Germany’s Energiewende “An Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster”, Writes Top German Socialist!

In a referendum slated for this coming Sunday, Swiss citizens are being called to vote on a national energy strategy, dubbed Energiestrategie 2050.

Germany Green Party co-founder and former federal Homeland Minister Otto Georg Schily warns Swiss citizens voting on energy referendum that the Energiewende is “an economic, social and ecological disaster”. Photo by Olaf Kosinsky (2015), CC BY-SA 3.0 de.

Now it is reported that just days ago German Green Party co-founder (later turned socialist) and former German Homeland Minister Otto Schily has come out to warn Swiss citizens against voting yes on the project, reminding them that Germany’s Energiewende (transition to green energies) is not the success it is often claimed to be, and that it has in fact turned into a 25 billion euro a year disaster.

This is reported the online Swiss daily, Basler Zeitung here.

Schily held the top position in Germany’s Homeland Ministry in the country’s Socialist/Green coalition government led by Gerhard Schröder from 1998 to 2005. He is regarded as one of the country’s most respected elderly politicians and statesmen.

According to the Basler Zeitung, Schily wrote a letter to Christoph Blocher, where he judged the Energiewende to be an “economic, ecological and social disaster” and so urged Swiss citizens to vote no.

The rightwing Swiss SVP party, led by Blocher, is leading the campaign against the green energy transformation project put forth by Swiss President Doris Leuthard of the centrist Christian CVP party. Both Schily and Blocher were Homeland ministers at the same time in their respective countries in the 2000s and are reported to maintain light contact.

The online Swiss site BLICK characterized Schily’s letter as “explosive”.

The Basler Zeitung reports: “The costs of the Energiewende have grown to over 25 billion euros annually. As a result consumer electricity bills have risen year after year.”

Socially unjust

Schily wrote that Germany’s green energies are also “extremely socially unjust” because they force low income consumers to pay more money into the pockets of wealthy wind and solar park operators – in a classic redistribution from the bottom up.

Jobs-killer, done nothing for the climate

Moreover, the Basler Zeitung writes that the Energiewende has scarred Germany’s natural landscape, has probably cost more jobs than it created, and has “contributed nothing to climate policy as it hoped to do“. Schily advised Swiss citizens “not to repeat the far reaching energy policy of the German Energiewende“.

German CO2 emissions rising instead of falling

The Basler Zeitung also cites an “expert team” by McKinsey consulting group, which not long ago found that the German energy policy has fallen far short of its aims: “Emissions of climate-harmful carbon dioxide are not going down, but rather are increasing, as is power consumption even though it was supposed to go down because of efficiency measures.”

The Basler Zeitung adds: “a collapse of the power supply threatens when the remaining German nuclear power plants are taken offline over the coming years“.

 

89 responses to “Germany’s Energiewende “An Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster”, Writes Top German Socialist!”

  1. mwhite
    1. mwhite

      “Germany’s experience hasn’t been enough to phase France’s greens, though, and Hulot’s new position of leadership suggests that Paris is preparing to follow in Berlin’s footsteps”

      http://www.thegwpf.com/macrons-nuclear-mistake/

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    The smart money would bet on Russian gas and nuclear power to provide heat to Europe during the 2020s (for a healthy profit), since the would be “Climate Saviors” are doing everything in their power to render all other reliable sources overpriced and rationed, even illegal.

    1. AndyG55

      China have PLENTY of spare coal fired electricity reserve.

      … and are building transmission lines to Europe.

      1. SebastianH

        Have source for that claim? They do have a lot of coal reserves, half of their plants aren’t even running (https://qz.com/650709/china-has-the-most-coal-plants-in-the-world-and-half-the-time-theyre-doing-absolutely-nothing/). But I don’t know of any transmission line project to cover the 5000 km between China and Europe. Maybe the transmission losses are enough to heat Kasachstan, Russia and the Ukraine 😉

      2. AndyG55

        “They do have a lot of coal reserves, half of their plants aren’t even running”

        Thank you confirming what I said, seb.

        They are building up , waiting for other nations like Germany to start to suffer energy supply issues.

        You really should read on more than your renewable propaganda scam sites, seb.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/17/the-great-green-game-china-to-supply-paris-agreement-sanctioned-coal-power-to-europe/

        1. AndyG55

          Meanwhile, in Africa, they want REAL, RELIABLE power

          https://s19.postimg.org/ojfub2xyr/african_coal_fired.jpg

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Meanwhile, in China, they want REAL, RELIABLE power too.

            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-17/china-coal-production-rises-as-government-avoids-output-limits
            China Gas Output Rises to Record as Coal Production Rebounds
            Natural gas output rises to 13.6 billion cubic meters in March
            Coal production advances 12.6% to 9.67 million tons a day

      3. Kurt in Switzerland

        Coal, oil and gas can be transported long distances fairly easily today.
        Then you can burn your fuel of choice exactly when and where you need it.

