Newsbytes: Green Energy Disaster Sinks Siemens CEO

From Dr. Benny Peiser and The GWPF

Merkel’s Green Shift Backfires As German CO2 Emissions Jump – solar business closing

Siemens, Europe’s largest engineering company, has lost patience with its CEO after Peter Loescher’s expansion into green energy and expensive acquisitions led to a fifth profit-forecast cut. Supervisory board officials have asked for the 55-year-old Austrian native to be ousted. A key element of Loescher’s growth strategy was the 2009 announcement that he would transform Siemens into a “green infrastructure giant”, heralding a drive into solar technology to promote Siemens as a partner for companies and governments keen to use more renewable energies. At the 2010 annual general meeting, he wore a green tie and called for a “green revolution.” Since Loescher took over in July 2007, the shares have declined 22 percent. –Alex Webb, Bloomberg, 29 July 2013

German engineering giant Siemens has confirmed it is completely winding down its solar business. The involvement ended in a disaster, costing Siemens about one billion euros. Plans to sell off its solar business had come to nothing, Siemens admitted Monday in confirming a report in the German newspaper “Handelsblatt”. The involvement ended in a disaster, costing Siemens about one billion euros ($1.3 billion). –Deutsche Welle, 17 June 2013

Germany’s exit from nuclear power could cost the country as much as 1.7 trillion euros ($2.15 trillion) by 2030, or two thirds of the country’s GDP in 2011, according to Siemens, which built all of Germany’s 17 nuclear plants. “This will either be paid by energy customers or taxpayers,” Siemens board member Michael Suess, in charge of the company’s Energy Sector, told Reuters. “As an industry, Germany has always reached its goals. Now the whole world is looking at us. If the energy shift should fail … it would undermine Germany’s credibility as an industry nation,” Suess said. –Christoph Steitz, Reuters, 17 January 2012

Germany’s rise in CO2 emissions is set to worsen for a second year, the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal. Utilities boosted hard coal imports 25 percent in the first quarter to 10 million metric tons. With elections due in September, the move is a blow to Merkel, a former environment minister who helped negotiate the 1997 Kyoto accord curbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. “The trend of rising German CO2 emissions is alarming,” said Claudia Kemfert, who heads the energy unit at the Berlin-based DIW. “Climate change has quite frankly slipped to the back burner of policy priorities,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said on June 10. –Stefan Nicola, Bloomberg, 29 July 2013

About these ads
This entry was posted in Green tech, Newsbytes and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Newsbytes: Green Energy Disaster Sinks Siemens CEO

  1. Henry Galt says:

    Trillion dollar cocaine decisions. Repent at your leisure.

  2. neil says:

    Go thorium. Seriously crazy not to.

  3. GlynnMhor says:

    Siemens needs to reconcentrate its efforts on nuclear power, which will become the new “in” thing once the horrendous costs of the green failures become known to the public.

  4. commieBob says:

    Does anyone know if solar panels are available at fire-sale prices?

  5. Golden says:

    By 2030 Germany would be incapable of building any new nuclear power plants even if they want to since all their knowledgeable people will have retired and they will not be training any young people to take over. Extreme environmentalism is taking Germany 2 steps to back coal technology and 3 steps back in nuclear capability.

  6. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    Forward to the past.

  7. Doug Huffman says:

    neil says: July 29, 2013 at 8:53 am “Go thorium. Seriously crazy not to.” Their complete argument for thorium in six words.

  8. john robertson says:

    Seems anti humanist ideologies do no sell well in the real world.
    My bet is that our govts will buy up the firesale solar panels and destroy them, rather than allow taxpayers to enjoy a slight benefit from the collapse of this religious stupidity.
    As part of this too big to fail credos, which only applies to major campaign contributors.
    Funny what a trend setter, industry leader, Enron turned out to be.

  9. GlynnMhor says:

    CANDU reactors can already exploit the thorium fuel cycle without significant changes.

  10. Jeff says:

    Interesting that Loescher means “extinguisher” in German…did Siemens expect him to extinguish the supposed heat/fires of CAGW? All he appears to have done is extinguish the profits and
    near-term potential of one of Germany’s best technical companies…..sad…hope that Bosch
    isn’t roped in with this as well…

  11. DirkH says:

    Golden says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:24 am
    “By 2030 Germany would be incapable of building any new nuclear power plants even if they want to since all their knowledgeable people will have retired and they will not be training any young people to take over. Extreme environmentalism is taking Germany 2 steps to back coal technology and 3 steps back in nuclear capability.”

    The technology is actually simpler than a modern coal plant. Less pressure, less temperature; at least in our old GE Mark 1 type reactors – I think half of the German reactors are of that design. You don’t run them as pressurized because higher pressure makes the consequences of a leak more severe.

    The real trick is enriching the Uranium; and nothing beats a German gas centrifuge.

  12. markx says:

    What an absolute debacle it was to shut down those nuclear power stations.

    And that’s what happens when you get politicians who like to head whichever way the wind blows.

  13. Chris Lofet says:

    The cost of producing electricity from coal in EU (September 2012) is about 32 US$ / MWh

    From gas (Siemens) it is about 74.

    From offshore wind (Siemens) it is about 181.

    CEO Loescher recently stated offshore wind cost will be lowered by 40% in 2020.
    (about the same as new nuclear)

    You can compare this to information from US EIA of January 2013.

  14. Scott Basinger says:

    One bad CEO down, one Merkel to go.

    Once the rolling blackouts start, people will start to realize that there’s more to electrical generation than wishful thinking about windmills and solar panels.

  15. DirkH says:

    markx says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:23 am
    “What an absolute debacle it was to shut down those nuclear power stations.
    And that’s what happens when you get politicians who like to head whichever way the wind blows.”

    The real problem is not the loss of the nukes but the loss of any rational debate. The state media does nothing to inform the public but has a Greenpeace “expert” on every talk show. I am sure Greenpeace is a cohort of the EU commission; who else could abseil from a parliamentary building in a security perimeter during meetings of heads of states without getting shot.

