Germany’s rush into green energies is slowly and grudgingly being acknowledged by once steadfast proponents as a failure. Over time, even the most bitter of realities have to be accepted.
Germany’s online Tagesspiegel here recently presented a commentary on the collapse of the country’s largest solar components manufacturer, Solarworld, and what it really means.
First let’s note that the Tagesspiegel is based in Berlin, and is a center-left publication, and so what we have here is a grudging admission from a proponent that the pet green energy project is not what many would like us to believe it is.
Recently the top brass of Solarworld announced it would declare insolvency, and has since become “a case where we can learn a lot,” so says Tagesspiegel’s Ursula Weidenfeld.
She writes: “It tells us the story of megalomania, ignorance, cockiness and blindness of the future” and that it is an example of “the state interfering with competition – and distorting it” to the point where “companies are hampered and the power of innovation is weakened”
Weidenfeld compares the German government’s forays into green energy to the refugee crisis, where good intentions ended up with disastrous results. On companies feeding at the subsidy trough, she writes:
Ultimately, they wind up resorting to tricks, then they disappear.”
Weidenfeld describes a Germany that was hell-bent on showing the world how things are supposed to get done, but in the end wound up as an embarrassing failure. Weidenfeld concludes on the massive solar subsidies:
The more that politics tries to shape entire [industry] branches, the faster they come to an end. It’s for sure: the German initiatives are exemplary for the world. Here we can learn what you don’t do.”
Trump may not be able to stop the mass green energy subsidy scheme Paris is demanding, but the natural laws of economics certainly will. The longer the scheme is propped up, the bigger the crash will be.
89 responses to “‘Tagesspiegel’ Calls German Solar Energy Scheme An “Exemplary Initiative” On What “Not To Do”!”
here is the second hit that you get when you google the author:
She is a one in 100 example of neoliberal ideas.
The article does not contain any data. Most of what it says is false.
India is planning to build one terawatt of solar PV.
The idea that it was false to support solar PV from either an ecological or an economic position is both totally wrong and shows that the author does not have the slightest understanding of the subject.
I don’t see where India is mentioned..
Diversion from what you don’t want to hear, yet again, hey sob-sob.
Meanwhile Arica is starting down the road to development..
REAL electricity, not wasteful unreliable crap that only works during the day or when the wind blows a bit, but not too much.
Once again, you demonstrate a failure to grasp the problem with solar. It cannot work in mid/high Northern latitudes because (i) we require max energy on cold winter nights when the sun does not shine, (ii)due to the angle of inclination and path through the atmosphere solar is generally weak, and gets weaker as the Northern Hemisphere progresses towards winter, and this is when the Northern Hemisphere requires more power/energy for heating, lighting etc, (iii) it is frequently cloudy.
There is a place for solar in some countries such as the Middle East. Why? because they require maximum energy/power during the days in July and August to run aircon and the sun is shinning during peak demand.
Put simply, solar does not work when peak demand for power corresponds to the time when the sun does not shine, but can work when peak demand corresponds to the time when the sun shines at its most efficient. This is just basic engineering. An engineer does not design a power station which runs at its least efficient just when peak demand is at its greatest.
Whether solar can work well in India will no doubt depend upon its siting, but much of India is very different to Germany/Northern Europe, so your claim (if it be true) is irrelevant in that it does not deal with the problem that solar faces in Northern European Countries.
@richard verney 22. May 2017 at 3:59 AM,
Excellent point and well put!
Also don’t forget that Germany has sunk many BILLIONs of other peoples’ money on international schemes. What happened in Spain with Germany’s help? What happened in North Africa? See HERE for the over optimistic unrealizable hype that was generated at the time.
“India is planning to build one terawatt of solar PV. “
to which I quote about this assertion – does “not contain any data. Most of what it says is false. “
I’ve found something very apt for you, from this site HERE I see a very relevant quote for you from Eleanor Roosevelt —
To which I would add —
Tedious minds discuss nothing,
they just keep shouting.
