German public television ARD here has a report on how one of Germany’s leading environmentalists has been getting death threats because of his opposition to the destruction of forests by wind parks.
Enoch zu Guttenberg. Photo cropped from here.
According to the ARD, Enoch zu Guttenberg claimed:
I am getting even threats to life and limb, that is death threats: If you keeping talking so, then you won’t live past next week. Over the past two years I’ve gotten four or five of these threats to life and limb. Either I’d better shut up, or be beaten into silence. Most of the time the threats were made in block letters from headlines from newspapers.”
Enoch zu Guttenberg, who is also a symphony conductor, says the threats have usually come soon after comments made in public, opposing wind parks.
The ARD reports zu Guttenberg is a active protester of what he and many others view as “an unprecedented destruction of cultural landscape” and “a threat to endangered wildlife“.
Also the Berlin Journal here describes how zu Guttenberg “is up against a wind power lobby that would brutally ram through its business interests, as leading politicians have confirmed”. The Berlin Journal quotes top politician Michael Fuchs of Angerla Merkel’s CDU party, who commented at an ARD news show:
Never have I seen a lobby act so brutally and directed so much pressure on parliamentarians in order to push through their private interests. Here it comes down to massive economic interests. Totally massive economic interests.“
Also conomics and energy spokesman of the CDU/CSU fraction Joachim Pfeiffer spoke of the pressure bearing down on local politicians and how the wind power industry is acting “very aggressively”.
Death threats and the trampling of local opposition by “green energy” have very little to do with protecting the environment, and almost everything to do with an industry brutally doing whatever it can to make quick and easy money. Though disguised and being green, it’s crony capitalism at its worst.
69 responses to “Brutal Wind Industry …Leading German Wind Energy Opponent Receives “Threats To Life And Limb”!”
This confirms what we already knew: its all about the money and has absolutely nothing to do with the climate, environment or nature…
Its time that these criminals are brought to justice.
It isn’t “all about the money” since most people in business don’t behave this way.
wind industry doesn’t need to, what with all the faux-greenie goons to do that dirty work.
Of course, since this “industry” is not a normal one, but a scam founded on a scam, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the ill-wind “industry” itself that is blowing this your way. It’s similar to Unions like Teamsters, or the SEIU who can get very violent when they feel they need to. Bad business = bad business practices.
You’re also making the assumption that it’s the businesses themselves who are sending these threatening letters. I strongly doubt that – and I don’t think the letter writers are making any money doing this. In fact, it reminds me of the violence being meted out to Trump supporters in the US – and the violent actions taken toward Bush supporters a few years ago: again, nothing to do with money.
There are better examples like the assassination of a Belgium inspector in 1995 by the so called hormone mafia.
Just look at this latest article about offshore wind in Britain.
Wind power is a success story. And it includes a handful of freaks and cheaters, especially since the interest in the industry became much more commercial.
The film is pretty bad. you can find precise criticism here:
How can you possibly say it’s a success story in the face of disaster after disaster (Germany, South Australia, Ontario Canada, etc.) that are entirely foreseeable when a society embraces a destructive technology like this – that cannot possibly be effective. Do you also make postings like this at the Save The Eagles website, which is documenting the endangerment of entire bird species due to wind farms? You’re beginning to remind me of the “Jimmy Higgins” types in the American Communist Party in the 1940s and early 50s who went around believing that the Soviet Union was a genuine workers’ paradise. Or Noam Chomsky and his sidekick raining down sophistical criticisms on the people who first tried to warn the world about what was happening in Democratic Kampuchea. There’s a point at which this kind of stubborn delusion becomes obscene. (If that’s what is in play in this case.)
Can we find these in the fiction or fantasy section of the book store?
Ha ha ha ha. You obviously no nothing about the real situation in the UK
“Wind power is a success story.”
Of course wind and solar in Germany are giant successes: Through mass manipulation and creation of a moral panic the manipulators manage to steal 30 billion Euro a year from the ratepayers – and all Bundestag politicians just LOVE IT! An oppositionless movement. The political caste of the Old Parties knows that it buys them votes through virtue-signaling.
A great success; a giant expropriation and even the voters LOVE IT! (80% of them still vote for the Old Parties. These are the emotion-driven sectors of society and the cronies, i.e. students brainwashed by their Green teachers; women, and all profiteers of the scam)
Analysis of these mass psychoses is crucial to an understanding of the sinking state of the economy. Growth is dead – long live moneyprinting and fraud.
I wonder how much the Telegraph got paid to hype those wind numbers?
