Germany’s CO2 equivalent emissions revised upward for 2016. The country has barely seen any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions so far this decade but has seen its power prices skyrocket and power grid become far more unstable.
According to Germany’s Ministry of Environment here (UBA), emissions of “climate gases” rose again in 2016, from 906 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 2015 to 909.4 million tonnes in 2016.
That’s the second annual rise in a row and means the country has not reduced its emissions in 9 years.
Preliminary estimates had put the 2016 emissions at 906 million tonnes CO2 equivalent, but the UBA has since revised the figure upwards to 909.4 million tonnes. Despite tens of billions of euros earmarked for green energies over the past years, the country’s CO2 greenhouse gas emissions refuse to fall.
Emissions from the transportation sector rose to 166.8 million, which means they even surpass the 1990 level!
According to the climate protection plan proposed by the German government, emissions from the transportation sector are supposed to fall by 70 million tonnes by 2030. UBA President Maria Krautzberger is thus calling for rules requiring all new cars registered beginning in 2025 to not exceed 75 grams/CO2 per kilometer.
Germany’s power sector, however, did see a 4.6 million tonne drop in CO2 emissions, posting 332.1 million tonnes in 2016. Here Krautzberger is now calling for a shutdown of the older coal power plants.
So far Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by only 27.3% compared to the 1990 levels (most of the reduction resulting from shutting down horrendously inefficient former communist East German industries). Germany’s target for 2020 is 40%, a level that the government has already abandoned.
The high energy prices and unstable power grids have made Germany less attractive for industry, and is thus making Donald Trump’s bid to persuade industries to set up shop in the USA far easier – thanks to the USA’s deregulation, low taxes and low-cost electricity and energy.
48 responses to “Adjusted Upwards…German CO2 Equivalent Emissions Rise (Again) In 2016…No Reduction Since 2009!”
Yes, let’s hope they shut their old Coal Plants, that should increase their Brownouts & Blackouts even more.
What blackouts? It looks like you have an unreasonable high standard of what a stable power grid is. Name one country where you deem it particular stable and find some statistics about local blackouts. Let’s compare it to the “horribly unstable” German power grid then 😉
Lucky Germany can suck from the surrounding countries when needed, then DUMP when wind does actually blow.
It seems that despite making a couple of inane comments on the previous topic, you didn’t actually bother reading any of it.
Nothing unusual about that.
The “instability” is thought of coming from the grid not being capable of redistributing the power to where it is needed. How do im- and exports help in this case? Especially since Germany is rarely importing … it’s an export nation, with electricity and goods.
Schäfer et al., 2018
Multiple types of fluctuations impact the collective dynamics of power grids and thus challenge their robust operation.
More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find … [I]ntegrating growing numbers of renewable power installations and microgrids onto the grid can result in larger-than-expected fluctuations in grid frequency.
Kenneth, what does that have to do with the question I asked?
There should be a substantial reduction in German CO2 emissions in the coming years through business migration. Trump has declared USA open for business and has some nice inducements; 21% company tax rate, growing consumer confidence, supercharged business confidence, reduced regulation including anything related to CO2 emissions, much lower energy prices than Germany.
Meanwhile Germany cannot even form a government. Its electrical energy costs are 2 to 3 times higher than the USA. Its electricity supply is unstable.
Germany has managed to produce 16% of its electric energy from wind and solar. It is a long way behind South Australia, which achieved 39% before the inevitable grid collapse. Having achieved such a high level of wind and solar generation, SA has now got a reduction in CO2, 2% down since 2000, by divesting electric power intensive businesses. So if Germany maintains its current trajectory, it should get rid of enough business by the time wind and solar achieves 30% market share and that will achieve some reduction in CO2 output.
Here is the Guest List for Trump’s ‘open for business’ dinner in Davos:
Kasper Rorsted, Adidas (Apparel)—Germany
Joe Kaeser, Siemens AG (Tech)—Germany
Heinrich Hiesinger, Thyssenkrupp AG (Industrials)—Germany
Eldar Saetre, Statoil ASA (Energy)—Norway
Mark Schneider, Nestle SA (Food and Beverage)—Switzerland
Vas Narasimhan, Novartis AG (Pharmaceutical)—Switzerland
Mark Tucker, HSBC (Financial Services)—UK
Patrick Pouyanne, Total SA (Energy)—France
Carlos Brito, Anheuser-Busch InBev NV (Food and Beverage)—Netherlands
Rajeev Suri, Nokia Corporation (Technology)—Finland
Punit Renjen, Deloitte (Consulting)—UK
Martin Lundstedt, AB Volvo (Auto)—Sweden
Werner Baumann, Bayer AG (Pharmaceutical)—Germany
Bill McDermott, SAP SE (Technology)—Germany
Ulrich Spiesshofer, ABB Ltd (Manufacturing)—Switzerland
German business is well represented. A government that views its function as paving the way for business and prosperity is going to attract a lot more business than one that sees its function as controlling every aspect of business.
