Germany's CO2 and energy policy – about to falter?

Guest essay by Fred F. Mueller

On April 16th, 2014, a few quite remarkable statements were delivered during a discussion event at the premises of SMA Solar Technology AG, a leading German producer of photovoltaic panels and systems:

“The truth is that the Energy U-Turn (“Energiewende”, the German scheme aimed at pushing the “renewable” share of electricity production to 80 % by 2050) is about to fail”

“The truth is that under all aspects, we have underestimated the complexity of the “Energiewende”

“The noble aspiration of a decentralized energy supply, of self-sufficiency! This is of course utter madness”

“Anyway, most other countries in Europe think we are crazy”

Had this been one of the small albeit growing number of German “sceptics” casting doubt upon the XXL-sized politico-economical scam that has cost the German populace more than € 500 billion since its inception in 2000, it would not have gotten more than a footnote in the local press, crammed somewhere in between “horoscope” and “lost and found”. In fact, the media actually tried to keep a lid on the facts by giving them as little coverage as possible.

But the man at the speaker’s desk was Sigmar Gabriel, acting vice-chancellor of the German government, Secretary of Commerce with responsibility for the said „Energiewende” and chairman of the German social democrats (SPD), the second-largest political force in the country. Since December 2013, he is in charge of taming the runaway costs and growing security of supply risks that are unmasking the financial and technical nightmare of this ill-conceived project. In the past few months, he seems to have gotten some unpleasant insights causing him to admit the above-mentioned inconvenient truths when he was pushed too far by a number of aggressive lobbyists of the “renewable energy” sector. Gabriel, famous for his irascible temper that once already resulted in a heated verbal exchange with a top-dog TV journalist live on air, appears to have become quite candid when he vented his anger during the debate.

He must have realized his own political fate is in jeopardy because the task he has been assigned has conducted him into a situation that will inevitably result in failure. With respect to electric energy generation, Germany has painted itself into a corner. Since the introduction of the “Renewable Energy” law (EEG) in 2000 aimed at replacing coal and gas-fired as well as nuclear power generation by so-called renewable energy sources, the household price for electricity has jumped by more than 200 %. German customers now pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. At the same time, the task of stabilizing the grid against the massive erratic influx from solar and wind power plants that produce without regard for actual need has pushed the operators to their limits. Now already, with a combined share of just some 13 % of total electricity production, their unreliable input is massively imperiling the stability of the grid.

Conventional power plants – the most important units able to compensate these detrimental effects – are being pushed out of the market and shuttered at increasing rates. At the same time, Germany’s CO2 output has not diminished because coal-fired units have had to take over from closed nuclear plants. Costs are set to rise further on a ballistic path while security of supply is in free fall. At the same time, Gabriel is subjected to intense pressure from a number of factions of the “renewable” energy sector asking for ever greater slices of a cake that cannot be financed much longer. Together with inconvenient truths about feasibility limits given to him by his technical staff, this pressure seems to have risen to a level that pushed him to lecture his harassers when their clamors transgressed his tolerance limit.

This rare incident where a leading politician loses control of his words to such a degree shows that the “crash boom bang” path the German way of mishandling energy policies has indeed reached a threshold where said politicians feel cornered and unable to uphold their usual “muddling through” approach. Long-ignored financial and technical rules re-emerge and will force the German political class to abandon their “renewable” energy strategy centering on solar and wind power generation. Since the only low CO2 alternative – nuclear power – has been deviled by all political parties and the media beyond any chance of short-term oblivion, Germany will soon have to revert to coal for its power needs. And that in turn implies the country will have to abandon all aspirations to lower its CO2 emissions. German politicians might soon find out that demonizing CO2 is becoming a speedy path to ruining their career. And given the importance of the country within Europe and the pioneering role it claimed in the international crusade against climate change by limiting CO2 emissions, this might well herald the start of a paradigm shift of epochal dimensions in the whole climate change debate.

 

Original TV clips (in German):

http://www.1730live.de/sigmar-gabriel-nimmt-in-kassel-stellung-zur-energiewende/

http://www.hr-online.de/website/archiv/hessenschau/hessenschau.jsp?t=20140417&type=v

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
120 Comments
April 29, 2014 4:46 pm

DirkH – April 29, 2014 at 2:46 am
English comprehension seems to be a weak spot for you.

Jake J
April 29, 2014 10:01 pm

Not necessarily. The so called “Cumulus effect” leads to vertical drop offs and restarts of solar power output – even more vicious than the power ramps of wind power, which happen with the 3rd power of wind speed. Picture a field of cumulus clouds moving across a blue sky, shadowing solar cell fields as they move.
Hmm. Interesting. Do you have a link to any research on that? Thanks in advance.

