Newsbytes: Green Energy Transition: Germany Fears De-Industrialization

“Other problems to be fixed, rising CO2 emissions, for example, will also yield to the indomitable pressure of price, if carbon is taxed.”
Oh sure, that makes sense. When you are in a hole, the solution is to dig. Idiots.
Market forces will work just fine, as long as people want the comforts of civilization. If they want a short, hard life, then they happily go green.

Six companies are planning on introducing cold fusion products–ranging from large industrial units down to home units–in the next year; some as early as this summer. That’s where I believe the energy paradigm will shift, and in a gargantuan way; five years from now crude oil will be used primarily in petrochemicals.

Deindustrialization has always been the plan, or at least the desire. Mostly unstated, but sometimes stated. The U.S., though so far it has escaped the worst of it thanks to conservatives, is potentially no different than Europe. If the cap & trade bill, that passed the U.S. House, that mandated 83% CO2 cuts by 2050 (true!), had made it to Obama, we would be on our way to disaster. A replay of my previous comment:
If this AGW scare doesn’t work, the liberal elite econuts will rebrand and repackage and reposition. Obama’s Science Czar’s John Holdren’s past call (before the AGW scare) to “de-develop the United States” & create a “stable low consumption economy” is the political expression of the leftist dream, and they will push and push for that. Driving it all is secular guilt, and the dream of their own Eden. But the raw feeling of their pastoral fantasy is not dressed in wonkish words such “a stable low consumption economy,” but THIS:
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion.” –Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
They see draconian CO2 cuts as the ticket to fold up industrial civilization, if all goes “well.” But unfortunately, for them, and everybody else, it wouldn’t lead to this Utopian Eden. An Albanian told the story of what happened to their country with the collapse of communism (and just some supply systems): “Even the trees lining the roads were chopped down.”
It would be no Garden of Eden. I could say that instead it would be like a Mad Max world — but it’d be much worse. No desert idealism of clean and clean-cut ruffians. Tons of people (at first), and just cutting discomfort, cold, disease, dirtiness, dysentery, hunger, and violence.
You’d think at some point, let’s say after severe CO2 caps are implemented, and other problems ensued, people would see it coming, and repeal… But there would possibly be too much inertia, and once a series of collapses begin, it may be impossible to halt the descent.

RockyRoad says:
May 24, 2012 at 9:06 am
Six companies are planning on introducing cold fusion products–ranging from large industrial units down to home units–in the next year; some as early as this summer.

I just have one answer:

My country, which through many strokes of brilliance and ingenuity led the world into the Scientific Revolution, the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, is now determined to lead it into the stupidity revolution. Dunces hats all round at Eton and Westminster.

Is the aim to push and push until eventually there is an insurrection that can be a crisis that will not be put to waste?

Coming to California in 2013 (when AB32 really starts to kick in). Of course that’s assuming we make it past 12/20/12. 😉

What I can’t understand is the post Fukushima attitude toward nuclear power. Unit #1 was the cause of the cascade that resulted in units #2 and #3 melting. Unit 1 melted because unlike units 2-6, it required electric pumps to move cooling water. The other units could use their own decay heat to power steam turbine pumps and were reasonably OK until Unit 1 exploded cutting cooling hoses, pipes, and cables for the other units. It is like saying that a traffic accident involving a 1960’s Corvair should result in shutting down modern automobile production. In fact, the biggest irony is that if the quake had happened two weeks later, it probably would not have resulted in ANY of the plants melting because Unit 1 was to be shut down for decommissioning later in the month.
But even more befuddling is the results: Fukushima, 0 dead, 0 injured, 0 sickened and it looks like there will likely be no long-term health effects. THREE units melted, no injuries. Compare that to 11 dead with the Deepwater Horizon explosion or dozens dead from German sprouts and Colorado cantaloupe or nearly 4,000 dead from a chemical plant accident in India.
The fear of nuclear power is absolutely irrational. The notion of not deploying MODERN plants that would not have suffered the problems Fukushima did because a 1960’s design plant had problems is irrational.
What is going on is the population is being programmed with an irrational fear of nuclear power and an irrational fear of carbon-based energy using things such as “global warming” and over the top hype any time there is any nuclear trouble. I would be much more in fear of a chemical plant near me than a nuclear plant.
Energy is like the food for an economy. You can not expand production of anything without using more energy. If you throttle energy production, you throttle the economy. THAT is the goal here. We are, I believe, under attack in a strategic sense and it is being done through propaganda and computer models and indoctrination that starts at the kindergarten level.

