Hardly any new wind turbines were built in Germany in the first half of the year. Turbine makers call it a “punch in the gut of the green energy transition” and blame environmentalists.
The expansion of wind power in the first half of this year collapsed to its lowest level since the introduction of the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000. All in all, just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts. “This corresponds to a decline of 82 percent compared to the already weak period of the previous year”, according to the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) in Berlin.
“This makes one nearly speechless,” said Matthias Zelinger at the presentation of the data. The managing director of the Power Systems division of the German Engineering Federation (VDMA) spoke of a “blow to the guts of the energy turnaround”. This actual development doesn’t match “at all to the current climate protection debate”.
“On the one hand the Federal Government speaks of its achievement of ambitious renewable expansion and climate protection goals for the years 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, the perspective is missing,” said Hermann Albers, President of the German Wind Energy Association (BWE): “The discrepancy between claim and reality is growing.”
The federal government wants to increase the share of renewable energy in the electricity supply from around 40 today to at least 65 percent in 2030. But when in 2021 thousands of wind turbines come to the end of the 20-year subsidy period of the Renewable Energy Act, more wind turbines will be demolished on balance than new ones will be added, the wind industry fears. The government’s green energy and probably also its climate targets would fail.
The reasons for the slump in new construction figures are manifold. Unlike in the past too low subsidies for wind power is not the cause this time. “It’s not about the money,” said Albers: “The energy transition is being slowed down on a small scale.”
The most important cause lies in the legal resistance of wildlife and forest conservationists fighting new wind farms. The BWE President referred to an industry survey of the onshore wind agency. According to its findings, more than 70 percent of the legal objections are based on species conservation, especially the threat to endangered bird species and bats. Wind power president Albers called many complaints unfounded. He claims that the population of the red kite raptors has actually increased in parallel with the expansion of wind power. However, the nature conservation federation of Germany would not support this claim when asked by Die WELT.
In addition to species protection, it is primarily conflicts with noise protection that are leading to legal objections against wind power projects. They are responsible for 17 per cent of legal cases. Monument protection are behind six percent of lawsuits.
Turn out the lights the party’s over. Additional renewable’s for the German grid can only further destabilize it.
Each additional 1000 MW of renewable capacity enables retiring 5 MW of “Fossil Fuels”, a net 5% fuel saving. Regulators have essentially stopped issuing permits because there isn’t any room on the grid and NIBY”s are protesting any grid expansion,,,,unless the cables are installed underground….and there’s no money for that hugely expensive technology. Their European neighbor countries have tired of Germany’s excess electricity being dumped on their systems. Germany’s misfortune is a shining example of the hopeless failure of wind and solar. Shale gas now, and small scale modular nuclear phased in over the next 30 or so years.
The German grid is one of the world’s most stable… it is not and will not be threatened by additional renewables added to it.
The Germans are not dumping power where it isn’t wanted any more – they long since sorted that. They do however export one heck of a lot where it is actually wanted.
yes, there are problems with red tape and continuing grid connections North to South… but these are temporary.
Germany got 47% of electricity from renewables in the first 6 months of 2019.
Griff,
There is a big difference between distribution reliability and bulk grid stability. Pointing to average outage hours tells you nothing about grid stability, despite the association that renewable advocates try to pitch. Grid stability is concerned with issues of inertia, voltage collapse, var ability and rotational frequency. Dennis Sanberg is on point.
More info here: https://www.tdworld.com/generation-and-renewables/myth-german-renewable-energy-miracle
@griff
Your expertise ? Really ? 😀 😀
Greened Out German Power Grid Collapsing, Could Bring Down European System
“Germany got 47% of electricity from renewables in the first 6 months of 2019.”
What’s your point?
“Germany got 47% of electricity from renewables in the first 6 months of 2019.” Keep telling yourself that lie, you may even convince you, someday.
Germany’s grid is a small portion of the European grid.
Just looking at the German portion of the grid without considering the rest of it is highly dishonest.
About what we’ve come to expect from griff and the rest of the alarmists.
Truth. Thank you.
I am not sure how making numerous small nuclear plants is better than a few large ones.
There are several reasons I can think of straight off that argue for smaller number of plants.
Among them are various security issues relating to, for example, sabotage, and also to radioactive substances being acquired by malevolent individuals, etc.
