As older turbines see subsidies expire, thousands are expected to be taken offline due to lack of profitability. Green nightmare: Wind park operators eye shipping thousands of tons of wind turbine litter to third world countries – and leaving their concrete rubbish in the ground.
The Swiss national daily Baseler Zeitung here recently reported how Germany’s wind industry is facing a potential “abandonment”.
Approvals tougher to get
This is yet another blow to Germany’s Energiewende (transition to green energies). A few days ago I reported here how the German solar industry had seen a monumental jobs-bloodbath and investments had been slashed to a tiny fraction of what they once had been.
Over the years Germany has made approvals for new wind parks more difficult as the country reels from an unstable power grid and growing protests against the blighted landscapes and health hazards.
Now that the wind energy boom has ended, the Baseler Zeitung reports that “the shutdown of numerous wind turbines could soon lead to a drop in production” after having seen years of ruddy growth.
Subsidies for old turbines run out
Today a large number of Germany’s 29,000 total turbines nationwide are approaching 20 years old and for the most part they are outdated.
Worse: the generous subsidies granted at the time of their installation are slated to expire soon and thus make them unprofitable. After 2020, thousands of these turbines will lose their subsidies with each passing year, which means they will be taken offline and mothballed.
The Baseler Zeitung writes:
In many cases the earnings will not be able to cover the continued operation costs of the turbines. After 20 years of operation, the turbines require more maintenance and some expensive repairs.”
The Baseler Zeitung adds that some 5700 turbines with an installed capacity of 45 MW will see their subsidies run out by 2020. The Swiss daily reports further:
The German Windenergie federal association estimates that approximately 14,000 megawatts of installed capacity will lose their subsidies by 2023, which is more than a quarter of the German wind energy capacity.”
So with new turbines coming online only slowly, it’s entirely possible that wind energy output in Germany will recede in the coming years, thus making the country appear even less serious about climate protection.
Wind turbine dump in Africa?
So what happens to the old turbines that will get taken offline?
Windpark owners hope to send their scrapped wind turbine clunkers to third world buyers, Africa for example. But if these buyers instead opt for new energy systems, then German wind park operators will be forced to dismantle and recycle them – a costly endeavor, the Baseler Zeitung reports.
Impossible to recycle composite materials
The problem here are the large blades, which are made of fiberglass composite materials and whose components cannot be separated from each other. Burning the blades is extremely difficult, toxic and energy-intensive. So naturally there’s a huge incentive for German wind park operators to dump the old contraptions onto third world countries, and to let them deal later with the garbage.
Sweeping garbage under the rug
Next the Baseler Zeitung brings up the disposal of the massive 3000-tonne reinforced concrete turbine base, which according to German law must be removed.
Some of these concrete bases reach depths of 20 meters and penetrate multiple ground layers, the Baseler Zeitung reports, adding:
The complete removal of the concrete base can quickly run up to several hundreds of thousands of euros. Many wind park operators have not made the corresponding provisions for this expense.”
Already wind park operators are circumventing this huge expense by only removing the top two meters of the concrete and steel base, and then hiding the rest with a layer of soil, the Baseler writes.
In the end most of the concrete base will remain as garbage buried in the ground, and the above-ground turbine litter will likely get shipped to third world countries.
That’s Germany’s Energiewende and contribution to protecting the environment and climate!
111 responses to “Germany’s Wind Energy Mess: As Subsidies Expire, Thousands Of Turbines To Shut Down…Environmental Nightmare!”
Just saw this over at John Ray’s Greenie Watch blog.
Wind Turbines = phenomenal waste of resources
Oh, how “clever” to put clever people in quotation marks. I assume the author over there thinks of himself as a clever person, so why isn’t he clever enough to see the problem with this kind of argumentation?
Yes, wind turbines can produce 0 MW at times. That is not unexpected, that is the very nature of these systems Why does he believe it is a problem? As long as there is sufficient capacity in other systems you’ll never be without electricity. And every kWh generated by wind is one that doesn’t need to be generated by fossil fuel power plants.
Storage becomes an issue at a far later point in time. When you want to reduce those conventional capacities or when wind is regularly providing more than 100% of the consumption.
I see, from a report that at a particular time wind turbines produced almost no power, you conclude that they are a waste of resources. I would like to know what you call conventional power plants when they are not used for lengthy periods of time?
Only a few of the listed power plants run most of the time. Are all other also a “phenomenal waste of resources”?
Or the nuclear power plant Grohnde? Offline for several days. Zero electricity at the end of February. A “phenomenal waste of resources”?
‘Yes, wind turbines can produce 0 MW at times. That is not unexpected, that is the very nature of these systems Why does he believe it is a problem? ‘
seb, may you never be in heart surgery the day the wind dies to nothing, there is NO backup, and the hospital you are in goes completely black because by then there won’t be any fossil-fuel generators allowed, either.
Has this ever happened ClimateOtter?
Do you really believe the wind could die at a moments notice? Do you think a distributed system like wind (and solar) is that unpredictable?
“Do you think a distributed system like wind (and solar) is that unpredictable?”