    Why the EU commission continues the green shocktroop tactics I don’t know. It might be infathomable incompetence.

  16. DirkH says:

    Scott Basinger says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:38 am
    “One bad CEO down, one Merkel to go.
    Once the rolling blackouts start, people will start to realize that there’s more to electrical generation than wishful thinking about windmills and solar panels.”

    We’re constantly expanding our brown coal capacities. Producing plant food CO2 while preaching CO2AGW. Stupidity? Evil brilliant masterplan? Can’t tell.

  17. DirkH says:

    OIC. Merkel says she’s watching the trend worried; can’t be that the market prefers coal over gas etc. So her plan is to act decisively and – guess what – increase the price of CO2 certificates; there; problem fixed; green shocktroop goons play happy; planet saved; and ka-ching.

    Getting the hang of it.

  18. James at 48 says:

    Aren’t they one of the firms at the CA HSR trough?

  19. Chad Wozniak says:

    Like I keep saying – purge the greenies and the left from any position in which they can influence policy. With the harm they’ve already done, why show them any mercy?

  20. Eugene says:

    I read a Reuter’s clip on this back on June 17th (same fateful day as the note about Germany getting out of nuclear): http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95G0CW20130617?irpc=935. Facts cited were the same. Like US manufacturers, they probably cannot compete with the Chinese who have cheap labor working long hours, much of the global rare earth ore mining capacity currently in operation (rare earths are used in many things associated with “green energy,” including regenerative braking systems and wind turbines, and solar panels), few to no environmental and safety regulations, and did I mention long hours and cheap wages?

    I suspect that Merkel may be playing the politician with all the green energy crap, regardless of how she may feel personally. After all, she too has a constituency that has been drinking the environmentalist Kool Aid for a long time, and is terribly sensitive to all things “green.”

    A lot of infrastructure outfits (and utility and other investors) have been chasing the “green energy” bubble, and why shouldn’t they? What’s not to love? Special accelerated depreciation provisions, special tax write offs, on-going revenue for selling energy promises to traditional utilities that are mandated to provide some amount of “renewable” in the portfolio.

  21. Disko Troop says:

    Dear DIY magazine,
    Plywood is getting very expensive. Solar panels are waterproof and supposed to exist for 25 years. There is a sale on at Siemens. Is it cheaper to build my new shed from solar panels? Can I run my beer fridge from them as long as I only want a coldy at 5 pm?

    regards, Fred Shed

  22. george e. smith says:

    Well in a way, that really is a shame. Siemens to me has always represented a truly class act. I believe I used my first Siemens electronic components somewhere in the 1948 time frame. They were either Selenium, or Copper Oxide semiconductor diode bridge rectifiers. Packaged in a very well designed flat metal package. Worked great.

    The huge alternators at the Grand Coulee Dam, in Washington State are made by Siemens. Around 1980, I was involved in a Siemens buyout of a once successful, but then bankrupt LED company, helping transfer that company’s technology to Siemens. That got me my sole trip to Europe, to visit Siemens R&D Labs, in Munich, Regensburg, and Erlangen. The Regensburg site, I believe was once a Messerschmitt factory.

    They were a very professional outfit in those days (still are I’m sure), but getting caught up in a purely political exercise , was perhaps a big misteak..

    Well, throw the rascals out, and get back on track..

  23. Mike H says:

    I wonder if/when GE’s Immelt is going to go?

  24. Erik Christensen says:

    Spiegel international (Eng.) topic: German Energy Revolution (revolution not so much)
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/german_energy_revolution/

  25. DEEBEE says:

    But his and the German intentions were good. So that must count for something

  26. DesertYote says:

    george e. smith says:
    July 29, 2013 at 11:59 am

    ###

    They still are a class act, after all they gave their misguided greeny CEO the boot. If it was not for government enabled Crony Capitalism, GE would be circling the drain.

  27. Resourceguy says:

    At least GE just dances around the green topics in most respects and poses for photo ops with Obama, instead of actually placing heads and stockholders in profits buzz saw.

  28. Stephen Richards says:

    george e. smith says:

    July 29, 2013 at 11:59 am

    NIXDORF ?

  29. Dr. Bob says:

    Green economic philosophy:
    Attack any current source of energy production. Force to new source of energy. Attack new source of energy. Repeat as necessary until economy collapses.

    Even wind and solar will come under attack for their destructive impact on the environment once other sources of energy are replaced. Witness the attack on replacing coal with NG at NRG Energy in NY.

    As others have said, we need an energy disaster to force logical thinking about our energy policy. Letting the NGO’s force the issue has only lead to increased costs and reduced reliability.

  30. M Courtney says:

    Mike H says at July 29, 2013 at 12:15 pm…
    I would agree with you but I think my current employer would frown on it.

    Shame as I have some shares in my current employer and I strongly suspect they would rise if Immelt was immolated.

    But I won’t comment.

  31. richard verney says:

    Were the German people advised of the cost (€1.7trillion) of closing down their nuclear generators and replacing nuclear power with some other alternative?

    I presume that the answer is that the German people were not told the costs involved.

    Had they been told the costs involved would they have wanted to close down their nuclear plants? I suspect that the answer is that a majority of Germans would not have wished to see nuclear closed down in circumstances where their taxes or higher energy bills will have to find €1.7 trillion.

    The closing down of the nuclear plants was a complete over -reaction to the Japanese incident since Germany is not subject to the same geological conditions. It would appear to have been a political decision not well thought through. The adverse consequence on industry, and industrial competitiveness and the full costs to the tax payer and consumer were not sufficiently taken into account.

    If I was German, I would be very concerned by this stupid political decision.

  32. cgh says:

    Siemens has been clobbered in three directions at once. 1. They lost their proprietary nuclear technology when they backed out of the Areva partnership. 2. Their costs of production have been going sky-high as electricity costs in Germany go up. 3. Low cost Chinese production has destroyed any European solar industry.

    Loescher got absolutely everything wrong on the energy file; his execution by the board was inevitable.

