Green energy opposition becoming formidable force in Germany
As Germany’s established CDU and SPD “mainstream” parties find themselves imploding, the smaller parties who oppose Germany’s out-of-control Energiewende (transition to green energies) are rapidly becoming a formidable force and making their presence felt in Germany’s national parliament like never before.
For example Germany’s FDP Free Democrats, who refused to forge a coalition government together with CDU/CSU and Green parties, have become increasingly vocal critics of Germany’s green energy scheme.
Politicians ignoring the concerns of its citizens
Last month in her first speech ever in the German Parliament, FDP parliamentarian Sandra Weeser slammed the struggling Energiewende and the latest signals to promote it even further.
In her speech Weeser points out that despite the rapidly growing green energy capacity being installed, the effort to reduce CO2 has failed, and what’s left is an unpredictable power grid that often produces energy when it is not needed (waste energy) and thus costing Germans hundreds of millions annually.
She also accuses the established politicians of ignoring citizens as they ruin Germany’s landscape with wind parks.
Interestingly it is often Green party voters who we find themselves among wind park protesters. In their daily lives these people are recognizing that what is being sold as green electricity in fact has nothing to do with being green. They are rejecting the industrial turbines in forests.”
Weeser then tells that the expansion of the green energies is totally out of proportion with the existing power infrastructure, and that even the most perfect grid will not be able to handle the volatile wind and solar energies.
Electricity “outrageously expensive”
Weeser also dismisses claims by the Green Party that wind energy is “the most inexpensive” on the market, asking them directly: “If that is really true, then why do they need subsidies? Why are we paying 25 billion euros annually for their feed-in?”
Green engineering debacle
Finally she mentions that an array of expert panels have determined that wind energy is not leading to more climate protection, but rather is only making electricity outrageously expensive. In her final comment, Weeser says:
Policymakers should set up the framework conditions, but please leave the engineering to engineers.”
Anti-wind/solar energy AfD soars to 15% in polls
Also Dr. Rainer Kraft of the Germany’s newly minted rightwing AfD party recently demolished the Energiewende in his first speech before Parliament in Berlin:
According to Kraft, the Parliamentary session on renewable energy requested by the Greens is welcome because it exposes their “incapability to comprehend the factual and physical interrelationships” of the subject.
Policy of a fool…eco-socialist economy
Kraft slams the government’s climate-protection approach of spending “15 euros to avoid 1 euro of damage” as apolicy one would expect from “a fool”. Adding: “there just couldn’t be less scientific understanding than that.”
Echoing Donald Trump’s ideas on international treaties, Kraft also sees them as being ruinous to German industry, and that the ultimate target of climate protection is to establish “an eco-socialist centrally-planned economy” and that climate protection is the “instrument” to bring it about.
He then labeled the Greens’ energy policy as “eco-populist voodoo”.
With so much going wrong with the Energiewende, the FDP and AfD today are having an easy time capitalizing politically on the issue and portraying the government and the Greens as inept.
Vocal green energy critics make up 25% of Parliament
According to recent polls, the FDP and AfD now combine to make up a quarter of Germany’s voters. And now that this anti-Energiewende voice is finally being democratically heard in Parliament and viewed by millions on television screens nationally, expect the traditional established parties to continue seeing the unheard of erosion among their disenchanted voter bases. Never has postwar Germany seen a political shift on such a massive scale.
Though 25% may not sound impressive, it is amazing when one considers that only a decade ago there was virtually universal parliamentary support for green energies. Those days are over.
And now as the failure of the Energiewende becomes ever more glaring, reaching the political tipping point on the issue of the Energiewende is just a question of a few more years.
76 responses to “Powerful Opposition To ‘Energiewende’ Storms Into German Parliament… “Eco-Populist Voodoo””
Your imagination is fantastic, Pierre. We’ll see “in a few years” then … when the liberals and the right wing nutjob party control the parliament and the thermometer dropped 2-3 degrees from todays values. Those are your predictions, aren’t they? [No. Not my predictions at all. -PG]
Yep, poor seb, only a couple more pitiful years of your mindless yapping and bleating.
Then you can crawl back into your inner-city leftist basement granny-hole and sulk for the rest of your life.
There will still be PLENTY and PLENTY of world wide CO2 emissions as current third world countries realise that the best, cheapest and most reliable way to lift their countries is to use fossil fuel energies.
There will be no need for you to worry about ocean warming, atmospheric warming, browning of the Earth, 33,000 extinction per year…
All those manic fallacies that you hold so dear…
.. they will be well and truly consigned to the dustbin of time, hopefully with the anti-human, anti-life, far-left AGW agenda consigned to bulldust with them.. 🙂
Education is the best way to lift a society out of poverty. Wouldn’t hurt you either …
When will that be? I have to mark in my calendar, so I can come back to you and see what new nonsense prediction you come up with when that one falls through too 😉
You are incapable of learning.
