The online Die Welt here reports that storm “Herwart” which swept across Germany late last month – with wind gusts of up to 140 kilometers per hour – led to a wholesale electricity “price collapse” and thus “exposed the madness of the Energiewende“.
“Negative prices”
As storm Herwart waged, wind parks across Germany over-flooded electricity grids with power that was not needed, and thus forced electricity prices on the exchange to go deep into negative levels within just minutes. In a nutshell: grid operators were forced to pay to get rid of the surplus power. But that payment won’t go to consumers, as Die Welt writes:
The consumers get no benefit from this. For them it will even be more expensive.”
This is because as grid operators are forced to pay large buyers to accept the power that no one needs or wants, they will incur added costs, which of course will be passed on to the regular German consumers. Germans are already saddled with almost the highest rates in the world. This is despite the preposterous comments made by some media outlets suggesting that German consumers could even get paid for the disposal of waste power.
Market forces disabled
Die Welt presents a chart depicting wholesale power prices. It shows the price falling to -52.11 euros per megawatt hour. Moreover, the chart shows that these extreme negative prices have become more frequent over the past 18 months. Die Welt comments:
‘Herwart’ shows in a sobering manner the astounding design deficiency of the German Energiewende [transition to green energies]. “
Die Welt blames Germany’s Energiewende and the green energy feed-in act, which “systematically disable market forces”.
Thousands Of Older Wind Turbines To Be Dismantled
On another note, the Kiel, German-based Kieler Nachrichten (KN) reports “thousands of wind turbines will be supposedly dismantled over the coming decade because the state subsidies will run out“. “And according to the Berlin-based specialty company Energy Brainpool, these turbines will not be replaced if energy prices do not increase.
Subsidies running out
Economists of the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research also expect a decommissioning of a considerable number of older turbines. The 2020s could be a decade where Germany may start to see the end of the wind energy madness. It all depends on the price of electricity in beginning in 2021. Wind turbines originally were guaranteed fixed feed-in rates for a period of 20 years. Now that these early systems are approaching that lifetime and the feed-in tariffs expire, it is questionable that they will continue to operate.
Too expensive to keep in operation
Many old turbines are likely to be put out of commission because they require greats amounts of costly maintenance and repairs, and so likely will not be profitable to operate. The KN writes:
The current wholesale electricity price of 3 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour will not be enough to keep the turbines in operation…”.
The KN cites the Bundesverband Windenergie (German Association for Wind Energy) which estimates that some 14,000 MW of installed capacity face being shut down by 2023. “That would be more than a quarter of the currently installed onshore wind energy capacity getting removed.”
A monument to an industrial folly
The question that remains is what will happen to these thousands of shut down turbines. Will they be abandoned and thus leave the country’s idyllic landscape a mass junkyard – a monument to one of the greatest industrial follies man has ever witnessed?
Die Welt also doesn’t know the type of electricity and how much is traded on the EEX. Die Welt also thinks that we are paying Switzerland to take our surplus electricity which they re-sell back to us when we need it most. The reality is that we actually make money with exporting electricity and that’s why conventional power plants don’t shut down …
Oh, and Die Welt also thinks that German power plants can’t shut down and pay the negative prices, but the power plants in neighboring countries can and happily take our electricity.
The whole article is ridiculous and borders on misinforming their readers on purpose.
What? Why? I don’t even … seriously, what is wrong with you? Will old coal power plants be abandoned and leave a mass junkyard behind?
“Allein im ersten Jahr fallen 5700 Windkraftanlagen mit einer Leistung von 4500 Megawatt aus der Förderung heraus.” … so it’s the super low power wind turbines that aren’t economical. Surprise. Others will be happy to put 5-6 MW turbines at the same location (assuming it’s not a really bad location).
I very much doubt those low-power turbines will be replaced if there is no incentive / subsidies.
There are auctions and only the winners get to build their wind turbines. So far there has been no shortage of investors lining up to these auctions …
These “investors” are hoping to get in on the government/taxpayer funding of their projects. Why is this surprising?
So? The claim was that those sites would be abandoned because of no future subsidies
Get off it Seb. Even Buffet has stated that he wouldn’t be into wind power if it wasn’t for the subsidies. So-called renewable energy is a dismal failure if they compete in a free market system. Ontario energy is an economic disaster in Canada for the same reasons.
