Angela Merkel’s grand coalition government with the opposition SPD socialist party took a massive beating in last Sunday’s election, with both her CDU/CSU party and the coalition partner SPD socialist party coming in at post-war historic lows.
Since then the SPD has announced it is no longer interested in continuing the grand coalition and instead will take the helm as the opposition force. The comfy, low-opposition government is over. This has got Merkel scrambling to find new partners to form a new government. Her only option available: forming a coalition with the business-friendly FDP free democrats – and the environmentalist Greens. That is not going to be easy by any means.
Merkel potential coalition partner cold on subsidies for renewables
Merkel of course would have no problems governing together with the greens, and the massive state media apparatus is already promoting it with abandon.
But there are wide chasms of difference between the potential coalition parties on a number of issues, especially on issue of renewable energy subsidies.
Yesterday at the leftist, Berlin-based Tagesspiegel here, FDP party boss Christian Lindner left a commentary where he “demands the end of the EEG feed-in reform act“. According to Lindner, Germany’s focus has been “religiously excessive” on climate protection “instead of on price and supply stability“. For too long have the consumers and industry been sacrificed at the alter of Climatism, and done so with no results.
“Green energies have failed”
According to Lindner:
The project of the century Energiewende [transition to green energies] has failed. None of the agreed targets will be reached. Climate protection is stalled, energy prices are rising and they are burdening us as electricity consumers, just as they are the industry and middle class. And not least of all it is becoming increasingly difficult to guarantee a secure power supply during the winter months.”
Worse than former communist East Germany
Lindner adds that even Communist East Germany could not have designed the system to be worse. Lindner then blasted the country’s high electricity prices and their detrimental impact on German competitivesness, writing that many companies have left the country. Moreover conventional power plants that are forced to run part time are no longer profitable, Prices he says, will continue to rise and that there is no end in sight.
24 billion euro annual burden, time to pull the plug
Lindner also claims that government reforms to the feed-in act have “gone out of control” and that this is burdening the German consumers to the tune of 24 billion euros annually, or more than 300 euros a year for a family of four.
Lindner is calling for scrapping the current feed-in act and replacing it altogether from scratch, saying what is needed is a Europe-wide energy policy and power grid. Secondly he says that renewable energies must stop being subsidized and that Europe should take its time to reduce CO2.
According to Lindner:
The EEG [feed-in act] no longer works and it is time to pull the plug.
To the contrary, the Greens are demanding that green energies be expanded even more rapidly and that diesel engines be banned by 2030. The split between the two potential junior coalition parties seems unsolvable, so much so that German flagship daily Die Welt here wrote that Lindner has even poured cold water on the idea of a CDU/CSU/Green/FDP coalition government. That could mean that the days of Angela Merkel may be numbered, and those of the Energiewende as well.
Gas and oil still very much in the future
The dream of reaching near zero CO2 emissions in Germany and worldwide is looking increasingly like pie-in-the-sky. The industry association representing purchasing and logistics in Germany writes here that oil and gas will continue to dominate the energy market even in 2050. Though it foresees growth of green energy in the future, it will be modest at best:
Although renewable energies will increase their share among the overall energy mix, the share of gas of oil in the global energy supply will fall 9% by 2050, from 53% today to 44%.”
In other words, should the global economy double by 2050, the consumption of fossil fuels will be more in 2050 than it is today.
It is good to see some commonsense being spoken.
Despite the headlong rush towards renewables and the massive roll out of solar and wind, German CO2 emissions from the electricity generating sector stalled in 2008/9. Thereafter there has been no reduction in CO2. Indeed, to the contrary CO2 has increased in recent years.
The reason for this is that wind and solar do not reduce CO2 because they need up to 100% backup which provided by fossil fuel generation and the method of this backup generation is very inefficient.
The backup plants have to be used in ramp up/ramp down operation which involves the consumption of energy (and hence the emission of CO2) overcoming the inertia of the spinning generators. It consumes more energy to bring the spinning generator up to speed (the high output required to fill in when the wind is not blowing) than it takes to maintain the generator spinning at a steady rpm.
We all see this principle at work every day when we drive a car. A car uses less fuel 9and hence emits less CO2) when it drives 100 km a steady speed (sap 100km per hour) on an autobahn/motorway/freeway, than when it drives only 70 km in an urban environment.
The start stop driving conditions in towns and cities uses a lot of fuel(and hence produces a lot of CO2) since the engine has to overcome the inertia of the car at rest, or at a slow speed (a body at rest wants to remain at rest).
