“The De Facto End Of Wind Turbine Forests”. New Policy In Germany Sends Powerful Signals!

Germany’s wind energy industry is suddenly facing fierce headwinds, and wind energy opponents are cheering wildly!

Yesterday Germany’s most populated state, North Rhine Westphalia, voted in a new government. The old government consisting of a coalition between the SPD Socialists and the Green Party were booted out in recent state elections, and since yesterday have been replaced by a new coalition of the CDU “conservatives” and the more free-market-friendly FDP Free Democrats.

Last evening the German ZDF news reported here that FDP party chief Christian Lindner has announced much tougher regulations for wind parks in the state. This sends a strong signal to the wind industry nationally, and now they are worried.

Wind energy opponents cheer Christian Lindner (photo) of the German FDP Free Democrats. Photo credit: Olaf Kosinsky (wikiberatung.de) Lizenz: CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

At the 11:00 mark news anchorman Claus Kleber tells viewers that there is no other issue where the differences between the old and new government in North Rhine Westphalia could be greater than it is energy policy. According to Kleber:

The result is the de facto end of the further installation of wind park forests.”

The junior coalition partner Free Democrats have managed to convince the larger ruling CDU to accept far more stringent rules for permitting wind parks, namely a minimum setback distance of 1500 meters from any residential home.

The new rules mean the end for many planned projects. It’s a “battle-cry on wind projects”, Kleber notes. Lindner has had it with the “politics of subsidies”.

At the 12:20 mark Lindner is seen stating that the out-of control installation of wind energy has “not been ecological” and instead it is “ideological” and “clearly has served the business interests of a single sector“.

No chance to reach climate targets

Naturally the wind industry reacted to Lindner’s plans with concern. Jan Dobertin of the Renewable Energy Association [14:34] said the new rules mean there would be no chance for the state to reach its climate target. Ironically, while Germans continue to attack Trump for backing out of the Paris Accord, they too are in fact backing out – and doing so with real action.

Currently there are over 27,000 turbines installed throughout Germany, 3345 in North Rhine Westphalia, the ZDF segment shows. During the state election campaign Lindner made landscape blight by turbines a major issue, and this helped propel his Free Democrat Party to a record high result on election day.

Fears wind energy rejection will go national

The ZDF and the wind industry now fear Lindner’s campaign will spread across Germany as the September national election approaches. Wind energy lobbyist Dobertin ranted at the ZDF [13:29]:

We are simply afraid that the installation of wind energy, which over the past years across the country, and also here in North Rhine Westphalia, which has developed very well, will be choked off — and naturally jobs, nationwide 120,000 workers in the sector, which now are massively at risk, and that we are backing off from the transition to renewable energies and climate protection.”

The ZDF concludes the segment by stating that planned projects in the state now face powerful head winds. Chilly winds are indeed now blowing for the German wind industry. Planners have now been warned.

 

57 responses to ““The De Facto End Of Wind Turbine Forests”. New Policy In Germany Sends Powerful Signals!”

  1. John

    Its about time too.. they have been wrecking the planet and its economy for far too long now.
    Chop them all down!

    1. AndyG55

      “Its about time too.. ”

      Common sense finally starts to prevail of the scam and the madness of intermittent, bird-munching, unreliable towers of ugliness, destroying the landscape throughout the world (except in inner city ghettos where most “greenies” live, of course.)

  2. Graeme No.3

    And what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?

    1. SebastianH

      That depends on what would have been used instead of wind power to enable the phase out of nuclear power. Either a massive amount (coal) or a less massive amount (gas).

      1. JMS Martins

        … or an even lesser amount without dismantling the nuclear production.

        1. SebastianH

          … or an even lesser amount without dismantling the nuclear production.

          Not really. Without phasing out nuclear, wind power would have displaced coal or gas directly.

          Phasing out nuclear causes an increase in CO2 emissions, but that is not attributable to wind power or any other form of power generation. The question was about the reduction that was achieved by the wind turbines. Without them CO2/kWh would be higher than it is now.

          1. David Johnson

            What a stupid post, even for you Seb. You have no grasp on reality, mon at all

          2. AndyG55

            Wind power can NEVER replace RELIABLE power supply. You know that, so STOP LYING.

