Failure…Hundreds Of Billions For Nothing As Germany CO2 Reductions Stagnant Almost 10 Years!

It’s good to see that I am not the only person looking critically at Germany’s rather inept attempt to switch over to green energy sources in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

The site here presents a good overview of Germany’s recent performance when it comes to reducing so-called “greenhouse gases”. Unfortunately German citizens have not seen any success recently for the tens of billions of euros they are paying extra for the “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energy).

A new Environmental Progress analysis finds that “German emissions increased in 2016 for a second year in a row“, blaming the result on “the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas“. Obviously wind and sun failed to step in and do the job.

Environmental Progress reports the shocking result:

Not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the percentage of time during 2016 that solar and wind produced electricity declined dramatically.

Germany added a whopping 10 percent more wind turbine capacity and 2.5 percent more solar panel capacity between 2015 and 2016, but generated less than one percent more electricity from wind and generated one percent less electricity from solar.”

The site describes Germany’s wild variability that the country has to deal with producing power from sun and wind.

2016’s rise to 916 gigatonnes of CO2 extends Germany’s streak of failing to lower its CO2 emissions to 8 years. The following chart goes to 2014. The year 2015 saw 908 gigatonnes CO2 emissions compared to 902 in 2014.


Chart source: UBA Umweltbundesamt (Federal Office of the Environment).

This means Germany literally has made virtually no progress at all over the past decade. The latest jump in CO2 emissions make the chances of Germany reaching its 2020 CO2 reductions target even far more remote. Add to this that subsidies for wind and solar power recently have been watered down and the surge of up to 2 million refugees will boost demand for energy. Germany’s commitment to fulfilling the Paris Agreement is looking like a real farce.

Another fact that shows that solar and wind will never work: Environmental Progress points out that even if Germany adds 50% more solar panel capacity by 2030, it will boost solar’s share of power from 6% to 9 percent.

Germany’s Energiewende has only succeeded in massively elevating Germany’s consumer power prices, making its power almost twice as expensive as power in neighboring France, which relies heavily on nuclear. While France’s power is half the cost, the country also emits far less CO2 from electricity production:

Germany January 2017_v2.015.jpeg Chart source:

That’s what one would call success. Why some countries are still racing into the renewable energy foray despite the German debacle, remains a mystery.

Read all of the Environmental Progress report here.


65 responses to “Failure…Hundreds Of Billions For Nothing As Germany CO2 Reductions Stagnant Almost 10 Years!”

  1. sod

    It is important to understand, that the source of this article is hardcore pro nuclear.

    And the site is using horrible statistics to make its point. Please look at this graph:

    This is a classic trick and i can not even imagine what people here would tell me, if i used such an absurd system of axis on a graph!

    1. John F. Hultquist

      I would say “Hang him by his thumbs with a thin wire.”

    2. David Johnson

      As opposed to your hardcore pro wind sites which are ev en more uyntrustworthy

    3. yonason

      LOL – Because “pro nuclear” is SOOOOO bad.

      As I wrote earlier, I hope you are getting paid for your stupidity, because it would be a shame to waste your raw talent for free.

      Even this guy thinks nukes are the way to go (and that wind and solar are a niche market)

      Not only that, but even the otherwise screwy and obnoxious David Appell gets that one correct.

    4. werner pluss

      And if the day-to-day facts of the ‘Energietraumwandel’ hit you in the face? Still ideologically immune, ‘hirnvernagelt’? Scary indeed. Reminds me of things past I read about in Germany.
      16 Dec to 16 Jan as example.

  2. SebastianH

    The bet is that energy generated by solar or wind will eventually cost less money than is spent on fuel for conventional power plants. Those 6% were expensive, but the next 30% are pretty cheap (7.25 cent / kWh was the subsidized price for large solar plants in August 2016).

    Do you have numbers how much CO2 was generated per kWh? I suppose their energy usage also increased, didn’t it?

