German National Daily ‘Die Welt’ On CO2 Reduction: “Why Has It Been 5 To Midnight 30 Years Long?”

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

Sustainable alarm, unending hoax. Commentary at Germany’s ‘Die Welt’: Why has the climate-last-chance alarm been blaring 30 years long now? And why has the planet today “suddenly” just been given yet another 20 years by experts?

Remember how in 2007 Al Gore warned we had only 10 more years to act?

Well, those 10 years have long since expired, and that deadline came and went without the planet changing much. Embarrassed, global warming alarmists quietly pushed the doomsday back once again. And this time it was for real.

This game has been going on for years now.

Today, business journalist Daniel Wetzel here in a commentary at German national daily Die Welt finally is wondering why it’s been “5 to midnight for 30 years now”!

At Twitter here Wetzel remarked:

The end of the world has been postponed: the -budget is now larger than what was given by the last -report. Suddenly 20 years more time, reduction INDCs made in Paris are now enough. When it comes to climate change why has it been 5 to midnight for the last 30 years?”

Doomsday pushed back again…by 20 years!

All the climate alarms of the past 30 years have turned out to be false, and Wetzel notes above that the doomsday clock once again has been reset to give us yet another 20 years!

Over the past 30 years humanity has in fact prospered immensely, and we still get our winters, the globe is barely warmer, storms have not been getting worse, and a number of serious studies show no significant sea level rise acceleration.

But this time, the alarmists say, the next 20 years will really be our last chance.

One reader at Twitter commented that it’s “acid rain scare reloaded.”

German power grid turns record costly, inefficient

If anything has changed because of “climate change”, it’s Germany’s electric power supply system. It’s gotten much more unstable and far more expensive because of all the volatile wind and solar power coming online.

In a  recent commentary at the online Die Welt, Mr. Wetzel wrote that Germany’s power grid has become highly unstable and expensive for consumers, mostly due to all the volatile green energies that forced fed into the country’s grid.

According to Wetzel, German consumers were forced to pay a record amount of money “for stabilizing the power grid under the conditions of the Energiewende.”

1.4 billion euros just to keep grid stable

Citing an annual report from the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Power Grid Agency), power consumers paid a total of 1.4 billion euros for emergency interventions into the power grid, and thus smashing the previous high of 1.1 billion euros set in 2015.

Wetzel also reports that green energy production systems also had to be shut down at times because there was no place to send the unneeded power. Wetzel writes:

With excessive wind power feed in the north, the current leads to a dangerous overloading of the too few power transmission lines.”

The ordered shutdowns cost consumers an additional 610 million euros, Wetzel reported. Solar and wind system operators get paid for the energy they don’t produce when ordered to shut down.

Grid interventions almost daily

Wetzel adds that interventions to keep the grid stable occurred almost daily, and that grid operators ordered the shutdown of parks to keep unwanted power from getting fed into the grid (wind park operators still got paid even for the power they never produced). According to Wetzel, grid overload situation occurred on 353 days last year.

German power rates among the highest in the world

Currently German consumers are being saddled with surcharges of 6.96 euro-cents per kilowatt hour just for the grid fees alone and another 6.69 euro-cents for kilowatt hour for the green energy feed-in, the Die Welt commentary writes.

Currently the average German consumer pays 29.44 euro-cents per kilowatt hour, of which about 16 euro-cents are made up of taxes, various fees, and surcharges, Wetzel reports.

In large part due to the Energiewende, Germany’s electricity prices for consumers have skyrocketed over the past decade.

 

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

42 responses to “German National Daily ‘Die Welt’ On CO2 Reduction: “Why Has It Been 5 To Midnight 30 Years Long?””

  1. Ron Clutz

    Whoops. We went past midnight and nothing happened.

    https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/doomsday_clock2.png

  2. Doug Proctor

    Wouldn’t the solution be to nationalize the energy system and then shut stuff in without compensation …. oh, right! More mad government control!
    How about: build at your risk. We might not buy it ….oh, right! Then it won’t get built. Hmmm. That would actually work.

    1. Josh

      I tend to agree. Here in Australia our current energy crisis has been largely a product of green market failure and privatisation. The only solution from here is to nationalise our power infrastructure and pull the cord on green energy scams.

      1. Steve

        John, I think we would have more problems and pricier energy if nationalising ocurred.
        Get out of the road of private enterprise, no subsidies, plenty of competition and all will be good.

  3. Bitter&twisted

    Insane energy prices and grid instability are not “bugs” of renewables, but features.

    1. SebastianH

      Not necessarily. Any country just starting now has far lower costs for installing solar panels and wind turbines than Germany had in the past.