        Long-distance electricity transmission is fraught with problems, not the least of which is infrastructure. But you’d have to store it if you couldn’t use it immediately.

        So the smart money is on the Russian gas being sent to Europe via pipeline over the 2020s.

  3. Kenneth Richard

    It’s been a disaster and CO2 emissions have been rising in Germany primarily because there has been too much expected reliance on wind and solar, which only serves to increase demand because wind + solar can only supply energy intermittently or in non-demand-driven quantities (too little when more is needed, too much when less is needed). So fossil fuels have to pick up the slack and the net “gain” in CO2 emissions reduction is lost.

    On the other hand, countries that rely more and more on natural gas, a fossil fuel, are actually lowering their emissions and demands per capita. Natural gas is both reliable and responsive to specific demand needs. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons

    https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/issues-2016-reality-check-fracking-not-solar-power-reducing-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-8004
    U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have fallen significantly since their peak in 2007—more than in any other country. The biggest cause is America’s fracking-led natural gas boom: solar power is responsible for 1 percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions; natural gas is responsible for nearly 20 percent.

    1. SebastianH

      1) How does wind+solar increase demand? Do you mean the energy used in production of wind mills and solar panels?

      2) I don’t understand how “fossil fuels have to pick up the slack”. Their usage hasn’t increased at all in the last decades: http://imgur.com/a/BhYhV

      3) While burning gas only produces half the CO2 than lignite, this is like saying Diesel engines produce less CO2 than regular gas engines. That’s true, but we will never reach next to no CO2 emissions this way. If there has to be a future fossil backup, it better be natural gas powered. When you call it a solution to significantly reduce CO2 output you are just lying to yourself, as was our goverment when promoting Diesel engines in normal cars.

      1. AndyG55

        Yes, seb, we know you don’t have even the most basic understanding of how solar and wind DISRUPT electricity supply systems, and that gas reduces CO2 far more than wind or solar, because the disruption requires REAL energy supply to ramp up and down.

        No matter how many times it has been explained to you.

        Its not that you’re basically IGNORANT (although that is a substantial reason)..

        …. Its that your far-left brain-washing will not allow you to see reality.

      2. Kenneth Richard

        How does wind+solar increase demand?

        http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/24/analysis-adding-more-solar-wind-power-increases-dependence-on-fossil-fuels-doubles-co2-emissions/
        Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built

        What’s happening in Germany is, unfortunately, a bellwether for what is to come in other large wealthy countries attempting to make renewables the kingpin of their power grids. The unspoken truth about renewables was succinctly summarized in a 2012 Los Angeles Times analysis :

        “As more solar and wind generators come online, … the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.”

        The full article, entitled “Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels” also points out that wind turbines often produce a tiny fraction (1 percent?) of their claimed potential, meaning the gap must be filled by fossil fuels:

        “Wind provided just 33 megawatts of power statewide in the midafternoon, less than 1% of the potential from wind farms capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity. As is true on many days in California when multibillion-dollar investments in wind and solar energy plants are thwarted by the weather, the void was filled by gas-fired plants like the Delta Energy Center. One of the hidden costs of solar and wind power — and a problem the state is not yet prepared to meet — is that wind and solar energy must be backed up by other sources, typically gas-fired generators. As more solar and wind energy generators come online, fulfilling a legal mandate to produce one-third of California’s electricity by 2020, the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.”

        —–
        Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants?
        Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation. Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors. Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment. Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America. When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.

        Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher.

        From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data). In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.

        1. tom0mason

          Kenneth,
          seb, only asks the same question because he wishes for you to go round and round the same information.

          As they say, doing the same thing and expecting a different answer is the very definition of seb and his nonsense.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Based upon past experience, the next step we can expect from SebastianH is that he will likely make up a ridiculous statement that no one ever wrote or thought, imply that one of us wrote or thought it anyway, and then call his target a “denier” after he has treated us to an irrelevant analogy (e.g., about obtaining money from a bank or a ball bouncing behind a wall). And then he’ll call what he writes “the laws of physics”.

        2. sod

          “Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built”

          i want to see a number given to this false claim. Germany was at 33% renewables last year. How much additional fossil fuel was used to “back it up”?

          Your claim is totally absurd. It boils down to something like this:

          “If Germany would stop using those 33% renewables next year and switch to fossil fuels, it could replace it with 15% fossil fuel, dropping dropping total electricity output by nearly 20%”.

          That is just insane. If the numbers are significantly smaller, they do not matter. If they are this high, you have to explain the effect. You can not do that!

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “Germany was at 33% renewables last year. How much additional fossil fuel was used to ‘back it up’?”