Do you think they are NOT?? SERIOUSLY ?????
What is the 80% reliability of Germany wind power, again seb.
ie what percentage of their nameplate did they provide for 80% of the time.
Coal, gas, when not disrupted by intermittent preferences, can sit near its nameplate capacity name plate 24/7, year in year out, except for routine maintenance.
German wind power, WELL LESS THAN 10% OF NAMEPLATE, by your very own calculation.
Below 20% of nameplate for 60% of the time
That truly is PATHETIC, wouldn’t you agree..
…. or are you too BLINDED by your manic anti-CO2 ideology.
AndyG55, don’t confuse something that is known and expected (capacity factor being what it is) with the predictability of the resource.
The forecasts are pretty good these days and wind doesn’t just stop on a moments notice surprising all other power plants that need to be kept idling in case that happens.
It has also already been proven that battery storage can stabilize grid frequency much faster than standby power plants. So the future of renewables looks pretty good.
Poor seb, you really are DESPERATE to DENY the facts of UNRELIABILITY of wind and solar.
Below 20% of nameplate for 60% of the time
TOTALLY RELIANT on fossil fuels to maintain supply.
The future of renewables with collapse once subsidies and feed-in mandates are dropped, which they will be.
No country can put its people through the massive cost of maintaining the renewable farce for much longer.
“I would like to know what you call conventional power plants when they are not used for lengthy periods of time?”
Absolutely essential backup for the MANY times that wind doesn’t provide.
You still have ZERO economic understanding of the difference of IRREGULAR UNRELIABLE wind causing the massive spike in power prices because those old RELIABLE sources HAVE to be kept running and on-line, with all the attendant costs still being incurred, but no income.
Quite BIZARRE that one person can be so BLIND to reality.
But that’s seb for you.
AndyG55, your replies are cute and all, but sometimes … why? Just why are you so ignorant?
[Please refrain from name-calling.]
They certainly aren’t.
They certainly are absolutely essential as back-up.
You just CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
Straight into brain-numbed DENIAL mode.
You yet again show that you have ZERO comprehension or understanding of the difference of IRREGULAR UNRELIABLE wind causing the massive spike in power prices because those old RELIABLE sources HAVE to be kept running and on-line, with all the attendant costs still being incurred, but no income.
What will happen when those plant that can actually DELIVER ON DEMAND are forced out completely by idiotic feed-in preferences for a intermittent, unreliable, erratic non-supply like wind or solar…..
Then, when the wind doesn’t blow and the Sun doesn’t shine….
….. YOU HAVE NOTHING.
Back to the Stone Age.
You would be happy there, except for lack of all the electricity you current consume, and all the CO2 released in bringing food and services to your inner-city ghetto basement.
Again, I’ve been saying this would happen for a long time.
There is no doubt that many of the subsidy-scroungers will just disappear with their pocketed funds, rather than have to tidy up their mess.
I hope other countries are gradually waking up to the ABSOLUTE FOLLY of intermittent wind and solar as any sort of electricity supply source except in tiny niche areas.
And I hope Germany turns more to fossil fuels, the planet needs more atmospheric CO2. 🙂
I can tell you exactly what will happen.
The green scamsters will hide their profits in some offshore tax-haven set up by crooked lawyers- along the lines of Mossack Fonseca.
They will then claim bankruptcy and leave the clean-up to the tax-payer.
Some will even “reinvent” themselves as “green energy” firms and get further subsidies.
Except you have to build up reserves to pay for decommissioning in Germany. A reserve that can’t be touched by creditors in case of bankruptcy.
But I guess that can go wrong too, right? As was the case with the reserves for decommissioning the nuclear power plants. Wasn’t high enough, since the costs were somehow much higher than expected. I doubt that this is comparable with wind turbines … do you think it is?
You are so, so gullible and naïve, seb. !!!
Laughably so. !!
Can’t see the subsidy scammers in front of your eyes.
Since I am so naive and you are the allknowing super scientist, enlighten me. Where are the subsidy scammers?
You will find out when they leave their dead panels and wind turbines littering your countryside.
You won’t see them from your inner-city ghetto though, so it doesn’t matter, does it.
I guess we will. As with anything skeptics predict … what will you do when it doesn’t happen?
rats leave sinking sinks.
Green scamsters will do the same with their “investments”, once the subsidies dry up.
This should be regarded as an excellent opportunity to resolve quantitatively the question of the carbon footprint of a typical early Mark wind turbine .
1.The amount of energy , its cost and the quantity of concrete to construct its base is already known (I presume)
2. The carbon footprint of the metal and fibreglass components are already known (I presume)
3. There will be a performance log of the energy output and thus the equivalent in CO2 saved by comparison with a coal or gas power unit (again I presume that certainly in Germany this record will be kept).
4. The final piece of evidence, missing until now, is the cost in energy and in CO2 emission of the dismantling. This can now be done and completes the carbon profile of a typical earlier model wind turbine and will tell us how much CO2 emission has been saved per GWH.
This is an excellent chance for some bright young scientists to make a pioneering contribution to the field of climate change mitigation.
