German Solar Energy: From “Technology Of the Future ” To Extinction In Just 10 Years!

Spiegel here calls it “the end of an era”.

Once ballyhooed as the technology of the future bearing the promise of economic revival in Germany, solar equipment manufacturing has crumbled and gone the way of dinosaurs, all in a matter of a decade. So rapidly can economic evolution send subsidized industries into extinction.

Germany’s last remaining major solar manufacturer, Bonn-based Solarworld, led by a flamboyant Frank Asbeck, has officially declared it will file for insolvency after 6 years of red ink (operating results). The announcement was made Wednesday.

Shattered dreams

Thousands of workers who banked their futures on solar jobs now face uncertain futures. Solarworld’s demise is the last in a spectacular series of solar manufacturer bankruptcies that swept across Germany over the past years, with names like Solon, Solar Millenium and Q-Cells going under.

According to Finanzen.net here, Solarworld had over 3000 employees on the payroll at the end of 2016.

In the early 2000s leaders and green energy proponents promised to turn parts of former communist East Germany into a “Solar Valley” that would boast secure, high paying hightech jobs. Today it’s a solar rustbelt with a ruined landscape of shattered visions and dreams. Spiegel calls it a “valley of tears”.

Maserati-driving Green Party co-founder

Solarworld was viewed as the German solar industry’s leader, and its director Asbeck was called the “sun king” and even had solar panels installed on the Vatican and met Pope Benedict XVI personally.

Asbeck, one of the co-founders of the German Green Party and an avid owner of a 300 hp Maserati, blames the company’s woes mainly on cheap imports from China and legal battles in the USA, reports WirtschaftsWoche. Asbeck is reported by Wikipedia to also own expensive properties, such as Schloss CalmuthVilla Cahn and Schloss Marienfels, Remagen (below):

One of Frank Asbeck’s houses, Schloss Marienfels. Image by Wolkenkratzer CC BY-SA 3.0

In 2016 Solarworld posted a 92 million euro loss. Solarworld’s subsidiary companies are also expected to declare insolvency. The insolvency signifies the end of the manufacture of solar components and technology in the country.

 

191 responses to “German Solar Energy: From “Technology Of the Future ” To Extinction In Just 10 Years!”

  1. David Johnson

    The chimaera of “green” jobs continues

  2. sod

    “German Solar Energy: From “Technology Of the Future ” To Extinction In Just 10 Years!”

    the title is seriously misleading. The “spiegel” article is about the bankruptcy of a single company.

    Solar energy in Germany is alive and kicking:

    https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?week=19&year=2017

    but that is just one of those lousy facts again.

    Germany has made solar PV cheaper than coal. But hey, that is just another fact!

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/solar-tariffs-sink-further-below-coal-power-at-rs-2-44-per-unit/articleshow/58641464.cms

    So my simple advice. give solar world the same treatment as coal and nuclear companies got in the past: we take all their dept and let them move on.

    1. sunsettommy

      Sod,

      You read the article?

      “Germany’s last remaining major solar manufacturer, Bonn-based Solarworld, led by a flamboyant Frank Asbeck, has officially declared it will file for insolvency after 6 years of red ink (operating results).”

      It was a BIG Solar company that failed,Sod!

      It was the industry leader in Germany:

      “Solarworld was viewed as the German solar industry’s leader, and its director Asbeck was called the “sun king” and even had solar panels installed on the Vatican and met Pope Benedict XVI personally.”

      Your grasping at straws cheerleading grows ever more absurd by the week.

      1. AndyG55

        Now at the mercy of Chinese prices, watch those prices start to climb now they have got rid of the competition.

        They are a canny bunch, those Chinese. 😉

        1. AndyG55

          China are doing very well out of this Anti-CO2 scam 🙂

          Pay a bit of lip service.

          And they already have over 20% “renewables” anyway.

      2. AndyG55

        Did you ever figure out how to do that “reliability” calculation?

        What percentage of nameplate can solar or wind provide 95% of the time.

        Calculations done on 30 minute rest over 2-3 months.

        We know the answer for solar is an absolute ZERO

        And for with its about 4-5% of nameplate.

        Both are totally UNRELIABLE, and should never have been allowed to infest/infect the market even to the small extent that they have.

        1. AndyG55

          typo fix

          “And for wind its about 4-5% of nameplate.”

    2. SebastianH

      So my simple advice. give solar world the same treatment as coal and nuclear companies got in the past: we take all their dept and let them move on.

      That’s bad advice. The Spiegel article highlighted the main reasons of the insolvency … they wouldn’t go away if the state bought their dept and therefor it’s silly to do such a thing. Too big to fail doesn’t apply here either.

      1. sod

        ” Too big to fail doesn’t apply here either.”

        i was not serious with that advice. I was just pointing out what would happen, if this had happened to another actor in the energy business, be it a big coal mine or one of the big energy companies.

        one of the reasons to keep coal mines open for a long time was, that Germany was profitably selling coal mine equipment.

        1. AndyG55

          Coal and other fossil fuels are absolutely ESSENTIAL for modern society.

          YOU live by them.. they support your WHOLE existence.

          solar and wind are a scam. unreliable and a total SUCK on the finances of any country that tries to implement them.

          The world could VERY easily exist without them.

          In fact, would be FAR better off without them

          (except is tiny niche places)

    3. AndyG55

      “So my simple advice. give solar world the same treatment as coal”

      Ok, remove all feed-in mandates. level playing field.

      Solar must throttle bad when there is oversupply.

      Must be able to meet base load so REAL energy sources can run at their most efficient without having to ramp up and down.

      Its great to see you advocating for the demise of solar and wind, sob-sob.

    4. Alfred (Melbourne)

      sod,

      I think this chart is more appropriate. 10 days of no sun and no wind in Germany – during the Winter

      https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2016&month=12

  3. SebastianH

    Firstly, declaring insolvency isn’t the same as “the end of manufacture of solar components”. Secondly, those companies weren’t subsidized, generating electricity with solar panels is subsidized and costumers by where they get the most for their money.

    When German/European companies can’t compete in a sector then you either add customs fees to product imports (we have done that) or they go extinct (apparently not enough fees).

    1. SebastianH

      *buy

    2. sunsettommy

      I detect desperation in your silly rationalizing post. The evidence of large companies going bankrupt is right in front of you.

      1. AndyG55

        Desperation is about all seb has left..

        He’s given up looking for a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming of oceans, or warming of a convective, pressure gradient controlled, atmosphere.

  4. sunsettommy

    All those “green” jobs that adds up to nearly nothing after years of the subsidized effort had taken place.
    =====================================================

    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/

    1. SebastianH

      Doesn’t understand exponential growth … at current rates wind+solar will add more TWh than the increase of energy consumption in 13 years and will provide for 100% of all consumption just 12 years later.

      Yes, we paid a lot to get this process started. Nobody is denying that.

      1. AndyG55

        “and will provide for 100% of all consumption just 12 years later”

        The Grimm Bros would be proud of your FANTASY world !!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_YFLI4G1M

        Ease off the funky mushrooms, they will do even more damage to what is left of you mind.

        1. SebastianH

          Do you disagree that exponential growth works like that? Reality will be a s-curve, which doesn’t change the first half of growth …

          1. AndyG55

            Fantasy land is your only existence, seb.

            You want exponential growth in wind and solar.. you will need exponential growth in coal and other fossil fuels to build them 🙂

            A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel.

            Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine.

            Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year.

            That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

            Thanks for the CO2, seb.. the world needs it 🙂

          2. AndyG55

            And no, wind and solar WILL NOT grow exponentially.

            Governments are rapidly running out of “other people’s money” to pay the subsidies that have kept the scam alive.

            An s-bend is used in a WC.

            That is the destiny of wind and solar.

          3. sod

            “And no, wind and solar WILL NOT grow exponentially.”

            do you even understand what the term means?

            Ho will they grow? linear?

          4. AndyG55

            Absolute sure that sob has ZERO idea what is involved in exponential growth.

            Just like Sob-sob has zero idea about basically everything except his own private fantasy world.

          5. AndyG55

            “How will they grow? linear?”

            Depends on how much people are prepared to pay.

            How much is granny prepared to pay for your electricity, sob-sob??

            Once all subsidies and government interference is removed..

            …. negative exponent.

            Go back and try to pass junior primary next time, child-mind. !!

      2. sunsettommy

        Dr. Riley,made a point that you Sebastian failed to consider………

        The enormous amount of $$$ for Solar,has translated into negligible addition to the world total power production.

        exponential angle is silly since Solar simply doesn’t produce much power anyway. When the Sun is gone for the night, ZERO power production is the end result.

        1. SebastianH

          We aren’t financing power production, we are trying to speed up the advent of sustainable energy generation. Of course you are free to see it that way. You probably can’t understand why someone would buy new technology at high prices instead of waiting 10 years for that 60 inch TV to become affordable. Maybe you also prefer buying used cars vs. new cars?

          Is that correct?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “We aren’t financing power production, we are trying to speed up the advent of sustainable energy generation.”

            But if it’s intermittent and entirely dependent on the Sun shining and the wind blowing, how “sustainable” is it, and how is it superior to technology that is reliable, available immediately, doesn’t have storage problems, and doesn’t need heavy taxpayer subsidization to start up or continue?

            In other words, what if the new technology is inferior to the old? What if ethanol fuel reduces fuel efficiency, harms engines, and raises food prices? Do we continue to pour money into it anyway? What if electric cars break down a lot, have $10,000 batteries that no one wants to replace, have effectively no resale value, and 1st-time buyers say they will never buy another one? Do we pile on more money into them anyway? You say yes, of course. We say Why?

      3. Kenneth Richard

        “at current rates wind+solar will add more TWh than the increase of energy consumption in 13 years and will provide for 100% of all consumption just 12 years later.”


        http://thebreakthrough.org/images/main_image/carbongraphmain.png
        So why is it that wind+solar production and consumption have been increasing exponentially since the 1970s and yet the share of energy generation from renewables vs. fossil fuels hasn’t changed since the late 1980s? Renewables have continued to account for just 12-13% of energy generation/consumption since 1989. If we’re going to get 100% renewables with exponential growth, why hasn’t the supplanting of fossil fuel energies occurred in the last 3 decades? And doesn’t this indicate that your “formula” for 100% renewable generation doesn’t reflect reality?