“I wonder how much the Telegraph got paid to hype those wind numbers?”
it must be great fun to always check “gridwatch” and then to post the result in case it is low on a summer morning.
The facts are simple: the UK is now getting 25%of its electricity from renewable sources
“Electricity generation from renewables increased 29%, from 64.7TWh to a UK record of 83.3TWh.”
Sop, what was the MINIMUM amount generated in a 1 hour period ?
You know, the amount that HAD to be compensated for by REAL, RELIABLE electricity.
Come on.. you have the data..
…. do you have the guts?
“Sop, what was the MINIMUM amount generated in a 1 hour period ?”
why are you obsessed with the minimum?
We know the minimum of coal for this year, it was ZERO. so i hope you do not include coal in the “REAL, RELIABLE electricity” that you keep talking about…
Seems Roger has hit the value I have asked Sop for.
Or does it go even lower than 1.79%
Let’s repeat that value….
That really is incredibly PATHETIC,
especially considering the HUGE amount of money WASTED on the wind turbine junk.
That really is incredibly PATHETIC, ”
sorry to hear your worries about wind power. Coal is still below wind though.
and on El Hierro they are running another 100% wind trial. So the Diesel is off, giving ZERO percent again.
PATHETIC performance of the diesel, you would say!
CCGT (Fossil Fuel) and some nuclear is now doing the heavy lifting in the UK.
Providing the VAST MAJORITY of energy.
It is ALWAYS available to fill in the HUGE gaps left by the often INSIGNIFICANT wind and solar contribution.
roflmao, that funny little NICHE exercise.
A backwater remote island that does nothing except cater for rich tourists, getting huge subsidies to trial a massively over-expensive replacement for diesel.
SO WHAT !!!
“why are you obsessed with the minimum?”
Because that minimum tells us what REAL electricity has to cover.
If wind is only producing 1.79%, then REAL electricity has to cover 98.21%
And most of that is going to come from FOSSIL FUELS and Nuclear.. BECAUSE THEY CAN. !
“…then to post the result in case it is low on a summer morning.” – sod in denial
READ THE GRAPH – (Wind in the blue line)
Wind produced 2.5 or less in APR, MAY, JUN and JUL. Ah, but in AUG ith has skyrocketed to an average of about 3.5 so far.
CCGT started at about 15 and slowly went down to about 12.
NUC started at about 8, dropped to near 5, then climbed back up to about 8 and stayed there.
COAL was about neck and neck with wind at the bottom for that whole period
But from last OCT to the MAR if it weren’t for COAL (which exceed wind) quite a few in the UK would have been cold and dark.
Those graphs are up to date, and nowhere in that time period did wind put up any kind of decent performance, except for a bit in winter from last NOV thru this FEB.
This isn’t the first time you’ve had trouble reading graphs, but no trouble believing propaganda.
I wonder if there is anyone [OTHER THAN sod] who has any specific info on the apparent discrepancy between G.B.NatGridStatus and the happy stuff in the links Sod references?
“I wonder if there is anyone [OTHER THAN sod] who has any specific info on the apparent discrepancy between G.B.NatGridStatus and the happy stuff in the links Sod references?”
there is no discrepancy. Energy matters has some wonderful graphs on this topic, for every year. Just scroll to the bottom for an annual overview!
The most important graph is this one: Wind provides a pretty steady 2000 GWh every month and more in winter.
which is, good, as winter is, when the UK needs more electricity.
So wind is about 10% and growing. you better start to accept the facts. Just staring at minimum numbers might not be telling the full story?!?
“So wind is about 10% and growing.” – sod
Riiiight. What happened to your glorious shining progressive 25%? Are you finally admitting that it’s just averaging between about 7% and 15% (with less than 10% for half of its months) like we’ve been saying.
And, with the ever increasing cost of energy, the loss of consumers who can’t afford it will only make the end that much easier to achieve, won’t it? (DOWNSIDE – more people die of cold, and prices rise yet more due to reduced demand, causing more fuel poverty, etc. Now THERE’S a positive feedback with negative consequences for ya.)
“Demand for electricity is also falling and government should be concerned about the extent that this is caused by rising electricity prices and policy.”
Paraphrasing sod’s “…you better start to accept the facts.”, the result is – ‘Betting on a capriciously unpredictable and exorbitantly expensive energy source is the epitome of wisdom. Nothing else can give us the energy security we need [and in sod’s case deserves]. You just wait, you’ll see!