            Germany was at 12.2% renewables last year. Of that, 3.3% were wind and solar combined. Fossil fuels supplied 80.3% of Germany’s energy consumption needs.
            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

            Perhaps you should go ahead and actually read the linked article before dismissing it as “absurd” and “insane”.

          2. sod

            “Germany was at 12.2% renewables last year. ”

            why are you always changing the topic?

            The backup for electricity renewables will always be in the electricity sector. Or do you think lack of wind is compensated by extra heating?

            so just say a number. how many percentage points are backup?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            sod: “Germany was at 33% renewables last year.”

            KR: “Germany was at 12.2% renewables last year. ”

            sod: “why are you always changing the topic?”

            How is correcting your false claim “changing the topic”?

            Considering only 3.3% of Germany’s energy consumption came from wind and solar combined, and 80.3% of Germany’s energy consumption came from fossil fuels, what are the chances that there was an expectation that more than 3.3% of Germans’ energy needs would be supplied by wind and solar, but since neither wind or solar could supply more than that, fossil fuels needed to pick up the slack? Or were you expecting all along that only 3.3% of Germans’ energy needs would be supplied by wind and solar combined in 2016? It sure sounds like you were expecting much more than 3.3%. Isn’t that why you falsely claim there was 33% renewables energy consumption last year?

          4. sod

            “How is correcting your false claim “changing the topic”?”

            The article is talking explicitly about electricity.

            “Traditionelle Kraftwerke seien wegen des subventionierten Stroms aus Wind und Sonne nicht mehr rentabel zu betreiben. Sie müssten aber trotzdem in Betrieb gehalten werden, um die STROMVERSORGUNG zu gewährleisten, wenn Sonne und Wind zu wenig produzierten. ”

            http://bazonline.ch/schweiz/standard/energiepolitischer-fehler/story/21856097

            Your graph is NOT about “STROMVERSORGUNG”. It is a trick.

            But whatever. How much fossil fuel is needed to “backup” that 3.3% solar and wind then? 2%?

          5. Kenneth Richard

            http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/09/local/la-me-unreliable-power-20121210
            Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels
            As the state attempts to reach the goal of producing one-third of its electricity from wind and solar sources by 2020, more reliable sources of traditional power will be needed as a backup.

            Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants?
            Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation. Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors. Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment. Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America. When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.

            Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher.

            From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data). In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.

          6. sod

            Both sources are utterly irrelevant to my question. We are talking about Germany. I want a simple number. 3.3% renewables. How much of the other 96.7% are only there to backup those 3.3%? Is it 2% (being percentage points, of course)?

            PS: Please drop that stupid article about Ontario. It does explicitly state that th increase in CO2 output, like in Germany, is caused by tehe nuclear phase out. It has no connection to wind/solar what so ever.

      3. Kenneth Richard

        “I don’t understand how ‘fossil fuels have to pick up the slack’. Their usage hasn’t increased at all in the last decades.”

        You got the first part correct. You don’t understand… The idea that fossil fuel consumption hasn’t increased “at all” in the last decades is a prototypical example of your inability to “understand” what’s going on here.

        Newsflash: Fossil fuel consumption has more than tripled since 1980.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/as-appetite-for-electricity-soars-the-world-keeps-turning-to-coal/1842/
        Gigawatt-hours (GWh) from fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) grew from 5.8 GWh in 1980 to 15.4 GWh in 2012. Gigawatt-hours from renewables rose from 1.8 GWh in 1980 to 4.8 GWh in 2012. This means that total consumption of fossil fuel energies grew more than 3 times faster (9.6 GWh vs. 3 GWh) than renewables did between 1980 and 2012.

        More specifically, as the Washington Post article indicates, coal use grew by 192% between 1980 and 2012, natural gas use grew by +410%, and renewables use grew by 171%.

        Had I made the claim that fossil fuel usage “hasn’t increased at all in the last decades”…I’d probably be too embarrassed to continue. You, on the other hand, will probably just pivot to narcissistically claiming that you are “right” after all.

        1. AndyG55

          Meanwhile in Africa, they are not being sucked-in by the AGW anti-CO2 scam religion.

          https://s19.postimg.org/ojfub2xyr/african_coal_fired.jpg

        2. sod

          “Newsflash: Fossil fuel consumption has more than tripled since 1980.”

          You are trying to confuse us by switching from Germany to the Globe.

          The data in Germany is clear: Fossil fuels did not increase significantly (Sebastian provided that link above, i only saw it after i posted mine).

          http://imgur.com/a/BhYhV

          And this data even includes a massive increase in export: Germany is using the same amount of fossil fuels but is EXPORTING more.