Jake J
April 29, 2014 10:04 pm

Fred, thanks for the site. I hope you’ll keep checking this thread in case I want to ask you any questions about the site or the data. My curiosity has definitely been engaged. Viele danke.

rogerknights
April 29, 2014 11:46 pm

Katherine says:
April 28, 2014 at 2:58 am

rogerknights says:
April 27, 2014 at 6:10 pm
This needs to be copy-edited:
“Since the only low CO2 alternative – nuclear power – has been deviled by all political parties and the media beyond any chance of short-term oblivion, . . . .”
E.g., change “oblivion” to “resuscitation”.

No need for copy editing. The original is quite correct. “Beyond any chance of short-term oblivion” means “beyond any chance nuclear power will be out of favor for only the short term.” In other words, nuclear power has been so vilified it will be a long time, if ever, before it will be considered a feasible alternative.

If “only short-term oblivion” was meant, “only short-term oblivion” should have been said. Lacking an “only,” the sentence says the reverse of what it intended to say.

rogerknights
April 29, 2014 11:56 pm

DirkH says:
April 29, 2014 at 2:44 am
Both world wars had the intention of destroying Germany because Germany was an economic threat to the UK empire (and to the fledgling American empire, of course). Today, historians start to admit that Germany did not cause WW I.

There’s a fascinating recent revisionist book on that topic, The Russian Origins of the First World War, at http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Origins-First-World-War/dp/0674072332/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398840769&sr=1-1&keywords=russian+origin+of+world+war+I

The Versailles treaty was rammed down Germany’s throat to plunder the country wholesale and break its back. Germany was forced to sign it. Where would Germany now be had the Anglosaxons not destroyed it successfully?

Wilson was an Anglo but didn’t want a victor’s peace imposed.

rogerknights
April 29, 2014 11:57 pm

Oops–I should have out-dented that third paragraph.

rogerthesurf
April 30, 2014 12:07 am

Funny how the German army managed to cross borders into France and Belgium etc. in both wars though. Maybe it was just a state sponsored tourism project that got out of hand then?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Jeff
April 30, 2014 3:16 pm

“rogerthesurf says:
April 30, 2014 at 12:07 am”
One could just as easily say Putin’s got his vacation resort now…
The borders of France and Germany have been fluid for hundreds of years…go to the area around
Strasbourg and you see German town names (and German-speaking citizens) in France, and you see French town names (and French-speaking citizens) in Germany…
It used to be that various armies marched through Germany to get to wherever they were going to
conquer…now they just take the Autobahns…which is why there are toll roads now…unfortunately we poor (already over-taxed) car-drivers are going to be stuck with tolls too…
(Just like the poor fellow whos bosses get the elevator, but he just gets the shaft)..

Jeff
April 30, 2014 3:22 pm

“aletho says:
April 29, 2014 at 4:46 pm”
Aletho, I’ve been following Dirk’s postings here and on other blogs. I am a native English speaker,
published, and have been a professional editor. I see nothing wrong with his comprehension.
Perhaps you differ with his point(s) of view?

milodonharlani
April 30, 2014 3:24 pm

Whatever it takes to return Germany & the rest of Old Europe to energy sanity is good, but how much better had it been adherence to valid principles of scientific inquiry rather than geopolitics forcing this wising up.
Sitting as they do atop layers of coal which, if need be, can be gasified, it’s nuts for Germans to keep piping their hard-earned wealth into Russia to buy its gas & sacrificially burning it on the altar of CACA craziness-inspired windmills & solar panels, in a not very sunny nor even all that windy country, which “renewables” can’t fuel an advanced industrial economy in any case.

Jeff
April 30, 2014 3:27 pm

“Andy says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:25 pm
Well, za Chermans love to rally behind za pointless causes ja?
What would Germany be today without two world wars and the green madness?”
Andy, WWII ended FORTY years ago…the good guys won….let it go….
There were a lot of folks here who suffered because of that mustachioed nutcake, for instance my
father-in-law had his eyes blown out and his nose blown off AT 15!!! because he was forced into the
war effort…..he had a choice….go or DIE…..
There are no winners in war…only losers…

