From VOA News
Official: Germany Could Slow Phase-Out of Coal
February 02, 2019 10:07 PM
FILE – Water vapor rises from the cooling towers of the Jaenschwalde coal-fired power plant of Lausitz Energie Bergbau AG in Jaenschwalde, Germany, Jan. 24, 2019.
Germany’s phasing out of coal-fired power stations could be delayed beyond 2038 if the deadline creates problems for the security of electricity supply, a senior legislator in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party said.
The phase-out, proposed last Saturday by a commission tasked with mapping out Germany’s transition to a more environmentally friendly low-carbon economy, drew criticism from some in industry who fear the impact of higher energy prices.
But in remarks that appeared aimed at the right of a party not always comfortable with Merkel’s centrist approach, Ralph Brinkhaus, chair of the conservative benches in parliament, said it was crucial not to be “dogmatic” in pursuing a goal that was widely accepted.
“Energy supply security must be guaranteed,” he told Welt am Sonntag newspaper. “If it is endangered, we should be free to do another round and address that, without abandoning the path we’ve chosen. There’s no reason to be dogmatic about this.”
Pro-business wing of party
Brinkhaus, from the Christian Democrats’ (CDU) most pro-business wing, last year toppled a Merkel ally in the race for the influential parliamentary leader post, precipitating the sequence of events that led to Merkel resigning as party leader and announcing that this would be her last term as chancellor.
That sparked a fight for the soul of the party, whose members have chafed at the centrist course that Merkel plotted over the 14 years of her chancellorship, during which time she has often seemed closer to leftists and Greens than some in her own party.
While her ally Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer’s narrow victory in the race to succeed her as party leader was seen as a win for her centrist vision, Brinkhaus’s remarks are a reminder that the party’s right has not gone away as the CDU gears up for a series of tough European and regional elections.
Merkel … centrist ??
If Angela Merkel is a centrist, the Germans have problems.
Wha tever Merkel is, thanks Merkel, we have problems 😀
Better said, MErkel is the problem 😀
The real problem is that this cancer controls the education system creating Merkel Eco Braunshirt Jugend
In Europe, Socialist are considered to be centrists.
Not really. They are considered the disease, but they are voted by 30% in many countries.
Many European countries have coalition governments where a 30% party is very much in a good position. Add greens 15% and communists 10%, you begin to understand why everything is becoming fu’d.
Conservatives are in trouble when parties have been trying to get voter base from ex communists.
“In Europe, Socialist are considered to be centrists.”
And colder is considered warmer.
there’s not a dimes bit of difference between a socialist, a green, and a communist. They’re all shades of the same thing.
A communist is a socialist with a gun. A green is a communist with a thin environmental patina, wishing they had a gun.
Thousands of ignorant voices screaming to be heard.
“If you can’t even run your own life, I’ll be damned if you’ll run mine.” – “Sunshine” Jonathan Edwards
Exactly.
After Kohl was ‘run-out’….Merkel arrived and began to carve out this path to an absolute center-policy on every single topic. In 15 years, it’s literally destroyed the left-of-center party (the SPD). Between the Merkel conservatives and the SPD, they used to take 70-percent in national elections. Today? The two combined would be lucky to take 50-percent. The votes went out to the five other ‘lesser’ parties.
No one is shocked over the coal-killer policy, but everyone asks the magic question. If you are getting rid of nuke power by 2030, and coal power is right behind it….how will the grid be supported? The only logical answer is to buy power (at a hefty rate) from France or Poland, made by coal or nuke power. Adding to this problem….they also mandated gas/diesel new car sales will end in 2030. Everyone expects battery cars to arrive, but where will the grid find the extra power to charge up the cars?
I am an energy expert and this German policy is a recipe for disaster.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/17/oddly-quiet-sun-3-weeks-without-sunspots/#comment-2407423
[excerpt]
I predicted that natural global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030, in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald. I am now leaning closer to 2020 for cooling to start, possibly even earlier. I hope to be wrong. Humanity and the environment suffer during cooling periods.
I suggest that it is long past time for society to prepare for the possibility of moderate global cooling.
This would involve:
1. Strengthening of electrical grid systems, currently destabilized by costly, intermittent green energy schemes;
2. Reduce energy costs by all practical means.
3. Development of contingency plans for food production and storage, should early frosts impact harvests;
4. Develop contingency plans should vital services be disrupted by cold weather events – such as the failure of grid power systems, blocking of transportation corridors, etc.