Sadly, I think we will, but hopefully not too late to wrest the controls from the paws of the lunatics and regain control.
sod 15. August 2016 at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Reply
“The facts are simple: the UK is now getting 25%of its electricity from renewable sources”
Let me restate that: The UK gets zero to 150% of its electricity from renewable source, depending on the moment; and therefore has to keep a fossil fuel infrastructure for exactly 100% of its needs running at all times.
The Greens claim this saves money; proving that they are fraudsters.
Just a brief reality check Mr/Ms Sod. If wind generation was anything remotely approaching the “success story” you appear to believe it is, it wouldn’t require either the massive compulsory subsidies it relies on world wide, nor would it require mandated grid access.
But the simple axiomatic truth is, it isn’t and it does!
Why, whenever I come to this site, do I have to call you out on your absurd statements about British wind?
Right now thousands of these useless contraptions are producing just .54GW which is 1.79% of current demand.
Who pays you to persistently troll this site with your renewable crap?
“Why, whenever I come to this site, do I have to call you out on your absurd statements about British wind?
Right now thousands of these useless contraptions are producing just .54GW which is 1.79% of current demand.”
so let us check right at this moment:
Data last recorded on Monday the 15th. of August, 2016 at 12:10 BS
So coal is even performing worse than wind.
Who pays you to persistently troll this site with your coal crap?
Coal doesn’t need to perform, because GAS is doing all the heavy lifting.
GAS is a CO2 emitter too, thank goodness.
UK still doing it’s bit to feed the world’s plant life 🙂
“So coal is even performing worse than wind.” – sod
Not because it can’t, but because suicidal idiots have chosen to limit it’s use, as examination of the graphs that even you linked to.
So, basically, everything I wrote is confirmed by the euanmearns material sod linked to.
Thank you for “showing us the way.” But, if it’s all the same to you (and even if it isn’t) we’d rather not be one of your followers. 😉
“So coal is even performing worse than wind.”
Coal can do much more when required, on demand.
Wind CANNOT !!
Wind is intermittent, and GROSSLY UNRELIABLE. !!!
“Wind is intermittent, and GROSSLY UNRELIABLE. !!!” – AndyG55
On the other hand, sod is intermittently intermittent, and GROSSLY RELIABLE (we can always count on him to be wrong.)
What a catch he’ll someday make for some fortunate Fräulein, eh?!
Nowhere did I mention coal!
Changing the subject to deflect from the total paucity of your argument just demonstrates your childishness and poor comprehension skills.
I doubt sod is paid for playing the village idiot, it comes naturally.
Some psychological malfunction means he cannot read, do simple arithmetic or think logically but let’s him caper about annoying people and believing that he alone knows the secrets of the universe. Sad in a way and probably incurable.
He probably dreams of a heroes death, run over by an electric car, but with so few on the road he is unlikely to be so lucky.
“I doubt sod is paid for playing the village idiot, it comes naturally.”
another half day at 100% renewables on El Hierro.
The change is coming, while you are denying reality. This is just the beginning. Sit and watch.
A small island that does NOTHING, and produces NOTHING.
Trivial, tiny, heavily subsidised, niche…
And they still get 100% renewables for more than short periods of time
And certainly NOT a sign of anything to do with providing energy to cities and manufacturing.
You are ojust FOOLING YOURSELF, sop.
And they still CAN’T get 100% renewables for more than short periods of time
Figure 3: Period of grid instability showing the three grid failures, July 2016
And, speaking of “unstability” and “failure,”…
“So wind is about 10% and growing. you better start to accept the facts. Just staring at minimum numbers might not be telling the full story?!?” – sod
Nope, that data doesn’t mean what you think it means.
“The change is coming, while you are denying reality. This is just the beginning. Sit and watch.”
Soon, uneconomic money-sucking enterprises will become profitable, you just wait…
In the 1920ies everyone expected the USSR to quickly overtake the USA because competition was seen as inferior to wise central planning.
But that was the 1920ies. You would think todays politicians would KNOW that – but no.
So even though they have all the precedent in the world they are hell bent on repeating the mistakes – maybe they are so degenerated already that they can’t read anymore.
Fossil fuel (gas mainly) and nuclear providing the VAST MAJORITY of the UK’s electricity..
Who is the subsidy trougher that pays sop to TROLL this site with his WORTHLESS, UNRELIABLE wind energy junk?
I suspect ‘sod’ is including hydro, pumped hydro, and biomass (burning millions of tons of wood pellets imported from North America in his figures for UK power generation. On its own, wind power makes a negligible contribution from the point of view of reliability. As for solar; well, this if Britain!