Storage and transportation of new and spent fuel is another concern: Having more plants in more places means that there are more places where spills, leaks, or accidents might take place.
Also, I would like to see some data on the efficiency aspects of more but smaller numbers of such facilities, specifically info on whether the plants themselves are more efficient when they are smaller, or whether the savings in transmission and distribution losses exceeds the additional cost of siting more plants, installing more power lines, etc. Land acquisition, rights of way, construction, site suitability with regard to water for cooling (if needed), tectonic stability, etc.
Each of this are very important to get right.
Every one of the major accidents I can think of that have occurred due to lapses of judgement and/or bad decision making.
Example:
Three Mile Island was sited on an island in the middle of a major river which drained into the massively important and heavily populated and used Chesapeake Bay, which tremendously magnified the danger posed by a leak or meltdown. So no matter what else may have been a factor or not, that single decision in the initial stages of planning turned out to be an awful idea, IMO, given that a known failure mode would result in a meltdown and possible contact between melted fuel and groundwater which would be impossible to keep from getting into the river. And given the fragility of public sentiment regarding such matters, how likely this was to occur was irrelevant. That single incident caused the end of new nuclear plants in the US which continues pretty much uninterrupted to this day.
And at around the time the mood was changing re new nuclear plants, the ridiculous chain of events occurred in Japan, and caused a worldwide shift in sentiment, regardless of the facts.
That situation was caused by what can easily be seen as a comedy of errors and jackass mistakes.
It should not have happened, and would not have happened, had not numerous well known safety issues been ignored or brushed aside. One single waterproof door might have prevented any of the issues which occurred after the tsunami cut off power and flooded lower levels of the plant.
Nuclear accidents have been few due in large part to attention to safety.
Let’s make sure we keep it that way.
re: “small nuclear plants is better than a few large ones.
There are several reasons I can think of straight off that argue for smaller number of plants.”
Same comment here; prescribing a solution before ALL possible/applicable technologies are known. That’s not how progress is made … we don’t use practices common in the 1890’s for instance (e.g. a common steam engine driving a single rotating ‘power shaft’ running the length of a factory) anymore! The electric motor starting about that time changed all that.
The risk from TMI is that it was the unreasonably dangerous technology they chose to build. Right over the border in Canada there are more than a dozen CANDU reactors running using uranium at a natural concentrations and heavy water.
It is unfortunate that anti-nuke folks are so uninformed about the choices that can be made even with technologies 50 years old. The USA’s choice to avoid “foreign designs” and use high pressure light water cooling systems is just begging for something to go wrong and create a panic – which of course it eventually did.
It is equally unfortunate that the pro-nuke folks are so uninformed about the choices that can be made even with technologies 50 years old.
Canadians also came up with a patented method of reducing NOx (90%) and SOx (80%) emissions from coal-fired power stations, but that too was a “foreign design” so not implemented as the best available technology. NIH problem (not invented here)
If you want to have a modern and safe country, sometimes you have to participate in the global economy.
Yes, nuclear accidents have been few, but why create unnecessary risk? The objections are about risk. Address the objections. Remove the risk.
US Navy operates nuclear power plants all over the world and their safety record is, well, rather safe. We should be talking to people who actually do it, instead of listening to idiots who simply oppose everything.
CANDUs are high pressure reactors that use heavy water for moderation. Thay suffer from a high positive void coefficient so they need a more complicated scram system. Finally, they are well designed to function as a dual purpose reactor, and can be used to breed Pu for weapons. LWRs are very difficult to use to make Pu for weapons.
Power needs to be safe, reliable and affordable.
SMR’s are safe because the radioactive material stays in the reactor after depletion. It is transported by semi-trailer to and from a central location for removal/replacement. The containment vessel is strong enough that if the semi-tractor was in a traffic accident the radio-active material would remain contained.
SMR’s are reliable…proven by 50 years of use in submarines and carriers.
SMR’s are affordable because 1) They are cookie cutter identical and built in a factory instead of on-site. 2) Once the first unit is approved for operation permitting costs, delays and unanticipated developments become minimal. 3) Large scale CCNG generators will become the dominant power source over the next 30-40 years. When small increments of generating capacity are required and as NG reserves are slowly depleted SMR’s will incrementally and cost effectively lead us into the eventual and inevitable nuclear dominated energy age.
re: “and small scale modular nuclear”
I like how the ‘prescription is written’ before ALL possible options are even known …
Dennis Sandberg wrote:
“Additional renewable’s for the German grid can only further destabilize it. Each additional 1000 MW of renewable capacity enables retiring 5 MW of “Fossil Fuels”, a net 5% fuel saving.”