Trabant and Mercedes tell you all you need to know about state supported and private enterprises.
“… they wind up resorting to tricks …”
When I read the above, several things jumped into my mind:
~ hockey stick;
~ Yamal YAD06 ( most influential tree in the world);
~ hide the decline
Ursula Weidenfeld likely had a few financial and bookkeeping things in her mind as she wrote about tricks. Such things can be complicated and one needs specialized training to figure out what was done, who did it, and where the money went.
With “climate scientists” the only issue is getting them to reveal what they have done. Then, pencil, paper, and common sense is about all that is needed to reveal the tricks.
Obviously the catastrophic project “renewables” has now reached maximum damage – MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! – and the journalists skip to the promotion of the new catastrophic project: Rescuing the whole of Africa and Arabia by bringing them into the German welfare system over the open borders, turning Germany into an IQ85 country (not a nation: a multiethnic multinational hodgepodge.)
My new hobby: Going to German google news frontpage and entering the searchterm “Messer”. (Knife)
It’s rivers of blood nonstop already.
She’s a CDU politician? Same/same! Same IQ as journalists, same ideology, same damage!
she is a journalist. But the CDU link is the second google hit when you enter her name.
That is pretty strange for a journalist (you should mostly hit articles).
another hit on the first page is her vita on the page of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (the research institute of the CDU).
Can’t discuss the issues, so you revert to typical lefty trick of attacking the person?
Obviously you have nothing to offer on the subject matter of the piece.
Pierre, when you told me you’d write something about the economics I expected something with a little more substance. Where are the numbers? Why is it a failure? Where is the threshold to being a failure?
Is one article really enough to support a point someone is making? What happens if I find you one article from a publication that praises renewables (or just solar, whatever)? Is it a success then?
What are the economics for solar power in Germany? 1.2% of total energy consumption is currently covered by photovoltaics. Do you expect the next 1.2% to be as expensive as the first? And the 1.2% after that?
“India is planning to build one terawatt of solar PV”
They are also planning some REAL power stations:
Sensible Indonesia goes for coal https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/indonesia-releases-its-35-gw-power-capacity-addition-plan.html.
So does India, much to the howling of the deraged greenies — https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/agu-icp042517.php
But then again doing what is best for your country is viewed very poorly by the green sloths of the world.
So does Pakistan (with Chinese help) https://theenergyadvocate.co.uk/2017/04/07/pakistan-begins-construction-new-coal-plant/ .
So does Bangladesh (again a few mega projects being built with the assistance of China)
So does Japan https://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/sydney/japan-plans-to-build-45-new-coal-power-plants-27762428
And don’t asume the USA will not build some new coal generation plant soon now Trump has OKed it.
Coal development happening in Africa too.
“Coal development happening in Africa too.”
100 coal plants is about the number that China just cancelled.
Most coal plants in Africa will not be a good investment, as cheap solar completely destroys their economic plan.
But my hint to you folks remains the same: invests invests invest! all in!
China over build because of the economic downturn because of the AGW agenda.
Coal in Africa will provide the STABILITY and REGULAR supply for ALL those countries to lift themselves out of third world status.
NO WONDER you are crying and scared !!
And yes cheap solar will ALWAYS destroy an economy.
Glad you finally realise it.
now take your AGW sewer soaked sock out of your mouth.. you are growing too accustomed to the taste.
I thought this link to Joe Romm’s thinking (and that of Bloomberg New Energy Finance) was pertinent.
The pro-wind faction has so enamored itself with building more and more of these spinning monuments, temples to a ‘zero carbon future’, that it is now captive to circular reasoning, without even realizing it.
“As natural gas and coal plants are increasingly idled in favor of renewables, their capacity factors will take a big hit, and lifetime cost of those plants goes up. Think of them as the expensive back-up power for cheap renewables.”
If one can come to such conclusions with a straight face, is there any help left?
“If one can come to such conclusions with a straight face, is there any help left?”
this is called the market and capitalism. It looks like you really really hate it?
