From Dr. Benny Peiser and The GWPF
Merkel’s Green Shift Backfires As German CO2 Emissions Jump – solar business closing
Siemens, Europe’s largest engineering company, has lost patience with its CEO after Peter Loescher’s expansion into green energy and expensive acquisitions led to a fifth profit-forecast cut. Supervisory board officials have asked for the 55-year-old Austrian native to be ousted. A key element of Loescher’s growth strategy was the 2009 announcement that he would transform Siemens into a “green infrastructure giant”, heralding a drive into solar technology to promote Siemens as a partner for companies and governments keen to use more renewable energies. At the 2010 annual general meeting, he wore a green tie and called for a “green revolution.” Since Loescher took over in July 2007, the shares have declined 22 percent. –Alex Webb, Bloomberg, 29 July 2013
German engineering giant Siemens has confirmed it is completely winding down its solar business. The involvement ended in a disaster, costing Siemens about one billion euros. Plans to sell off its solar business had come to nothing, Siemens admitted Monday in confirming a report in the German newspaper “Handelsblatt”. The involvement ended in a disaster, costing Siemens about one billion euros ($1.3 billion). —Deutsche Welle, 17 June 2013
Germany’s exit from nuclear power could cost the country as much as 1.7 trillion euros ($2.15 trillion) by 2030, or two thirds of the country’s GDP in 2011, according to Siemens, which built all of Germany’s 17 nuclear plants. “This will either be paid by energy customers or taxpayers,” Siemens board member Michael Suess, in charge of the company’s Energy Sector, told Reuters. “As an industry, Germany has always reached its goals. Now the whole world is looking at us. If the energy shift should fail … it would undermine Germany’s credibility as an industry nation,” Suess said. –Christoph Steitz, Reuters, 17 January 2012
Germany’s rise in CO2 emissions is set to worsen for a second year, the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal. Utilities boosted hard coal imports 25 percent in the first quarter to 10 million metric tons. With elections due in September, the move is a blow to Merkel, a former environment minister who helped negotiate the 1997 Kyoto accord curbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. “The trend of rising German CO2 emissions is alarming,” said Claudia Kemfert, who heads the energy unit at the Berlin-based DIW. “Climate change has quite frankly slipped to the back burner of policy priorities,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said on June 10. –Stefan Nicola, Bloomberg, 29 July 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
neillusion says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm
“Codetec
I believe you people can’t see passed the limited array of numbers you choose to believe in – sound familiar? You don’t know the future either.
Did you deliberately miss the point on ‘cutting technology’ of wind and solar to post as you did? ”
The first Megawatt wind turbine was built in USA, I think Vermont, in 1946. Silicon solar cells are being sold at least since the 70ies. There were some process improvements.
“Old tech completely useless? Are you for real? As one example, Germany has a huge number of domestic solar panels that last year (I think) produced a record Gazillion Watts, used for industry.”
++++++++++++++
neillusion: I have 2 questions for you.
1) In order of most expensive to least expensive electricity costs, where do you think Germany stands?
2) If solar energy is so good, and cutting edge, what would the country with near the highest electricity costs in the world do in an attempt to remedy that situation?
Answer to 2) is that Germany is building a huge number of non-clean technology coal plants.
I suggest you find the answers to the questions I posed, and come back and give us an honest comment about how you’ve been school at WUWT.
Mods: regarding my post at July 31, 2013 at 3:58 pm, I made a typo “school” should be “schooled”
SORRY about that!
WOW, lots responses.