          3. AndyG55

            “Without them CO2/kWh would be higher than it is now.”

            So what!

            Everybody knows that extra atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial to all life on Earth.

            As you continue to prove with your zero-evidence posts,there is no evidence of any other effect, not even a beneficial warming effect.

          4. Graeme No.3

            As you have installed a lot of theoretical capacity from wind since 2001 and the share of electricity generation grew from 6.6% to 32.3% in 2016, I am surprised that you still have 13% nuclear if getting rid of it was the priority.
            And the emissions have only dropped what? 2.5% maybe.

            So to get rid of CO2 you need to lift renewables to 2506% ????
            Or 100% renewables won’t drop emissions by 10%.
            Nonsense and so are your ideas on electricity.

          5. AndyG55

            100% renewable in Germany would have an effect.

            All industry would collapse and disappear, so CO2 output would probably come down a bit…

            … transferring to China and India, where CO2 would continue to increase.

            China might even have to turn some of their current over-capacity in coal power on, but Germans would not be able to afford to buy any of the manufactured good anyway, because their incomes would be eaten up buying power when/if it was actually available.

          6. AndyG55

            Adelaide has had a plastic recycling company for 30 odd years.

            It has now had to close due to high electricity prices. 130 or so jobs gone.

            The plastic that was once recycled, will now probably end up going to landfill.

            The anti-CO2 agenda at work . !!!

          7. SebastianH

            Graeme No.3,

            go to https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm, select “all” from the year dropdown, select “annual” and “all sources”. Then deselect (above that chart): Brown coal, Hard coal, Oil and Gas. You can also deselect Hydro and Biomass if you like.

            It should be clear from that, that renewables replaced more than just the phased out nuclear power generation.

          8. AndyG55

            If you go to your link, choose “weekly” and look at week 3, you can clearly see how much “conventional” is required when renewables INEVITABLY FAIL TO SUPPLY.

            What are you going to do next winter or the winter after that, when solar and wind are doing SFA and all the REAL electricity supply has been pushed out by subsidies and feed-in mandates.

            I REALLY HOPE that your inner city ghetto is hit hard by the required “load shedding”!

          9. SebastianH

            I guess that’s the difference between us two then … I want the transition to succeed and you want to see things fail. A very negative point of view, but that what is expected from your constant ranting as if this is some sort of vent for you.

            We’ll see if there will be any blackouts in the next few winters

          10. tom0mason

            seb,

            the question was “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”

            You failed to answer it but as usual just offer a distraction away from the difficult questions asked.

            You must be afraid of the answer, no?

          11. SebastianH

            You failed to answer it

            Wait what? I answered this question in every way possible.

            You are most likely aiming for “renewables just replaced nuclear and saved almost no CO2”, right?

            It should be obvious why this statement doesn’t answer the question. Do you need help with finding out why?

            https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/377/bilder/grafik_fur_vorschauseite_jl_13062017.png

            CO2/kWh has decreased from 651 g/kWh (2006) to 527 g/kWh (2016) despite the reduction of nuclear power. But that is not the whole story. Without renewables the nuclear power that needed replacement would have come from fossil fuels. Therefor renewables (and wind turbines) caused the non-emission of that amount of CO2.

            That’s true for Germany. Other countries which aren’t phasing out nuclear see more direct CO2 emission reductions.

          12. tom0mason

            Seb,

            the question was “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”

            You answered everything but the question, you distractedly answered your own question about a comparison with nuclear power, a question I for one was not interested in.

            So seb you have NOT answered the question!
            That question being “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”

            Now do you understand? Probably not so I’ll make it simple

            Answer this —
            The installation of 27,000 turbines have saved xxx (mg) of CO2
            where xxx is YOUR answer.

            Or is that too simple for you?

          13. AndyG55

            “A very negative point of view”

            The negative viewpoint is that of the ANTI-CO2 nonsense.

            You had a perfectly good, strong, cheap, consistent, RELIABLE electricity supply system, and have thrown it all away on the back of a zero-science, feel-good scam.