EMPTY, and destined to remain that way.
“Education is the best way to lift a society out of poverty. “
And educated people will always realise that intermittent, unreliable power supplies are a NUISANCE rather than being of much use.
They will naturally gravitate to the use of fossil fuels to build their countries.
And all that extra, HIGHLY BENEFICIAL CO2 will be a boon for all life of Earth
As you are well aware, there is ZERO evidence of any drawbacks to enhancing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.
If you have any evidence, post it, or remain EMPTY
They already were, but greedy politicians and industry con artists revived wind, and they only way it can survive is on massive subsidies.
Lots more reasons why windmills are folly, here.
I’ve thought for some time that SebH is a Russian bot but now it seems that Cathy Newman has grabbed the controls.
Interesting form of a reply …
So this is not what you wrote? Is that a different Pierre Gosselin?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/contributorblogger-prognostications-of-future-temperature-trends/#comment-50996 – October 23rd 2008
10 years ago. Science changes and so do opinions (unless you’re an alarmist dogmatist). Of course that prediction will turn out to be closer than many of the outlandish projections made by the warmist side.
[…] Full post […]
Sebastian, I suggest that the term “nutjob” could apply to you. You certainly have no understanding of engineering in general and the engineering subject “heat and mass transfer” (see the Chemical and mechanical engineering handbooks) in particular. It also appears that your mind is blocked about actual evidence such as the high cost and grid instability caused by wind and solar power. The Experience of electricity costs in the Australian states of South Australia and Victoria (where blackouts and high costs can be seen in public statistics.
Then with the CO2 scam how can anyone ignore that considerable evidence of temperature leading CO2 even in daily figures found by the botantist W Kreutz in 1941 (the sun rises, radiation increases, temperature increases, then CO2 increases) look at the results of the catual paper in German
When people attack others with name-calling, I’ve often observed that projection is what is really is going on.
Could you be a bit more specific what I lack in understanding in your opinion?
I do realize that the first few percent were quite expensive, nobody is saying that it wasn’t. But subsidizing PV and wind did it’s job, didn’t it? The learning curve is now quickly approaching a level where those sources of energy can exist without subsidies. Batteries are also falling in price. So what’s the problem here? Can’t you imagine a world with a significant amount of renewables in the power mix?
Co2 is not a scam btw, but then again the typical “skeptic” won’t live so long as to see the consequences. So why change anything today, right? Change is evil, right?
And of course temperature is leading CO2. Why wouldn’t it? Even with man made emissions on top you can see those variations in the concentration. That’s perfectly normal.
“Co2 is not a scam btw”
No, its a radiative gas.
And there is ZERO PROOF that it causes any warming, and we are seeing the consequences of enhanced atmospheric CO2.
Increased crop yield, and quality.
More vibrant and increasing biosphere.
The use of CO2 producing electricity supply has lifted ALL current developed countries to their standard of living.
Coal fired power is helping several not so developed countries lift their standard of living
There is no scientific evidence that the enhanced atmospheric CO2 is anything but ENTIRELY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.
What is a scam, probably the biggest ever perpetrated in the history of humankind, is the pretence that CO2 is a problem , and the huge amounts of money being syphoned off on the basis of this LIE.
And you, seb, worship that scam, because its the only thing in your life..
In South Australia the wholesale price of electricity when we had coal fired stations was around $A45 per MWh. Now the cost is about $A100 (actually a deal higher but that is caused by high demand in summer) and on top of that $85 perMWh of subsidy is added to the retail cost. That means renewables are costing over 4 times as much as conventional generation. Even without subsidies they cost twice as much, and come with blackouts as well.
To hell with renewables.
Apparently much has gone wrong then in South Australia. Other countries with less sunshine did better.
“Other countries with less sunshine did better”
That’s because they haven’t totally destroyed their reliable electricity supply producers like SA has. (and Victoria, and NSW)
Those other countries still have access to plenty of nuclear of coal/gas fired power on call.
There hasn’t been a DECENT, SOLID RELIABLE base-load power station built for ages anywhere by Queensland. And that newish power in Qld is covering for the whole of the eastern seaboard a large proportion of the time..
Its totally crazy…
And all because of this IDIOTIC ANTI-CO2 Green Agenda nonsense.
Hazelwood closure put everything well and truly on a knife edge. 1,600MW gone, and not replaced with something modern.
Tomorrow looks like being a pretty warm day on the whole East Coast, and if the wind doesn’t blow, it is likely that there will not be the electricity available to cope.
Notice the tiny amount of wind.. that is how close to the line things are. And they still won’t do anything about upgrading any of the coal fired power stations.