@ Neil Jones says:
May 24, 2012 at 8:59 am
And on a lighter note…”Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years. “
***********************************************************************
Given that the majority of demographic movement is towards more people in larger urban environments, and the corresponding increase in the % population living in ungovernable urban slums (and the problems of crime, illness, etc. associated with that), is a recipe for disaster.
They will not be able to provide sufficient mass transit which, in effect, will turn cities into virtual prisons for the inhabitants, and no-go zones for those living outside the city. Ungovernable slums quickly turn into war zones, as local ‘warlords’ take over from the State. This is happening in various parts of the world now.
Read this 2008 paper from the Army War College for more info:
From the New Middle Ages to a New Dark Age: The Decline of the State and U.S. Strategy
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=867
Excerpt:
The Rise of Cities and the Emergence
of Alternatively Governed Spaces.
One area in which the New Middle Ages resembles
the Middle Ages of the past is in the importance of cities.
In the medieval world, towns and cities, although much
smaller than those of today, became centers of social
activity and hubs of commerce as well as incubators
of disease. In the last 50 years or so, the rise of cities
has become an enduring and significant trend and has
reached a point at which more than half the world’s
population lives in cities. A possible implication of this
is that cities will increasingly become an alternative
focus to the state as an organizing device for economic,
political, and social activities. Many cities are also
becoming increasingly ungovernable—a trend that can
only feed into what appears to be an impending crisis
of governance at national, regional, and global levels.
The latter half of the 20th century was characterized
by the large-scale migration of population from rural
to urban areas. This movement—and the resulting
transformation of urban spaces—was particularly
pronounced in the developing world. In 1950, New
York was the only city in the world with more than
10 million inhabitants. By 1995, there were 14 such
cities—mostly in the developing world.49 By 2015,
there will be 23—with 19 in the developing world.50
In addition, by 2015, “the number of urban areas with
populations between five and ten million will shoot
from 7 to 37.

Here’s a well known example of what happens when a city is going belly up:
Detroit
*********************************************************************************
Detroit, whose 139 square miles contain 60 percent fewer residents than in 1950, will try to nudge them into a smaller living space by eliminating almost half its streetlights.
As it is, 40 percent of the 88,000 streetlights are broken and the city, whose finances are to be overseen by an appointed board, can’t afford to fix them. Mayor Dave Bing’s plan would create an authority to borrow $160 million to upgrade and reduce the number of streetlights to 46,000. Maintenance would be contracted out, saving the city $10 million a year.
Other U.S. cities have gone partially dark to save money, among them Colorado Springs; Santa Rosa, California; and Rockford, Illinois. Detroit’s plan goes further: It would leave sparsely populated swaths unlit in a community of 713,000 that covers more area than Boston, Buffalo and San Francisco combined. Vacant property and parks account for 37 square miles (96 square kilometers), according to city planners.
“You have to identify those neighborhoods where you want to concentrate your population,” said Chris Brown, Detroit’s chief operating officer. “We’re not going to light distressed areas like we light other areas.”
Detroit’s dwindling income and property-tax revenue have required residents to endure unreliable buses and strained police services throughout the city. Because streetlights are basic to urban life, deciding what areas to illuminate will reshape the city, said Kirk Cheyfitz, co-founder of a project called Detroit143 — named for the 139 square miles of land, plus water — that publicizes neighborhood issues.
More: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/half-of-detroit-s-streetlights-may-go-out-as-city-shrinks.html

Detroit, anyone?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/half-of-detroit-s-streetlights-may-go-out-as-city-shrinks.html

German de-industrialization should be good for USA, Japan, China. Bad for the Germans. But that will learn them.