And what is the goal of subsidies like that? To make it economical. That’s different from subsidies for coal (only there to keep a business in the country that is not economial)
Why are used so obsessed with constant need to hound Mr Richard? This constant obsessive/compulsive stalking of the NTZ author is getting awfully tiresome. You’re welcome to make comments here, but this constant nipping at the heels that you are obviously engaged in has to end. As I wrote yesterday, I expect to see a higher level of maturity w.r.t. your general conduct and attitude here at this forum. I think I’ve been patient enough.
SebH knows perfectly well that ….
http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-and-the-high-price-of-european-electricity/
The pest knows this, as this subject has come up numerous times. More proof SebH is NOT interested in exchanging ideas, but is here just to annoy and harass. He is an activist troll.
See also here…
http://euanmearns.com/the-appalling-truth-about-energy-subsidies/
Because the ‘investors’ are seeing billions in German tax dollars, otherwise known as subsidies. Otherwise they wouldn’t bother!
The question that remains is what will happen to these thousands of shut down turbines. Will they be abandoned and thus leave the country’s idyllic landscape a mass junkyard – a monument to one of the greatest industrial follies man has ever witnessed?
Replacing worn out wind turbines is quite expensive…and not likely to be a priority without heavy subsidization.
Uh, yes. That happens too.
The “mass junkyard” of a coal plant is a LOT easier to cleanup (it has been done many times in the US) than the number of wind turbines that equate to a single coal plant.
The big question is not only what happens to the tower, but what about the 50′ deep concrete base that was installed for each tower?
I agree. Just being agreeable that shuttered coal plants need to be cleaned up too. SebastianH made it appear that it would never, never be the case that a wind turbine will just be allowed to rot due to a lack of motivation (financial) to rebuild it.
I don’t know if you are not aware or if you are just ignorant of the fact that everyone who built a wind turbine had to make a “Bankbürgschaft” for the eventual deconstruction of the turbine/and tower. Just as those building conventional power plants have to do (with the exception of nuclear power plants where the German state gave in and takes over some of the costs)
Seb: does that includes companies that build wind turbines, SELL the company / project to someone else and walk away?
Of course it does. The money is at the bank as safety for the deconstruction. Selling your windmill doesn’t change that.
“security” not “safety”.
Yeah, this could be a serious issue. If you go to the west coast of Denmark, you still see German bunkers on the beaches, left over from WW2 . Over 70 years old and virtually impossible to remove.
If you go to Egypt, you’ll find some “concrete” structures that are even older.
http://drexel.edu/materials/about/special/pyramids/
Of course, if they are more aesthetically pleasing, it isn’t as objectionable.
An old coal site could actually turn out to quite useful. The ash and sludge generated by coal-fired power plants could be used for manufacture of steel and construction blocks. The idea has also been thrown around about retrofitting some of these old sites with thorium reactors further down the track.
It will gradually become evident that wind turbines cannot produce enough on-demand power to enable them to be replaced without a huge burden on society. Taken to the end game they cannot produce enough on-demand power to enable their economic replacement.
Germany is now against the brick wall of 30% of the electricity market share being supplied by wind and solar. Getting beyond that level without substantial existing hydro in the system creates rapidly rising costs that involve expensive energy storage. The grid stability becomes even more challenging.
At 30% wind/solar share the generators can achieve their unconstrained capacity factors. Above that level the capacity factor gets constrained by the necessary overbuild. To get to 100% wind and solar requires up to 7 times capacity overbuild, depending on the cost of storage. Germany is well short of this mark.
South Australia achieved 39% wind/solar market share in 2016. However that came at the cost of grid instability. The 1700MW of wind generation is now capped at 1200MW and there must be at least 3 gas turbines in operation to maintain grid stability. So already the capacity factor is being constrained.
This is an optimisation problem and the point in time when wind/solar are providing more than 100% of the required power in a single moment has yet to come. But even when this milestone has been reached it is not a point where storage becomes cheaper than just not using the provided electricity.
Where you figure to find the SPACE required for a seven-fold increase in capacity overbuild?
How much space do you think is needed? As simulations show we only need about 6 to 7 times the amount of wind capacity as we have today (in Germany). Is that what you mean by capacity overbuild?