Nobody gave a damn about nuclear and coal plants producing massive useless amounts of electricity at night, when nobody needs it.
those offshore wind parks need no subsidy. The system has to deal with them in exactly the same way they deal with any other offer.
Yet again a comment devoid of real fact!
“Nobody gave a damn about nuclear and coal plants producing massive useless amounts of electricity at night, when nobody needs it. ”
You definitely know nothing but nothing about electricity generation! Coal and nuclear maintain the base load requirements, without it the grid system would fail.
In a real system run by engineers and technical managers the electricity demand is met by generated production.
Only a grid connected system managed by Green idiots would allow ‘massive useless amounts of electricity at night’.
How does he think all the shopping lights, traffic lights, electric trains, electricity to homes etc etc etc operate at night without these base load supplies.
I know the guy lives in his granny’s basement…
what sort of brain-dead idiot is this child-mind !!!
And how can all that infrastructure of modern life like factories that run 24hrs, industrial freezer and coolers that maintain our food safety, all the communication channels including TV, radio, internet, etc., hospitals, roadside lighting, ports and airports, industrial chemical refining industry, iron and steel works, oil refineries, etc, etc.
As usual sod can only judge by his own very narrow world view.
“How does he think all the shopping lights, traffic lights, electric trains, electricity to homes etc etc etc operate at night without these base load supplies.”
all those “lights” basically need next to no electricity any longer, when switched to LEDs. a significant part of it could actually be run on solar PV and a local battery, so we might actually save money by not needing grid connection.
there are much fewer trains at night than during day. It is a typical example of load reduction at night.
So all paid for by other people’s money, hey sob-sob.
Your hallucinogenic FANTASY land yet again. !!
Look at load figures in any major city.
unlike you, who hides in his granny’s basement day and night, many cities actually come to life at night time.
But I bet you have never experienced actual LIFE , have you sob-sob. !!
As usual, you facile arguments are based wholly on fantasy nonsense.
“So all paid for by other people’s money, hey sob-sob.”
you have a serious reading problem. The new lights SAVE money.
So if it is other peoples money, they SAVE money by this investment.
You have nothing but insults. no original though, no understanding, no argument.
You have no original thoughts, sob.sob…
Just the rabid parroting of scam renewable web sites.
Do YOU yourself run totally on solar/wind, sob-sob?
… or are you TOTALLY RELIANT on fossil fuels for your whole feeble existence?
I bet you are NOTHING but a Yappy hypocrite.
Come on little child .. step up and go 100% solar/wind..
Its cheap, its reliable.. so you say.
I dare you. !!
or are you just blowing air out your a**e. !!
Or are you like seb , fossil fuel Mercedes, coal powered electricity or gas for heat.
lights by fossil fuel electricity,
fridge for your granny cooked meals,
fossil fuel electricity.
Do you ever leave your basement after dark.. thank fossil fuels if you do.
Do you have a computer you can RELY on to keep running to allow you to post hypocritical tripe, making a rabid fool of yourself…
Thank fossil fuels.
“there are much fewer trains at night than during day.”
You really are totally ignorant about basically EVERYTHING , aren’t you sob-sob.
Peak train time is invariably in the morning and evening.. when solar is basically USELESS..
Especially in winter.
But I don’t suppose you have ever actually travelled to any sort of real work, have you.
You would be unemployable even if you ever decided to actually make the attempt.
Deutsche Bahn (German Rail) used 42% renewable energie in their electricity mix in 2016. That’s above the 33.4% for all of Germany.
Regarding the use of fossil fuels: if 12.6% of all energy consumption was covered by renewables that obviously means 87.4% weren’t. So yes, we are relying on fossil fuels for a large part of our lives. The goal is to reduce that percentage and some citizen might even go full renewable. I don’t get how this makes everyone wanting to achieve that goal a hypocrite by not having achieved it yet. That’s some weird logic, AndyG55.