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/as-appetite-for-electricity-soars-the-world-keeps-turning-to-coal/1842/
        [T]wo-thirds of the world’s electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels, mostly coal — a proportion that hasn’t budged for 35 years. Emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants have more than doubled since 1980

        1. sod

          “So why is it that wind+solar production and consumption have been increasing exponentially since the 1970s and yet the share of energy generation from renewables vs. fossil fuels hasn’t changed since the late 1980s? ”

          your graph is badly misleading.

          here is the real graph:

          http://www.edleaver.com/Archives/2013/06/img/share_of_clean_energy_from_total_primary_energy_supply_1965-2012_from_bp_statistical_review.png

          it explains the all of it: new renewables are growing massively, but nuclear is shrinking at fast speed. wind and solar basically started to expand around 2000. Another important fact: hydro was also starting to decline, but got reactivated (and more and more as a “green” source, instead of problematic projects).

          1. AndyG55

            “your graph is badly misleading. ”

            ie.. sob-sob doesn’t like FACTS and is going to cry !!!

          2. SebastianH

            What facts AndyG55? That renewables have been mainly replacing nuclear power generation in the last decades? Sod’s graph includes what those “renewables” which apparently includes nuclear are composed of.

          3. AndyG55

            Facts in front of you , seb..

            which you either DENY or cannot comprehend.!

        2. SebastianH

          Kenneth, why go back so far (1970)?

          http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20161216_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2016.pdf

          In 1990 Germany’s renewables share was 3.6% and 100% of that was hydro (19.7 TWh). In 2016 hydro is still at 3.3% (21.5 TWh). Wind onshore and offshore did surpase hydro in 2004, solar achieved that in 2011/2012 and biomass in 2008. It has been a slow start in the exponential curve.

          In graph form: http://imgur.com/a/BhYhV

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “In 1990 Germany’s renewables share was 3.6% and 100% of that was hydro (19.7 TWh).”

            And yet between 1990 and 2014, the share of energy supplied by fossil fuels had effectively remained the same (~350 TWh)…despite the explosive growth in wind and solar.
            http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/electricity-gen-germany_600x317.jpg.png

            In other words, as I have been trying to explain to you (futilely), just because renewables are by themselves increasing exponentially doesn’t mean they are actually displacing fossil fuels. And that is the goal, right?

          2. sod

            “In other words, as I have been trying to explain to you (futilely), just because renewables are by themselves increasing exponentially doesn’t mean they are actually displacing fossil fuels. And that is the goal, right?”

            No. In Germany we also had the obvious goal of displacing nuclear.

            You are using a trick: “fossil fuel level stays the same” is a statistical artefact in the German case, because of massively shrinking nuclear.

            In the real world, renewabes did increase from about 3% (being only hydro) to about 33% being mostly wind and solar.

            http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/electricity-gen-germany_600x317.jpg.png

            and as Sebastian’s numbers show, offshore wind only started to kick in 2 years ago.

            http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20161216_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2016.pdf

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “In Germany we also had the obvious goal of displacing nuclear.”

            And by replacing a non-carbon source of energy (nuclear) with technology that relies heavily on fossil fuels for start-up and back-up, Germany’s CO2 emissions have not been declining.

            “You are using a trick: ‘fossil fuel level stays the same’ is a statistical artefact in the German case, because of massively shrinking nuclear.”

            Fossil fuel use stays the same (or increases) because solar and wind have to be backed-up when it’s cloudy, when it’s dark, and when the wind isn’t blowing. The intermittency problem and the enviro-aversion to nuclear necessitates that fossil fuel use will not be reduced to any significant degree.

            “In the real world, renewabes did increase from about 3% (being only hydro) to about 33% being mostly wind and solar.

            sod, once again you are just making stuff up. According to this chart, 12.6% of energy consumption in Germany comes from renewables, and only 3.3% of Germany’s energy consumption comes from wind and solar combined…which means renewables consumption are NOT “mostly wind and solar”:

            https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2016-1.png?itok=9XU_CiC5

          4. SebastianH

            He means renewables in generation of electricity which was what this sub-thread was about: me showing you the exponential growth.

            With transportation transitioning to electric motors and other efficiency gains, together with the still exponential growth of wind+solar, the share of renewables will further increase. Like it or not.

            Why? Because of this:
            https://i.stack.imgur.com/8EYDo.jpg
            http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Wind-Power-Cost-LCOE-vs-Hub-Heights-Energy-dot-gov-Wind-Visions-2014.jpg

            And:
            http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Future-Solar-Cost-Projections-PPA-LCOE.jpg

          5. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH, there has been exponential growth in wind and solar for 30 years now. And yet both combined still only account for about 1% of the world’s energy consumed, while fossil fuels still account for 81% (2014). And in absolute values, the fossil fuel share of the increase in global energy consumed since 1980 more than tripled.

            So exponential growth in wind and solar over the last 30 years hasn’t done much of anything to change the share of world energy consumption. And yet it is your belief that we’ll get to 100% renewables within the next few decades.

            Why do you believe that the 81% share for fossil fuels will disappear during the next few decades due to exponential growth in wind and solar…since exponential growth in wind and solar over the last 3 decades effectively hasn’t done anything to change the share of fossil fuels? When do you think the “takeover” that you believe will happen will actually happen?

          6. SebastianH

            Because this is how exponential growth looks like:
            http://imgur.com/a/IR9in

            If you declare the power generation by wind+solar as 100% in any past year, the growth of the decades before that year will look exactly the same as in this graph (e.g. most of the increase happening in the last few years).

            The graph has total energy consumption as 100% goal and it would be reached in 2042 at current exponential growth rates. As explained growth will likely follow a S-curve instead … that’s also plotted in the graph.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            Because this is how exponential growth looks like:
            http://imgur.com/a/IR9in

            Considering solar and wind currently represent 1% of the world’s energy consumption, and fossil fuels represent 81%, it’s interesting how that graph doesn’t include any other fuel sources…and how they will fall from 81% to 0% by 2030…like magic.

            I also wonder why it is the trend line is still starting from around zero…considering wind and solar have been growing exponentially for 30 years now. If exponential growth in wind and solar causes that kind of “takeover” growth, why is it that wind and solar still only represent 1% of energy consumption across the world? Shouldn’t this S-curve have already happened? Why didn’t it?

          8. SebastianH

            “takeover” will happen in 2030 at current growth rates. In that year the entire (world wide) increase in energy consumption will be covered by renewable increase. 1-2 years before that more than half of the increase will be covered.

            If the transition to electric vehicles happens as projected by car companies there will also be significant decrease in power consumption due to replacement of oil products by electricity.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            “takeover” will happen in 2030 at current growth rates.”

            Got it. So right now, fossil fuels make up 81% of the world’s energy consumption — a percentage that has not been reduced despite the exponential growth in solar and wind in the last 3 decades. But now, in the next 12 1/2 years, wind and solar will rise from 1% of world consumption to 100% of the world’s consumption…and fossil fuels will disappear from the electrical grid…and so will petro-fueled planes and vehicles. Like magic!

          10. AndyG55

            Like Magic.

            Like TOTAL FANTASY !!!!

          11. AndyG55

            “Got it. So right now, fossil fuels make up 81% of the world’s energy consumption”

            Wasn’t it wind 2.1% and solar 1.2% or something like that ?

          12. sod

            “SebastianH, there has been exponential growth in wind and solar for 30 years now. And yet both combined still only account for about 1% of the world’s energy consumed, while fossil fuels still account for 81% (2014). And in absolute values, the fossil fuel share of the increase in global energy consumed since 1980 more than tripled.”

            you are trying to make the number look small by abusing multiple tricks:

            1.) comparison of electricity sources with total energy output. (in electricity, renewables are already a significant force)

            2.) using old data (on renewables, every year matters)

            3.) ignoring the drops in nuclear (again, to make renewables look bad and fossil look good)

            4.) ignoring fossil expansions that started while wind and solar were not an economically viable option.

            you totally ignore that many “sceptics” some years ago would have claimed that renewables could never get this far. you are also painting a scenario, in which huuuuge subsidies push renewables into a market while poor fossil fuels can just sit and watch.

            The stuff that you describe is really far from the real world around us!

          13. Kenneth Richard

            “you totally ignore that many “sceptics” some years ago would have claimed that renewables could never get this far.”

            Never get this far??? sod, wind and solar still only provide 1% of the world’s energy after 30 years of exponential growth! You think that’s far?!

          14. AndyG55

            “you are trying to make the number look small ”

            Nobody needs to do any tricks to make wind and solar numbers pathetically small.

            THEY JUST ARE !!!

          15. SebastianH

            Kenneth, seriously … are you not capable of reading simple sentences? I know my English might not be perfect, but what in my comment made you think that by “takeover” I mean from 1% to 100% until 2030? Didn’t you read the other comments above either? Seriously, sometimes I think you troll me on purpose …

            Regardings exponential growth: I have the feeling you don’t understand that either. Why do say 30 years of exponential growth resulted in just 1% and question how this could get any higher in the next 30 years? You do know how exponential curves look like (or S-curves which better reflect what is happening by including saturation effects), do you?

            http://imgur.com/a/IR9in

            Click on it! Got it? If you’d zoom in on the start of this curve and go back some time it would look exactly the same … half of the growth always happens in the timespan since the last doubling and the values always double in fixed time intervals.

    2. sod

      “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.”

      just close your eyes and plug your ears. and keep using numbers from the past.

      Again my advice: Invest in coal! all money in! What could possibly go wrong?

      1. AndyG55

        “Invest in coal! all money in! What could possibly go wrong?”

        Very little..

        Look around you sob-sob.

        The whole of your tiny little world is a totally reliant on coal, oil, gas, and CO2.

      2. sunsettommy

        Thank you Sod, for admitting you have no counterpoint to what Dr. Riley pointed out,that Solar is a minimal power producer,is a huge $$$ pit as well.

