Germany Goes Green …Shocking Video How “Wind Turbine Plantations” Are Ruining The Country’s Natural Heritage

What follows is a roughly 4-minute video which shows how Germany has transformed a large part of its once idyllic landscape into an industrial wasteland littered by wind turbines – all in the name of environmentalism.

Video: http://ww-vb.de/

And it warns that if wind energy movement continues in Germany, the entire country will look like the images shown.

The video starts by showing the earlier beauty of the German landscape, which once had inspired a number of fairy tales. Next the video shows what happened once a group of “green” industrialists and totally misguided “environmentalists” got their way and plastered the country with some 30,000 turbines.

At the 1-minute mark the video tells viewers that the EEG feed-in act made the destruction possible. The power which can be guaranteed to be delivered at any given time? Close to zero.

And: “No region will be spared.”

If Germany wishes to provide a large share of it’s primary energy through wind power, then some 10 times the number of turbines will need to be installed.

The video ends with the message:

The windfarms with the new 200-meter wind turbines and their intrusion into to the landscape, poor economy, social structure and ignoring the completely random power generation – unthinkable!

In Europe if everyone wanted to have their say and decide, it would be necessary to conduct and discuss years long environmental and social compatibility studies, and have to comply with the laws governing water and species protection as well as to regulate compensation for damages arising from real estate value losses etc.

Wind turbine plantations of the magnitude found in Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, Schleswig Holstein and Vogelsberg can only be implemented by an authoritarian political system that is characterized by a high degree of corruption, contempt for human rights and protection of nature.”

Sad.

This is what happens when a virulent ideology takes over common sense.

45 responses to “Germany Goes Green …Shocking Video How “Wind Turbine Plantations” Are Ruining The Country’s Natural Heritage”

  1. BobW in NC

    Pierre – Am passing on all your posts to my friends over here in the US to show them the horror these things are.

    Thank you thank you for taking the time to research, write-up, and post them.

  2. SebastianH

    http://ww-vb.de/ is a fun website.

    This is what happens when a virulent ideology takes over common sense.

    Nah, this is what happens when the Wind Turbine Syndrome gets a hold of you 😉

    If Germany wishes to provide a large share of it’s primary energy through wind power, then some 10 times the number of turbines will need to be installed.

    Define the share and then imagine that wind turbines like the ones in the fun video above are actually just 1 MW turbines (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windparks_in_Ulrichstein) while the current average for new turbines is probably around or above 3 MW.

    6 years ago there was this study from the Fraunhofer institute:
    https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/studie-100-erneuerbare-energien-fuer-strom-und-waerme-in-deutschland.pdf

    100% renewables for electricity and heating. Unfortunately they don’t seem to have an up-to-date version of the study, but at the time they suggested 85 GW of offshore wind and 200 GW of onshore wind would be enough (together with 252 GW solar and 5 GW hydro). Currently installed offshore turbines are at 6.22 GW and onshore 53.02 GW. So less than 4 times the amount of onshore turbines and 14 times the amount of offshore turbines (or a totlal 5.7 times increase of both added up) are needed in the case of a 100% coverage. So how large is your “large share”?

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      Take the challenge, Seb!

      Pack your sleeping bag and your tent and camp out underneath a 3 MW Wind Turbine of your choice for a week.

      Let us know how it went once you’re done.

      Give it a rest for a while in the meantime. (You don’t have a logical argument to present, in any case).

      Be well, and enjoy the interglacial.

    2. K. Pool

      Sebastian, you know very well that 100% ‘coverage’ is unattainable. The best that can be expected is about 60% (your number) for the simple reason that no industrial scale storage exists and in all likelihood never will. Your windmill capacity argument is a red herring.

      Don’t start armwaving and list all the hare brained (and always hellishly expensive) storage schemes bandied about over the last years. The latest candidates are lithium batteries such as Tesla’s ‘huge, biggest ever lithium battery'(BFB) for South Australia.

