Wind and solar power + soaring electricity prices = outsourced jobs + more coal burning
Meanwhile, eco activists demand “sustainable lifestyles” – for other people
Guest post by Kelvin Kemm
It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.
In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.
In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany’s new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe’s – and Germany’s – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.
He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.
Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they can’t afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity.
Just recently, German figures were released on the actual productivity of the country’s wind power over the last ten years. The figure is 16.3 percent!
Due to the inherent intermittent nature of wind, their wind power system was designed for an assumed 30% load factor in the first place. That means that they hoped to get a mere 30% of the installed capacity – versus some 85-90% for coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric facilities. That means that, when they build 3,000MW of wind power, they expect to actually get merely 900MW, because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds. But in reality, after ten years, they have discovered that they are actually getting only half of what they had optimistically, and irrationally, hoped for: a measly 16.3 percent.
Even worse, after spending billions of Euros on subsidies, Germany’s total combined solar facilities have contributed a miserly, imperceptible 0.084% of Germany’s electricity over the last 22 years. That is not even one-tenth of one percent.
Moreover, the actual cost of Germany’s wind and solar electricity is far and away higher than its cost of coal and nuclear power. So much for “free” solar and wind. So much for all the German jobs that depend on reliable access to plentiful and affordable electricity.
As to natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, that too is prohibited, even if it is required to back up undependable wind and solar facilities. No wonder Germany’s natural gas and electricity prices are practically unaffordable.
Meantime the extreme greens continue to preach about the wonders of life based on solar and wind power. They also talk constantly about “sustainable living,” a “sustainable future,” and an otherwise hydrocarbon-free and “decarbonized” tomorrow. Be warned! What these vacuous exhortations mean is that people must not enjoy the lifestyles and living standards of a modern world.
They mean the First World must cut back significantly on its living standards, and the developing world must give up its aspirations for achieving the lifestyle of the First World.
Believe me, African small-scale farmers all dream of becoming like the large commercial-scale farmers they see next door. They do not wish to plough their fields with oxen, when their neighbours have tractors and automated grain handling machines. The same is true of small-scale commercial and industrial operations in which an affordable and reliable supply of electricity is essential. It is likewise true of virtually every office, shop, hospital, school and family on the entire African continent.
Meanwhile, in South Africa, an organisation calling itself “Green Truth” has distributed a notice about a newly released movie titled simply “Fuel.” Here is part of the promotional notice:
“FUEL is a comprehensive and entertaining look at energy: A history of where we have been, our present predicament, and a solution to our dependence on foreign oil. Rousing and reactionary, FUEL is an amazing, in-depth, personal journey by eco-evangelist Josh Tickell, of oil use and abuse, as it examines wide-ranging energy solutions other than oil; the faltering US auto and petroleum industries; and the latest stirrings toward alternative energy.
“The film includes interviews with a wide range of policy makers, educators and activists such as Woody Harrelson, Neil Young and Willie Nelson. Tickell knew he just couldn’t idly stand by any longer. He decided to make a film, focusing on the knowledge and insight he discovered, but also giving hope that solutions are at reach. A ‘regular guy’ who felt he could make a difference, he spent 11 years making this movie, showing himself – and others – that an individual can indeed make a difference. Stirring, radical and multi-award winning energy documentary! FUEL features experts and eco-celebrities such as: Sheryl Crow, Larry David, Richard Branson and Robert Kennedy, Jr.”
The notice frequently emphasizes “sustainable living” and “a hopeful future.” And the singers, actors, activists and other energy “experts” featured in the film are all extremely wealthy, and not at all likely to adopt the “sustainable” lifestyle that they and Tickell advocate so passionately.
Does this film have anything to do with “truth” about energy? Or is it simply a propaganda film for the producers’ and activists’ version of “sustainable lives,” for others, though not for themselves? It takes but a fleeting moment to realize that it is just like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – leagues removed from truth, and laden with scientific errors, personal biases, and the hypocrisies of affluent partisans who own big houses and fly private jets to events where they tell other people how to live “more sustainably.”
I’m sure “eco-evangelist” Josh Tickell is just “a regular guy,” just as his movie promo says he is. But I would much rather have my country’s electricity future planned by electrical engineers and scientists, and by citizens and politicians who actually live here – rather than by a “regular guy” environmental activist and his self-proclaimed “experts” on energy and “sustainable” lifestyles.