        1. sod

          The article is total bogus. i wrote a lot about it, here and at other places.

          1. AndyG55

            “The article is total bogus.”

            ie It makes sob-sob all upset..

            …and the fact that sob-sob thinks its bogus , means its almost certainly right on the money !!!

            We all know that basically everything sob-sob writes is pure fantasy, from the land of make believe.

  5. Craig T

    From the article:
    “The demand boom soon awoke foreign ambitions. Chinese manufacturers, boosted by the billions of state banks, built up their own industry and flooded the German market with cheap modules. The world market price fell ever further, to this day. In 2016, it fell by about a fifth.”

    “The demand for photovoltaic systems is picking up noticeably thanks to the drop in the price of the modules. In the first quarter of 2017 alone, it rose by 65 percent compared to the previous year.”

    Solar is a rapidly improving technology. Manufactures that don’t keep up quickly get priced out of the market.

    1. sunsettommy

      Are you sure,Craig?

      From Reuters:

      “A renewed wave of cheap Chinese exports, caused by reduced ambitions in China to expand solar power generation, was too much to bear for the group, which made its last net profit in 2014.”

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUSKBN1862MN

    2. sod

      It is easy to find data after 2012. Source is BP, page 40 of the pdf (renewables):

      https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf

      but hey, that is facts again. 2015 “other renewables” (that is mostly wind and solar) made up about 7% of global electricity demand (pdf page 39, graph “world”, grey line)

      the “other renewables” category is also getting more and more prominent in the total energy graph pdf n page 44. Just another doubling and it beats nuclear.

      looking at “total energy2 instead of electricity for an electricity source is stupid of course. But beware: Cars changing to electric will massively drop the transport percentage (simply because it is so much more efficient). It is a rock rolling down a pretty steep hill…

      I would urge everyone to read the full “sepectator” piece (about as horrible a source one could get)

      https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

      It is the same old “area use”, “bird chopping” and abuse of statistics and old data thing that we have seen before.

      1. AndyG55

        “It is the same old “area use”, “bird chopping” and abuse of statistics and old data thing that we have seen before”

        Facts NEVER come into your mind do they sob-sob.

        To you DENY that wind turbines chop avian wildlife to death??

        Do you DENY that massive area of either forest or food growing areas are confiscated for the wind/solar scam
        .

        All you have in your feeble little existence is DENIAL of the repugnance of the AGW scam…

        … and fossil fuel energy supply.

        1. sod

          “o you DENY that wind turbines chop avian wildlife to death??”

          No. but the amount of birds killed by wind power is small compared to other sources.

          Please give me a link to any concern you ever had about birds before windpower?!?

          “Do you DENY that massive area of either forest or food growing areas are confiscated for the wind/solar scam”

          yes. areas were confiscated for coal areas are confiscated for oil pipelines.. areas are not confiscated in the same way for wind power.

          please provide links for this claim!

          1. AndyG55

            Fantasy world again, hey sob-sob.

            Coal areas are small compared to those used by wind. Wind decimates avian populations, Coal does not. Coal enhances atmospheric CO2 to the benefit of all life on Earth.

            Huge tracks of land and pristine forest have been destroyed to make way for wind turbines destroying once pristine scenery.

            The area required per unit of energy is VASTLY more for wind than for coal or gas.

            And let’s not even get started on the huge tracts of crop land consumed by the biofuel industry, especially in third world countries which often struggle for food. !!!

      2. AndyG55

        “abuse of statistics ”

        You FINALLY recognise the depths of the AGW mal-practices.

        Well done sob-sob.

  6. Kenneth Richard

    “Solar is a rapidly improving technology. Manufactures that don’t keep up quickly get priced out of the market.”

    So it’s a “market” when it relies on government subsidies to survive?

    1. SebastianH

      Of course it is, because the product itself isn’t subsidized. Market rules (“may the best win”) still apply.

    2. Craig T

      Interesting question. All US energy is subsidized. Management Information Services found that from 1950 – 2010 renewables received $74 billion in subsidies, nuclear $73 billion, hydroelectric $90 billion, coal $104 billion, natural gas $121 billion, and oil $369 billion dollars. Nuclear power plants now need an additional $3.9 billion a year to stay afloat.
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/consumers-would-be-3-9-billion-losers-from-nuclear-subsidies

      1. AndyG55

        The truth about energy subsidies in the US.

        https://s19.postimg.org/j56wft71v/energy-subsidies3c.png

      2. John M

        I don’t see any link to your 1950-2010 figures but how much energy did each of those produce and how much in taxes did they pay?

        1. AndyG55

          I doubt that wind solar pay much tax.

          They don’t produce much, they just suck subsidies. !

        2. Kenneth Richard

          “I don’t see any link to your 1950-2010 figures but how much energy did each of those produce and how much in taxes did they pay?”

          As the analysis below indicates, renewables are currently subsidized more than fossil fuels at a ratio of 64:1 (U.S.) when considering the cost per unit of energy. Solar, which accounts for 0.9% of U.S. power generation, and wind (5.6%) wouldn’t exist if not for taxpayer subsidies.

          1. sod

            “As the analysis below indicates, renewables are currently subsidized more than fossil fuels at a ratio of 64:1 (U.S.) when considering the cost per unit of energy. ”

            this is a garbage comparison.

            new offshore wind takes ZERO subsidies. so you are comparing a new technology to a very old one? garbage in, garbage out.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Do you think merely calling a (correct) analysis based on existing stats “garbage” is substantive and effective?

            Current subsidization practices in the U.S. furnish wind and solar with 64 times more subsidies than fossil fuel energies on a per-unit-of-energy basis. And yet solar and wind combined make up only 6.5% of US electricity generation. So U.S. citizens have to pay (much) more for (much) less relative to fossil fuel energies. And you’re trying to tell them that that’s a good deal?

          3. SebastianH

            It will be once the transition really starts. We’ll see how it went around 2030.

          4. sod

            “Current subsidization practices in the U.S. furnish wind and solar with 64 times more subsidies than fossil fuel energies on a per-unit-of-energy basis. ”

            It is garbage, because you compare total lifetime subsidies of an old and established technology to the lifetime subsidy of a young technology which is only starting to drop out of subsidy level right now.

            Nuclear, by the way, is currently getting massive subsides, both when (rare!) a new plant is build like in Hinkley or as a whole industry with the bailout for cost of storage of nuclear waste.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “It is garbage, because you compare total lifetime subsidies of an old and established technology to the lifetime subsidy of a young technology which is only starting to drop out of subsidy level right now.”

            sod, solar and wind have been subsidized heavily since the 1970s, so there are “total lifetime subsidies” incorporated into their current costs too…which are still currently subsidized at 64 times the level of fossil fuel subsidies. How much longer must this “new” technology continue to be propped up artificially? Why has it taken 3 or 4 decades for wind and solar to even “start” to drop out of subsidy level?

            I realize that nuclear also receives massive subsidies. Nuclear is carbon-free and its far more reliable and dependable and efficient than wind and solar. My preferred energy sources are clean natural gas and nuclear. I have no problem phasing out coal…as long as it’s replacement is cheap and reliable and efficient. Wind and solar don’t meet those standards. Biofuels harm the environment (clear rain forests) and are worse than petroleum for fuel efficiency (ethanol).

          6. sod

            “sod, solar and wind have been subsidized heavily since the 1970s, so there are “total lifetime subsidies” incorporated into their current costs too…which are still currently subsidized at 64 times the level of fossil fuel subsidies. How much longer must this “new” technology continue to be propped up artificially? ”

            that is a complicated question.

            Solar and wind are more similar to nuclear than to coal.

            coal had a lot of advantages: no energy infrastructure before coal, dual use for heating and power any the energy is easily accessable.
            The main drawback (environmental damage) could be ignored for quite some time.

            nuclear at least also hit a still massively expanding electricity demand. and the dual use with weapons kept research going and the subsidies up.

            solar and wind are different: they are entering a market that is possibly peaking, or even at decline already. the main advantage (environmental benefits) were not very useful (from a market approach) until recently (china, india…). And there second advantage (independence from grid) has the biggest value in places that could not afford solar until recently at all.
            and the future is also difficult, as solar and wind will require some storage to reach higher penetration levels.

            But the all of it is changing. solar and wind are cheaper than buying electricity from the grid and cheaper than all other NEW sources of electricity nearly everywhere. solar PV for self consumption is a no-brainer. as is a combination of solar and wind of about the level we have currently in Germany 33%).

            places with expensive electricity, islands and high hydro grids should obviously go further fast. Battery storage basically allows houses to become semi-independent of the grid (apart from longer pauses) and in warm places they might fully vanish from the grid. grid level storage will stabilise the grid and shift solar to evening peaks, which will eliminate another source of high electricity prices over the day.

            solar, wind and offshore will still need support: high output at the same time might decrease prices so far, that people stop building wind/solar at times where additional capacity still makes sense. Storage will need help as will the new stronger grids and better interconnections.

            but the result will be a stronger, cleaner and better grid at both a crosscountry and regional level.

      3. Kenneth Richard

        Craig,

        I can understand why you felt the need to retreat back to 1950 and to use aggregate monetary amounts from the last 65 years rather than recent share/percentages for your stats. That way it’s easier to misrepresent what’s actually going on.

        https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
        According to Table ES4 (above link), “Fiscal year 2013 electricity production subsidies and support”, renewables received 79% of the share of U.S. government subsidies in 2013, whereas coal (6%) and natural gas/petro (4%) received 10% of the share of government subsidies and support. Nuclear received 10%.

        Breaking this down further, wind received 37% of the share of subsidies, and solar received 27% of subsidies.

        https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
        According to the same source, in 2016 wind made up 5.6% of the electricity generated in the U.S. Solar made up 0.9%. Fossil fuels (mostly coal and gas) generated 65% of U.S. electricity in 2016.

        So for every 10,000 units of energy used in the U.S., 90 units come from solar, 560 comes from wind (650 combined), and 6,500 comes from fossil fuels.