It’s about 11 gCO2/kWh for wind turbines over their lifecycle. That’s pretty low compared to 980 gCO2/kWh for coal and 465 gCO2/kWh for natural gas.
Does that include all the construction, transport, installation and maintenance costs and — most importantly — the running costs of the coal/gas-fired plant on permanent standby to take up the load at a minute’s notice when the wind can’t supply?
Perhaps you missed this report from E-ON who ought to know what they are talking about:
““The feed-in capacity can change frequently within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6, which reproduces the course of wind power feedin during the Christmas week from 20 to 26 December 2004.
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”
That was 14 years ago and if anything the situation is worse today as more back-up power is needed.
Perhaps you should expand your horizons and read this article “by a leading environmental activist, who’s also running for governor of California, not some fossil-fuel advocate”.
Trying to find a hair in the soup?
Do you attribute increased output from other powerplants to every powerplant that is currently offline?
Obviously they handle it just fine. It’s not like wind is completely unpredictable.
The amount of standby power plants is small (feel free to google it). Are you under the impression that all conventional power plants have to run 24/7 to make sure they are ready for the moment when the wind decreases?
Sorry, nothing on WUWT can expand any horizon. Certainly if an author is so dead wrong concerning the high electricity prices in countries like Germany. Asking the question why electricity has become more expensive despite solar panels and wind turbines becoming cheaper … seriously? It hasn’t occured to the author that installations times unit costs could be what makes up the total?
A 50% decline of the price of wind turbines between 2009 and 2017 and yet the price for electricity increased? Well, maybe that could have something to do with a doubling of the capacity since then? A 75% decline for solar panel prices vs. an almost 400% increase of installations?
It will take some time, but we will eventually see the yearly costs (subsidies) of new wind and solar being less than the costs for wind/solar falling out of the 20 year subsidies agreement. Especially since those old wind/solar plants will likely continue producing electricity until maintainance costs become too large.
At that point the price of electricity will decline. Why Mr. Schellenberger is unable to see that … I don’t know. Maybe someone should expand his horizon?
“Why Mr. Schellenberger is unable to see that …”
Because he is a rational, thinking human being, not brain-hosed with ANTI-CO2 mantra
You seem totally unable to grasp the FACT of UNRELIABLE INTERMITTENT supply cause major cost issues if it has precedence.
But then, you are basically unable to grasp any FACTS that go against your AGW brain-hosing
Promises promises. I wouldn’t buy a car from SebH (new or used), let alone billion$ in wasteful infrastructure.
Here’s a quotable quote.
The warmists call it “renewable” because that implies that it is a good thing, but the reality is that it is neither good, nor renewable. It is nothing but a wasteful destructive scam.
Yonason, you really have to stop with that conspiracy crap (“Wind and solar and other non-market power sources are advanced simply for the reason that they will increase the cost of power and decrease the convenience of its use”) …
Renewables will eventually be the cheapest form to produce electricity almost anywhere. It is already the case in some regions of this planet.
Renewables are called renewables because they don’t require fuel to produce electricity or the fuel is produced in about the same timespan as it is consumed. Not because it sounds good.
A destructive scam is what you guys are trying to do. And I still haven’t found out why exactly you are doing this if you are not somehow profiting from it.
Only scam is the TRILLIONS of dollars WASTED on wind and solar.
Renewables will never be the cheapest because they RELY on having to have 100% back-up, a whole second supply system to actually function is a usable way.
You must be totally and wilfully BLIND or incredibly ignorant, to not grasp the economics of having all that available back-up being FORCED to sit idle just so an irregular erratic, subsidy driven, non-solution to a non-problem can make a huge income for the green scammers.
I assure you, the missing grasp of economics is completely on your side. If you can’t imagine how wind+gas can become cheaper than just gas (or any other mix of fossil fuel electricity generation), then you have some learning to do.
You still REFUSE to comprehend, don’t you seb.
YOU CANNOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO FACE THE FACTS.
Back-up of RELIABLE, ON-DEMAND supply is a SECOND system.. but TOTALLY ESSENTIAL.
Remain UNAWARE of the COST of maintaining that 100%.
DENIAL of basic economics.
DENIAL of basically anything resembling common sense of rational thinking.
So you have no idea how two systems – one having no variable costs, the other having variable costs – can be cheaper together than the one with variable costs alone?
They AREN’T cheaper together.
You are in FANTASY La-la Land yet again, seb.
Well this raises some inconsistencies for the believers. I wonder how they will rationalize this. I guess that they will blame deniers, Exxon Mobile and Trump.
What is inconsistent about a wind turbine needing to be dismantled after it outlived its economically viable phase? Do you mean the amount of waste that this will produce? While that is unfortunate, it is probably less waste than we produce by using plastic bags (95000 tons per year in Germany).
Or do you mean the fantasy that shutdowns of wind turbines that were build 20 years ago (if it really is not economical to continue usage) will outnumber newly installed wind turbines?
Doubleclick on “Wind onshore” and explain how that would be possible. Or – if you can read German – https://www.wind-energie.de/infocenter/statistiken/deutschland/installierte-windenergieleistung-deutschland (goes back to 2000).