All correct, thank you Dennis. These facts were written in the highly credible report “Wind Report 2005”, published that year by E.ON Netz of Germany, then the largest wind power generator in the world. That report is cited below and the pertinent words are quoted verbatim.
We knew all this in 2005 – I published similar thoughts in 2002, and yet here we are, with ten of trillions of dollars and hundreds of millions of lives squandered, based on false climate hysteria and intermittent, diffuse green energy nonsense.
So my question is:
ARE OUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS AND THEIR ADVISORS REALLY THAT STUPID, as even today they parrot global warming and green energy falsehoods, or do they have a darker, more sinister agenda?
My conclusion is that they are knowingly trying to destroy our Western economies, to turn our countries into serfdoms with themselves at the helm, the new kings of a totalitarian world.
If you think this is an outlandish hypothesis, look around. More than half the people in the world already live under such oppression. Venezuela and Zimbabwe are fully destroyed, as is much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Continental Europe is failing due to green energy fiascos and unchecked immigration, and Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA are all under attack. The popular media keeps repeating the same green energy falsehoods, and suppresses and distorts dissent from the few skeptics who dare to speak out.
Canada, led by a child-prince with no apparent education or intellect and surrounded by ultra-green, uber-left energy advisors, is not Canada anymore. We are Canazuela, part way to the economic ruin that has devastated Venezuela, once the most prosperous country in Latin America due to its heavy-oil resources.
Regards, Allan
____________________
Reference: E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
This is a really old post I wrote – probably circa 2005 to 2008:
Quote:
The Duke has it right – the fatal flaw of wind power is that it requires almost 100% backup capacity from conventional power stations.
This is even true of very large, country-wide distributed grids.
Willis, to verify, check Figure 7 of the E.On Netz Wind Report 2005 that I emailed you today, which refers to Germany’s power grid.
E.On Netz was in 2005, and may still be, the largest wind power generator in the world.
(Quote from Wind Report 2005)
Fig 7. Falling substitution capacity
The more wind power capacity is in the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace.
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.
(End of quote)
Also, wind power can dangerously destabilize the entire power grid. See Figure 5 & 6 in the same report.
(Quote)
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.
(End of quote)
This reliable information has been available for years, and has been ignored. I know this is true, because I published it online and in newspaper articles, starting in 2002.
A trillion dollars [now tens of trillions of dollars] has been squandered worldwide on climate hysteria, much of it on nonsensical wind power. Jesus wept.
*****************
Thank you for spelling “Allan” correctly. Not all do.
“or do they have a darker, more sinister agenda? ”
That’s easy …. they are malevolent.
A long time ago I worked a social work job. All the staff had to attend seminars a couple of times a year, most of which were awful. But once we had a seminar on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. One key phrase stayed with me for life. “We have to act often as “external brains” for the people who’s brain cortex was thinned by one of many processes.”
I’m sure you could instantly name the person who is back acting as our Prime Minister’s external brain.
As I replied earlier to Allan, I had a chance conversation with one of my relatives who had been working on an advisory committee to the Trudeau government. They had been working on the idea of how the government would change 20 to 40 years out. My relative told me that the world could not continue with business as usual and there had to be fundamental changes to our expectations of wealth. His descriptions of this brave new world included considerably more control of the common folk and more rage over which they would have control. Very much sounded like “And Now for Something Completely Different” AKA “This Changes Everything” from Naiomi Klein, a return to the bucolic, horse powered past where life was simpler, easier, .. or to paraphrase nasty, brutish and short. The relative also talked about redistribution of wealth (much loved by have nots) phasing out fossil fuels on accelerated timetables and limiting use of air travel.
A few things I said coupled with rolling eyeballs made him realize I was not reading from the same script and he went on to talk to others.
Yes Allan, I would say that our leaders are indeed that stupid and that they are already working on a dystopian future for the lesser beings.