“I suspect ‘sod’ is including hydro, pumped hydro, and biomass (burning millions of tons of wood pellets imported from North America in his figures for UK power generation. ”
hydro is tiny in comparison to wind.
“On its own, wind power makes a negligible contribution from the point of view of reliability. As for solar; well, this if Britain!”
your point of view is wrong because it is extremely one sided and biased against wind (“from a no-wind perspective, wind looks bad…”.). Start accepting reality. Wind is a significant source and growing. Embrace the facts.
The FACTS are the CCGT and nuclear do basically ALL the heavy lifting in the UK..
Wind, solar are nothing but irregular, unreliable bit-players that absolutely RELY on having other systems cover for them.
They do not and CAN NOT provide on demand, and are more a disruption than a benefit.
CCGT and Nuclear can provide ALL the required electricity on demand, something renewables will NEVER, EVER be able to do except as massively subsidized niche platy-toys.
“They do not and CAN NOT provide on demand, and are more a disruption than a benefit.”
Yeah. And everybody in the world wants to add some disruption to his grid. And the only guy who truly understands it, is AndyG55.
In the real world, solar PV is cheaper than other sources of electricity, if you use your own panels. And the solar output is in nearly perfect alignment with peak demand.
I do not know how far you are from the next coal plant, but it must be smoke that makes you unable to see the immediate benefit.
“if you use your own panels”
Paid for by other people.
“Paid for by other people.”
No, they are not.
Deutsche Bank sees solar PV at grid parity basically everywhere without subsidies.
Subsidies are still extremely helpful and a good idea, because they speed up the transition and because they help to bridge the unfairness caused by tons on subsidies which were (and are) given to fossil and nuclear.
Your one sided view on subsidies is utterly absurd.
Sod I am sure that you are aware that it is not the actual minimum or maximum of wind power generation that worries administrators and commenters here , but the variation from day to day.
You link to the excellent website of euarn mearns .It complements the gridwatch site in that gridwatch gives hourly readings which can be downloaded and analysed oneself whilst Mearns has done some of the analysing and summarising for us.
His latest annual summary of power generation is for 2015 , from which you can see that , taking Feb2015 as an example (not cherry picking, Feb is the coldest month in England when domestic demand is high and any source of power is important – but similar pictures are seen in other moths ).
Well for Feb 2015 wind , metered and embedded, varied between 1 and 8GW, ie about 3 to 21% of typical demand but varied irregularly. Nuclear however was steady at 7 – 8GW.
Over the year you are correct in saying that coal is gradually being phased out, but it looks as if the shortfall is being made up with gas and biomass rather than wind . However that is 2015 it will be interesting to see the 2016 summaries in a few months time.
thanks for your reply.
“Well for Feb 2015 wind , metered and embedded, varied between 1 and 8GW, ie about 3 to 21% of typical demand but varied irregularly. Nuclear however was steady at 7 – 8GW.”
To put things into perspective, let us take a look at the february data:
It is obvious, that it is a disadvantage, that wind and solar are Intermittent power sources.
The question is, how big of a problem is that?
The obvious answer is, that it is absolutely no problem at all at low penetration. Demand fluctuations are much bigger and much more difficult to forecast than wind and solar conditions.
so if you look at the graph, you will see that wind (in february) basically was very close to a constant output of 2000+MW, with one longer and some smaller drops below that number, which have to be compensated in the same way a normal power plant failure has to be compensated.
The situation already changes a little, when you add in solar and look at demand (in this case by looking at import/export as a proxy).
2016 will have a higher wind output, but of course will still have high and low wind days. Those only balance out over a much larger region or get smaller if we add much more offshore wind.
“Also conomics and energy spokesman of the CDU/CSU fraction Joachim Pfeiffer spoke of the pressure bearing down on local politicians and how the wind power industry is acting “very aggressively”.”
He’s probably still scared by those four burly men who dragged huge sacks full of Euro notes into his office and threatened him to accept it for favors, or else.
While we are talking of renewables gimmicks:
Most expensive fire cracker of the world goes off again.
Yeah, a Musk.
The “renewables gimmicks” are running El Hierro on 100% wind again for another full day.
They stopped the diesel yesterday at 7 am:
and are still running without:
So we know a couple of facts:
Places can run on 100% wind. Wind can be cheaper than all other sources. Wind can help to get rid of a dependency on problematic fossil fuels, often bought abroad.
And most of the arguments brought along here are contradicted by real life facts.