And that’s one reason why European leftists were so upset with Hillary losing. They were hoping German industry would be trapped in Germany with no place to escape. Under global rule, there are no more safe economic havens to go to.
Oh really? We’ll see how that turns out. Short term boost to reach Obama levels and then a big crash, like always when Republicans are at the helm in the U.S. 😉
Yeah, painting a dark picture of Germany … reminds me of those internet chats in the 90s when Americans were honestly surprised that we even have refrigerators over here. What unstable supply? Higher costs of electricity is true, but only for residential use. The industry isn’t paying anywhere near those 30 cents/kWh that get reported regularly. And as we all know the monthly electricity bill of a U.S. household isn’t lower than the bill of a German household. Do you know why?
Seriously? South Australia is smaller (number of citizens) than the metropolitan area I am living in and you compare it to Germany as a whole? Oh and our local electricity provider assures 80% of the consumed energy comes from renewables.
You can visit this website (https://energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?year=2018&source=wind-share&period=daily) and see that Germany as a whole got over 50% wind share a few times this year already.
Wind and solar achieved 25.8% in 2017, so those businesses better hurry …
But thanks for being so concerned about Germany.
“Short term boost to reach Obama levels and then a big crash,…” – delusional chatbot SebH
I’ve got your “0bama levels” right here…
It’s official. SebH is an activist, for whom no truth is too small to not tell.
Trump’s claims about job creation … Fact checked: https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/trump-job-promises
Thanks for the propaganda, chatbot.
But no thanks.
I’m actually concerned about the millions of energy-poor in Germany, the ones who can’t afford to heat their homes because the cost of “green” energy is 2-3 times higher than in places where fossil fuels are used more extensively. Who would want to pay German energy prices? In what way does that allure businesses to locate there?
Again this Kenneth? Who do you know who is poor and is actually heating with electricity (you know, the one metric that is indeed more expensive then elsewhere)?
What business is paying the consumer electricity prices? How many millions are energy-poor in countries with cheaper prices? Go find that out and stop inventing non-arguments …
Why is it a “non-argument” to point out that the average German pays 3 times as much per kWh as the average American, and 4 times as much as the average person in China or India?
Why is it a “non-argument” to point out that the average German industry pays 22.6 cents/kWh to the U.S.’s 6.75? Which is more attractive a country for a businesses to locate to?
Again I ask, Why would any industry want to locate to a country that pays so much more for energy? What’s alluring about that?
You keep on getting stuck on Well, there are people living in energy poverty in other countries too. I know that, SebastianH. But why should any pensioner or elderly person have to struggle to heat her home for the sake of the Green movement that is supposed to make energy cheaper…but doesn’t?
Again, what does the price of electricity have to do with your ability to heat your home? Are you heating with electricity? And if so, not with a heat pump? And how many poor live in a new house build with a heat pump?
And no, the average American pays the same amount on their monthly bill as a German … They use three times more energy to do whatever they do.
I will assume that this is another of your made-up “facts”, just like your claim that 30,000 species are going extinct every year because of CO2, or that the oceans are acidifying too fast because of CO2, or that the Earth’s deserts are expanding across the world because of CO2, or that crop quality is deteriorating because of CO2, or that CO2 heating water is just as confirmed a physical, real-world phenomenon as gravity’s measured force on an object…and on and on. In other words, I fully expect you to run away and refuse to answer when you are actually asked to back up your claim that Germans and U.S. citizens pay “the same amount” for their energy.
When will you ever cite support for your made-up claims, SebastianH?
A quick Google search returns an average residential monthly electric bill of $110.21 in 2013 (http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/03/average-monthly-electrical-bill-by-state-2013/) for the U.S.
An even quicker Google search reveals the average in Germany to be stagnating at around 85€ since 2013 (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/5670/umfrage/durchschnittliche-monatliche-stromrechnung-seit-1998/)
Satisfied? I thought this is common knowledge.