5. Improve home insulation and home construction standards.
The current mania over (fictitious) catastrophic global warming has actually brewed the “perfect storm” – energy systems have been foolishly compromised and energy costs have been needlessly increased, to fight imaginary warming in a (probably) cooling world.
I suggest this is the prudent path for Western societies to follow. It has no downside, even if global cooling does not occur, and considerable upside if moderate cooling does commence.
Best, Allan
Post Script:
My co-authors and I also published in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Allan,
If you don’t fight Warming in a Cooling world, you will never be able to claim you’re winning the battle
Niels Bohr quote. “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”
It might be wise to avoid following the example of the CAGW crowd in making predictions about 2020 to 2030.
To be clear Ralph:
I don’t “follow the example of the CAGW crowd”. To date, all their major predictions are clearly proven false, and mine are correct. 🙂
The above two, made in 2002, are absolutely correct to date. If I get my third 2002 prediction (of global cooling) correct as well, it will be a perfect Trifecta.
Then, I will write some dumb Swedes and demand the IPCC’s Nobel Prize. 🙂
Last time I checked, 2020 is only 11 months away.
Mark: Last time I checked:
“I predicted that natural global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030.”
But I’m leaning closer to 2020.
I was commenting about RDW’s apparent belief that 2020 is far into the future.
OK, I understand Mark – thank you.
We made all our major predictions in 2002. My (our) now-imminent global cooling prediction even predates Theodor Landscheidt’s 2003 paper. I’d be happy to be wrong about that, but it’s looking pretty good, based on the crash in solar activity in SC24 – the lowest since the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800).
NEW LITTLE ICE AGE INSTEAD OF GLOBAL WARMING?
Theodor Landscheidt,
First Published May 1, 2003 Research Article PAYWALLED
https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646
My co-authors and I made these predictions almost two decades ago, so they have some standing – at the time, they were considered climate heresy.
The pushback from the Greens was notable. I received one interesting threat – more seriously, one of my co-authors had the old family dog taken from a locked yard and killed.
One of my co-authors was forced out of academia as were other prominent skeptics – the loss of that unquestioned brilliance was a tragedy for the world.
I warned my co-authors to take safety precautions and I did too. In Alberta, the Green brown-shirts were busy – in Edmonton, the home of a former President of a large oil sands project was firebombed and destroyed – fortunately nobody was home – the fire was so intense it melted the metal doorknobs. The Calgary Petroleum Club was also firebombed and closed for a year to repair smoke damage.
The Green movement is violent and is becoming more hysterical as their dire predictions of runaway global warming are failing – first there was the ~20-year global temperature “Pause” and now some early signs of possible imminent cooling – global temperature looks more and more like natural variation and not-at-all like their alleged CO2-driven “hothouse Earth”.
In response, the Green narrative has changed, from the “Global Warming” hypothesis that CAN be disproved and already has, to the deliberately-vague “Climate Change” hypo, which can mean something different on any given day (warming and/or cooling , wetter and/or drier, more wind and/or less wind) and thus cannot be disproved – scientifically, it is deliberately vague nonsense. Read Popper and Feynman on the non-scientific nature of vague hypos. This is the Green’s deliberate strategy of obfuscation and change-of-their-narrative. Unfortunately for the Greens, there is no evidence of increasingly wilder weather to date – in fact weather has become LESS stormy in recent decades.
The Greens have been remarkably successful in spreading their false message, and have caused the squandering of tens of trillions of dollars on worthless research and destructive intermittent green energy schemes, which are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. Apart from wasting trillions, the Green’s only significant achievement has been the destabilization of energy grids through intermittent wind-and-solar power, the increase in suffering and Excess Winter Deaths in the developed world due to runaway energy costs, and the increase in suffering and unnecessary deaths due to the denial of cheap, reliable, abundant energy to the world’s poorest people.
Best, Allan
I say bring on the cooling and bring this nonsense to an end. Coupled with a looming worldwide recession/depression, the shivering greens hopefully will realize that not only do they lack heat, they have also squandered any capital that could be used to bring them out of the depression.
Hi Paul.
Earth cooled from ~1940 to 1977 even as fossil fuel combustion and atm. CO2 increased sharply. Then there were less than 20 years of warming and then the ~20 year “Pause”. Thus the CAGW hypo has already been disproved with negative, positive and ~zero correlation.. We don’t need to disprove CAGW twice.