Have a nice sunny day and maybe Saturday will get us a new PV record? Who knows 😉
“fridge for your granny cooked meals, ”
fridge again is a classic example of load that can be shifted to whenever electricity is cheapest.
You know nothing about electricity!
“Peak train time is invariably in the morning and evening.. ”
Solar with small storage can easily cover the evening peak. And those evening trains back from work mostly happen while there is still sun.
But my advice is still the same INVEST INVEST INVEST. Gas peak time plants, specialised in nightime supply. It is a license for printing money. ALL IN!
You really do live in a FANTASY world, don’t you !!
Your understanding of how anything to do with electricity works is hilarious. !
“this is called the market and capitalism. It looks like you really really hate it?”
The only people who HATE market and capitalism are those that worship government intervention
Government intervention is the ONLY thing keeping wind and solar alive.
An that is what YOU worship.
You really do have your whole fetid existence bass-ackwards, sob-sob.
In EVERY developed country the nighttime electricity demand is comparable to daytime demand
I KNOW you lock yourself in your granny’s basement after dark, but the WHOLE DEVELOPED WORLD need lighting and electricity, ALL NIGHT.
Do you REALLY turn your lights and everything off after dark.
How come you post at all hours of the day.
Nighttime demand is very different from daytime demand. Also seasonal variations.
How’s the Mercedes going seb.. got that EV yet.
Still relying on fossil fuels to post at night.. or do you just shut everything down after dark ??
Never had to drive anywhere after dark, good thing the traffic lights are not solar, hey?
And those shops that are open. Trains running, street lights working.
Be VERY glad that fossil fuels still provide RELIABLE power.
Come on sob/seb, have some guts for once…
ADMIT that basically every facet of your pitiful lives is TOTALLY dependant on fossil fuel energy.
I only post when renewables are providing over 12% of electricity, which is all the time 😉
It’s amazing how you manage to turn around a correction of your claim (“In EVERY developed country the nighttime electricity demand is comparable to daytime demand”) and make it about me driving a fossil fuel car.
“Nighttime demand is very different from daytime demand. “
Wow eb you amaze me.
No, I’m truly amazed.
Amazed YOU actually appreciate that!
So what is the night-time demand?
And explain how that can be fulfilled for every second of every night, 365 night a year with unreliable wind and solar power, using this graph https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources . So that ports, airports, major highways, food stores, and 24hr operation etc., are powered all night.
Fossil fuels.. The ONLY thing in your life seb,
You cannot get away from that FACT.
And wind and solar combined always over 12%… total BULLSHIT.
Or are you counting the CO2 producing biofuels.
tom0mason, renewables provided 33.4% of the electricity in 2016. It should be pretty clear – for obvious reasons – why a third of the production can’t cover 100% of the time.
We could increase solar and wind sixfold and renewables (biomass and hydro included) would cover all demans 70% of the time and if overproduction were stored in batteries and in the form of gas the remaining time with less production than demand could be covered. I suppose it is also possible to not increase installed capacity that much, reduce the need for storage and just use imported natural gas.
It’s not that complicated and mainly a question of costs.
P.S.: Germany is paying 100 billion € each year for fossil fuel imports, half of which is for oil. If all cars in Germany were electric they would need 150 TWh of electricity. Produced at 5-7 cent wind/solar power plants this electricity would cost just 10.5 billion €. So question is: would oil imports decrease by more than 20% if all cars were electric?
SebastianH: “tom0mason, renewables provided 33.4% of the electricity in 2016.”
Renewables accounted for 12.6% of Germany’s energy consumption in 2016. Wind and solar combined accounted for only 3.3% of Germany’s energy consumption. And this is a lot to you?
“ADMIT that basically every facet of your pitiful lives is TOTALLY dependant on fossil fuel energy.”
obviously it is today and in Germany. But the tides are changing.
1% of the world’s energy consumption comes from wind + solar combined. 3.3% of Germany’s energy consumption comes from wind + solar combined.
keeping sticking to that line as long as it lasts.
renewables make up the majority of new capacity:
and in the USA:
But hey, that is just facts.
