From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
As a result of Germany’s green energy transition, electricity prices are exploding. Consumers and businesses are paying the price while Germany faces gradual de-industrialisation. Economists estimate that the cost of the green energy transition will total 170 billion Euros by 2020. This is more than double of what Germany would have to write off if Greece were to withdraw from the monetary union. “The de-industrialization has already begun,” the EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has warned. —Handelsblatt, 23 May 2012
Opposition to a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing has slowed the development of natural gas in Europe, creating export opportunities for U.S. producers hurt by low prices and a glut of gas at home. By 2020, Europe will be using more shale gas produced in the U.S. than from domestic fracking, Wood Mackenzie estimates. –Katarzyna Klimasinska, Bloomberg 23 May 2012
Investments in renewable energy could be put on hold while European governments develop clear policies on shale gas, according to a biomass energy expert. The prospect of increasing production of cheap shale gas in Europe has impacted investors’ forward planning, Chris Moore, CEO of MGT Power told a forest industry conference in London on Thursday. “If anything, it’s going to cause a waiting period, and that’s bad for renewable energy. You’re going to see a lot of question marks on renewables and their affordability,” said Moore. —Environmental Finance, 17 May 2012
The Energy Bill constitutes a disastrous move towards a centrally planned energy economy with a high level of control over which forms of energy generation will be favoured and which will be stifled. The government even seeks to regulate the prices and profits of energy generation. –Nigel Lawson, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 23 May 2012
At a time when most major economies are gradually returning to cheap and abundant fossil fuels, mainly in form of coal and natural gas, Britain alone seems prepared to sacrifice its economic competitiveness and recovery by opting for the most expensive forms of energy. –Benny Peiser, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 23 May 2012
Those who doubt that market forces still have the power to transform the world aren’t paying attention to America’s revitalized energy sector. Prices more than policy are driving these remarkable changes. Other problems to be fixed, rising CO2 emissions, for example, will also yield to the indomitable pressure of price, if carbon is taxed. While Washington squabbled over which energy direction to take, and which energy bill to kill, the markets moved us in exactly the direction the country should go — toward cheap, plentiful energy. –Joel Kurtzman, The Wall Street Journal, 22 May 2012
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Victor Venema says:
May 25, 2012 at 3:45 am
“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.”
Pay German taxes and German gas and electricity prices and then report back to me how you like it.
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.
Victor Venema says:
May 25, 2012 at 3:45 am
I don’t see that Germany is close to doing pretty well – true, I don’t know who is.
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:
May 25, 2012 at 2:04 pm
“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. ”
The renewable energy cost is transferred to the owners of PV panels and wind turbines; and it pays for these products, and after about 10 years, the owners of said installations start to make a profit. So that’s redistribution, not reducing taxes or paying for pensions.
Maybe you didn’t understand the EEG law.
“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. ”
Such a supergrid would drive up the cost into the ludicrous because IT HAS TO BE BUILD AND MAINTAINED even though it is only used in cases where intermittent energy needs to be transferred across large distances.
Electricity is only 1/7 of current energy usage . Do you suggest we build 7 times the current grid infrastructure plus a 7fold increased size transEuropean supergrid to replace the 6/7th that are currently used in the form of fossil fuels?
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.
“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.”
So you swallowed their meme hook line and sinker. I really recommend that you stop believing the lies from Greenpeace and start reading about the energy quantities. Wind and Solar currently cost 16bn EUR a year in Germany and provide together about 1 % of the total energy consumption. Electricity is only 1/ of total energy consumption.
IT CANNOT BE DONE. Maybe in the year 2038 but not now.
“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.”
Almost no unemployment? Well okay let’s get a number, that’s not your strong point, numbers, right, maybe you’re a sociologist but I can help.
http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/wirtschaft_nt/article106242703/Arbeitslosigkeit-trotz-Konjunkturdaempfers-auf-Rekordtief.html
2.9 Million people or 7 percent, a 20 year low. Now, of course, for a European half-socialist high tax welfare state that’s not too bad but a market economy would call it pretty high.
But calling 7 % “almost none” is like calling the 7% of the year where your European supergrid would deliver no electricity “almost no blackouts”.
Or 7 % of all passenger airplanes crashing “almost no crashes”.
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.
Have you looked at weather charts? When a high pressure sits over Europe, millions of square miles become windless.
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
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.