Best, Allan
Haven’t you received the memo? Cooling is now a result of Global Warming!
Graeme wrote:
“Haven’t you received the memo? Cooling is now a result of Global Warming!”
Yes – I saw that one and posted the following:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/31/elizabeth-warren-uses-coldest-polar-vortex-in-decades-to-call-for-green-new-deal-to-fight-global-warming/#comment-2611774
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wrote this gem:
“The fact is, it’s climate change, or global warming, that’s behind this extreme cold.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820
NOAA is saying something similar. Yes, really! I did not believe it either until I read it – twice.
This is what happens when certain types of people get their predictions all wrong – they make up more nonsense to say they really were correct – but note that none of them actually came up with this excuse BEFORE the unexpected event happened – it always surfaces afterwards, as a rationalization of their failed prediction, like “This cold is really hot!”.
Maybe I can use this tactic if my 2002 prediction of “natural global cooling starting by 2020-2030” fails to materialize – this is quite new to me so I have to practice – if global warming resumes and even if it accelerates in the 2020’s, how about this trick: “You see, I was right all along! This warming is really cooling!”
[I suppose I must say “sarc/off] 🙂
Nuke from France, coal from Poland, hydro from Sweden and France, Natural Gas from Russia, LNG from the USA. Import everything it’s less messy. Just raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. Oh, and I almost forgot 2% from solar and 10% from wind (regardless of how much more is installed). Isn’t Green wonderful?
There is no “raise taxes on the rich”, it is raise taxes on the poor.
Raising taxes on the rich, only ends up hurting the poor. Rich businesses just pass on the added costs to their customers (the poor among them) with higher prices – which the poor can least afford. Rich Individuals simple move their wealth into shelters (or otherwise take advantage of other loopholes in the tax laws) to avoid the tax or move to someplace else where tax rates are more favorable if they can’t do the former – either action reduces tax revenues for the state which need to be made up by raising tax rates on the lower classes.
“Merkel’s speech on 16.06.2005 on the 60th anniversary of the CDU”
And never forget, Merkel was political activist in GDR and organised in FDJ
Yeah right……when the left moves 10,000 degrees to the left
…even someone meeting them half way is flaming liberal
‘Liberal’ used to be a respectable position in politics,. Now in a world where bitter cold is a ‘proof’ of galloping CAGW, the parties people vote for are only a fictional label and they represent something quite different. They get voted in and that’s the only part where the constituent is needed (until they come up with substitute fot the vote). They take it as a mandate to enact pernicious legislation that serves an outsourced ‘constituency’.
I used to enjoy the sport of arguing politics with family and friends. Now I simply say the party you vote for is no longer what you think it is.
Gary Pearse
“‘Liberal’ used to be a respectable position in politics,”
Now I’m no political analyst but it seems to me that in the UK there was an inherent honesty about liberals, i.e. the Liberal party which, as I recall, was in power for some years.
They seemed to act as a bulwark against the worst excesses of the Right and the Left but somehow, they lost there way.
We only have two meaningful political parties here now, Conservatives (right wing) and Labour (left wing). Both have moved more to the centre until Tony Blair’s Labour government seemed more centre than the liberals themselves. Now Corbyn’s Labour party in opposition is rabidly left wing, and I mean dangerously so. The party supports regimes such as Maduro’s Venezuela, communism, and is demonstrably anti Semitic.
Conservative governance has moved left, quite dramatically, so much so they now occupy the space of the emaciated Liberal party (now known as the Liberal Democrats) and continue the drift towards the ‘popular vote’ which is seen to be the working man, which no longer exists.
UK Right wing politics has been undermined in the most insidious manner by the left, dragging Conservative governments gradually Left. There is now a gaping hole on the Right for an enterprising party to fill giving the country a genuine three party choice instead of the tribal simplicities of two party politics we now have.
compared to the Greens she really is
Yes centrist. The problem you have is you are looking at here from way over on one side, compared to the European viewpoint
Germany shouldn’t worry so much.
Until China begins reducing, no ammount of reductions elseware will have ane discernable effect.
The USA, Germany, etc. should consider reductions relative to 1990s levels only to match percentage for percentage the amount that China reduces over their 1990s levels.
Even if the USA, Germany and China’s CO2 emission “reductions” decreased to ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, …… it would have NO discernable or measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities and/or near surface air temperatures.