      As an illustration, I hope you have followed the laboratory experiment on ‘El Hierro’ (pop. 10,000)where the hard numbers show that even with an adequate number of wind generated GWhrs per annum, the existing pumped storage capacity falls short by a factor of 20.
      Therefore, 20ea Tesla BFB lithium batteries would be needed for 100% RE, since one has the same storage capacity as the El Hierro reservoir, about 150MWh.
      So, for a population of about 10,000 persons or 2500HH (household units, pronounced ‘hoho’), it follows that one BFB is needed per 125 HHs.
      For fun, punch up pictures of Elon’s battery and now imagine 125 houses(HHs) around it and scale this up for Germany.

      Meanwhile on El Hierro, lacking BFBs, three power systems are maintained and paid for: five Enercon windmills with a combined capacity of 12+ MW, a complete pumped storage facility with a generating capacity of 10+ MW, 150MWh storage when full and of course a backup array of diesel generators with a combined capacity of 15MW or so. This last number from memory, you can look it up from Euan Mearns and Roger Andrew’s excellent website, http://euanmearns.com/

      The El Hierro lab experiment does not bode well for the Energiewende despite all these windmills screwing up the landscape.

      1. SebastianH

        Sebastian, you know very well that 100% ‘coverage’ is unattainable. The best that can be expected is about 60% (your number) for the simple reason that no industrial scale storage exists and in all likelihood never will.

        The storage doesn’t exist yet because there is no need for storage yet. You seem to remember that 60% figure which was something the beloved (by skeptics) Prof. Sinn wrote … up until then there is no real need for storage.

        But since we are, let’s check current numbers. Let’s say Germany needs 100 GWh for shortterm storage and covers the rest with natural gas (as in the study). This would result in similar sized natural gas imports as we have today, so a better than nothing alternative should power2gas not provide.

        1 kWh at $200 with 5000 cycles makes those batteries cost around $20 billion or around $1.5 billion per year if they cycle daily. That’s a a 0.x cent markup on the kWh price assuming total consumption is somewhere between 500 to 1000 TWh per year.

        Any objections? So why should that not work? Producing 100 GWh of battery storage isn’t particularly hard when you have a car industry which needs those batteries as well.

        ‘El Hierro’

        There are enough examples where it works. Also prices continue to decrease rapidly, so where is the problem? Islands are difficult because you can’t share resources with a large population.

        his last number from memory, you can look it up from Euan Mearns and Roger Andrew’s excellent website, http://euanmearns.com/

        Sorry, but links to this website … [snip: blah blah blah – if source doesn’t fit narrative, then pretend it’s not reputable. Sorry but not again, seb. -PG].

        Have fun arguing against windmills and storage in the future. Bringing up imaginary reasons why it can’t work wont stop this development towards renewables.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Have fun arguing against windmills and storage in the future. Bringing up imaginary reasons why it can’t work wont stop this development towards renewables.

          The reasons aren’t “imaginary” that wind power is not going to be the energy of the future.

        2. K. Pool

          Sebastian, for once be realistic. The 60% came from you so you must have believed Dr. Sinn. Hard numbers again, no armwaving.

          100 GWh of batteries is a joke when tens of TWhs would be necessary for 100% RE. You have conceded that by planning to cover that shortfall with natural gas which was my point: no 100% RE.

          You asked: “any objections [to the 100GWh battery scheme]? So why should that not work?”
          You answer your own question: “This would result in similar sized natural gas imports as we have today”. So why do it at all? Just for the joy of plunking down $20 billion? Another red herring.

          Next point. You stated under ‘El Hierro’ “There are enough examples where it works”. I would be most interested in at least one link.
          Islands should be prime venues to try out 100% RE, especially islands with a small population.
          BTW, Tesla just increased the prices on their ‘powerwalls’.

          Judging by Pierre’s moderation, you seem to ad hom Roger Andrews who does a stellar job on everything regarding energy with actual numbers, great graphs etc.
          You turn out to be just a naysayer for the sake of saying nay.
          I’m disappointed, you would have been far more productive as a true devil’s advocate on this blog instead of blindly spouting dogma.

          1. SebastianH

            Sebastian, for once be realistic. The 60% came from you so you must have believed Dr. Sinn. Hard numbers again, no armwaving.

            Yes, be realistic! Don’t expect storage to be non-existent or impossible to achieve!