Thus for example, a 2 litre VW Golf is listed as having a fuel consumption of 29.99 mpg City consumption, and 34.01 mpg Highway consumption. See:http://cararac.com/fuel_consumption/volkswagen/golf.html
Thus a VW Golf consumes some 2.94 gallons of fuel when it drives 100 miles on a motorway (100/34.01 = 2.94 gallons), and consumes some gallons of fuel when it drives 70 miles in the city environment(70/29.99 = 2.33 gallons).
In my example, the car has driven 30 miles less such that one might expect that about 1 gallon of fuel would have been saved. However, the saving in fuel is only 0.6 of gallon because the mode of operation of the car with start/stop is very inefficient and fuel intensive.
This is only an illustration of the principle at work. I have used 70 miles as the comparator on the basis that wind, on average produces around 30% of nameplate capacity such that the fill in by the gas generator is 70% and 70% of 100 miles is 70 miles.
It is the fuel consumed in overcoming the inertia in the spinning reserve of the required backup that has meant that German can no longer reduce its CO2 emissions even if it extends the amount of wind and solar.
Also as mentioned by the commentator high penetration of wind and solar causes grid instability which is another problem.
Great comment, but missing one important point. If the standby plants are coal fired, they need to keep running even if they are not needed since it the time to restart a coal fired generator from a cold state is too long for backup, so the boiler must be kept on so that the generator is available to supply energy should renewables supply drop. This is like a city car waiting at a red traffic light indefinitely for the light to turn green, but never being able to turn the engine off.
That is absolutely true.
It is like looking at a house at night with the lights going on and off. With coal plants, the lights are on at all times, but when wind is producing energy, the curtains are pulled closed so that you do not see that the lights are still on and consuming coal, when windfarms cannot provide the energy, the curtains are opened and the energy from the coal plant is fed to the grid.
With coal they do not keep on switching the lights on and off. However, the reason that I did not mention this is that most of the grid balancing is done with gas generators which are far more flexible.
But your point is very valid and is part of the reason why windfarms do not significantly reduce CO2.
I think that we all know what the problems are, but I have tied to provide a simple every day analogy that should be easy to understand by the few warmist who regulqarly comment on this site, and who are unwilling to accept that there are any shortcomings to wind and/or solar and who consider that renewables are the future and competitive with fossil fuels.
The required backup (and the CO2 it produces) is all part of the running cost of wind and solar and any honest accountant would factor this into the expense side column/entry.
However, there is a lot of inappropriate accounting in Climate Science, biomass being one of the main culprits. Biomass produces by far the most CO2 of any of the forms of energy production, but through inappropriate accounting methodoly it is claimed to be carbon neutral. This is just ENRON style accounting, and we know where that led. Tesco is also caught up in something similar (but not as bad) and when this was discovered about £2 billion was knocked off its stock value.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387566/Technical_Assessment_of_the_Operation_of_Coal_and_Gas_Plant_PB_Power_FIN….pdf
Table 2 – If I understand what it says, over a month to restart a mothballed coalfired powerstation.
Further to my earlier comment, South Australia is suffering similar problems with sky rocketing energy prices and a fragile grid due to relentless roll out of wind and solar.
This has got so bad that a farmer (who is a heavy electricity consumer) has decided to go off grid and use a diesel generator for his own supply. I expect to see more of that type of (forced) reaction to combat high energy price, and of course diesel generators push out a lot of CO2 and particulate matter. See the Weekly Times Newspaper article: http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/dairy/dairy-farmers-go-offgrid-as-power-prices-surge/news-story/3f3b42124b2adef064da266255d03af7?nk=0b76dfa3d991a2b07183dada9217cffc-1506693314
Energy up by $300,000 in just 5 years from $200,000 to $500,000.
Politicians in all developed nations have wrecked the energy/electricity production facilities of their respective countries. It is about time that politicians and NGOs pushing this agenda are held fully accountable for this mess. A class action against them is well overdue.
Richard Verney:
Not just a dairy farmer, there are many looking to all or part switch to generators. Even the young electrician who hooked up my generator last week wants to build a house and go off-grid.
That’s in the Adelaide Hills where the supply is even less stable than in the city. His boss said that they were flat out installing generators, in the town where I am (in England village) there have been 5 or 6 commercial premises alone this past year. As the manager of the supermarket said “you only have to throw out $10,000 worth of stock once, before you install one”. Or in his case for all 4 stores. Even the service station has decided they can’t afford to shut down for 2 or 3 days without power.