    1. sod

      Exports are increasing. This is constantly ignored by the “sceptics”.–+TEDx+Munich+v2.036.jpeg?format=750w

      A significant part of the exports are not renewables by the way. Instead coal plants are kept running, leading to overproduction. This makes economic sense for the coal plants, as it is cheaper for them than stopping and restarting.

      There are real problems in the current renewable sector of Germany, but this one is not one of them.

    2. Hivemind

      “7.25 cent / kWh was the subsidized price for large solar plants in August 2016”

      So tell us what the subsidy was. I be on a real comparison, 2016 wasn’t significantly cheaper than 2015. These people get subsidies for installing the plant, also subsidies for any power they generate.

      If a household is involved, the power they use doesn’t get deducted from the amount generated, they are paid that in full. The power consumed is all at the much lower consumer rate.

      The Australian solar power subsidy scheme is an obscene waste of taxpayer’s money.

      1. SebastianH

        I believe the article was talking about Germany. I don’t know anything about Australian subsidies for solar power.

        1. DirkH

          The German FIT scheme is described as a success by the warmunist Cabal and has been copied in 60 countries: All consumers pay a fee per kWh that goes to pay the guaranteed fixed price for kWhs of the renewables, making THEM and ONLY them independent of bulk market price forces.

          sod continues to celebrate the OVERPRODUCTION of intermittent power – which is the logical consequence of the price fixing scheme. So – the warmunists are CELEBRATING that they can produce the predictable effect of price fixing.

          1. AndyG55

            A proper, pre-order of supply, with fines for non-supply, would absolutely destroy the wind industry.

            But that is how energy supply should work.

            Orders placed in advance at a certain price, and if supply is not met the supplier goes down the gurgler.

            I wonder how sop would cope if it ordered, say 40 steaks for a weekend BBQ, then was told on the day that it wouldn’t be delivered until 4 days later, but he had to buy it anyway.

  3. AndyG55

    Go Aussies.. See all that lovely, plant-life enhancing, CO2 based electricity. 🙂

  4. AndyG55

    And see Switzerland, France, Sweden..

    Hydro and Nuclear.. very little wasted on unreliables.

  5. sod

    Agora actually notes a slight reduction of CO2 output in te electricity sector.

    It is also making the argument, that renewables will be cheaper in the long run than fossile fuels.

    1. David Johnson

      Yes an argument. I can argue anything as well, it doesn’t mean it is true or will become true. Wind will never become cheaper. Never

      1. sod

        please stop ignoring the facts. CO2 output from electricity is sinking.

        Wind has become massively cheaper:

        (the reason for the hill in the middle is wind spreading to places all over the US.

        1. AndyG55

          If wind is so cheap, I assume you, how care so much about people, will be campaigning for the REMOVAL of all subsidies and feed-in mandates.

          Waiting… waiting..

          Oh wait, you KNOW that to remove all subsidies and feed-in mandates would mean the death of wind power, don’t you. (even if you can’t bring yourself to overcome the inner lies and brain-washing)

          Wind can ONLY ever survive in a highly subsidised and preferential market..

          A level playing field… not a chance.

          1. SebastianH

            So it is ok to subsidize coal and nuclear electricity generation to get them started, but it is not ok to do the same for cleaner solutions?

          2. yonason


            They didn’t like my other link, so I’ll give them this one.

            Un-renewables are a worthless waste to all but a few well placed con artists and their close friends, as you know. What I can’t figure is why all these trolls keep regurgitating nonsense. Is this how they earn their living, getting paid for being professional idiots, …you know, like the rent-a-riot clowns opposing Trump?

            I would hope they are getting paid, because being that stupid for free is just such a waste of their raw talent.

          3. AndyG55

            cleaner solutions?


            Modern coal and nuclear are far cleaner to the environment than either wind or solar.

            Wind and solar also absolutely require coal and or nuclear in their manufacturing process.

            The production of wind or solar facilities destroys a FAR larger area of the environment than coal or nuclear will ever do.

            Widespread destruction of environment and economies is ALL that wind and solar have to offer, whereas EVERY modern society has been built using coal, and gas and oil and sometimes nuclear and hydro

            Wind has NEVER contributed ANYTHING to society, just subtracted from it.