SO STUPID !!!
Watch this link tomorrow, early afternoon Australian time.
Even now SA is on the umbilical from Victoria.
“anywhere but Queensland”
Should be noted,
Installed capacity of wind is about 2000MW,
currently producing 210MW.
9am and its starting already. Probably not going to be as “warm” as predicted though.
Qld pumping electricity to NSW, so that NSW can feed Victoria, so that Victoria can keep SA from “load shedding” (ie blackouts).
Tassie making some money, hoping they don’t have a rain reduced year to feed their dams (they do have big diesel back-up though)
SA wind 100MW out of 2000 installed.. impressive 😉
As the demand climbs during the day, watch the prices.
Will SA have a $14,000 peak again.. time will tell.
Just hope all those ancient coal-fired power stations just keep humming along, I guess.
It’s not GREEN energy but GREED energy. It’s just a massive scam orchestrated by the corrupt political elite and their paymasters who are receiving billions in subsidies to manufacture machines that don’t actually work the right way.
They aren’t just wrong: they really are evil.
Sebastian ever heard of Energy output over energy input?
Takes a ratio (you understand the concept of ratio?) of around 10 to run an industrial civilisation.
Fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro are all in excess of 20.
Wind and solar, less than 10.
There again maybe it’s a feature, rather than a bug.
There are too many Humans, aren’t there Seb?
I am curious what your explanation for this is. Why does it have to be around 10? Why do you think wind is below 10? The wind turbines produce the amount of energy needed to construct them in less than a year and they surely have a lifetime of greater than 10 years, don’t they?
PV is a different story, but there is no reason that an installation shouldn’t keep working after the 20 year subsidies (currently) end. In Germany it takes a few years to get the energy back, but in sunnier places this must also be well below 2 years. So also above a ratio of 10.
There has been no progress in making wind or solar responsive to load demand. Both tend to be absent when demand is highest on the coldest nights.
The battery that I once bought for $20 is now $130 at Walmart.
That is one impressive reply, Billy. I am guessing we are not talking about the same thing here.
No need to do that now and probably not until well into the 2020s. Or is there a country on this planet where wind and solar regularly provide more than 100% of the energy? 😉
Batteries are a commodity product. Their price generally follows inflation.
* There has been no progress in making wind or solar responsive
* to load demand.
“No need to do that now and probably not until well into the 2020s. ”
The ability to respond to load is the most basic requirement of an electrical energy source. A source that does not respond to demand cannot power a load. Wind and solar are just a low quality supplement, useless on their own.
What magical significance does the 2020 date have to do with that requirement?
For someone as knowledgeable as the chatbot pretends to be, he sure is an ignoramus.
He’ll probably then come back and say you said 10 and they say 5 to 7, while completely ignoring the FACT that solar PV, and biomass are abysmal regardless of how the calculation is done. And, while wind scores better (maybe), it’s still a very bad choice for other reasons, among them, IMO, it’s lack of reliability, expense and destruction of the environment.
Bottom line, “renuables” are a terrible choice. Just ask South Australians.
yonason, I specifically asked him to explain the concept and why he thinks wind and solar are below a ratio of 10. If didn’t want a link which references Ferroni and Hopkirk, uses sources from 1984 and is overly dramatic.
Why do you think solar is below 10 or even 5 to 7? Energy return time for a solar panel in Southern Europe can be as small as 6 months and they work for 30+ years. How many months do you think does transportation and installation add onto that?
“[I] didn’t want a link which references Ferroni and Hopkirk…” – SebH
Who cares what an anonymous troll wants or doesn’t want? You never explicate, you only pontificate, and it got old a LONG time ago.
I posted that for others who might actually want some facts, instead of smoke and mirrors, and I did it in proximity to your nonsense so that it would be easy for people to see that there are alternatives to the noise you generate. Same for my other posts that may appear to be to you. For the most part, they aren’t.
I find it funny that you talk to an assumed audience now. I hope this audience also saw that you evaded my question 😉
Regarding Ferroni and Hopkirk, we’ve been there and discussed the merrits of their papers. It’s a miracle that their papers pass peer review with all the made up numbers which vastly differ from the numbers from the industry itself. Your mythical audience that wants some facts instead of smoke and mirrors could start by reading this link:
Name calling either way is undignified. But it is quite clear that ‘renewables ‘ (ex hydro) can only provide about two percent of world demand and cannot even cover the annual increase. So it’s fossil fuels for the future. Now, to keep under the alarmist ‘2 degrees’ , what level of CO2 do we have to keep under? 500ppm?
Could a greeny let me know, please? Luckily it doesn’t bloody matter.
The failure of the German green energy should be a good example to the rest of the world on how not to waste money.