You’ve heard the old saying, “ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.”
Now, when dealing with a low information high propaganda activist you can say, “ask a smart question, get a stupid answer.”
They are so predictable.
So you are trying to tell us that my answer was stupid by posting an unconstructive reply that’s only meant to insult me?
I guess the irony of this is beyond you …
Question: Can Germany boot up her nuclear plants again?
They will have to, or at least stop Mini Micron from closing down his.
Fun to watch: Rückbau Windkraftanlagen Pellworm
In Ontario, the Canadian Pension Plan has recently bought Next Era renewable projects:
Please explain …’stop Mini Micron from closing down his’
While I can’t speak for Green Sand, my take was he was referring to France’s Macron, who is more Micro than Macro in the ethics department, despite his intelligence. France relies heavily on nuclear, and if they close, say hello to the next Dark Ages for France, and for whoever relies on them for that power.
I could be wrong, so I await G.S.’s input on it.
Darn Yon, your post can through while I was typing 🙂
Great minds, and all that? 😁
You do know that France’s nuclear plants are slowly reaching their end of life? And you do know that is too expensive to build new ones or keep them going much longer (needing an overhaul).
Why would that result in a dark age? Nearly all other nations on this planet are doing ok with less nuclear power on their grids.
The life of nuclear plants can be extended like those in Finland. Two units have been operating for 40 years and have been licenced for another 20 years. Not only that their capacity have been increased by almost 100% since first commissioning.
Sebastian, you are a sadsack socialist who has little knowledge or understanding of engineering.
The French PM or President (whichever), Mini Macaroon, has been mouthing off about closings down the French nuclear power stations.
This would of course cripple much of Europe, since they RELY on that steady reliable source of electricity when their own troubled system don’t work because its dark or there’s no wind.
France’s nuclear powered stations are about the only thing holding the EU grid together.
BS alarm …
France exported (in 2017) 15.2 TWh to Spain, 10.9 TWh to Italy, 10.1 TWh to the UK, 6.2 TWh to Germany and 4.6 TWh to Switzerland totalling 49.8 TWh of exported electricity. Germany exported 68.5 TWh.
Why do you think Europe relies on France’s nuclear reactors?
Its not how much is exported but when! You will not understand that, but so it is!
Germany exports overproduction of wind, often when its NOT needed.
France exports its nuclear sourced energy when it IS needed.
The fact you think the EU doesn’t depend on France’s reactors to make-up for country shortfalls is quite bizarrely ignorant. !!
You watch the fuss if macaroon does think he wants to go ahead with shutting them down. 🙂
“BS alarm … “
Great heading for your post, seb,
…. but the name “seb” up the top was enough.
In fact, you should use it at the top of ALL your posts. !!
Ehm … https://energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm?year=all&period=annual&type=inc_dec
There is no shortage of newly installed wind power, the boom has certainly not ended.
Also, I don’t quite understand how wind park owners could be in trouble, because of subsidies running out. Did they mismanage? After 20 years of subsidies your wind park should be written off. After that it is only maintainance vs. price you can sell the electricity for. The capital costs should be fully recouped after 20 years, so what is the problem?
In contrast, new wind parks are being build that receive only 4-5 ct/kWh in subsidies (https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Ausschreibungen/Wind_Onshore/BeendeteAusschreibungen/BeendeteAusschreibungen_node.html). If they can be profitable including capital costs, how on Earth can a wind park after 20 years be not profitable. Are the repair costs larger than building a new one in place of the old one? If so, build a new one for 4-5 ct/kWh subsidies.
Why isn’t seb in here explaining how we are reading this completely wrong?
You aren’t, it is what it is. A report by a pessimistic, sensationalist author. It’s not my fault that you guys like to read this crap to feel more bubbly in your bubble.
It’s not coming as a surprise that old wind turbines eventually have to be dismantled. It’s also no surprise that subsidies are running out after 20 years.
And it is no surprise that as subsidies run out, the solar industry starts to collapse.
It’s 4500 MW, so roughly 0.8 MW per turbine. I guess you could repower those locations (the first locations chosen for wind power were the really good one, right?) with moder 5 MW turbines, right? So 6 times the electricity from the same location. Perfect. Less wind turbines for those suffering from the wind turbine syndrome 😉
Again, you are kidding, right? Have you seen how much wind turbines get installed each year?
Yeah, they report that. Only it is mandatory in Germany to build a reserve for the inevitable dismantling of your wind turbines on an account that can’t be touched in case of insolvency. Do you really think it comes as a surprise that a wind turbines has to be dismantled after it has done its thing? That the costs are unexpected?
Renewables = Environmental Vandalism on a large scale and they get paid to do it.
Will they put the landscape back to how it was with all the trees replaced?
Why should they? Replace old wind turbines that (how?!) aren’t economical anymore with newer ones at the same location! Presumably those early locations were the best locations to build a wind turbine … it would be silly not to continue “harvesting” wind there.
Who’s going to pay the subsidies this time, seb !!