As formerly eco-evangelist Germany has demonstrated, countries cannot afford to have national energy policy moulded by movies like “Fuel” and “An Inconvenient Truth.” Their policies – and their future – need to be based on genuine truth and honest reality.
____________
Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa. A member of the International Board of Advisors of the Washington, DC-based Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), Dr Kemm has been awarded the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.
Jeff says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Would love to dig deep and strike oil or gold….my luck I’d just strike a sewer line….
===================================================================
Maybe that’d be just as good …. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/climate-craziness-of-the-week-poo-power-from-your-dog
Gunga Din says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:01 pm
(Sorry for the “shout”. I would have just put it in bold but I don’t know how with my system. It’s a dinosaur.)
Gunga, start with openning WUWT test pages and read through it should help:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/
Historians of the future will ask why did the EU fail so completely to live up to the promises of its designers and architects and political class? The EU has squandered and wasted countless billions on the CAGW/renewables fraud, the EU teeters on the brink of economic ruination brought about by an insane fixation with CO2, a completely harmless trace gas and plant food. But why did the leaders of Europe do it? Whatever their reasoning they have contrived to destroy the very industrial fabric of Europe, made emotionally driven political choices in place of pragmatic economic ones, somehow fooled themselves into believing the unbelievable that wishing for a utopian ideal would make it come true. They wished upon a star and were surprised those wishes failed to come true, they persuaded themselves that they could ice skate uphill and that the concrete laws of economics could be bent to their will.
Europe is failing because the political class of Europe failed to understand that without wealth creation there can be no wealth consumption, failed to understand the basics of industrial wealth creation, were influenced by a failed extremist anti capitalist ideology. In fact the EU has worked hard to hamper and cripple the industrial sectors we need by way of red tape and regulation and needlessly increased costs, what on earth did they think would happen? Did they actually think that by strangling industrial development and growth Europe would somehow become richer? As industry after industry closed or relocated did they not stop to think their anti capitalist wealth creator policies were working to impoverish Europe? If they believed that in order to encourage growth in the developing world they must destroy the industrial base of the developed world they are surely suffering from some kind of collective mental impairment. If they believed that the West could consume wealth without creating it they are only now finding out to their cost that Marxist economics is a dead end failure.
The cost of their mistaken faith in a flawed political ideology will of course be born by the majority of ordinary people, we in Europe will have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not, our children will inherit a wasteland gifted to them by fools who believed that wishes come true, that they were not bound by the laws of economics and that they could somehow buck the system and create a political fantasy. Common sense and the laws of economic dictate that if you increase the cost of goods and services by way of regulation and red tape restrictions and raise taxes the money has to found somewhere and there are going to be negative economic consequences. We are seeing the negative consequences yet our leaders are seemingly blind to them, the warning signals go unheeded. The EU was built on political idealism and fuelled by naive emotionalism instead of hard headed common sense and pragmatism, the EU could and should have been the industrial power house leading the world to a better tomorrow instead it has become a declining failure and increasingly irrelevant, another failure of the utopianist dream.
Bold words!
Aug 23 (Reuters) – Germany’s largest utility E.ON will not build extra power capacity based on coal or gas in western Europe until 2020 because the market will be oversupplied until the final shutdown of nuclear generation.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/23/germany-power-eon-idINL6E8JNF8B20120823
Lars P. says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Gunga Din says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:01 pm
(Sorry for the “shout”. I would have just put it in bold but I don’t know how with my system. It’s a dinosaur.)
Gunga, start with openning WUWT test pages and read through it should help:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/
(Let’s see if this works.) Thanks, Lars!
Wind and solar are the work of the devil. If God didn’t want us to burn fossil fuels, he wouldn’t have created them and given us the means.
Yes, Germany will need more coal.