            The damage done is yet to be fully realised.

          14. SebastianH

            tom0mason, how do you quantify that which did not happen. If you want to know exact numbers than we can take the TWh produced by wind and calculate how much CO2 that would be if they were produced by coal power plants and how much CO2 that would be if produced by a natural gas power plant. Those are the upper and lower limits of that range and that’s what has been saved (minus whatever CO2 was emitted producing the wind turbines).

            There is no exact number, because we don’t know what kind of power plant would have produced the electricity if wind turbines weren’t there.

          15. Kenneth Richard

            “tom0mason, how do you quantify that which did not happen?”

            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.

            After peaking in 2007, U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions were 1,022 million tons (Mt) lower in 2014 than had they grown, since 2007, at the same rate as the U.S. economy.

            Of that reduction, 19 percent came from a fuel shift toward natural gas for electricity generation. Only 1 percent came from the increased use of solar power.

            For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.

          16. SebastianH

            And again, Kenneth, you are trying to distract by switching the topic. Ok, the U.S. reduced their CO2 emissions by switching fuel, good for them. They are still emitting way more CO2 per person than almost any other (big) country.

            If Germany would not have began phasing out nuclear wind turbines (and other renewables) would have reduced total CO2 emissions by larger amount. But the question was “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?” So obviously you’d have to estimate the emissions that would have happened if no wind turbines had been built.

          17. Kenneth Richard

            “And again, Kenneth, you are trying to distract by switching the topic. Ok, the U.S. reduced their CO2 emissions by switching fuel, good for them.”

            This isn’t switching the topic. The topic was the relative amount of emissions reduction from using wind/solar. Fossil fuels (natural gas) use reduced emissions at a ratio of 13:1 more than your preferred renewables. In other words, if emissions reduction is the goal, go with natural gas over wind/solar.

            But the question was “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”

            And the answer: far less than what would have been achieved by emphasizing natural gas.

          18. SebastianH

            And the answer: far less than what would have been achieved by emphasizing natural gas.

            Are you serious? Those wind turbines produced 77.84 TWh last year. The average CO2 emissions of wind power is 11-12 g/kWh, the average for gas is ~500 g/kWh, the average for coal is double of that.

            There is no possible way switching from any fuel to natural gas reduces emissions by more than switching to wind. That claim is just plain wrong.

          19. Kenneth Richard

            “There is no possible way switching from any fuel to natural gas reduces emissions by more than switching to wind.”

            https://www.westernenergyalliance.org/knowledge-center/air/methane
            In fact, combined-cycle natural gas turbines cut 2.6 times more CO2 emissions than wind and four times more than solar. That’s because even though renewables avoid emissions when they produce electricity, they only do so when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. By comparison, natural gas reduces CO2 emissions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

            Electric utilities have taken advantage of clean and affordable natural gas, allowing U.S. GHG emissions to fall more than any other country since 2006.

            The positive impacts of the natural gas revolution haven’t gone unnoticed. According to The Breakthrough Institute: “… since 1950, natural gas and nuclear prevented 36 times more carbon emissions than wind, solar, and geothermal.

          20. SebastianH

            Oh dear, that’s just as bad as comparing amounts with different units.

            Don’t you see what you are doing? Of course natural gas cuts more emissions if you produce much more electricity with it than with wind (*). That’s not the question. The question was “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”

            So you take the amount of electricity those wind turbines produced and the emitted CO2 from that production and compare it to the emitted CO2 of electricity production that those wind turbines replaced (gas and/or coal).

            *: by how much would wind power have reduced CO2 emissions if all TWhs produced by natural gas were produced by wind turbines?

          21. Kenneth Richard

            “Of course natural gas cuts more emissions if you produce much more electricity with it than with wind (*).”

            You got it, SebastianH! You’re finally getting it! Good for you. And since natural gas provided 50 times more energy than wind did in 2016, natural gas is predominantly responsible for reducing emissions more than any other energy source.

            The question was “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”

            And, again, the answer was that it produced far less reduction than would have been achieved had Germany emphasized replacing coal with natural gas.

          22. SebastianH

            Kenneth, you are doing this on purpose, right?