        If $64 million in subsidies (+37% + 27% share) goes to pay for 650 units of renewable energy (wind and solar), and $10 million (10% share) in subsidies goes to pay for 6,500 units of fossil fuel energy (coal, gas, petro), that means that U.S. citizens pay $98,461 in subsidies for every unit of energy generated by wind and solar, whereas they pay $1,538 in subsidies for every unit of energy generated by coal, gas, and petro. That’s a subsidy cost ratio of 64:1.

        Getting rid of the tiny share of subsidies for fossil fuels won’t do much to hurt those industries. Getting rid of the colossal share of subsidies for wind and solar will completely annihilate those industries. That’s how they survive at all — via taxpayer subsidization.

        Given these figures, can you now understand why it’s misinformation (to put it nicely) for you to suggest that the “market” determines winners and losers in the solar energy generation industry?

        1. SebastianH

          If you want to compare subsidies this way you’d have to wait until the percentages of power sources stabilized and all subsidies were removed. Then you can sum up all subsidies that each power source received over their lifetime to get to that point in time and compare if it was “worth it”.

          Comparing renewable subsidies of last year with established industries that – you wrote – wouldn’t be hurt much if not subsidized isn’t helpful. Or in other words: would you be opposed to subsidies of fusion power if commercial plants could only be build this way? Probably not … you’d see the potential and subsidize the hell out of it to get to the golden age of fusion power. Why can’t you see the potential of wind and solar? We barely had those power sources 10-15 years ago and you can’t imagine where the technology will be in another 10-15 years?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “Why can’t you see the potential of wind and solar?”

            Wind and solar provide very little energy to the electrical grid, are intermittent and unreliable, only work when it’s not cloudy, during the day, or when it’s windy, require regular and expensive maintenance due to their very short lifespans, destroy natural habitats due to land-clearing practices, look hideous (my opinion) and destroy landscapes (most people’s opinions), cause health problems (noise), kill 4 million bats per year, have enormous storage problems, require fossil fuel backups, are a net source of CO2 emissions.

            Wind and solar are not technology advancements. Their cons are worse than their pros. That’s why, if they were allowed to operate without subsidization from governments, they’d not survive. The unadulterated market would destroy them.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “Comparing renewable subsidies of last year with established industries that – you wrote – wouldn’t be hurt much if not subsidized isn’t helpful.”

            Helpful to what? Supporting your “We’ll be at 100% renewables in ___ years” fantasies? I’m not trying to help you, SebastianH. I’m pointing out how ridiculous it is for you to think fossil fuel energy production and consumption is going to just go away because wind and solar energies have been subsidized into the mix.

          3. sod

            ” I’m pointing out how ridiculous it is for you to think fossil fuel energy production and consumption is going to just go away because wind and solar energies have been subsidized into the mix.”

            even offshore wind can now deliver electricity without a subsidy. Your claims are simply false.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/business/energy-environment/offshore-wind-subsidy-dong-energy.html

          4. AndyG55

            yep sob-sob..

            all they have is a guaranteed stupidly high price, that EVERYONE will pay for.

            A subsidy by any other name. !!

    3. sod

      “So it’s a “market” when it relies on government subsidies to survive?”

      yes. Solar PV did need help to ENTER the market. Now those subsidies are sinking fast.

      The same with wind. The latest offshore wind parks in Germany were auctioned WITHOUT a subsidy.

      Batteries and EVs will also need help to enter the market.

      1. John F. Hultquist

        Batteries and EVs will also need help to enter the market.

        In the USA, Henry Ford and others introduced batteries and EVs. Some called them “lady’s cars” because they did not need to be cranked to get going.
        Along came the electric starter* and the carbon based fuel models became dominate.
        The market set the pace.

        *August 17, 1915. Charles F. Kettering, co-founder of Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (DELCO) in Dayton, Ohio, is issued U.S. Patent No. 1,150,523 for his “engine-starting device”–the first electric ignition device for automobiles.

      2. AndyG55

        “Batteries and EVs will also need help to enter the market.”

        Batteries and EV require a LARGE amount of coal to produce.
        All these niche scams are doing is funding the fossil fuel market.

        Be happy about that sob-sob..

        As long as you want more solar and wind.. you are going to HAVE to have more coal and other fossil fuels to build them, somewhere in the world. 🙂

        With solar, that happens to be China.. but still, all dependant on fossil fuels for manufacture.

        1. sod

          “As long as you want more solar and wind.. you are going to HAVE to have more coal and other fossil fuels to build them, somewhere in the world.”

          No. you are simply wrong. China is heavily investing into wind as solar as well.

          the energy infrastructure in most of the world was in need of restoration anyway. other places are still in need of their first energy infrastructure.

          this will now be solar and wind, which would have been coal in the past.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “No. you are simply wrong. China is heavily investing into wind as solar as well.”

            They’re investing heavily in wind, solar, natural gas, coal, and oil.

            https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/china-energy-consumption-by-fuel-to-2015-area1.png

          2. AndyG55

            The only way China can build solar panels is by using coal and oil. So they will need to build more coal fired plants to build the solar panels to sell to Germany. 🙂

            China has met its stated “renewable” quota, and many of its wind turbines are not connected to their grid.

            They are still building coal-fired stations at speed, as well as building an interconnect to send electricity to Germany , because it can see that the time is coming when Germany cannot provide for itself.

          3. AndyG55

            Great graphic Kenneth.

            COAL IS KING in China !!

            renewables.. that would that very thin slice at the top.. a bit hard to see.

            Like the ZERO percent (nearest integer) of primary world energy supply from wind and solar.

            A nice little verse

            “With millions worldwide taken in,
            By the Greens through renewable spin,
            While the wind-turbine yield,
            Is on pie-charts revealed,
            As a slice unbelievably thin.

            –Ruairi

          4. sod

            “Like the ZERO percent (nearest integer) of primary world energy supply from wind and solar.”

            you are wrong. This was not even the case back in 2014.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

          5. Kenneth Richard

            sod, you just linked to a site that has a graph that shows “renewables” provided 1.4% of the world’s energy consumed as of 2014. It is so small that it had to be listed as “Others” Was wikipedia supposed to support your position?

          6. AndyG55

            One has to wonder why China would build transmission line to Europe.

            They have plenty of supply themselves, and are still building coal fired power stations on a weekly.

            Perhaps they see a market for REGULAR, RELIABLE supply to Europe in the close future. 😉

            Clever actually. Destroy the European electricity supply system, then have a reliable supply on hand to make them dependant on you.

            Its a bizarre thought, but if the renewables farce continues for much longer, Germany could be dependant on China for electricity, just like they are now dependant on China for solar panels.

          7. sod

            “sod, you just linked to a site that has a graph that shows “renewables” provided 1.4% of the world’s energy consumed as of 2014. It is so small that it had to be listed as “Others” Was wikipedia supposed to support your position?”

            It actually does. renewables are without hydro and without biofuels. That leaves basically wind and solar. The data is pretty old (2014), and these two sources are growing.

            Notice how small hydro (2.4%) and nuclear (about 5%, possibly shrinking) are, when compared to total energy use.

            “Total primary energy supply of 13,699 mega-toe by source in 2014 (IEA, 2016)[2][3]:28
            Oil (31.3%)
            Coal/Peat/Shale (28.6%)
            Natural Gas (21.2%)
            Biofuels and waste (10.3%)
            Hydro Electricity (2.4%)
            Others (Renew.) (1.4%)
            Nuclear (4.8%)”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

            again, beware. the rise of batteries will make this 2totalk energy” bogus dangerous in a decade or so. there are huuuuge changes incoming…

          8. Kenneth Richard

            So you are very excited that wind and solar now account for a whopping 1.4% of world energy consumed.

            According to SebastianH, due to the wonders of exponential growth, that 1.4% will reach 100% within about 3 decades…because the 81% of the world’s energy consumption from fossil fuels will…disappear. Like magic.

          9. AndyG55

            “again, beware. the rise of batteries will make this 2totalk energy”

            Poor sob-sob.. runs deep back into his land of make believe !!

          10. AndyG55

            “there are huuuuge changes incoming…”

            Sure are. China is financing COAL and GAS in several developing countries.

            This will be a gold mine for them.

            And German industry will continue to contract because of its expensive irregular unreliable electricity supply.

          11. Fred Streeter

            The same with wind. The latest offshore wind parks in Germany were auctioned WITHOUT a subsidy.

            Because what was a SUBSIDY and borne by the Tax Payer is now an increased PRICE to be borne by the Consumer.

            The companies receive revenues for the electricity generated (i.e. purchased even if not needed), the consumer pays for the substantial costs of connection to the grid.

            Hmm. When is a subsidy not a subsidy? When it is a guaranteed income.

      3. Dave Fair

        BS! You people need to read better; the “unsubsidized” offshore wind power project is based upon: 1) unspecified technology and size improvements in wind turbines; and 2) a 50% increase in the wholesale cost of power, from 40 now to 60 euros per GWH by the time the project begins production.

        This is not a serious market proposal. If either assumption does not materialize, they plan on bailing out of the bid before construction starts. What do the electric system planners fall back on?

        And Germany is supposed to make firm plans on electric system development in the future based on proposals like these? BS!

        They sound as screwy as California when it comes to “wishful” planning. In 1979, we told Governor Jerry “Brownout’s” PUC and Energy Commission that their supposed solid plans would result in blackouts and huge price surges by 1999. Governor Miller hid the problems for a year, and it was 2000 when the whole thing collapsed.

        If not for the surrounding States, CA’s electric system would implode. Those States will be looking out for their future, to the detriment of CA. They will not allow instability originating in CA to cascade into their systems. That means reduced power flows, just when CA will need everything it can get to back up it’s huge, unsupportable intermittent supplies.

        1. sod

          “This is not a serious market proposal. If either assumption does not materialize, they plan on bailing out of the bid before construction starts. ”

          please provide a link supporting this claim!

  7. AndyG55

    “In 2016 Solarworld posted a 92 million euro loss.”

    I wonder how much of that ended up in Asbeck’s pocket. !!

  8. sunsettommy

    I have two completely civil,link free comments living in the moderation box.