Why do you think that “capacity” matters, sod? Just because wind capacity exists doesn’t mean it gets used. It’s CONSUMPTION that matters. And here’s what the changes in consumption look like since 1990 for wind and solar relative to fossil fuels:
““renewables make up the majority of new capacity””
But seb has PROVEN that they just CANNOT and DO NOT deliver anywhere near that capacity.
They are totally UNRELIABLE
Yes they have the occasional spike when the wind is “just right”..
but MOST of the time they are a pointless WASTE of MONEY and SPACE.
90% reliability factor in Germany 2015, 2016 of LESS THAN 5% !!
That is absolutely pathetic.
Yes sob-sob, I’ll repeat that again so you can understand it..
90% reliability factor of less than 5% for 2015, 2016.
That’s the FACTS. !!
“Why do you think that “capacity” matters, sod?”
capacity is just te most easy way to measure new power plants.
Solar/wind capacity will matter for coal, because the high end of the output will be the death of slow coal plants.
If there is a 500% increase in wind and solar capacity, but this growth in capacity only changes the share of wind + solar energy consumption by 0.1% relative to fossil fuels, which percentage (500% or 0.1%) matters more to the goal of near-zero CO2 emissions?
Obviously, you’re really impressed by how big 500% looks. The rest of us are noticing that 0.1% figure, pointing it out to you, and then watching in amusement as you tell us it’s all a “trick”.
” And here’s what the changes in consumption look like since 1990 for wind and solar relative to fossil fuels:
Those “total energy use” graphs are a cheap trick to hide the success of renewables for another couple of years.
you keep riding that one trick pony on a site that is named “no tricks zone”. That says it all…
This is so amusing. So when you see data that don’t support your belief that renewables have been a rousing success, you call them “tricks”.
Here, let’s have another look at the “trick” that is hiding the rousing success wind and solar have enjoyed:
“This is so amusing. So when you see data that don’t support your belief that renewables have been a rousing success, you call them “tricks”. ”
wind and solar PV will have an effect on electricity output. comparing it to anything else (like total energy demand) is utterly moronic.
everyone with a working brain who follows this discussion will spot your trick at once.
my advice also stays the same: invest in coal NOW. Nothing could go wrong!
I’m still a little unclear as to why it is a “trick” to point out that the share of fossil fuel consumption has risen demonstrably more than the share of wind + solar over the last few decades. Is anything that doesn’t praise the market “success” of wind + solar a “trick” in your eyes?
“I’m still a little unclear as to why it is a “trick” to point out that the share of fossil fuel consumption has risen demonstrably more than the share of wind + solar over the last few decades.”
because there is no connection between wind power and heating your house.
What you do is like this: the doctor tells you, that this medicine is really good for your weak heart. You decline to take it, because it does not fix your broken arm.
The trick is, you are trying to hide the massive increase in renewables by using multiple tactics to obscure the effect: focus on wind and/or solar PV, compare to total energy, ignore exports and the nuclear power shutting down, focus on solar in winter or at night, ….
But the real world is moving on. When solar PV can be build for 3ct (and for 4.5 ct with some storage), and prices are between 10 and 30 ct, even someone illiterate in math can figure out what will happen.
PS: another cheap trick is posting graphs that show no demand, so that it hides the prefect alignment of solar and demand in Germany…
“capacity is just the most easy way to measure new power plants.”
Solar and wind..
and bee found SEVERELY WANTING !!
“death of slow coal plants.”
And what will you use for power once those coal plants are gone, sob..
unicorn.. or your own… farts !!
Your basement should, thankfully, contain the outfall !!
wind and solar PV will have an effect on electricity output.”
Not wrong there.
Once the feed-in mandates and subsidies force all RELIABLE power supplies to shut down…
then most of the time… THERE WON’T BE ANY !!
Not true … more than half of the time wind+solar produces electricity at 10 GW or more.
