Lie No. 1:
German renewable energies sun and wind are a success!
Chart shows installed rated sun / wind capacity vs actual output (sun yellow, wind blue). Fact is that wind and sun operate at only about 11% of their rated capacity and often there are days when there is relatively no output at all.
Lie No. 2:
Germany’s immigration policy is a success:
Pray that Lie No. 1 does not result in a blackout, which would make Lie No. 2 explode. It’s truly mind-boggling that leading lawmakers still continue to prop up both. Stunningly this only appears to be the beginning.
35 responses to “Two Great Destructive Lies German Leaders Refuse To Abandon”
Another lie: a few days ago the press bemoaned the fate of a young communist politician who was allegedly attacked by 3 right wing extremists, stabbed 17 times, ran away, had himself fixed up in a hospital and walked away. Oh the humanity, Nazis on the rampage.
Now it comes out that the wounds look suspiciously like self inflicted razor cuts on the arm, the coroner doesn’t buy the story, and after the hospital fixup, the young comrade didn’t even bother to walk to a police precinct but notified police via Internet.
Even the hard left comrades at state TV NDR don’t buy it anymore.
The strategy is really this: Fill the channel with nothing but lies to drown the truth out by sheer numbers; a war of attrition against the truth – and every small leftist partakes voluntarily.
“Pray that Lie No. 1 does not result in a blackout, which would make Lie No. 2 explode.”
I disagree. A blackout would make it impossible for the Arabs to organize flash mobs via Facebook. The events of Silvester were such Flash mobs, they already did this many times in the Arab world, they call it “Taharrush Gamea” (sounds like it is named after the Tharir square in Egypt). Like in Germany, they tried to snatch and rape any girl they could get.
This also means that certain “friendly” intelligence agencies who monitor Facebook *should* have had a premonition of events to come. But kept mum. How come? We have a suspicion.
Plus: The Arabs would in a blackout not be able to assemble, as they use German rail and light rail to get to the assembly point; they get free tickets from the German authorities (Authorities used to advice the rail personell to ignore Arabs without tickets, but this riled up the Germans who have to pay. So they changed that; they give them now free tickets so that the Germans THINK they payed. Of course they don’t. The rail companies get according payments from the state.)
What does the plot against “Nennleistung” show? It has absolutely no meaning.
Let us do a though experiment. A country has to access points to the sea, north and south. Wind power has been only build in the north, 100 GW “Nennleistung”, 30 GW average output, in a rather “unrelyable” curve.
Now we add another 100GW in the south, again with 30 GW average output, BUT by chance, it is basically giving a nearly complimentary output to what we get in the north.
The system would be much more stable now, but your graph would look horrible, with double “nennleistung and basically the same small wobbles at the bottom that we saw before.
Last point, if i look at the agora graph of the last 31 days, Which days would you define as having ” there are days when there is relatively no output at all. “???
sod 10. January 2016 at 7:37 PM | Permalink | Reply
“What does the plot against “Nennleistung” show? It has absolutely no meaning. ”
Well it does – for the warmunist propaganda. You see, they build a wind turbine with 5 MW Nennleistung – or name plate capacity. Next, a horde of journaliars salivates that this can provide 250 homes with electricity.
But, as you just discovered, in fact only 17% of that (for German onshore wind) are provided ON AVERAGE. Meaning, the real number is 42 households. Given, what you always mention, that each of the homes is chock full of batteries that get replaced every other year.
And that doesn’t sound so good now does it.
“…look at the agora graph of the last 31 days,…”
It’s for the end of the 7th, all the 8th, and 9th, and part of the 10th of January, not for 31 days.
I think this may be what P.G is referring to?
Wind is not a reliable source of power.
Why would your thought experiment show the same wobble if the outputs are complementary? (which could only happen through sheer coincidence)
The plot would look more stable than if either the north or south set of wind farms existed in isolation but the but the difference between output and installed capacity would be twice as bad.
So the choice is between grid instability vs low capacity factor – yay!
Of course your thought experiment with perfect anti-correlation of wind is not representative of any existing grid.
I don’t know where you want to go with your ‘thought experiment’. Complementary North/South wind would be nice but where is this country? Euan has looked high and low in Europe without much luck:
Regarding your last point, lots of wind these 31 days. Keep looking, though, and by all means let Pierre know when the combined yield of 80GW installed capacity drops to zero as it certainly will. You cannot have it both ways.
BTW, you write: “but your graph would look horrible, with double “nennleistung and basically the same small wobbles at the bottom that we saw before”.
I think the original graph already looks pretty horrible at current installed capacity with those ‘small wobbles’ at the bottom.
Germany leads the way.
Her “renewable” energy “success” is an inspiration to us all. (Really. I read that a warmist said it, so it must be true.)