            And, again, the answer was that it produced far less reduction than would have been achieved had Germany emphasized replacing coal with natural gas.

            NOOOO!

            27000 wind turbines produced ~78 TWh of electricity last year in Germany and that caused a lot less CO2 emissions than producing the same amount of electricity with natural gas would have (almost factor 50 more!).

            Is that so hard to understand or are you really playing dumb just to have fun with me?

          23. Kenneth Richard

            You keep on referring to electricity production. The share of electricity production is not what matters to CO2 reduction. Total energy consumption is what matters. And only 2.1% of Germany’s energy consumption came from wind in 2016.

            As for energy production, only 2.9% of Germany’s energy production came from wind in 2016. 40.3% came from coal, and just 12.4% came from natural gas. See here: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2016-new.png?itok=rZUTKp17

            Now, considering natural gas reduces CO2 emissions by half compared to coal, and considering the 24/7 reliability of natural gas vs. the unreliability of wind in producing consumable energy, had Germany done as the US did and emphasized the replacement of coal with natural gas rather than just keeping their coal plants as the main reliable source of energy, indeed there would be a far greater reduction in their CO2 emissions than by propping up an intermittent energy source that only contributes a little more than 2% of the country’s energy production and consumption needs. Again, if Germany could reduce their coal production and consumption, they’d have actually reduced CO2 emissions rather than having their CO2 emissions increase.

            Again, your condescension and hubris is only getting in the way here if you think I am only “playing dumb” by citing analysis that supports exactly what I am writing.

            https://www.westernenergyalliance.org/knowledge-center/air/methane
            The positive impacts of the natural gas revolution haven’t gone unnoticed. According to The Breakthrough Institute: “… since 1950, natural gas and nuclear prevented 36 times more carbon emissions than wind, solar, and geothermal.

            According to the Brookings Institution, the best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions is through switching to natural gas-fired power plants. In fact, combined-cycle natural gas turbines cut 2.6 times more CO2 emissions than wind and four times more than solar. That’s because even though renewables avoid emissions when they produce electricity, they only do so when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. By comparison, natural gas reduces CO2 emissions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

          24. AndyG55

            “and that caused a lot less CO2 emissions”

            Another LIE, based on ignorance.

            Fossil fuels have to ramp up and down to accommodate the idiocy of feed-in mandates.

            That means that those wind turbines are responsible for the increased CO2 occurred in that ramping up and down.

            There was a study in Demark on a wind farm and linked coal fired power station.
            It showed that overall CO2 emissions actually increased because of the unreliability of wind turbines.

            Its great in Australia, Wind farms now have to meet a “reliability” criteria, which means that will have to install massive, costly battery or other systems before they can work.

            No more FREE-LOADING off the reliability of fossil fuels and nuclear. 🙂

          25. SebastianH

            And back and forth we go … I’ll not reply another time to this thread, I just want you to know that spreading misinformation and wrong conclusions isn’t a good way to convince anyone to become a skeptic. I may work, but those who believe what you are writing (here in this thread) and fall for the same error in thinking, might not be the brightest bunch.

            I don’t know if it was a honest mistake, but the link in your comment shows the shares of electricity production, not total energy consumption. You can find the later one here: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/3_abb_pev-energietraeger_2017-03-23.png

            Coal’s share is 23.6%, natural gas 22.6%, mineral oils 34.0%, nuclear 6.9% and renewables 12.6%.

            Replacing any of the fossil fuel power generation with wind turbines instead of natural gas reduces CO2 emissions. That’s a fact (see different CO2 output per kWh).

            Or to use your argument “far greater reduction in CO2 when switching from coal to natural gas”: The reduction would be even greater if all coal was switched to wind power and even more if all natural gas power generation were switched over to wind.

            Again, you comparison skills are lacking and you deliberately or not compare different things to construct an argument.

            The original question was what the reduction was that was caused by wind turbines. I answered the question … you did not. You distracted.

            @AndyG55:
            How come CO2 / kWh decreased with more wind energy being harvested? Despite the phase out of nuclear power that is. You are making up “facts” that aren’t compatible with reality.