Malcolm, please contact me thrum my website.
https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/look-wind-and-solar-part-2-there-upper-limit-variable-renewables
https://renewablesnow.com/news/overview-german-wind-industry-calls-for-special-auctions-amid-expansion-slowdown-621465/
https://www.smard.de/en/topic-article/5870/9846
Here’s some excellent sources about Germany’s current grid dilema.
I like the first article’s discussion of the engineering realization that, as a rule of thumb, the %penetration into the market must not exceed the inherent source’s % capacity factor.
For wind that means no one is going to get above ~40% renewable without serious consequences of reliable grid delivery.
That of helps Illuminate the engineering lies of Mark Jacobsen and his 100% renewable snake oil.
“For wind that means no one is going to get above ~40% renewable without serious consequences of reliable grid delivery.”
No one is going to get above ~20% renewable without serious consequences of reliable grid delivery. See Denny – Cost Benefit Analysis of Wind Power
Dodgy;
I think Joel’s comment was based strictly on the technical issues, not considering the economics.
“Germany got 47% of electricity from renewables in the first 6 months of 2019.”
What’s your point?
The point I see is BS. Northern European country got 40% of it’s electricity from wind and solar during the months of January, February, March, April, May and June? Bullshyte. Been lied to by many people, leftist scum being the primary sources of said lies. If Germany was getting 40% of it’s electricity from wind and solar then every country south of 40 lat would be 100% solar and wind. They ain’t, and ain’t gonna be, so I call BS on that 40% claim. I got a feeling you see through that crap same as I do.
Check out this recently published article:
https://stopthesethings.com/2019/07/30/die-already-when-will-the-wind-and-solar-industries-finally-collapse/
The extent of penetration is speculation.
As long as we are speculating, I’ll say 30%, as I have been on these pages for ten years. But that too is a guestimate.
The limiting factor is the fixed cost of the backup. No one is going to keep a coal/gas plant running if they can’t make any money off it. Their fixed cost continues regardless of operation.
If renewables aren’t going to pay the fixed cost of the backup, at some level of penetration the backup goes away. People will pay whatever it takes to keep the backup available. They aren’t going to pay for both. Renewables free ride ends somewhere, whether 20-30-40%.
I get the impression that some of the supporters of wind energy are beginning to wake up to the reality of it and would be quietly happy if any obstacles arise that causes a move away from wind energy without them having to admit that perhaps it is not such a savior after all.
One of the big problems I found as “Chairman of the Scottish Climate and Energy Group”, was that I found that almost all the wind groups were strong believers in the global warming non-science.
So, the “debate” about wind was between the politicians pushing wind to “save the planet” and rich “Greens” who’d bought a nice house in the country for the “environment” and the view, being terribly upset that their view was going to be destroyed by windmills.
So, the typical letter was “I know we need to save the planet … but Not In My Back Yard”. Indeed, though I trice talked at their conference, they only allowed me to speak on condition I wouldn’t talk about climate.
Not just the view.
Let them build one of those things anywhere near where one lives, and say good bye to peace and quiet and serenity. There is no escape from the noise, which may be far worse than merely annoying.
Persistent noise can ruin a persons life if they have the misfortune of having their brain become focused and fixated on it. And that is for a tiny sound like a buzzing from a fluorescent lamp or a leaking faucet.
Then there is the property value aspect. My guess is that having a bunch of these built nearby will make some homes virtually unsalable. And even a small reduction in interested buyers can depress the value of a home.
Just wait until it sinks into their thick skulls what inaudible infrasound does to the human body.
Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira will be delivering a presentation at the University of Waterloo on September 12th. She is an expert on LFN and infrasound radiation.
More than half of the turbines in the largest project in Ontario have finally been declared non-compliant for tonal noise and have been permanently derated:https://london.ctvnews.ca/turbines-near-goderich-to-be-slowed-down-to-reduce-sound-1.4487408
This derating however, does not reduce the whomping and swooshing sounds which residents have also been reporting for the past four years.
Exactly whose ox is gored determining how one feels is hardly a surprise, given this exact human tendency was a subject of biblical parables.
For almost any development, somebody will feel that their ox is gored. The trouble is that we’ve given almost everyone the right to hold up any development. That means nothing gets developed.
When I was a kid, I was talking to my dad about some development. I asked about the people who would be displaced. He replied that it was the price of progress.