    1. AndyG55

      I regularly have totally benign comments go into moderation or disappear completely…

      only to appear hours later. 🙂

  9. sunsettommy

    OOP’S there is a link in one of them,but harmless

    1. John F. Hultquist

      Harmless or not, things happen. To all of us. Only “the gods” know why.

  10. tom0mason

    Soon all the worries will be gone as a new successful research project reports on “Ocean Renewable Energy Storage (ORES) System: Analysis of an Undersea Energy Storage Concept” (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/78934 ), and also http://www.klimaretter.info/forschung/nachricht/22772-test-mit-speicher-kugeln-erfolgreich-beendet

    Not had enough of littering the countryside and shores with windmills? Lets litter the seas with large concrete balls as well.
    Who said new technology has to be practical when there’s a fortune in subsidy to be had.

  11. clipe

    sod

    we take all their dept and let them move on

    Seb

    if the state bought their dept

    By ‘dept’ I think the Siamese Twins mean ‘debt’.

    1. ClimateOtter

      Interesting that seb couldn’t see the problem with the spelling and CORRECT IT.

      Almost as if sod and seb were the same person….. nahhhh not likely, just that both of them are inept.

      1. SebastianH

        You might be on to something. Maybe if you spelled my name correctly it would all make sense “Cli” …

        1. AndyG55

          just start with “cis”, instead… !!

    2. sod

      is a spelling error really everything that you can talk about?

      Solar PV did not die. Producing panels in Germany became just too difficult. And the reason for this is the gigantic price drop that the industry has seen over the last couple of years.

      this is an attempt to pretend that the good news are bad news.

      1. clipe

        It’s not about spelling errors or typos (especially when someone is multi-lingual)– it’s as if you and Seb are either reading from the same script or are collaborators

        1. Graeme No.3

          It is difficult for them to type when they are holding hands.

          1. sod

            again, no argument, just insults.

            why not face the facts and at least try to counter them?

            i will post more at the end of this topic. Will i see any relevant argument from you?

          2. AndyG55

            You really are here for comic relief, aren’t you sob-sob

            Sucked in by every little piece of renewable propaganda.

            All you have is irrelevant imaginary FANTASIES !!

            So funny.

            So SAD !!

      2. AndyG55

        Yep, China has forced Germany manufacturers out of the market.

        Soon they will be providing electricity to Germany, too… from coal fired power stations.

  12. Germany’s Solar Industry has Collapsed | American Elephants

    […] banked their futures on solar jobs now face uncertain futures. Solarworld’s demise is the last in a spectacular series of solar manufacturer bankruptcies that swept across Germany over the past years, with names like Solon, Solar Millenium and Q-Cells […]

  13. CO2isLife

    4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate

    If I am correct in properly identifying the motives and intent of the fraud, the divergence between the ground measurements and satellite data will continue to widen with time. In 10 years, an understanding of the crime detailed above and an update of the following chart is all Congress should need to present an open and shut case against the climate alarmists that have defrauded the American taxpayers, corrupted real science, and destroyed the credibility of our media and educational system.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/4-graphs-that-demonstrate-why-the-ipcc-climate-models-will-never-be-accurate/

    1. SebastianH

      You do know that the 2m temperature is different from lower troposphere measurement, right? Find a weather station which measures the temperature in different heights and you will see what I mean.

      Also: I think the IPCC and associated scientists know that the CO2 to forcing relation is logarithmic and not linear. The reason why temperature models show a linear increase is that our GHG output increases exponentially.

      1. AndyG55

        “You do know that the 2m temperature is different from lower troposphere measurement”

        Yep, its is massively manipulated, loaded with fabricated and very substandard measurements, and is a total farce.

      2. AndyG55

        Poor seb, seems to think the lapse rate has changed and surface should be warming faster than the air above it.

        Again, his total ignorance of basic physics is put forward in all its farce. !!

        Surface stations are great for measuring urban heat, airport runway heat.

        And with a lot of help from the boys at GISS, will all show the same positive trend, regardless of what the original data was.

  14. CO2isLife

    Ocean Warming Dominates The Increase In Energy Stored In the Climate System
    The IPCC claims that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system. The IPCC claims that the oceans are warming. Data proves the oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not vice verse. The problem is, the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans. If the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 is warming the oceans, it can’t explain how/why the atmosphere is warming.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/ocean-warming-dominates-the-increase-in-energy-stored-in-the-climate-system/

    1. SebastianH

      And another skeptic who thinks water behaves fundamentally different than hard surfaces …

      Do you believe that water surfaces radiate directly to space? Incoming lw radiation has no effect? Hmm

      1. Kenneth Richard

        “And another skeptic who thinks water behaves fundamentally different than hard surfaces …”

        Huh? SebastianH, do you really not understand that the heat capacity of water is indeed “fundamentally different” than the heat capacity of “hard surfaces”…or air?

        How much heat energy does it take to warm up a liter of water by 1 degree C? How much heat energy does it take to heat up a liter of air by 1 degrees C? Do you really think there is no difference?

        “Do you believe that water surfaces radiate directly to space? Incoming lw radiation has no effect? Hmm”

        Do you EVER stop making up straw man arguments, SebastianH?

        We’re talking magnitudes here, SebastianH. Because the heat capacity of the oceans is orders of magnitude greater than the heat capacity of the air, it takes far more energy to heat up water than it does the air. Therefore, the water heats the air more than the air heats the water. Shortwave forcing (direct 10s of meters penetration of solar energy into the ocean) has much more to do with ocean temperature than longwave forcing — which cannot penetrate by 10s of meters into the ocean. It’s not a “no effect” thing (as you try in vain to create another straw man). It’s a more and less thing.

        Perhaps these papers can help you better understand how this works, SebastianH.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
        “The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do. The logical implication follows that most current climate models are lacking in relevance; they have not been constructed with ocean surface temperature as the fundamental variable.”

        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2168-7
        “After a decrease of SST by about 1 °C during 1964–1975, most apparent in the northern tropical region, the entire tropical basin warmed up. That warming was the most substantial (>1 °C) in the eastern tropical ocean and in the longitudinal band of the intertropical convergence zone. Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST [sea surface temperature] warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing [greenhouse gases/longwave]. Conversely, we suggest that long-term SST warming drives changes in atmosphere parameters at the sea surface, most notably an increase in latent heat flux, and that an acceleration of the hydrological cycle induces a strengthening of the trade winds and an acceleration of the Hadley circulation.”

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
        Introduction: “Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”

        Jones and Ricketts, 2017
        http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/esd-8-177-2017.pdf
        [A]cross a selection of tests, a simple stepladder model better represents the internal structures of warming than a simple trend, providing strong evidence that the climate system is exhibiting complex system behaviour on decadal timescales. This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.

        1. AndyG55

          “SebastianH, do you really not understand ”

          It is very obvious that seb has basically ZERO understanding of anything to do with physical matter.

        2. SebastianH

          Kenneth, different heat capacity of different materials doesn’t change the fundamental physics of radiative energy transfers. It doesn’t matter if it is a body of water, air or dirt. When they absorb energy they will also emit energy. Higher heat capacity materials do take longer to reach an equilibrium with their environment (“storing” more energy internally), but they will radiate the same amount of energy in that state as any other material. Also their temperature will change to whatever is needed to emit as much energy as is being absorbed.

          You don’t think that is true and that’s fine. But that’s why I sometimes call you a denier. Come up with a proof that this fundamental physical law doesn’t hold for ocean bodys on Earth-like planet and the Nobel will be yours …

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “It doesn’t matter if it is a body of water, air or dirt. When they absorb energy they will also emit energy.”

            It never ends. No one has ever said that surfaces do not radiate energy. Do you ever actually respond to what was actually written, SebastianH? Why do you feel the need to make up positions (effectively, that I “deny” that surfaces radiate heat) so that you can call me the equivalent of a Holocaust denier? It’s obviously because you know that if you responded to the actual written comments instead of the dishonestly made-up ones (straw men), you’re in over your head.

            What I had actually written was this: Shortwave forcing of net ocean heat content changes completely dominates over longwave forcing of net ocean heat content variations. That’s because SW energy/heat can penetrate by 10s of meters into the ocean (light penetrates up to 200 m), whereas LW cannot penetrate past the ocean “skin” (which loses heat due to evaporation, which is why it is cooler than the subsurface). So factors that alter the amount of SW radiation entering the first 20-30 m of the ocean (clouds, volcanic aerosols) are FAR more deterministic of net changes in OHC than factors that alter the amount of LW radiation (water vapor, clouds, CO2) precisely because IR heat cannot penetrate into the ocean.

            Stop making up positions or statements or thoughts and dishonestly claiming others have written them so that you can call them names. You obviously are not an honest person, SebastianH. I would be so embarrassed to have to continually descend into dishonesty in a sophomoric attempt to “win” a debate point. Grow up.

      2. AndyG55

        “And another skeptic who thinks water behaves fundamentally different than hard surfaces”

        Seb’s grasp of physics is basically the opposite any sort of know physics..

        No, seb, water does not behave in any way like a hard surface…

        1. SebastianH

          You mean there is a different set of the laws of physics for bodies of water?

          1. AndyG55

            NO,

            Its just that you have ZERO comprehension of basic physics.

          2. SebastianH

            You have yet to quantify how much energy a body of water loses due to convection, evaporation and radiation. Total should be equal to the incoming energy (SW+LW radiation), correct? So what is the split?

          3. AndyG55

            You have yet to provide any proof at all that CO@ causes warming over water , or in a convective atmosphere.

            You are an empty sad-sack.

          4. AndyG55

            Only SW radiation causes any energy gain..

            Try again, sed-sack.

            Keep displaying your manic ignorance.

            All you have.

            Radiation from CO2, does of course, only happen at a much lower temperature, in the upper atmosphere, above about 11km.

            Seems you are saying that the radiant energy from already suspended water vapour, which got there via evaporation, heats the ocean.

            You seriously do live in a fantasy land, seb !!

      3. AndyG55

        “Incoming lw radiation has no effect?”

        Well yes it does, seb

        It causes evaporation in the top tiny fraction of a mm,

        .. and that evaporation draws in latent heat from the surrounds, causing a layer of water on the surface about 1 mm thick, and 0.3C cooler than the water underneath.