OK , where to start, as many have not done their homework properly. I will try to make clear just what I’ve been writing in its context, as I thought would be clear – I have three post previous, I guess that is where to start. You must not take facts and twist them, then criticise the twisted version and hang me up for it as many seem to do. You must not pick on the sentence fillers either – as an example one hilarious criticism was my use of the word ‘gazillion’ The real (obvious) point in the sentence that used that word came just before it. It was a ‘record’ production of solar power, fed straight to industry. Impressive indeed. That seems to have been ignored and a senseless criticism of ‘gazillion’ employed to distract? vent? elevate ego? Come on, lets give due regard for the truth, have an adult arguement, do some homework and have a productive ‘discussion’ here. I just checked the facts on the ‘record’ I refered to from memory. Seems there is a very recent one so just to state it here, “Germany set a world record for solar power production with 23.95 GW produced at midday on July 21, 2013.[14] Approximately 1.3–1.4 million solar power systems helped to set this record.” So what do you make of that? I think that was incredible. A hell of a lot of this was from roof top installations where the sun would have done nothing else of use (one comment was something to do with interupting the sunlight on its way to the earth was ruining the earth/ecology/whatever)
I suppose that the power stations burned less coal, oil, etc, saving on those resources, reducing trucks on the road, and so on. Is that good or has my schooling led me astray?
Another eroneous attack, this on wind power, is about the ‘cost’ of producing the copper, steel, etc used in building the turbine and setting against the electricity produced. Copper is one of the most recycled metals. You could more sensibly look at it like this…the metals used will be recycled in making the next one and the next one and the next one… the first may well include a huge amount of recycled material… so I will call it a ‘fraud’ attack (one of the many) on wind rather than a legit point.
To Mario Lento…
Question 1. ‘Costs’? money health environment future research spinoff. I don’t mean to be facetious or trivial, but if you mean financial, can you quantify all the considerations in financial terms? I do not know how to do this. But I’m guessing they are rather important and valuable considerations.
Question 2. What do do? Use as much solar as possible (which won’t be that much in the bigger picture) and do something really cool and go for Thorium. Coal plants are not good. (obviously)
Here’s something honest to comment… I believe I think for myself, put as much together as I can, from the facts and found WUWT not long ago in regard of AGW. In regard of AGW I’ve had my eyes opened by A.Watts and those others providing the undistorted facts, with quite balanced conclusions that I agree with in the main.
In regards of solar and wind, I have found some pretty stupid attacks on these technologies and using them. May I ask what you think/make of the huge amount of electricity solar has contributed in Germany. There is a distinction to be made here of what use they can be for their relatively small contributions to the demand for electricity – a supplement, as I mentioned in one post – and the obvious limitations and unsuitability for providing all the power as is often a criticism against anyone who suggests they like (a bit of) solar or wind power.
I don’t like the nuclear industry as has been and is, in regard of risks for DNA, life, etc. Thorium however is a oodles better (someone want to have a pop at that word?) And before you reach for the keyboard in a ‘gotcha’ orgasm moment, I ask you to look at the Thorium alternative, there’s a particularly good 2hr presentation on youtube that should blow your mind.
DirkH, I don’t know the numbers for subsidies to PV, I question the number you quote and challenge you to show that you actually know something for real and report a detailed breakdown of that number. I’m guessing you have fudged it, and are using it eroneously (deliberately perhaps) against pv to have a go at some preconceived image/sterotype you have of greens and pv. Numbers crawling…well, I guess we’ll get to see. I don’t claim to be a green, just someone trying to think logically and bigger picture, avoiding the incredible amount of ‘garbage’ being passed for fact in all types of media. Also trying to anticipate what the futurre holds. We live in incredible times, amazing things being dicovered and produced in all walks of life. See my other posts for more on that.
This is all I have time to write just now.
Gail and CodeTec
I seem to have been criticised, laughed at even for a position on solar and wind that I never took! Can you clarify, was I not clear – I’ve looked, last post applies. I just give credit where due and look to see what others think. I also try to second guess just what is going on behind the scenes for the decisions that are made by the powers that be. One example is in regard of technological development/inventions. The best and most amazing ones, that will affect society in a number of ways, are classified and never get to see the light of day, others are bought and paid for then buried.
gotta go
neillusion says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:03 pm:
++++++
You’re all over the place and have no focus. Germany is now building coal plants after proving that solar energy was too costly to efficiently generate electricity. Solar in Germany accounts for a small % of their total, and if it accounted for a larger %, their costs would be even higher than 2nd or 3rd highest in the world.