Jeff
April 30, 2014 3:30 pm

Andy, sorry, I was thinking forties, to wit:
WWII ended SEVENTY years ago…the good guys won….let it go….
There were a lot of folks here who suffered because of that mustachioed nutcake, for instance my father-in-law had his eyes blown out and his nose blown off AT 15!!! because he was forced into the war effort…..he had a choice….go or DIE…..
There are no winners in war…only losers…

milodonharlani
April 30, 2014 6:02 pm

DirkH says:
April 29, 2014 at 2:44 am
Do you seriously believe the garbage you spout?
I’ll agree that Germany by herself didn’t start WWI, but her mobilization in support of Austria guaranteed that the alliance system then in place would force Russia, France & Britain to follow suit.
As for WWII, you could not possibly be more wrong. The Anglo-Saxon powers manifestly did not want war, but Germany did. Versailles was a mistake, but that doesn’t excuse Hitler & Stalin’s ganging up to divide Eastern Europe between them.
The problem in the 1930s was not that Britain, let alone isolationist America, wanted to squash Germany, but that they, & even France, appeased Hitler when he reoccupied the Rhineland, united with Austria, invaded the Sudetenland, then the rest of Czechoslovakia, in hopes of peace in their time. Finally, when the two dictators Hitler & Stalin divvied up Poland, France & Britain had had enough of treaty violations. Even then the US didn’t get involved.
Your history is not only revisionist but exists only in an alternative universe.

rogerthesurf
May 1, 2014 12:12 am

Of course the Germans were not aggresive in either of the world wars. All they wanted to do is view the Arc de Triomphe and the Eiffel tower.
Unfortunately the nasty French stopped the tourists in 1914 but the German excursion in 1940 did get to see these wonderful landmarks of Paris.
What I don’t understand is why more than 1.5 million German tourists came at once and why just about every one brought a sporting rifle or similar with him.
Perhaps it is the misunderstood culture of Germany in their attempts to be peaceful that we don’t understand.
Cheers
Roger

milodonharlani
May 1, 2014 9:49 am

rogerthesurf says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:12 am
It’s worse than expected!
In July 1914 Austria probably wouldn’t even have declared war on Serbia in the first place if German officials hasn’t encouraged the action in response to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand & promised to stand behind the Austrians.
I guess you could blame Serbia for not acquiescing to the Austrian ultimatum, which was designed virtually to ensure war. So far from wanting to destroy the German Empire, Britain tried to mediate a peaceful resolution to the July Crisis.
Wiki has a well-sourced discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Austria-Hungary_receives_German_support_and_settles_on_coercive_diplomacy_with_Serbia
I’m sure that Dirk has many fine qualities, but historical misanalysis by anti-Anglo-American conspiracy theory is not among them. War guilt can be spread farther than Germany alone, but his counter-historical fantasy is absurd.

May 1, 2014 1:09 pm

stephen richards > NOT for much longer. The socialists (Valls the new PM) want to close HALF of france’s nuclear power stations by 2025. That will leave no base power for the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and portugal.
That’s what he says, but it probably won’t happen because, unlike Germany, France has no coal as an alternative to nuclear. Since it’s technically still good to go, President Holland might not even follow on his promise to close down the Fessenheim power plant close to the German border.
It’s all politics, just like in Germany: The French Socialist Party needs the Greens to win elections, hence all the bullshit against nuclear and GMO and for organic agriculture.
The real issue is that 3G nuclear power plants are much more expensive than 2G. I have no idea how many 2G plants will have to be replaced within the next twenty years, and at what cost.
But then, it’s not like France has much of a choice, since it has no fossil fuel whatsoever.

milodonharlani
May 1, 2014 2:31 pm

alpincesare says:
May 1, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Wave power! That’s the ticket!
Except that it might uglify the beaches where the French like to take their months of vacation.
But no problem! Without the nuclear plants, those vacations can be extended to 12 months! Then all will be well in the socialist paradise, as long as the government can find people to lend it money in exchange for ownership of all the land in La Belle France.

milodonharlani
May 1, 2014 2:33 pm

rogerthesurf says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:12 am
Some of those peaceful, playful German tourists in spring of 1940 were lucky enough to travel to France for their vacations in all-terrain recreational vehicles equipped with tracks instead of just wheels or a combo thereof.

Edelweiss
May 6, 2014 3:47 am
mark sommers
May 12, 2014 8:30 am

To RJ:
Rifkin’s full of it and he’s a hypocrite.Back in the 1980’s when Biotechnology was emerging,Rifkin filed a ton of lawsuits against it.He warned of unforseen consequences with this new technology
and raised concerns and issues about it.But now with renewable energy(solar panels),Rifkin’s
doing the complete opposite.He’s rushing people to switch to renewable energy,but he’s not
raising concerns and issues with it like he did with biotechnology.The truth is,Rifkin’s playing
favorites.He’s in favor of renewable energy.He’s not going to listen to any problems or complaints
about it.He doesn’t care if people get stuck with sky rocketing utility bills.Merkel should have known
better.

1 3 4 5