          4. SebastianH


            The linked chart claims $2.1 subsidies per nuclear MWh, $35.33 per wind MWh and $231.21 per solar MWh for the year 2013. Source / Washington Times.

            So I looked it up ( U.S. nuclear produced 8117 trillion BTUs (2379 TWh), wind 1549 trillion BTUs (454 TWh) and solar 286 trillion BTUs (84 TWh). Total subsidies for nuclear were 1660 million $, for wind 5936 million $ and for solar 5328 million $.

            This results in per-MWh subsidies of $0.70 for nuclear, $3.83 for wind and $63.43 for solar. The graph is a little off or they got their numbers from a different report? The numbers reflect the year 2013. Are there numbers for the last 50 years available somewhere?

            @AndyG55: “every modern society has been built by ice harvesters”, this is how your argument sounds like …

          5. yonason

            @SebastianH 16. January 2017 at 1:59 PM

            Blow it out your ear, propaganda boy.

          6. AndyG55

            “this is how your argument sounds like …”

            Your lack of understanding of the development of modern world civilisations is astounding.

            It is UTTER IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY not even accepting that coal, oil, gas have been, and will continue to be, the MAIN energy supply for all advancing societies.

            But we can see that IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY are your main personal traits.

          7. sod

            “If wind is so cheap, I assume you, how care so much about people, will be campaigning for the REMOVAL of all subsidies and feed-in mandates.”

            I have told you this a couple of times now. NEW wind is cheaper than NEW coal.

            So wind , even being the cheapest NEW source of electricity might still need help when competing with an OLD coal plant.

            This should not be too hard to understand.

          8. SebastianH

            AndyG55, your ad hominem attacks and comments written with a certain kind of rage/hatred are tiring …

          9. AndyG55

            Poor diddums. Precious little petal, are you.?

            Can’t take the heat, get out of the fire.

            And take your rubbish with you.

            Yes I’m cranky that such a momentous scam can still be promulgated by ignorant little twerps like you and Appell.

          10. AndyG55

            I find your base-level ignorance very tiresome too.

            But there is nothing you can do about it, is there… you are stuck with it.

          11. AndyG55

            “I have told you this a couple of times now. NEW wind is cheaper than NEW coal.”

            And I have told you that you are a rampant liar.

            Wind will only ever suck subsidies, until a short time until it dies.

            Coal will pay for itself, at low cost, over many decades.

            There is absolutely NO COMPARISON. !!

        2. yonason


          “The notion that renewable electricity is cheap is one of a number of Green Myths that have been woven into a gigantic Green lie that is undermining our society, our welfare, our institutions and the way that we think about and rationalise problems.”

          Sorry, sod. Everything you know is STILL wrong.

        3. DirkH

          SebastianH 16. January 2017 at 11:32 AM | Permalink
          “So it is ok to subsidize coal and nuclear electricity generation to get them started, but it is not ok to do the same for cleaner solutions?”

          a) The moment you remove the subsidies wind collapses.
          b) The free market price for unreliable electricity is near zero.

          Think about it. You have a good to offer of which you can’t tell me how much you will have and at what time you will have it but you want me to guarantee payment for that good.

          That’s simply a terrible product to market.

          1. AndyG55

            Furthermore, if the supply can’t be met when needed, or too much is produced.. you have to pay as well.

            NO THANKS. !!

          2. SebastianH

            That is certainly correct. Wind would only work in few select places if subsidies and the feed-in preference would be dropped now. The reason for subsidies is usually to get to a point where they are no longer needed or to sustain an industry that is deemed vital for a country (independence from something, jobs, you name it). Wind and solar fall in the first category.

            Wind is pretty predictable (just look at the day ahead auctions), Solar too. I don’t see a problem with this kind of power supply if it gets to a point where it is cheaper than electricity from conventional sources. It currently seems difficult to achieve because of the neccessary storage and the price of storage respectively. But I wouldn’t go as far as you guys and declare it impossible and write about it in capital letters.

            Regarding your 32 billion number and 15% increase per year of that number: please explain how this would work. Thank you.