I’m in Brisbane Aussie, in the last state election I was watching the results come in and couln’t help noticing the green votes came from the cities. It just made me think that the people that acually work with the land and survive from it are well aware it has to be managed. I had an instant mental picture of the town greenie cultivating his tomato plant on the townhouse verandah. Then recalled the best bumper sticker I’ve seen,(the only true wilderness is between a greenies ears)

This BBC headline today say it all: “Eurozone downturn accelerating”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18186972
Part of this is energy foolishness, part the debt crisis, but a significant part is actually already from climate cooling – this will sustain the economic downturn in the coming years.

George says: May 24, 2012 at 10:29 am
What I can’t understand is the post Fukushima attitude toward nuclear power. …..
———————————————————————-
Nuke power plant construction is running fast in China, Korea, Russia, India, and several other countries. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/info.html#education Only the West and Japan are turning away from the safety, economy, low emissions, and long-term fuel resources of nuclear generated electricity. It seems that our “leaders” truly don’t understand that cheap energy increases quality of living. Indeed, the current US President campaigned on a platform of “Under my administration, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”

I think the people everywhere have turned already. It’s the politicians who have to catch up with them.

The title is: “Germany Fears De-Industrialization”. But the actual citation is: “The de-industrialization has already begun,” the EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has warned.
Thus Germany does not fear anything, but the puppet of the nuclear lobby is trying to scare Germany.
Reading comprehension is again severely limited at WUWT. It’s a pity, as a scientist I like sceptics. But since reading this blog, I am sure that if the theory of man made climate change will be refuted, it will be by a scientist and not by this community. Try harder.

It’s difficult to say whether the current German politicians of all parties are incompetent or working for a foreign power. Infiltration has happened since the 70ies; at that time the Soviets and the East Germans wanted to control first of all the SPD (the Guillaume affair).
Later Gorbachev played the nice guy in public while secretly strengthening the KGB and trying to get influence over the “peace movement” aka the Greens; while the West was playing the same game in Russia.
Putin is a KGB man and the KGB practically rules Russia. Maybe Germany as well.
So what can we expect? Well, more ruinous policies across the EU. What the Soviets always wanted was bring the entirety of Europe under their control.
Oh, and if an accident happens to Romney; Obama would have more flexibility in his second term as you know… if he doesn’t lose the election to Uncommitted.

May you live in interesting times.

Vince Causey says:
May 24, 2012 at 8:26 am
“Maybe Germany should move their manufacturing base to Greece – Lord knows they would be glad of the work – and the Germans can pursue a service economy, say – oh I dunno – how about finance?”
The reason for the uncompetitiveness of Greece is the same as alway:
Bloated state bueraucracy, most big companies state-owned – the largest private company is Hellenic Bottling, the local Coke licensee – the larger companies have NOT been privatized even though it was demanded and promised many times over the past 3 years. Low productivity and high wages and pensions in the state-owned companies.
So, if we moved our manufacturing to Greece, Volkswagens would in the future be build by Greek state employees with inflated wages, a low productivity and very likely without any quality check that deserves its names. And you could buy a Volkswagen starting at 100,000 EUR and it would fall apart right after delivery.
I’m not sure how this would help anyone.

Dear DirkH . I was not discussing the De-Industrilization of Germany, but the errors in the post.
And that error still stands, except if you are Germany and your personal fear justifies the headline/lie: “Germany fears De-Industralisation”. And I did not know that I am the Greens.
On your topic: The world economy is not doing well, but the energy and commodity prices are still very high. Once the world economy is running better again, the prices will be very high. Then the much more energy and resource efficient German economy will still perform, the USA will crumble.
You see a green conspiracy against Germany that started in the 70ies? Then Germany is doing pretty well after 40 years and I still have some American optimism left for the next 40 years in Germany. No idea where the USA will stand in 40 years. Maybe something like Russia, a regional power with nuclear weapons and a dysfunctional government.

