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.
LazyTeenager says: “After all the price should be just a weighted average of all contributions and that means that wind would have to be very expensive indeed to escalate prices significantly given it’s small percentage of the total.”
Yes, it’s expensive.
German GDP is 3000 billion Euros,
population is 80 million
annual subsidy sum to renewables is 16 bn Euros, (0.5% of GDP)
makes 200 Euros per head,
tendency rising,
total contribution of wind+solar+biogas to primary energy consumption : 1 to 1.5 percent.
Tim Clark says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm
[LazyTeenager says:
August 29, 2012 at 1:25 am
Reality check…..I’m betting that German electricity prices would be nearly as expensive without wind energy as a contribution.]
What would be the consumer price of electricity in UK if all the subsidies for “renewables” were not included in the consumer price?
[Answer: A LOT less]
There are meanwhile companies in Germany that openly say that, if the price for electricity just goes up by 1 cent, they will have to either close down or leave the country. It’s utterly insane.
Since we’re talking Fukushima… After 3-11 Geiger counters were sold out in Germany, the media went crazy with openly racist comments on Japan (some “journalists” even comparing Fukushima 1 with Hitler’s bunker and claiming that the Fukushima Fifty were really nothing else but people forced to work, even claiming that they were foreigners, minors and homeless people forced by “evil” Tepco) and everyone panicked. The German Lufthansa stopped flying into Narita for a few days because (officially) they said there were limited resources in Narita, the truth is they stopped because of fear of radiation (the competition continued to fly.)
Worst of all, the German S&R team sent to Japan, the THW, abandoned their mission. They fled from an imaginary nuclear death cloud after not even finishing one rescue operation. While doing so, they also abandoned their equipment in Japan. A day after the Germans fled like headless chickens, the Turkish team arrived in Japan. The German S&R team is the only team that ran away. Everybody else finished their mission. After the German team returned, politicians in Germany were quick to knock the Japanese civil protection as “not being ideal”. That was shortly after the news broke that 80,000 people were missing and 400,000 people were homeless, which was a logistic nightmare and I’m still very impressed how the Japanese got through this. Luckily most of those missing were found alive, but the German politicians and media didn’t care. They continued to push this completely ridiculous nonsense.
Meanwhile in Germany the Green party milked the crisis and claimed that Fukushima could happen in Germany tomorrow.
Professor Zöllner from the Japanology department of Bonn university then exploded in an open letter at the people pushing these open lies and racism. He went postal at them, calling them all out and pointing out how utterly shameful the German behavior was. He concluded with saying: “With friends like these you don’t need a nuclear crisis.”
And in Austria the old “Nuclear power? No thank you!” crowd came out of their holes. Just like in the 80s they still have no rational arguments against nuclear power, but just the same old “think of the children” whine. I run into them every Wednesday when I go to university. They camp out in the subway station and hand out their propaganda stuff from the 80s.
DirkH, let’s also not forget the German national debt at 2 trillion Euro (official) and way past 6 trillion (unofficial.)
Davidmhoffer wrote:
“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….”
———————————————————-
I think this is a very good analysis. Nuclear power in some countries tends to be more of a moral than an energy question. Back in -oh, many years ago-, the Swedish prime minister promised to close all the Swedish nuclear plants by the year -oh, that’s a long time ago too! How time flies!, and as is natural, memory fades with age, so today, there are still many nuclear powerplants in operation in Sweden.
It may well be that Merkel’s government has thought along this line. But, to make the tactic work, Germans will have to pay an unnecassary high power bill for years to come still.
This whole green power generation thing is shaping up into a massive and hilarious black comedy. If the euro crisis does not sink Europe, this will.
Always when I read this blog I’m amused about Americas ignorance about global warming. Here I’m always amused about how uninformed you are about Germany.
Yes energy prices are high and rising, as well as gas prices. Nevertheless we have a healthy and growing economy. The industry normally pays much lower energy prices than private persons.
The high prices lead to more efficiency. Germans buy efficient cars (my Skoda Octavia makes 49 miles per gallon), efficient refrigerators or dishwashers consuming a very low amount of electricity.
The truth about coal power plants is that there 6 under construction and 12 planned:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_geplanter_Kohlekraftwerke_in_Deutschland
These new plants are also much more efficient as the old ones they are replacing.