          26. Kenneth Richard

            “The reduction would be even greater if all coal was switched to wind power and even more if all natural gas power generation were switched over to wind.”

            What you obviously fail to understand (despite others trying to educate you over and over) is that because of the enormous problem with intermittency and the need for backup generation, an unreliable energy source like wind or solar cannot fully replace a reliable, 24/7 energy source like coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Therefore, a country must replace a reliable energy source that doesn’t need backup with another reliable source that doesn’t need backup. The US has replaced reliable, no-backup-needed coal with reliable, no-backup-needed natural gas…which emits half as much CO2 when burned. THAT is why the US reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country in the world. In contrast, Germany’s CO2 emissions have been increasing. Why? Because they tried to replace nuclear with wind, which needs backup from a reliable energy source like…coal. Had they emphasized replacing coal (40%) with natural gas (12%), Germany WOULD HAVE reduced their overall CO2 emissions just like the US has. You are, once again, completely underestimating the intermittency/unreliability/need-for-backup problem.

          27. AndyG55

            “I just want you to know that spreading misinformation and wrong conclusions ”

            ROFLMAO.

            This is what you do seb.

            It is who you are.

            A LIAR and a serial deceitful mis-informer.

            All based on you child-minded brain-washed IGNORANCE.

            Wind turbines will very rarely pay for the massive amounts of CO2 released in their manufacture and installation. They cause reliable power supplies to operate inefficiently, often causing an INCREASE in atmospheric CO2.

            They cause industries to relocate to places where coal/gas are providing reliable cheap energy.

            And they haven’t made even the slightest dent in the level of atmospheric CO2, which , thankfully, still keeps climbing.

            Still avoiding the question I asked, I see..

            Is it cowardice?

            Let’s ask that simple question again , see if he answers..

            Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….

          28. SebastianH

            Kenneth, wind turbines with natural gas backup still emit less CO2 than just natural gas for the same amount of TWh. Is there any problem with the math involved?

            And you linked to that electricity pie chart again. On purpose?

            Because they tried to replace nuclear with wind, which needs backup from a reliable energy source like…coal.

            And how would that increase CO2 emissions exactly? If nuclear power plants produce 100 TWh of electricity per year and you would replace this with wind turbines that produce 100 TWh per year, how would the “backup” then produce more CO2 than before?

          29. Kenneth Richard

            Because they tried to replace nuclear with wind, which needs backup from a reliable energy source like…coal.

            “And how would that increase CO2 emissions exactly?”

            I assumed you understood that wind provides only intermittent power, and consequently needs to be backed up with a reliable energy source (it’s mostly coal in Germany) in times of great demand when the wind isn’t blowing. For the fourth time now, had Germany actually tried replacing coal with natural gas rather than leaving coal as the fossil fuel backup of choice, they would have actually reduced their emissions in the last 4 years rather than continuing to grow their emissions.

            Read this carefully, SebastianH:

            https://www.westernenergyalliance.org/knowledge-center/air/methane
            In fact, combined-cycle natural gas turbines cut 2.6 times more CO2 emissions than wind and four times more than solar. That’s because even though renewables avoid emissions when they produce electricity, they only do so when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. By comparison, natural gas reduces CO2 emissions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

            Do you really not understand how problematic intermittency is to reducing emissions?

          30. AndyG55

            Let’s ask that simple question YET AGAIN

            So far, the evasion is very telling…..

            Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….

            All this anti-science yapping from seb… droning on like a demented parrot.

            Yet he can’t even answer a simple question

            Humans are probably responsible for some 5 – 15 % of the atmospheric CO2 increase.. according to REAL SCIENCE.

            This is GOOD, because it means that the atmospheric CO2 levels should continue to increase, to the TOTAL BENEFIT of all life on Earth.

            There is ZERO DOWNSIDE to any atmospheric CO2 level that the Earth is ever likely to reach in any foreseeable future.

