German Green Energy Only “Efficient” If Everyone Else’s Is Inefficient, Says German Minister Of Economics

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Parts of Germany’s political leadership appear to be waking up to the harsh realities of green energies (wind and sun) and their inefficiencies.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne

“Economic Minister accepts true condition of Energiewende”

The website of German national daily “Welt” here reported last month that Germany’s powerful Minister of Economics, Peter Altmaier “accepts the true condition of the Energiewende [transition to green energies]”.

In the Welt commentary, veteran journalist Daniel Wetzel wrote that Altmaier “avoided every mention of Germany functioning as a leader or role model”” for the world when it comes to green energies today. That’s change of course from what we used to hear.

Some ten years ago Germany boasted non-stop about being the global leader in green energies. Today, after seeing years of skyrocketing electricity prices and an increasingly destabilized power grid, the country has visibly backed off its once lofty green goals, which were aimed at making Germany 90% reliant on green energies by 2050. Lately it’s been dawning that this target was far too utopian.

Energiewende “no solution for single countries”

Wetzel quotes Altmaier, who was speaking before dozens of green business leaders at the international Energiewende Conference, stated that “the Energiewende will survive only if it is global” and that it is “no solution for single countries.”

In a nutshell, Altmaier admitted the Energiewende is a failure because it is already known that many other countries, like USA and China” are not going to adopt it and so will always have access to cheap, reliable energy and Germany will thus have no chance to compete internationally should it opt to stay on the green course.

Altmaier said it only made sense if it’s implemented worldwide. But today everyone knows worldwide implementation is a pipe dream and so Germany needs to start forgetting about its once ambitious Energiewende..

Wetzel then comments:

Altmaier’s sober message to the international eco-electricity scene: An Energiewende is more difficult than one thinks, and it takes longer than many think it does.”

Only efficient when everyone else accepts being inefficient

So why would Altmaier state that only a global Energiewende would make sense? To answer that one has to read between the lines. His claim in fact confirms that green energies are terribly inefficient, and thus uncompetitive, which means going it alone only makes the country inefficient and uncompetitive.

So according to Altmaier in order for the Energiewende to be “efficient in a country, all othe rcountries must adopt it and become energetically inefficient. Only when all countries become inefficient can Germany’s Energiewende be “efficient”.

No hurry to go green

Under the bottom line: Germany is no longer in a hurry to transform its energy supply system into a green one because it knows big competing coutries aren’t going to do it.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

28 responses to “German Green Energy Only “Efficient” If Everyone Else’s Is Inefficient, Says German Minister Of Economics”

  1. Steve

    So all the countries will go green to obviously to save the planet, no matter what the cost.

    1. monique odman

      Yes I suppose other countries are going eyes shut to the same situation soon or later. Unluckily later. France is still preaching that we must cover the country with as many ugly, costly, inefficient windmills! It is a great rewarding business for some.

      1. monique odman

        I meant: as many inefficient windmills as possible.

  2. AndyG55

    Not only that, but the intermittency of unreliables makes other supply sources operate inefficiently, and therefore unprofitably.

    The whole thing is a collapse waiting to happen.

  3. 'Don from OZ

    My take is that Germany only becomes ‘competitive’ when all the other countries become less competitive by using lots of inefficient wind and solar power.

    1. SebastianH

      You do know that this statement about competitiveness comes from “reading between the lines”.

      This is pure fantasy:
      So according to Altmaier in order for the Energiewende to be “efficient in a country, all othe rcountries must adopt it and become energetically inefficient. Only when all countries become inefficient can Germany’s Energiewende be “efficient”.

      Again, watch the video what he actually said instead an article about what he didn’t say:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcTPodOw-Vg

  4. scott

    And if all the country’s go unreliable “green energy” then there is no base load to pinch from someone else the system collapses even faster.

  5. tom0mason

    “German Green Energy Only “Efficient” If Everyone Else’s Is Inefficient, Says German Minister Of Economics” but that is always the way with left-wing socialism.
    Drag everyone (except the elitist ‘thinkers’) down to a squalid level, overtaxing the middle incomes earners down to the lower income level, all the while pretending this is ‘social justice’.
    Of course the elites ‘thinkers’ are not affected and none of this is for them, they’ll retain their fossil fuel way of life. Not for them tawdry notions of sustainability, unreliability, or excess cost.

  6. tom0mason

    Comment is lost in the spam bin again Pierre.

  7. SebastianH

    In the Welt commentary, veteran journalist Daniel Wetzel wrote that Altmaier “avoided every mention of Germany functioning as a leader or role model”” for the world when it comes to green energies today. That’s change of course from what we used to hear.

    And that my fellow skeptics is what confirmation bias looks like. This “veteran journalist” writes a whole article about what a person didn’t say. Wow. And you skeptics naturally interpret it as “Energiewende has failed” or something like that.

    This author even goes so far to make the end of subsidies caused by lower and lower prices look bad by calling it a “moodkiller for greens”. Seriously? That’s a good thing and not just for so called “skeptics” who despise subsidies (yet, seem to find it ok if it is for fossil fuels).

    If anyone is interested what Altmaier said (and not what he didn’t say), here is the video of the complete opening ceremony:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcTPodOw-Vg

  8. dennisambler

    This Australian politician seek to emulate the German experience:

    https://the-riotact.com/government-steps-up-climate-action-with-new-zero-emissions-target/246270

    “The ACT Government has brought forward plans for the ACT to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions by five years to 2045.

    Mr Rattenbury said while the cost of the new 2045 target had not yet been determined, economic modelling to 2030 showed the ACT could meet the 65% target at a cost of about $32 per tonne of abatement, or about $5.8 million in 2030.