        Everyone except seb knows that evaporation COOLS a surface.

        LW radiation on the surface DOES NOT warm water.

        Seb is STILL firing absolute blanks, with absolutely ZERO science or understanding of anything to do with … anything!

        Still no proof CO2 warms water.

        And still no proof that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

        But he just keeps on with his meaningless yapping anyway.

        Because that is all he has.

        1. SebastianH

          LW radiation on the surface DOES NOT warm water.

          Of course it isn’t warming the water. Nobody is claiming that it does.

          Backradiation is the reason why the body of water gets warmer. Why? Because of internal heat build up until the body of water is warm enough to radiate the leftover (from evaporation/convection) energy.

          P.S.: You theory of 100% of all CO2 related backradiation going to evaporation is interesting, but have you calculated how much energy that would be? Why hasn’t the ocean completely evaporated yet?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “Backradiation is the reason why the body of water gets warmer.”

            How far down does backradiation penetrate into the ocean depths relative to shortwave radiation, SebastianH? If backradiation cannot penetrate past the 0.1-1 mm “thick” ocean skin layer, but shortwave radiation can penetrate down to directly heat the first 30 meters of the ocean, which source, when varied, is more likely to determine how warm the ocean waters get?

            http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/25313
            The incoming solar irradiance, which is absorbed by the upper ocean, is the main energy source in the ocean heat budget, and hence strongly impacts the oceanic thermal structure, heat transport and the global circulations. Shortwave radiation is attenuated exponentially with depth. The attenuation depth (e-folding depth) depends on the wavelength and biogenic components of the water. Traditionally, the water types are classified Jerlov I, IA, IB, II and III (Jerlov, 1976). The shortwave attenuation depth (SWAD) in open oceans (almost Jerlov I) is about 20–30 m, and it decreases with increasing water turbidity, particularly in coastal regions.

          2. AndyG55

            “Why hasn’t the ocean completely evaporated yet?”

            OMG, it seems that seb is also TOTALLY IGNORANT of the water cycle.

            I wonder… is there ANYTHING that seb is NOT totally ignorant of !!!

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth, it’s not about penetration. It’s about the net radiation. A body of whatever with a surface temperature of X °C will radiate Y W/m² into vacuum. Since the oceans don’t exist in a vacuum they have to “overcome” the incoming LW radiation and therefor internal energy builds up until the surface reaches a temperature where everything is in balance. It doesn’t matter that the outgoing energy could also be transfered by evaporation, etc … what matters is the resulting surface temperature change.

            The higher heat capacity of liquid water and the internal mixing slow down this process compared to a thin sheet of black foil, but this doesn’t change the fundamental physics.

            AndyG55, provide a calculation please. You claim that incoming LW radiation just causes evaporation of the top layer. How much energy are we talking about? Where does that energy ultimately go? You are talking about the water cycle, so I assume you mean the water vapor condenses and falls back to the oceans. Fine, so the energy is now in the atmosphere, but how does this actually work? Why is there no energy build up in the atmosphere then? This energy can not additionally radiate into space, since that has already been taken care of … so where does this energy go to?

          4. AndyG55

            Seb.. do your own learning.. ignorant fool !!

  15. sod

    there really is an energy technology in mortal danger: nuclear power.

    with the Toshiba fail, nuclear is falling apart:

    http://www.utilitydive.com/news/toshiba-said-to-be-preparing-for-bankruptcy-as-southern-faces-vogtle-deadli/442588/

    Siemens has moved out of the business years ago:

    http://www.utilitydive.com/news/toshiba-said-to-be-preparing-for-bankruptcy-as-southern-faces-vogtle-deadli/442588/

    The french nuclear company ariva is also bankrupt and had to be rescued by EDF, which now is on the brink of failure due to the Hinkley deal and ageing french nuclear plants:

    https://www.ft.com/content/2baf6270-c36a-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a

    THIS is the graph that tells the whole story:

    http://www.quietsolarenergy.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/08e90_renewable-energy-sources-rising.jpg

    according to people here, the growing solar and wind lines in that graph are showing failure, while nuclear does not require a single line of writing…

  16. sod

    It looks like the basis of this article is simply false. The real news is a “comeback” of solar technology made in Germany:

    “Heute setzt das Unternehmen, das mehrheitlich im Besitz von BMW-Erbe Stefan Quandt ist, auf Premiumprodukte und Komplettlösungen für Privathaushalte und Kleingewerbe: Neben Solaranlagen fürs Dach liefert Solarwatt selbst entwickelte Stromspeicher und intelligente Energiesteuerung. Im Massenmarkt sieht Neuhaus keine Chance mehr für europäische Unternehmen, zu stark ist die Billigkonkurrenz aus Asien. “Da ist der Krieg ist seit mindestens drei, vier Jahren verloren.”

    http://www.teleboerse.de/aktien/Deutschlands-Solarfirmen-boomen-in-Nischen-article19830115.html

    The new product are clever full solutions, including solar PV, battery and hardware to run the system.

    This combines with batteries getting massively cheaper:

    http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/energiewende-so-machen-neue-speicher-privaten-solarstrom-erschwinglich-a-1142996.html

    roof based solar PV in Germany is cheaper than electricity from the grid. The moment you use a lot of it, makes you start saving money. batteries are getting cheaper and so even the combination can save you money. This is good news, because electricity that is not delivered to the grid also does not get any subsidies via the EEG. And then we have old systems, which run out of subsidies starting in 2020. Using more of their electricity (via battery) will keep them running.

    In another German speaking country, IKEA has started to sell home batteries to add to their solar system.

    http://www.elektronikpraxis.vogel.de/themen/hardwareentwicklung/powermanagement/stromversorgung/articles/601623/

    IKEA also drove the push towards LED lights (by simply not selling any other solution any longer) and now might provide the “push” in just another technology.

    1. AndyG55

      IKEA..

      all you need to do is figure out how to put them together.

      not going to work for you then , is it sob-sob

      How’s the fossil fuel heating going, btw..

      Grandma still paying the bills ??

      1. sod

        nothing but insults again.

        IKEA is serving a segment of society, which would not have changed to LED fast and who would not install solar and a battery, because this requires “market research” and contracting some local supplier.

        and you are missing the big story (AGAIN): German companies are competitive in the solar PV and battery market. Just not as producers of simple solar panels.

        1. AndyG55

          “German companies are competitive in the solar PV and battery market”

          Until the next one collapses, then the next one.

          All these things take power to manufacture, and Germany has priced its electricity supply out of the market.

          It will not be long before many other manufacturing companies also either go belly-up or decide that other countries are more conducive to actually making things.

          1. SebastianH

            And you call others alarmists? 😉

          2. AndyG55

            Except that I am far more likely to be correct. !

    2. AndyG55

      You STILL don’t get it, do you sob-sob

      Batteries require massive amounts of COAL GAS, and PETROLEUM to manufacture and distribute.

      The more you manufacture, the more coal gas and petroleum you use.

      But if you get rid of fossil fuels.

      YOU CANNOT MANUFACTURE THEM !!

      You are living in a FANTASY world, sob-sob.

      A world of total make believe.

      I can’t even imagine what sort of brain-washed child-mind you have…

      … or what sort of weird new medication your minders have you taking !!

      1. SebastianH

        Using the resources to manufacture plastic is arguably a better solution than just burning them to generate usable energy. Don’t you agree?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “a better solution”

          A solution to what problem?

          1. SebastianH

            Sustainable use of resources …

          2. Kenneth Richard

            How is an intermittent energy source that can’t be stored and that is dependent upon the weather (winds, cloudiness), only works during the daytime, and relies on fossil fuels for backup because they only deliver a tiny fraction of nameplate energy…a “sustainable” energy “solution”?

        2. AndyG55

          Generating usable energy…
          .

          … something wind and solar could only ever wish for.

          Done that “reliability” calculation yet sob-seb??

          or too scared too.!!

      2. sod

        “Batteries require massive amounts of COAL GAS, and PETROLEUM to manufacture and distribute.”

        no. Solar panels have reached their “break even” point already:

        https://phys.org/news/2016-12-solar-panels-repay-energy-debt.html

        batteries will follow swiftly, as they do not get anywhere near the same amounts of subsidies.

        It is really funny. a serious amount of people, who call themselves “sceptics2 are sitting around the internet, waiting for the news that solar PV has collapsed because people have figured out that it uses more energy than it produces. So there you sit and wait until the end of times…

        1. AndyG55

          Solar panels manufactured in Chine using massive amounts of coal and other fossil fuels.

          And your fantasy of battery storage shows just how out of the world you mind has become.

          Tiny, niche and a waste of time and money when there are far better energy supply systems that actually help the environment as well.. ie fossil fuels.. !!

        2. AndyG55

          Have you done that “reliability ” test yet sob.

          or too cowardly?

          What percentage of nameplate can wind and solar deliver 95% of the time

          30 minute rests for 2-3 months..

          I got 4% last time I did the calculation

          That is extraordinarily PATHETIC

          and for solar, it will ALWAYS be ZERO percent.

