Resurging German Free Democrats Coming Out Against Out-Of-Control Wind Energy

Over the past few years Germans have been increasing their protests against the construction of wind trubines in the countryside and the idustrial littering of the landscape.

Hundreds of citizens’ protest groups have since formed with the aim of fiercely opposing the construction of wind parks in forests, open landscapes and near residential areas.

The level of resistance has reached the point where politicians are taking real notice, and now view it as a political issue worth adopting.

Photo right: René Rock, credit: FDP

The latest sign of this happening comes from the FDP Free Democrats, who have been resurging in Germany as of late. Last Sunday the party saw a record number of voters turn out in the state elections of North Rhine Westphalia. The Greens, on the other hand, saw almost half of their voters disappear.

Further south in the German state of Hesse, home of Frankfurt, parliamentarian René Rock, FDP fraction energy policy spokesman, has called for the return of “an energy policy of reason” and come out “with great passion against a purely ideologically motivated building of further wind parks in the Hesse“.

Rock’s website here states:

Wind energy is neither economically nor climate-politically sensible, it endangers the health of people and wildlife, and it destroys the beautiful and valuable natural and cultural heritage.”

Over the past years many Germans have been horrified seeing protected forests getting chopped down and cleared to make way for 200-meter tall turbines. Not only is it an eyesore, a danger to wildlife and uneconomical, Rock also adds that Germany’s EEG feed-in act is “the most unsocial law that Germany has ever had and that it must be stopped immediately. It is nothing more than pure redistribution from the bottom up and has put the market economy out of order.”

Rock also calls for a new energy policy that “really protects people, wildlife and the environment, that is the best market solution and one that foremost researches nuclear fusion.”

He also calls for the 10H setback rule, which requires wind turbines to be placed no closer to any resident than 10 times its height and that people’s concerns need to be taken more seriously.

Bad Nauheim mayor candidate Britta Weber, also of the Free Democrats, came out against the construction of a wind park nearby, stating that the “FDP here won’t go along with it. Every wind turbine is one too many. We need new technologies, other research areas, a return back to supply and demand, protection of our homeland, without ideology and state nannyism.”

 

60 responses to “Resurging German Free Democrats Coming Out Against Out-Of-Control Wind Energy”

  1. SebastianH

    one that foremost researches nuclear fusion

    Yeah, let’s stop cheap wind and solar and go all in on nuclear fusion, so it will be ready for commercial use in 30+ years (automatically re-adjusts every year).

    Maybe that what the 54 billion € tax surplus should be used for 😉

    1. tom0mason

      Another dumb distraction of zero worth from seb.

      Where does he advocate nuclear fusion for commercial use.
      Oh no seb, within the limits of this quoted piece, he does not.

      1. SebastianH

        What is the reason for research in fusion technologies then if not commercialization?

        The very first sentence after his bullpoint list consisting of myths is:

        Lassen Sie uns eine andere Energiepolitik machen, die Mensch, Tier und Umwelt wirklich schützt, marktwirtschaftlich die beste Lösung darstellt und vor allem an neuen Technologien wie der Kernfusion forscht.

        It basically says “let’s abandon what we have done until now and go all in on things like nuclear fusion”. It’s what he wants and that’s what I commented on.

      2. AndyG55

        “Another dumb distraction of zero worth from seb”

        Tm), you have described seb’s contribution to any form of rational discussion to a tee.

        You CANNOT discuss with a rabid zealot like seb.

        1. tom0mason

          Yep, even seb’s interpretation of a translation is off the mark.
          As you say “You CANNOT discuss with a rabid zealot like seb.”

          But I don’t mind leaving seb to wallow in he’s own deception
          I’m know time is on my side. Even the UN know they have a short time before the more obvious cooling kicks-in (5 years max), which is why they push for the 2020 Paris Agreement timescale — when everyone better be signed-up or all their plans fall to a pile of rat’s sh|t.
          Of course seb might unaware even of that.

          1. SebastianH

            Yep, even seb’s interpretation of a translation is off the mark.

            Since German is my native language I do understand what it written on that website and specifically in that quote. The term “vor allem” gives it away. This guy wants to mainly research new technologies like nuclear fusion.

            What other purpose is there to expand research in that direction if not for commerical use? Does he want to build fusion drives for space ships? That’s not what the surrounding context suggests.

          2. SebastianH

            Yep, even seb’s interpretation of a translation is off the mark.