          The full explanation of CO2 output of the German electric sector is the reduction of nuclear.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            sod, only 3.3% of Germany’s energy consumption came from wind and solar in 2016. 80.3% of Germany’s energy consumption came from fossil fuels in 2016. Is this an indication that wind and solar is having a demonstrable impact on reducing German dependence on fossil fuels?
            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

          2. AndyG55

            Kenneth, was that 2.1% I read for wind, including off-shore?

            and 1.2% for solar.?

            Wow, with all sob-sob’s yapping I would have excepted it to be up near 4% total at least ! 😉

      4. Kenneth Richard

        “While burning gas only produces half the CO2 than lignite, this is like saying Diesel engines produce less CO2 than regular gas engines. That’s true, but we will never reach next to no CO2 emissions this way.”

        We will never reach next to no CO2 emissions with wind + solar, which currently supply ~1% of the world’s energy.

        1. AndyG55

          And why in the world would anyone sane want to reduce CO2 emissions anyway ?!!!!

          This whole AGW, anti-CO2 scam is the biggest piece of anti-science nonsense ever foisted on a gullible, scientifically illiterate population.

      5. Graeme No.3

        Sebastian:
        If “fossil fuels usage hasn’t increased at all in the last decades” despite the increase in renewables, why haven’t they decreased. Since you don’t know I point out that lignite fired electricity is the cheapest supply, but those plants don’t like being shut down. It can take up to 3 days for one to start up from cold, and frequent stopping and starting cause thermal cracking etc. Also, all the problems of keeping a constant supply are thrown onto the conventional producers so they “have to pick up the slack whenever renewables aren’t working”. Their output during gluts in supply has to be sold cheaply to get rid of it, hence the myth that renewables (after subsidy) are cheap.
        The same applies largely to gas burning CCGTs but as their output costs more than coal fired they tend to be shut down and sent to other countries rather than left losing money.
        The alternative is to use OCGT but that is at last as expensive as wind and has much higher emissions than the CCGTs. In South Australia (without coal fired) when the wind drops the cost of electricity goes up (from high to very high) as the local OCGTs seem reluctant to start up under $A250 per MWh (about 5 times that from brown coal).
        The point you miss is that emissions from electricity generation in Germany have barely dropped in the last 16 years (2.6%), so what benefit has “renewables” brought?

        1. AndyG55

          “The point you miss is that emissions from electricity generation in Germany have barely dropped in the last 16 years”

          And I bet that if CCGT and hard coal were allowed to run properly and consistently, without ridiculous political interference in the supply system….

          …. then CO2 emission would actually have DROPPED like they have in the USA.

          Its called EFFICENCY. !!

          Hard coal and gas, running at constant load is cheaper, and MANY MULTIPLES more reliable than wind or solar.

          Heck, even Hazelwood, a 50 year old lignite power station was running at close to 100% capacity up until the end.

        2. sod

          ” In South Australia (without coal fired) when the wind drops the cost of electricity goes up (from high to very high) as the local OCGTs seem reluctant to start up under $A250 per MWh (about 5 times that from brown coal).”

          your information is mostly false. In the real world, peak prices in Australia are caused by coal plants failing in hot weather, while solar is driving the prices DOWN.

          https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/Prices%20above%20%245000MWh%20-%2012%20February%202017%20%28QLD%29.docx_0.pdf

          But hey, that is just a fact again. If your highest use is in summer, you want your electricity to come from a source that has its highest output on hot days, not the worst.
          In the real world, solar is variable but predictable. Failure of a coal plant is a grid catastrophe.

          1. AndyG55

            With those drop-outs the system was operating at well over 80% capacity. JUST A FACT.

            What is the capacity that wind reaches when it has issues.. pretty much ZERO percent of capacity.

            Your deceitful mis-information .. as usual.

            What it does show, is that Australia hasn’t build enough coal power station capacity for an increasing population.

            Thanks for pointing this out.. everybody down here knows that already, but the MORONIC green anti-CO2 agenda and far-left yapping means that upgrades to the supply system haven’t happened as they should have.

          2. AndyG55

            Just one new HELE coal or gas power station in each state would solve all Australia’s power supply issues.

            But the political will is not there… YET !

          3. sod

            “What it does show, is that Australia hasn’t build enough coal power station capacity for an increasing population.”

            Coal for summer peak supply? you will have to learn a little about the grid, before you reach zero knowledge.

            Again: the problem is fossil fuel stations FAILING when demand is the highest. While solar PV will deliver exactly at that moment.

            coal is unrelyable. Solar is fine.

          4. AndyG55

            sob sob in fantasy land, YET AGAIN

            Coal was running at over 80% capacity.. always does, always will.

            wind and solar can NEVER do that .

            not even in YOUR wildest fantasy dreams. !!

            There has never been any problems with coal fired power in Australia over many decades,

            The problem is an aging fleet that has not been updated because of the green anti-science, anti-engineering, ANTI-LIFE agenda.