          1. SebastianH

            Here you go … for 2015:
            Stats for year 2015
            Wind power generation: 78.92 TWh
            Solar power generation: 34.91 TWh
            Total power generation: 113.82 TWh
            P: 100%, total: 0.34 GW (wind: 0.3 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 95%, total: 2.96 GW (wind: 1.92 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 90%, total: 3.99 GW (wind: 2.62 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 85%, total: 4.85 GW (wind: 3.24 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 80%, total: 5.72 GW (wind: 3.78 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 75%, total: 6.6 GW (wind: 4.3 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 70%, total: 7.38 GW (wind: 4.83 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 65%, total: 8.3 GW (wind: 5.42 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 60%, total: 9.39 GW (wind: 6.06 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 55%, total: 10.59 GW (wind: 6.68 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 50%, total: 11.69 GW (wind: 7.32 GW, solar: 0.08 GW
            P: 45%, total: 12.73 GW (wind: 8.04 GW, solar: 0.61 GW
            P: 40%, total: 13.77 GW (wind: 8.97 GW, solar: 1.64 GW
            P: 35%, total: 15.03 GW (wind: 10.01 GW, solar: 2.93 GW
            P: 30%, total: 16.5 GW (wind: 11.21 GW, solar: 4.55 GW
            P: 25%, total: 18.24 GW (wind: 12.36 GW, solar: 6.44 GW
            P: 20%, total: 20.04 GW (wind: 13.57 GW, solar: 8.82 GW
            P: 15%, total: 22.02 GW (wind: 15.2 GW, solar: 11.4 GW
            P: 10%, total: 24.42 GW (wind: 17.97 GW, solar: 14.18 GW
            P: 5%, total: 27.88 GW (wind: 21.54 GW, solar: 17.76 GW
            P: 0%, total: 42.98 GW (wind: 38.3 GW, solar: 25.93 GW

          2. SebastianH

            2016:
            Stats for year 2016
            Wind power generation: 77.01 TWh
            Solar power generation: 34.56 TWh
            Total power generation: 111.56 TWh
            P: 100%, 0.36 GW (wind: 0.13 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 95%, 2.33 GW (wind: 1.28 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 90%, 3.29 GW (wind: 1.94 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 85%, 4.15 GW (wind: 2.51 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 80%, 5.04 GW (wind: 3.03 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 75%, 5.93 GW (wind: 3.61 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 70%, 6.93 GW (wind: 4.18 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 65%, 7.9 GW (wind: 4.81 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 60%, 8.9 GW (wind: 5.46 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 55%, 9.83 GW (wind: 6.16 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 50%, 10.77 GW (wind: 6.95 GW, solar: 0.08 GW
            P: 45%, 11.87 GW (wind: 7.79 GW, solar: 0.61 GW
            P: 40%, 13.22 GW (wind: 8.67 GW, solar: 1.64 GW
            P: 35%, 14.69 GW (wind: 9.62 GW, solar: 2.89 GW
            P: 30%, 16.26 GW (wind: 10.57 GW, solar: 4.36 GW
            P: 25%, 17.91 GW (wind: 11.81 GW, solar: 6.26 GW
            P: 20%, 19.9 GW (wind: 13.53 GW, solar: 8.48 GW
            P: 15%, 22.37 GW (wind: 15.63 GW, solar: 10.98 GW
            P: 10%, 25.15 GW (wind: 18.34 GW, solar: 14.11 GW
            P: 5%, 29.17 GW (wind: 23.47 GW, solar: 17.73 GW
            P: 0%, 44.2 GW (wind: 33.83 GW, solar: 26.25 GW

          3. SebastianH

            2017 so far
            Stats for year 2017
            Wind power generation: 37.47 TWh
            Solar power generation: 11.17 TWh
            Total power generation: 48.63 TWh
            P: 100%, 0 GW (wind: 0 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 95%, 2.59 GW (wind: 1.59 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 90%, 3.81 GW (wind: 2.44 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 85%, 4.94 GW (wind: 3.19 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 80%, 6.24 GW (wind: 4.04 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 75%, 7.41 GW (wind: 4.84 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 70%, 8.76 GW (wind: 5.83 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 65%, 10.1 GW (wind: 6.82 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 60%, 11.43 GW (wind: 7.97 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 55%, 12.45 GW (wind: 9.18 GW, solar: 0 GW
            P: 50%, 13.61 GW (wind: 10.3 GW, solar: 0.01 GW
            P: 45%, 14.75 GW (wind: 11.51 GW, solar: 0.21 GW
            P: 40%, 16.19 GW (wind: 12.47 GW, solar: 1.01 GW
            P: 35%, 17.84 GW (wind: 13.64 GW, solar: 2.16 GW
            P: 30%, 19.59 GW (wind: 14.77 GW, solar: 3.62 GW
            P: 25%, 21.48 GW (wind: 16.49 GW, solar: 5.33 GW
            P: 20%, 23.5 GW (wind: 18.55 GW, solar: 7.43 GW
            P: 15%, 26.28 GW (wind: 20.74 GW, solar: 9.83 GW
            P: 10%, 29.58 GW (wind: 23.86 GW, solar: 12.64 GW
            P: 5%, 33.33 GW (wind: 28.82 GW, solar: 16.15 GW
            P: 0%, 47.44 GW (wind: 38.37 GW, solar: 27.63 GW

          4. AndyG55

            So let’s get this straight in 2015, the 95% reliability factor for wind was 1.92GW out of approximately 41GW installed

            That’s 4.66%

            And it looks like that for 20% of the time they were operating at less than 10% of installed capacity.

            You have just PROVEN everything I have said about the ABSOLUTE UNRELIABILITY of these environment destroying eye-sores.

            And people want to WASTE even more money on these USELESS things ?????

            And note that solar basically doesn’t produce anything worth while for 60% or more of the time.

            ps, you will have to explain why the numbers don’t add up for each percentage.

          5. AndyG55

            Assuming the number next to “wind” is the actually wind energy being produced.

            I get around 3.6% of installed capacity over the 2.4 years. (installed taken as onshore values of 2015: 41.18, 2016: 45.51, 2017: 46.71)

            About what I go last time.

            And I haven’t added on the offshore wind. If it is counted in your numbers, the 95% reliability drops even further.

            This really does highlight the absolutely GROSS UNRELIABILITY of wind and solar.

            Thanks for the effort ! 🙂

          6. AndyG55

            Hey Pierre or Kenneth.

            Any chance you could use seb’s calculations in a major report on the unreliability of wind and solar ?? It really is destructive data.

            He would need to explain exactly what the number are, since they don’t add up across ways.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            I think it’s likely that the only people who don’t “get it” already are people like SebastianH and sod, and since they’re true believers who don’t let facts get in the way of their presuppositions, a “major report” will be ignored.

          8. SebastianH

            Destructive data? We apparently have a very different view of what this says 😉

            Maybe I’ll explain in another thread.

            Wind + solar doesn’t “add up” because wind blows at different times as the sun shines. Taken together their reliability – as you put it – increases. One could add hydro and biomass to these numbers, but I don’t have data for both in the same high resolution (15 minute intervals taken from here: https://energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=solar-wind&week=19&year=2017).

          9. AndyG55

            So you think a system that delivers less than 10% of capacity for at least 20% of the time is actually worthwhile..

            REALLY ??????????

            You would pay for a car that was that UNRELIABLE (if it was an EV , I guess you would, but keep the Mercedes 😉

            How about a shop where 20 % of the time it had basically nothing on the shelf.

            You seriously have some VERY strange ideas !!

          10. AndyG55

            So, just wind, the first value in parentheses?

            and capacities installed for 2015, 2016, 2017, are they:
            2015: 41.18, 2016: 45.51, 2017: 46.71)

            Or do I include offshore as well.

            What percentage of time is wind below 30% and 40% of installed capacity.??

          11. sod

            “What percentage of time is wind below 30% and 40% of installed capacity.??”

            capacity is close to irrelevant. you are looking at the most stupid metric you can find. That is, because you know nothing.

            33% of german electricity is now renewables. But hey, that is just another one of those facts you hate!

          12. Kenneth Richard

            “33% of german electricity is now renewables. But hey, that is just another one of those facts you hate!”

            https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2016-1.png?itok=9XU_CiC5
            Actually,12.6% of German energy is supplied by renewables, and wind and solar only represent 3.3% of total energy consumed.

          13. AndyG55

            “Maybe I’ll explain in another thread.”

            That will be Absolutely HILARIOUS !!! 🙂

          14. AndyG55

            “capacity is close to irrelevant. you are looking at the most stupid metric you can find.”

            No sob-sob.. the amount compared to the capacity IS VERY RELEVANT.

            Its FEEBLE and it PATHETIC,

            and it shows the UTTER AND COMPLETE UNRELIABLITY of this highly destructive form of energy.

          15. AndyG55

            Come on seb.. still waiting..

            Those wind numbers , first inside the brackets..

            What installed capacity do they relate to. ???

            Is it the values quoted on the energy web site for onshore

            2015: 41.18, 2016: 45.51, 2017: 46.71

            or does include off shore as well.?????

            DARE you give us the installed capacity for each year that those figure relate to ???

          16. SebastianH

            It’s wind offshore+onshore. You can find the installed capacity at the end of each year here: https://energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm

            From that you should be able to calculate an average capacity for that year. Did that for you here:
            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a6rSJalQ1ON-TblqYqbbZ4CmZwiFaiRqNh9orUyfTSs/edit?usp=sharing

            In 2016 Wind reached 2.71% of it’s capacity 95% of the time. Wind is below 30% capacity 80% of the time and below 40% capacity 90% of the time.

            Why are you so obsessed with the capacity factor though? It’s 18.78% on average. What does it matter if the resulting kWh is cheaper than a kWh produced in a fossil fuel power plant? And it will be soon enough, so your hated subsidies can go away. In fact some offshore windfarms that will be build (in the North Sea) in the coming decade have not asked for any subsidies.

          17. AndyG55

            “In 2016 Wind 2.71% of it’s capacity 95% of the time.

            Wind is below 30% capacity 80% of the time

            and below 40% capacity 90% of the time.”

            And you say its not PATHETICALLY UNRELIABLE.

            You can’t be serious !!!

          18. AndyG55

            It just gets WORSE and WORSE, doesn’t it seb.

            Wind was BELOW 50% capacity in 2015, 2016 for 95% of the time and below 50% capacity for 90%of the time so far in 2017. (is winter the windy season ???)

            In 2015, it was BELOW 20% capacity for nearly 60% of the time

            In 2016 it was below 20% capacity for over 65% of the time

            So far in 2017, its below 20% for about 50% of the time.

            How much more PATHETIC does it have to get ??????

            How much more PATHETIC CAN IT GET !!!

            It really is a “WHY BOTHER” method of producing electricity…..

            That is for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN !!!

          19. SebastianH

            I am saying “does it really matter?”

            Let’s simplify and assume Germany’s electricity consumption is at a steady 55 GW.