Yes it’s efficiency that will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions and having a modern sophisticated way of live anyway.
I admit that it’s a bit over the target to install a huge amount of solar energy in Germany. But on the other hand how easy could America use solar energy in the southern states where the sun is always shining. You don’t do it because energy is too cheap for you and because you believe in your “man does not change climate”-religion.
So stay happy in your inefficient country. We will see how long it will take till you finally realise what is happening to the planet you also live on. 😉
@A German Native: While I respect your opinion on the issues of efficiency, new technology can actually cause increased demand, therefore wiping out the potential gains… The potential is there, but to really maximize on that potential, one really needs adjustment of not only technology (i.e., “efficiency”) but also habits and usage.
We’ve seen increased auto efficiency (mpg) and decreased auto emissions negated by the vast increase over time in both additional vehicles on the road and vehicle miles driven, resulting in both increased fuel consumption and emissions. I’ve also witnessed a huge sift in the use of CFL and LED technology for mainstream home lighting, along with a much greater tendency to leave that more lights on, even though they may be more efficient, in aggregate there may be increased usage.
Another example: the City of Cincinnati looked at energy use (under the guise of carbon emission reductions) in depth a few years ago and undertook numerous efforts to remove all the under-desk heaters and other items to remove the parasitic energy demands that may actually have reduced the overall building heating/cooling system efficiency. But a bigger issue was who used the electricity or energy and who paid the bills. The bills were paid centrally, but the various departments scattered through buildings all over the City had no clue how much energy costs were because they never saw the bills. New technology was operated just like the old because (a) no one knew any different, (b) no one really cared, and (c) no one had any incentive to do anything different.
There is also, of course, an economic feasibility component: new technology that is very expensive is not likely to be broadly implemented, therefore actual gains will be low. And a new improved system in the immediate aftermath of an upgrade will not likely be implemented either until gains have offset costs from the first upgrade.
Allan MacRae says:
August 29, 2012 at 11:15 am
In their own words:
* Source:
http://www.green-agenda.com
Scary green quotes.
Paints a picture of a scenario somewhat analogous to pre-revolutionary Russia. What starts around wealthy-class dinner tables can break out onto blood-soaked streets and into corridors of power. Better keep up my shooting practice.
Regarding the economics of German wind power:
From E.On Netz Wind Report 2005 (see above for source), the Substitution Factor is now about 5%.
That means that they have to add 20 units of wind power to the grid to get the same effect as 1 unit of conventional power.
This fact explains the very high cost of wind power.
In Ontario Canada, wind power is subsidized at more than double the cost of conventional electricity, and solar power is subsidized at about ten times the cost of conventional electricity.
Similar huge subsidies are provided all over the Western world so that wind and solar power operators do not go bankrupt – but they should – they are energy parasites who rob from consumers and from taxpayers, with the active collusion of corrupt and incompetent politicians.
Furthermore:
Since fossil-fuel energy is a good proxy for the cost of manufacturing, there is no reason to expect that rising oil prices will make wind and solar power more competitive in the future – the costs of wind and solar power will rise along with the price of fossil fuels, such that wind and solar will still be parasitic energy nonsense.
Trying again:
No, that’s not how it works. The problem is not the renewables per se, but their intermittent and uncontrollable nature.
During times of high renewable production and low demand, the renewable producers are guaranteed a high price for their electricity, whether its needed or not.
If there’s more than needed, the excess will be exported at low prices to other countries. The prices are low because during those times the neighboring countries also experience low demand. Sometimes the achievable price is zero or even negative. But the in-country rate-payer has to pay for that electricity in full as guaranteed by the FIT.
During times of high demand and low renewable production electriticy needs to be imported at high spot market prices because the neighboring countries also typically at that time experience high demand.
In addition, during high renewable production the other power plants have to throttle back or go idle. But at that time they still have to pay their workers, capital costs, maintenance and so on.
The only thing they save is fuel, which is typically only a fraction of the production cost. Meaning they have to raise their electricity prices when they are allowed to produce to cover the times when they don’t.
This way a country can be a net exporter of electricity on a yearly average, but still have skyrocketing electricity prices.
@Allan MacRae: Your statement is the perfect proof that the average American has no idea about efficiency. Efficiency leads to less energy consumption and thus less production costs.