Where is there space for the increased capacity overbuild?
Well, in the UK that would be Scotland,….ALL of Scotland, a link about which I posted below, but which he evidently didn’t bother to read.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/872470/Electric-vehicles-Wind-farms-Scotland-Nicola-Sturgeon-diesel-Britain
That’s just to run their toy cars, and doesn’t include the ones needed to generate the power to run their homes and their factories, which it will only do when the wind blows and the sun shines. And even if they could install that capacity, there would be no way to store any extra. Heck, there wouldn’t even be any extra, unless they built even more of those blasted things, as if we don’t have too many of them already.
I believe that SA are also ordering a large number of diesel generators to be used in the stabilisation of the power grid.
“Wind Power: Economically, Socially & Environmentally Unsustainable”
https://stopthesethings.com/2016/11/17/wind-power-economically-socially-environmentally-unsustainable/
Lots of good info here on the horror of wind farms.
http://palmerstonnorth.blogspot.com/
There really is so much out there that there’s no excuse for not being able to find it. There’s also no excuse for posting pro-wind propaganda in it’s defense.
Other material I’ve posted in the past…
http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-and-the-high-price-of-european-electricity/
Green insanity knows no bounds, it seems.
https://climatescience.blogspot.com/2017/11/wind-farms-would-need-to-cover-whole-of.html
Finally, so-called “renewables” are an inefficient waste.
https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fedmhdotme.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F09%2Fus-d-uk-comp.png&sp=2b7433d7c443106cc2e7bac69c1528f5
Is there any excuse for being so anti-wind that you are ignoring reality?
Seb, is there any excuse for being so pro wind that you ignore EVERY aspect of reality?
The reality that so-called renewable energies are unable to do what is claimed?
One more, and then good night.
“Green energy fails every test.” – to the tune of $15BILLION!!!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/green-energy-fails-every-test.php
And furthermore….
Rust? And how would that work?
Also, you seem to ignore that every windmill owner has to have a bank account with funds build up over the lifetime of the turbine for the eventual deconstruction.
You guys are nuts …
Ignorance and dishonesty of chatbots on display?
Why don’t you explain how it doesn’t, genius.
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=https%3A%2F%2Fgreenjihad.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F07%2Fabandonedwindfarm.jpg&sp=6f34e56f3835dba838e24ccf87f35a3a
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F03%2F19%2Farticle-0-123AFB03000005DC-603_1024x615_large.jpg&sp=1223a956e619b9bee0b5f0fca4e803db
WHERE?
not in Canada.
https://greenjihad.com/2017/07/12/renewable-wind-and-solar-farms-as-green-pollution/
and unless the bill passed in the UK, not there, or in Germany, either, except for offshore parks.
https://stopthesethings.com/2015/10/02/the-staggering-cost-of-cleaning-up-the-mess-when-the-wind-power-fiasco-ends/
And even when there are laws, there are ways of evading them.
http://www.texaslrev.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Stripling95.pdf
STOP MAKING THINGS UP!
Where? In Germany of course … What country is the post about? Germany.
How about instead of making assertions, you start providing evidence to back them up, SebH. Show me where they are required to clean up their mess for any OTHER THAN offshore, as mentioned in the article I linked to. AND that they have always been, and that it isn’t just in the last year or two.
Don’t tell us that (effectively) “they are required to,” which implies that ALL are, when only SOME of them are. When there’s no solution for the worst part of the problem, that’s basically not a solution.
Also, you neglected to answer my response to your comment on rust. Care to remedy that one, too?
And while you’re at it, how about sharing your extensive knowledge of temperature anomalies with us, as I have requested here.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/31/again-and-again-experts-and-new-findings-show-no-link-between-european-storm-activity-and-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-1234880
And let us not lose sight of the biggest problem, that subsidized so-called “renewable” power is in fact evil.
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/11/02/malice-as-a-virtue-cost-of-subsidised-renewables-power-means-the-poorest-go-hungry/
“…Cost of Subsidised Renewables Power Means the Poorest Go Hungry”
‘You guys are nuts’
Projection. You really are a special case aren’t you?