As to the Muslime immigrants, be thankful they are arriving, because soon they will initiate a new Golden Age, and fix all the problems your own leaders have caused. Don’t be skeptical. As the warmunistas are wont to say, “it COULD happen!”
…or not. You see, it is 100% antithetical to their “religion,” i.e., it is totally verboten.
I have yet to hear of an Islamic scientist of note who was not a convert. Al Kwarizmi e.g. was born a Zoroastrian. Islam’s prohibition on drawing humans helped a lot to turn Muslims into braindead swordwielders.
The end of the “Golden Age” was when no more expansion was possible, thus, no new non-islamic scientists could be acquired and converted.
And this end of the expansion of the Islamic empire is entirely the work of the Mongolian Gerbil, the host for the carrier of the Black Death, spread by Genghis Khan’s troups as a bioweapon to depopulate the areas they planned to conquer.
As Churchill so accurately wrote “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
Just imagine – we have to thank Genghis Kan and his descendants for stopping the caliphate.
That is because Muslime society has never done any science or invented anything. The claim of an Islamic Golden Age was completely false – it was all other people’s ideas appropriated by Islam to burnish their image:
Islamic Inventions were Roman, Greek and Persian.
see also here
Ross Douthat in the NYT today: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html
Concluding line: “…Angela Merkel must go — so that her country, and the continent it bestrides, can avoid paying too high a price for her high-minded folly.” (Same could be said of Obama, here.)
Ref.: the first chart
Going with just visual inspection – the “total installed” seems to be going up more rapidly than the “actual output” – or, said another way, the return on investment is decreasing.
Seeing the same thing, big money folks will look for better places to invest and bail out of the firms involved in wind and solar. Fewer deep pockets and smaller subsidies will be followed by less research, less maintenance, and selling of the more valuable parts. Think, for example, of a retail chain-store selling its real estate. This will be a slow motion wreck, but a wreck nonetheless.
John F. Hultquist 10. January 2016 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Ref.: the first chart
Going with just visual inspection – the “total installed” seems to be going up more rapidly than the “actual output” – or, said another way, the return on investment is decreasing.”
This is PARTIALLY an illusion. THe slope of nameplate capacity should be about 9 times the slope of the real output if we assume 11% capacity factor. (or a similar factor for slightly higher or lower capa factor.)
So it rises faster, but not EVER faster.
THere is ONE aspect of diminishing returns; in onshore wind in Germany, with capa factor dropping from 20% to now 17% over a number of years, as good spots are depleted and new wind turbines are erected in less windy areas.
“with capa factor dropping from 20% to now 17% over a number of years, as good spots are depleted and new wind turbines are erected in less windy areas.”
Sorry, but you are making up numbers and explanations.
The 20% to 17% “decrease” is caused by a cherry pick.
You are using a high point in 2007 and you are completely misinterpreting the results. For example 2009 has MORE capacity but an actual LOWER output. This is not caused by worse positioning of new wind plants (even the worst positions could not produce a negative result!) but is simply an effect of random years having more wind.
This type of tables also often give false numbers, as wind capacity is counted in years, while real output is daily data. (a wind plant added in december is reducing the capacity factor for that year by default)
sod 12. January 2016 at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Reply
“For example 2009 has MORE capacity but an actual LOWER output. This is not caused by worse positioning of new wind plants (even the worst positions could not produce a negative result!) but is simply an effect of random years having more wind. ”
Thanks for confirming that even over years there is no reliable output even in the long term average and even MORE overcapacity has to be built (which wastes thousands of tonnes of concrete, glass fiber and rare earths and steel and copper, all of which has to be produced, often by mining. This proves that warmunists want to deplete the resources of the planet for a useless endeavour and destroy natural habitats by open pit mining. Oh and they hate the Red Kite. Why do you hate Red Kites, sod?)
Here is good data, but for Denmark and offshore. It is easy to see, that capacity factors are increasing:
An even better data cluster is given in this pdf (page 16):
In the US, wind power capacity has increased from 22% to 32%. The data also shows that up and down jumps by 3% are totally normal.
The technology is improving fast. Better (and bigger) turbines can easily compensate the effect of slightly worse wind places.
And offshore wind will bring another revolution.
sod – “Better (and bigger) turbines can easily compensate the effect of slightly worse wind places.”
Can you please provide us with a link that gives a QUANTITATIVE indication of increased turbine efficiencies in the last 10 years with the explanation of how this has been achieved?
In the case of those Danish offshore windfarms in your first link, the age of the windfarm does not seem to anticorrelate with the capacity factor (whether you take life or 12 month rolling average). I would expect that the best turbine technology available at the time would have been used when these windfarms were constructed.
“Can you please provide us with a link that gives a QUANTITATIVE indication of increased turbine efficiencies in the last 10 years with the explanation of how this has been achieved?”
my second source seems to provide exactly that.