@phlogiston: The euro crisis is a dept crisis. You in the US have the same crisis. Europe will solve this (partly) by rising taxes for the rich. This will not happen in America where you seriously consider to elect a guy for president who pays 13% taxes and brings his money abroad. In Germany this guy would be regarded as criminal.
You should really mind your own business before laughig at Germany.
A German Native,
Half of all Americans pay NO federal taxes. To those of us who pay all the taxes, that is criminal.
You write: “…energy is too cheap for you… you believe in your ‘man does not change climate’-religion.”
Two fallacies there. First, cheap energy is a benefit. Otherwise, you should be paying 100 euros per kwh for your electricity in order to reap the benefits. And there is no evidence that humans change the global climate. If you disagree, post your evidence. Make sure it is testable and measurable per the scientific method.
henrythethird says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm
So what about the USA?
A record-high 57 coal-fired generators in the US will shut down in 2012….
_______________________________
Oh so that is why I am getting more and more intermittent flickers in my electiric (the UPS beeping is relly geting annoying) Coal Plants ===> Solar and wind.
@Eugene: I agree to you that efficiency is useless when habits do not change. This is only possible when people are aware of the problem. Expencive energy make people very much aware of the fact that energy is precious.
@Smokey: Is the causal relationship more greenhouse gases (measured) -> radiation imbalance (measured) -> rising temperatures (measured) so hard to understand? Evidence is not hard to find when you look over the horizon of wattsupwiththat.
In Germany I pay 38 Euros (less than one percent of my family income) per month for my familiy electricity consumption and this is 100% renewable electricity (It’s water power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow). I think this is quite affordable for everybody.
Concerning taxes: I’m pretty sure that all Americans pay taxes because you have consumers taxes and everybody buys something.
Ignore A German Native, he’s a classic anti-America troll, one of the Germans who protested against nuclear power in the wake of 3-11. 200,000 Germans were dumb enough to fall for that. Thousands of them voted for the Green party after they claimed that Fukushima could happen in Germany tomorrow and even today Germans are deathly scared of flying to Japan.
After the shameful behavior of the entire German nation after 3-11 I refuse to recognize them as civilized anymore.
Oh and by the way.
In Germany the income tax is up to 49% of the monthly salary. What is minimum wage in the US pays income tax in Germany. VAT is up to 19%. I’m not bothering listing up all the other hidden taxes that are bleeding the working people in Germany dry, so that the country can finance it’s completely out of control spending (and fail at that, because they can’t finance it, even with criminally high taxes.) In the past 40 years Germany had an even budget (tax income = government spending) only once. The other years the spending was always bigger than the income. The German welfare state is completely out of control, eating up almost 50% of the budget in 2010 (and that with 30% of the budget being new, additional debt.) German’s national debt has risen way past the 2 trillion mark and, best of all, whether the German gold reserves still exist or not… nobody knows.
So, A German Native, what’s your talk about “efficiency”? Germany is, as I call it, collectively meshugge. The Germans are the leading nuclearphobics on the planet, their arguments against nuclear power are even more irrational and ridiculous than those of the usual anti-nuke nutters.
The Euro crisis is not a debt crisis. The Euro crisis happened because the Euro was a completely stupid idea. Everyone with a basic understanding of the economy knew this. The Euro crisis happened because countries are spending money they don’t have. Right now we’re “saving the Euro” with more debt. We’re saving a completely worthless currency, that is only kept up by the rich countries in the EUSSR, with money we don’t have. Of course the solution, according to A Native German, is to raise taxes for “the rich”. They already pay taxes like crazy. Not a word of cutting down on spending, of course. Typical German. Oh heck, typical Kraut. And who are “the rich”? People like me and my dad? My father was a cop for 40 years. For dealing with the scum of the earth and risking his live the government taxed him into the ground. Same with me. I already pay 43.7% income tax (and I’m not going to count how many other taxes I pay every day, I’d just get angry), how much more of the money I make every month will be taken from me to finance a failed experiment? The Euro was a stillbirth. Period. Time to drop it and move on. Time to leave the EUSSR and move on. The EU has failed. It’s a wealth redistribution system. Enough is enough. Austrian money only for Austria. Dutch money only for the Netherlands. The Euro, the EUSSR and the PIIGS can go to hell.