      Current kWh price for free standing solar power plants is 0.0459 € (lowest bid was 0.0389 €):
      https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Ausschreibungen/Solaranlagen/BeendeteAusschreibungen/Ausschreibungen2018/Ausschreibungen2018_node.html

      kWh price for onshore wind is 0.0473 €:
      https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Ausschreibungen/Wind_Onshore/BeendeteAusschreibungen/BeendeteAusschreibungen_node.html

      offshore 0.0466 €:
      https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Service-Funktionen/Beschlusskammern/1BK-Geschaeftszeichen-Datenbank/BK6-GZ/2018/2018_0001bis0999/BK6-18-001/Ergebnisse_zweite_ausschreibung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3

      And it should be obvious that Germany has far less Sun than more southern countries. Cheaper rates should be possible.

      1. AndyG55

        Any country just starting now needs RELIABILITY !!

        You cannot “build” or “progress”with irregular electricity supply.

        1. SebastianH

          This needs clarification. What do you mean by “just starting now” and/or what do you think I meant by that sentence?

          You cannot “build” or “progress”with irregular electricity supply.

          Please name the instances when a country like Germany hat irregular electricity supply? (I suppose you mean blackouts by that)

  4. Yonason

    “Today, business journalist Daniel Wetzel … is wondering why it’s been “5 to midnight for 30 years now”!”

    A broken clock is right twice a day. A broken calendar can only be right once, and then only if the deadline hasn’t passed.

    Stop wondering already, Daniel. Their con game is busted. Put your wallet back in your pocket, laugh in their faces and walk away.

  5. Penelope

    Anybody in Montreal? World Congress of ICLEI, the global NGO tasked w implementing Agendas 21 & 30 at the local level. Those Agendas are of course to transform society and governance to save us from our unsustainable development, of which AGW is a part.

    ICLEI World Congress is June 19-22.

    Perhaps you think things will go back to normal as AGW is disproved? They haven’t spent trillions on AGW, “water scarcity”, “overpopulation” &– bless me– “a shortage of jobs” to give up.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    Daniel Wetzel?

    Is this the first we have heard from him?
    Perhaps he has just started his career in journalism
    and does not realize he is offering his head to the green machine.

    I’m impressed, and wish him well.

    1. Yonason

      Pierre has posted articles by him in the past. I recognize the name because of close personal friends I have who are also Wetzels.

  7. Henning Nielsen

    Well OF COURSE we have 20 more years! If not, if it had already been too late, then what would be the point of any more “climate” research? We would be going down the drain, no hope left, sauve qui peut, no more time for predictions when disaster is upon us! So, in order to save mankind, nature and climate scientists, the doomsday clock has been turned back. And my prediction, backed by model-calculations on my 25-year old calculator (with solar power!) is that it will not be the last time either.

  8. SebastianH

    Well, those 10 years have long since expired, and that deadline came and went without the planet changing much

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2007/offset:-0.43/mean:12/to:2018/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2007/offset:-0.26/mean:12/to:2018/plot/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.13/from:2007/to:2018/plot/uah6/mean:12/from:2007/to:2018

    Almost no change … riiiiiiiight.

    If anything has changed because of “climate change”, it’s Germany’s electric power supply system. It’s gotten much more unstable and far more expensive because of all the volatile wind and solar power coming online.

    Why this tendency to make everything more dramatic than it is?
    https://www.netzfrequenz.info/allgemein/aktuelle-netzfrequenz-vs-vorjahresdaten.html

    Yes, there is now more work envolved to stabilize the frequency, but the frequency is far from being unstable, very far. The biggest “threat” were those power non-deliveries earlier this year that caused the shift in clocks depending on the power grid’s frequency.

    Change in the electricity sector: from 15.4% renewables in 2007 to 41.1% in 2018
    https://energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all

    In a recent commentary at the online Die Welt, Mr. Wetzel wrote

    That “veteran” journalist Wetzel? Oh please … it certainly makes sense that you are a fan of this author.

    In large part due to the Energiewende, Germany’s electricity prices for consumers have skyrocketed over the past decade.

    Come on, no mention of the super high energy poverty percentage in Germany? Have you compared it to other countries with lower electricity prices yet? 😉

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Change in the electricity sector: from 15.4% renewables in 2007 to 41.1% in 2018 [links to a graph of renewables production].

      Wind and solar combined to provide 3.3% of Germany’s total energy consumption in 2016. That’s rather inconvenient. Most “renewables” consumed in Germany are from biomass burning, which is a net source of CO2 emissions (and worse than fossil fuels).

      https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/img1.png

      1. SebastianH

        Wind and solar combined to provide 3.3% of Germany’s total energy consumption in 2016. That’s rather inconvenient.