P.S.: Care to reply to my question about why you think electricity prices are relevant for heating your home?
U.S.: 13 cents/kWh
Average residential rates by state ranged from 8.22 to 27.78 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). The national average was 12.99 cents per kwh.
Germany: 33 cents/kWh
German households are paying record high electricity charges, power prices portal Verivox said on Tuesday, urging consumers to compare tariffs and switch away from traditional local suppliers. “The price of a kilowatt hour (kWh) on average has reached a new all-time high of 28.18 euro cents (33 US cents) … this means power has become 3 percent more expensive compared with the previous year,” Verivox said in a statement. The run-away expansion of wind turbines and solar panels has made German prices the highest in Europe since 2013, not just because of surcharges but because more volatile green power capacity also necessitates new transmission grids and higher costs to manage them.
13 cents is not “the same amount” as 33 cents. And that’s just residential costs. Industry costs for energy in Germany vs. the U.S. are even worse. So why would anyone want to relocate to Germany? What’s the allure?
Heating one’s home is but one aspect of the costs for energy in Germany relative to the rest of the world, and the subsidization costs of Energiewende are “hidden” by citing only what a household pays for heat. But you knew that.
Care to provide scientific support for your beliefs that 30,000 species are disappearing every year due to CO2, that the Earth isn’t greening, but instead the Earth’s deserts are expanding…due to CO2, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the oceans to acidify so fast that marine species cannot adapt and they’re causing crop quality to worsen? You’ve been asked about 15 times now to support these beliefs of yours with actual citations from the scientific literature, and yet here you have the audacity to end your comment with “Care to reply to my question…”? Pathetic.
Why that ignorant reply?
I was writing about the monthly electricity bill. You should really ask yourself whether or not you are capable of understanding a paper if you fail on a simple comment text.
I don’t think Germany has a particular problem with industrial production at this point. Germany is among the top export countries on this planet. Do you need a source for that statement, too? The allure is a highly trained workforce and being at the forefront of automation.
I’m sorry, that doesn’t answer my question. You regularly complain about the high residential electricity prices in Germany and that this would lead to people not being able to heat their homes. How do those two things connect? Who is heating with electricity?
Don’t distract from the topic. I am not the one who brought up that electricity issue you seem to have. I showed you that U.S. households pay more on average on their bills and yes, that is despite them having lower prices per kWh. So are U.S. households having a problem with even higher electricity bills if it is such a problem in Germany in your mind?
Just for clarification, I didn’t say that Earth was not greening. Some plants obviously can use the additional CO2. But do I really need to find you articles describing where deserts are expanding? No amount of CO2 can lead to plants growing in those places.
Are you still on the impression that organisms who can cope with high fluctuations can surely cope with a way smaller permanent increase in acidity? Do you really think corals are thriving?
Maybe this paper helps you understand?
Need any more?
Oh, this wasn’t one of your games where you already know the answer and ask me to do find it for you anyway? Anyway, satisfied? Probably not, but don’t expect me to answer anything for you that is easily found out via simple Google searches if you didn’t already knew that. But then again, only papers that support your “skeptic viewpoint” are to be believed … so what’s the point of this anyway?
Do you prefer it when I reply to anything you write with all the unanswered questions (I asked you) from different topics? I can play that game too and it surely will derail any discussion/debate … like your reply just did (I fell for it, damn it).
I see. I’m writing about the fact that Germans have to pay 3 times as much per kWh for their residential energy costs as U.S. citizens do due especially to a high reliance on unreliable and highly subsidized (by poor people) wind power…
“The run-away expansion of wind turbines and solar panels has made German prices the highest in Europe since 2013, not just because of surcharges but because more volatile green power capacity also necessitates new transmission grids and higher costs to manage them.”
…and this has a lot do with the fact that 6.9 million people in Germany find themselves energy-poor…
“In Germany, where green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have to pay higher electricity costs.”
…and 300,000+ households have their power shut off every year because they can’t afford to pay. You don’t live like those people, so who cares, right?
U.S. households do not have to subsidize unreliable wind farms and solar panels at anywhere near the rate that German households do with Energiewende. Those are the “hidden” energy costs/taxes that are deceptively not as visible in the “monthly bill”. It’s like saying that a meal comes “free” with your $980 plane ride. For people like you, that meal really is free, right?