I have no respect for the Germans anymore. When I was a kid we looked up to them as our big brother. Today, however, people just shake their head at German nonsense. What little respect I had for the country and the people was washed away by the utterly shameful and openly racist idiocy that has been plaguing Germany since the Tohoku quake.
As Prof. Zöllner said: with friends like Germany you don’t need a nuclear crisis.
Edohiguma,
I’ll take your advice on the german native. He seems crazy, talking about rising temperatures when they aren’t rising.
@ur momisugly A German Native:
Of course personal habits make a difference, but your original point was only about efficiency. On the matter of expensive energy, you are correct that it will likely change habits, but only among those who feel the pain of such cost increases. Al Gore and Maurice Strong could care less. Governments too, for the most part unless someone has been able to gain the entire community’s attention that it’s spending taxpayers’ money like a bunch of drunken sailors. I suspect that a key difference in our opinions would be our (probably) different willingness to assume that governments and activists should collude to force prices to rise by forcing investment in or purchase of some particularly expensive energy source, for any reason. If the free market (such as it exists anymore) is allowed to regulate price due to supply and demand pressures, costs will naturally rise as a given energy source approaches exhaustion, other source options will be found, and economics at the personal level will drive change in consumptive behavior. Econ 101.
Also, I suspect many readers here could care less how many Euros it costs you per month for your family’s electrical needs as you have told us nothing about your household consumption (how many units, for what purpose, etc.) Rhetorically, one would need to know if you have a washer & dryer, electric heat & stove, air conditioning, the size of the home, etc. As well, is that value an average or lowest cost month? Worst month of the year? Without all of that detail, your cost per month is meaningless; there is no context. As well, your reference to your electricity being 100% renewable is an interesting acknowledgement that you can see that the pursuit of wind and solar is no panacea; I also assume by “water power” you are referring to what is known in the United States as large “hydropower.” Our government is slowing tearing out quite a few of the hydro dams around the country to “restore” the environment and aquatic habitat. Our environmental activist community has been opposed to those also since at least the 1970’s.
(Now maybe I can finish what I started hours ago, a reply to your earlier post…)
_______________
American ignorance? Really? That’s a pretty rude statement for what should be a civilized discussion (and a few others should take note as well about name-calling and assertions of who others are or what they may/may note be — unless you have definitive personal knowledge).
Easy is relative and meaningless. I note you don’t mention if you think it’s “cheap,” too. My first reaction was to be astounded that I was unaware that the southern states in America did not experience a period of darkness generally known throughout the globe as “night,” despite my travels as far south as Florida and Texas. It’s also interesting that you would make such a bold assertion at a time when numerous southern states are being impacted by a tropical storm (former hurricane) with extreme winds, clouds and torrential rainfall. Hurricanes and tropical storms cause damage with their winds and rain, but also frequently spawn thunderstorms (with hail) and tornados.
As a risk manager and engineer, I would encourage my clients to proceed with caution in any investments tied to solar or wind energy in “southern” states; many are located in the so-called “hurricane belt” and thus damage from heavy rain and high winds (and related weather events) would be quite possible. Then too are the many states in the U.S. South, Southeast and Midwest that are subject to frequent tornados, both within and outside our so-called “Tornado Alley.” Between 1950 and 2006, some areas of the U.S. Midwest — nearly a third of the Continental United States land mass — has experienced up to 15 EF3, EF4 & EF5 tornados per 2,470 square miles; those are the most destructive and least frequent of such storms. (EF = Enhanced Fujita scale for tornados). Approximately half the mainland U.S. is considered subject to damaging winds of 200 mph (89m/s)) or greater. Some of these hazard areas overlap (hurricane and tornado).
Beyond the tornado threats, even in the Ohio River Valley wind gusts to 75 mph (121 km/h) have been recorded, the equivalent to sustained wind levels found in a Category 1 hurricane. In particular, high wind gusts and sustained high winds were present during September 2008 when the remnants of Hurricane Ike passed through the Ohio Valley, winds and gusts that were sustained for hours, resulting in millions without electricity, some for days, others for a week or more. (See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike#Farther_inland and http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/sept14_2008/sept14wind.html.) I’m not convinced the risk profile for solar and wind power investments in those areas is low, but it ultimately does depend on ones willingness to gamble with their own or other people’s money.