Not necessarily (WRT CO2 measurements)
If China zeroed and all other nations remained stable, CO2 levels would begin to decline as China produces more than the annual increase which current carbon sinks don’t sequester.
Bryan, there is nothing about the “science of the natural world” ….. that is “Not necessarily” anything.
At least we would learn there never was a problem with climate if we did as you say Bryan A. But if we let these destroyers wreck economies and bring famine and death, they will simply say this is from global warming. “Good thing we intervened or it would have been much worse.”
They said exactly this without a trace of shame regarding the Arctic blast that set all-time cold records in the instrumental period. Will we let GISS, BEST and Hadcrut erase this gradually going forward? Someone close to retirement does these dirty deeds and then bows out.
If China wants to truly becone the Leading Nation in the fight of the Quixotic Climate Change Windmills, let them lead by example.
Do they have an EU approval for that?
They will, once Germany tells them to approve it.
Funny, no. That’s what the EU is. A kind of Merkel’s glove. Even after Merkel.
I am beginning to understand the Franco-German agreement.
Reality is a bitch, isn’t it?
If you’re going to stab yourself in the throat, do it slowly to delay the damage it will do.
From the article: “Ralph Brinkhaus, chair of the conservative benches in parliament, said it was crucial not to be “dogmatic” in pursuing a goal that was widely accepted.”
“First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth . . . unless this turns out to create problems at some point.” — President John F. Kennedy speech, May 25, 1961, slightly amended
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!…. unless that would create problems at some point, then, you know, nevermind— President Reagan’s June 12, 1987 speech in Berlin, slightly amended.
“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,…unless that would create problems at some point,” – Winston S. Churchill speech to Parliament 4 June 1940, slightly amended.
The chant has changed from phasing out fossil fuels now, to in 10 years, then add another 10 years, now add 20 years, ad infinitum. Realistically they know it won’t happen in this century without massive disruption of economies and lifestyles. They also know it won’t happen without nuclear power barring a technology breakthrough for electricity. Only when fossil fuel supply gets low enough to endanger military readiness will anything happen.
They have done the same with emissions they admitted they aren’t going to make there 2020 targets, and they doubled down on stupid by saying they will try for stronger targets in 2030.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/25/green-electricity-grid-collapses-during-aussie-heatwave/#comment-2604778
Politicians typically focused on the easy “bird courses” in the social sciences, and skipped the “tough” courses in science and engineering. Here is a primer:
First, this is the economic solution for intermittent green energy – typically wind and solar power:
1. Build your wind or solar power system and connect it to the grid.
2. Build your back-up system consisting of 100% equivalent capacity in gas turbine generators.
3. Using high explosives, blow your wind or solar power system all to hell.
4. Run your back-up gas turbine generators 24/7.
5. To save even more money, skip steps 1 and 3.
Despite many trillions in squandered subsidies, global green energy has increased from above 1% to below 2% is recent decades. Green energy is not green and provides little useful (dispatchable) energy.
Second, fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades. Ban fossil fuels and ~everyone in the developed world is dead in a month. The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear.
Third, the only proved “green” solution for global energy is nuclear, but greens hate nuclear more than they hate fossil fuels.
Fourth, atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Look up “C3 photosynthesis” and “CO2 starvation” during ice ages.
Fifth, even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, this calculated MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not nearly enough to produce dangerous global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018). Climate computer models use much higher ASSUMED values to create false alarm.
Sixth, atmospheric CO2 trends lag global temperature trends at all measured time scales, from ~9 months in the modern data record on a ~3 year natural cycle to ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time cycle. Rational observers have noted that the future cannot cause the past. (MacRae 2008 and Humlum et al 2013)
Seventh, CO2 is NOT a major driver of global warming – any warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Eighth, Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter – an Excess Winter Death rate almost three times the per-capita average in the USA. (d’Aleo and MacRae 2015)
Ninth, the continued false warming “adjustments” of the surface temperature record, the fraudulent Mann hockey stick embraced by the IPCC and the Climategate emails all prove the criminal intent of the leaders of the global warming/climate change scam.
Tenth, the IPCC and the leaders of the global warming movement have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every one of their very-scary predictions of runaway catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather have failed to materialize. The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific competence, and the warmist cabal have a perfectly negative predictive track record, demonstrated negative competence, and negative personal credibility. Nobody should believe them or their alarmist nonsense..