” GREVENBROICH-NEURATH, Germany–German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier said Wednesday the country will need to build more coal- and gas-fired power plants in coming years to ensure energy supplies, even as Germany is pursuing one of the world’s most ambitious climate protection strategies.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of a new lignite-fired power plant that utility RWE AG (RWE.XE) built west of Cologne, Altmaier said that Germany will require conventional fossil-fueled power plants for “decades to come” to complement unreliable and intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power. ”
http://www.4-traders.com/RWE-AG-436529/news/RWE-AG-Environment-Minister-Germany-Needs-More-Coal-Gas-Power-Plants-14461100/
” Germany Hits Brakes on Race to Renewable Energy Future ”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-addresses-problems-with-renewable-energy-subsidy-system-a-852549.html
@ur momisugly Sun Spot who says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:44 am
@ur momisugly Lance Wallace says: August 28, 2012 at 9:41 am
and
@ur momisugly LizC says: August 28, 2012 at 9:53 am
Are you two internet illiterate?? Try google.com you dum@ur momisugly%%#$(). How about doing your own home work !
http://fossilfuel.energy-business-review.com/news/rwe-commissions-2200mw-coal-fired-plant-in-germany-170812
Hahahaha! Calling people “dum@ur momisugly%%#$()” for asking for references to be included in an article. And then, to show how stupid they really are, he gives a link to an article about ONE newly built power station….
Who is the dumba$$ here? Dumba$$…..
Funny quote from that article about a coal fired power plant though:
“Germany Federal Environment Minister Peter Altmaier said, “The new power plant is an impressive example of how the high levels of efficiency of modern coal- and gas-fired power plants not only help to reduce carbon emissions but can also make an outstanding contribution to the success of energy industry transformation.“
Meanwhile, the Russians are selling oil and gas to Europe and receiving lots of hard cash. What are they doing for their own electricity? They currently have 10 nuclear power plants under construction with 14 more on order.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
While Angela Merkel is afraid of a Tsunami.
Germany is switching from Nuclear to Lignite. Huge open mines are needed to mine the very inefficient Lignite, which upon burning, releases much more ash and dust than coal or LNG. Asthma will be thriving as a consequence. Is that the price Germany wants to pay for a broken energy policy?
I always had a much more sane image of Germans and their technology
The good Chancellor was in Canada last week telling the Canadian government that (i) she wants our money to bail out Europe and (ii) the oil sands are bad. Of course the Canadian media could have had some fun with the irony of lecturing us on the plant food emissions from our energy sector while powering up her coal plants but nah. That would have only confused us.
Regarding the 19% efficiency quoted for windmills in Germany, I’m not surprised, having last year computed 18% by comparing actual output to average installed capacity (official German figures).
For solar, one should compare solar installed capacity (25GW) to total installed capacity (155GW or so), and take into account the fact that German solar hardly produces @ur momisugly 10% nominal in average.
The may 2012 world record (50% of consumption) is to be put in perspective of the figures : 22GW @ur momisugly mid day would mean that this record took place @ur momisugly a moment of a very low consumption ; May (when solar exposure is @ur momisugly its max) is clearly far from those period with high demand from cold (dec-feb) or high temperature (july-august) ; and midday may be the precise moment where solar would experience its peak ?
To those who criticize (with some good reason) the 22 Y average figure quoted by the author, it will immediately appear that the ‘world record” is mainly anecdotical.
The claimed 23 new coal fired plants is doubtful. The following link could be the source of the figure, but doesn’t provide supporting information:
http://www.mining.com/germanys-coal-power-revival-to-boost-energy-change-56711/
Best to have the location of the 23 new plants, their MW generating capacities, start dates and development stage.
Reuters mentioned a number of German coal fired projects back in May 2011, but reported abandonment of some and others being re-developed to burn gas:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/10/germany-coalplants-idUSLDE74910720110510
Looks like E.ON’s 1100MW Datteln-4 plant is well underway:
http://www.kraftwerk-datteln.com/pages/ekw_en/Datteln_Power_Plant/Overview/index.htm
bacchus says: August 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm “Lignite, which upon burning, releases much more ash and dust than coal or LNG. Asthma will be thriving as a consequence.
New generating plants must comply with the European Industrial Emissions Directive. The Directive sets out limits for emissions to air, water and land, as well as noise. There should be no reason to be concerned about asthma because a plant burns lignite burning.
On the other hand, the UK government has introduced incentives to install domestic wood burning stoves and heating. Wood burning is supposed to be carbon neutral. There is now low-level smoke in my neighbourhood – catches the back of the throat on a cold evening. More reason for health concern than a lignite burning power station.