Care to provide scientific support for your beliefs that 30,000 species are disappearing every year due to CO2 …
With this hackneyed response I will assume that you have conceded your 30,000 extinct species per year claim was made up and has no scientific support.
Uh, you most certainly did. In fact, you claimed you could “only find data” that show desertification, or that deserts are expanding. I can understand why you’d want to dishonestly claim you never wrote that, but we have the linked direct quote:
Desertification. roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening [greening].
You claimed that you could only find data that show that Earth’s deserts are expanding due to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. You claimed you could not find satellite data that show that the Earth’s greenery is expanding. Now you’ve decided to backtrack and claim you never wrote that, but that there are articles that exist that say some regions of the world have seen an expansion in desertification. We’ve come to expect this kind of dishonest behavior from you, SebastianH.
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
I’ve asked you many times to produce scientific documentation that the speed of decadal-scale pH fluctuations of +/-0.5 are adaptable for marine species, but not an alleged +/-0.07 pH trend stretched out over 200 years (-0.000035/yr) that is orders of magnitude less “speedy”. That, after all, is your claim:
It’s rather well known (by those who haven’t swallowed the ocean “acidification” narrative, as you have) that corals actually thrive in high-CO2 environments, and that “acidified” environments are a sign of healthy corals. Did you miss this science?
“More acidic water may be a sign of healthy corals, says a new study, muddying the waters still further on our understanding of how coral reefs might react to climate change. Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth. The team found that coral growth itself made the water more acidic as the corals sucked alkaline carbonate out of the water to build their skeletons. The corals also ate more food during these high-activity periods and pumped more CO2 into the water, increasing acidity further.”
That paper indicates that corals are negatively affected by the 2-3 degrees C of warming during El Nino events, which are natural. This has nothing to do with the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause the oceans to “acidify” too quickly over centennial-scale periods and then this “acidification” harms corals.
Wow. For the first time I can remember, you actually supported one of your claims with scientific papers. Good job, SebastianH! Of course, there are plenty of papers that completely counter the 3 papers you cited (readily available fertilizers neutralize this claimed impact), but we won’t get into that.
Uh, I know that the answer is that you are wrong about satellites showing the Earth is browning more than greening due to elevated CO2, that 30,000 species are going extinct every year due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that the marine biosphere cannot adapt to the speed of a -0.000035/yr “trend” in pH reduction, but it can adapt to natural fluctuations that are orders of magnitude faster. I’m asking you to support these beliefs/claims with actual data. It’s not a game. It’s a simple demonstration of the lack of substance underpinning your belief system. In other words, you just make stuff up and then call people names or abscond when asked to substantiate your claims.
I sure would like to know the source of your claim that over 30,000 species are going extinct every year due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. What does that simple Google search say? And why do you think over 30,000 species lost per year due to anthropogenic CO2 is not a big number?
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
“They use 3 times more energy to do whatever they do.” – chatbot_SebH
Like your hero who lectures everyone else on how wasteful they are.
And I’ll ask you again: if the monthly bills make so many find themselves energy-poor, what happens with even higher monthly bills in the U.S.? Any idea?
Again, you are using a number that sounds big to make a point that isn’t there. Guess how many millions of U.S. households with their cheap electricity prices have their power shut off in a year! Is it surprising to you that Germany does better percentage wise than the U.S.? Why do you keep emphasizing the cheap electricity prices elsewhere and higher ones in Germany being the cause of bad things happening?
What costs are hidden? On German bills it’s pretty transparent what we pay to subsidize renewables. External costs for other sources of electricity isn’t that transparent though.
I don’t get what you were trying to say with this, sorry. It may be the language barrier or you really make no sense. What is not to understand about one country (the U.S.) paying higher bills and having more household power shut offs despite lower kWh-prices than the other country (Germany)?
I appreciate you joining the analogy game, but where did this come from? My meals are certainly not free. Are you trying to say that a German household paying 85€ per month for electricity is getting renewables for “free” as in your analogy, but a U.S. household paying $110 (roughly 88.6€ at today’s exchange rate) is not getting the same “free” thing? What is your point, Kenneth?
Chatbot_SebH is a green mythology spewing machine. Here is some of why he is ALWAYS wrong.
RE (“Ruinable” Energy) is…
Wasteful of precious resources.
About the only good thing one can say for it is that it doesn’t reduce CO2, which we need more of. But since that was the justification for installing it to begin with, that can also be added to the failures column.