Who is going to pay the subsidies for a new coal or nuclear plant? Who is going to pay for a new gas power plant if the kWh from wind at a good location is cheaper?
A coal or gas plant will keep GIVING BACK.
SOLID RELIABLE electricity supply.
Once its up and running it doesn’t need any help or feed-in preference, just a level playing field.
Solar, wind are TAKERS.. just like you.
Germany stepped up to the plate first, failures were and are expected just like any new technology or implementation.
The thing that separates renewables from fossil fuel is that renewables are technologically rich. We are in a transition today as we have been historically in the past. Renewables will not go away anymore than technology will, fossil fuel’s days, however, are numbered. Fossil fuel is singular wealth, no one owns the sun. The sun shinning on the earth for one hour produces all the energy the entire planet needs for one year. (source: DOE)
Any industrial nation that hopes to compete in the 21st Century must embrace renewable energy aggressively. The world is seeing this and moving to renewables.
The sun will last another billion plus years, how long will fossil fuel last? While every energy burdens the planet renewables do it the least. The massive pollution from fossil fuel has done unrecoverable damage to the planet. Its life is shortened from fossil fuel.
“failures were and are expected”
Yep , once subsidies and feed-in mandates are removed…..
TOTAL FAILURE is expected.
It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.
SORT OF SCIENCY…
…BECAUSE, the failure is reproducible!
When you need the wind the most, you can count on it to probably not be there.
So, no, it’s not a bug they can work out. And that’s just one of the MANY unsolvable problems with wind power.
“So what’s the verdict?
Adding everything up: $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare.”
“Add up the value of all these benefits and what do we get? In 2010, the most recent year in my analysis, fossil fuel subsidies in the US were worth a staggering US$170 billion. That amounted to 1.8% of GDP or US$1,400 per year for the average American family.”
“The U.S. emitted 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2015, with a cost per ton of $36 (the current Social Cost of Carbon). That means the U.S. is paying $200 billion to cover the costs of all the emissions being burned. In effect, it’s a $200 billion hidden subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. This $200 billion is a cost in real money—in lost labor productivity, healthcare costs, increased energy expenditures, coastal damages—that is paid somewhere in the world for each ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted.”
“Social cost of carbon”
An entirely artificial construct to demonise a low-cost, reliable energy source.
In every society where cheap access to electricity is available due to gas, oil and coal, people are healthier, more prosperous, and in general happier – unless they are Leftists who hate it because it makes it so much harder to oppress their fellows.
I know you know this. I’m just saying it for Rob’s benefit.
Do you suppose he wrote that himself, or “borrowed” it from some green fiction writer. IMO, anyone who can come up with stuff like that may have overdosed on science fiction in combination with one too many creative writing classes. The ideas he’s presenting certainly bear no resemblance to reality.
It’s not a construct. People instinctively know that inhaling exhaust fumes isn’t healthy, yet they accept that cost because the benefits seem to outway the costs in general.
Then along comes a better solution. Similar costs, but less health and environmental problems with the potential to become cheaper than the current solution. Why would any sane mind continue to prefer the old solution? If history has shown one thing, then it’s that sticking with old technology for too long is the end of your company …
“People instinctively know that inhaling exhaust fumes isn’t healthy”
The dangerous part of exhaust fumes is not CO2, and nobody in their right mind breathes them directly.
The benefits FAR FAR FAR outweigh any tiny danger from car exhausts.
CO2 itself, is of ABSOLUTE BENEFIT to all life on Earth.
Your whole pitiful existence RELIES ON IT, seb.
Why always the trite mindless DECEIT, seb. !!
“Then along comes a better solution”
What better solution?????
You are FANTASISING, seb, as always.
“It’s not a construct.”
Of course it is, its a anti-science blame game aimed a CO2 for baseless propaganda.
The “verdict” is in
That didn’t last long. Let’s try it again?
the “VERDICT” is in.
“the current Social Cost of Carbon”
Is a load of BOLLOCKS.
The whole of modern society DEPENDS TOTALLY on CARBON and its many molecules.
There is ZERO social cost, ONLY social BENEFIT. !!
Only healthcare costs are from past coal workers who took insufficient precautions against underground coal dust.
“hidden subsidy to the fossil fuel industry”
“in lost labor productivity”
“increased energy expenditures,”
No that’s from wind and solar.
WTH ??? Nothing to do with carbon anything !!
“Subsidies in the US… ??? Coal puts FAR more $ back into the US than the tiny pittance they get for investment depreciation, exploration etc.
You have to be JOKING !!
Wind and solar TAKE.
Fossil Fuels GIVE.
The only meaningful “price of carbon.”
Pier’s you are FakeNews says K-ondakor under your tweet
He attaches a mocked-up a graph with 2018 shown as a full year with 22% of Germany’s electricity produced from wind
.. Well since he has only 3 months of data ..that is the fake news
Obviously I’ve hit a one of Konkador’s nerves.
@Stew: not being able to read a graph seems to be one of the requirements for being a “skeptic”.
@Pierre: [snip – referring to Pierre, this blog’s originator, as a “mad man” is not gong to be tolerated. Please find another forum to engage in name-calling.]