Well evidently, new EPA unelected regulations, will mandate 55 mpg by 2025 for your family one person velocipede. They claim that is a cost differential of $1US per gallon of gas (good luck on gas being that cheap, unless hope turns to change).
All will be for naught of course. We are already at the point where the breeding rate of traffic lights, 4-way stop signs, bike lanes, HOV lanes, easily eats up any increase in vehicle test gas mileage.
My 2012 hatchback five seater Subaru Impreza ( 2 litre) easily gets 50-60 mpg at any speed from 25 mph to 55 mph, and 45-50 mpg at 60-65. Simply stopping for ANY reason, puts me back in the 3.5 to 15 mpg starting range. The other day, an 18 mile one way freeway trip, which I did at better than 45 mpg at 60 mph, turned into a reverse commute hour BtoB stop and go that, fell below my total integrated overall average of 31.8 mpg (well it dropped my average to 31.5 in just 18 miles).
Traffic engineers use a traffic algorithm, which answers the question; “Which traffic should I allow to proceed ?” , so most lights are mostly red most of the time.
If they swtched to a “Which traffic should I stop ?” algorithm, then most lights would be mostly green most of the time.
But that wouldn’t work in California, because of all those B- self esteemed drivers.
Personally, I like roundabouts; but they probably wouldn’t work too well during moslem appreciation week. Well all the ladies would be off the road that week.
Government bureaucrat solutions, are always lowest common denominator solutions, and invariably make things worse.
So what about the USA?
A record-high 57 coal-fired generators in the US will shut down in 2012.
At the same time, China will be partnering with Romania to build a single coal plant in Bralia.
Source for the 57 closures: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/28/record-number-of-coal-fired-generators-to-be-shut-down-in-2012/#ixzz21wYr6BfG
Source for the single replacement in Romania: http://energychinaforum.com/news/65284.shtml
It’s deeper than that, though:
“…Facing declining demand for electricity and stiff federal environmental regulations, coal plant operators are planning to retire 175 coal-fired generators, or 8.5 percent of the total coal-fired capacity in the United States, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration (EIA)…”
*** See that bolded part? Stiff federal environmental regulations. 175 coal fired plants. 8.5 percent of the total coal-fired capacity in the United States.
How much electrical energy is that? According to the source:
“…A record-high 57 generators will shut down in 2012, representing 9 gigawatts of electrical capacity, according to EIA. In 2015, nearly 10 gigawatts of capacity from 61 coal-fired generators will be retired…”
So those 118 plants listed there take out a total of 19GW of power.
The Chinese/Romanian replacement? Try 500MW.
I do wonder what stiff federal environmental regulations they’ll follow in Romania.
But the story goes on.
Another source states how busy the Chinese are at home:
BEIJING — China’s Shenhua Group will build the largest coal-fired power station in Asia over the next five years, the official Xinhua news agency said Tuesday, as the country struggles to meet its energy needs.
China’s biggest coal company and officials in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region signed a deal for the 8-gigawatt thermal plant on Monday, according to Xinhua and the local government’s website…”
Source here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8yIgx4Jl4fGeWZi1URmdTZgP6yg?docId=CNG.f7ab34b17766df497253151fb35e8bcd.5c1
So we knock out a total of 175 plants with a power output of somewhere around 19GW, and they build a SINGLE plant that puts out 8GW.
But wait, there’s more:
“…While many of those coal plants are old and relatively inefficient, the scope of this new planned shutdown is unprecedented.
“The coal-fired capacity expected to be retired over the next five years is more than four times greater than retirements performed during the preceding five-year period,” EIA noted in the analysis.
The generators that will be retired between 2012 and 2016 are “approximately 12% more efficient than the group of units, on average, that retired during 2009-2011,” according to the EIA…”
*** Key phrase – unprecedented.
But read that again – on average, the plants to be shut down are 12% MORE efficient than those older plants they’ve retired.
Seems efficiency wasn’t considered – we’re just replacing plants fueled with those “coal trains of death”.
What else besides stiff environmental regulations could be driving the retirement of more efficient power plants?
Well, there’s this:
“…The low price of natural gas resulting from the shale boom has led to reduced coal consumption and made the shutdowns necessary, experts say…”
Natural gas. The country that is number 6 in world proven reserves (5,977,000 million cu m) beats China’s number 15 (2,265,000 million cu m).
Bottom line is still the gov’t, though.