  33. Dan in Nevada says:

    DirkH says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:21 am
    “The real trick is enriching the Uranium; and nothing beats a German gas centrifuge.”

    Sure, unless the centrifuge is being controlled by a Siemens PLC that has been repurposed by the NSA.

  34. Mario Lento says:

    Being or acting stupid should hurt. Think about it. If it did not hurt, it might not be stupid.

  35. Streetcred says:

    Loescher’s strategy would have been perfect if CAGW wasn’t a bad dream. Lesson for CEOs … build your strategies on what you know, not what you don’t know or think you know. He seems to have much in common with climate modellers:
    “The climate science community may believe they understand “the fundamental physics of the Earth system”, but the performance of their models indicate their understandings are very limited and that they have a long way to go before they can “make projections of its evolution”. [Dr Bob Tisdale]

  36. neillusion says:

    Germany (Siemens) seems to have slipped up (been stitched up?) (However) you don’t do what that guy did without ‘knowing’ an aweful lot more than we can know. There’s incredible stuff just around the corner we can only guess at and dream of. Germany could still prove to be ahead of the game when a few more global moves have been made, moves the (presumabley ‘unexpected’) delay of which has germany exposed. I do get the feeling that there is a (global) air of expectancy (Why isn’t USA all over Thorium? and other questions). There is something really huge just around the corner – the only things I can think of are antigravity technology and UFO/Alien stuff. Now that I gotta see. It could even be the simple belief of possibility of same. Release (massive & unprecedented) by govts of UFO records has gotta have got people thinking? No? Not even crossed your minds?
    This is a game people, played by unseen participants (humans) (?) at such a level we wouldn’t even believe the ‘moves’ possible. Their board is the earth, their pieces are us. (for ‘us’ read you, me, governments, countries, gnp’s oil coal, monopoly board stuff). Sure, some of this evolves but the rest is THE GAME. At the moment most of ‘us’ seem to be losing, as in controlled/exploited as an almost throwaway resource.

  37. CodeTech says:

    Humans went from living only in warm climates to burning wood and dung, burning whale oil, coal, oil, and finally to exploiting nuclear power. Now we want to back up, throw away decades of immense progress, and reduce our energy use by restricting it to what we can extract from the sun and wind (and tides).

    It’s a travesty, and I have zero respect for those who think our level of technology is advanced enough to extract this power in sufficient quantity to be useful without actually harming the environment (extracting power from the atmosphere and stopping sunlight from reaching where it normally does can do nothing but harm).

  38. Janice Moore says:

    Germans like to make money. They do it very well. Chancellor Merkel is a bright, well-educated, woman who likely has not believed in CAGW since at least 2001. She is seizing a golden moment for Deutschland — collapse of carbon market, 17 years of obvious NO-warming. Real Money is not investing in windmills or solar panels nor is it going where such things are any substantial part of the power grid. While Money is not pretty, it offers us truth-in-science people hope, for once it knows it has been fooled, in a free market, it QUICKLY flows where the risk-profit analysis is rational.

    Thus it is, that only by a socialist tyranny (such as D’oh!bama, the Puppet in Chief ‘s thinkers are trying to create) can one fund l-i-e-s.

  39. Janice Moore says:

    Nuclear power is GREAT, but, it is still relatively expensive to get to market compared to coal, thus, to make money, for now, coal is better.

  40. neillusion says:

    I want Thorium! I demand Thorium (Withnail & I, modified) There has to be transition. Millions of brand new cars sitting in car parks. Wish they were wind turbines, huge great big mother flippers. No. Lots of people denied the dignity of work at something worthwhile for a while. Given time we could have great Thorium or other energy not yet revealed, the zero point stuff even.
    Code tech: – Back up? There’s a new engine that more than doubles the conversion of energy from fuel – why we not using it? Solar cells and wind turbines are cutting edge technologies.
    Solar on roofs, and a slow down of wind – do nothing but harm? Sunlight normally reaching the ‘desert’?
    Intelligent transition management is needed. It is not possible in a competitive world where knowledge is power and secrecy of same prevails, profit is survival (notwithstanding the human sacrifice). (May I introduce: the corporation)

  41. ut8t5 says:

    What is with Germans and their fascination with green fuhrers from Austria?

  42. Tsk Tsk says:

    Eugene says:
    July 29, 2013 at 11:42 am

    A lot of infrastructure outfits (and utility and other investors) have been chasing the “green energy” bubble, and why shouldn’t they? What’s not to love? Special accelerated depreciation provisions, special tax write offs, on-going revenue for selling energy promises to traditional utilities that are mandated to provide some amount of “renewable” in the portfolio.
    =========================================================================
    Green subsidies are the ultimate “renewable.”

  43. Bill H says:

    Stupidity should be painful.. Siemens now knows that in a 2.7 trillion dollar loss kind of way..

    The collapse of the green energy fiasco continues…

  44. My memory is that General Electric and United Technlogies (Pratt & Whitney engines etc.) have been very disappointed with their ventures into alternative energy.

    Meanwhile retailing idiots promote alarmism about polar bears (CocaCola Canada) and mis-represent nature as uncontaminated with harmful chemicals (Canada Safeway – sure I say, there’s the anthrax in rotting leaves, the tetanus organism in soil, the poisonous snakes……). I boycott both companies.

  45. CodeTech says:

    neillusion said:

    Solar cells and wind turbines are cutting edge technologies.

    No, not even close. Solar cells and wind turbines are old tech that are both completely useless when it comes to providing commercial or residential levels of power.

    Both are decades old technology that were abandoned in the late 70s after they were rushed to in the early 70s during the energy crisis. Both require spinning backup generation because they provide power intermittently. Both are responsible for MASSIVE environmental destruction, both in their placement and in the manufacturing process, and both are responsible for horrendous environmental destruction while in operation.

    There is no magical solution to make either of these old, useless technologies suddenly start working. They never, EVER will work. Ever. Believing they can is equivalent to believing in unicorns and dragons.

    And while we’re at it, no, there is no magical “ultra-efficient” engine out there either. Nice try, though. You can be excused for believing this crap, lots of people fell for it in the 70s too. But please grow past your naive beliefs before you start lecturing people about what is and is not possible.