I see, this gets “snipped”, but numerous insults against me or other commentators that don’t share this blogs opinion is not “snipped”. Double standards …
What would you call it when someone sees criticism as confirmation that he/she is doing it right?
” not being able to read a graph seems to be one of the requirements for being a “skeptic”.”
You are not a skeptic, seb, you are brain-numbed AGW apologist
… and you SURE as heck cannot read or comprehend a basic graph. !!
Using three months of windy winter, when the low period of Germany’s wind energy is in M,J,J,A,S is pretty DECEITFUL stuff. Right down your alley, seb.
It’s neither mocked up, nor does it show a full year. It not a “fake news” graph.
That’s what you can debate, but then the person who posted the alleged “fake news” graph accompanied it with these words: “German wind power has generated 22% of their electric so far this year. The capacity of those being replace is a tiny fraction of those being added”
And if anyone cared to actually look at the linked website, he/she would soon have found out that the generated electricity from wind in the first 4 months increased by around 5 TWh from 2017 to 2018 and that installed wind capacity did not decrease in any year confirming what the author of that tweet wrote.
Therefore Stew seems incapable to read a graph/tweet and you just demonstrated the same level of skill.
Dis-information is your meme, isn’t it seb,
Watch that percentage drop during the year.
You did not really understand what I wrote. Yes we know, winter is windy.
You did not comprehend what I wrote, did you seb..
It is a deceit to put forward a graph that tries to deceive…
And you did.
[…] Please see: Germany’s Wind Energy Mess: As Subsidies Expire, Thousands Of Turbines To Shut Down…Environmenta… […]
“When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain. The most common nitrogen-related compounds emitted into the air by human activities are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides. Ammonia is another nitrogen compound emitted to the air, primarily from agricultural activities, but also from fossil fuels. Most of the nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. due to human activity are from the burning of fossil fuels associated with transportation and industry.”
“Ocean acidification (OA) is the quiet tsunami of environmental
degradation. Within a few decades, OA may devastate
some marine ecosystems and threaten the productivity of
our fisheries. When we burn oil, coal, or gas, scientists have
recently shown, we are transforming the fundamental chemistry
of the oceans, rapidly making the water more acidic.”
“SURPRISE, SURPRISE! IRAQ WAR WAS ABOUT OIL”
“Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.”
Every energy source has a burden on the planet but the cleanest and safest is renewables.
“The energy required to make a solar panel is recovered in the first year with 29 plus years of clean energy to follow.”
Source” Energy Efficiency Times Magazine
“Solar-energy jobs are growing 12 times as fast as the US economy.”
Source: Business Insider
“News came out of France last week that, although net 2017 profit rose, EDF saw its revenue slide from $88.3 billion to $86.7 billion, a decline that occurred largely in its traditional energy sectors such as nuclear. This was combined with an announcement that the French energy giant would invest more than $31 billion in solar in the coming years.
Other large energy companies appear to finally be reading the writing on the wall: that the traditional electricity generation strategy of burning fuels (or creating fission) and boiling water is giving way to the sustainable and cost-effective harvesting of photons and Aeolian currents. In other words: Renewables (and storage) are where the future growth opportunities lie.”
Source:Forbes feb 2018
“Economics on their side.
The costs of investing in solar and wind power also have dropped, driving installations, Locklin says. The photovoltaic industry average in the last eight years shows that solar panels costs fell 80 percent, and Energy Department research projects capital costs for building new solar and wind plants in 2022 to be less than the fuel and operating costs of a combined cycle natural gas plant, the baseline standard for the minimal cost of energy.”Why Renewable Energy Investing Has a Bright Future
Source: US News
“We know that U.S. wind energy has been growing at a fantastic rate, reaching 70 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity last month with much more on the way. With over 50,000 wind turbines in the country, there’s a lot of operations and maintenance to be done.
Meet our fastest growing profession: wind turbine technician.”
“Renewable energy technologies, led overwhelmingly by solar power, continued to lead in new power generation capacity installed in India in the fourth quarter of last year.
According to data released by the federal government agencies, more than 93% of the power generation capacity added in India between October and December 2017 was based on renewable energy technology. This marks a continuation in the trend seen in the third quarter last year when just over 92% of the power generation capacity added in India was based on renewable energy technologies.”
Source: Clean Technica
“Report: Trump’s “Energy Dominance” Plans Rely on Billions in Fossil Fuel Subsidies.
A new report out today by Oil Change International reveals that U.S. taxpayers continue to foot the bill for more than $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each year. These subsidies amount to billions of dollars wasted to prop up an industry responsible for a climate crisis that has contributed to lives lost and hundreds of billions in damages this hurricane season alone.”
Source: Oil Change International
Let me say this again,
Any industrial nation that hopes to compete in the 21st Century must vigorously embrace renewal energy.
Now let me support it:
“We are in the middle of a
global renewable energy
revolution. Investments in
renewables have continued to
increase each year, led largely
by developing countries and
since 2004, the world has
invested $2.9 trillion in green
energy sources. The annual
Global Trends in Renewable
Energy Investment report
illustrates these changes in the global energy map and the road ahead in securing the future of our planet.