One of the most disgusting dimensions of the wind energy sector is the fact that one of the few alternatives for disposal of retired blades is to dump them in landfills:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/wind-turbine-rotor-blades-destined-for-landfill-1-3268627
post-modern “enviromentalism” is a disgrace
The biggest scandal behind all of this is that wind does not reduce CO2 emissions to any material extent, and that is why Germany has failed to reduce its CO2 emissions, from the electricity generating sector of the market, to any material extent since around 2009. In fact, CO2 emissions in this sector are rising.
The upshot is that there is only pain for no gain.
You and your wild theories about wind turbines causing no CO2 reduction again. Look at the relevant charts and you’ll easily see why CO2 emissions didn’t decrease as much as one would expect. Hint: it has nothing to do with that nonsense of power plants using the same amount of energy to “be ready” for when wind doesn’t provide electricity, as when in full production mode 🙂
It is not clear to me whether you have any scientific qualifications at all, since you appear not to understand very basic principles of physics, energy, work.
I have explained this to you so many times, that the primary issue is inertia. Ie, the work done changing the speed of the generator (which is a very heavy object and requires a lot of energy to change its speed).
It is the energy used in accelerating mass that is critical, and it is why in start/stop conditions of urban driving, where the mass of the car has to be constantly accelerated back up to speed, a car’s fuel consumption is considerably higher than it is when driving at a steady speed say 100 kmph or 60 mph on an autobahn, a motorway or freeway. you can check your car manufacturer’s consumption figures which is illustrative of the principle.
You must have noticed when you have driven a car that when you accelerate you floor the accelerator (this is so well known that there is an every day expression: put the pedal to the metal), and once the car is up to speed, you can lift the accelerator (because less energy is needed to maintain speed that energy used in acceleration).
Whilst I am over simplifying matters, a generator is akin to a giant flywheel and in an ideal world where there are no frictional losses (mechanical frictional losses in bearings, and no air resistance etc), the only energy used would be starting the flywheel spinning from rest and getting it up to speed. Once up to speed, it would not require any further energy.
Of course, we do not live in an ideal world and work is being done by the generator, but in relative terms, the same principle applies namely that it takes disproportionately more energy from gas, and hence greater consumption of gas, and hence greater emissions of CO2, to start the generator spinning and getting it up to speed than it does to maintain the generator at its designed operating steady state speed.
The problem is that backup energy from gas generators have to be run in ramp up/ramp down mode and this is very fuel inefficient and due to this inefficiency a lot of gas is consumed and a lot of Co2 is emitted.
Wind is never constant. It varies minute by minute, and thus every minute there needs to be constant adjustment to the back up.
For your info, from Wikipedia:
In physics, power is the rate of doing work, the amount of energy transferred per unit time.
Power, as a function of time, is the rate at which work is done
Power will change over time as velocity changes due to acceleration.
Work is closely related to energy. The work-energy principle states that an increase in the kinetic energy of a rigid body is caused by an equal amount of positive work done on the body by the resultant force acting on that body.
In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes.
You will note it is all a matter of acceleration, ie., a change of speed over time. Work is only required to change the speed. Work of course requires energy, and energy when supplied by fossil fuels results in the emission of CO2.
It’s pretty clear to me he has none.
You really mean what you write here and you question the scientific qualifications of others?
You really think that generators only need energy to accelerate (in a perfect world)? Where does the energy come from that is being … genarated? Oh boy …
And please stop comparing it to a car. It doesn’t work this way with power plants. You don’t have all unneeded power plants running in some kind of idle mode just waiting for short burst. It’s not how it works (look up actual, real data).
Again, it is pretty obvious why the increase in renewables hasn’t caused a bigger decrease of CO2 emitted per kWh generated.
It appears that you even have trouble with comprehension of the most basic phrases. You will note that I said
So your comment, set out below, just confirms your ignorance
If you read things and stopped to consider what was being said, you would not make embarrassing gaffes like that.
Disproportionately more fuel is used in the constant changing of the rpm of the generator, as the amount of infill power required to be produced by the generator fluctuates because of fluctuations in the amount of wind at any given time.
If you cannot understand such a basic point, quite frankly then your science schooling was a failure.
” (look up actual, real data).” – chatbot_SebH
We have, and we’ve posted it for you to see, and it obviously didn’t make any impression on an oblivious chatbot.