            I do understand what the website and specifically that quote says. Please tell me where I went “off the mark”!

            Doesn’t the term “vor allem” give it away? This guy wants to mainly research new technologies like nuclear fusion. That’s the only conclusion that can be derived from this quote.

            What other purpose is there to expand research in that direction if not for commerical use? Does he want to build fusion drives for space ships? That’s not what the surrounding context suggests. Building more coal plants, etc is also not supported by the rest of the quote (“Mensch, Tier und Umwelt wirklich schützt”)

          3. SebastianH

            Yep, even seb’s interpretation of a translation is off the mark.

            I do understand what the website and specifically that quote says. Please tell me where I went “off the mark”!

            Doesn’t the term “vor allem” give it away? This guy wants to mainly research new technologies like nuclear fusion. That’s the only conclusion that can be derived from this quote.

          4. SebastianH

            What other purpose is there to expand research in that direction if not for commerical use? Does he want to build fusion rockets? That’s not what the surrounding context suggests. Building more coal plants, etc is also not supported by the rest of the quote (“Mensch, Tier und Umwelt wirklich schützt”)

          5. SebastianH

            Don’t particularly, above all, mainly and foremost mean roughly the same thing?

          6. DirkH

            SebastianH 19. May 2017 at 3:23 PM | Permalink
            “Since German is my native language I do understand what it written on that website and specifically in that quote. The term “vor allem” gives it away. This guy wants to mainly research new technologies like nuclear fusion.”

            Your German is good but your brain can’t think logically and doesn’t know the meaning of words. RESEARCH ALWAYS RESEARCHES NEW TECHNOLOGIES. WE ALREADY KNOW THE OLD TECHNOLOGIES.
            So. The Left now complains that state research researches NEW THINGS. That’s where we’ve gotten.
            Tell me are you still capable of personal hygiene or is the deterioration so progressed that that becomes infeasible as well.

    2. AndyG55

      Wind that has a 95% reliability of around 4% (by your own calculations)

      and for more than half the time produces LESS THAN 20% of its rated energy.

      It really is a “WHY BOTHER?” technology, isn’t it seb.

      A waste of time, destructive on the environment, can only exist with idiotic feed-in rules and subsidies, and leading down the path of economic decimation.

      1. SebastianH

        Again: why does it matter?

        We are not paying for rated energy we are paying for produced energy. If wind energy would cost 0.00001 cent per kWh, would you change your complaint? At what price does wind energy win?

        1. AndyG55

          “Again: why does it matter?”

          Certainly not to you.

          WASTED money is all the far-left comprehend.

          A supply that provide LESS THAN 20% of what it claims to provide for over 50% of the time…

          is a COST…..NEVER A BENEFIT

          1. SebastianH

            It doesn’t claim to provide 100% of energy output 100% of the time. You absolutely know what you get when you build a wind farm or solar panels.

            The only thing that counts is the price per kWh and how much of the load those renewables can cover. Should they ever be able to supply more than 100% of the load for extended periods of time, then you have a problem that needs solving.

            What to do with the surplus?

            Charge batteries? Generate hydrogen/methane? Export it? Let it go to waste? The answer, again, relies on the cost per kWh.

          2. DirkH

            “What to do with the surplus?

            Charge batteries? Generate hydrogen/methane? Export it? Let it go to waste? The answer, again, relies on the cost per kWh.”

            It looks like you will have to offer negative prices. Batteries, and hydrogen and methane production incur COSTS beyond the source electricity costs. That’s the exact reason this is currently NOT DONE.

          3. SebastianH

            Batteries at 100 € per kWh with 5000 cycles usage in their lifetime will add 2 cents per kWh to the price of electricity that is run through them. Let’s say in 5 to 10 years this becomes reality and we start “storing” electricity this way. Let it be 5% of our usage … how much more expensive does this make the kWh?

            I am not talking about storing the entire electricity for one year in batteries. That will never be economical.

        2. John

          “We are not paying for rated energy we are paying for produced energy”
          Are you really that ignorant?
          Who pays for the destruction of the forests, the concrete foundation, the steel towers, the turbine, the blades?
          You maybe?

        3. DirkH

          SebastianH 18. May 2017 at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Reply
          “We are not paying for rated energy we are paying for produced energy. If wind energy would cost 0.00001 cent per kWh, would you change your complaint? At what price does wind energy win?”