            You reached zero knowledge ages ago…

            .. and just kept going backwards.

        3. SebastianH

          If “fossil fuels usage hasn’t increased at all in the last decades” despite the increase in renewables, why haven’t they decreased.

          http://imgur.com/a/BhYhV

          See any other source of electricity that decreased? Germany is phasing out its nuclear power generation and renewables have been mainly replacing nuclear.

          Your description of “picking up the slack” is a valid one, however Kenneth claimed:

          So fossil fuels have to pick up the slack and the net “gain” in CO2 emissions reduction is lost.

          This implies that any CO2 reduction due to wind+solar would be lost because fossil fuel backup would still have to emit this saved CO2. How is that even possible?

          The point you miss is that emissions from electricity generation in Germany have barely dropped in the last 16 years (2.6%), so what benefit has “renewables” brought?

          Again, nuclear power generation is on the way out in Germany. Renewables replaced this form of power generation. If we had used fossil fuel to fill the gap emissions would not have dropped. It’s a special case, since we are the only nation that I know of that does get rid of nuclear this aggressively.

          Yes, we could have continued to use nuclear power and renewables would have replaced fossil fuel instead. Emissions per kWh would be much lower than whatever the switch to gas did for the US. But we didn’t. Instead I find it amazing that CO2 per kWh decreased at all … since … you know … wasn’t nuclear supposed to emit less CO2 than wind+solar?

          https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/38897/umfrage/co2-emissionsfaktor-fuer-den-strommix-in-deutschland-seit-1990/

      6. SebastianH

        It’s easier to reply to myself instead of replying to all the comments above. So here we go.

        Kenneth:
        1) You were commenting on Germany and Germany’s electricity/power generation. Why did you answer the first question with a distraction like that? Germany’s CO2 output per kWh isn’t lower than what’s possible with wind+solar+backup (worst case: natural gas backup runs 100% the time doesn’t result in higher CO2 output than todays level). So why do you claim that solar+wind would increase demand for fossil fuels in Germany?

        2) You then switch from electricity generation/consumption to total power consumption. Another distraction from sod’s valid question about the amount of fossil fuel that was used to provide backup for wind+solar. How can the “backup” (conventional electricity generation) emit more CO2 with wind+solar in the grid than without them? That impossible, since the backup isn’t running when wind+solar is available. When cornered you always try to rescue yourself by these kind of moves. Switching to some other discussion topic where you can claim the highground and just ignoring whatever the other person wrote (in this case from the question how backup could possible use fuel while renewables provided power towards how little wind+solar contribute to total energy consumption).

        3) “fossil fuels have to pick up the slack” … instead of answering the implied question, you present numbers for fossil fuel consumption that have nothing to do with Germany (remember, you called it – the German Energiewende – a disaster). When talking about wind+solar and their backup you are talking about electricity backup since wind+solar are electricity providers. Fossil fuel in the transportation sector can not possible “pick up the slack” when wind+solar aren’t providing enough power.

        Use of fossil fuels haven’t increased despite them being the backup for wind+solar: http://imgur.com/a/BhYhV

        4)

        We will never reach next to no CO2 emissions with wind + solar, which currently supply ~1% of the world’s energy.

        What kind of reply is this? The implied question was about the possibities to reduce emissions. A system with low emissions + backup will achieve lower emissions than just the backup, especially when the backup runs only 10-20% of the time and even more so if the backup uses gas that was produces with the surplus from wind+solar.

        I could repeat the arguments about the last discussion about exponential and s-curve growth, but that would be pointless since you’d still ignore it. Anything that doesn’t fit your opinion gets this treatment. I’ll ignore your comment about past experience … it’s a good description of what you and Andy are doing, except you call your targets “believers”, don’t use analogies and one of you must have a dictionary with all the worlds insults beside him when writing comments.

    2. sod

      “It’s been a disaster and CO2 emissions have been rising in Germany primarily because there has been too much expected reliance on wind and solar, which only serves to increase demand because wind + solar can only supply energy intermittently”

      This is a false claim. The real data shows something else. The CO2 effect can be explained by looking at renewables and nuclear:

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

      constantly ignoring nuclear is a cheap trick and it turns your posts into false information.

      The full picture can be seen in these kind of graphs (which sort of normalise exports by having the same 100%):

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg/480px-Energiemix_Deutschland.svg.png

      This graph is a fact. you can not just ignore reality and invent your own story!

  4. John F. Hultquist

    The odd thing about people such as Otto is that they are both highly educated, experienced, and slow learners.
    My mother, educated in a one-room schoolhouse, was smarter.

  5. sod

    Otto Schily is the far right of the SPD. ( i am a little surprised, how little it takes to transform a guy who defended terrorists into a champion of the “sceptics”).

    The article is a rather useless assortment of old arguments, some of them right, most wrong.