We’ve lost sight of the idea of progress. Now, it’s all about rights and grievances. We desperately need to see the other side of the coin.
“We’ve lost sight of the idea of progress.”
The hilarious part is that it’s the ‘Progressives’ who oppose progress.
RE: “The hilarious part is that it’s the ‘Progressives’ who oppose progress.”
Classic Alinsky. If you want to stop progress, call yourself a “progressive.” If you are uninformed and live your life in a hyper emotional state similar to sleep walking, call yourself “woke.” If you wear a distinctive uniform and use violence, threats and physical intimidation to advance your goals, exactly like Hitler’s fascist Brown Shirts, call yourself “Antifa.”
And if you are against democracy, call yourself a Democrat.
Canary in the coal mine moment for the rest of the Free world.
When your CO2 emissions are increasing with each incremental increase in %renewable and your middle class is getting hammered with 3X electricity rates, those chickens will come home to poop on your party.
Progressives only think they can repeal the laws of physics and hard engineering trade-offs with wishful thinking. Those retiring wind farms can’t be replaced without a further doubling of the capital costs. And that’s not going to happen, so % renewable will begin a slow pullback in Germany in a few years, before accelerating downward once the fever breaks.
Joel, “% renewable will begin a slow pullback in Germany in a few years”
Agree, my guesstimate is 2021 0r 2022 will be the peak year for German renewables. after that capacity decommissioning will exceed commissioning. About the same time the nuclear phase out will end. Brilliant German engineers have applied the most beautiful lipstick humanly possible on wind generation…the most pig ugly “power” source ever invented. Never should have happened. Total waste.
You do realize your are talking reason, not religion or politics?
Which you you honestly think rules?
“just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts.” But on average they will deliver just 69 MW at a 30% capacity factor and on occasion they will deliver zero, so must be 100% backed up with reliable coal/gas/hydro. When subsidies go away, so will “free” wind power.
You are too optimistic! German wind turbines have on average capacity factor of 18%.
And I would think that the windiest days are not the hottest or the coldest days, and thus not likely to be when power is most in demand.
I would be interested to see the numbers for demand and renewable generation during the recent “record” hot and cold periods.
Some of that information is here: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm for Germany, and here http://gridwatch.co.uk/ for the UK
Those crazy Huns, 18%, wow, just wow!
I expect that the best sites were built up first.
Each successive site is going to have even less favorable winds.
Its been a long time coming, but all of a sudden the different objections have started to come together, NIMBY, they spoil the view.
The supersonic noise of the tips of the blades affects peoples health, again a NIMBY factor. Plus those blades kill birds and bats.
The unrealisable factor, no good at slow or fast wind speeds, or no wind at all. They need back up, which coming from fossil fuel generators makes a mockery of the so called savings of the dreaded CO2 emissions.
There locations which are usually far from where the power is required, ,the cost of the towers and wires, plus loss due to the resistance of the wires.
But one of th big ones is that they cause major problems on the Grid. DC has to be converted to AC then matched with both the voltage and the frequency of the Grid.
They were never a good idea, but the “”Save the Planet”” factor caused
people to initially overlook all of these problems. But now slowly people are realising that the Planet does not need saving after all.
Its ironical that its the nature lovers shocked at the killing of the birds and bats, especially the endangered ones, as against the anti CO2 Greens.
Here in Australia the best thing to happen is that of our number one Greenie Bob Brown has turned into a NIMBY when the wind farms got to his island of Tasmania.
His opposition to the proposed wind farm on Robbins Island will
be used in Court cases all over Australia.
MJE VK5ELL
“The supersonic noise of the tips of the blades affects peoples health”
They are fast, but not that fast. The fastest is about 200 mph. The infrasound pulses are generated when a blade pressurizes the air as it passes the pylon.
re: “But one of th[e] big ones is that they cause major problems on the Grid. DC has to be converted to AC then …”
Enlighten the group; since when were they ‘commutatating’ the output of the wind genny to create DC? Any rotating “generator” produces AC unless commutation (brushes against the commutator) of the armature (rotor) takes place.
Let’s assume it works this way then (instead): The windmill genny produces AC, which is then rectified, producing DC, which is then run through to the 3-phase power inverter for application to the grid?
