Sobriety Returning To Germany…Leaders Finally Realizing Green Energies Are Fraught With Huge Obstacles

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
0Email this to someone
email

At the site of Germany’s Arbeitgeberverband (Federation for German Employers) Dr. Björn Peters wrote a piece describing the recent “Baden-Badener Energiegesprächen“, an energy pow-wow where political and industry leaders met for 2 days to discuss Germany’s energy future.

“Surprised by the realism”

From the two days of presentations, speeches and discussions, there are clear indicators that German political and industry leaders are “finally” realizing that the Energiewende (transition to green energies) is nowhere near as easy as previously expected and promised to the public.

According to Peters, “We were surprised by the realism among the experts”.

His commentary also notes that although the excitement of the Energiewende was great 20 years ago, today the targets of green energies are still a long way off. He reports:

It is only now, after the construction of over 100 gigawatts of power generation capacity, that the realization is beginning to take hold that the expansion of ambient energies is not getting us closer to the purpose of replacing chemical energy sources.”

Technology still decades away

Peters adds that “the sticking point is that it is only the weather-dependent ambient energies that can be expanded greatly, but they have neither the quantity nor the consistency to meet the requirements for a steady and affordable power supply.” He then notes:

The technological components of an energy supply system based on sun and wind first need to be developed. Just the development of suitable power storage cells for bridging windless and sunless periods still requires many decades.”

Green energies miserably implemented, no planning

Peters also writes that “the rapid speed of the power production capacity expansion while the remainder of the energy supply system lagged woefully behind was accepted by all those in attendance as a failure of the Energiewende.”

Another problem, Peters noted – citing the Chairman of the German Renewable Energy Federation, Peter Röttgen – was the go-it-alone approach by individual countries in Europe and the complete lack of infrastructure for storing and transporting solar and wind energy all across the continent. “The energy policy must finally be organized Europe-wide.”

Government electric power consumption goals unrealistic

Another factor that failed to meet expectations was the falling electricity demand. Policymakers had hoped that households, and industry would have lowered their energy consumption by now, mainly through greater efficiency, but that too has not happened. Many of the green ideas simply have limits, or create problems that are worse than the solution.

One example is building insulation, which on many buildings often leads to moisture accumulating in the walls and results mildew and fungus infestation.

Widespread e-mobility “will take decades”

On e-mobility, Peters comments that battery technology for e-mobility is also woefully inadequate for widespread use, and it will take decades before the technology develops.

A call to get back to the facts

Next Peters brings describes how one speaker, Jürgen-Friedrich Hake, a physicist at the renowned Jülich Research Center, who, accompanied by much applause from the audience, called “for more realism and neutral assessment of the body of facts.”

Peters summarized:

In total there was the impression that the numerous unanswered questions of the ‘Energiewende’ have finally dawned on the energy sector. While only a few years ago hope for rapid solutions to the technical challenges was high at the industry conferences, the degree of realism that has since spread is hard to surpass today. Not only are solution to the know problems being sought, but the industry representatives and policymakers are finally beginning to ask the right questions regarding technical concepts, costs and economic impacts.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
0Email this to someone
email

41 responses to “Sobriety Returning To Germany…Leaders Finally Realizing Green Energies Are Fraught With Huge Obstacles”

  1. Curious George

    Peters’s summary says it all: Ready, fire, aim.

  2. Georg Thomas

    Germany’s elites have woefully failed. It is not true that it has taken decades to find out the truth. In a mixture of cowardice and greed (fuelled by lavish subsidies)the elites have not been willing to contradict government and the green deep state.

    In the early 1990s, when working in a project finance department, my colleagues analysing renewables unanimously recognised the technologies’ total lack of economic viability and their other shortcomings.

    Only recently I have talked to a board member of a large German company who is heavily involved in communicating industry concerns to politicians. He confirmed that the politicians were briefed about the absurd problems of the Energiewende and clearly understood the message, yet chose to continue with the project unabated.

    The extent of corruption and self-enriching cynicism among the German elites is breathtaking. The re-sacralisation of the public discourse under the aegis of green-driven political correctness has ensured levels of disingenuity characteristic of theocracy and despotic socialism, bringing about a shocking atrophy of civil courage among the elites. The masses are Mitläufer as ever.