          I order electricity to have it at a certain moment in time. Wind energy producers cannot make such a guarantee.
          The ONLY contract with a wind energy producer can be one where you take what he produces when he produces it. What modes of production are then possible? Storing in batteries results in costs of 1 Euro per kWh and is nonevonomic. Storing in pumped hydro is economic at wind energy sourced at negative prices. Austria and Switzerland demonstrate that.
          MAYBE producing hydrogen with wind energy is economic at 0 cents/kWh for the wind energy BUT the hydrogen market is currently served by NatGas chemistry byproducts.

          So. Nothing of this seems to work at zero cents. Do you offer negative prices? How negative?

  2. tom0mason

    Windfarms and solar cells —

    Hideous cost, high maintenance, short life, and a near to zero usable output as makes no difference.

    Value for money = -10

    Go for it Germany, the rest of Europe would love to see it!

    1. SebastianH

      What exactly are the costs of wind and solar cells that you call hideous? How long is this “short life” you are talking about? What kind of maintenance is necessary (and what are the costs)? And why is the output not usable? And what is the zero difference you are talking about?

      1. tom0mason

        Anything that cost more than the return on the investment is hideous!

        1. sod

          “Anything that cost more than the return on the investment is hideous!”

          this is just plain out false for wind and solar.

          1. AndyG55

            “Quality of life, bragging, ”

            Neither of which you seem to want to forgo, even though your religion dictates the former… !!

        2. SebastianH

          You are probably thinking of the subsidies, correct? Do you think those will be needed forever? No possible future where the LCOE for wind/solar would be lower than nuclear, gas, hard coal or even brown coal plants?

          If you are really concerned about investing money, then why do you think new nuclear power plants are still being build? What’s the supposed kWh-price for electricity coming from Hinkley Point C again? Don’t worry, the investors are always getting back their money. Or could you explain why we aren’t only using brown coal power plants in Germany? Everything else is more expensive per kWh …

          Also: why are people buying Porsches instead of Dacias?

          1. DirkH

            So you say wind/solar energy is the Porsche amongst the ways of generating electricity.
            Fine. Now let’s destroy the state that forces me to buy the Porsche when I don’t need it.
            Let’s wipe out the Green CDU. The Maoist Greens are already dead.

          2. SebastianH

            Are you driving a Dacia then, DirkH?

            @Pierre: does a Dacia not run when you want it to? Why are people buying cars that are more expensive than they need to, why are people buying other stuff that is more expensive than the basics. Because there other attributes that we want besides returns on investments. Quality of life, bragging, etc …

          3. AndyG55

            How’s YOUR Mercedes going seb?

            Still waiting for you to stop being a yapping hypocrite and get an EV as you ONLY cat.

          4. AndyG55

            “Quality of life, bragging, ”

            Neither of which you seem to want to forgo, hey seb, even though your religion dictates the former…

    2. AndyG55

      You have been told often enough.

      Yet you remain WILFULLY IGNORANT about basically everything.

      You STILL believe that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere, DESPITE your abject inability to find one single piece of scientific proof.

      Your child-minded AGW religion is totally BASELESS.

  3. DirkH

    “We need new technologies, other research areas, a return back to supply and demand, protection of our homeland, without ideology and state nannyism.”

    If there is ONE globalist party that hates borders and nations, it’s the FDP.
    Before the federal election in 2013 the FDP removed all climate sceptics and all Euro critics from the election lists.
    They are a simple obedient department of the globalist CDU: Proponents for illegal mass migration, destruction of all EU nations, ardent warmunists and keen to profit from ever rising exploitation of normal consumers.

  4. AndyG55

    OT: Day 136 Arctic update.

    MASIE sea ice data, started 2006, shows 2017 is now above all years except 2013.

    Slowest melt in May for the whole record.

    NSIDC has 2017 above 2004, 2006, 2015, 2016 and slowest melt from maximum this century (which is all I have calculated back to)

    1. SebastianH

      What are you trying to prove with those comments?

      Any predictions for September/October? 2012 also wasn’t looking particularly bad until the end of July, wasn’t it? 😉

      1. AndyG55

        Poor seb, can’t take the FACT that Arctic sea ice is doing very well this year, especially after the Jetstream anomaly that slowed its freezing.

        REAL facts hurt you, don’t they seb. !!

        1. SebastianH

          We’ll see how Arctic sea ice is doing in a few months.

          Facts: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

          P.S.: April 2017 was the 2nd hottest April in recorded history. Any thoughts about that? Didn’t you say that temperatures are going back to pre-El-Nino levels?