            100 GWh of batteries is a joke when tens of TWhs would be necessary for 100% RE. You have conceded that by planning to cover that shortfall with natural gas which was my point: no 100% RE.

            Repeat after me: you can’t use batteries for long term storage! 100 GWh is realistic. In the study linked the natural gas comes from biogas and power2gas, but could as well be imported in the transitional phase. My point was that we wouldn’t need to import more than we do now if that turns out to be the only way to supply the backup generators / winter-time power plants.

            So why do it at all? Just for the joy of plunking down $20 billion? Another red herring.

            Huh? Why do it at all? Replacing coal and oil in electricity and heating is nothing worth doing? Right … skeptics and their believes.

            Next point. You stated under ‘El Hierro’ “There are enough examples where it works”. I would be most interested in at least one link.

            Portugal managed to run a month on renewables (electricity only).

            Islands should be prime venues to try out 100% RE, especially islands with a small population.

            No, you need scale. Renewables and storage work best when the grid is large. Island installations are always more expensive per person.

            Judging by Pierre’s moderation, you seem to ad hom Roger Andrews who does a stellar job on everything regarding energy with actual numbers, great graphs etc.
            You turn out to be just a naysayer for the sake of saying nay.

            Nope, if skeptics are allowed to say certain stuff is not a reputable source here, then you guys should also allows us regular folks to point out when you guys link to stuff that is not a reputable source at all, especially all things Euan Mearns.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Huh? Why do it at all? Replacing coal and oil in electricity and heating is nothing worth doing? Right …

            It depends on what the coal and oil is being replaced with. Intermittent and unreliable wind and solar? Nuclear? Natural gas?

            Portugal managed to run a month on renewables (electricity only).

            Due predominantly to hydropower, not wind/solar.

            https://qz.com/1245048/portugal-generated-enough-renewable-energy-to-power-the-whole-country-in-march/
            The grid only ran on 100% renewables for relatively short periods: two 70 hour spans (Portugal managed a four-day streak in 2016). But imports and conventional generation from natural gas were still needed to balance the grid because solar and wind can vary significantly. The proposition that a full year’s worth of peaks and valleys can be managed with renewables alone has yet to be tested. During the same period last year, renewables supplied only 6% of Portugal’s electricity (thanks in part to a drought that reduced its hydro capacity).”

          3. Yonason

            @K.Pool

            You’ll never get a straight answer from SebH, as you are no doubt aware

            Just a couple of links of interest w/r to “storage” which indicate that SebH is, as usual, totally wrong.

            1 – It won’t solve the problem because even if it were ever technically feasible, it will always be physically impossible.
            https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

            Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization.

            2 – Because of “1,” as well as the intermittency and insufficiency of “renewables,” 100% backup will always be required.
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/05/new-study-concludes-europe-will-always-require-100-back-up-by-conventional-energy/#sthash.ckBof0gI.3UAp9lzz.dpbs

            But how does he answer you when you point out problems to him? Like this…

            “Don’t expect storage to be non-existent or impossible to achieve!”SebH

            Just his usual pronouncements of certainty, made up based on blind faith in the doctrines of his wasteful and destructive cult.

          4. SebastianH

            It depends on what the coal and oil is being replaced with. Intermittent and unreliable wind and solar? Nuclear? Natural gas?

            In Germany primarily wind and solar. Other countries might find some way to get nuclear economical. Replacing it with natural gas is not the long term goal.

            Due predominantly to hydropower, not wind/solar.

            Hydro can be a very good “storage” system. Hydro accounted for 55% of the consumption, wind 42% in that month.

            Anyway, it can be done now even though we are mostly at the start of this exponential curve. Wait another decade and you’ll see more and more examples where it just works and will be economical. Stabilizing the power grid with batteries is also far superior to using spinning mass.

            The only problem I see is seasonal storage.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            In Germany primarily wind and solar.

            https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cm1-1.png

            Wind and solar combined provided just 4.1% of Germany’s overall energy consumption in 2017. Fossil fuels represented 80% of the share. Biomass burning (which increases CO2 emissions even though it’s believed to be carbon neutral) made up the bulk of Germany’s “renewables” consumption (7.1% of total consumption), meaning that about 87% of Germany’s total energy consumption came from net sources of CO2 emission.

