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.
“””””…..richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2012 at 11:44 am
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……”””””
Richard, I’m in agreement with you on the “German bashing” issue; a country that has brought the world so much science and culture; not to mention good beer.
But that doesn’t transport to medical care, or medical insurance. Obamacare provides exactly zero medical care for anyone, which is why the Congress exempted themselves from its benefits.
it is basically a forced “insurance” plan. Now we have de facto mandatory “automobile insurance” but not actually. Nobody (certainly in California) is REQUIRED to purchase automobile insurance in order to drive a car. EVERYBODY, is required to comply with the ” financial responsibility” mandate, which is to protect THE OTHER GUY from YOU. The government could care less whether you want to bash up your car and get it fixed or not. They do insist that if you bash up someone elses car or person or property, that you pay to make them whole again.
The automobile insurance industry developed on its own to provide drivers and car owners, a good risk management tool to comply with the financial responsibility law.
You can if you wish, self insure, and put up a bond to be used in the event you damage someone else; they don’t care if you damage yourself or property, and don’t want coverage to fix you.
Medical insurance is a risk management vehicle to cover unforseen medical events. Many people don’t need maternity care (or insurance); young marrieds probably would want it, and share the costs with other in the same boat. Many folks never intend to have a sex change operation, so they see no need to insure against that eventuality. So anyone in the USA can purchase insurance, to cover their perceived likely risks, with a cost based on the numbers of persons in that category, and the costs of those issues.
If you go sky diving five times every weekend, and specialize in jumping without a parachute, but getting one passed to you on the way down, by a fellow jumper; then you can buy health insurance for that risk.
Many young people in good health see no need to have ANY medical insurance, and the vast majority of them get away with it and do just fine, till they hook up and suddenly have responsibilities.
When I left NZ in 1961, they had government medical care, and private medical care, and you had your choice either way as you saw fit. Worked very well,, and the public hospitals were very good. Not sure it is that way now, but I know that a cousin of mine waited for over six months in
line to get surgery for a brain tumor.
Most Americans would gladly buy the medical insurance plan that the US Congress has for themselves; I would too.
My own personal doctor, who is less than half my age, just quit his medical business, and left the industry; and he’s just one of many.
Canadians, with their free medical system, still come to the USA for treatment.
Free doesn’t mean it’s available. I can always offer at a lower price, something that I don’t even have for sale. The guy who can actually provide the product or service, has to do so, at a price that enables him to stay in business.
But Obamacare covers all bases; it does provide for the death panels that Governor Palin mentioned; made up of beaurocrats, who will decide if you have lived long enough and don’t deserve a particular treatment. And these scoundrels will even NOT ALLOW you the treatment even if you can easily pay for it yourself. Those resources have to be reserved for the deserving; whome the death panels will choose. Seems like we went through this at least once already.
george e smith says:
“Free doesn’t mean it’s available.”
George, I learn something worthwhile from every one of your posts.
Dan in California says: August 31, 2012 at 10:01 am
Thanks Dan. I saw Barack Obama’s coal comments and wrote about it at the time. This was a perfect example of America “shooting itself in the foot”.
In 2007, US primary energy consumption consisted of oil (40%), natural gas (25%), coal (24%), nuclear (8%) and hydroelectricity (2%). As a percentage of total proved reserves of fossil fuels, the US held just over 2% of the world’s oil, 3% of natural gas, but almost 29% of global coal.
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481
That is correct – the USA has almost 1/3 of global proved coal reserves, and yet you have been hurting your economy for decades by importing excessive amounts of foreign oil. Go figure.
Since 2008, natural gas from the shale gas boom has eclipsed coal as an inexpensive energy source for the USA.
For those in Europe who are paying “world prices” for natural gas, please note that natural gas in Canada and the USA now costs about $2 to $3 per GJ.
$3 per GJ is the energy equivalent of $18 per barrel of oil, whereas actual oil prices are hovering just below $100 per barrel in North America, and well over $100 in Europe.
When European governments ban fracking, they are “protecting” their citizens from inexpensive natural gas to heat their homes and generate their electricity.
Friends:
It seems that in trying to get people to address the subject of the thread I encouraged continued discussion of something else.
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
No you didn’t Richard. Your point is clear and the thread needs to be brought back on point. I wonder if Anthony should not reconsider guidelines for this site on when moderators should step in when individuals appear to act like trolls, whether it can be proven they intended to or not.
It remains clear that the Germans are doing some very strange things with their energy policy and many posts here point out a vast flotilla of problems from what appear to be poorly maintained PV solar “farms” to a rapid shutdown of nuclear power to an apparent wholesale resurgence of coal-fired electricity production, and what may have been an expensive subsidies and mandates experiment with the “free” and “100% renewable” solar and wind production methods. A key question remains if this is all because there is no one at the helm to craft a good, clear long-term policy, or if it’s all just reactionary politics.