        Why is that inconvenient? And didn’t you notice that we were talking about the electric grid? Why are you attempting to downplay wind/solar by using a small number that is also fast growing and likely to grow very fast when significant percentages of vehicles switch to electric motors in the 2020s and primary consumption decreases with this growth?

        https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Infografiken/Energie/Energiedaten/Energiegewinnung-und-Energieverbrauch/energiedaten-energiegewinnung-verbrauch-03.html

        3.9% in 2017.

        Most “renewables” consumed in Germany are from biomass burning, which is a net source of CO2 emissions (and worse than fossil fuels).

        We discussed this already. It’s based on the assumption that biomass burning is not done in a sustainable fashion (e.g. gas providing plants or biomatter burned doesn’t get re-planted) and the fact that burning wood for the same amount of energy releases more CO2 than burning coal. An assumption that is very definitely wrong, but it sounds so good in pseudoskeptics ears, right? So hey, another soundbite you can repeat over and over … just like wind/solar not growing exponentially or wind/solar not saving CO2 emissions in Germany.

        It’s not a good strategy to post such things without questioning them. Thought you were a skeptic?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Wind and solar combined to provide 3.3% of Germany’s total energy consumption in 2016. That’s rather inconvenient.

          Why is that inconvenient?

          You are welcome to believe that a 3.3% consumption share for heavily-subsidized (on the backs of Germany’s poor) wind and solar is a good thing.

          An assumption [biofuel use raises CO2 emissions] that is very definitely wrong, but it sounds so good in pseudoskeptics ears, right?

          We just report what the science says. You can go on opining about what you believe.

          DeCicco et al., 2016
          https://phys.org/news/2016-08-biofuels-decrease-heat-trapping-carbon-dioxide.html
          Biofuels increase, rather than decrease, heat-trapping carbon dioxide … The researchers conclude that rising biofuel use has been associated with a net increase—rather than a net decrease, as many have claimed—in the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.”

          1. SebastianH

            You are welcome to believe that a 3.3% [3.9%!] consumption share for heavily-subsidized (on the backs of Germany’s poor) wind and solar is a good thing.

            Does calling everything a belief really work for you? And there it is, the reference to Germany’s poor *sigh*

            Yes, wind and solar are a good thing. And we have just been starting to make use of it.

            We just report what the science says. You can go on opining about what you believe.

            That was a good one. You are reporting what science that confirms your bias says. The science you like or can misinterpret in a way that supports your suspicion that you are being fooled by the climate elite scam people.

            P.S.: You know what, photovoltaics also need more energy to make them than they ever will produce themselves. Right? That is “science” that was and is shared by “skeptics” too. Notice a pattern?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Does calling everything a belief really work for you?

            It’s probably been working about as well as the “pseudoskeptic” name-calling thing has been working for you.

          3. AndyG55

            “You are reporting what science that confirms your bias says”

            And seb is reporting ZERO science.. especially NONE that comnfirms his massive brain-hose bias.

            ZERO-SCIENCE seb.

          4. AndyG55

            “Does calling everything a belief really work for you? “

            Certainly the ONLY thing you have.

            RABID anti-science cult-like belief.

            Just chant the AGW mantra, seb.

          5. tom0mason

            “It’s probably been working about as well as the “pseudoskeptic” name-calling thing has been working for you.”

            No Kenneth, please say it’s so infuriating, ‘believe’ it’s so, I do 😉 .
            That way the deranged troll ‘believes’ he’s controlling the conversation. But, I don’t take what fools says seriously.

    2. MrZ
      1. SebastianH
        1. MrZ

          Yes, 1987-1997 was indeed dramatic…NOT so much 😎

          http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1987/offset/mean:1/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/offset/mean:1/to:1997

          Looks like your bank only give a good return during El Niño periods…

          1. AndyG55

            Let’s add to that the TWO NON-warming period that seb has highlighted.

            No warming from 1980-1997

            https://s19.postimg.cc/kr0uu9cz7/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png

            And no warming from 2001-2015

            https://s19.postimg.cc/jcuv319ir/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png

            So NO WARMING for 32 out of 39 years. !

            Then just those SOLAR powered El Ninos

          2. SebastianH

            So NO WARMING for 32 out of 39 years. !

            It doesn’t work that way, AndyG55. But nice try.

            Since apparently one can do anything with graphs and make up something hilarious, here is the 1980 to 2018 timespan as derivatives:
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/compress:12/derivative/to:2018

            23 years saw an increase in temperature (value above 0) which makes the total temperature increase around 2.2°C. I’ll ignore the rest since it was totally natural cooling or something …

            See, I can play this “ignore” game too 😉

          3. AndyG55

            It DID work that way seb

            That is what the DATA shows.

            ONLY El Nino events.

            GET OVER IT, and stop trying to invent things that JUST AREN’T THERE.

        2. AndyG55

          Nice graph seb,

          CLEARLY shows the ZERO-WARMING between El Ninos.

