS WILL THEREFORE COLLAPSE OR REQUIRE HYPERINFLATION TO GO AWAY.)

      The energy cost in germany is a minor nuisance to the car industry compared to the de facto tax payer guarantees to said industry.

      1. DirkH

        …in other words, the Greek customer does NOT send his Euros to Daimler. Rather, in both countries, Euros are CREATED for this transaction – and according DEBT. As cars flow to Greece, the TARGET2 imbalance gets bigger. Theoretically Greece would send an according amount of Imiglykos and olives to Germany. But; we don’t consume enough of that…

        1. Nigel S

          All your problems will be over when UK pays 100 billion euros to leave!

  7. AndyG55
  8. sod

    If you want to understand what an extreme market distortion is, you should not look at Germany. Germany was leading the path on renewables. We pushed both solar PV and wind power into mainstream use which allowed prices to fall to incredible low levels.

    Looking at Germany alone will not help you to understand the effect. Wind and solar power in Germany did (and does) cost a lot of money for two reasons:

    1. we were starting early and we are still paying the costs of the first steps in renewable energy (the EEG is spreading costs over 20 years, so this will continue for a while, but beware when those periods start to end…)

    2. Germany has neither perfect wind nor very good solar PV conditions.

    So why was it still clever that Germany went first? Because we are exporting good products now and not coal and nuclear plants! We made the transition and took an enormous risk out of our industry (being stuck in old technology that is not sellable anywhere any longer).

    So where should you look?

    For example to the USA: Midamerica is approaching 100% renewables (mostly wind) at a price that is CHEAPER than coal and gas.

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/science/environment/2017/04/22/wind-blown-midamerican-zeroes-100-renewable-energy/100581038/

    In Australia (also with much better wind and solar conditions) we already see batteries becoming economically viable:

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/kobad-storage-viable.jpg

    Articles like the one by Eisenring can keep confusing people for another short while. Just focus on Germany, on old electricity costs and on total CO2 output while ignoring the nuclear exit and you can write a fake news article for the uneducated. But the real world is changing and facts will prevail in the long run.

    1. AndyG55

      “keep confusing people ”

      You have been confused for a LONG, LONG time, sob-sob

      And you will continue to be confused,

      …. probably for the rest of your life. !

      1. sod

        Facts do not reach your mind. Let me give you some quotes:

        “MidAmerican’s already enormous appetite for wind power is only going to grow.

        The state’s largest utility is in the midst of a $3.6 billion investment that over the next couple of years will erect 1,000 more turbines on top of the 2,020 it already has around the state.””

        the target is 90% wind.

        “Wind energy helps keep electricity costs down, Fehrman said, noting that MidAmerican has agreed to freeze rates until at least 2029.”

        1. AndyG55

          2.1% wind for primary energy use in Germany.

          What a JOKE.!!

          What a fantasy brain-washed world you live in.

          Mid America will ALWYS be totally reliant on fossil fuels, just like Germany is.

    2. tom0mason

      sod,

      Give-up! Blathering on about the outrageously expensive publicly subsidized so called ‘renewables’ (they are as ‘renewable’ as a coal, gas, or nuclear power station but have none of the reliability) is all pie in the sky, ‘tomorrow will be better’ unproven claptrap.
      It is plain and obvious you are writing from the advocate position, just step back and observe the reality of the situation, windmills and solar are just a fad of expensive virtue signaling nonsense, delivering very intermittent power. It’s all politics, no practicalities of doing what is needed, what people prefer — affordable and reliable supplies.
      However too many people believe the nonsense you espouse thus the country will get the power system they deserve, they believe the ‘jam tomorrow’ promises of people like you — good luck to them. That’s OK, sooner or later the truth of the situation will dawn (in about 30 years) as burgeoning unreliability and maintenance costs of the system become unacceptable.

  9. dennisambler

    The problems of ever-increasing wind power for the grid was highlighted in 2005 by Eon-Nezt. A copy can still be found here:

    https://docs.wind-watch.org/eonwindreport2005.pdf

    “It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.”

    “As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.

    As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4%.
    In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms.”

    In 2004 the feed-in remuneration for windpower was €2.35 billion, I wonder what it is now?

  10. CO2isLife

    Watermelon Environmentalist Economics; More Waste, Inefficiency, and Incompetence than Conservation

    Ever wonder why Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and any other Marxist Watermelon Environmental organization never produce any “green products” that actually prove the theories they are supporting will actually do any good? The reason is simple, the economics simply aren’t there. Watermelon groups spend most of their money lobbying the government to spend tax dollars to fund their projects.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/watermelon-environmentalist-economics-more-waste-inefficiency-and-incompetence-than-conservation/

  11. sod

    renewables are not faltering. Australia is contracting wind at below 60$ per MWh.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/origin-stuns-industry-with-record-low-price-for-530mw-wind-farm-70946/

  12. sunsettommy

    Wind Power doesn’t come close to………………

    Matt Ridley: Wind power makes 0% of world energy

    “It’s all in how you spin it. Supra-zoogle-watts of new wind power capacity was added last year. Wind and solar grew faster than fossil fuels. There are now 341,000 wind turbines around the world! Thus do Meaningless Big-Numbers flow.

    Instead Matt Ridley gets down to the small numbers that tell us what is going on: Wind Turbines are neither clean nor green.

    The Spectator: Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/matt-ridley-wind-power-makes-0-of-world-energy/

Leave a Reply