(Alternately, they could produce AC directly, at 60 (or 50 HZ for EU) and synchronize that onto the ‘grid’ … )
de WB5 .– .–. .- (who had a couple 160 meter ‘spots’ overnight on WSPR mode by DP0GVN located at the German research station in Antarctica, along with only 3 other US stations)
It was 2010 when the Nantucket windfarm was approved over the NIMBY objections of Robert Kennedy.
“punch in the gut of the green energy transition”
I would call that a swing and a miss then, because there is no such thing as a transition to green energy except in the troubled minds of fantasists and the delusional.
This is what happens when reality decides to to kick you in the face !
This article is only ONSHORE wind, isn’t it?
Completely ignores continuing offshore wind in Germany!
https://renews.biz/54335/german-offshore-output-up-30/
“The German offshore wind industry added 252MW of new capacity in the first half of 2019, according to figures from Deutsche WindGuard.
Developers installed a total of 42 turbines to bring the grid connected total to just under 6.7GW.
A further 679MW is under construction, the figures show”
Yes. Germany is Wending it’s war farther and farther Northward in hopes of finding untapped reserves of kinetic energy sources
And, what want you to tell us ?
Offshore wasn’t in question, in the respective context irrelevant.
“figures” are used to lie all the time, that is why you trot them out, griffie.
Joel, “% renewable will begin a slow pullback in Germany in a few years”
Agree, my guesstimate is 2021 0r 2022 will be the peak year for German renewables. after that capacity decommissioning will exceed commissioning. About the same time the nuclear phase out will end. Brilliant German engineers have applied the most beautiful lipstick humanly possible on wind generation…the most pig ugly “power” source ever invented. Never should have happened. Total waste.
OR — big subsidies will be renewed. Can’t let the conquest of the West fail through parsimony.
Griff,
Don’t expect any additional German offshore wind after 2022…They’re not THAT stupid.
Offshore wind turbines have a greater capacity factor but not enough more to make up for the fact that they cost twice as much to install and maintain and last half as long. The main driver for offshore wind is, out of site and out of mind, solving the NIMBY problem while allowing the political corruption to continue a little longer.
Take an already un-economic source of power, and make it twice as expensive.
Only a liberal would think that’s a great deal.
If your windmills are going to slaughter birds and bats by the bushel they need a darn good reason for being there.
Put them out at sea, fewer deaths, all fish food…
The reason I originally gave up work and started working for free on climate, was because the groups who society usually look to, to oppose stupid industrial development and to question government policy, were actively encouraging the wholesale destruction of the wilderness and the mass slaugher of birds and bats.
Finally, we are starting to see some balance in the “debate” – albeit only on the issue of whether to put these bird bat killing monsters up, but no doubt that will eventually spill over to more some way from the wholly distorted “debate” on science toward a mid position (CO2 sensitivity <<1C).
“bird bat killing monsters”
Apparently, insects too. They are, essentially, eco-system disruptors.
Busted Bugs: German Wind Turbines Demolishing 1,200 Tonnes of Insects Each Year
https://stopthesethings.com/2019/05/23/busted-bugs-german-wind-turbines-demolishing-1200-tonnes-of-insects-each-year/
Extract/sample:
——————————————————-
Q: What was the starting point for your study?
A: Trieb: An extensive body of technical literature currently shows that large swarms of flying insects also seek high, fast air currents. They allow themselves to be carried by the wind to distant breeding grounds. Observations and measurements have been able to detect high insect concentrations worldwide at altitudes between 20 and 220 metres above the ground – the very same altitudes occupied by the rotors of wind turbines.
best news Ive read today;-)
and it would be excellent to raise the matter of all the defunct and NONrecyclable rare earths etc in the defunct turbines and dismantling/ removal costs..energy used to facilitate that too.
A pyramidal scheme indeed. Those who came in first cashed big subsides and with the blessing of turbine equipment contractors / suppliers, trolled happily for even more.
They sure have lucid engineers and analysts to determine the right moment to pull-out of the scheme when nation’s financial reserves would deplete beyond profitable margins.
Parasites have little choice. Die with their victim or abandon it for a new healthier one.
What is so amazing to me about the onshore wind farm movement, is how the indutrialisation of previously unspoiled landscapes, that have been protected for generations from development is waved aside as a nothing issue. The Greens are beyond logic they have no consistency they have no knowledge about science and they have no concern for the well-being of the environment. The previously pristine undeveloped environment of the countryside is being raped by Green urban based thugs, for nothing, other than spite and jealousy.