RobRoy says:
May 24, 2012 at 9:24 am

Hey RockyRoad, How come only you know about these impending Cold Fusion Reactors. The last I heard CF still had not been achieved. Although, I certainly hope that you are correct, Sir.

There are numerous reports and web sites that track recent developments. Here’s one I use:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Cold_Fusion
And another: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
One of the six companies I mentioned, a US concern called Brillouin Energy Corp, claims to have perfected the CF process with the generation of elemental helium from hydrogen using nickel simply as a catylist. (Some companies are still at the stage where hydrogen is combined with nickel to produce copper, but that’s apparently an incomplete process.)
Wade says:
May 24, 2012 at 9:35 am

RockyRoad says:
May 24, 2012 at 9:06 am
Six companies are planning on introducing cold fusion products–ranging from large industrial units down to home units–in the next year; some as early as this summer.
I just have one answer: “The Simpsons – perpetual motion machine & laws…”

Nobody working on LENR/LANR/CF claims it is a “perpetual motion machine”, Wade. Only those that don’t understand the process make such claims—which are unfounded, of course. And lest you think this is a joke, consider these recent developments at M.I.T.:

(Start at the 5:00 minute mark)
Professor Hagelstein’s own description in video format:
http://cryptogon.com/?p=28977
freezeframe says:
May 24, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Rockyroad, Dude, I have a cold fusion system ready to market soon. Just need maybe half a billion to bring it to market. Are you tight with Mr. O.? Maybe put in a good word for me and we can get this deal done and save the world.

Me tight with Mr O? Hardly. He and I see the world as polar opposites. He uses a “Yes We Can” approach; I use a “Yes I Can” approach. The difference is fundamental and astounding. And considering his “luck” with capital investment in “green” technologies, I’d go with someone who has expertise in capital investment. May I suggest a wise alternative?
Mr. R, of course.

DirkH
“So, if we moved our manufacturing to Greece, Volkswagens would in the future be build by Greek state employees with inflated wages, a low productivity and very likely without any quality check that deserves its names. And you could buy a Volkswagen starting at 100,000 EUR and it would fall apart right after delivery.
I’m not sure how this would help anyone.”
Indeed. But that assumes that the Germans just hand over the licence to produce cars to the Greeks. My plan calls for the VW to move their factories to Greece just as many Western factories have opened in China. The working times will be the same per employee as for the German workers; the wages will be as VW decide to pay them. If they can’t turn up on time and press the right buttons on the production lines, they are free to go back to the soup kitchens.
Of course, the German workers left behind would not be happy – not at all.

And one more word about my “Russian connection” theory above.
If you lived here you’d notice that our Greens are systematically criticizing every energy form except
a) the ludicrously expensive, intermittent energy forms Wind and Solar.
b) Russian gas imports.
And Wind and Solar absolutely NEED 100% backup capacity. What a funny coincidence that the ONLY form of energy NOT attacked by our greens is the Russian product.
There are enough proven infiltrations from the time before 1990 – we have the archives of the Stasi since the reunification of Germany. Does anyone think the KGB stopped what it’s doing after 1990?
In that case I just might have a wonderful bridge for you.

DirkH: “Pay German taxes and German gas and electricity prices and then report back to me how you like it.”
I do and I like it. I do not mind contributing to society, it has given a lot to me too. How much money you make depends 100% on your own input and almost 100% on the society you life in. Just go back to the stone age. The pennies you would make there is the part you earn yourself. The rest, almost all, is what you can earn because you live in a good society. Part of that money you can invest in keeping it a good society, especially if everyone is contributing in the form of taxes.
It is good that you combine these payments. The high prices for energy reduce the taxes and pension payments. Would energy be cheaper, the economy would be less energy efficient and we would still pay the same amount to the state, but then in taxes.
DirkH: “If you lived here you’d notice that our Greens are systematically criticizing every energy form except a) the ludicrously expensive, intermittent energy forms Wind and Solar. b) Russian gas imports.”
Wind and solar are only intermittent locally, if you combine them with an electricity grid over all of Europe wind and solar are a reasonably constant energy source. Water and biomass can be used to fill the gaps and for storage.
I had not noticed that the German greens do not criticize Russian gas. Gas in general is better than coal and nuclear, because gas plants respond faster and thus have less problems with your intermittancy, they pollute less and produce less CO2 per kWh. In this respect gas is the best bridge technology until the entire energy system is renewable.
Beale: “I don’t see that Germany is close to doing pretty well – true, I don’t know who is.”
Just come by, If you are from the States you may like it. Decent salaries, almost no unemployment, less stress and fear about your social status and the future of your kids, much better food quality, living cities centres and a lot of leisure time to actually enjoy life. Many scientists I know come back from the US for the quality of life in Germany, even if scientists here are paid a lot less and they have to pay more taxes.