So let us stick to a burning Tesla or discuss wind minimum output in one country, shall we?
And the Spanish taxpayers only had to front up 84 million euros for the 5.5 MW grid.
I hope those bird shredders are earthquake proof. If not, then at least heavily insured.
“And the Spanish taxpayers only had to front up 84 million euros for the 5.5 MW grid.”
It is an experimental setup, basically the first of its kind.
The spanish tax payer (and rate payer) also has to shoulder the higher diesel electricity cost on the islands. This absurd dependency is going to be a thing of the past soon.
Isn’t it a bit difficult to produce coal-fired electricity when those stations have been closed down?
“Isn’t it a bit difficult to produce coal-fired electricity when those stations have been closed down?”
Why are they closing down? there might be a connection…
“Why are they closing down? there might be a connection…”
“The fossil fuel-fired power stations are uneconomic due to low capacity factors forced by significant priority input of wind generation”
But I’m sure you will be back to tell us that SA is is an example of how easily wind & solar can be “integrated” into an existing grid…
“But I’m sure you will be back to tell us that SA is is an example of how easily wind & solar can be “integrated” into an existing grid…”
yes, it is. Your article is using outdated news. In the real world, we already know the factors that caused the price spike and we also have strong information, that the crisis was being increased by companies abusing their monopolistic position.
Please read the full report:
In short, solar and wind are putting pressure on prices, driving them DOWN.
and SA ran on 83% wind for a period of time last month.
So these scare stories are handed out in an attempt to contradict the facts. It will not help you in the long run.
South Australian Wind Farm Debacle
There is NO WAY such redundancy can be either cheap or economical. And, as we see everywhere else, the more (un)renewables, the more costly energy becomes.
Elsewhere sod asked, if (un)renewables were so bad, why were so many countries rushing to install them? Short answer, they are gullible fools.
No, it is not bringing prices down, it is driving them up.
Only a fool would believe such a complicated rube-Goldberg scheme could be good for anything, except ruining the economies of those who attempt it.
wrote that sod “…will be back to tell us that SA is is an example of how easily wind & solar can be “integrated” into an existing grid…”
And, of course, sod wrote “yes, it is.” Well, as I pointed out to him/her/it/whatever the last time we discussed this, there was NO existing grid to plug into, and that even when it becomes available to get power from the North, that power will necessarily be from fossil fuels.
The sot says the problem is solved, but this report from less than a month ago say they aren’t even close.
Coal powered electricity is designed to deliver 24/7/52.
It is being FORCED to ramp up and down to make way for the INEFFICIENT IRREGULARITY of solar and wind.
That makes it uneconomic.. FORCED BY LEGISLATION.
Gas has taken up the role of covering for the large inadequacies of the pseudo-renewables.
Trouble is, that if you also make gas un-economical by forced acceptance of the erratic wind and solar….
… eventually you only have NOTHING.
sod keeps repeating the same nonsense, even though we’ve shown him over and over that he’s wrong.
RE – Southern Australia, for eg.
He was wrong then. He’s wrong now.
“Coal powered electricity is designed to deliver 24/7/52.”
This is utterly false. Brown coal was used that way, but black coal not (“Steinkohle”).
Just look at this picture:
Your graph says NOTHING about how coal is designed to be used.
You have yet again shown that you have absolutely ZERO idea how coal fired power works.
You have shown you are a fool.
“Your graph says NOTHING about how coal is designed to be used.”
Use google, if you do not know something.
Here from a glossar:
Die Mittellast wird durch Steinkohlekraftwerke abgedeckt. Etwa zwei Drittel des Jahres sind diese Kraftwerke im Einsatz, um den erhöhten Strombedarf auszugleichen. ”
“medium load is covered by blackcoal”
Was it really too much for you, to google the original site of my graph?
It does explain, how blackcoal has always been used to load follow in Germany.
If you do not google simple stuff like that, you look like a fool!
I’ve come to the conclusion that sod must be a politician or local government official. Claim black is white until the cows come home, and never admit to being wrong. Even when circumstances prove beyond any doubt that they WERE wrong, and corrective action has to be taken, let the taxpayers foot the bill, once more…
“I’ve come to the conclusion that sod must be a politician or local government official.”
No. like all your conclusions, this one is also false.
Renewables have problems, but they also have massive advantages. That is, why they are getting used basically everywhere around the globe now. Fact.
“Renewables have problems”
Well DOH !!!
They have ZERO advantages in any major supply system unless they have political subsidisation.