It certainly has nothing to do with generating reliable energy.
Rod Evans
“The previously pristine undeveloped environment of the countryside is being raped by Green urban based thugs…”
Sorry: this is simply nonsense.
Take for example Germany with about 25,000 onshore units, each needing for optimal wind use 8 ha, of which 0.5 ha are in fact needed for basement and maintenance crane places. Thus you have 12,500 ha covered with concrete, i.e. 125 km².
The rest remains unchanged. It can’t be used for anything else, but does that suddenly become a ‘spoiled landscape’ ? You really are exaggerating excessively.
Compare that with actually 15,000,000 private houses needing on average 120 m² place on ground: that makes 1,800 km² in the sum, to which you must add roads and all the other basic infrastructure.
The dramatically increasing wish of so many of us to escape from appartments in towns, and to live in a little house outside is an incredibly more important factor.
A diet highly enriched with beans for the German populace will go a long way in resolving this problem.
Germany’s climate targets already failed.
Nope the plan is to ship in polar bears to run in wheel structures for food … a win-win situation
collapse of german grid.
this seems to have been reported here for years. I suppose one eon it may happen?
[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:
April 27, 2014 in Climate News. ]
What you see is – the engineers remaining just one step ahead of the ‘problem’ state or stage.
Flight Level – Is yours here possibly near zero?
“… the right moment to pull-out of the scheme when nation’s financial reserves would deplete beyond profitable margins.”
From the head post above:
Oh sorry! I forgot to ask you wether or not you read the head post! I apologise!
*
My experience is rather this: in Germany as in France, lots of quite wealthy people live in big houses far away from the cities and even farer away form the sites producing the energy they use in huge amounts.
And the sensation of these people that their beautiful home is disturbed, is the real cause of tens of thousands of lawsuits against the construction of wind turbines, submitted by powerful civic associations.
Nuclear power plants? Coal-fired plants? Wind power plants? Super fast highways? Huge supermarkets with immense parking spaces?
Yes gladly! But please not near us.
The shameful thing is that these civic associations loudly rant against the allegedly so many birds killing wind turbines, but make no sound about the millionfold killing of birds by well-nourished cats.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
In regard to cats & birds. The crows and ravens tha have occupied the belt of spruce along our side of the bay here have moved to the other side – someone is feeding them there. This year for the first time in years, there are lots of small birds in the garden and we hope the swallows will reappear. When people complain about cats, they fail to take account of other sources of bird mortality. Birdnesting by the Corvus family is usually ignored, but is really devastating. Our cat does get some birds, but he makes up for it by leaving parts of rats on the back patio on a regular basis. Rats are also a hazard for nesting birds, BTW.
What an interesting comment in the article;
Turbine makers call it a “punch in the gut of the green energy transition” and blame environmentalists.
You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside and at last the environmentalists seem to have woken up to the reality that the best position for turbines is often straddling our finest upland landscapes . As they are often nowhere near the grid or the consumers wanting the power, then very damaging pylons also then need to be built striding across often unspoilt countryside.
Its not easy being green but sometimes the problems are just brushed aside. A sort of ‘inconvenient truth.’
tonyb
It seems the original, classical environmentalists are speaking up to challenge the Green Blob environmentalists. Classical environmentalists are concerned about forests and wildlife, as opposed to the Green Blobbers who want to impose authoritarianism to “save the planet”. Good for the classical environmentalists!
Quote : “35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts.”
This can’t be true. First, the specs will provide NAMEPLATE output, not actual output, which runs in the 20% range for onshore wind.
But 231 MW from just 35 turbines means turbines have nameplate capacities of more than 7 MW per turbine. I am unaware of any turbines that large.
Per the graphic, it was 35 net turbines added, with 86 built and 51 replaced for a net 35 add. Same on the MW, 287 gross add, 56 decommed, net 231 added.
It has been a bad year for wind meisters. That exhaustive study that evaluated the performance of wind farms showed lifespan and maintenance costs far worse that promised . Lifespans were roughly half for the large turbines, which essentially double the cost of their power, which contradicts claims by wind folk of the cost of wind.
Any guesses where Germany is going to get enough “CO2 free” energy in 2030?