          1. John

            Hottest.
            Another green word indicating 0,1 change in temperature.
            Geez, what do you call 37 degrees, your body temp. A volcano?

          2. AndyG55

            Another LIE based on AGW-scam adjusted data. (yes japan met uses the farcical GHCN.. or were you IGNORANT of that, too !)

            April 2017 was 5th warmest since 1979 in both RSS and UAH.

            And it is FAR lower than basically any period before the LIA.

            You KNOW that, so why the continued the DECEITFUL mis-information..

          3. AndyG55

            And for UAH nopol, April 2017 is 17th warmest April

            RSS has the Arctic region April 2017 in 16th position

            You have been tried, yet again , seb

            And been found, as usual, TOTALLY WRONG !!!

          4. SebastianH

            It’s interesting that you still think UAH and RSS aren’t adjusted sets of temperature data or that they measure surface temperatures.

          5. AndyG55

            WRONG WRONG WRONG..

            … and wilful ignorance and denial

            Its all you have, seb

          6. AndyG55

            And seriously, seb.

            even the most brain-washed suckophant to the AGW religion, MUST be aware by now, that the surface data is a load of manically manipulated dog-doo.

            Even you cannot live in DENIAL all of your insignificant life, seb. !!

          7. AndyG55

            UAH is corroborated by NOAA’s own satellite data.

            https://s19.postimg.org/ypjugbsz7/uah_vs_noaa_star.png

  5. sod

    Renewable share up to 37% over the start of this year so far.

    https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm

    Just a fact.

    1. richard verney

      But that is not wind and solar.

      Further, biomass (which is one of the heavy lifters) because of its low calorific value, produces far more CO2 than either gas or coal. Burning biomass does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions; it significantly increases CO2 emissions.

      1. SebastianH

        Richard, please explain your claim. How could biomass possibly cause more CO2 emissions than burning coal or gas? The fuel is CO2 neutral, so it’s only the supply chain that adds CO2 to the atmosphere. I doubt that the supply chain uses as much fossil energy as is later generated from the biomass. Care to present some numbers?

        1. AndyG55

          “The fuel is CO2 neutral”

          So is coal…

          It is CO2 that was once in the atmosphere.

          …. or do you DENY this fact as well ???

          1. SebastianH

            Nice try … I don’t see how the coal mines refill themselves as fast as we are using up that resource 😉

          2. AndyG55

            So you are now DENYING that coal was once atmospheric CO2, do you.

            DENIAL of basic facts is the only thing your baseless AGW religion has going for it.

            Certainly you can’t even support the basic fantasy that CO2 causes warming of water or of a convective atmosphere.

          3. John

            Seb: Nice try … I don’t see how the coal mines refill themselves as fast as we are using up that resource”

            You seem to have exact numbers of how much coal there is in the planet, can you show them?

            Any idea how long it take for a forest (biomass) to grow? And how it takes to burn it in an oven? (50 years to grow and a couple of days to burn it)

          4. AndyG55

            And Hydro, yes, it renews each year.

            … until it doesn’t. !

            Only renewable that is worth its chop, and has very certain requirements for terrain and climate.

            Biofuels, so long as its using waste etc, has a niche. When you start chopping down trees and shipping them half way across the world, to count as biofuel, you are in La-La Land

            Just the place for seb-sob to reside. !!

    2. AndyG55

      how reliable was it sob-sob?

      How often did real energy supply have to come to the rescue??

      I bet you never even bothered to look

      That’s the facts. !!

  6. sod

    as always, wind and solar together are looking pretty good in mn may (switch to weekly data):

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

    1. DirkH

      We would save 35 bn EUR/year without wind and solar energy. A product that makes you richer the less of it is produced.
      Like Sarin.
      Imagine the CDU state would pay companies to release Sarin from factories placed in the center of each city, and force us to pay for it.
      That’s what this is: Madness or satanism. Can’t tell which.
      The CDU then becomes itself an organisation whose destruction becomes ever more profitable. Let’s wipe’em out! The easiest way to become rich!

      1. DirkH

        Same is true for Greens and SPD of course but those are dead already. So let’s not waste energy on these rotting corpses of Leftism.

    2. AndyG55

      sob-sob

      We have all seen the calculations seb did the other day.

      The reliability of wind and solar are TOTALLY PATHETIC.

      There is absolutely no other way to describe it.

  7. Volker Niebergall

    Protect our trees against the Green´ideology !

Leave a Reply