          31. Kenneth Richard

            I can think of quite a few upsides of more CO2:

            1. More greening
            2. Enhanced crop growth
            3. A thriving biosphere

            Hypothetically assuming the IPCC model that says CO2 doubling causes a little over 1 degree of warming:

            4. Fewer hurricanes
            5. Fewer droughts
            6. Fewer deaths (humans are several times more likely to die from cold than warmth)
            7. Fewer extinctions
            8. Quiescent weather
            9. Longer growing seasons
            10. More greening, more crops
            11. Crossing the Arctic seas is possible, enhancing the way of life for native peoples
            12. 1.2 C of warming from the depths of the coldest centennial-scale climates of the LIA is nothing but a boon to all of life on Earth.

          32. SebastianH

            “Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States”: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362.full

            I’ll repeat it for you Kenneth, since you chose to ignore it:
            If nuclear power plants produce 100 TWh of electricity per year and you would replace this with wind turbines that produce 100 TWh per year, how would the “backup” then produce more CO2 than before?

            Do you really not understand how problematic intermittency is to reducing emissions?

            Let’s assume a country consumes 500 TWh of electricity and currently produces it completely with natural gas. Now this country builds wind turbines. Do you think the CO2 emissions go up, stay the same or go down?

            Let’s say they manage to build enough wind turbines to produce 78 TWh of the demand with them. Do you think the CO2 emissions are higher, the same or lower than before (when they used 100% natural gas)?

            Now, lets assume those 78 TWh were produced by nuclear instead of wind turbines. Would the CO2 emissions be higher, the same or be lower than with wind turbines providing those 78 TWh? (according to a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources”>Wikipedia nuclear and wind cause about the same emissions per kWh)

            Where does intermittency cause a problem to reducing emissions in this scenario?

            P.S.: I know what you are trying to do here, but it doesn’t answer the question of the amount of CO2 reduction 27000 wind turbines cause. Your (cited) claim “combined-cycle natural gas turbines cut 2.6 times more CO2 emissions than wind and four times more than solar” is missleading. If you switch whatever amount of power generation (TWh) from coal to natural gas the emissions decrease. If you switch the same amount to nuclear or wind the emissions decrease even further. That’s the simple fact.

          33. Kenneth Richard

            “If you switch whatever amount of power generation (TWh) from coal to natural gas the emissions decrease. If you switch the same amount to nuclear or wind the emissions decrease even further. That’s the simple fact.”

            No, that’s the hypothetical. If you switch the same amount of power generation to reliable, almost-always-available-when-it’s-needed-for-consumption nuclear, emissions decrease even further. If you switch the same amount of expected or hoped-for power generation to only-sometimes-available-when-it’s-needed-for-consumption wind, it will require backup when the wind isn’t blowing (and it’s winter and peak demand hits). And when backup is needed from a reliable, and that reliable is coal rather than natural gas, the emissions reduction by switching power generation to wind will have been lost….because wind power is often not available when needed, and the backup isn’t natural gas, which emits half of the emissions of coal.

            It’s true that Germany would actually have reduced their CO2 emissions rather than growing them the last four years had they emphasized switching from coal to natural gas (as the US did). Again, you are wholly underestimating the intermittency problem. You just assume that installing wind is where it ends. Installing wind means (a lot of) backups are required.

    2. Don

      @graeme No3

      “what co2 emissions have been achieved”

      We can go to the energiewende website and find that since 2001, grid related emissions have not declines one wit. As most of wind capacity, biomass capacity and all solar capacity was installed after this data (the year when energiewende policy came into force), we can say that the energiewende policy is a complete failure.

  3. tom0mason

    This is good news for Germany, reality has arrived, but FDP party chief Christian Lindner and better have a good plan as religious zealots are a dangerous lot. They will defend what they believe is their turf and, based on what has happened in other places, they will fight dirty.
    No doubt people like George Soros will be rallying the zombie storm troopers.

  4. ClimateOtter

    Seb/Sod to the rescue in three…. two………………… 1 and three quarters………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  5. SebastianH

    Lindner has had it with the “politics of subsidies”.