Furthermore the question remains, will it make the slightest difference to the climate?
I suggest not in any way.
Too late. If other countries wanted to waste money they should have started back in 2006. Today, prices are pretty low and they’ll only get lower as we exponentially grow the wind/solar capacities.
And yet despite the exponential growth the share of energy supplied by wind/solar, their share will remain in the negligible range (<1%) 25 years from now.
Europe and North America became rich thanks to cheap, plentiful power. In 1800, 94 per cent of all global energy came from renewables, almost all of it wood and plant material. In 1900, renewables provided 41 per cent of all energy; even at the end of World War II, renewables still provided 30 per cent of global energy. Since 1971, the share of renewables has bottomed out, standing at around 13.5 per cent today. Almost all of this is wood, with just 0.5 per cent from solar and wind.
The International Energy Agency estimates that if all countries fulfil the pledges made at the Paris climate change conference last month, the proportion of renewables could increase slightly in the next 25 years, to 18.7 per cent. In the International Energy Agency’s more likely scenario, the share will reach just 15.4 per cent.
Written 2 years ago and yet it reads like it has been written 20 years ago. Is that the best you can come up with to show that you don’t understand exponential growth?
In nearly every “rich” country the growth of installed capacity is exponential. This lead to 2017 being the first year where renewables provided more electricity to the grid in Europe than coal.
Want to take a bet?
Yes, Seb, put your money where your big gob is.
But if wind and solar are increasing exponentially, let’s say 1.5% of world’s total energy generation by this time next year.
How much do you want to bet: Euro, 10, 100, 1000?
Put up or shut up.
Kenneth said wind+solar would be below 1% in 2043 and since he claimed that, he is the one who needs to put money where his mouth is.
Maybe looking at the BP 2017 report (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-full-report.pdf) helps to judge if that could possible be compatible with the current situation in energy consumption.
From the report:
So it is save to say, wind&solar were responsible for at least 68% of the growth from 2015 to 2016 and according to page 9 that would be around 36 PJ which equals 0.27% of the total primary energy consumption.
Since wind&solar are growing faster than other renewables today, we can assume a yearly growth of its share by at least 14-16% (see page 44). The primary energy consumption grows by about 1.8% per year.
So, starting from 419.6 PJ renewables and 13276.3 PJ total consumption and no growth in other renewables than wind&solar (I’ll assume 15% year over year growth of the 36 PJ figure), we can actually predict what 2043 might look like if everything continues as it did in the past. We can also look at what happens if wind&solar growth would halt at 36 PJ per year and only increase linearly from now on.
25 years of adding 36 PJ to the renewables results in them being at 1319.6 PJ and total consumption at 20738.2 PJ. Even if we assume that there was no wind&solar in 2016, we’d now have 4.3% of wind&solar 25 years later.
After 25 years 1604,7 PJ renewables and 20738.2 PJ total consumption. Again, assuming we had no wind&solar in 2016, the share would now be 5.7%.
So I don’t see how Kenneth extrapolates <1% in 25 years from the data available. Maybe he misread something somewhere? Anyway, question is still, if he wants to take a bet on that claim 😉
And just so you know: since i wrote I’d assume at least 14-16% growth for wind&solar, I also can offer predictions for 20%, 25% and 30% growth year over year.
We then get at least 16.6%, 45.9% and over 100% wind&solar share of total primary energy consumption in 25 years.
It’s up to you to find out what the average growth rate of wind&solar really is, but that’s exponential growth in a nutshell.
After 30 years of exponential growth in wind and solar, they both provide less than 1% of the Earth’s total energy consumption combined today. I expect they will both continue to rise for about another 5-10 years, and after that people will grow weary of the ruined landscapes and ecosystems, the unreliable grids, repairing/replacing turbines every 5-10 years, millions of dead bats and endangered birds every year, and paying extremely high costs to heat their homes when the wind isn’t blowing and the Sun isn’t shining. These are the wind/solar “glory days”…and yet they both still only supply <1% of the world's energy.
I don't know how to collect on this "bet", as it is 25 years hence and who knows what the technological landscape and climate will look like then, but I'd be willing to do that if there was a way to go about it. I'll be in my 60s.
A warmist, AGW believer writes…
"Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.”
There is always longbets.org … Wanna go at it?
0.81% in 2014 and this percentage grew by 0.27 percentage points from 2015 to 2016 and something smaller from 2014 to 2015. We should be well above 1% by now if not even approaching 2%.
Wan’t to bet on your 5-10 years prediction instead? 1000€ for a charity? No further increase in wind+solar in the years following 2028?
I have no desire to put identifying information on a website for 25 years. As I wrote, there just is no good/safe way to go about doing this. And I couldn’t care less if you think this means I am not “putting my money where my mouth is”. I don’t/didn’t initiate the “wanna bet” talk. Wagers are not my schtick, as I generally have very little confidence in predictions, including my own.