Eleventh, we published with confidence in 2002 in a written debate with the leftist Pembina Institute:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Twelfth, we also published with confidence in the same 2002 debate:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Past decades of actual global observations adequately prove that these two statements are correct to date. Since then, many trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense. Competent scientists and engineers have known these facts for decades.
We told you so, 17 years ago.
Regards, Allan MacRae
Merkel has been a disaster fur die heimat. It’s Obama in sensible shoes. Goofy policies of the moment (legal or not) dressed up with high-flying rhetoric. When they fail it’s all well we did it for the right reasons.
Great. Let us plug into your virtue and see if we get some juice for the heater.
But the EU dictators should fine them if they do. But they will not, of course. It’s germany not Italy, Spain, UK etc
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/25/green-electricity-grid-collapses-during-aussie-heatwave/#comment-2604778
Politicians typically focused on the easy “bird courses” in the social sciences, and skipped the “tough” courses in science and engineering. Here is a primer:
First, this is the economic solution for intermittent green energy – typically wind and solar power:
1. Build your wind or solar power system and connect it to the grid.
2. Build your back-up system consisting of 100% equivalent capacity in gas turbine generators.
3. Using high explosives, blow your wind or solar power system all to hell.
4. Run your back-up gas turbine generators 24/7.
5. To save even more money, skip steps 1 and 3.
Despite many trillions in squandered subsidies, global green energy has increased from above 1% to below 2% is recent decades. Green energy is not green and provides little useful (dispatchable) energy.
Second, fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades. Ban fossil fuels and ~everyone in the developed world is dead in a month. The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear.
Third, the only proved “green” solution for global energy is nuclear, but greens hate nuclear more than they hate fossil fuels.
Fourth, atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Look up “C3 photosynthesis” and “CO2 starvation” during ice ages.
Fifth, even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, this calculated MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not nearly enough to produce dangerous global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018). Climate computer models use much higher ASSUMED values to create false alarm.
Sixth, atmospheric CO2 trends lag global temperature trends at all measured time scales, from ~9 months in the modern data record on a ~3 year natural cycle to ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time cycle. Rational observers have noted that the future cannot cause the past. (MacRae 2008 and Humlum et al 2013)
Seventh, CO2 is NOT a major driver of global warming – any warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Eighth, Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter – an Excess Winter Death rate almost three times the per-capita average in the USA. (d’Aleo and MacRae 2015)
Ninth, the continued false warming “adjustments” of the surface temperature record, the fraudulent Mann hockey stick embraced by the IPCC and the Climategate emails all prove the criminal intent of the leaders of the global warming/climate change scam.
Tenth, the IPCC and the leaders of the global warming movement have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every one of their very-scary predictions of runaway catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather have failed to materialize. The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific competence, and the warmist cabal have a perfectly negative predictive track record, demonstrated negative competence, and negative personal credibility. Nobody should believe them or their alarmist nonsense..
Eleventh, we published with confidence in 2002 in a written debate with the leftist Pembina Institute:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Twelfth, we also published with confidence in the same 2002 debate:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Past decades of actual global observations adequately prove that these two statements are correct to date. Since then, many trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense. Competent scientists and engineers have known these facts for decades.
We told you so, 17 years ago.
Regards, Allan MacRae
you quote global electricity percentages for renewables… but here we are talking about specifically electricity and specifically German electricity at that….
and German electricity is already 40% renewable, with continued expansion of renewables (mostly offshore wind), backed up by continued improvement in HVDC interconnectors.
the German grid is very reliable… the oft misquoted outages at e.g aluminum plant took place after the sudden shut down of nuclear power post Fukushima and have not been repeated.
Why is German electricity the most expensive in Europe?
Correction: Denmark, with an even higher proportion of renewables, has the most expensive electricity in Europe. Germany is next.
You know, before starting the energy transition to renewables we were told that transition only costs a scoop of ice – Green blah blah, as usual….
It’s a extremly expensive one
griff has been corrected on this point hundreds of times. However he is only interested in being effective and has no interest in being accurate.
Germany’s electric grid is only stable because it is heavily interconnected with the rest of the European grid.
To talk about the German grid as if it were a standalone grid, is to engage in lying.