  46. Pamela Gray says:

    Idiot. The bandwagon is the green room for the tar and feathering gong show. Did he not know that?

  47. Pamela Gray says:

    Commercially, solar cells are best put to use as a road sign and light power source, on construction sites, and for farm and ranch purposes. Individually, you might be able to get off the grid if you like raw food and candlelight.

    Don’t get me started on wind towers. You think their footprint is small compared to a damn or coal operated facility. Wait till the subsidies dry up and these things are laying on the ground. That footprint will be HUGE!

  48. Pamela Gray says:

    “dam” not “damn”. Apparently I was in a swearing mood.

  49. Janice Moore says:

    Pamela Gray (7:40PM),

    So are we ALL! “Green room for the tar and feather gong show” — LAUGH — OUT — LOUD.

    I’m so glad to see you back posting. Hope all is well.

    Janice

    ***********

    @ Code Tech (7PM)– GAME, SET, AND MATCH!
    **********************************************************************

    @ Keith Sketchley — Good for you! I haven’t been following the news all that closely. GREAT to hear that GE and their asinine curly-fry light bulbs are doing poorly. I do hope, though, for the sake of all the GE employees (some of whom, I think, are among our finest bloggers on WUWT), that they get a new captain and turn the ship around before the point of extremis (reef dead ahead).

  50. Siemens has over recent decades been turned from a corporation that was run by engineers, to one run by “tampon graduates”. The term has been adapted from advertising of old which showed young women sailing, swimming, skiing, skydiving, speaking in boardrooms, etc — apparently because they were using one particular type of tampon.

    Thus the “tampon graduates”; the MBA (“BWL” in Germany) and even law graduates; women and men; who are put into positions to control stuff, even though they don’t have the vaguest idea of what they are managing. In the absurd reduction of micro-management to management; detached from everything else.

    The graduates are churned out of Universities and colleges; with high regard for themselves and overflowing confidence that they can manage; better than anybody could in the past. (ipso facto; managers with experience gained from working with the stuff that they’re now managing.)

    Siemens is now finding itself standing on tippie-toes in the effluent of decades of such management. Managers who set high targets for the company’s Engineers to try to reach; having publicised products and services for which the company has no established proficiency.

    It’s not just the renewable energy sector where Siemens is failing; in PV solar as well as wind (delaminating blades, no provision to connect off-shore to grid, etc.). Even the stuff where the company had traditional proficiencies have been stretched beyond breaking point. Germany’s high-speed ICE (InterCity Express) trains have been dogged by decades of “unexpected” failures with wheel coming apart, bogies catching fire, brake discs shattering, inadequate HVAC; and now a new generation of ICE, long-promised; is falling way behind schedule because they cannot get the software sorted and there are certification issues with the new rolling stock.

    The blog of Siemens’ works council is a landmine of information.

  51. Janice Moore says:

    Note to self: Do not EVER work in Germany.

    Wow. I didn’t realize just how wonderful American men are until I read the above. They may call their female boss names (just like they do their male bosses), but nothing that disgusting. THANK YOU, GOD, THAT I LIVE IN AMERICA!!

  52. jorgekafkazar says:

    “As an industry, Germany has always reached its goals. Now the whole world is looking at us. If the energy shift should fail … it would undermine Germany’s credibility as an industry nation,” Suess said. –Christoph Steitz, Reuters, 17 January 2012.

    Yes, yes, I remember well the industry that was prominent in Germany in the 40′s, and how well it reached its goal, Schindler notwithstanding. But in more recent times, it is ludicrous to expect national credibility when the industry in question is founded on lies, even ones as big as CAGW “science.”

  53. John F. Hultquist says:

    If you search on the phrase ‘ fly-yellow paint ‘ using the images tab many of the first pictures that appear will be of yellow autos. This was the color selected a few years ago (? 2008 – 2009) as a clue that the car was electric or otherwise environmentally appropriate. One doesn’t see a lot of bright yellow cars on highways in 2013. The folks that thought this up should get out of the auto business.

    That Germany’s “Green Shift” backfired is no surprise. One of the big nuclear plants should have all its cooling towers painted fly-yellow, maybe these
    http://www.iromegane.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/german-nuclear-plants.jpeg

    as a reminder. The skeptical types had this figured out almost as soon as it got started. A lot of grief could have been averted. Too late now.

  54. DirkH says:

    Janice Moore says:
    July 29, 2013 at 8:32 pm
    “Note to self: Do not EVER work in Germany.

    Wow. I didn’t realize just how wonderful American men are until I read the above. They may call their female boss names (just like they do their male bosses), but nothing that disgusting. THANK YOU, GOD, THAT I LIVE IN AMERICA!!”

    Calm down. Bernd is in Oz for all I know. I’m in Germany and we don’t call our female bosses names. Never heard that “tampon graduate” stuff here. Don’t know where he got that from.

    As for not working in Germany: Wise decision. It’s just not worthwhile. The state keeps most of the money.

    As for MBA’s managing the companies: Well whether that is so bad is a matter of argument. Some of the old engineer-founders of Germany have failed in the market. Nixdorf, Zuse come to mind. And lots of unknown small startups founded by engineers who thought they could run a company but couldn’t. Most of the technical types can’t be bothered to care for money. They like to develop;not care about sales or staying in budget. It can work for a generation, like with Siemens himself, or the SAP founders; but often the heirs are just not interested or able to continue the success so you pass control to hired hands; the MBA’s.

  55. johnmarshall says:

    Merkel was stupid to close their nuclear down after Fukishima. Germany is under zero tsunami threat like Japan and Merkel being a trained Physicist must be able to understand the science behind the earthquake caused tsunamis. Siemens is due to ”invest” in a wind producing facility in the UK now but this might be cancelled now. Not saying sorry though.