(page 16, real increase in capacity factor)
” the age of the windfarm does not seem to anticorrelate with the capacity factor ”
Well, the oldest has a capacity factor of 23%, the newest of 45%. I did not do a statistical analysis, but i think there is a correlation!
And most certainly there is no decrease in capacity factor, due to the best places already being used!
The effect should be even stronger on sea, with less limit on height!
sod, the second article mentions higher CF with newer windfarms but the mechanism is not discussed. The only improvements that I can find for newer turbines is solely due to higher hub heights from taller towers due to wind shear. Given that most of the earlier US wind turbines were much shorter than more recent turbines, then it does make sense that the CF has risen slightly over time.
But this has a greater effect on land due to the greater wind shear so your comment about offshore windfarms getting even more benefit does not make sense. And the greater costs for footings and towers capable of supporting higher hub heights is leading to diminishing returns vs the slight increase in CF.
” The only improvements that I can find for newer turbines is solely due to higher hub heights from taller towers due to wind shear. ”
There are other improvements, like better control systems which can spot the wind fields directly ahead.
The US paper shows capacity factor of 32.5% in the US, which means that there are turbines with higher CF. The author says that significant amount of land is now open to 50% turbines (pdf page 4).
And on sea, 50% is easy, two of the newer danish fields are already producing 48% as a real output.
and at 50+%, wind also loses some part of wind intermittency, as you cannot get above 50% if you spend long times at zero output.
“Going with just visual inspection”
a visual inspection is basically impossible. you need to compare the annual “pictures” in a mental overlay”. Impossible.
And to repeat my comment above: a good effect (new capacity often complementing old capacity) would basically be invisible in such a graph!
sod 12. January 2016 at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Reply
“a visual inspection is basically impossible. you need to compare the annual “pictures” in a mental overlay”. Impossible. ”
Wha? I did just that. Well maybe impossible for you. So don’t generalize from your case.
“Wha? I did just that. Well maybe impossible for you. So don’t generalize from your case.”
so which year had the higher wind output, 2011 or 2012? Please explain how you can see the difference!
on my screen, the picture is scaled down to 600 pixels width. you are seeing stuff that are less than a pixel!
As per sod – “Let’s do a thought experiment.”
Imagine if you will that wind power can make humanity more secure.
More lies: Authorities at least in NRW and Hesse gave strict orders to police to NOT REPORT crimes committed by “refugees” around refugee homes. Only crimes committed by right wing extremists around refugee homes should be reported.
So – do not trust the reports of the German police! Do not trust their statistics. They are exactly like the liar press!
A friend of mine lives near a 5000 strong refugee distribution centre. In one year he had 5 break-ins in his garden hut – on one occasion he found a “refugee” sleeping in there. He doesn’t bother to call the police anymore, because nothing happens anyway.
Obviously, something MUST be done! We can’t have the local media exposing this!
I wonder, if alternative power is that awful, why is coal falling apart so fast?
The news are just plain out terrible for coal business!
Yes. Because of the market distortions caused by forcing utilities to buy renewable power whenever it decides to kick in and the price agreements the utilities are forced to adhere to in paying for this stuff that comes on and off at the whim of nature.
But Germany doesn’t seem to be reducing its coal consumption at all. And the costing out of CCGT plants because of the capital investment required vs ROI in favour of keeping paid out coal plants online (+ diesel generator farms and OCGT plants) should ring alarm bells if you really are interested in reducing CO2 (as opposed to wanting renewables for the sake of their own existence)
” Because of the market distortions caused by forcing utilities to buy renewable power whenever it decides to kick in ”
Sorry, but that is how markets work. The cheapest offer makes the money.
“But Germany doesn’t seem to be reducing its coal consumption at all”
We are now exporting a lot of electricity.
sod 15. January 2016 at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Reply
“” Because of the market distortions caused by forcing utilities to buy renewable power whenever it decides to kick in ”
Sorry, but that is how markets work. The cheapest offer makes the money.”
No, sod, markets do not workk by a politician distorting them. You seem to be a cookie-cutter German leftist. They have *no* knowledge of markets; *no* knowledge of history; and *no* knowledge especially of the history of Leftism itself and the history of the warmunist cult they became a member of.
90 years after Technocracy Inc., they come here, spout their market-distorting ideas as if it where a gret new idea – but, it is the boring old Technocracy idea with all its long explored tail of problems.
(But – as German leftists *ALSO* don’t know Hayek or von Mises, they don’t even know that their central planning has already been shown to be unworkable)
Sometimes, you really get the idea that the poor young warmunist leftists REALLY think their crap could work – i.e. – believing their own propaganda.
But then, they *also* have a complete absence of self-criticism. Leftism is therefore political narcissism / sociopathy.
[…] media and reports it in English. The site is managed by Pierre Goselin and he recently posted “Two Great Destructive Lies German Leaders Refuse To Abandon”. The first of the two “lies” relates performance of wind and solar systems and it is […]