Newsbytes from the GWPF, Lies, Damn Lies And Green Statistics
Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five. –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012
When Germany’s power grid operator announced the exact amount of next year’s green energy levy on Monday, it came as a shock to the country. The cost burden for consumers and industry have reached a “barely tolerable level that threatens the de-industrialization of Germany”, outraged business organisations said. Since then politicians, business representatives and green energy supporters have been arguing about who is to blame for the “electricity price hammer”. After all, did not Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) promise that green energy subsidies would not be more than 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour? Now, however, German citizens have to support renewable energy by more than EUR 20 billion – instead of 14 billion Euros. How could Merkel be so wrong? –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012
Cheaper natural gas prices in the U.S. could spell trouble for European chemical companies, as their rivals across the Atlantic benefit from lower costs. The U.S. shale-gas revolution has made natural gas roughly three times cheaper there than in Europe, and the U.S. chemical industry is reaping the benefits through cheaper energy and feedstock, leaving the European sector under the threat of increased competition. –Alessandro Torello, The Wall Street Journal, 24 October 2012
Peter Lilley MP has been appointed to the energy and climate change select committee, provoking an angry response from climate change campaigners. “The addition of climate change sceptic and oil company director Peter Lilley to the energy and climate change select committee is part of a growing picture,” said Greenpeace policy director Joss Garman. “With Owen Paterson as environment secretary and anti-wind campaigner John Hayes now energy minister, you’d be forgiven for thinking the Tories are gearing up to assault the Climate Change Act and increase the UK’s reliance on expensive, imported, polluting fossil fuels.” –Charles Maggs, Politics.co.uk, 25 October 2012
Last week, David Cameron chaired a meeting of the Quad — the coalition’s decision-making body — at which senior ministers attempted, and failed, to agree the precise content of the Energy Bill. According to a report in The Times, it could result in a cap on new onshore wind farm developments. –James Murray, GreenBusiness, 24 October 2012
Next month, the coalition government in Britain intends to publish its new energy bill. The coalition partners, however, are increasingly at odds over the direction of the United Kingdom’s energy policy. In view of growing antagonism, it remains unclear whether the bill can be salvaged or whether the increasing friction will lead to its delay. It is doubtful that an energy bill fudge would actually be workable, let alone economically viable. There is a growing risk that it will prove to be highly unpopular as the costs of these measures are likely to further inflate energy bills artificially. In this case, the crisis of energy policy making could quickly turn into a veritable government fiasco. –Benny Peiser, Public Service Europe, 22 October 2012
Poland’s use of a veto to block the EU’s draft energy roadmap for 2050 has no legal basis, according to internal legal documents from the Council of the European Union. There is only one problem with this interpretation: It is outdated. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 194 (2) gives member states a veto over the choice between different energy sources and the general structure of energy supply. –Benny Peiser, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 25 October 2012
The Gray Monk says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:47 am
“There is a lot of unhappiness over the hike in energy prices here in Germany at the moment. Figures in the daily Zeitung this morning suggest that it will cost every household between €90 and €150 per year more for any household using 3,500 kW per year.”
These numbers are of course only half of the truth. As only 1/3 of electricity is consumed directly by households, another third by the public sector/public infrastructure and the last third by industry, a better calculation is: 20 bn a year divided by 80 million inhabitants is 250 EUR/yr PER PERSON – you pay part of it via the electricity rate, part of it via taxes and part of it via increased prices.
I have yet to see ONE journalist in Germany to discover this.
Mike Haseler says:
October 25, 2012 at 10:33 am
“Renewable energy shares are plummeting: Renewable energy scare is finished….”
.
Mike, that share price graph in your link is dramatic. But it occurred to me that there has been much volatility in share prices generally over this period. So I compared it with the S&P 500 over the same period. It just happens that since the beginning of 2007 the S&P is essentially flat. In other words, the falls of those shares is dramatic when compared to the broader market. It really does look as if common sense is starting to prevail…..
Chris
The RENIXX renewables industrial index tells the same story:
http://www.renewable-energy-industry.com/stocks/
At the start of 2008 it was around 1800.Today it’s at 158, a loss of over 90%.
Could this be a great buying opportunity? Not a chance!
Chris
DirkH says:
October 26, 2012 at 1:51 am
The Gray Monk says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:47 am
“These numbers are of course only half of the truth. As only 1/3 of electricity is consumed directly by households, another third by the public sector/public infrastructure and the last third by industry, a better calculation is: 20 bn a year divided by 80 million inhabitants is 250 EUR/yr PER PERSON – you pay part of it via the electricity rate, part of it via taxes and part of it via increased prices.”
I think a better calculation is to divide 20bn per year into households as their is only one electricity bill per home. That would give a more accurate PER HOUSEHOLD rate increase. I don’t know how many households their in are in Germany though.
John
As an engineer, real turbines run on steam or gas. Wind turbines are really just oversized pinwheels.
DirkH-
As a point of comparison, here in the center of the midwestern US, last month I used 1330 Kwh and my total electric bill was USD 136.00.
Peter Miller says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:38 pm
David Wells
Because the leaders of all three UK political parties are beyond goofy when it comes to the subject of the future of the nation’s energy supplies.
Not surprisingly, all three leaders are career politicians who have never dirtied their hands by having to operate in the real world. Therefore, they are guided by the philosophy of: “Does it work in theory?”, as opposed to the more realistic “Does it work in practice?”
———————————-
Not exactly Peter, it does not work even in theory. Wind-turbines work occasionally, erratically producing power depending with the cube of the wind speed.
http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/een.html
Look at the graphics and the spikes and bear in mind you look at the output generated by 7000 wind-turbines. The massive backup for this is only first generation gas plants, so you have to burn your gas inefficiently, blot the landscape with this monuments to the green idiocy and human greed and mix it with solar in Germany.
The erratic part is the biggest problem and it grows the bigger their part is.
So the problem is, it does not even work in theory if one goes into detail.
Thanks, PG. 🙂 I’ve visited your site, and gotta say you’re quite the story-teller (in a positive sense).
Duh. Of course green energy will lead to de-industrialization. Standard of living is unavoidably linked to energy ROI. Green energy sources have very low (or negative) EROI, hence they result in a dramatically reduced standard of living. (Where do people think standard of living comes from? Government stimuli? Consumer spending? Only in the world of perpetual motion machines…)
The foundation of an economy consists of people making stuff out of natural resources, like food, for example. In economies that rely solely on human power, survival is about all that can be expected due to low energy ROI – there’s no excess energy to spend on stuff like education or arts or recreation or fancy homes or nice clothes. Draft animals bump things up a bit, as they offer a better return than human muscle. But that still doesn’t get us very far. Now coal and oil and natural gas are great, and have gotten us to where we are today because they have quite high energy returns on investment. One trouble we face today is that the majority of people in first-world countries now live off the excess energy – they don’t earn their living making stuff out of natural resources – so they don’t know where wealth comes from and spend their time making up counter-productive theories about economics and trying to disrupt or destroy the very activities that afford them their livelihoods.
Nuclear is the next big thing if we want to move forward. Wind and solar are taking us backward.
Pat Frank said @ur momisugly October 26, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Why, thankyou, Pat. Perhaps you may just have persuaded me that it’s time to write another post. I’ve been busy editing a friend’s book that launches Saturday and rewriting one of my old ones. That tends to leave little time for writing just for the fun of it.