            As you can see in the spreadsheet wind+solar provided over 10 GW 54% of the time in 2016. So let’s increase capacity by 5.5 and wind+solar would cover electricity demand 54% of the time. In the remaining 46% of the time wind+solar would be at an average of 30.4 GW, 10% of the time it would only be at 18 GW and sometimes – shocking – even at almost 0 GW.

            So we’d need full backup to “fill up” what wind+solar can’t provide. This backup would deliver 24.6 GW on average and 55 GW at most. At this point renewables would account for 79.4% of all electricity generation.

            At this point it is probably not economical to just waste the excess electricity that wind+solar would provide 53% of the time (and ~20% of the time it would provide more than double of what we actually need). So storage will further reduce the need to power up the backup or in case of storage in gas form the backup plants would use the generated methane.

            Now, wether this makes sense all depends on prices. If wind+solar become dead cheap per kWh – which they will – it is a no brainer to transition to such a system.

          20. SebastianH

            Wind was BELOW 50% capacity in 2015, 2016 for 95% of the time and below 50% capacity for 90%of the time so far in 2017. (is winter the windy season ???)

            Again: why does it matter? It only matter how much of the demand it can cover at what price. If it covers more than the demand you can either let that overproduction go to waste or store some of it. If it covers less than the demand you need backup to supply the rest. Where is the problem?

          21. AndyG55

            PATHETICALLY UNRELIABLE

            And yes, it will ALWAYS need back-up for a very large proportion.

            But that back-up is being removed because of the feed-in mandates and subsidies are making them run inefficiently.

            “If it covers more than the demand you can either let that overproduction go to waste or store some of it.”

            This one statement shows that your ignorance knows no bounds.

          22. SebastianH

            So once again: where is the problem?

            “Backup” (wouldn’t call it that at this time) doesn’t get removed … at least not in Germany.

            My ignorance about what? What do you think nuclear power plants do when throtteling down (happens in France all the time). Do you think they suddenly stop producing heat?

          23. AndyG55

            “Backup” (wouldn’t call it that at this time) doesn’t get removed … at least not in Germany.”

            Nope, the German government just spends more and more taxpayer money to try to keep the system alive.

            Money that could be spent of something worthwhile, like supporting the unproductive masses like seb.

            Paying out subsidies to wind, then even more money to stop the closure of the REAL power production due to enforced inefficiency… DOH !

            No wonder electricity costs a motza in Germany.

            And I hope, for your sake, seb, that it keeps climbing rabidly.

            Your granny, or your dole, can only keep paying out so much !!!

            And you HAVE to keep that Mercedes running, don’t you seb 😉

  17. DirkH

    “Asbeck, one of the co-founders of the German Green Party and an avid owner of a 300 hp Maserati,”

    Nothing says Saving The Earth like becoming rich through Maoist party policy subsidy regimes at the expense of working people and driving a Maserati.

    ONWARDS!

  18. CO2isLife

    TRILLIONS of PUBLIC Dollars Spent on Conclusions Reached Based Upon “Made Up Data.”

    It turns out that the “expert scientists” literally “make up” the data (see introductory graphic). Taxpayers are literally being asked to spend trillions of dollars based upon models that use “made up” data. Unfortunately, that isn’t a joke. The total cost including direct, indirect and opportunity costs is simply staggering.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/trillions-of-public-dollars-spent-on-conclusions-reached-based-upon-made-up-data/

  19. sod

    Just to remind people: Costa Rica ran on 99% renewables last year.

    http://thecostaricanews.com/costa-rica-exceeds-99-renewable-generation/

    the change might come faster than you think…

    1. Kenneth Richard

      sod: “Costa Rica ran on 99% renewables last year.”

      70% of Costa Rica’s energy consumption came from oil last year (gas for heating, fuel for vehicles, etc.). The renewables are predominantly hydropower, not wind and solar, and the dams they use for hydropower slam the atmosphere with methane.

      Nice try, though, sod. Perhaps others will be fooled by you telling the half of the story that fits your narrative.

      http://grist.org/briefly/costa-rica-got-98-percent-of-its-electricity-from-renewables-in-2016/
      [A]bout 75 percent of Costa Rica’s electricity comes from hydropower, which easier to pull off when you’ve got the world’s fourth highest average rainfall.

      That hydropower means the country’s electricity system isn’t as green as it sounds. Dams disrupt ecosystems, displace people, and send methane into the atmosphere.

      And while Costa Rica’s grid is almost completely renewable, 70 percent of the country’s energy still comes from oil, which powers its transportation systems.

      1. sod

        “Nice try, though, sod. Perhaps others will be fooled by you telling the half of the story that fits your narrative.”

        hydro is a renewable source which has some disadvantages. You are playing a game of divide and conquer to obscure the facts.

        sources of electricity are grouped in which ever way gives the best impression of fossil fuels and the worst of renewables.

        If there is little wind, wind is put alone and if there is little solar, solar is put alone. hydro is used against wind and solar while gas and coal always get added together to make the numbers look better. nuclear is ignored when in decline, but praised added to the fossil group when it helps them look better.

        another abuse is the arguments about “total energy”, which also makes fossil fuels look stronger than they actually are. This approach is not “sceptical” at all and mostly misleading.

        anyone who wants to understand renewables has to look at the electricity sector, as this is where the current change is. a significant change in this sector will lead to fast and disruptive changes in the mobility sector and might also lead to serious changes in the heating sector. And yes, dramatic building of renewables and batteries can lead to the industry using more electricity and energy over a certain time period (see, it is not so difficult to tell the full picture).

        Costa Rica had several options: it could have gone for reduced hydro and for additional fossil fuels. it did not. Now renewables are stalling there, because there is little reason for further expansion. this will change with better interconectors and the approach of electric cars. stay tuned….

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “another abuse is the arguments about ‘total energy’, which also makes fossil fuels look stronger than they actually are. This approach is not ‘sceptical’ at all and mostly misleading.”

          I’m sorry that you consider it “misleading” to correctly point out that 70% of Costa Rica’s energy comes from fossil fuels. I realize this is mostly about symbolism for you, and thus the claim that 99% of Costa’s Rica’s electricity comes from renewables helps you feel better.

          1. sod

            “I’m sorry that you consider it “misleading” to correctly point out that 70% of Costa Rica’s energy comes from fossil fuels. I realize this is mostly about symbolism for you, and thus the claim that 99% of Costa’s Rica’s electricity comes from renewables helps you feel better.”

            99% is not symbolic. it is total.

            changing other sectors depends on the change of the electricity sector. Electric cars or even worse electric heating do not make any sense unless you get extremely high renewable penetration (if you do not want to go nuclear).

            AGAIN: Costa Rica could have chosen a different path: less hydro, and fossil fuels instead of wind and a little solar (huge potentials there!).

            It simply was IMPOSSIBLE to remove fossil fuels from the transport sector 10 years ago. So adding these numbers together and claiming a failure of renewables is simply a false approach.

            It is like as if i made the claim that coal was a total failure, because cars are not run by burning coal these days.

          2. AndyG55

            “It simply was IMPOSSIBLE to remove fossil fuels from the transport sector 10 years ago”

            And it still is. !!

            Bought an EV as your only car , yet sob??

            Or are you just full of stale, windy, brain farts. !!

  20. Aurinkopaneeliyhtiö SolarWord maksukyvytön | Roskasaitti

    […] http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/12/german-solar-energy-from-technology-of-the-future-to-extinction-i… (Linkki) NTZ-sivusto kertoo alan nopeasta tuhosta Saksassa. Kyse ei kuitenkaan ole varsinaisesta energiayhtiöstä, kuten otsikosta voisi päätellä. Asbeckin puoluekytkentä kerrotaan. […]

  21. sod

    In the real world, things are changing. South Korea is closing 10 coal plants in the first days of the new president:

    https://qz.com/983626/moon-jae-in-south-koreas-new-president-is-shutting-down-10-big-coal-power-plants-in-his-first-week-in-office/

    China is stopping new coal plants in 29 out of 32 provinces.

    https://qz.com/982437/china-is-suspending-permits-for-new-coal-power-plants-in-29-out-of-32-provinces/

    and in the USA, we have this graph of the decline in coal which is telling the full story:

    https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_content–retina/public/media-uploads/us-generation-by-energy-source-eia-2011-16_0.png?itok=zmiHtoU5

    hydro is also in decline there, by the way. the only growth are wind and solar and gas power.

  22. sod

    “Wind was BELOW 50% capacity in 2015, 2016 for 95% of the time and below 50% capacity for 90%of the time so far in 2017.”

    What are you talking about?

    any electricity source with a (totally irrelevant) capacity factor of about 30% will be below 50% for the majority of the time. you do not need any math or data to figure that out!

    So let us look at the worst culprits. How is nuclear doing in Japan? Ouch!

    But even worse, Cola plant capacity factor in China is below 50%.

    https://qz.com/650709/china-has-the-most-coal-plants-in-the-world-and-half-the-time-theyre-doing-absolutely-nothing/

    and it is falling fast (by another 5% last year):

    https://qz.com/982437/china-is-suspending-permits-for-new-coal-power-plants-in-29-out-of-32-provinces/

    so guess what: Chinese coal is below 50% for the majority of the time! END COAL, it is not working at all! THE SKY IS FALLING!

    1. sod

      Cola was supposed to be coal. But i would not even be surprised, if cola plants in China were also running at 50% capacity (or are all of the running full night shifts?!?).

      You just totally do not understand the concept of capacity and abuse it to tell a story that is false.

    2. AndyG55

      roflmao,,

      You will try anything to DEFLECT from the absolute waste of time that wind is.

      Operating at less than 20% for over 50% of the time.

      China is a totally different kettle, having overbuilt on coal power station while it works on transmission line to the east to save Europe from energy demise.

      Now use the excuse that Germany has overbuilt on wind, and that’s why it so unreliable.

      You are a deceitful little worm, sob-sob.

  23. ‘Tagesspiegel’ Calls German Solar Energy Scheme An “Exemplary Initiative” On What “Not To Do”!

    […] online Tagesspiegel here recently presented a commentary on the collapse of the country’s largest solar components manufacturer, Solarworld, and what it really […]