Many of the geographic areas in the United States you advocate for solar are relatively remote from the main electrical grid necessitating installation of new high capacity power cables. (The same is true for most areas in which wind turbines are advocated, especially mountain ridges and coastal areas.) I’m sure you realize that damage to such connections to the power distribution grid makes power transmission impossible, which is something often forgotten in the debate about “free wind and solar,” their technical feasibility and cost. Burying such lines is an option to minimize some forms of damage, but open the door for other types of damage and increase the repair and replacement costs.
In addition, solar and wind are not universally loved. There have been numerous incidents of legal action (to force delays, mostly), activism (in the form of illegal activity) and even sabotage (sometimes labeled as “vandalism”) on “green energy” projects. I’m aware of no formal statistics on the matter (which is unfortunate), but it appears that these efforts are on the rise. Take for example, the recent damage (estimated at about $100,000) to the Los Angeles area Antelope Valley Solar Rance One (AVSR1) where cables and water lines were cut. In that case, an entire length of cable needed to be replaced (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100000-vandalism-at-the-first-solar-exelon-antelope-valley-solar-ranch-one-/). Legal action had previously stalled the project for two months.
Lawsuits are frequently used as delay tactics and have been for more than a generation. All one needs is an assertion that there might be an historical site or an endangered species and the courts will generally order a work stoppage order until the facts can be determined, regardless if the assertion was a lie or not. And the project is forced to absorb all those costs unless it can be proved that the assertion was a deliberate fraud, which is difficult at best and impossible at worst.
Or consider the activists who blocked access to a wind power project recently… http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120806/NEWS02/308060007/Protestersarrested- Multiple arrests followed that one, because the blockade was determined to be illegal and police were called.
Edohiguma says:
August 30, 2012 at 1:43 pm
@ur momisugly A German Native
… The Euro crisis is not a debt crisis. The Euro crisis happened because the Euro was a completely stupid idea.
Great reply Edohiguma. So how could a great nation like Germany do something so economically stupid i.e. launch he euro. The answer lies in what Germany did to all their financial expertise 70 years ago.
BTW it has been abundantly shown in the economic literature that increasing efficiency of resource use does not reduce resource use – in the end it causes a wider range of activities using resources to become economical, so resource use still rises.
A German Native says: August 30, 2012 at 10:01 am
@Allan MacRae:
Your statement is the perfect proof that the average American has no idea about efficiency.
Allan responds:
My God, where do I start this discussion, when you display such colossal bigotry and ignorance.
First , I am an energy engineer with an excellent track record. I understand energy efficiency very well.
Next, I am Canadian, not American. I have lived in the USA for extended periods of time, and I find your anti-American bigotry highly offensive.
Anti-Americanism is the Pavlovian mantra of the international left, and it is one of the BIG LIES of our age.
America, despite its faults, is still the greatest protector of human rights on our planet.
If it were not for the exceedingly generous Marshall Plan at the end of World War 2, you Germans would all be speaking Russian today, and living like slaves.
American has always been the country that provides the most aid to other nations in times of crisis, only to be smeared and slandered by odious individuals like you when times get better.
I have spent considerable time in Germany over the years, in both East and West. I went through Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin in July of 1989, a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and witnessed the last gasps of the hated Honecker regime. I also visited West and East Germany many times thereafter.
I have great respect for the German and the American peoples, and have many friends in both countries (present company excepted).
OK so much things to answer. First I perhaps should say Sorry when my statements where too rude. I was a bit angry about this Germany bashing artikle full of lies. And of course I know that not all Americans think the same as of course not all Germans think the same.
Maybe i can not express my thoughts always very clear and friendly at one time due to my limited knowledge of your language.
@Edohiguma: Although you insult me as troll I will try to answer you respectful. If we talk about civilisation you should be careful. Before “Obamacare” Millions of Americans didn’t even have healthcare. Taxes are high here in Germany but not for the working class. The 47% (not 49%) apply only for the part of income over 200000 Euros a year. In Germany rich people pay higher. In America it’s obviously the other way round when a Millionaire only pays 13%.