“Why Renewable Energy Investing Has a Bright Future” – US News Money
“U.S. Renewable Energy Growth Accelerates
Photo courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Geothermal energy is poised to double in the United States, with 4,000 MW of capacity under construction.
Renewable energy markets surged in the United States in the first half of this year despite uncertainty over federal tax credits and a sluggish national economy, according to mid-year figures.
Wind, solar, and geothermal energy are all on the rise. At least 17,000 megawatts (MW) of these three energy sources are now under construction. According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable energy will account for about one-third of new electricity generation added to the U.S. grid over the next three years.
Wind energy is leading the way with 19,500 MW of installed capacity at mid-year, including more than 1,000 MW added in the last six months. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) second-quarter report [PDF] predicts that total additions for the year will come to 7,500 MW, boosting U.S. wind capacity by 45 percent. In Texas alone, more than 4,200 MW of wind capacity has been installed this year or is currently under construction. Iowa is in second place with 1,770 MW.”
Source: Worldwatch Institute April 2018
“BP Admits It Underestimated Renewable Growth”
BP made a mistake in its 2018 World Energy Outlook by underestimating the speed of renewables adoption, notably solar capacity. In an interview with Euractiv, BP’s chief economist, Spencer Dale, explained that while BP was aware of the learning curve typical of solar capacity adoption, it was unaware just how far along that curve the world had traveled.”
$2.9 trillion? And for that money how much have global CO2 emissions dropped?
Let’s show them what they’ll get for their $2.9 trillion.
Yep, that’s it.
But surely we can build yet more of them to meet demand, …most, …some of the time. Can’t we?
No thank you.
“Is Offshore Wind the Next Big Thing for U.S. Clean Energy?
ByDevashree Saha|Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 09:20 AM
The states of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island released three reports (see here, here, and here) last week that together set out a roadmap for the development of offshore wind development in the Northeast and highlight the economic benefits from the development of offshore wind farms off the Northeast coastline, from Maine to Maryland. According to these reports, the Northeast has the potential for offshore wind deployment of between 4,000 to 8,000 megawatts (MW) by 2030 and the creation of up to 36,000 jobs.”
Source: The Council of States Governments
Why do I say LOONY
Offshore wind.. and PLENTY of it 😉
And of course, only getting more extreme 😉
What do you think, Andy. It reads to me like he’s copying it from a sales prospectus. Do Rob’s talking points sound to you like the hard sell that politicians are probably subjected to, along with bribes, uh, of course I mean contributions to their campaigns?
Some people don’t know when to quit.
Thanks but no thanks, Rob.
A little more of the down side…
A little more on why it’s a scam…
Failure isn’t an option. It’s mandatory. And the harm it will have caused will be immense.
“Any industrial nation that hopes to compete in the 21st Century must vigorously embrace renewal energy.”
BS !!! You are living in a brain-washed haze. !!
Trillions wasted, less than 2% of world energy supply.
No-one can continue to afford UNRELIABLE energy supplies that need 100% back-up by deliver-on-demand supplies.
1600 or so new coal fired power stations being built around the world, increase of some 43% CO2 emissions.
“Huge growth in PV and wind helped renewables grow to over 30% of installed global power
The encouraging news that renewables now account for over 30% of global installed power generation capacity was part of a World Energy Council report, which highlighted the success of solar PV and wind energy, and set out recommendations for increased renewable energy penetration.”
Source: PV Magazine
“In October 2017 the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris reviewed progress around the world in building renewable energy industries, finding China, India and the US to be the world’s foremost players. The IEA projects that solar power will be the world’s fastest growing renewable energy source over the next five years (until 2022), raising the global level of power sourced from renewables from 24% in 2017 to an anticipated 30% by 2022.”
Source: Energy Post
“Norway Just Proved That a Future With 100% Renewable Energy Cars Is Possible”
“Is Renewable Energy Reliable?
Studies by the experts who plan and operate the electricity grid show that much higher levels of renewable energy can be achieved reliably, while significantly reducing carbon emissions.
We can significantly ramp up renewable energy and improve the reliability and resilience of our electricity system against the risks posed by extreme weather and climate change. How do we know? We are already doing it today.
A fundamental shift in the way we generate electricity is now underway in the United States. Renewable energy is on the rise, while overreliance on coal is on the decline:
Wind energy provided 31 percent of new U.S. electricity generating capacity from 2009-2013.
Solar accounted for an average of 16 percent of new electricity generating capacity installed annually in the U.S. from 2010-2013, and nearly 30 percent in 2013 alone.
Nine states produced more than 10 percent of their electricity from wind energy alone at the end of 2013, with wind generating over 15 percent of power in six states, and more than 25 percent in two states.”
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
“If Solar covered 1% of the UK it would meet the country’s entire power demand”
Source: Solar Power Portal
” The sun shinning on the earth for ONE HOUR produces all the energy the planet needs for ONE YEAR.”