      2. DirkH

        An intermittent power source can only ever be a decoration on top of a reliable system.
        It’s perfectly suited to steal 32 billion EUR a year though.
        I never thought future technologies would be developed with the sole intent of fraud. It’s pretty amazing.

        1. SebastianH

          And there it is again … 32 billion € a year. Where did you get that number for Germany?

          It’s about 24 Billion € a year for the “EEG-Umlage” minus the reduced costs for lower wholesale electricity prices.

          1. DirkH

            It *WAS* 24 billion a year. About 3 years ago. The subsidy fraud grows with about 15% a year.

        2. yonason

          Yeah, Dirk. Where DO you get that 32 billion number? It’s at least twice that (worldwide).

          1. SebastianH

            The linked article compares subsidies for renewable energy with profits from oil companies and makes an argument for reduced taxes not being subsidies.

            Here is a chart of fossil and renewable subsidies that may or may not be true:

            However, it seems stupid to argue for subsidies of renewables based on historic subsidies for other forms of energy production. I strongly hope there will be future where the true cost of every produced kWh is made transparent to the consumer. Subsidizing coal and nuclear was surely worth it, but please stop denying that it happened/happens …

          2. yonason

            Thanks, S.H., for proving with your graph what was said in my link, that…

            “Something you might notice from these two graphs is that the biggest subsidizers of fossil fuels are not the USA, or indeed, not any of the wealthy west (which is where the renewable subsidies thrive). It’s telling that the largest fossil fuel subsidies come from places like Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and India. “

            Look at the y-axis in your graph, and there isn’t a single Western nation. 😉

          3. yonason

            I just realized I could have been clearer.

            There isn’t a single Western nation on the graph of those who most subsidize fossil fuel (graph on left). BUT, on the graph of those subsidizing UN-renewables (graph on right) it’s all Western nations, with the exception of China and Japan, but they aren’t third world economies, so they still make sense there.

          4. SebastianH

            That is the current situation. Western nations haven’t always subsidized renewables and subsidies for fossil and nuclear power generation weren’t always this low. However it is still billions of € in Germany. And looking at new nuclear power plants in UK and France it’s still billions of € and £ there too …

  6. John F. Hultquist

    U. S. States are tied to others so it is difficult to know what the numbers someone presents really mean. For example:

    The following is a bit old:
    Oregon Imports & Exports
    According to Ken Dragoon, senior resource analyst with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 30 to 40 percent of that wind energy goes to California to meet renewable energy mandates down there. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of Oregon’s electricity consumption comes from coal-fired power plants – many of which are in Wyoming and Montana. About 15 percent of the state’s power comes from natural gas.

    So it is possible that California claims use of wind power wen there is shifting going on.
    It is a long way from the Columbia River Valley (wind area) to the major load needs of CA. There is a DC intertie, called “path 66” — do a search — Also called “California Oregon Intertie (COI)”

    PS: Those wind towers have been spectacularly ineffective this week:

    Note the green line on the bottom.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      Here tonight (7:45 pm, Pacific Coast) we have 4, that’s 4, full 24 hour periods without even a whimper from the wind towers. Thermal has provided a very steady base and the rest of the load is being handled by running more or less water through dams. Some wind is expected by Tuesday afternoon.

  7. Svend Ferdinandsen

    Take a look at
    and scroll down to the Scandinavian countries generation.
    Norway is a real sonderfall. 97% of their electricity is hydro. Where have i heard that 97% before?

  8. DirkH

    ” Add to this that subsidies for wind and solar power recently have been watered down and the surge of up to 2 million refugees will boost demand for energy. ”

    Interestingly, the GREENS (not the CDU; the other Greens) NEVER talk about the environment now and ONLY about helping asylum seekers. And NEVER mention that transferring millions of Africans and Arabs to Germany and lifting them up to our standard of living will INCREASE resource usage (and destroy the planet more, better and faster).

    As usual: Every logical-sounding argument they ever made was only a facade for their project of cultural marxism (a.k.a. bringing down capitalism any way they could).