Germany has among the highest electricity costs anywhere – see this figure:
Furthermore, the “Substitution Factor”, the percent of wind generation that actually provides dispatchable power to the grid, as a percentage of total installed wind capacity, was 8% in 2004 in Germany and was projected to drop to 4% by 2020. At 4%, they have to install 25 units of wind power to obtain one dispatchable unit for the grid – this is incredibly uneconomic.
See Figure 7 in E.On Netz excellent Wind Report 2005 at
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
A 2018 report by the German National Audit group reported that Germany’s wind power program was a huge disaster.
https://www.thegwpf.com/germany-risks-complete-loss-of-control-of-energiewende-federal-audit-office-warns/
And we told you so, 17 years ago…
We published in 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/14/climate-win-uk-now-only-needs-coal-sometimes/#comment-2404785
The intermittency problem of wind has been known since ~forever. Storage of electricity is not a practical solution and may never be economic or sensible. We’ve known these facts long before the beginning of global warming mania, yet trillions of dollars in scarce global resources have been squandered by politicians on intermittent, non-dispatchable wind power, which has served only to reduce the reliability of the grid, drive up power prices and increase winter mortality among the elderly and the poor.
This post is from 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/another-inconvenient-tv-meteorologist/#comment-122790
[excerpt}
SEE E.On Netz excellent Wind Report 2005 at
http://www.eon-netz.com/Ressources/downloads/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
FIGURE 5 shows the annual curve of wind
power feed-in in the E.ON control area for 2004,
from which it is possible to derive the wind power
feed-in during the past year:
1. The highest wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid
was just above 6,000MW for a brief period, or
put another way the feed-in was around 85% of
the installed wind power capacity at the time.
2. The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW,
around one fifth of the average installed wind
power capacity over the year.
3. Over half of the year, the wind power feed-in
was less than 14% of the average installed wind
power capacity over the year.
The feed-in capacity can change frequently
within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
which reproduces the course of wind power feedin
during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
December 2004.
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on
Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only
10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds
to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired
power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power
feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in
levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.
In order to also guarantee reliable electricity
supplies when wind farms produce little or no
power, e.g. during periods of calm or storm-related
shutdowns, traditional power station capacities
must be available as a reserve. This means that
wind farms can only replace traditional power
station capacities to a limited degree.
An objective measure of the extent to which
wind farms are able to replace traditional power
stations, is the contribution towards guaranteed
capacity which they make within an existing
power station portfolio. Approximately this capacity
may be dispensed within a traditional power
station portfolio, without thereby prejudicing the
level of supply reliability.
In 2004 two major German studies investigated
the size of contribution that wind farms make
towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies
separately came to virtually identical conclusions,
that wind energy currently contributes to the
secure production capacity of the system, by
providing 8% of its installed capacity.
As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability
of the wind farms determines the reliability
of the system as a whole to an ever increasing
extent. Consequently the greater reliability of
traditional power stations becomes increasingly
eclipsed.
As a result, the relative contribution of wind
power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply
system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously
to around 4% (FIGURE 7).
In concrete terms, this means that in 2020,
with a forecast wind power capacity of over
48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of
traditional power production can be replaced by
these wind farms.
THAT’S 2% SUBSTITUTION CAPACITY, OR 98% CONVENTIONAL BACKUP.
AT TIME OF WRITING WIND POWER 2005, E.ON NETZ WAS THE LARGEST WIND POWER GENERATOR IN THE WORLD. THE E.ON REPORT IS HONEST AND RELIABLE – BUT WILL YOUNG BARACK EVER READ IT?
A FURTHER IRONY IS THAT DURING THE RECENT EXTREME COLD WEATHER IN THE UK, THERE WAS NO WIND AND NO WIND POWER – APPARENTLY ALSO COMMON DURING EXTREME SUMMER WARMTH – SO WIND POWER IS NOT THERE WHEN IT IS MOST NEEDED. MORE SUBSIDIES AND HIGHER POWER RATES FOR CONSUMERS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION.
GE SHOULD MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT NOW ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF WIND POWER, TO PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST BEING SUED INTO OBLIVION IN THE COMING YEARS. AMERICANS ARE VERY LITIGIOUS, AND WIND POWER IS BEING OVERSOLD AS A PANACEA THAT DOES NOT WORK – SOLID GROUNDS FOR A HUGE CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT.