[…] Full post […]
I guess that stationary electricity generators, tuned for the role, push out less pollutants than a VW Golf with the cheat devices in operation?
The ‘cheat software’ was only used when the engine was hooked up for maintenance. Don’t exaggerate please.
Is it acknowledged by the MSM (Main Stream Media) that the “Green Energy” or reductions in CO2 is the problem? Until that is accomplished, nothing “much” will change. I find it incredible that basic science does not prevail where the influences of Al Gore still dominate, and especially in Europe. Being in USA I can’t judge very well and based on the stupidity of “consensus science” to get the message out, brings much ostracism, labeling and harassment to those who try.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/29/germanys-green-energy-project-close-to-death-eeg-feed-in-act-has-… […]
It is still the case that the UK Parliament’s Climate Change Act 1997 is easily on course to be the most expensive ever single Act in 800 years . Germany are not the only ones to have fallen for the Climate garbage . The sooner the wheels come off this gigantic scam the better . CO2 is the result of warming not the cause . A greener earth is better I suggest .
To your point – a greener earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
Green energy? Saw an article that every wind turbine and solar panel had been destroyed in Puerto Rico as a result of hurricane Maria. That’s dependability?
What a fraud green energy is!
God help those poor people.
Their electric grid will be stronger than ever as transmission lines will be placed underground. “Scientific American” mag also suggests “microgrids” – if power out on one side of the island, other areas would have power. Praying for them to have safety and some comfort asap.
News from Ontario, Canada.
Reference: “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates”. Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE). April 2015.
(Archived at: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ospe.on.ca/resource/resmgr/DOC_advocacy/2015_Presentation_Elec_Dilem.pdf)
Page 15 of 23. “Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants ?”
– Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation.
– Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors.
– Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment.
– Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America.
– When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.
– Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh.
– Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data).
– In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.
Why can’t Frau Merkel form a government with the FDP and the AfD? AfD is partially made up of defectors from her party. I’m asking as an American who doesn’t even pretend to understand German politics. But AfD are climate realists, no?
Because the AfD had the audacity to dissent on issues such as Europe, Climate change and immigration and borders, and so are automatically labelled as Nazis. All parties before the election pledged not to form a coalition with the AfD. The AfD is Germany’s right wing party, which formed after Merkel’s CDU shifted to the center. There are certainly brown elements within the party. The AfD is however a legitimate party that does not violate any German law. They are hated by the establishment and the media. Dissenting opinions are not welcome in Germany.
Thanks!
I watched a funny YouTube video:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/15ec55739a4ec684?projector=1
It shows a Jewish journalist and writer at and AfD victory party. AfD members certainly do not seem to deserve the epitaphs they are getting in the press. But they are staunchly anti-energiewende but isn’t the FDP also in the same camp? Funny how climate realism is creeping in the back-door so to speak, in Germany; whether the establishment likes it or not!
I saw it as well. In Munich no one needs to worry as there you’ll always get wonderful hospitality. Though I’m not sure she’d get the same in Saxony.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/robert-fulford-germany-sends-a-new-shockwave-through-an-unsettled-europe
Thanks for the interesting link. I am genuinely curious about what is going on politically in Germany.
Latest books and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
My website is
The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Dr Andrew Weaver vs Dr Tim Ball in court October 16th, Victoria BC
Best of Luck Tim double thumbs up from down under
That is President Obama’s true legacy too, a doubling of the cost of wholesale electricity!!! And retail up at least 50% at a time when inflation is near zero! And for what? Where I live, central Minnesota USA, the temperature is the same as 100 years ago, (the most recent 25 years has the same average temp as 1900 to 1924 – St. Cloud, MN). Yes it was slightly colder in the 60s and 70s. Just natural variation. The Left is completely incompetent at everything but lying!!
Obama was quite upfront. He said that his plans would cause electricity prices to sky rocket. OK, of course, for those rich city slickers, but not OK for real Americans who work hard and have trouble in making ends meet.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
The Article in the Tagespost is from 2014.
I’m not sure if Lindner would say it today or use it in the coalition negotiations.
[…] – Germany’s Green Energy Project Close To Death: “EEG Feed-In Act Has Failed …Has To Go!” […]
This document (from American Meteorological Society) tends to indicate that wind and solar in Europe are never going to amount to much —
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0031.1
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/29/germanys-green-energy-project-close-to-death-eeg-feed-in-act-ha… […]
[…] No Tricks Zone, Germany’s Green Energy Project Close To Death: “EEG Feed-In Act Has Failed …Has To Go!” (29 September […]