    1. yonason

      I posted this on another thread, but it’s relevant here as well.

      American subsidies broken down by power source.

      It’s positively criminal.

      1. sod

        “American subsidies broken down by power source.

        It’s positively criminal.”

        Criminal is, what you do with statistics there. “direct federal energy subsidy per unit of production”.

        you picked the winner by picking this sort of statistics. bad trick!

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, far-left governments attempting to pick winners.. will ALWAYS produce losers in the end.

      2. SebastianH

        A quick search for subsidies reveals different total numbers. For Germany renewables haven’t reached the amount spent for fossil and nuclear energy generation yet. However, they most likely will surpass those if the system continues like it has … But saying the subsidies for renewables are unprecedented is just dishonest.

        1. Pethefin

          Would you care to reveal the sources for your claims? Or is it again your eyeballing methodology that brings us such laughable claims?

          1. SebastianH

            Do you claim that coal and nuclear power were/are not subsidized in Germany? Or are we arguing over the amount?

          2. Pethefin

            So again you have no proof what so ever for your claims. Hardly surprising coming from a troll.

          3. yonason


          4. SebastianH

            Pethefin, do you honestly believe that the wholesale kWh price for any power source contains the true costs for that specific power source?

            Just look at new nuclear facilities in France and UK. Germany is just ending its subsidies for coal (beginning at the end of 2018, after more than 4 decades). There are examples everywhere.

            I wonder if future blog commentators will equally deny that there have been subsidies for their 100% renewable energy supply in the past 😉

        2. AndyG55

          Fossil fuels and nuclear BUILT Germany.

          wind and solar will DESTROY IT.

        3. yonason
        4. DirkH

          SebastianH 16. January 2017 at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

          Would you prefer ?

          1. SebastianH


          2. yonason

            Since S.H. likes facts so much, here’s another guy who “gets it.”

            “The Appalling Truth About Energy Subsidies”

            With the truth staring them in the face, the sods and Appells and the S.H.’s of the world refuse to do anything but deny it, over and over and over again.

          3. SebastianH

            Please note: I am not denying that renewables currently rely on subsidies. I just think you are dishonest if you claim the wholesale price of fossil fuels is not and was not ever subsidized. Especially when governments like Germany have a known record of directly subsidizing coal with billions of € …

          4. SebastianH

            And it is equally dishonest to ignore tax breaks for new plants, when they wouldn’t have been built without them. Or fixed feed in tariffs (not different from renewables at all) for plants like Hinkley Point C.

            There is a reason nearly all power plants in France are state owned …

  9. tom0mason

    Sometimes I wonder that because thermal power plants, like the majority of nuclear power plants are just too reliable.
    Maybe if they were made to be only three to five time more reliable than renewables they would be appreciated more!
    I know this is both an immoral and illegal act to do but I feel so because at least two generations have lived with reliable power for most of their lives. They now appear to grossly under appreciate how the power companies delivered that reliable cost-effective service for so many years to their homes and businesses, they failed to understand how much of their modern lives utterly depend on its reliable delivery.
    Still as prices rise Germany will find out the true cost of all those unreliables.

    1. sod

      ” They now appear to grossly under appreciate how the power companies delivered that reliable cost-effective service for so many years to their homes and businesses, they failed to understand how much of their modern lives utterly depend on its reliable delivery.”

      The German grid is now 1/3 renewables and it is the most reliable on earth.

      The facts, they hurt.

  10. Donough

    Considering that most of the energiewende money has gone into a grid transformation, we can use the grid and its performance as an indicator for the EW. In short

    In 1999 Germany had a largely conventional grid. Taking data via cleanenergywire the average 3 year emissions from 1997-99 were 351 MtCO2e. Not much renewables on the grid.

    2001/2002 energiewende becomes part of policy and renewable installation rates take off.

    Average emissions for last 3 years to 2015 = 352.6 MtCO2e

    One of the main goals was for reductions in CO2 from the grid. Given the money and the lack of progress, we can only conclude that after 15 years, Germany has failed to achieve significant CO2 emissions.

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