25 years ago, there was no internet. There were no smart phones. Who knows what energy source might be available 25 years from now? I think it’s much more likely than unlikely that people will increasingly say Enough when it comes to unreliable energy that isn’t readily available and needs backup and destroys landscapes, ecosystems, wildlife, and quality of life for humans. Most of the wind turbines in existence now will need to be repaired/replaced within 15 years. Will the economical and ecological cost for replacing the old AND adding 485,000 more turbines every year be worth it according to world governments and taxpayers? Likely not.
I don’t know what the world’s total energy consumption share for wind and solar will be in the 2040s. In 2011, wind power accounted for 0.56% of the world’s energy consumption. By 2013, it was down to 0.39%. Unlike you, I do not assume that there will be a linear increase in wind energy consumption from year-to-year, or in concert with the rise in wind turbine installation rates. So I don’t agree that we can know what the share will be in the 2040s based on the changes that occurred between 2015 and 2016 (or 2011 to 2013).
I think it’s likely, though, that fossil fuels will still account for a 75% to 80% share of all consumed energy by the 2040s. In other words, fossil fuel use will continue to grow (along with demand) and not be much different than what it has been for the last 25 years (~75-80%). It looks as though I’m not alone…
“Although consumption of nonfossil fuels is expected to grow faster than fossil fuels, fossil fuels still account for 77% of energy use in 2040.”
“putting my money where my mouth is”
For an AGW sympathiser would mean shutting down all fossil fuel source electricity…
… Selling, say, a Mercedes and buying an EV only charged from “renewables”
NOT living a life TOTALLY RELIANT on fossil fuel infrastructure and availability.
Why should anyone jut up a bet when you have proven time after time that you will NEVER live by your own irrational belief system.
Dishonesty and hypocrisy, thy name is seb.
I believe you when you say this.
The internet existed 25 years ago, we had it at home 😉 The other thing is exactly what I am saying all the time. Who knows what advances in production of photovoltaics, turbine sizes and batteries will be available 25 years from now. It’s rather unlikely that fission will ever become cheap enough again or fusion will work in that time frame, but maybe we are lucky. I am only saying, coal has no future in the developed world.
Of course it will be economical. Why do you think re-powering is a thing? When a turbine has done its job in can be replaced by a cheaper (per kWh output) and more efficient version at an place that has already been prepared as a wind turbine site. What could be more economical? Ecologically it doesn’t change a thing from before when replacing the turbine.
485000 5 MW turbines equals 2.425 TW new capacity per year, at a capacity factor of 18% that equals 3824 TWh of electricity. That equals 13766 PJ. What is that this author wants to do? Replace the entire energy system of this planet (13276 PJ primary energy consumption) with wind turbines in a single year?!?!
I am not expecting linear growth, but expontential growth. Like it has been in the last 10+ years.
Of course we can’t, but extrapolating the growth of the past 10 years is a baseline you can orient yourself on (see BP 2017 report).
That is true, but it will come down significantly from the current 85% share oil, coal and gas currently have. Coal is already stagnating (since 2011). And I wouldn’t trust EIA forecast in regards to renewables 😉
They are bad at it …
@AndyG55: don’t you remember that i won’t reply to you unless the insults stop? I sold my Mercedes a long time ago if you need to know.
In other words, fossil fuel use will continue to grow (along with demand)
What’s “significantly”? What’s the percentage by the 2040s?
And if the current share for fossil fuels is 85%, and it was lower than that in the 1990s, and we’ve had exponential growth in wind/solar since the 1990s, what does that say about the capacity of exponential growth in wind/solar to offset/displace fossil fuels? If displacement, or a reduction in fossil fuel share hasn’t happened in the last 20 years (with the explosion in wind/solar), why do you think it will happen in the next 20 years given the rise in global energy demand?
“don’t you remember that i won’t reply to you unless the insults stop”
That really is a SO WHAT comment
You keep proving your posts are TOTALLY EMPTY of any content except wild hallucinogenic fantasies.
You have NEVER been able to counter anything I say.. so why would you start now? !! 🙂
How’s the fossil fuel powered electric heating going seb,
And how’s all the fossil fuel delivered food, etc etc etc
“In other words, fossil fuel use will continue to grow (along with demand)”
It most surely will.
People will get sick and tired of the intermittency and unreliability.
Governments will get sick and tired of having to renew renewables.
There is plenty of coal, and it will make a resurgence once this anti-CO2 idiocy is fully exposed for the FARCE that it is.
By more than 1% that you propose. By at least 5.7% and 16.6% when growth of wind&solar is 20% and so on.