PERHAPS CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS WILL ALSO BE BROUGHT AGAINST ALL THE WARMIST SUPPORTERS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, AS THE ENORMOUS WASTE OF MONEY ON A NON-PROBLEM BECOMES APPARENT – IMAGINE ALL THE LITIGATORS IN THE USA LINING UP TO GET IN ON THAT ACTION.
____________________
Correction:
THAT’S 4% SUBSTITUTION CAPACITY, OR 96% CONVENTIONAL BACKUP.
But it really makes no difference – the answer is if you put significant wind power into the grid, you need to include ~100% conventional spinning reserve, so IN FACT you should NEVER INSTALL THE WIND POWER AND SIMPLY OPERATE THE SPINNING RESERVE ALL THE TIME – THE MONEY YOU SPEND ON THE EXTRA GAS OR COAL WILL BE OFFSET BY THE SAVINGS IN CAPITAL COST, GREATER GRID RELIABILITY, MUCH LESS RISK OF TOTAL GRID FAILURE, ETC, ETC.
“Water vapor rises from the cooling towers of the Jaenschwalde coal-fired ” VOA
Credit for not photo shopping the plumes darker and actually mentioning that it’s water vapor.
vapor plumes, darkend as smoke are always shown when talking about so bad CO2,
Germany was big into Eugenics too, as I recall.
As was California.
So was Arrhenius.
“Brinkel, the most pro-business…”
Is this article a cached argument for AfD? LoL!
Merkel is a chameleon. She completely usurped the Green platform to stay in power. She rode the Fukushima Wave. Very shrewd, very calculating. The only other explanation is hopelessly naive, driven by her feelings.
Same answer for Immigration Policy. Time for Germany (and for the rest of Europe) to wake up to the farce.
T
This is pathetic.
See Germany where hundreds of billions of dollars, has been spent on stunningly inefficient green scams, with no significant reduction in the last ten years in CO2 emissions.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/28/germany-proves-that-burning-money-on-green-energies-does-not-reduce-co2-emissions-bitter-
The Germans have manage to double their electrical rates, bankrupt their utilities, with the largest construction of green scams in the world, with no real reduction in CO2 emissions.
The German CO2 ‘savings’, for all the green scam construction and changes that they have done, would be a CO2 increase, if they included the energy input to construct the greens scams, reduction in grid efficiency, and the energy input to supply the natural gas.
The German grid changes required the Russians to build a new pipeline complete with compressor stations to transport ‘natural’ gas to Germany.
It takes roughly 30% of the energy content of natural gas to transport it long distances via pipeline which is roughly the same energy required to liquify and then re-gasify LNG.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-167/
The excess wind and solar power cannot be used if there is no demand for the electric power when it is generated.
The Storage Problem/Green Scam Hard Engineering Limitations
German electricity CO2 has declined: recent increases have been entirely down to the heating and especially transport sectors (and those in the one percent sort of range).
At the same time they are shutting off their nuclear reactors. Merkel’s morons?
Electricity cost per kWh 2018
China .08
USA .13
Germany .33
Call me a cynic but Germany’s mania for demanding that everyone get on solar and wind may have something to do with these numbers.
Well, they actually reduced the green component last year. and I think you’ll find a lot of the cost is general taxes. Something everyone needs is ideal for govt to tax…
Most of costs are grid and grid-regulation costs.
With apoligies to Martin Luther King,” Merkel says, ” I have a dream”, but like so many dreams they do not work out in the real world.
So as with most politicians, while still holding into that Dream, lets kick the can a bit further down the road.
Merkel who was brought up to believe in the dream of Communism, will soon be gone, then as usual we will see the swing to the right, as is happening in many other countries in Europe.
Expect the usual nonsense of Neo Nazi cries from the left, forgetting that in many ways Hitler and the party he took over was actually a bit left wing, i.e. National Socialist
MJE .
Two cold winters is all it has taken to force the politicians to wake up.
Problem is how do they reverse the trend towards renewables without looking like complete fools.
It seems that female politicians are incompetent when it comes to civilization. I can only think of one that has been successful in furthering civilization.
It is said that there are -worldwide- 59 coal-fired power stations and 21 nuclear power stations under construction.
Germany shuts down all of its existing ones thus trying to save the world.
That’s stupidity at highest magnitude possible.
no pasarán.
Unsere https://www.google.com/search?q=no+pasaran+meaning&oq=no+pasar%C3%A1n+me&aqs=chrome.
werden leben so lange ich atme.