In the U.S., we have similar issues and much of it is clearly reactionary; how many people jumped on the “we could have a Fukushima here” bandwagon, when clearly we can’t have one of those. Re-asssessment is prudent when it’s evident there may be major scientific developments, but re-assessment for each and every new (and unverified) development along the way is unwise. Similarly, a rapid shutdown of all nuclear, coal- or gas-fired power plant would be lunacy; people in nations around the world would hear the thud of our industry and economy crashing to a halt — but I’m guessing a lot of enviro-activists would love to see that, as would a lot of foreign nations so that they might capitalize on our stupidity.
We should be watching the Europeans and others as they stumble forward and seek to avoid their mistakes, considering of course that their experiences may not completely transfer to our system. Yet, for example, a net loss of jobs and net loss of wages with a shift to “green industry” wouldn’t appear to demand many caveats…
The other troubling issue for the United States is that, for our local, state and federal politicians, “long-term” is the time from when the parties, glad handing, and favor distribution processes associated with this election end until the start of the next election cycle (as little as a few months to as much as about three years). That’s probably not far off from trying to make a cross-country trip that requires a change in direction at every major (and many minor) cross-roads along the way. Unfortunately, our citizenry and businesses (for- and not-for-profit) need more static goal posts at which to aim, instead of a state of constant shift and blockage. It would appear that other nations are operating in a similarly silly fashion with regard to what constitutes “long-term.”
This report is unfortunately biased. Important are the last 2-5 years regarding “green energy” in Germany. Indeed, electricity is getting more and more expensive – but only for private consumers and smaller companies. The big industrial companies who consume over 55% of Germany’s electricity don’t pay eco taxes nor pay they the EEG (subvention paid to producers of green energy which is included in the price per kWh).
The weird thing is now that we often have too much electricity coming from wind and solar power. The prices for electricity become partly negative or very low (without the EEG subvention). So the big companies not only save the EEG and eco-tax, they also significantly increase their profit due to very low energy prices as a consequence of the strong increase in renewables. In the end, private consumers are not only paying subvention for wind and solar power but also for the big national companies enjoying the very low energy prices at the energy market.
Another aspect you might consider as private consumer: Save energy! But the problem is: The more energy is saved, the more energy is provided by renewables (as they come first, power plants based on coal and gas have to temporarily shut down in this case. If renewables have to shut down they get the same money as they would get if they would still run). The more electricity private consumers and small companies save, the lower the price for electricity but the higher the EEG subvention.
So the problem is not, that renewables are extremely expensive. The problem is the subvention system and i.e. the EEG.
So, at last Germany’s bluff is getting exposed on Renewables. Soon it will be followed with its irrational objection to GM food.
All other countries who are apping the Germans will find tar on their faces.
The scientific community knows the foolishness behind the so called “Green” / “Sustainable” talks of these “experts”. But just because of their distance from the mass media, especially the Nuclear community, the public opinion is on the wrong side.
In the Indian State ( Province ) of Tamil Nadu, in the past 10 years, we have invested a huge amount of Rs.51,000 crores ( USD 10 Bn) in Wind Power and set up about 6300 MW of installed capacity. This 6300 MW has hardly given about 1500 MW average for just 4 months with a maximum output of 3000 MW for just few days in a year. That too it was erratically varying from 500 MW to 3000 MW in these few days. Rest of the times, it was varying from 0 to 1000 MW. The average PLF data is hard to get ! It could be at the maximum 20%.
If only we had invested in Nuclear / Coal, we could have set up about 7000 MW coal / nuclear with the same amount and we would be getting about 5000 MW all 24 hours and all through the year, and not just for few months in a year when the wind blows !
The highlight is that these are the best wind velocity sites in Inda and we can imagine what will be the PLF of the new Wind Mills which are being set up in other sites.
The same fate awaits the Solar Power. We are investing huge amounts to satisfy the “green lobby” knowingly well what we are doing is foolish !
A day will come when the public will come to know of the foolishness of the “green activists” and the “saviours” of the environment. On that day, these people will be thrown into the dust bin. Unfortunately, by that time it may be too late that the developing countries would have lost their steam in catching up with the developed countries and the gap can still widen.
Well Peter Miller , 20% can never be reached, at the moment the figure is 0.001%, Wind Energy is expensive to build, expensive to keep functioning and are a super wast of money and also pollute the countryside and kill birds. Nuclear Plants are safe enough, as long as you don’t place them anywhere near a geological fault!! and coal burning helps provide CO2 gas for all plant life, and did you know that greenhouse farmers actually pump CO2 gas into their greenhouses to get better fruits etc.
How am I qualified to enter tis blog? I am a certified Gas Analyst,
Thank you,
Fred Irving (Holland)
It’s actually painful to watch Germany validate my contempt for renewables and the Greenist POV in general. Shadenfreude only goes so far.