Once coal is gone, gas is the most likely replacement. Other countries can run almost entirely on natural gas, why would Germany be the exemption and it declared impossible to build enough gas power plants?
“more than half of the time wind+solar produces electricity at 10 GW or more.”
And the rest of the time
IT DOESN’T !!
“Once coal is gone, gas is the most likely replacement.”
Japan think otherwise.
” he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government.”
I’ll repeat that last bit for you, so you wil maybe comprehend.
ENERGY SECURITY is a priority…
… not bowing to some wacky AGW anti-science, anti-CO2 agenda, but ENERGY SECURITY
I’d like to remind you that Japan has virtually no fossil resources of their own. Of course they import what can be imported best.
Also: if something provides something for more than half the time, the rest is necessarily less than half and therefor not “most of the time”. Use other words when you want to downplay the role of wind and solar or renewables as a whole.
Your child-minded rationalisations and fabrications to justify the UNRELIABILITY of wind and solar, really are becoming a manic clown act. 🙂
wind and solar provide less than 16% of their capacity for over half the time.
And yes,.. something REAL does have to compensate for that massive UNRELIABILITY.
“wind and solar provide less than 16% of their capacity for over half the time.”
these claims are getti8ng more and more stupid over time.
capacity is mostly only a number written somewhere on the machine. Most renewables could simply double their capacity factor by changing the number written on it (with very little actual change in output).
your position and your ideas are plain out stupid.
Exponential growth Kenneth!
Wind is currently growing 17% per year, Solar 28% per year worldwide. If it’s 1% this year, it will be 2% in 2022, 4% in 2026, 8% sometime in 2029, 16% at the start of 2034, 32% sometime in 2036, 50% sometime in 2038, etc …
This is, once again, a clear example of your lack of understanding of how this works.
Solar and wind combined have already been growing exponentially for decades. This didn’t just start happening a few years ago. And yet they still only represent 1% of world consumption. The reason? Because they have yet to even begin to SUPPLANT fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been growing right along with wind + solar. In fact, more than 3 times faster than wind + solar (consumption) between 1980 and 2012. To reach your fantasized 50% within 21 years, fossil fuel consumption is going to need to DECLINE (dramatically) in consumption and not continue growing like it has for the last 35 years.
Your fantasized “doubling every 5 years” hasn’t worked in the last 30 years of exponential growth in wind + solar. But for some reason you imagine that it’s different now, or that you don’t have to account for fossil fuel consumption. As if the doubling-every-five-years conceptualization doesn’t operate in a competitive market, but exists in a vacuum. It doesn’t work that way.
Would require exponential growth of subsidies and area.
Gee , seb may even get A wind turbine on the path outside his basement.
I guess you don’t understand math, Kenneth.
We had this discussion about exponential growth of solar and wind before, so I will just post a short reply.
These percentages come from this spreadsheet:
2% growth of energy consumption, 28% growth of solar, 17% growth of wind results in these dramatic increases in the coming years.
Your argument that previous growth also was exponential ans resulted in just 1% just shows you don’t understand exponential growth. It was 0.5% a few years ago, 0.25% a few years before that, etc … that’s the nature of exponential growth, half the current absolute growth happened in the last doubling period. You’ll see how this growth continues …
In the real world, this is about market share, SebastianH. Demand for a product doesn’t stay constant. It’s the share of the demand that grows relative to the growth/decline in other products that is at issue here.
Here’s what the exponential growth in wind+solar looks like since 1990. Notice how big it’s getting, doubling every several years. Be sure to ignore the shape of the other colors above wind+solar (oil, gas, coal) and how they have grown since 1990. Because that way you can pretend like exponential growth in wind+solar is working exactly as you imagine it is.
“I guess you don’t understand math”
From you, that is HILARIOUS. !!
Doubling from basically nothing still give basically nothing.
Only a mathematical inebriate would expect exponential growth, because that would require exponential money and exponential space usage.
You are a one of those mathematical inebriates, aren’t you, seb.