“over 30,000 species are going extinct every year due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions”
Name 10 of them…..
…..and provide PROOF that each was caused by anthropogenic CO2 !
He can’t name them. It’s a made up stat…from extrapolations, or modeling. Just like the David Appell claim that coal plants kill more birds and bats than wind turbines. Paul Ehrlich, for example, claims that 70,000 to 130,000 species are going extinct every year. SebastianH even thinks that 30,000/yr isn’t a particularly high number.
Here’s the real data:
“It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500. … According to IUCN data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.” [800 species extinctions between 1500-2000, or 16 per decade vs. <1 species per decade between 2000-2012.]
“Only six continental birds and three continental mammals were recorded in standard databases as going extinct since 1500 compared to 123 bird species and 58 mammal species on islands. Of the extinctions, 95% were on islands. …. Island extinction rates are much higher than continental rates largely because of introductions of alien predators (including man) and diseases.”
SebastianH’s job is to demonstrate that predation and isolation had less to do with those mostly island-based extinctions than anthropogenic CO2 during the LIA (when nearly all the 800 species went extinct). Can he do it?
“Just like the David Appell claim that coal plants kill more birds and bats”
Yep, I challenged the rotten appell to produce one picture of a bird killed by a coal fire power station.
And just like seb’s producing a paper that proves CO2 causes warming of our atmosphere or oceans.
……they have NOTHING, NADA
So no answer to my reply … I’ll not invest the time to reply to your other replies then …
Google “sixth mass extinction”, “desertification”, etc yourself.
BTW: science doesn’t work the way you think it does. You don’t come up with some obscure papers and wave with them imagining that they completely invalidate the current consensus. As you must be well aware, a biased mind can come up with almost anything that confirms its beliefs. You are an example of that and I am sure that you probably think the same of me.
Anyway, have a nice day in your thought bubble. At least I am trying to get out of my bubble. What I’ve found is (almost) nothing but unsupportable nonsense and conspiracy theories. I hope not too many smart people fall for the traps.
Biased minds are on both ends of an issue. That’s why it’s best to listen to Curry, Pielke, Lindzen, Christy etc. who approach objectively.
“science doesn’t work the way you think it does. “
Science does not work the way YOU think it does.
You have shown over and over and over again that you have basically ZERO understanding of science, physics, and are a mathematical inebriate.
You are TOTALLY UNABLE to come up with any proof to support even the most basic FARCE of your worthless LIE of a AGW religion
You have NOTHING.
What you rant on about is nothing but unsupportable nonsense.
““over 30,000 species are going extinct every year due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions”
Name 10 of them…..
…..and provide PROOF that each was caused by anthropogenic CO2 !”
As always, seb uses mindless bluster to avoid answering a simple question, (10 out of 30,000, surely must e easy?).
MINDLESS BLUSTER, the seb response of necessity..
because he has NOTHING else.
Isn’t it odd how the chatbot always ALWAYS chooses to address the problem from the screwiest perspectives. Like “It’s OK for German energy consumers to pay more, because they use less.” Naturally SebH NEVER asks a German consumer how HE feels about the fact that his rates have skyrocketed since Merkel’s mandated insanity.
CO2 isn’t going away, but German consumers’ disposable income is. It all SebH can do is tell us what horrible people we are for not committing suicide for the sake of his ignorant and corrupt ideology.
I really get annoyed when lectured to by such uncaring sociopaths.
As usual, the chatbot doesn’t filter the information he thinks is relevant from the ocean of spit out there. He tells us to google it ourselves, because he has NOTHING. If he did, he could reference it, but he doesn’t. Why? Because he’s lazy, or an ignoramus? No. Even though he’s all that, it’s because his purpose is to confuse, not clarify. And then he says he won’t bother, because we didn’t answer his stupid questions. Never mind all the detail Kenneth Richard has provided him with, despite his NOT ONCE providing ANY of the answers we request. He accuses us of not knowing “the science,” when the most quantitative post of his shows he can perhaps do 1st grade math. WOW!
Sorry, chatbot, but if you want to be mistaken for someone who knows what he’s talking about, you’ll have to do a LOT better than that.
Why should I debate with people who use this kind of language? You don’t want to do this in a civil way, so why should I invest time to build up a library of relevant papers or a skeptics FAQ? Especially since those things already exist. If you aren’t aware of the overhelming body of data supporting the AGW hypothesis/theory and think this is all fake anyways … why do you even bother? Seems like you made up your mind already and aren’t open to anything challenging your belief.