    It is a panic reaction, as there is some probability that our southern neighbour will vote for a law that supports green energy and bans new nuclear (nobody is planning to build it anyway…)

    1. AndyG55

      I think we have all pretty much figured out that sob-sob is a member of the FAR, FAR LOONIE LEFT !!!

    2. John F. Hultquist

      into a champion

      Your words, sod. I said he was a slow learner.

      Sort of like the fellow that just gave up smoking — for the 4th time.

      1. sod

        Your words, sod. I said he was a slow learner.”

        none of them was a slow learner, two (Mahler and Schily) completely changed their political positions.

        1. AndyG55

          Maybe they grew up!

          I does eventually happen to a small number of far-left cultists…

          I don’t give you any hope of ever getting past mental puberty though, sob-sob.

          1. sod

            “Maybe they grew up!

            I does eventually happen to a small number of far-left cultists…”

            Horst Mahler just was arrested. Is that what you have in mind when talking about “growing up”?

            http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/budapest-ungarn-nimmt-horst-mahler-in-abschiebehaft-a-1148140.html

            Do you always comment with zero knowledge on the topic at hand? That would explain a lot!

          2. AndyG55

            The topic is comments by Otto Georg Schily.

            Do try for once in your pathetic life to avoid stupid diversionary yapping

            Anyway

            Horst Mahler, is a notorious figure in Germany, was once a leftwing terrorist, now even further left as a neo-Nazi. A bit like you sob-sob.

    3. AndyG55

      “some of them right, most wrong. ”

      NO, mostly correct, and, mostly they make sob-sob sob.

    4. Kurt in Switzerland

      sod,

      You wrote, “The article is a rather useless assortment of old arguments, some of them right, most wrong.”

      Care to take the article’s arguments, one by one, and explain which ones are wrong?

      1. sod

        the original letter is here:

        http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/123432.pdf

        The argumnets are:

        * high subsidies (true, but still less than for other energy sources)

        * problems for other generators (true, but simply their problem. Thye did not prepare

        * Backup needed (mostly false)

        * too much renewables on some occasion (tiny problem))

        * social injustice (true, could be changed easily)

        * wind parks destroying landscape (coal is much worse)

        That was the first page. He supports nuclear and simply does not understand renewables. His advice is utterly useless.

        1. AndyG55

          Your five points are all total BS.

          1. wind and solar subsidies are huge, withdraw the subsidies and feed-in mandates, wind and solar collapse.

          2. Problem is purely political, with the mandate to take wind and solar. That forces coal and gas to ramp up and down, whereas they were designed for regular reliable supply.

          3. Back-up is always needed.. Most of the time wind is below 20% of its capacity. That back up must be available for the regular occurrence of wind and solar not supplying anything.

          4. what do you care about social justice. you never have and you never will.

          5. coal mining is a TINY area compared to the destruction of the environment by wind turbines.
          But I bet you don’t live within 10km of one , in your inner-city fantasy-land ghetto.

          1. SebastianH

            1) Why does gas or nuclear not collaps with higher prices (gas is more expensive in Germany than coal, new nuclear is even more expensive than solar)? Why do you think that those subsidies will be necessary forever?

            2) I agree, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

            3) Wind was below 20% capacity 64% of the time in 2016 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a6rSJalQ1ON-TblqYqbbZ4CmZwiFaiRqNh9orUyfTSs/edit?usp=sharing). Those 20% equal 9.44 GW. If we wanted to have 9.44 GW 70% of the time instead of 36% we would have to double (*2.26) installed wind power. Nuclear+Lignite typicall provide a baseload of 25 GW, so we would have to increase installed wind power by a factor of 6 to cover baseload 70% of the time with wind. That also results in 80% over 18 GW, 90% over 11.6 GW and 95% over 7.7 GW. Additionally 20% of the time the wind mills would generate more electricity than is even needed at the peak usage times of the day.

            Backup is of course still needed, but the capacity factor is no problem if either money is no problem or the technology becomes really cheap. The last invitation of tenders for offshore wind had offers which didn’t require subsidies per kWh and the last one for onshore the offers were starting at 5.25 cent per kWh.

            4) …

            5) I admire how you are able to see wind turbines as destruction of the environment. How many wind turbines do you have within 10 km?

          2. AndyG55

            “I admire how you are able to see wind turbines as destruction of the environment. How many wind turbines do you have within 10 km?”

            Fortunately Australia has avoided the IDIOCY of wind turbines to a large extent.

            Germany.. its like an INFESTATION of cockroaches…

            … and don’t start on the utter DESTRUCTION of the once gorgeous Scottish landscape.

          3. AndyG55

            And yes, I used to live about 4km from a wind turbine.. but they got rid of it..