High taxes let you maintain a good infrastructure, In America a thunderstorm front can leave thousands without electricity for days. In Germany electricity is restored after a few hours. Another thing is the quality of public transport. Driving bus in the US is pain in the ass…
The euro crisis is a topic for endless discussions and we better skip it here. I’m certainly not absolutely right in everything I say about this. Even our economists all say different things. Only one point – cutting down spending is cutting down the economy and this was probably the biggest mistake in Greece. But this is also something you can argue about for hours.
I hope I can adress the other points later.
A Bit of Perspective:
To be clear, I do not like German-bashing OR American-bashing.
Please stop this racist, xenophobic nonsense.
When you travel throughout the world, you find wonderful, kind generous people.
You also find, for the most part, repressive governments that tightly control their populations and too often feast upon them.
We who are fortunate to live in the few democracies that exist on this planet have comparatively little to complain about.
Yes, we are being systematically misled by the environmental movement, which has been commandeered by the extreme left.
Yes, we are having our wealth confiscated by green energy scams, aided by the same phony green activists.
Still, we have a chance to live a decent life and to raise our families without fear.
Count your blessings.
Allan MacRae says: August 29, 2012 at 11:15 am
Thank you Dirk for your interesting comments on German politics, regarding the (former?) communist K-Gruppen and its takeover of the Green Party.
A similar phenomenon has occurred throughout the Western world – the environmental movement is now the old Harpo and Groucho Marxists, covertly cloaked in green.
————————————————–
Allan:
Great list but you missed possibly the most important one, Barack Obama from his interview with the San Francisco Chronicle:
“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks…they’re going to destroy the economy.
This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is. If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.”
But don’t take my word for it, listen to the audio from the interview here:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket
This innumerate politician thinks 8 trillion dollars, or whatever ruining the power generation industry will cost, will be more than repaid by using more efficient light bulbs.
@ur momisugly A German Native:
Your knowledge of our language appears to have degraded from two days ago when it seemed pretty darn good. Your last post looks like you either were in a hurry or trying to make yourself look like you have a poor grasp of the language. Regardless…
After “Obamacare” has started to be implemented we now have health care costs rising as fast, if not faster, than before. And we have medical insurance providers who are tacking exclusions onto new policies for whatever they can, and denying coverage if they have any possible reason to do so (personal experience). Many of those who did not have coverage before Obama’s Great Healthcare Plan did so by choice with the understanding that if they have a major medical issue they will have to pay out of pocket for the care received. We even have physicians now considering dropping healthcare insurance. And we now have a penalty that we’re required to pay to the federal government if we want to elect to not have insurance. What no one seems to be able to explain to me is if I “elect” to not have insurance so I can perhaps pay to keep my home, or keep food on the table, how am I going to pay the penalty to the Feds. And if I don’t have income at all and have lost my home, how will I pay the penalty then? A stupid provision if ever there was one. Perhaps the Feds will let us pay it off later, when we’re employed again? Good luck with ever getting out of debt… I suggest that if you don’t live under the system, you are probably not very well-qualified to make commentary about it, especially if you must rely on the American mainstream media for your information; that machine has generations of bias built into it, with well-known examples such as selectively editing video and audio in a manner that suggests one thing when the extra seconds of context illustrate a completely different picture, or failing to provide coverage of certain speakers at a national political convention, which results in a suggestion of a different ethic mix in that party.
Also, the American millionaire who pays 13% on $20 million in income is still paying $2.6 million in taxes. That’s not chump change, especially given the large numbers of Americans who don’t work or are exempted from paying taxes because they have such a low income level, and excluding the drug pushers and other criminals who actively avoid declaring income. In addition, our tax code is very complex, probably too much so, but that complexity does includes many provisions, including the right for that same millionaire to donate a few million to charity, thereby reducing the tax amount owed. He still has to pay the money to the charity to get the credit. So, with tithing (10% to charity), his personal income for the year would have been decreased, between taxes and charitable contributions, by about $4 million dollars, or 23%.
Friends:
This discussion seems to have been hijacked by ‘A German Native’. I don’t know if that was – or was not – deliberate, but it has replaced rational discussion of the thread’s subject with jingoistic anti-American, anti-German and anti-Japanese rubbish.
Let us be clear, every country has cultural differences that should be applauded. Diversity is good because monoculture and monopolitics stifle competition and support between nations so hinder development which benefits all.