I seriously doubt that it was lower in the 1990s. Page 43 of the BP report shows the exponential increase in renewables consumption since back then (1996) and also the increase in hydro and nuclear consumption. None of those graphs suggests that the fossil fuel share was lower in the 90s.
The share was around 87% in 2006 and decreased since then.
You (still) don’t seem to get exponential growth. Exponential growth means that the total amount doubles every X months. For a growth rate of 15% that is every 60 months, for 20% it is every 46 months and so on.
So if you start with 1 GW renewables in the first year and 15% exponential growth you’ll have 16 GW after 20 years. In the next 20 years your capacity will increase to 256 GW and in the 20 years following that to 4096 GW and so on.
What you need to keep in mind is that half the total capacity was build in the last 5 years at 15% growth. At 20% growth it’s 3,8 years. PV growth is even higher than that resulting in half of all PV build was build in less than the last 3 years.
The rise of energy demand is also growing exponentially (1.8%, or a doubling every 39 years). But it’s growing way slower than renewables, so of course renewables will increase their share and at some point in the future (between 10 and 20 years from now) cause other sources to decline even in absolute numbers.
If you want to reply another time how that exponential growth does nothing, feel free to display your ignorance on this topic. I did my best to explain it to you.
My question: In other words, fossil fuel use will continue to grow (along with demand)
My question: What’s “significantly”? What’s the percentage by the 2040s?
I suspect that you did this purposely. You know I was asking for your prediction for the percentage share of energy consumption for fossil fuels in the 2040s, as that is clearly what the “significantly” references. If it’s a “significant” reduction from today’s 85% share for fossil fuels, what is that reduction? What’s the percentage? But instead of answering that question, you decided to pretend as if I asked you a different question. Again, what is the percentage share of primary energy consumption by fossil fuels a few decades from now? It’s 85% today despite exponential growth in wind and solar for 20 years. What will this percentage be in the 2040s, or with another 20 years of exponential growth in wind and solar? Answer that question.
And if the current share for fossil fuels is 85%, and it was lower than that in the 1990s,
Actually, you’re right. With the exponential growth of wind and solar between 2000 and 2014, the share of energy supplied by fossil fuels dropped by 0.6 of a percentage point (86.8% to 86.2%) between 2000 and 2014. With the exponential growth in wind and solar over the next few decades, the share for fossil fuels is expected to drop to 81.8% by 2035…
What that actually means, though, is that in absolute terms, fossil fuels will not only continue to grow, but they will grow faster (absolute) than any other energy source:
Sorry, SebastianH, but it’s you who doesn’t understand how absolute growth works. In other words, what actually happens in the real world.
“Reality is best expressed in the absolute level of consumption for each primary-energy source, both the total and the growth—supplemented by some use of percentages. Using these measures, we can say that, throughout the period 1990 to 2035, fossil-fuel consumption was and will be persistently more significant than wind and solar combined, in spite of aggressive implementations of the latter two. This also holds for each of the fossil-fuel categories alone (that is, coal, natural gas and oil/liquids).”
If it was 86.8% in 2000 and 87% in 2006, that means that it increased by 0.2 of a percentage point during those years.
I completely disagree with you that absolute growth in fossil fuels as an energy source will decline within 10-20 years. For the same reasons indicated above and illustrated here: https://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PI-F1-21.jpg
And I suspect this happens because you answer to comments in the admin interface of WordPress instead of the way we regular folks do it. You didn’t read the entire thread here, is that correct?
I already calculated – in detail – what that change would be in 2040 if current growth continues and for other growth percentages. It’s up there … and, surprise, I repeated the values right after “By more than 1% that you propose.”.
Math is your enemy, isn’t it. I gave you the minimum share growths for 15% and 20% in that reply. Is it too much to subtract those values from 85%? So it’s either around 79% with 15% continued wind/solar growth (and NO other growth in the renewables category) or around 70% with 20% growth. Good enough? Again you assigned your opponent (me) “homework” instead of doing the “work” yourself …
the share of energy supplied by fossil fuels dropped by 0.06 of a percentage point (86.8% to 86.2%) between 2000 and 2014. With the exponential growth in wind and solar over the next few decades, the share for fossil fuels is expected to drop to 81.8% by 2035…
Well, the BP report say 87% for 2006, and a reduction of the fossil fuel share by 2 percentage points in the 10 years until 2016.
Regarding exponential growth vs. your absolute growth: I made you a spreadsheet to play with.
Hopefully that makes it clear for you. At 15% growth (was actually 16.1% in the last 10 years) renewables will provide all the energy in the year 2045.
Obviously such a high growth rate will not last until 100% renewables are reached and we’ll see an s-curve towards saturation. Nevertheless, this is what exponential growth is. At 15% newly added renewables will provide all the added total consumption in the year 2028. Fossil fuels will not further increase absolutely from then on (well, maybe a little bit earlier since renewables in the BP report don’t include hydro and that might grow too).