            … to make way for the new COAL terminal. 🙂

          4. AndyG55

            Notonly are you IGNORANT about the cuase.. of problems that DIDN’T happen anyway.

            You seem to be IGNORANT as to the FACT the neither wind or solar would have been of any use what-so-ever.

            The peak was 4:30-6:30pm.. so solar would have been minimal

            Hot days are generally because of stagnant pressure cells.. so very little wind either.

            The ONLY thing blowing hot air around here is YOU, sob-sob, and your mis-information about basically everything to do with energy supply systems.

          5. sod

            “You seem to be IGNORANT as to the FACT the neither wind or solar would have been of any use what-so-ever.”

            This is just plain out stupid. Solar is obviously very good in countries with lots of sun and very useful offgrid.

            “The peak was 4:30-6:30pm.. so solar would have been minimal”

            Solar PV is making the peak much smaller. Again, you know absolutely nothing about this subject.

            Batteries will remove the rest of that tiny peak.

            “Hot days are generally because of stagnant pressure cells.. so very little wind either.”

            why would you want wind when you have maximum solar output?

          6. AndyG55

            Doubling down on your ignorance , will not help you, sob-sob !

            I repeat, because your base-level IGNORANCE will not let you comprehend even basic FACTS.

            Peak was in the afternoon when solar is on the wane. Its called solar energy.. NOT temperature energy.

            Even a child would understand that basic concept.

            And what batteries ?? The Tesla reject ones ??

            You really do live in a FANTASY world!!

          7. sod

            “Peak was in the afternoon when solar is on the wane. Its called solar energy.. NOT temperature energy.”

            using electricity in the afternoon will help cooling the house etc.

            And you are simply ignoring that fossil plants are not more relyable at these temperatures but less.

            You hate the facts.

          8. AndyG55

            Even with slight hiccups from old equipment , fossil fuel was still delivering WELL BEYOND 80% capacity 24/7.. round the clock.

            something wind and solar could only do in your most rabid fantasies.

            And your fantasies are RABID, almost hallucinogenic… that is for sure.

            Over 80%, 24/7 from old equipment is remarkable RELIABLILITY.

            The problem is the MORONIC green agenda stopping proper updates to the supply system.

            Wind and solar contribution on a calm hot early evening….

            ABSOLUTELY ZERO. !!!

            A complete and utter WASTE of time and money.

            Those are the FACTS.

          9. AndyG55

            Australian electricity supply has been RELIABLE for many decade, never any problems with hot weather until the STUPIDITY of all this wind and solar de-stabilising and the TOTAL IDIOCY of the green anti-CO2 agenda stopping proper upgrades to the system.

            Those are THE FACTS, sob-sob.

            None of your ill-informed FANTASY yappings.

            I know guys who work in the electricity industry.

            A friend who lives a couple of houses away is a chief electrical inspector for the whole AUSGrid region. We chat regularly.

            You KNOW NOTHING, sob.

          10. SebastianH

            Even with slight hiccups from old equipment , fossil fuel was still delivering WELL BEYOND 80% capacity 24/7.. round the clock.

            That’s great, but why is the same amount of electricity 80% of the time so much worse? Yeah, there ought to be times when next to nothing is generated … so what?

          11. SebastianH

            Ok, let’s continue this on your next post.

            The economics of having a backup are pretty clear. It’s more expensive to need one. But the combination can also be less expensive than just the backup. It’s all about the running costs of the backup (what we currently call conventional power plants) and the cost per kWh of wind or solar.

          12. AndyG55

            Poor seb, the FACT that coal can actually PRODUCE ELECTRICITY WHEN NEEDED really gets up your nose, doesn’t it.

            The fact that it can run at well over 80% capacity, day , after , day , hour after hour, something wind and solar could only ever do in a hallucinogenic fuelled fantasy world, really annoys you, doesn’t it.

            The FACT that you proved JUTS HOW UNRELIABLE wind and solar in Germany is, is really rankling you, hey seb. 🙂

            Why would anyone in there right mind replace an ULTRA-RELIABLE system with a TOTALLY UNRELIABLE one which can only exist on massive subsides and mandates, really is beyond me.

            The stupidity of these action will surely be brought to bear in Germany in the not too distant future, when that ultra-expensive subsidised electricity collapses and there is no back-up left because it has been driven out of production.

          13. AndyG55

            Just for some perspective:

            Australia’s old COAL power fleet operating at well over 80% capacity, 24/7, despite a couple of minor issues at a couple of older power stations.

            Brand new wind power in Germany, operating at over 80% capacity for only about 6-8% of the time (seb’s calculations)

            How PATHETIC is wind power, you ask ???

            VERY PATHETIC.

          14. sod

            “Australia’s old COAL power fleet operating at well over 80% capacity, 24/7, despite a couple of minor issues at a couple of older power stations.