  56. theBuckWheat says:

    “Green” on this scale is collectivist, another branch of socialism and it central planning, As Thatcher said, socialism works until they run out of other people’s money. In the case of “green”, the crowd that demands it also loves to scold the rest of us on “sustainability”, yet none of their schemes are economically sustainable, so they can only succeed via the morally corrupt avenue of collusion with government, and thus also develops a form of crony-ism, I guess we could call it crony environmentalism.

    Germany’s decision on nuclear power is more economically devastating than maybe even losing a war.

  57. Craig Green says:

    I agree with CodeTech and theBuckWheat. Too bad this site isn’t read by more greenies.

  58. John Law says:

    johnmarshall says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:30 am
    “Siemens is due to ”invest” in a wind producing facility in the UK now but this might be cancelled now. Not saying sorry though.”

    Thank god for that, I look out, from the North Wales Coast, at a forest of these useless objects, where the Irish Sea and the Horizon used to be.

  59. Janice Moore says:

    Note to self: Do not EVER work in Germany.
    Wow. I didn’t realize just how wonderful American men are until I read the above. They may call their female boss names (just like they do their male bosses), but nothing that disgusting. THANK YOU, GOD, THAT I LIVE IN AMERICA!!

    Janice,

    Chill. Tampon graduate applies regardless of gender. They get a degree and reckon that they can do anything.

    I made an effort to explain the origin of the term and that it applies to both women and men. There’s nothing that I can do about people finding offence in what I say or write. q.e.d.

    Dirk, as to an origin of the term, Volker Pispers explains in this youtube video. You only need to watch the first minute. The video’s in German.

  60. ozspeaksup says:

    Disko troop:-) very funny, do you write comedy for a living?
    reckon you should, got a good laugh from this and other comments of yours prior:-)

    oh and wasnt it yesterday I read the germans are a bit worried about running outta gas supplies this winter? odd cos they got their very own direct line from Gazprom not that long back, didnt they?
    maybe they better pay the bill?

  61. _Jim says:

    Eugene says July 29, 2013 at 11:42 am

    I suspect that Merkel may be playing the politician with all the green energy crap, regardless of how she may feel personally. After all, she too has a constituency that has been drinking the environmentalist Kool Aid for a long time, and is terribly sensitive to all things “green.”

    This is the corner the eco-loons have forced the politicians into: put on a facade WHILE attempting to take some practical course behind the scenes, almost as a sideshow. A kabuki dance with a green-theme must be put on the main stage while the REAL activity proceeds off to the side.

    This is a form of corruption, a poisoning of rational thought if you will, for for the ‘promise’ of some nirvana that will forever be just beyond reach (the ‘green dream’ of sustainable energy consisting of wind and sun). IMO.

    .

  62. Silver Ralph says:

    More German coal imports, due closing nuclear power stations?? Its worse than that – they have also boosted production from the very dirty brown coal plants in Eastern Germany. And hypocritically boosted nuclear power imports from France.

    But on the former subject, if Germany can still use brown coal, why is the UK turning the Drax power station into the largest woodburning stove in the world?? Is this another case of the UK being the only mug to take EU edicts seriously??

  63. DirkH says:

    Silver Ralph says:
    July 30, 2013 at 6:43 am
    “But on the former subject, if Germany can still use brown coal, why is the UK turning the Drax power station into the largest woodburning stove in the world?? Is this another case of the UK being the only mug to take EU edicts seriously??”

    We Germans cough up the money to fit flue gas scrubbers to all of the plants. Even the brown coal plants are as clean as an operating theatre. Well, sorta.

    The Brits work economically. Owners of Drax and other plants have decided that it’s not economic to fit the scrubbers for the remaining lifetime of the facility so they close or convert to that burning of imported wood.

    What’s smarter? I can tell you that there’s no place as expensive as Germany with regards to energy cost; taxed to the hilt; expensively bought from Gazprom etc., all kinds of green fees, rising from year to year. Energy in the UK is still vastly cheaper; even the wind mill madness is relatively cheap compared to the German PV subsidies.

  64. Rod Everson says:

    “johnmarshall says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:30 am
    Merkel was stupid to close their nuclear down after Fukishima. Germany is under zero tsunami threat like Japan and Merkel being a trained Physicist must be able to understand the science behind the earthquake caused tsunamis.”

    Maybe not so stupid? Someone else commented that Merkel probably hasn’t really believed the CAGW hype for a decade or better. Maybe that’s true, her being a trained physicist and all?

    If so, and if coal plants are cheaper to run than nuclear (absent any CO2 considerations), was she really “stupid,” or was she just taking advantage of an opportunity to switch Germany to cheaper coal, knowing that the green revolution was self-destructing, as the Siemens experience illustrates?

    Her green allies would hardly object to the move to dump nuclear, and more likely cheered her on expecting, of course, that the replacement power would come from a favored source such as wind, solar, tides, or bio-something. What are they to do now, request the nukes be put back on line?

    Meanwhile the nuclear industry is put on notice: Come up with something that competes on price or get used to coal and oil generation for another few decades.

    Stupid? Or Crazy like a Fox?

  65. Gary Pearse says:

    Janice Moore says:
    July 29, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    “Nuclear power is GREAT, but, it is still relatively expensive to get to market compared to coal, thus, to make money, for now, coal is better.”

    And who do you think made nuclear so expensive? The biggest cost is dealing with the same destructive crowd dedicated to kill off any industrial life’s blood. Nuclear electrical plant accidents: Canada 0, France 0, Germany 0, Japan 7, Chernobyl 50, directly but estimate up to 4000 long term, UK 0, US 3 (1961). These deaths occurred mainly with 50s -60s technology, and in the case of Chernobyl, no jurisdiction outside of the USSR would have built such an inherently unsafe plant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

    Over 4000 Chinese coal miners die every year.