DirkH says: “Such a supergrid would drive up the cost into the ludicrous …”
“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. ”
Transportation is only a small part of the consumer price of electricity. Our current understanding is that a supergrid is cheaper as local generation and storage, especially for your blocking example. And it has the advantage of making Europe more interdependent and thus reducing the chances for military conflict.
DirkH says: “Wind and Solar currently cost 16bn EUR a year in Germany and provide together about 1 % of the total energy consumption.”
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. Solar energy is subsidized to start building up capacity and through the market learn the most efficient ways to reduce the costs.
Nuclear and coals were subsidized much more to get them started. Nuclear still is and it an even better example of a minor contribution to only the electricity production.
DirkH says: “IT CANNOT BE DONE. Maybe in the year 2038 but not now.”
You are even more optimistic than the Green. They aim for Germany to be renewable in 2050. You have to start now to do cost efficiently. Coal and nuclear plants run for 40 to 60 years and much of the costs are fixed capital costs.
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.
DirkH says: “2.9 Million people or 7 percent, a 20 year low. Now, of course, for a European half-socialist high tax welfare state that’s not too bad but a market economy would call it pretty high.”
As you say, for Europe the value is not too bad. Most Europeans are happy that we do not treat our poor as badly as your idea of a market economy. Most unemployed have hardly any education are are actually ill. The value is sufficiently low, that educated people can be reasonably sure to find a job and life a stressless good life. 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.
Victor Venema says:
“I had not noticed that the German greens do not criticize Russian gas.”
DirkH says: “In that case please give me a link to their latest protest against Russian gas imports.”
I wanted to write that I do not see any special treatment for Russian gas over Dutch gas, Norwegian gas, English gas, etc.
DirkH says: “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.”
And the 10% of the population that vote for them are also on the payroll of the KGB? Germany does not have the two (almost one) party system of the USA, which is easy to control by special interests.
Steve Richards says: “Have you looked at weather charts? When a high pressure sits over Europe, millions of square miles become windless.”
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says: “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.”
A typical size is 1000 km. That would still be only a part of Europe. And that part would have a high production of solar power. And the biomass and hydropower can be used in periods of additional need. You should not only diversify with respect to region, but also use many different sources of renewable energy.
Technologically we can get it done and it will have to be done one day anyway. The main problem I see is sabotage of the transition by the oligopoly power companies.
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. Where is your optimistic American can-do attitude? Wouldn’t it be better to be the leader?
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?
Dear Rocky, I do not like arguments based on authority. Thus in my view it is completely irrelevant, but actually I am officially Doctor in electrical engineering.
Anyway, I did not come here to discus how to build a sustainable future for Germany. There are better places for that. I only commented to point out the the title is a lie. And while all commenters jumped on this lie, no one here seems to be interested in its truth. How am I supposed to believe you guys, if you are so uncritical about statements of your own group?
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.”
Friends:
You have been ‘had’ again.
Victor Venema made his first post above at May 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm. Please read it again because it is a sequence of ‘hooks’ to evoke a reaction. It said, in total:
WUWT has become severely infested by trolls probably because of its success, so most WUWT ‘regulars’ have learned to not ‘bite’ at such points. And nobody responded to Venema’s final paragraph.
But at May 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm DirkH replied to Venema’s only substantive point, saying:
[snip]
And Victor Venema replied at May 25, 2012 at 3:45 am when his post began:
etc.
So, the first sentence in Venema’s first post said he was commenting on “The de-industrialization has already begun”. And when DirkH replied to that point then Venema immediately claimed he was talking about something else.
That should have been a sign of what was about to happen.
It is a standard troll tactic to gain attention with a ‘hook’ then to divert the discussion to whatever irrelevancies he wants. And that is what Venema has done.
The discussion has become dominated by Venema who has raised
German economic history since the 1970s,
German vs US taxation,
European politics,
socialist ideals,
wind and solar power,
Russian gas,
German vs US living standards,
transportation costs.
Then at May 27, 2012 at 3:34 am, Venema writes:
So, having deflected the discussion from its subject and taken the debate ‘round the houses’, Venema tries to start again.
And Venema does start again because (at May 27, 2012 at 7:02 am) he immediately follows that post with a post addressed to DirkH (from whom he first gained a response) which tries to continue an argument about windpower.
Please, stop feeding the troll.
Richard
🙂 Good idea.