            Brand new wind power in Germany, operating at over 80% capacity for only about 6-8% of the time (seb’s calculations)”

            it is a different technology.

            That coal plant requires coal all the time. The wind plant requires zero coal. HOW PATHETIC IS A COAL PLANT?

          15. tom0mason

            @sod 22. May 2017 at 12:05 AM
            Contrast and compare —

            the Hazelwood plant was in, Victoria. While the Hazelwood plant had a Nameplate of 1600MW originally, its old age meant that it could no longer generate that level of power, but after 53 years it was astonishing that this ancient plant could still actually manage 86% of that original total, and that was 1380MW at its maximum with all 8 Units in operation. Across the whole 31 days immediately prior to its closure, the plant averaged a daily power generation of 1306MW, which gave the plant an effective Capacity Factor of 95% for that Month.

            However when compared to just the wind plants in Victoria, the result was even more startling. There are currently 15 of those wind plants, and the oldest of them is the Challicum Hills Wind Plant, now only 14 years old. The total Nameplate for all those wind plants just in the State of Victoria is 1485MW, so there are around 850 of those turbines on poles around the State. That 1485MW nameplate is higher than the 1380MW (the recent maximum) of Hazelwood.

            Yet, across those same 31 days in the lead up to the closure of Hazelwood, the average daily generation from all those 15 wind plants with 850 individual generators only came in at only 359MW, and that is just a tiny bit more than what was being generated from just TWO of the ancient Hazelwood’s 8 Units, an astonishing fact. Here you have 850 wind turbines and they can only generate as much power as two 53 year old generators.

            In contrast the old coal supplied electricity as and when the consumer required it and at a price they could afford. All of which is very much in marked contrast to what wind power can do!

        2. tom0mason

          sod-seb,

          Yet another catastrophic fail for Australian unreliable power http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/another-glorious-solar-scheme-fails-ignominiously-fast-clouds-rusty-pipes-dumb-decisions/

          Spending other peoples’ money has never been so easy!

    5. Kurt in Switzerland

      Since Schily’s letter to Blocher runs counter to the official party line, why doesn’t the SPD throw the poor sod out of the party already?

      Remember what happened to Thilo Sarazin after he penned “Deutschland schafft sich ab”?

  6. Josh

    Are we seeing the beginning of a return to sanity in Germany? Here’s hoping.

  7. More Evidence; With Friends Like Environmentalists the Earth and Society Don’t Need Enemies – CO2 is Life

    […] Read More: Germany’s Energiewende “An Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster”, Writes Top German Social… […]

  8. AndyG55

    A great comment by Richard over on WUWT

    start ”

    If one looked at all the climate change in the past 150 years, and blamed everything on CO2, the only logical wish for the next 150 years would be: “give me more of that”.

    Let’s accelerate the greening of our planet in the next 150 years.

    Let’s make nights slightly warmer in the coldest regions of our planet in the next 150 years.

    You would have to be insane, or a leftist (I repeat myself sometimes), to want to stop the greening of our planet, and also stop the nighttime warming in the coldest regions of our planet.

    The only thing I would change in the next 150 years, if I could, would be firing all the climate computer gamers, stopping the worthless calculations of the average temperature, and using the money saved to fight REAL pollution … such as the air, water and land pollution in China that people who claim to environmentalists ignore

    ” end

    CO2 provides LIFE for every creature on this glorious planet of ours.

    We are doing the planet a great disservice by trying to curtail our CO2 emissions, when the planet desperately needs more of it.

  9. sod
    1. AndyG55

      Which ever vote stops the destruction of Switzerland’s wonder scenery by hideous wind turbines, is the best vote.

      Nuclear is not an issue.

      Destruction of power supply systems with IRREGULAR, UNRELIABLE supplies is !

      1. SebastianH

        They voted yes (in support of an “Energiewende” and against new nuclear plants). It’s a lot easier for Switzerland to generate their electricity with renewables, since 60% of their supply is already hydro. They can use that as “backup”, just like Skandinavian countries.

        1. AndyG55

          Won’t it be great to see the Swiss countryside LITTERED with wind turbines.

          There goes their tourist industry. !

  10. sod

    well obviously the fact free scare tactics of Schily and others did not work.

    Not building any new nuclear plants is simple economic sense.

    Adding renewables is as well. So congratulations to the Swiss.

  11. Kurt in Switzerland

    Sadly, 3 of 5 voters in Switzerland are enchanted by the tune of the modern-day pied piper. This one plays the fairytale time of a zero carbon future.

    Sod, who is demonstrably challenged by the meaning of “most” and “mostly”, fits well with the gullible followers. One wonders whether when his epiphany strikes, it may prove too rough for his heart & mind to reconcile.

    But one day, the epiphany will strike.

Leave a Reply