Victor Venema says:
“I had not noticed that the German greens do not criticize Russian gas.”
In that case please give me a link to their latest protest against Russian gas imports. I just googled around but all I can find are protests of the German Greens and ATTAC against fracking; i,.e, the competitor to Russian gas. This seems to confirm my suspicions.
If you could prove to me that the German Greens protest Russian gas imports as intensively as they protest attempts to develop domestic energy sources I would have to retract my hypothesis that they are controlled by the KGB’s agenda.
So please try.

Wind and solar are only intermittent locally, if you combine them with an electricity grid over all of Europe wind and solar are a reasonably constant energy source.

Wind energy farms can be simultaneously becalmed over areas as large as the state of Texas. Over lay a map of Texas over a map of Germany and you see that could be a big local area not producing power.
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce#
The fact is that large areas of wind generation can be almost useless for days or weeks at a time due to certain weather patterns. That is a problem if you have a high power demand during that period.
Larry

Victor Venema says:
May 26, 2012 at 2:12 pm
“DirkH says: “Maybe you didn’t understand the EEG law.”
I do, but there are many, many more taxes on energy as just this little for renewable energy.”
“This little” means 16bn EUR per year.
Then we have the “eco tax”, another green theft.
Then VAT.
And then comes the cost of generation – about 5 cent – and transport fee, about 7 cent.
“Transportation is only a small part of the consumer price of electricity.”
7 Eurocents per kWh. If you build the EU supergrid that means at least a doubling of the transport infrastructure
so let’s say that’s 14 cent. If you want to replace the 6/7 of non-electricity energy use with electricity as
well, the cost becomes even higher as you’re building brand new infrastructure using expensive technologies
like HVDC , maybe superconducting wires, some underground wire sections with all the switches (that are not even
developed yet).
“Our current understanding is that a supergrid is cheaper as local generation and storage, especially for your blocking example.”
You mean, 200% of GDP instead of 1000% of GDP. Granted, that’s “cheaper”.
“And it has the advantage of making Europe more interdependent and thus reducing the chances for military conflict.”
Oh. I thought the Eurozone makes us already interdependent enough. You want to create MORE potential for
continent-scale failure? (The word “interdependance” very quickly turns into a negative word when we talk about failure).
Ok, so you’re an internationalist who wants to kill systems that can work on their own, replacing them with
a system that, once it fails, takes EVERYTHING with it.
You might even think that’s smart. I can tell you it’s the opposite of smart. I have already built dependable systems.
“Solar energy is not subsidized because it is cheap. Thus comparing the subsidies to the total output is the wrong way to look at it.”
I agree. Wind and Solar power are money pumps, not energy generators.
“Solar energy is subsidized to start building up capacity and through the market learn the most efficient ways to reduce the costs.”
It is not a market; it is price fixing. As you currently see, subsidized industries simply fail once you
reduce the subsidy. Example: Q-Cells.
“Nuclear and coals were subsidized much more to get them started.”
Just as with solar, the development of nuclear power was driven by the state. The consumption of nuclear power was never subsidized.
And what subsidies did James Watt get for the development of the steam engine?
“Nuclear still is and it an even better example of a minor contribution to only the electricity production.”
You are deluded. 20 GW of 80 GW total in Germany was not a minor contribution; different from solar power, it was
highly reliable base load.
“You have to start now to do cost efficiently.”
The opposite is the case. The longer you wait the cheaper it gets. We are throwing billions down the drain.
“Are you such a socialist that you think that you can just let scientist do 20 years more research and then in 2038 the prices will miraculously be lower? I believe more in the market.”