          Seems you have finally got around to the fact that the warming has only come from ocean events, and NOT the atmosphere. So SOLAR energy, not Co2.

          Glad to see you finally realise that, since CO2 cannot trap heat in the oceans or cause any other ocean warming, that there is NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in any of the temperature data.

          Maybe you are finally waking up to reality.

        3. Newminster

          1985-1996: flat; 1997 El Niño spike; 1998-2015: flat (including the 2010 El Niño spike). Net uplift about 0.06° caused by the 1997 El Niño.

          Too soon to say what the effect of the 2016 El Niño on the trend will be but there is nothing startling happening. Apart from the El Niños there is no reliable trend at all — certainly no evidence of any CO2 effect and nothing to give the alarmists comfort.

          1. MrZ

            True, but CO2 must still be the reason somehow…
            CO2 backradiation can not heat the oceans because it’s wavelengths can not penetrate. But maybe it just tickles oceans on the surface causing a sneeze ie El Niño?

            Jokes aside 2018 will be remembered as the year when this scam fell apart.

          2. SebastianH

            Apart from the El Niños there is no reliable trend at all — certainly no evidence of any CO2 effect and nothing to give the alarmists comfort.

            If you believe so, it must be true then.

            True, but CO2 must still be the reason somehow…
            CO2 backradiation can not heat the oceans because it’s wavelengths can not penetrate.

            MrZ says it’s true, so it must be. And of course he is in the camp that imagines that the other side is saying that the radiation from CO2 is warming the oceans. Who would have thought …

            Has nothing to do with penetration. Or do you think solid objects with heat sources do not warm when you introduce isolation between them and their previous heatsink?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH:

            Or do you think solid objects with heat sources do not warm when you introduce isolation between them and their previous heatsink?

            We’re talking about heating the ocean. The ocean is made of water. Water is a liquid. Water is not a solid object, SebastianH.

          4. AndyG55

            seb

            CO2 has NOTHING to do with the solar forced warming of the oceans, either seb

            “solid objects with heat sources do not warm “

            The ocean is NOT a solid object, it is liquid

            It does NOT have its own heat source

            Nor is CO2 any sort of insulation.

            It does NOT stop any energy from escaping, just channels it through a different route.

          5. AndyG55

            “the other side is saying that the radiation from CO2 is warming the oceans.”

            LOL… seb has FINALLY realised he was massively wrong about CO2 warming oceans.

            Tiny wobbly steps toward FACTS and TRUTH, seb

            Next: the FACT that CO2 is NOT an insulator or “blanket” (lol) of any sort.

          6. MrZ

            “And of course he is in the camp that imagines that the other side is saying that the radiation from CO2 is warming the oceans”

            To be exact, because CO2 back radiation can absolutely not penetrate the oceans and hence heat it like wavelengths from the sun does their strawman argument is instead:

            CO2 back radiation makes the “cools skin layer” (0.1-1mm thick) warmer and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to the atmosphere.

            Believe this is significant if you want…

          7. AndyG55

            I’ve never seem anyone, anywhere come up with a scientifically rational or coherent “mechanism” by which increased atmospheric CO2 can make oceans warmer.

            I would love to hear what his “mechanism” (lol) is..

            … with scientific, measurable proof, of course. 😉

          8. SebastianH

            We’re talking about heating the ocean. The ocean is made of water. Water is a liquid. Water is not a solid object, SebastianH.

            We are talking about penetration being necessary to warm something. This is basic physics.

            I love how AndyG55 came back to this thread every few hours to comment something new to it. And each and every comment of his is full of misunderstandings, willfully or accidentally.

            The mechanism is simple. The ocean has a heat source, the Sun. When the heat that it receives is greater than the heat that is loses, it warms up until that is not the case anymore. When backradiation increases, the (net) radiative output decreases accordingly … which causes such an imbalance. It’s really simple and fairly basic physics.

            There is no penetration of radiation involved in this process, neither is the backradiation directly warming anything as long as it is less than what the object emits radiationwise.

          9. tom0mason

            Yes Kenneth,
            “Or do you think solid objects with heat sources do not warm when you introduce isolation between them and their previous heatsink?

            We’re talking about heating the ocean. The ocean is made of water. Water is a liquid. Water is not a solid object, SebastianH.”

            And similarly with so called ‘back radiation’ from clouds do not ‘reflect’ IR energy as clouds are not solid. On both sides these dynamically mobile fluids do not act as the popular theory would have us believe.

  9. Experts Give Earth Another 20 Years Till Doomsday After Last Year’s Deadline Passed – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  10. German National Daily 'Die Welt' On CO2 Reduction: "Why Has It Been 5 To Midnight 30 Years Long?" | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, June 20, 2018 in […]

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