    A final anecdote to underscore my point that the facts revealing the nonsensical and dangerous character of the green mania were all along known to and sufficiently understood by the elites for them to act according to their duty.

    In the early 1990s, I met a professor of Chemistry who taught at the University of Frankfurt. He happened to sit next to me in a wine bar having some chilly con carne. The gentleman explained at great length to me what fraudulent instruments the climate change models are, confirming that those of his colleagues subscribing to the hype had ulterior motives unrelated to science.

    1. SebastianH

      green deep state. […] In the early 1990s […] total lack of economic viability

      Conspiracy talk mixed with anecdotes from the 1990s. I bet your colleagues had only good things to say about the internet, cell phones, mp3 players, etc? All were crappy in the 90s and look at those things now …

      Only recently I have talked to a board member of a large German company

      You talk to lobbyists … who would have thought?

      The extent of corruption and self-enriching cynicism among the German elites is breathtaking.

      Question, are you living in Germany? Are you German? And rest assured, you are quite breathtaking as well.

      Let’s all exchange anecdotes that are likely made up with each other … of what great fun 😉

      1. Michael S.

        I am a German scientist and I can fully support Dr. Peter‘s report and the very good recapitulation/translation given here. Germany‘s elite suffers from a green-„liberal“ infiltration of concepts which nobody dares to contradict because he/she would be put as a right-wing fascist and climate denier then. So, everybody tries to milk the cow not asking general questions.

        1. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

          SebH is known to make stuff up at times, …ok, ok, all the time.

          Thanks for exposing him on this, Michael S.

  3. Georg Thomas

    Germany’s elites have woefully failed. It is not true that it has taken decades to find out the truth. In a mixture of cowardice and greed (fuelled by lavish subsidies)the elites have not been willing to contradict government and the green deep state.

    In the early 1990s, when working in a project finance department, my colleagues analysing renewables unanimously recognised the technologies’ total lack of economic viability and their other shortcomings.

    Only recently I have talked to a board member of a large German company who is heavily involved in communicating industry concerns to politicians. He confirmed that the politicians were briefed about the absurd problems of the Energiewende and clearly understood the message, yet chose to continue with the project unabated.

    The extent of corruption and self-enriching cynicism among the German elites is breathtaking. The re-sacralisation of the public discourse under the aegis of green-driven political correctness has ensured levels of disingenuity characteristic of theocracy and despotic socialism, bringing about a shocking atrophy of civil courage among the elites. The masses are Mitläufer as ever.

    A final anecdote to underscore my point that the facts revealing the nonsensical and dangerous character of the green mania were all along known to and sufficiently understood by the elites for them to act according to their duty.

    In the early 1990s, I met a professor of Chemistry who taught at the University of Frankfurt. He happened to sit next to me in a wine bar having some chilly con carne. The gentleman explained at great length to me what fraudulent instruments the climate change models are, confirming that those of his colleagues subscribing to the hype had ulterior motives unrelated to science.

    1. Georg Thomas

      Apologies for double posting. Feel free to remove this reply and one of my two comments of identical content.

  4. Kurt in Switzerland

    Precisely.

    This is what skeptics / realists / individuals with a genuine engineering background have been saying for the past two decades.

    Germany’s Energiewende was a still birth from the outset. The ever-increasing surcharges have managed to keep the thing alive, but at the cost of 24 B Euros annually (to purchase some 1 B Euros of electricity)!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. tom0mason

      Checks and balance does not apply in Euroland. When they require more money they just ginger-up some money wasting project, line-up the crony capitalists at the trough, and print more currency/issue more Euro debt notes, and away they go taxing everyone to try and cover the loss.

      The lack of accountability is a feature of Euroland, just look at how they fiddled their last audit! Everything was in balance until after the audit, then they found that there was 10’s of €BILLIONS missing.

  5. AndyG55

    Re: energy storage.

    Maybe eventually they will realise the extreme dangers of attempting to store large amounts of energy for those long periods of non-production by wind and solar.