    During 2003 to 2009 in the US alone, 716 oil and gas extraction workers were killed on-the-job,

    http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source

  66. DirkH says:

    Rod Everson says:
    July 30, 2013 at 7:28 am
    “If so, and if coal plants are cheaper to run than nuclear (absent any CO2 considerations), was she really “stupid,” or was she just taking advantage of an opportunity to switch Germany to cheaper coal, knowing that the green revolution was self-destructing, as the Siemens experience illustrates? ”

    Running an existing nuke is cheaper than anything else you can imagine. They need to be maintained each refueling cycle, every 2 years, and are checked to fulfill the most onerous regulations, but still cheaper than anything else. 98% uptime; churning out what, 7 TWH a year, one reactor; what’s that in household retail price of 0.25 Euro a kWh; 1.75 billion Euros a year, of which the state takes 70% in taxes and green fees for redistribution to his cronies with the PV and the wind mills.

    You have to produce SOME energy if uou want to collect the fees to give to the cronies.

  67. DirkH says:

    And just as a free service, 1.75 bn Euro are 2.275 bn Federal Reserve Notes (colloquially called a “US Dollar”) at a quote of 1.30.

  68. neillusion says:

    Codetec
    I believe you people can’t see passed the limited array of numbers you choose to believe in – sound familiar? You don’t know the future either.
    Did you deliberately miss the point on ‘cutting technology’ of wind and solar to post as you did? Old tech completely useless? Are you for real? As one example, Germany has a huge number of domestic solar panels that last year (I think) produced a record Gazillion Watts, used for industry. Check that out! Impressive. Subsidies – you want to go there? You sound like someone who thinks he was just tricked into buying someone else a beer, bitter. You got shares in electricity, perhaps?
    I suggest there are many things in the equation that none of us know. Yes it seems someone made a big mistake, but the truth is gonna be hard to find out and will almost certainly not be clear from numbers in any currency. It will take time.
    I’ll venture a prediction that something big, I mean really big, happens in the next 12 months, that makes a lot of these judgements irrelevant.
    Can’t you just feel it?
    I’m reminded of the frogs in the saucepan (no, I’m not aiming this at AGW, I think that show is just about to set off the misty dry ice (cool) finale to obscure the performers, close the curtains and let the punters go home wondering what drama they just paid to see and who to nominate.

  69. neillusion says:

    I have just read the ‘fault fallacy and failure of wind’ thread. It seems to me the ‘al gore against wind’ types that prevail on that thread are al gore wannabe’s with all his faults fallacies and failures. They should stop their deliberate negative soundbiting against wind. They simply do not present balanced quality considerations for assessment – none that I saw, nothing backed up with science, even the quote on ‘cost’ of producing the copper, steel, concrete is WRONG.
    Shame on them. Detention, go write 1000 lines – ‘I will do my homework and debate like a real adult’
    Wind never pretended to be anything but wind. It blows here and there, sometimes hard sometimes not at all. Always known.
    Subsidies and cherry picked number bias, we all know what you can do with those issues – politics and statistics anyone?
    Environment – any rational human being can see the gift
    Not a be all and end all, but until the powers that be choose Thorium, wind (and solar) can be transition energy supply (supplements) far far preferable to burning coal and oil to get that energy.

  70. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Stephen Richards says:

    July 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    george e. smith says:

    July 29, 2013 at 11:59 am

    NIXDORF ?……””””””

    Well, I’m semi-illiterate in German; some would say totally so.

    So I have no idea what that word means; but I presume from the punctuation, that is some sort of Question; which clearly, I don’t have an answer to either.

  71. dbstealey says:

    george e. smith,

    The internet is a wonderful resource for finding answers to questions like yours. So I put NIXDORF into my handy desktop translator, and came up with the official German/English translation: “NIXDORF”.

    See? Now we know the answer. Nixdorf means nixdorf.

    So, how’s your nixdorf holding up? I’m taking my nixdorf out for a walk. He lives nixdorf to Heinz. Never nixdorf when there is an alternative. “Baby, show me your nixdorf…” Nixdorf in the Promised Land. When polishing your nixdorf… etc.

    I am still at a loss over how this topic began.

  72. Gail Combs says:

    neillusion says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    … Not a be all and end all, but until the powers that be choose Thorium, wind (and solar) can be transition energy supply (supplements) far far preferable to burning coal and oil to get that energy.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Are you for real???

    What don’t you understand about the word INTERMITTENT?

    In·ter·mit·tent [in-ter-mit-nt] Show IPA
    adjective
    1. stopping or ceasing for a time; alternately ceasing and beginning again: an intermittent pain.
    2. alternately functioning and not functioning or alternately functioning properly and improperly.
    3. (of streams, lakes, or springs) recurrent; showing water only part of the time.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intermittent

    You cannot run a business much less manufacturing with an intermittent power supply. I have worked as a chemist in drug manufacture, plastics and ceramic casting for turbine blades.

    YOU CANNOT MAKE A TURBINE BLADE WITHOUT A STEADY SUPPLY OF POWER! You don’t shut down the power to foundries or for that matter to plastics manufacturing without destruction of the equipment or at least a major clean-up/start-up down time measured in days to weeks.

    Solar or wind are good niche market products but that is it until a useful method is found for storing energy without a major loss. Also solar and wind are land intensive and only suitable in certain locations.

    Despite all the rhetoric, Wind, Solar and battery technology is OLD technology. You just are not going to get the fast breakthroughs you see in new technology. Going from 1900 to 1960 you saw major leaps in technology and science in many fields from transportation to medicine, from leeches to antibiotics, from horses to spacecraft and from candles to indoor electric lights.

    From 1960 to now we have REFINED those breakthroughs. There are physical limitations to those refinements that can not be bypassed. Congress can pass a law that cars have to get 500 MPG but it ain’t going to happen. (Unless you are talking nuclear)

  73. CodeTech says:

    neillusion, now I’m one of “you people”? LOL

    I can’t tell if you’re semi-literate, or English isn’t your first language, you’re playing at some sort of sarcastic game, or if you’re just dim. Whichever it is, your gibberish above is just that.

    Wind and solar are great in small scales for isolated areas, they’re both useful for camping or powering remote traffic signals, things like that. But neither will ever be useful for commercial or residential power supplies. People and business require on-demand power that is reliable. Neither wind or solar fulfill that requirement. Let’s see how well your furnace moves the warmth through your house when it’s -40 and the wind isn’t blowing and you’re depending on wind or solar for your power.