            Wait another decade and you’ll see more and more examples where it just works and will be economical.

            In another decade more and more countries will be pulling away from building more wind turbines (and spending the money to replace all the broken ones).

          6. K. Pool

            @ Yonason.

            For some reason, the ‘reply’ button disappeared at your reply to me so I’ll put it here, apologies.

            Thanks for your observations, much appreciated and yes, our buddy Sebastian is a true demagogue. I’m also pretty sure he damn well knows that biogas is an unscalable dead end, p2g is a criminal waste of expensive windpower and that Portugal was mostly hydro.

            His most telling remark comes at the end of his screed:
            “when you guys link to stuff that is not a reputable source at all, especially all things Euan Mearns”.

            This is beyond belief and totally confirms your last paragraph. Blind faith, indeed.

            Cheers,
            Kees.

          7. SebastianH

            Wind and solar combined provided just 4.1% of Germany’s overall energy consumption in 2017.

            “provided” … we are talking about the future here. Not everyone is stuck in the past, Kenneth.

            Biomass burning (which increases CO2 emissions even though it’s believed to be carbon neutral)

            Doesn’t become true the more you repeat it. Next you’ll argue wind turbines increase emissions or something like that … it’s always the same with you skeptics.

            In another decade more and more countries will be pulling away from building more wind turbines (and spending the money to replace all the broken ones).

            Not a chance. Solar and wind will be everywhere. Or are you expecting nuclear fission/fusion will become economical in that decade and the goto solution to reducing CO2 emissions by then? 😉

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “provided” … we are talking about the future here.

            We’re talking about what happened in 2017! Less than a year ago, which is effectively the present. We have no idea what the future looks like.

            But isn’t it interesting that, 10-15 years after the commencement of Energiewende, 87% of Germany’s energy consumption came from fossil fuels and biomass?

            Biomass burning (which increases CO2 emissions even though it’s believed to be carbon neutral)

            Doesn’t become true the more you repeat it.

            Whether it’s true or not has nothing to do with whether or not I repeat it. Believers themselves are publishing these results in peer-reviewed scientific papers.

            https://news.umich.edu/study-biofuels-increase-rather-than-decrease-heat-trapping-carbon-dioxide-emissions/
            “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.”

            In another decade more and more countries will be pulling away from building more wind turbines (and spending the money to replace all the broken ones).

            Not a chance.

            It’s happening already.

            https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/wind-power-growth-set-to-slow-in-europe-during-2018.html

            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/u-s-wind-growth-slows-thanks-to-tax-policy-meant-to-boost-it

            https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/wind-industry-calls-special-auctions-amid-expansion-slowdown

            Or are you expecting nuclear fission/fusion will become economical in that decade and the goto solution to reducing CO2 emissions by then?

            I’m expecting governments to continue to find blowing money on wind installation is not advantageous economically or politically. Fossil fuel growth (and biomass burning, increasing CO2 emissions) will continue unabated.

          9. SebastianH

            Yonason,

            1 – It won’t solve the problem because even if it were ever technically feasible, it will always be physically impossible.
            https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

            This is why I like you skeptics so much. You always come up with stuff like this EROI legend of solar, etc being the downfall of civilization. You go on and believe what you want, doesn’t make it real though …

            Your beloved Euan Mearns has a post about this too … I wonder why you didn’t link to him? Here: http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/

            Feel free to read this “rebuttal” paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066

            2 – Because of “1,” as well as the intermittency and insufficiency of “renewables,” 100% backup will always be required.

            No kidding, captain obvious. Yes, backup will be required. Batteries can only provide for so long until gas generators need to run. And since it makes no sense economically to recharge batteries with gas generators those will have to be able to cover 100% of the power requirement at times. Their average capacity factor however will not be higher than it is today.

            “Don’t expect storage to be non-existent or impossible to achieve!” – SebH

            Just his usual pronouncements of certainty, made up based on blind faith in the doctrines of his wasteful and destructive cult.