    Nature has already figured it out for us, of course.

    We have been using nature’s batteries to power human civilisation for many decades.

    1. Josh

      True.

      In addition to the hazards there is the EROI. EROI values for so-called ‘renewable sources’ are already poor. Attempting to buffer or store the energy of these systems makes them even more so.

      1. SebastianH

        What is the EROI of fossil fuels compared to renewables?

        Meta analysis paper/study:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856

        Hint: renewables like wind and solar (without storage) have a higher EROI than fossil fuels when looking at the usable energy you get from them.

        1. AndyG55

          Poor seb… should read paper first to avoid massive faceplant in own BS

          Specifically, renewable energy sources:•
          are not sufficiently “energy dense”,

          tend to be intermittent,

          lack transportability,

          most have relatively low EROI values (especially when corrections are made for intermittency), and

          currently, lack the infrastructure that is required to meet current societal demands.

          further….

          Most alternative renewable energy sources appear, at this time, to have considerably lower EROI values than any of the non-renewable fossil fuels.

          And seb faceplant BIG TIME. !!! HILARIOUS.

          1. SebastianH

            Totally hilarious:
            https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0301421513003856-gr3.jpg

            As you probably didn’t notice, I wrote “without storage” and used the term “usable energy” (about two thirds of the energy from thermal power plants is lost).

          2. AndyG55

            You seem TOTALLY INCAPABLE of basic comprehension of the content of the paper you cited (nothing at all unusual about that.. science and comprehension have always been at the bottom of your bucket.

            most have relatively low EROI values (especially when corrections are made for intermittency),

            Most alternative renewable energy sources appear, at this time, to have considerably lower EROI values than any of the non-renewable fossil fuels.

            EROI values for PV and other renewable alternatives are generally computed without converting the electricity generated into its “primary energy-equivalent” …. but also without including any of the considerable cost associated with the required energy back-ups or storage

            ie its one great big CON, and you fall for it every time.. GULLIBLE UNAWARE little seb.

            What is it that is so, so hard for you to comprehend and accept????.

            READ THE PAPER, seb, and try to actually COMPREHEND what it really says, instead of DISTORTING to what you wish it said.

            ——

            As for your little diagram. Read the discussion below, and see that “Note: please see text for discussion as all these values should not necessarily be taken at face value.”

            “Coal internationally has a mean EROI of about 46:1”

            “Hydroelectric power generation systems have the highest mean EROI value, 84:1”

            “Wind power has a high EROI value, with the mean perhaps as high as 18:1″ (how can they say HIGH, one wonders)”

            Solar is roughly 10:1

            now multiply wind and solar by their capacity factors.. and the near 100% need for fossil fuel back-up.. and..

            .. watch as seb takes yet another MANIC FACEPLANT into his own BS

          3. Nigel S

            Without tricks from Cambridge; Kelly, M. (2016). Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability. MRS Energy & Sustainability, 3, E3. doi:10.1557/mre.2016.3

            DISCUSSION POINTS
            • Only fossil fuels and nuclear fuels have the ability to power megacities in 2050, when over half of the then 9B people will live in them.
            • As the more severe predictions of climate change over the last 25 years are simply not happening, it makes no sense to deploy the more costly options for renewable energy.
            • Abandoned infrastructure projects (such as derelict wind and solar farms in the Mojave desert) remain to have their progenitors mocked for decades.

          4. SebastianH

            “Coal internationally has a mean EROI of about 46:1”

            “Hydroelectric power generation systems have the highest mean EROI value, 84:1”

            “Wind power has a high EROI value, with the mean perhaps as high as 18:1″ (how can they say HIGH, one wonders)”

            Solar is roughly 10:1

            Yep, and now apply “without converting the electricity generated into its “primary energy-equivalent”” that you highlighted in your quote? Suddenly coal shrinks to about 15:1 …

            Nobody is disputing that storage is a problem and will reduce the EROI of renewables.

            The faceplanting is all yours, clown *sigh*

            If electricity is your goal, then just looking at the amount of energy you can get from investing a certain emount isn’t enough, you need to look for the amount of electricty you can generate from it.