    The ACT already plans to source all of its electricity from renewable wind and solar generation by 2020.

    “Importantly, the targets are achievable using current technology. It will ensure the ACT plays its part in keeping global warming to below 2 degrees,” Mr Rattenbury said.””

    ACT stands for Australian Capital Territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Capital_Territory

    1. AndyG55

      But there will probably not be more than a couple of wind turbines actually inside the ACT boundaries.

      It will be purchased from wind farms elsewhere, and fed in via the FOSSIL FUEL supported NSW grid.

  9. Sean

    They don’t need to take a global view on inefficiency. Renewables have made all the traditional energy technologies very inefficient on an energy basis as well since they are constantly starting and stopping to make way for the ebb and flow of renewable power. And if you look at the nameplate capacity utilized across the board for generation, I doubt anything exceeds 40%. Hard to recover that cost of capital.

    1. SebastianH

      Sean, let’s imagine a country that has a baseload of around 40 GW and top consumption at noon is between 65 GW (weekend) and 80 GW (workdays). Let’s call the country Germany: https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=19

      Now calculate the capacity factor for a fleet of powerplants that need to cover these variations. Will it be more than 40% or significantly less? And is it possible now to have fewer powerplants doing this work and thereby increasing their capacity factor because of solar and wind taking of some or most of the daily spike?

      Yeah, those power plants that only run a few times a year have a lot smaller capacity factor then (see some hard coal power plants: https://energy-charts.de/percent_full_load.htm?source=coal&year=2018 and of course nearly all natural gas power plants: https://energy-charts.de/percent_full_load.htm?source=gas&year=2018). Hopefully, there will come a time when those aren’t needed on special occasions anymore.

      Anyway, you can see for yourself at the provided links if anything exceeds those 40% you mentioned.

      1. AndyG55

        Seb

        LET’S IMAGINE

        roflmao !!

        Seb still doesn’t “get it” that the wind, solar capacity factor is the best that can be expected from it.

        Coal and gas are capable of far higher capacity factors, but are being held back in preference to unreliables to make up for all the time that wind and solar cannot meet supply.

        Simple analogy for you seb.

        If you were offered a job, your only job, where you had to be “on-call” 24/7, but only got paid for 3 or 4 hours a week, would you take it?

        1. tom0mason

          Yes AndyG55,
          Very, very expensive ‘free’ energy!

  10. tom0mason

    Of course some advocates believe that the Western nations subsidize fossil fuel and quote the deranged https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 as evidence. It is not. It’s just a squalid attempt to defame the fossil fuel industry of the West.

    they say in that paper “Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%.” These figures disputable, as there is no observed ‘global warming’ caused by fossil fuel use. And that is their only real hook to hang their claim of subsidy on.

    Disregarding the ‘global warming’ meme from fossil fuel use (because it is not happening!) renders the whole argument of the West subsidizing fossil fuel as a fantasy, or worse a deliberate fabrication. But then again we already know that our pet advocate here is a proven fantastical fabricator of untruth from what they have written previously.

    1. SebastianH

      These figures disputable, as there is no observed ‘global warming’ caused by fossil fuel use

      *sigh* … yeah and smoking doesn’t cause cancer. We’ve been there and guys like you tried to convince the public that everything is ok before.

      our pet advocate here

      Oh please, should I call you “cute” names too? Pet disinformer?

      1. AndyG55

        Again the pathetic attempt to liken to the tobacco industry… when its always the AGW cultists adopting all the propaganda, lobbying and lies.

        Everyone knows where Big Al, your chief propagandist, got his initial wealth, before he came across the AGW scam.

        Do you have any empirical evidence that fossil fuels are causing any “global warming”?

        We are waiting, and waiting and waiting !!

        1. tom0mason

          of course some AGW [snip] make analogies of climate change skepticism to the tobacco industry. This happens because the AGW [snip] do not understand climate, and do not understand how manipulated they are — they are the very definition of the [snip].

  11. Steve

    The great majority of hot air, aka CO2 is coming out of the mouths of the politicians in the ACT

  12. Tom P

    Why is this Sebastian H always posting? Is he a shill?

    1. SebastianH

      He posts, because https://xkcd.com/386/

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #316
  14. Kurt in Switzerland

    Thanks to Seb for posting the link to Altmaier’s speech.

    He does indeed sound like a conflicted individual (Altmaier). The overall tone is one of a believer [in the inherent “good” of striving for ever higher percentages of so-called “sustainable” sources for electrical power], yet one no longer so immersed in the euphoria mantra of yesteryear “Green is good, more Green is great” as to avoid some strikingly sobering comments (which apparently went right over Seb’s head).

    Seb fails to appreciate that Wetzel has been covering German energy policy for some time; so he has the sharp eye of the long-term observer to notice what has changed. This is often as much what is NOT said as what is said.
    ______

    But regarding what was said, I reckon if the metaphor of the “Energiewende” being akin to performing a 20 y long open-heart surgery on the economy of Germany didn’t strike our resident troll as oddly critical of the Great Green Transformation, nothing will help.

    He is like a religious zealot who has heard that coal, oil and gas are evil (nuclear power, too). All things solar and wind are bliss (Musk, too). Let the violins play. Dissenters are heretics, don’t confuse me with rational arguments.

    When confronted with simple facts, he whines and darts, eventually disappearing from the conversation. Like the part about burning biomass being more CO2 intensive per unit of useful energy delivered.

    Yet he has a sense of humor – he posts on the subject because he reckons everyone else is wrong.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close