You guys are generally not asking questions, you assign homework. Everytime someone opposes what it talked about on this blog, you demand this person doing work for you. Sometimes they (and I) do detailed math and illustrate a problem, but it gets ignored, because what can’t be, can’t be. Nothing is ever enough for you, except when it somehow confirms your belief.
You like to call us (your opponents) believers and fail to realize that you are the ones caught in a belief system which you can’t seem to escape.
Get out of your bubble! Learn something about the mechanisms involved, don’t creativly invent new words to insult people and last but not least don’t play the victim.
LOL – you’ve got nothing, and it’s all our fault. And we’re “playing the victim?!” Who writes your material?
Gees, yet another EMPTY, MINDLESS rant from seb,
Pretty much par for the course.
The “big empty” can’t even back up the most basic fallacy of his anti-science AGW brain-washed cult religion.
CO2 does NOT cause warming of our atmosphere, nor of our oceans, seb
Its just a MYTH, a FABRICATION, an ANTI-PHYSICS NONSENSE.
If you have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove otherwise, then produce it, seb.
Or just keep up your mindless yapping.
“If you aren’t aware of the overwhelming body of data “
NONE of which you are capable of producing.
So sad, so incapable, so EMPTY !!
Germany on Dec 2017 cut a 1.3 GW nuclear reactor out of the system. That will be replaced by a coal / gas mix, so expect emissions to rise again this year.
2019 is the next one, but in 2021 – 2022 they take 8 GW out. As you take more dispatchable out, it basically has to be replaced with dispatchable. So adding wind and solar will have almost no effect on carbon emissions going forward.
A 1.3 GW power plant running at 100% capacity produces 11388 GWh in one year. The difference in renewable electricity generation between 2016 and 2017 was roughly 25000 GWh. I think we’ll manage …
Yeah, right … in what world does adding around 8 GW of wind/solar capacity per year not lower the CO2 emissions? Do you think everything will stand still until 2022 and then everyone is surprised that a few GWs are missing?
Go to this website: https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all
Only activate Uranium, Wind and Solar. What do you see?
” in what world does adding around 8 GW of wind/solar capacity per year not lower the CO2 emissions?” – chatbot_SebH
In a world where the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, and so their lack has to be compensated for by sources that produce CO2, and which must be kept online (running) because otherwise they can’t deliver when needed. …unless you install fast back-up capacity, but it also produces CO2 and adds dramatically to the expense of an already over valued white elephant.
Bottom line = No Free Lunch!
I think you have a wild fantasy, yonason. It has been shown too many times now that fossil fuel as a backup can never consume the same (or anywhere near the) amount of fuel as fossil fuel as the only source of power. There aren’t hundreds of power plants just running on standby … that’s a product of your imagination.
Despite relatively high levels of taxpayer support, in 2014 solar and wind power accounted for only 0.4 and 4.4 percent of electricity generated in the U.S., respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Ironically, solar and wind power have not done much to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Studies show solar power is responsible for one percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.
The wild fantasy is that the “ruinable” energy sources (wind and solar) could ever be worth the expense and trouble.
As to the CO2, I’m with those who want more. Earth’s plants are starved for it! My concern is the massive waste and damage caused by faux green “solutions” to fictitious problems, not the CO2 that is greening the planet.
“There aren’t hundreds of power plants just running on standby “
Yes seb, there HAS to be RELIABLE power plants SITTING IBLE, or kept turning, so they can provide electricity during ALL the times that wind and solar aren’t producing anything.
As you well know from your own calculations, German wind power is BELOW 16% of nameplate for MORE THAN half the time.
Where else do you think that electricity is going to come from but from power plants FORCED to sit idle uneconomically, on the off-chance that wind and solar can actually provide something worthwhile.
Only 7ºC in Canberra overnight.. and that is in an Aussie summer !
Thank goodness I moved away from there, to somewhere that rarely reaches that low even in mid-winter ! 🙂
blizzards in Tassie https://www.iceagenow.info/summer-blizzard-tasmania/
I’m meant to be heading down to Tassie for a few days in a couple of months.. I hope it warms up by then !!
Japan also gets COLDEST in 48 year.
Must be all that atmospheric CO2 enhancement 😉