The links you bring up expects a 4% growth for renewables until 2035 … which is ridiculously low. The other growth figures are at least somewhat in the right ballpark.
If you feel validated by using completely bogus numbers, fine … believe whatever you want to believe. Or: do the homework yourself. Find real numbers and do the calculations yourself instead of trusting random “skeptic” bloggers.
Why do you do this? Why slip in these you’re-so-stupid-you-can’t-do-simple-math insults, SebastianH? You whine about AndyG55 insulting you and your intelligence…but then you go ahead and direct your venom at me.
You had identified those percentages (15% and 20%) for wind and solar only, not for all non-fossil fuel energies. So subtracting values provided for wind and solar only without also figuring the change percentages/values for all other renewables would not provide the answer to the question of what the total fossil fuel (i.e., gas, oil, coal minus all the non-fossil sources, not just solar and wind) would be. That’s why I asked you to simply identify the percentage share for fossil fuel primary energy consumption in the 2040s. You didn’t answer that question. Purposely, I presume.
Interestingly, when I pointed out that EIA had calculated a 77% share for fossil fuels, you wrote that EIA’s forecasts cannot be trusted. Now you write that it’ll be between 70% and 79%. And that’s more trustworthy than EIA’s estimate why?
So fossil fuels will still provide for 70% to 79% of all energy consumed in the 2040s (your claim), but, simultaneously, “all the energy in the year 2045” will be provided by renewables. This would appear to be inconsistent.
A 2 percentage point drop in fossil fuel consumption share in 10 years still means that fossil fuel consumption still rose much faster than renewables did (absolute). In other words, just as I have written before, even with exponential growth in wind and solar and a reduction in the percentage share of fossil fuels to ~75%, fossil fuel growth will STILL outpace non-fossil fuel growth (absolute) and CO2 emissions will still rise.
This is the problem that Germany has and will continue to run into when it comes to meeting their emissions targets. Unless demand is reduced and conservation becomes even more strict, emissions rates will not be lowered any time soon.
Reply apparently lost …
My “claim” was for 25 years from now with just wind&solar growing as they have been before. With the entire renewables (except hydro, BP has that extra) growing as before the other scenario becomes true.
Not true. You are missing the point. Renewables grow way faster than fossil fuels, even at the current 1-2% vs. 85% levels math dictates that renewables will eventually overtake fossil fuel growth in absolute number. With total consumption growing at a slower pace than renewables that means the renewables will in the not so distant future completely provide that growth an start making fossil fuel consumption shrink.
Don’t ignore the nuclear phase out please.
Other countries aren’t like Germany…
…they don’t have money to WASTE on UNRELIABLE, INTERMITTENT electricity supply systems.
Let’s all just hope that common sense over-rides the IDIOCY of the anti-CO2 Agenda really soon. !!
Even with the much hyped “renewables” of Germany,
Wind and Solar together count for a measly 3.3% of total energy consumption in 2016
What a MONUMENTAL WASTE of TIME, LOCAL ENVIRONMENT and MONEY !!!!!
Same as 2015 apparently, the 2017 numbers should be higher. It was 2.5% in 2014 and 2.2% in 2013.
The share of renewables in primary energy consumption grew from 1.3% in 1990 over 9.9% in 2010 to 12.6% in 2016 (https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/2849/umfrage/anteil-erneuerbarer-energien-am-gesamten-primaerenergieverbrauch/)
The share in final energy consumption went from 6.4% in 2004 to 14.8% in 2016.
Noted that you shift from “wind and solar” to “renewables”..
What is that? Adding in biomass and hydro, which are always the bulk of so called “renewables”
Always the deception, hey seb.
“Though 25% may not sound impressive“
Actually Pierre, it really does sound impressive. This dwarfs the Green vote, and devastates the CDU & SPD. Soon the larger parties will have to notice which way the wind is blowing. The idiocy will have to stop and it will have a knock-on effect on other countries as they notice the failure of German watermelon policy.
Trouble is, that once some sensible conservative put an end to the Germany renewable FARCE, China will have to try to off-load their wind turbines and el cheapo solar panels to somewhere else.
Just pity the countries that fall for that !!
Yes, the idiocy has to stop. Our beloved blog author didn’t translate the whole speech of Dr. Rainer Kraft (AfD) … one of the gems missing is, that this guy actually said that it’s bad to have immigration because a person living in Africa emit 10 times less CO2 than they would do in Europe. He also doesn’t want developing countries to catch up emission wise and opposes this exception in the Paris agreement. It’s a good thing that he ends his speech with the intention “to stay in his world”. I surely hope so.