            Considering who this is coming from … well, never mind. You seem to be certain that battery technology is a dead end and will not further improve or become cheaper respectively once actually needed on larger scales than a few EVs in 2018.

            @K. Pool:

            I’m also pretty sure he damn well knows that biogas is an unscalable dead end

            Everyone knows this, that is kind of obvious, don’t you think? Nobody is arguing here that biogas will provide for all backup energy needs that could ever occur.

            p2g is a criminal waste of expensive windpower

            Wasting power is criminal. Storage does not make sense until you have power generation that actually produces more power at times than we can consume. And once batteries are full you can either turn off solar panels and wind turbines or use the surplus to generate hydrogen/methane. The generated amount could be enough to cover the backup and seasonal variations, at least according to the Fraunhofer study above.

            Portugal was mostly hydro.

            Yes, hydro is a good way to augment wind/solar especially in a country where renewables don’t regularly generate surpluses. Wind provided 42% of the consumption in Portugal that month, hydro 55%.

            .

          10. Yonason

            @K. Pool 2. November 2018 at 4:05 PM

            After a number of replies in a given thread the “reply” button is no longer an option. One then has to go to the last “reply” button in that thread, and then indicate in your response who you are responding to. It’s a real pain when they are long.

            And, yes, SebastianH has been informed of his errors by many here, especially Kenneth Richard, and yet he continues to make the same mistakes. Here’s one by Colorado Wellington from July 2017 by way of illustration.

            While he puts on a convincing performance at times, he’s not really a stupid person, though “useful idiot” may be a fair assessment. Sadly, there’s no reason an intelligent person can’t also be a fool.

          11. Yonason

            @K. Pool 2. November 2018 at 4:05 PM

            I meant to address this astute comment of yours.

            His most telling remark comes at the end of his screed:
            “when you guys link to stuff that is not a reputable source at all, especially all things Euan Mearns”.”

            And the “proof” that it is “not a reputable source at all” is merely because SebH says so. I’ve addressed that myself quite a few times in the past, where he or others accuse my source of not being reputable. But they NEVER bring any proof at all. I have no problem with someone bringing a falsehood to my attention, IF they are able to support their assertions with facts. They’ve never yet been able to. On the other hand, when I call their sources worthless, I provide evidence for that.

            I have no problem with someone pointing out if I’m being an idiot. That happened to me a lot when I was a kid. Difference between me then and SebH now is that I LISTENED to my critics, and made corrections. Thanks in part to them I’m a skeptic today. Sadly, I seen no hope for Sebastian. He’s way too far gone.

          12. K. Pool

            @ Yonason 2. November 2018 at 5:19 PM

            Useful Idiot sounds about right.
            And they vote, see “Energiewende”. . . . . .

            Cheers,
            Kees.

          13. SebastianH

            Yonason, [snip – ad homs]
            You aren’t providing any evidence. It’s mostly fruitless ad homs when you go after actual science. Anyway, I don’t consider you as a critic. You make zero sense to me and I‘d guess a lot of others. Somehow you found your bubble where what you have to say is accepted and applauded by your peers. Good for you. Maybe it is time for you to get out of this bubble and to learn what horrible sources you are linking to?

            This „useful idiot“ thing applies to you guys very well. I don’t know why people can get this way … if it is not the stubbornness of age, is it the all male thing that seems to be going on in this community? Or is it indeed political, like you seem to often put it? Right leaning folks can’t be accepting AGW is real for some reason? [snip]

          14. Kenneth Richard

            Right leaning folks can’t be accepting AGW is real for some reason?

            The view that humans can control the weather and the temperature of the ocean water 4000 meters down just by changing the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration by 1/100th of a percentage point is a position that I am skeptical of. Further, the Climategate e-mails and the tendencies to adjust data to fit the models is grounds for even deeper skepticism. These have nothing to do with political leanings.

          15. SebastianH

            So you are snipping when I mirror his own rhetoric back at him … fascinating. Since when is that considered an ad hom and calling me useful idiot isn’t? 😉 [You’ve been allowed to call others useful idiots since they were allowed to call you one. Yet you’re still whining about how unfairly you’re treated.]