“…But federal and state regulations have also damaged the industry and contributed to plant closures.
“The cost of compliance with anticipated and existing Federal environmental regulations such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) is a factor,” the EIA noted. “Particularly in the case of older, smaller units that are not used heavily, owners may conclude it is more cost efficient to retire plants rather than make additional investments.”
Most of the coal-fired generator retirements will occur in the Mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley and the Southeast…”
*** I’m going to Google the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and see how the Chinese plants are going to abide by those.
Oh, wait – they don’t have to. Never mind.
@manicbeancounter
I wouldn’t lift a finger or less to help the British. They Royally deserve everything they get out of their pompous over-rated system, wherein one Julia Slingo of the Met Office is an OBE, Officer of Order of the British Empire.
From the information provided in the article at http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=3063 , one can calculate the capacity factor for German wind in 2009 as 16.9% for the year 2009. This is completely believable, if perhaps a bit high.
The figures for solar — given Germany’s famous cloudy climate — are likely to be much poorer, no matter how many arrays are installed. Angela Merkel has not yet found a way to get the sun to shine or the wind to blow according to grid load demands. Until she can do that, she deserves all the contempt which is building toward her and her decision to cut the legs out from under German industry and German utilities..
I’m sitting here more or less center court, netwise, watching the German team battle the rest.
Now who was it that sort of swallowed the “East Germany” pill without choking, and now is shovelling hay to just about the rest of the Brussels Sprouts.
I’m not much of a gambler; but if I was looking for a pretty safe bet; I’d put my money on Germany.
And If I was the recipient of some of that Teutonic largesse, well I’d be a lot less critical of how they are doing things. Sure they are maybe leaving some options off the table; but there’s a lot of mutts under the table looking for handouts.
It strikes me the Merkel may be playing a rather clever long term gambit. The most sensible thing for Germany to do is nuclear, and option that the German public is just dead set against. When I heard the announcement that they would be shutting down the nukes, here’s what I predicted:
1. Announce nukes going away. Makes anti-nuke movement happy.
2. Announce more wind and power. Makes the greens happy.
3. Announce that wind and power just isn’t working out, economy will collapse without an alternative. Everyone jittery. Sounds scary that economic collapse thing.
4. Announce scads of new power based on coal. Greens freak out!
5. Greens can’t advocate for wind and solar at this point, itz been tried and failed and besides, it is an emergency, the economy might collapse.
6. After much discussion, nukes come back on the table as the lesser of two evils. Greens must choose which of two evils to accept, and I predict they’ll choose nukes.
Merkel is no dummy. When she announces something stupid (like shutting down the nukes) you can bet she’s done it for a reason, and the reason ain’t a stupid one. We’re now on Step 4….
‘Sustainable living’ is what our grand parents and their parents endured. Actually, it is worse. If anyone wishes to experience ‘sustainable living’ today, I invite them to spend a month living amongst the traditional Samburu tribesmen of Kenya… in a manyatta, no refrigerator, no cooking, no microwave oven, no flush toilet, no electricity… try all that for one month… actually, even just for a day, and then tell us how great sustainable living is!!!!!!!
Matt Skaggs says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:49 am
…
According to this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526
Germany nearly reached 50% of its electrical needs with solar power on a recent sunny afternoon, and overall has achieved 4% from solar and around 20% from renewables. The fact is that Germany is planning for its future, things are going as planned, and they do not really care what you think.
———————————————————————————–
Did you actually read the article? Putting aside just what 22GW “per hour” actually means (energy acceleration?!), did you note this humble passage,
“A spate of good weather has helped the country break the record, along with the fact that the milestone was reached on 26 May: a Saturday, with factories and offices closed.”
So on a Saturday when a significant amount of industry is idled down –Herr und Frau Seitz rauch deine Pfeiffe (apologies for my very rusty Deutsch)– and under perfect conditions, i.e. day and not night, then renewables managed to generate half of the reduced consumption demand for the span of a few hours. Well if that’s not a ringing endorsement, I don’t know what is!
We published the following statement in 2002.
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
What is German for “I told you so”?
here’s an interesting project underway. Remember that old rusty wave power prototype at Port Kembla, NSW, Australia? Well this is the latest development:
http://www.oceanlinx.com/projects/port-macdonnell-south-australia/