It’s really weird watching idiocy like this. The woman from the FDP wants to put a price on carbon emissions and get rid of subsidies. I fully support that. Sounds like a valid way to promote the use of solar, wind, etc … they’ll be naturally cheaper than coal then …
The aim of the post is to show that there is strong opposition to the Energiewende, which btw is the real idiocy.
“Yes, the idiocy has to stop.”
Won’t stop while you keep posting !!
Ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa!
Do you actually believe your own drivel, Seb?
As an example I direct you to Professor Wadhams of Cambridge University.
For the last 10 years or so he predicted that Artic sea ice would “disappear”.
Then someone tried to make a bet with him, that it wouldn’t.
You can guess the outcome.
Money? Mouth? Put?
Should I single out other “skeptics” that made predictions that never came true? Guess how many there are 🙂
Name one of Hanson’s predictions that came true?
“He also doesn’t want developing countries to catch up emission wise “
They can only catch up by increasing emissions
That is what REGULAR, RELIABLE energy supply does, it allows for development
Irregular, intermittent supply stunts development.
Remember, there are the people that SebH wants us to believe are not the “deniers.”
“to put a price on carbon emissions and get rid of subsidies”
I agree, The REAL IDIOCY is the price on carbon.
Get rid of subsidies
Get rid of feed-in mandates.
NO price on carbon dioxide.
NO cap and trade carbon tax by stealth.
Tender to supply electricity a day in advance.
There is absolutely NO SCIENCE that shows that CO2 is in any way a problem at any possible atmospheric level.
It is a NECESSITY for all life on Earth and is very much at the low end of sustainable atmospheric concentrations
The coal companies ought to be BEING PAID to release CO2 and build up atmospheric CO2 levels.
Here’s a suggestion which would help voters focus:
Why not have each individual consumer’s electricity supply match the actual output of said individual’s preferred energy source in the national grid? After all, many consumers today actually opt to pay more in order to have bragging rights for supporting “clean” non-hydro renewables.
Imagine the horror when on a cold winter night the heat is switched off. Or when a N Sea transmission station for a wind park short circuits? Once they realized how hopelessly intermittent solar and wind power actually were, they might just see the wisdom of reliable energy supply.
[…] for the taking at a buyer's price? Meanwhile take a look at this from the home pf this racket. Powerful Opposition To ‘Energiewende’ Storms Into German Parliament… “Eco-Po… Sign in or Register Now to […]
‘Renewables’ have simply replaced low-emission nuclear:
Energiewende has failed on its own terms, ‘spending 15 euros to avoid 1 euro of damage as a policy one would expect from a fool’ indeed:
Who is paying Seb H to post his writings?
They are wasting their money
zero steps forward 10 step back for the AGW Agenda.
Seb has caused the AGW Agenda incredible damage with his fantasy rantings, loony-toon anti-physics and abject inability to back up anything he says.
People realise more and more what an incredibly bizarre, anti-science religion AGW really is.
Above at 10:09 SebastianH wrote:
“The woman from the FDP wants to put a price on carbon emissions and get rid of subsidies. I fully support that. Sounds like a valid way to promote the use of solar, wind, etc … they’ll be naturally cheaper than coal then …”
The word “naturally” implies, to me at least, the opposite of a (tax) “price on carbon” (sic; although I think most places do have a tax on diamonds).
I find it difficult to follow arguments when words are used to mean whatever the writer wants them to mean.
In general though, it does seem – as Pierre writes – there appears to be growing opposition to some aspects of this ‘Energiewende’ attempt. And that is interesting and the take-away from this post.
So, instead of “taxing” them, they’ll “put a price on (i.e., a tax)” carbon emissions, in order to pay for them. Sure, that’s going to make it all so much more affordable.
I met someone a while back who used to give stuff away. You want it, it’s your’s for free. What’s the catch? You pay shipping and handling. Amazing what you can con people into buying when they think you’re giving it to them.
[…] reagerer. Fridemokraten Sandra Wesser gikk i sin første tale i Forbundsdagen til et frontalangrep på det grønne skiftet. Vindturbinene raserer skogsområdene. De produserer kraft når det ikke […]
[…] Pierre L. Gosselin, a graduate of the University of Arizona who resides in Germany, writes: “Despite the rapidly growing green energy capacity being installed, the effort to reduce CO2 has failed, and what’s left is an unpredictable power grid that often produces energy when it is not needed (waste energy) and thus costing Germans hundreds of millions annually. The Green Party claims that wind energy is “the most inexpensive” on the market, but “If that is really true, then why do they need subsidies? Why are we paying 25 billion euros annually for their feed-in?” An array of expert panels have determined that wind energy is not leading to more climate protection, but rather is only making electricity outrageously expensive.” (Source) […]