            Kenneth, for it might not. You must however have noticed by now that it’s mostly right leaning folks on your side of the argument, haven’t you? And predominantly male and certainly not young folks. Why do you think this is the case?

          16. Kenneth Richard

            You must however have noticed by now that it’s mostly right leaning folks on your side of the argument, haven’t you? And predominantly male and certainly not young folks. Why do you think this is the case?

            I couldn’t care any less than I do about the race, gender, age, or political leanings of those who espouse positions. It’s the position that is worth discussing. I’m skeptical of the motivations of people who focus so much on identities and issue ad hom attacks on the merits of the sources (“He’s old and his PhD. isn’t in climate science!”). It smacks of bigotry, and bigotry isn’t welcome here.

          17. SebastianH

            You’ve got to stop this whining meme … you are the guys snipping and censoring, not me. [Stop whining about having your ad homs and name-calling and false characterizations and irrelevant analogies snipped. If you would prefer not to have portions of your comments snipped that meet these criteria, then feel free to refrain from using these tactics.]

            This ad hom thing goes both ways, Kenneth. You guys regularly point out the qualifications of a source and imply that this is why it must be the truth, not because the content makes any sense. Be skeptical of those instances … I surely am.

          18. Kenneth Richard

            You guys regularly point out the qualifications of a source and imply that this is why it must be the truth

            Now you’re just disingenuously making up straw men again…which is what you pivot to when your beliefs have been challenged.

            At no time did “we guys” call what is written “the truth” BECAUSE it came from a certain source. Nor did we even imply this, which is what you are falsely claiming (again).

            The merits of a position are instead rooted in the quality of the data, or the extent to which it is consistent with or supported by other scientific evidence and/or observation. We only cite the qualifications of the individual presenting the information (or whether it’s from a peer-reviewed paper vs. a blog) so as to put it within the context of the knowledge base from which the information emanates. Pointing out that Dr. Murry Salby is an atmospheric physicist who’s had dozens of peer-reviewed papers and multiple graduate-level textbooks on atmospheric physics and climate published allows him to be viewed as more knowledgeable on the subject than someone commenting who doesn’t have such a background and who has never published a paper or authored a textbook. That’s why this supporting bio information is included. It’s not to say: This guy is an expert; therefore, everything he writes is the truth. Not even close.

            Your straw man arguments are worsening by the week.

        3. K. Pool

          Sebastian, you wrote:

          “Stabilizing the power grid with batteries is also far superior to using spinning mass”.

          This is not even just wrong.

          Spinning mass crucially stabilizes the grid with what is called ‘inertial response’ which batteries cannot and never will supply.
          Batteries supply (fast) primary regulation, nothing more.

          Look it up – there is an excellent post of why this is on “energy matters”, http://euanmearns.com/.

          1. K. Pool

            SebastianH 2. November 2018 at 3:03 PM

            A glimpse of light! From Sebastian!

            “The only problem I see is seasonal storage”

            Bravo! Maybe not all is lost. This needs to be rewarded – I dug up the article that, among a bunch of other goodies, explains why batteries are really not “far superior” compared to rotating mass.

            I realize its a highly suspicious source but hey! I’m doing my best. Here we go, be sure to read ‘Hairs’ comments:

            http://euanmearns.com/beyond-the-spin-of-green-energy-storage/

          2. Yonason

            @K. POOL

            You’ll notice that in the troll’s response to me above, he dismisses the article I posted with only an ad hom attack (one of his favorite). Note also the bio of the fellow who wrote it.

            Guest Post by John Morgan. John is Chief Scientist at a Sydney startup developing smart grid and grid scale energy storage technologies. He is Adjunct Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT, holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and is an experienced industrial R&D leader.

            SebH wants us to believe he’s greener and more knowledgeable than a guy who does that stuff for a living. (not the first time he’s done that)

            And who is the blog owner?

            Brave New Climate, a blog on global change and technology futures, is run by scientist and university professor, Dr. Barry W. Brook.

            Barry is a leading environmental researcher, modeller, data analyst and author, in the fields of ecology, conservation biology, palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, and sustainable energy systems

            Also greener and much more honest than SebH will ever be.