Kenneth, you don’t have to use so many words to write “the absolute increase of fossil fuels was bigger than wind+solar”. Do you really think that the exponential growth until now will suddenly stop?
Here is the wind+solar part of your linked graph:
Can you guess where todays values fit on that graph? Because it’s been four years the MTOE value doubled since 2012. And they will double again until 2020 and of course they will start to replace fossil fuel if this growth continues. And why wouldn’t it? In the BP report from 2016 (http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf) the increase in renewables (everything except hydro) covered the entire increase in global power generation, page 5 in that report). In their next report it will exceed the increase in global power generation.
I am not expecting exponential growth, I am seeing it. Look at the graph I linked here (until 2012) and todays values and tell me that this isn’t exponential growth!
Also: insult followed by nonsense, never a good idea. The costs are also decreasing exponentially, so no … money spent doesn’t increase exponentially. Space does, but we all have seen what area would be covered if the entire power consumption of mankind would come from solar, right? And wind make better usage of space, so … don’t be afraid of the future, AndyG55.
“And wind make better usage of space,”
Now you really are in la-la land !!!
You are a mathematic inebriate, seb !!
Only a rank idiot would “believe” in the exponential growth of UNRELIABLES.
They will need to do FAR better than below 16% capacity for more than half the time. !
solar PV will grow exponentially until the midday peak is gone. Nothing will stop that.
It will keep growing, if batteries get cheaper. fact.
This are pure market forces.
The ONLY reason for growth is the political subsidies and the scam of feed-in mandates.
wind and solar would be NOTHING but a TINY niche product….
ZERO percent of world energy supply (to nearest whole number).
so even with the massive market distortions, they are STILL…
BASICALLY … NOTHING !!!
It doesn’t matter how much you grow ZERO exponentially, you still end up with a BIG FAT ZERO !!!
the tides will not power anything at night.
Your “all those “lights” basically need next to no electricity any longer, when switched to LEDs. a significant part of it could actually be run on solar PV and a local battery” is BS piled high and stinking, which highway uses that? And who is paying for all the new infrastructure?
Batteries? Gas power plants?
Also wind is available at night and typically stronger than at daytime, but not available every night of the year.
Offshore (http://i.imgur.com/VNNQmXA.png) has a higher availability than onshore (http://i.imgur.com/N7FkORS.png). When there is no wind, see first paragraph.
How quaint seb.
So back to basics seb, how do you keep all this customer demand happy?
Not with wind and solar! Only someone who doesn’t understand would think that such systems could fulfill the paying customers’ requirements.
Also wind is available at night ..
And if you didn’t eat enough beans.. How are you going to power your computer and granny’s basement light, seb… !!
FOSSIL FUEL.. that’s how. !!
It would certainly be a great benefit to this society if you were only able to post a maximum of 16% of your baseless AGW religious tripe, a maximum of 50% of the time. !!
I hereby submit a request, as per seb’s wind reliability…..
..that you only allow 8% of his posts.
That seems fair..
Wouldn’t you agree, seb !!
“I hereby submit a request, as per seb’s wind reliability…..
..that you only allow 8% of his posts.”
i would join that plan. and “sceptics2 are only allowed to post, when nuclear in Japan is back to 90+%.
sou8nds fair to me.
topic is wind and solar..
strawman the nuclear.. so pathetic of you.
How about we talk Japanese COAL instead.
That’s where the growth is. 🙂
gotta luv this comment from the link, hey sob-sack…
“But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government”
no mention of wind or solar…
.. because ENERGY SECURITY is a priority.
Reliability of grid does INCREASE with more wind. It is getting BETTER; not worse, as Texas shows:
solar is the cheapest source of electricity in basically all warm countries now.
Quote of the day: (solar is growing faster than predicted by those who support solar!
“Solar power has grown by 100 in the last 13 years, Naam says. It’s averaged around 35 to 40 percent annual growth over the last 20 years. “I’m a solar optimist, and I was wrong,” he says. “Solar prices are plunging even faster than those who are wildly optimistic [expected].””