    It seems illogical to state that as a reason in light of recent “invitation of tenders” (is that really the correct word for “Ausschreibungen”?): http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/nationale-ausschreibungen-und-ergebnisse.html?cms_docId=577134

    The average kWh price awarded was 5.71 ct/kWh which is near a price where no subsidies are necessary anymore (average solar price was 5.66 ct/kWh BTW: http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/nationale-ausschreibungen-und-ergebnisse.html?cms_docId=577124). Most likely Linder know this and wanted to prevent an uncontrolled buildup of wind energy when that eventually happens (despite the state setting upper limits for the buildup already). Very strange, but ok … it’s not the only state doing this (hello Bavaria).

    Let’s see if NRW will also stop solar power installations near their many Autobahns 😉

    1. AndyG55

      Very glad to see that no subsidies are needed anymore.

      Now all they have to do is remove feed-in mandates, and introduce fines/penalties for non-supply like in any other industry, and wind and solar will die a natural death from irregularity over time.

      Germany cannot afford to lose any more of its reliable, consistent electricity supply sources. Prices are already amongst the highest in the world.

      1. tom0mason

        I note that others now acknowledge the errors of pushing wind power as a viable grid connected power generation method.
        Here specifically is the ex-Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma 1995-2003, and was responsible for its “wind power calamity” as he calls it.

        https://youtu.be/XdpyPa83IIw

    2. tom0mason

      So seb,

      To reiterate “what reduction in emissions has been achieved by those 27,000 turbines?”.

      1. SebastianH

        Since Kenneth highjacked that thread, a final answer for you:

        Those wind turbines produced 77.84 TWh of electricity in 2016. At 12 g CO2 per kWh this equals ~934 kt of CO2. Producing the same amount with coal would have resulted in approximately 77840 kt CO2, using natural gas the amount would have been ~38920 kt of CO2.

        Result: Those wind turbines reduced emissions by an amount that is between 37986 and 76906 kilotonnes of CO2.

        1. AndyG55

          NO, because they force coal and gas to operate inefficiently, this extra CO2 has to be counted against wind.

          A study in Denmark showed that CO2 emissions actually INCREASED when a coal powered station had to work as back-up to the intermittency of the wind turbines.

          Your ignorant and very simplistic numbers are, as usual, deliberately misleading.

          You STILL have a question to answer seb….

          Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….

          Everybody is waiting, waiting………

          yawn…. waiti… zzzzz!

          1. SebastianH

            Can you please link to that study?

            I find it extremely unlikely that using a power plant as backup could actually increase the CO2 emissions over using it a a regular power plant. If coal is causing 1000 g of CO2 per kWh and wind is causing 12 g of CO2 per kWh, then coal running in backup mode would need to run at full capacity without feeding in their produced electricity nearly all the time their backup service is not needed in order to cause higher CO2 emissions per kWh produced (combined wind+coal).

  6. “The De Facto End Of Wind Turbine Forests”. New Policy In Germany Send Powerful Signals! – Infinite Unknown

    […] – “The De Facto End Of Wind Turbine Forests”. New Policy In Germany Send Powerful Signals!: […]

  7. David Johnson

    It’s hard to know where to begin with the rubbish you spout.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    This seems to be a decision based on “a minimum setback distance of 1500 meters from any residential home.

    The nearest ones to me are about 20 km. Seems close enough. We could see them if not for trees.

    The new North Rhine Westphalia leaders to not show an indication of grid-power systems, Government caused wealth destruction, nor climate science. So, give them just 1/2 of a gold star.

  9. AndyG55

    OT.. As of July 1st, South Australia will overtake Denmark as having the MOST EXPENSIVE electricity in the world.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/sa-will-take-top-prize-for-most-expensive-electricity-from-denmark-on-july-1/

    1. tom0mason

      Also OT,

      The US National Climatic Data Center shows that across the USA there have been more record low temperatures set since 1937. Even Wikipedia manages to get this correct — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

  10. Henning Nielsen

    “…the out-of control installation of wind energy has “not been ecological” and instead it is “ideological””.

    Ideoecological?
    Ideoecoillogical?

  11. yonason (from my cell phone)
  12. Deutschland: Anti-Windkraft-FDP bricht die Vorherrschaft der Grünen in Nordrhein-Westfalen – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

    […] Notrickszone lesen wir dazu von Pierre Gosselin vom 28. Juni […]