Now, why don’t YOU present what you think proves your position? Why don’t you prove you know what you’re talking about?
The ball is in your court, though why you keep playing is a mystery. I guess you just like losing.
Richard, you wrote:
Didn’t you? The bulk of the gas is consumed while generating electricity, not while spinning up a generator. Gas power plants can react pretty fast.
You seem to be under the impression that all gas power plants are just spinning at their normal speed while anxiously waiting for their turn to provide electricity when wind/solar fluctuates. That is not the case. There are a few power plants that do that, the majority runs on a schedule predetermined by the electricity exchange (EEX).
You can easily see this when looking at graphs like this one:
https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=gas&month=10&year=2017
As for wind/solar replacing nuclear:
https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all (de-select everything but uranium, wind and solar … you can compare that to brown coal, hard coal, wind and solar if you care)
BTW: yonason, I posted this many times. Where is your actual data? Will your data be from another strange blog which can’t add up numbers and conclude that a “divine intervention” must have happened?
I have seen the charts, and they confirm what I said. Many have been presented on this site over the course of the last 6 months, and since you are a regular commentator you will have seen them, and therefore well know what I stated was correct.
CO2 2009 on wards: 750 MT, 762 MT, 748 MT, 755 MT, 760 MT. (IEA Key World Energy Statistics).
Germany has been unable to reduce its C02 since 2009 notwithstanding ever more wind and solar from 2009 (which has gone up from 16.3% to 31.6% of gross electricity consumption). It has come up against the buffer.
Germany will be unable to comply with its Paris Accord aspirations/commitments because the green renewable energy venture fails to reduce CO2 to any meaningful extent, and with a rising population, due to migration, its energy needs will significantly increase.
We will see that in the coming years (2020 or 2021 when it publishes its 5 year summary).
All the charts make it pretty clear that wind and solar mainly replaced nuclear power generation, another low carbon energy source. It should be obvious, but apparently not so much for you …
When will Germany fulfill her pledeges of reducing co2 emissions? 2350?
Regrettably it appears that you do not know even the most rudimentary principles of electricity generation.
Wind and solar do not provide base load energy. Therein lies one of the most fundamental and significant draw backs with these methods of energy production.
Nuclear is base load. Nuclear is the least able to be ramped up and down, and requires to be run at a steady level 24/7.
As per Wikipedia:
The reason why Germany is building coal powered stations is that they need coal to produce base load energy to replace the base load energy that was produced by nuclear.
Germany would not need any coal powered generating stations if wind and solar produced base load energy, but unfortunately they do not since they are intermittent. Base load is constant and non intermittent power.
I would respectfully suggest that you study some basics, so that you are better able to contribute towards the debate.
True
Not true, see France.
Not true, power generation from coal has stayed at roughly the same level:
https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all (select only brown coal and hard coal)
The list of coal power plants being built/planned is very short: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_Kohlekraftwerke_in_Deutschland (only 2 of those 5 are actually being built and they mainly replace old power plants, the growth is in gas power electricity generation).
Actually, we would not need coal power plants if we had enough gas power plants. Bavaria (a state in Germany) has not a single coal power plant and we don’t have problems with the intermittency of wind/solar.
Respectfully, stop claiming that wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions. It is a ridiculous claim with no basis. Look at the graphs provided and don’t evade the topic by bringing up base load. So far wind and solar aren’t even scratching the base load power generation:
https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&month=10&year=2017
A little bit at the end of October when brown coal and even nuclear had to throttle down. Same graph for September:
https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&month=9&year=2017
Do you see any base load generation (brown coal and nuclear) being affected by intermittent wind and solar?
Seb, please stop. I hate to see someone making a complete fool of themselves
More information – against warmist lies.
“Why Wind Power is the Greatest Economic & Environmental Fraud in History”
What Subsidised Wind & Solar Power Really Costs: And It’s Simply Staggering
Wind Power: A Fraud Promulgated by Fools based on a Fantasy
We are haggling over how hard it will be to get rid of these awful things, when they should never have been installed in the first place.
Another bag of nails for the Energiewende coffin.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/truly-green-how-germanys-energiewende-is-destroying-nature/
[…] Abschlußsätze auf No Tricks Zone […]