    And it is truly mind boggling that any sane individual can use the word “Gazillion” when describing the power generated by these useless technologies.

    See if you can arrange to visit a wind farm some day. Some companies like to show them off, and will tour you around the facility. That might wake you up to what is involved. Cutting edge? Mind boggling.

    There are only a very few places in the world where wind is constant enough for a wind farm to provide anything close to predictable power, and those places are all in sensitive bird migration paths (for that very reason).Think about the “cutting edge” factor of slicing up and clubbing so many birds. Think about how intelligent it is to slash service roads and pile hundreds of tons of concrete as a base for a giant wind turbine that is not a constant source of power.

  74. DirkH says:

    Nixdorf could be understood as a composite word meaning “Nothing-Village”. Nix is colloquial for Nichts meaning nothing. Well and Nixdorf was also the name of an old extinct German computer maker who in the 80ies got acquired by Siemens.

  75. Craig Green says:

    Until the person who used this terms tells you what s/he meant by it, you haven’t got a clue…

  76. DirkH says:

    neillusion says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    “Codetec
    I believe you people can’t see passed the limited array of numbers you choose to believe in – sound familiar? You don’t know the future either.
    Did you deliberately miss the point on ‘cutting technology’ of wind and solar to post as you did? ”

    The first Megawatt wind turbine was built in USA, I think Vermont, in 1946. Silicon solar cells are being sold at least since the 70ies. There were some process improvements.

    “Old tech completely useless? Are you for real? As one example, Germany has a huge number of domestic solar panels that last year (I think) produced a record Gazillion Watts, used for industry.”

    Yep; one record Gazillion Watts. Which is what in Gigawatt-hours or GWh? I forgot the conversion factor. Please help me out.

    “Check that out! Impressive.”

    I would go so far as to say “Shiny!”

    ” Subsidies – you want to go there? You sound like someone who thinks he was just tricked into buying someone else a beer, bitter. You got shares in electricity, perhaps?”

    Germans pay currently 24 bn EUR a year in subsidies to PV and solar etc; mostly solar; growing by 20 % a year, a nice exponential. Currently that equates to 300 EUR per capita per year. or 390 USD.

    Neillusioin, you don’t know anything. You must be a Green. They wouldn’t know a number if it crawled up their behind and died there.

  77. Mario Lento says:

    neillusion says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    “Codetec
    I believe you people can’t see passed the limited array of numbers you choose to believe in – sound familiar? You don’t know the future either.
    Did you deliberately miss the point on ‘cutting technology’ of wind and solar to post as you did? ”

    The first Megawatt wind turbine was built in USA, I think Vermont, in 1946. Silicon solar cells are being sold at least since the 70ies. There were some process improvements.

    “Old tech completely useless? Are you for real? As one example, Germany has a huge number of domestic solar panels that last year (I think) produced a record Gazillion Watts, used for industry.”
    ++++++++++++++
    neillusion: I have 2 questions for you.
    1) In order of most expensive to least expensive electricity costs, where do you think Germany stands?
    2) If solar energy is so good, and cutting edge, what would the country with near the highest electricity costs in the world do in an attempt to remedy that situation?

    Answer to 2) is that Germany is building a huge number of non-clean technology coal plants.

    I suggest you find the answers to the questions I posed, and come back and give us an honest comment about how you’ve been school at WUWT.

  78. Mario Lento says:

    Mods: regarding my post at July 31, 2013 at 3:58 pm, I made a typo “school” should be “schooled”
    SORRY about that!

  79. neillusion says:

    WOW, lots responses.
    OK , where to start, as many have not done their homework properly. I will try to make clear just what I’ve been writing in its context, as I thought would be clear – I have three post previous, I guess that is where to start. You must not take facts and twist them, then criticise the twisted version and hang me up for it as many seem to do. You must not pick on the sentence fillers either – as an example one hilarious criticism was my use of the word ‘gazillion’ The real (obvious) point in the sentence that used that word came just before it. It was a ‘record’ production of solar power, fed straight to industry. Impressive indeed. That seems to have been ignored and a senseless criticism of ‘gazillion’ employed to distract? vent? elevate ego? Come on, lets give due regard for the truth, have an adult arguement, do some homework and have a productive ‘discussion’ here. I just checked the facts on the ‘record’ I refered to from memory. Seems there is a very recent one so just to state it here, “Germany set a world record for solar power production with 23.95 GW produced at midday on July 21, 2013.[14] Approximately 1.3–1.4 million solar power systems helped to set this record.” So what do you make of that? I think that was incredible. A hell of a lot of this was from roof top installations where the sun would have done nothing else of use (one comment was something to do with interupting the sunlight on its way to the earth was ruining the earth/ecology/whatever)
    I suppose that the power stations burned less coal, oil, etc, saving on those resources, reducing trucks on the road, and so on. Is that good or has my schooling led me astray?
    Another eroneous attack, this on wind power, is about the ‘cost’ of producing the copper, steel, etc used in building the turbine and setting against the electricity produced. Copper is one of the most recycled metals. You could more sensibly look at it like this…the metals used will be recycled in making the next one and the next one and the next one… the first may well include a huge amount of recycled material… so I will call it a ‘fraud’ attack (one of the many) on wind rather than a legit point.
    To Mario Lento…
    Question 1. ‘Costs’? money health environment future research spinoff. I don’t mean to be facetious or trivial, but if you mean financial, can you quantify all the considerations in financial terms? I do not know how to do this. But I’m guessing they are rather important and valuable considerations.
    Question 2. What do do? Use as much solar as possible (which won’t be that much in the bigger picture) and do something really cool and go for Thorium. Coal plants are not good. (obviously)
    Here’s something honest to comment… I believe I think for myself, put as much together as I can, from the facts and found WUWT not long ago in regard of AGW. In regard of AGW I’ve had my eyes opened by A.Watts and those others providing the undistorted facts, with quite balanced conclusions that I agree with in the main.
    In regards of solar and wind, I have found some pretty stupid attacks on these technologies and using them. May I ask what you think/make of the huge amount of electricity solar has contributed in Germany. There is a distinction to be made here of what use they can be for their relatively small contributions to the demand for electricity – a supplement, as I mentioned in one post – and the obvious limitations and unsuitability for providing all the power as is often a criticism against anyone who suggests they like (a bit of) solar or wind power.
    I don’t like the nuclear industry as has been and is, in regard of risks for DNA, life, etc. Thorium however is a oodles better (someone want to have a pop at that word?) And before you reach for the keyboard in a ‘gotcha’ orgasm moment, I ask you to look at the Thorium alternative, there’s a particularly good 2hr presentation on youtube that should blow your mind.
    DirkH, I don’t know the numbers for subsidies to PV, I question the number you quote and challenge you to show that you actually know something for real and report a detailed breakdown of that number. I’m guessing you have fudged it, and are using it eroneously (deliberately perhaps) against pv to have a go at some preconceived image/sterotype you have of greens and pv. Numbers crawling…well, I guess we’ll get to see. I don’t claim to be a green, just someone trying to think logically and bigger picture, avoiding the incredible amount of ‘garbage’ being passed for fact in all types of media. Also trying to anticipate what the futurre holds. We live in incredible times, amazing things being dicovered and produced in all walks of life. See my other posts for more on that.
    This is all I have time to write just now.