          5. AndyG55

            “you need to look for the amount of electricity you can generate from it.”

            Coal and gas can generate well over 80% of nameplate 24/7

            Wind, well its 80% supply of nameplate is basically NEVER, by your own calculations

            Solar provides NOTHING for more than half the time.

            Multiply wind EROI by its ability to provide as needed.. you get basically ZERO !

            You cannot guarantee to generate ANYTHING!

            Wind and solar are a TOTAL JOKE when you look at how much you can get “on demand”.

            Stop your silly little attention-seeking clown act and clean your face of your BS before your next post.

        2. AndyG55

          Seems seb didn’t even read the abstract !!

          “and most renewable and non-conventional energy alternatives have substantially lower EROI values than traditional conventional fossil fuels.”

          HILARIOUS !!! 🙂

          Very little usable energy from unreliables.

          TOTALLY dependant on 97% back-up from RELIABLES.

          1. Nigel S

            The buffered EROIs from Weißbach D., Ruprech G., Huke A., Czerski K., Gottlieb S. and Hussein A. 2013, referenced in the Cambridge study above. Solar PV (Germany) 1.6, Wind (E-66) 3.9, Solar CSP (desert) 9, CCGT 28, coal 30, hydro (med. size) 35, nuclear (PWR) 75. ‘for a society with international travel and high culture we need EROI greater than 10.’

          2. SebastianH

            Apples to oranges Nigel. You get electricity from Wind and PV. What do you get from burning coal or natural gas?

            Besides: the widely different EROIs from different studies should make one very skeptic. If cost per kWh generated is an indication for the EROI, how does solar PV in Germany reach and EROI of 1.6 vs. a nuclear power plant’s EROI of 75? Solar PV in Germany is below 4 cents/kWh and what are the latest per kWh prices for new nuclear plants like Hinkley Point C? 10 cents or more?

          3. AndyG55

            “You get electricity from Wind and PV.”

            Sometimes.. if you are lucky !!

            INTERMITTENT

            UNRELIABLE

            NEEDS 97% back-up with REAL electricity

            seb you get ELECTRICITY from coal and gas fired power stations, at a MUCH GREATER energy return for your investment

            From your own link..

            “and most renewable and non-conventional energy alternatives have substantially lower EROI values than traditional conventional fossil fuels.”

            Sorry seb remains CLUELESSS about what it is talking about.. and can’t even comprehend the basic words used in its own link.

            But that is seb for you.

          4. AndyG55

            “Apples to oranges Nigel”

            Yes, coal, gas, are cheap, reliable and capable of meeting demand 24/7, and are totally reliant on themselves.

            Wind and solar are expensive, unreliable, totally INCAPABLE of ever meeting demand 24/7, as well as being totally reliant on coal and gas as back-up.

            not really comparing apples to oranges

            but apples to parasites.

          5. AndyG55

            “What do you get from burning coal or natural gas?”

            One of the MASSIVE BENEFITS from burning coal and gas is the replenishment of atmospheric CO2.

            You know, that trace gas that provides sustenance for ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

            I understand you hating yourself… but why do you hate all life on Earth, and why do you want to see it starve ???

          6. AndyG55

            ““What do you get from burning coal or natural gas?””

            You also get incredible RELIABILITY.

            Cheap cost 24/7.

            The ability to ramp to higher demand ON-CALL.
            (gas quite quickly, coal takes a bit longer)

            These are things that wind and solar can NEVER provide

            Coal and gas have built our modern society, as well as saving the planet from atmospheric CO2 deprivation.

            Wind and solar threaten to destroy society through their UNRELIABILITY and COST.

  6. Bitter&twisted

    Well knock me down with a feather
    Who would have known that wind and solar are inherently unreliable?
    Apparently the “experts” have just clocked this after 20-odd years.
    P.S. DNFTT.

  7. Bruce of Newcastle

    So the promoters of Energiewende lied.

    Hopefully now the German government will realise that the promoters of catastrophic global warming also lied.

    It’s sad that German taxpayers will never get their money back.

    1. AndyG55

      “It’s sad that German taxpayers will never get their money back.”