It will have to be Nuclear. Wholesale Solar is a bigger environmental nightmare than Wind…and requires 100% backup every day for half a day…so costs too much.
A possible 3rd option for 2030 German energy in 2030 is Gas and Coal after the Climate COOLS for a decade and the CAGW fraud moves into the Court system where German citizens clamor for the return of funds from 3X energy costs for 2 decades…FOR NOTHING.
But hey, there is still a lot of good money to be had working at high places on towers with expensive cranes and triple that with offshore versions of each. The one employee working at the passive solar farm can watch from a distance with binoculars.
35? That’s not even enough to replace those that break down and can’t be repaired.
I read through several articles and can’t find the figures on how many of these wind turbines are being lost prior to their “use by date” due to mechanical failure. I have some friends who work for contractors erecting and servicing wind turbines here in PA and they are seeing a lot of them being taken out and replaced much sooner than the manufacturers list them for service. They are also doing a lot more service work than they were originally setup to do. They ain’t complaining, they get paid and paid well, just pointing out there is a good deal of deception at work in selling people on wind power. Is the same true in Germany?
Just south of the White Mts., in Groton NH is a hideous 24-turbine 48-MW installation up on Tenney Mtn. and Fletcher Ridge, built in 2012. They used the usual Greenie lies and hucksterism to push the project through. Concerns about the visual impact (which is huge) were blithely waved aside, with arguments about “dirty coal” and “dangerous nuclear”, as well “dependence on foreign oil” (that’s a good one), and dangers of terrorism. Small-town folk didn’t stand much of a chance against it.
We have recently had occasion to drive up to Rumney twice, about two weeks apart, and on each trip, the blades on those things stood motionless. They will stand for decades, despoiling the view as monuments to a global stupidity of a scale never before seen in human history.
I drive between Pittsburgh and DC several times a year and go to Cape Cod, I 80 to I 95, and pass a lot of wind turbines on both routes. Always like to count how many are not turning. It has taken the place of looking for tags from farthest away and punch buggy!
Apparently, Falmouth on the Cape has shut down its two turbines.
Ahhhh, thats a shame! Was it because of the sharknadoe invasion? 😉
Nope, something far more devastating.
~¿~
Nice! But do they have lasers on their heads?
“dangers of terrorism”
There’s no energy source more susceptible to terrorism than wind turbines. All it takes to destroy one is a bullet to the oil pan (assuming it’s operating).
Drain it and it dies, just like a vehicle.
“The discrepancy between claim and reality is growing.”—Hermann Albers, President of the German Wind Energy Association, as quoted in the above article.
Words best directed to the IPCC and climate alarmists in general.
“It’s not about the money,” said Albers:”
Really? Above was the statement:
” But when in 2021 thousands of wind turbines come to the end of the 20-year subsidy period…”
I doubt they care about any of the implications of wind power’s failures other than keeping the gravy train and the wealth transfer from the middle class going.
I still haven’t seen an answer to the question “as these turbines reach end of life how much will it cost to remove, scrap, and replace them?” Depending on the environment I’ve read about lifespans of 10 to 20 years on average (can’t verify). We’re talking about a never ending replacement cycle of a mechanism that can’t pay for itself unless you increase the cost of the electricity. Do advocates believe wind turbines are a one time cost? Enough of them are out there to know maintenance costs so how does that figure in? Offshore turbines seem especially vulnerable to the elements. Add intermittency to the wind turbine equation is there anything good about them?
No idea how long the average windmill is supposed to last, but about a year and a half ago one at a wind farm 30 miles from my home collapsed. Bent at the middle of the tower, and the turbine housing came right down like a 100 ton helicopter crash.
Beautiful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nuV36fvgQ
According to a few articles I’ve read, some wind installations have been abandoned when the subsidies ended. It was claimed that almost nowhere in the world are there any costs or requirements for disassembly or removal in the contracts, so companies are able to just walk away. True??
griff,
yes, there are problems with red tape and continuing grid connections North to South… but these are temporary.
How long is temporary, 10 years? Lots of NIMBY opposition for above ground transmission lines to connect offshore wind to industrial sites in the south and insufficient $capital to bury the transmission lines. Renewable energy is a fool’s errand. Give it up. Restart the nukes. Save a $trillion.