Don’t get me started on windmills. Do you know which country as the highest electricity costs in the world and can NO LONGER afford to operate many of their existing installed wind mills? It happens to be the country with the most wind mills per capita. Again – facts are a terrible thing to someone like you who gets lost in the details.
For focus I interpret ‘narrow’ dare I say minded, without offence. I try to see bigger picture so in a sense defocus, widen to accomodate the complex multifaceted issue as it obviously is. I don’t believe you can dismiss an industry (supplement as it is) just on money numbers. Cost, what is ‘cost’ and where does the money actually go? Why so much? There are humans involved, even in that equation, so expect some unsavoury facts and distressing scenarios. I’m talking about greed/profit and the big money players involved and their connections to politics. One cannot blame the technology for that.
I am in a way lost in the details as you say, and it is proving very interesting – there is so much to consider, past present and future in regard of technology, industry, jobs, earth, health, inventions just about to be released and other stuff. I don’t have the answers. I cannot accept the ‘focussed’ narrow minded answers and criticisms, that depend on such a small spectrum, in many instances, of only one, of the issues. Coal not good. Thorium, did you see the vid mentioned? That one got me thinking. They had Thorium reactors, or one of them running for over five years back in the 50’s! It was so stable and controlable they were able to shut it down Friday night and start it back up on Monday morn. It was a research project by one of the greatest minds on nuclear physics, and as a project, no-one paid to work weekends. Inherently safe, burns up radioactive waste, converts 99%+ of the fuel (as opposed to less than 0.5% in the trad reactore (I was shocked to learn that). The reasons why we are not using Thorium are depressing. USA, UK and others are gonna lose this to the chinese and india, japan too. Just like UK lost its steel industry. When you consider the thorium answer you realise that politics, war, industry, protectionism, disinformation, greed, deception play the biggest part, nothing to do with the money numbers. (I’m sure something similar is responsible for the incredible numbers used in the solar and wind equations and arguements.) If we wanted 10x the power, all in electric, today, even decades ago, 24/7, we could have had it and much more for centuries to come, for next to nothing in your money numbers. It’s the greed and corruption and powerplay that determine the numbers and what we use, not the technology itself, how it is ‘good’. So when you quote numbers and blame a technology for having large ones, I cannot take it seriously, and no-one should. If the energy to laugh at and criticise those whol like a bit of solar and wind was aimed at those corruptors and profiteer thief types and politicians – ah whatever, the rot is so deep, the system so backward, I’m not sure a disaster event isn’t required to reset it. Humans!
Spiegel has an interesting story about the first private wind farm project in the North Sea. The 30 unit 4o0mil euro, project was completed on time, ‘BUT’ as they were laying the cable towards the mainland connecting point they encountered WW2 munitions on the sea floor. They expect that this expensive delay will take about a year to fix…http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-wind-farm-delayed-by-wwii-munitions-discovery-a-915484.html.
‘ In the meantime’ states the article ‘the turbines are being powered by diesel generators to prevent rust buildup’. Nice! Too bad they didn’t think of laying the mainline cable earlier in the project.
john robertson says:
July 29, 2013 at 9:43 am
Seems anti humanist ideologies do no sell well in the real world.
My bet is that our govts will buy up the firesale solar panels and destroy them, rather than allow taxpayers to enjoy a slight benefit from the collapse of this religious stupidity.
As part of this too big to fail credos, which only applies to major campaign contributors.
Funny what a trend setter, industry leader, Enron turned out to be.
++++++++++++++++
John: Your statement is more true than not. I was doing work in Fremont, where an industrial property was housing 1000’s of Solyndra tubes that they could not sell. Once Solyndra went belly up – the tubes were all ground up to dust and disposed of! Sure – the tax payers owned these tubes… but evidently it was most cost effective to just scrap them all.