If you don’t like the way things are in America or Germany or Japan then don’t live there. Indeed, this is one of the benefits of the differences between countries: the differences provide places to go (within constraints) if you prefer somewhere elsewhere to where you are.
Importantly, we can learn from each other by exploring the advantages and disadvantages of our differences. A thread such as this gives opportunity to do that (in this case with respect to the Energy Policy being adopted by Germany).
Most people prefer the culture in which they were raised. It is their home so they like their country. The problems arise when people denigrate other countries for no good reason. (There are good reasons to denigrate countries – e.g. militaristic expansionism – but that is not my point).
Sadly, many people prefer to denigrate other countries for no good reason instead of learning from the experiences of others.
One deflection of this thread provides a clear example of denigration for no good reason; viz. Health Services. And the ‘discussion’ of that clearly shows why such denigration not only inhibits learning from each other (in this case, has inhibited discussion of German energy policy) but is harmful in itself. I explain this harm by outlining the issues of the clear example.
There are two basic systems for National Health Care provision and variations of them have been successfully adopted throughout the world. They are the British National Health system and the French Universal Health Insurance system. People who like a variant of one of these have a choice of many countries in which to live. But American individualistic culture makes it difficult for the US to adopt a variant of one of these systems. Simply, many (possibly most) Americans don’t want government to have responsibility for their medical provision.
So, the US has always had a basically ‘third world’ health system where people in government employ or in particular jobs get medical costs met – or supplemented – by their employer, others cope as best they can (usually by buying personal insurance), and the extremely poor get a ‘handout’ of medical assistance. Obamacare attempts to spread the ‘handout’ to the “others” who were expected to cope. It is up to Americans whether they want to embrace Obamacare or revert to what they had before. And people who value independence from government can choose to live in the US or another country with a similar system.
So people can choose a country with the medical provisions they want. There is no valid reason for denigrating others who make a different choice. There is only good reason to learn from the different experiences others.
Such denigration inhibits (prevents?) learning from the differences. The differences are important. In this case, the denigration has inhibited discussion about German energy policy.
Richard
“””””…..Galane says:
August 31, 2012 at 4:05 am
………………..
Didn’t put the panels on mountings tall enough to drive a mower under and the panels are on fixed angle mounts. If the weeds weren’t growing up through the panels, they’d hit maximum output only for a short time a few days of the year, when the sunlight is hitting them close to perpendicular – if the sky happens to be cloud free at the time.
To get the most power out of solar panels they have to be on 2-axis sun tracking mounts, or at least adjust for azimuth, and the weeds have to be kept cut down or the ground under and around paved or covered with materials impermeable or inhospitable to plant growth…….”””””
Actually that’s an urban myth. They don’t need to be moveable at all. Easy to show that the greatest amount of total solar energy (let’s say PV only) is gathered by a flat panel parallel to the surface (ground). That’s because the sun only provides about 1,000 Watts per m^2 (normal to the sun-earth line, and if you have say 1,000 square metres of land, you can only collect cos(sun altitude) megaWatts peak. Then you have to factor in PV conversion efficiencies.
Steerable structures are less efficient, and two axis are worst of all; they all have one fatal flaw; commonly called SHADOWS. The very worst of all solar collectors are the “solar furnace” types where hundreds of more or less flat mirrors are individually steered to track the sun, and reflect the energy onto a central boiler/absorber.. To track over say an average 8 hour day, from 60 degrees before meridian, to 60 degrees after, the shadow zone of each steerable mirror is huge so the mirrors have to be placed so widely apart, that the collection efficiency s zilch.
Yes two axis steering is useful, when you only need to collect a fraction of the insolation, and you want to use high concentration focussing arrays, so that you can use very expensive triple junction concentrator solar cells. Wind energy is worse by orders of magnitude, because of the huge inlet manifold of thousands of acres, plus the exit duct of thousands more acres, to allow smooth air flow to the tiny propellor.
The failure of Solyndra was largely due to their cylindrical (stupid) collectors. Cylinders cast shadows on each other, flat plates do not, so even if they gave them away for free you would be crazy to waste your valuable incoming solar energy space, on such silly designs. And that’s even before you consider the current hogging losses of a cylindrical solar cell.