          3. SebastianH

            [ad hom spewing deleted]

            I was curious to find out what this comment you mention had to say. Basically that one can’t detect a frequency change fast enough to compete with spinning mass. Those inverters muss be really crappy then and not capable of serving fast changing loads at all, right?

            While spinning mass has it’s pros, frequency regulation capabilities are usually timed in seconds. And batteries respond in milliseconds so far compared to multiple seconds or minutes of conventional gas generators used for this purpose.

            It’s not that hard to find papers about the intertidal response of battery systems …

            http://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/225953162/Grid_Inertial_Response_with_Lithium_ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems.pdf

          4. SebastianH

            This is fun Yonason. You accuse me of ad hom while basically claiming that what’s written there is true because of the person who wrote it. The irony of this seems to be lost on you …

            The EROI meme skeptics like to bring up is BS. Get over it.

            I don’t want you to believe anything, but apparently you are strongly believing in what you „like“ to hear. And I see that as a problem. Skeptics aren’t the only ones guilty of this, I know. We all like to hear certain things more than what challenges our feelings on a topic. But you guys are a special group in this. [snip]

          5. K. Pool

            @ SebastianH 2. November 2018 at 11:55 PM

            You wrote: “Those inverters muss be really crappy then and not capable of serving fast changing loads at all, right?”

            You are joking, right?
            This has absolutely nothing to do with crappy inverters.
            The inverters are steered to do whatever they are supposed to do, which is to connect and dump an appropriate amount of energy in the system when the frequency deviates from a nominal value.

            The problem is determining that deviation, very well explained in Euan’s article: twice differentiating (a noisy process) a very noisy signal. The very minimum time necessary is considered to be five cycles, 100ms. Add to that the connection time it takes to connect three successive zero-crossings and you are at 120ms.
            Rotating iron starts to respond to frequency changes in less than 10 milliseconds.

            You wrote: “While spinning mass has it’s pros”. It sure does, Sebastian! Without inertial frequency response the power grid as we know it would never be stable.
            Further: “frequency regulation capabilities are usually timed in seconds”. You are right again! Battery operated power sources kick in fast, as we saw above, and participate in the primary frequency regulation.

            In this particular stage, large loads can be disconnected/connected, other power sources are brought to bear and RPMs increased.
            This is all needs to be very carefully orchestrated with a blackout as penalty if not done right.

            Moving along: “And batteries respond in milliseconds”.
            No they don’t.
            As discussed, a battery+inverter+frequency detecting unit needs a very minimum of 120 milliseconds before it starts to participate in primary frequency regulation (50 Hz system).

            To wrap it up: “It’s not that hard to find papers about the intertidal [sic] response of battery systems”
            No, its not, I sent you one, you didn’t even have to look for it.
            The reading is the hard part, apparently.

          6. Yonason

            SebH (to me): “You accuse me of ad hom while basically claiming that what’s written there is true because of the person who wrote it.”

            What SebH does is ad hom because he brings no proof that the person deserves to be ridiculed.

            I do NOT believe what is written is true because of the person who wrote it. I DO believe it’s likely to be true because it makes sense based on the analysis. SebH just says it isn’t true, but makes no attempt to show why I should believe him.

            His arguments are child-like, superficial, and endlessly repetitive. He’s been shown how his claims are faulty, yet he keeps regurgitating them. Just one e.g. – he keeps repeating the idiotic assertion that domestic cats kill more birds than wind farms. I have pointed out to him on several occasions that
            (1) we aren’t talking about sparrows or starlings, but raptors, whose numbers are few enough to make them endangered. and
            (2) a raptor is far more likely to kill and eat a cat than vice versa. Cats are justifiably fearful of them.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTyCtkoglXU

            He pretends to care about species going extinct, but when it can be shown that a species is threatened by his precious ruinable energy, he pretends it’s just our imagination.
            https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q3/wind-turbines-killing-more-than-just-local-birds,-study-finds.html

            Typical faux-greenie hypocrisy.