The EEG has not created a market but destroyed a market more efficiently than even a planned economy could have done.
Wind and Solar money pump owners get paid for energy that they COULD have produced but didn’t produce because the grid was near overload.
You also seem to have a unique definition of the word socialism.
“Most Europeans are happy that we do not treat our poor as badly as your idea of a market economy.”
How do you know what my idea of a market economy is or what consequences it has.
“Most unemployed have hardly any education are are actually ill.”
I’m surprised to hear that and I’m eager to get a link to your source.
“The value is sufficiently low, that educated people can be reasonably sure to find a job and life a stressless good life.”
“Stressless”? I see you’re a do-nothing bureaucratic public servant who doesn’t even know what a deadline is. Look it up, it’s interesting.
“The latter was was what the original argument was about; thus the rest of your comment is just cheap rhetoric, as so often on this blog.”
Says the guy who repeats the talking ponts of the green left without ever giving sources or data for his baseless assumptions.
“I wanted to write that I do not see any special treatment for Russian gas over Dutch gas, Norwegian gas, English gas, etc.”
So you’re saying you have no evidence that the Greens criticize Russian gas imports. That’s what I said.
“And the 10% of the population that vote for them are also on the payroll of the KGB?”
Of course not. They are gullible panic-stricken do-gooders. The KGB infiltrates the top tier of groups it wants to control;
like in the Guillaume affair. Kretschmann, Trittin and Fischer all come from the 70ies communist groups which had documented links to Moscow.
“Germany does not have the two (almost one) party system of the USA, which is easy to control by special interests.”
Look up Hegelian dialectic. Germany is a de factor one party state when it comes to green policies.
“Technologically we can get it done and it will have to be done one day anyway.”
How about waiting until the products are cheap enough.
“When Germany knows how to do it, it can sell this technology to the rest of the world and thus strengthen its industrial base, to return to the lying title.”
The rest of the world will buy the technology when it is cost efficient. It is not cost efficient now so it is not a good that we can sell.
I expect PV technology to deliver 1 kWh for 5 of todays Eurocents in the year 2038. It is already cost-efficient in island grids near the equator.
It will become cost-efficient in California or similar latitudes about 15 years earlier simply due to the higher insolation – which is about
2.5 times the German insolation.
You have to understand one thing. I don’t mind Bosch developing solar power (they do). A far-sighted large company should do that.
What I do mind is installing GWpeak after GWPeak in a country like Germany that gets a measly 800 sunhours per year, and subsidizing this activity with
8 billion Euros a year (the other 8 billion Euros go to wind and biogas).
That’s ridiculous and insane. And that’s the idea that dominates all German parties.
(Wind and biogas should of course also be left to fend for themselves in the market. Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s free lunch.
Your idea is that I should. So you’re a socialist – you believe in Other People’s Money.)

Victor, I’m guessing you’re not an engineer. Right? For engineers don’t just make blanket statements and use “feelings” to conjur up policy–they crunch numbers.
Am I right that you’re not an engineer?

DirkH says: “Also read David Mackay’s
http://www.withouthotair.com/
to understand how much storage you need to survive a 40 day blocking high in winter when solar as well as wind DOES NOT DELIVER.”
Did you read this book yourself? He did not discus a 40 day blocking for Europe; most of his computations are for England. Even for England, a densely populated country, he wrote these final words:
“We need to choose a plan that adds up. It is possible to make a plan
that adds up, but it’s not going to be easy.
We need to stop saying no and start saying yes. We need to stop the
Punch and Judy show and get building.
If you would like an honest, realistic energy policy that adds up, please
tell all your political representatives and prospective political candidates.”

🙂 Good idea.