Wind and PV compliment each other, they work in unison, we would not be limited to only one renewable source. And again, PV is getting cheaper, more efficient and easier to install, so is wind. Renewables are technology rich, battery technology is technologically rich. The fastest growing job segment is wind techs.
Money is moving to renewables as I’ve shown previously.
1600 new coal fired power stations being built around the world.
Money is moving to grab the tax-payer funded subsidies.
““If Solar covered 1% of the UK it would meet the country’s entire power demand””
ROFLMAO.. For a few hours a week, maybe, perhaps !!
And do you realise just how much land that is WASTED !!
How much it would cost??
What do you use for the 20+ hours a day when its providing.
Look in the mirror rob, and say the word GULLIBLE, several times.
I did look at myself.
I sell more power to the grid than I use and haven’t paid for electricity since 2006. My present electric bill is -$500 plus. My systems (I have an intertie and an intertie/off grid) both paid for themselves plus. They run my house and sell excess to the grid. If the power fails the back up keeps my critical loads running day or night seamlessly. They also now have charged my new EV for the last 8k plus miles and have not cost me a dime for gas. Both systems work flawlessly as does my EV.
My neighbors now realize that I did the right thing and all want systems of their own and want me to help them start a community PV buy.
So what’s your background? Is it scientific? If I started talking about inverter efficiencies an insulated gate bipolar transistor slew rates and ‘N’ type metal oxide silicon transistor ‘H’ bridge high side charge pumps would you be able to have that chat?
How about computer number controls, g code, microcontroller program languages and exactly how PV systems work? Can you discuss windmill swept area with respect to energy output and the Betz factor. Axial field alternator benefits in wind design?
Know all about the subject we’re talking about here and the future of Lithium battery technologies and energy storage?
Or is it that you don’t know a PNP transistor from an SCR?
Somehow, miraculously, you know all about wind, PV, microhydro, geothermal and every other form of renewable energy and that they don’t work and everyone else on the planet who doesn’t see the world as you do is clueless.
And yet you have no real answer for why you continually drive up to the pump to subsidize the fossil fuel industry who laugh all the way to the bank at how gullible you are in buying their pabulum.
Let me know if you need my mirror or you have one of your own!
Cost? and who paid., you or the taxpayer.
Now think how 4 million houses and all the industry and commercial premises would do what you have managed (albeit at high taxpayer assistance, no doubt.
You are DREAMING !!
You still live in a CO2 world, wether you like it or not.
You pay to fill your car and you pay for electricity for your house. I haven’t paid a dime for either since 2006 and you want to debate, what? How much better off you are? Gullibility? And you have zero understanding of renewables which you’re attempting to debate. Give me something to work with here.
How’s that mirror working out!
Cost? and who paid., you or the taxpayer.
Your EVASION is noted
” Give me something to work with here.”
What, you want MORE subsidies?? !!
Someone else to pay for your next upgrade??
One tiny house..
“Second, fossil fuels are expensive. Much of their costs are hidden, however, as subsidies. If people knew how large their subsidies were, there would be a backlash against them from so-called financial conservatives.
A study was just published in the journal World Development that quantifies the amount of subsidies directed toward fossil fuels globally, and the results are shocking. The authors work at the IMF and are well-skilled to quantify the subsidies discussed in the paper.
Let’s give the final numbers and then back up to dig into the details. The subsidies were $4.9 tn in 2013 and they rose to $5.3 tn just two years later. According to the authors, these subsidies are important because first, they promote fossil fuel use which damages the environment. Second, these are fiscally costly. Third, the subsidies discourage investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy that compete with the subsidized fossil fuels. Finally, subsidies are very inefficient means to support low-income households.”
The Iraq war was about oil, we paid for that. World pollution is about FF, we pay for that.
“THE LOW CARBON ECONOMY
THE SOLAR STORY
Despite near-term policy uncertainty for renewable energy in the US, “solar’s fundamental prospects for continued growth and adoption remain positive,” says Goldman Sachs Research’s Brian Lee. He explains how improvements in technology and declining costs are making solar a more attractive source of incremental power.”
“One tiny house”? No
“Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix
Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.”
So tell me again why you pay for gas and electricity and I don’t. The truth is you don’t know how to install a PV system and you don’t understand electric vehicles or how they work.
You can’t do it, you don’t have the ability so all you can do is parrot the trite renewable subsidies mantra like everyone else at a loss to understand a science and industry beyond them and yet at the same time completely ignore the FF subsides that are greater. Oh and pay through the nose for rising gas at the pump.
And tell me again how much better off you are? There’s a term for that – “ignorance is bliss”!
[…] The Answer Is Blowin’ Away in the Wind […]
[…] de tyska investeringarna i ny vindkraft är på väg ned. När man inte längre får skattepengar för att hålla äldre vindkraftverk […]
[…] That’s Germany’s Energiewende and contribution to protecting the environment and climate!No Tricks Zone […]
The problem seems in Physics, as no energy-producing device we build and use lasts long enough at work before going to junkyards, although its mass still almost the same since anew, as a recently circulating thesis in thermodynamics points out:
It is as if we are obliged to burn energy as much we’ve done when the Industrial Revolution has started 300 years ago, every day!