  3. BobW in NC

    …and in the United States state of North Carolina…

    Cooper sets global warming goal to cut NC greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent

    October 29, 2018 04:03 PM

    Updated 2 hours 15 minutes ago

    Cary

    North Carolina would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2025 under an ambitious statewide goal set by Gov. Roy Cooper on Monday.

    With Cooper’s signing of the executive order, North Carolina joins states like Colorado, California and others that have set statewide targets for reducing emissions of gases that are associated with global warming and climate change. In 2006, California set a 40 percent reduction goal by 2030 from 1990 levels, while Colorado has set a goal of cutting emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.

    The order commits North Carolina to adhering to the 2015 Paris Agreement environmental treaty, even though President Donald Trump, a Republican, previously said he will pull the U.S. out of the treaty on the earliest possible date, which is in 2020. Cooper, a Democrat, is among 17 state governors who have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance to commit to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

    https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article220789175.html?#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter

  4. Penelope

    “Current California wind energy incentives include generous rebates for wind turbine and wind generator installation. When combined with Federal wind energy rebates your commercial or home wind power installation will be approximately 50-60% less because of the incentives! Our wind installers will be happy to answer your questions and explain the benefits of residential windmills or wind power for your business. Simply click below, fill out the form, and a certified wind installer will contact you by phone at your convenience.”
    “California is one of the best states for wind power for two resaons: it’s abundant wind energy and it’s fantastic wind incentives and rebates. Look here for details on the California energy tax credit, rebates, grants and solar, wind incentives like the California Feed-In Tariff .”
    https://www.dasolar.com/home-wind-power/california/santa-maria

    1. mikewaite

      I looked at your link, Penelope. This is the process apparently:

      Santa Maria Wind Power Installation – The Process
      Step 1. Fill out the Santa Maria wind power installation form to give us basic information on your home or business, the proposed location for the turbine, and your contact information.
      Wind Turbine Installation – Information gathering
      Step 2. A Santa Maria wind installer will call to ask further questions and arrange a visit.
      Step 3. On-site visit to speak with the home/business owner, assess the location of the wind turbine. The installer will take wind measurements and answer specific questions about the wind power installation.
      Step 4. Windmill installer will deliver detailed Santa Maria installation proposal. Proposal includes all applicable rebates, from Santa Maria, state and federal energy tax credits. Contracts signed.

      Nowhere is there any mention of the rights or opinions of residential neighbours nor any reference to state planning regulations. In California can you do whatever will bring in money for your family without consideration of other people? Does not seem very liberal or responsible to me and I presume that you gave us the link to demonstrate that point.

  5. Bitter&twisted

    As I have repeatedly said, the sooner these monstrous, eco-crucifixes whose main “output” is dead bats and birds are removed and destroyed, the better.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    Who’d want to be a bird in Germany?

    The carnage amongst birds and bats must be horrific.

    1. SebastianH

      March against cat owners then if you feel birds and bats need more protection…

      1. Kenneth Richard

        March against cat owners then if you feel birds and bats need more protection…

        Do you care that endangered bats are now threatened with extinction as wind turbines kill about 5 million bats per year and destroy their habitat?

        1. SebastianH

          Do you care …

          It is not a question of caring. If you want to make this about caring something then … do you care that pollution due to coal power plants kills people and in fact has directly killed thousands of people? Feel free to reply with a question about how many workers died installing solar power or wind turbines and if I care …

          1. Kenneth Richard

            do you care that pollution due to coal power plants kills people and in fact has directly killed thousands of people?

            Yes. I much prefer natural gas. Cleaner and more efficient than coal, but just as reliable and ever-ready. I would prefer that the Chinese government bodies chose gas, as the cities are smoggy and it does harm people’s health.

  7. Robert Folkerts

    Seb h says old right leaning folks.

    I think that is a reasonable observation. I have suggested before sometimes wisdom comes with age. My father used to say” you cannot put an old head on young shoulders”.
    With age and experience, that one should become somewhat conservative is not uncommon.
    Of course the not uncommon position of youth, left leaning and liberal, with its own agendas, has yet to learn from its mistakes.
    Each in his turn. Seb will not always be so young, and will accumulate hindsight and experience, one hopes!

Leave a Reply

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