  80. neillusion says:

    Gail and CodeTec
    I seem to have been criticised, laughed at even for a position on solar and wind that I never took! Can you clarify, was I not clear – I’ve looked, last post applies. I just give credit where due and look to see what others think. I also try to second guess just what is going on behind the scenes for the decisions that are made by the powers that be. One example is in regard of technological development/inventions. The best and most amazing ones, that will affect society in a number of ways, are classified and never get to see the light of day, others are bought and paid for then buried.
    gotta go

  81. Mario Lento says:

    neillusion says:
    August 1, 2013 at 12:03 pm:
    ++++++
    You’re all over the place and have no focus. Germany is now building coal plants after proving that solar energy was too costly to efficiently generate electricity. Solar in Germany accounts for a small % of their total, and if it accounted for a larger %, their costs would be even higher than 2nd or 3rd highest in the world.

    Don’t get me started on windmills. Do you know which country as the highest electricity costs in the world and can NO LONGER afford to operate many of their existing installed wind mills? It happens to be the country with the most wind mills per capita. Again – facts are a terrible thing to someone like you who gets lost in the details.

  82. neillusion says:

    For focus I interpret ‘narrow’ dare I say minded, without offence. I try to see bigger picture so in a sense defocus, widen to accomodate the complex multifaceted issue as it obviously is. I don’t believe you can dismiss an industry (supplement as it is) just on money numbers. Cost, what is ‘cost’ and where does the money actually go? Why so much? There are humans involved, even in that equation, so expect some unsavoury facts and distressing scenarios. I’m talking about greed/profit and the big money players involved and their connections to politics. One cannot blame the technology for that.
    I am in a way lost in the details as you say, and it is proving very interesting – there is so much to consider, past present and future in regard of technology, industry, jobs, earth, health, inventions just about to be released and other stuff. I don’t have the answers. I cannot accept the ‘focussed’ narrow minded answers and criticisms, that depend on such a small spectrum, in many instances, of only one, of the issues. Coal not good. Thorium, did you see the vid mentioned? That one got me thinking. They had Thorium reactors, or one of them running for over five years back in the 50′s! It was so stable and controlable they were able to shut it down Friday night and start it back up on Monday morn. It was a research project by one of the greatest minds on nuclear physics, and as a project, no-one paid to work weekends. Inherently safe, burns up radioactive waste, converts 99%+ of the fuel (as opposed to less than 0.5% in the trad reactore (I was shocked to learn that). The reasons why we are not using Thorium are depressing. USA, UK and others are gonna lose this to the chinese and india, japan too. Just like UK lost its steel industry. When you consider the thorium answer you realise that politics, war, industry, protectionism, disinformation, greed, deception play the biggest part, nothing to do with the money numbers. (I’m sure something similar is responsible for the incredible numbers used in the solar and wind equations and arguements.) If we wanted 10x the power, all in electric, today, even decades ago, 24/7, we could have had it and much more for centuries to come, for next to nothing in your money numbers. It’s the greed and corruption and powerplay that determine the numbers and what we use, not the technology itself, how it is ‘good’. So when you quote numbers and blame a technology for having large ones, I cannot take it seriously, and no-one should. If the energy to laugh at and criticise those whol like a bit of solar and wind was aimed at those corruptors and profiteer thief types and politicians – ah whatever, the rot is so deep, the system so backward, I’m not sure a disaster event isn’t required to reset it. Humans!

  83. goldminor says:

    Spiegel has an interesting story about the first private wind farm project in the North Sea. The 30 unit 4o0mil euro, project was completed on time, ‘BUT’ as they were laying the cable towards the mainland connecting point they encountered WW2 munitions on the sea floor. They expect that this expensive delay will take about a year to fix…http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-wind-farm-delayed-by-wwii-munitions-discovery-a-915484.html.
    ‘ In the meantime’ states the article ‘the turbines are being powered by diesel generators to prevent rust buildup’. Nice! Too bad they didn’t think of laying the mainline cable earlier in the project.

  84. Mario Lento says:

    john robertson says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:43 am
    Seems anti humanist ideologies do no sell well in the real world.
    My bet is that our govts will buy up the firesale solar panels and destroy them, rather than allow taxpayers to enjoy a slight benefit from the collapse of this religious stupidity.
    As part of this too big to fail credos, which only applies to major campaign contributors.
    Funny what a trend setter, industry leader, Enron turned out to be.
    ++++++++++++++++
    John: Your statement is more true than not. I was doing work in Fremont, where an industrial property was housing 1000′s of Solyndra tubes that they could not sell. Once Solyndra went belly up – the tubes were all ground up to dust and disposed of! Sure – the tax payers owned these tubes… but evidently it was most cost effective to just scrap them all.

Comments are closed.