      Nor will the Australia taxpayer, Bruce.

  8. AndyG55

    “had ulterior motives unrelated to science.”

    Apart from the funding, did he happen to mentions what these ulterior motives were?

    Apart from its massive cognitive dissonance, I have often wondered what drives the anti-science of AGW

    1. Georg Thomas

      AndyG55, the answer to your question: media attention, career advantages, money, green faith and sense of mission.

      1. John Doran

        & behind it all is UN Agenda 21: the United Nations plot for this 21st century.

        The 1%s aims are WWIII, the destruction of the industrialised countries, a vast depopulation & a Totalitarian world government. All behind the green cloak of environmentalism:

        http://www.ukcolumn.org

        Scroll down homepage to find box: Agenda 21 Your Life In Their Hands.
        I think it’s a 42 page pdf.
        The Bradbury £ article is interesting also.

        http://www.c3headlines.com
        Click on Quotes.

  9. The history of Climate Change - Page 170 - Historum - History Forums

    […] Sobriety Returning To Germany?Leaders Finally Realizing Green Energies Are Fraught With Huge Obstacl… From the two days of presentations, speeches and discussions, there are clear indicators that German political and industry leaders are “finally” realizing that the Energiewende (transition to green energies) is nowhere near as easy as previously expected and promised to the public. Quote: […]

  10. RickWill

    I note that the misused term “renewable” energy has been replaced with a more apt term “ambient” energy. I like the term “run-whenever-you-like” generation but I guess ambient is not as provocative.

    Anyhow adopting the descriptor ambient is a step in the right direction and is not as misleading as renewable. How many of the existing German wind turbines will be renewed when they reach the end of their life and what fuel source will be used in their manufacture for any that are replaced (renewed)?

    1. AndyG55

      Pierre, is there something wrong with the cookies?

      I keep having to re-enter my name and email.

      1. tom0mason

        AndyG55,
        You are not alone, it has changed recently (Now it’s like principia-scientific·org.)

  11. Alan Tomalty

    In Ontario Canada you can get a $14000 subsidy for buying an electric car. There are big rumours that the subsidy will come off soon if the Conservatives win the election in a few weeks. How many people do you think will buy an electric car after the subsidies come off?

  12. Gerald the Mole

    In the UK the major problem is that the ruling political class have zero knowledge of science and technology.

  13. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    Just How Bad Is It?

    Well, as Dr. Soon explains, it’s REALLY bad, especially as we see the IPCC explicitly endorses lying to further global socialism.**
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk

    “100% corrupt” leaves little room for a foothold, which implies…

    With all the corruption in place, a return to scientific sanity CANNOT be made in a smooth and seamless transition. There will be resistance from all those whose careers have been built on the hoax, which is most of them at the top. They cannot “come clean” now, as they would have to admit they’ve had no scientific integrity up to now, and so how do we know they can be trusted any more? It will not be pretty.

    So, while coming to the realization that “renewable energy” is a scam may be a good beginning, we still have to fix the problem. And with all the entrenched special interests, useful fools and powerful influential “leaders” who cannot lead, it will be a very imposing challenge.

    I do think it can be done, but it will require a paradigm shift and real leaders who are doubtless out there, but not yet on the radar.

    **(socialism didn’t work locally, so lets get everyone on board and see what happens! MALICIOUS FOOLS)

  14. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    Sobriety? No. They haven’t even gotten to the hangover yet. And in their case they are going to have to go through the D.T.’s even before they get to that. …long way to go.

    And, speaking of sober, here’s a Green who has some common sense left when it comes to ruinables.
    https://newmatilda.com/2018/05/23/flooded-valleys-burning-forests-global-face-renewable-energy-part-ii/

    Problem is, one or two sane people stranded on the crazy train to nowhere cannot stop it on time, and by “on time,” I mean decades ago before it left the station, not when it’s almost arrived at it’s final destination.
    https://media.giphy.com/media/c1cAR1olDxh1S/giphy.gif

  15. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

    Speaking of “sobriety,” here’s a note on some sanity from Scotland.
    http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2018/05/church-of-scotland-votes-for-common.html

  16. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #317

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