By P Gosselin
Blackout News: “EON chief warns of a cost explosion due to transition to green energies.”
Blackout News here reports that there’s no end in sight for Germany’s self-inflicted energy crisis. Energy prices are expected to continue rising, thus posing a huge risk to industry.
This is of course no surprise as Germany, driven by radical green dogmatism, has shut down its fleet of nuclear power plants and is moving to also eliminate power plants fired by coal and natural gas. The country’s economy and environmental policy is led by economics minister Robert Habeck.
The problem is that Habeck is woefully unqualified for leading the country’s federal economics ministry.
In 2000,Habeck received his doctorate in literature and philosophy at University Hamburg, and has no experience in any fields of economics, business, engineering or energy.
Recently Habeck claimed that companies do not go bankrupt, rather they just stop producing, and that the economy was okay – “only the numbers are bad”.
EON chief warns of further rising energy costs
At the beginning of the year, head of Eon, Leonard Birnbaum, announced higher electricity prices and this is “now manifesting itself in reality,” reports Blackout News. “A few weeks after this forecast, energy companies EnBW and EWE announced their intention to increase tariffs.”
The increase will average 6%.
Birnbaum blames “increased investment costs” as the expansion of renewable energies and their integration into the electricity grid requires “rapid and intelligent grid expansion as well as sufficient reserve capacity”.
“In view of current developments, Birnbaum warns of further price increases if the political leadership does not take decisive countermeasures. Energy-intensive industry in particular is severely affected by rising electricity costs, which jeopardizes its competitiveness.”
Birnbaum also says that wind energy has been hampered by “uncoordinated planning” and “the problem of overloading the electricity grids due to the uneven distribution of wind turbines.”
Governments are incapable of running anything, they need to be as far removed from energy production and transmission as possible. No person or organization could have screwed Germany up this bad. Only government is capable of this kind of destruction.
The prime requirement for a politician is the ability to enunciate carefully crafted bullshit with conviction and a straight face. That is why so many lawyers are in governments.
The only lawyers in government are those that couldn’t make it in the private sector :<)
Can you imagine that the Greens wonder why they are in the center of disfavor ?
The problem is not so much that Habeck is incompetent (although as a Green he obviously is by definition), the problem is that no country should have an economics minister. Central planning is at best woefully inefficient and usually corrupt to boot.
Let the market allocate resources. A light hand on regulation may be needed to discourage criminal behavior such as price fixing and fraudulent business practices but not ‘industrial policy’ mandating outcomes, subsidizing actions that would otherwise be uneconomic, and penalizing legitimate economic activities.
At least that’s the view from my cave this morning. (Ref: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-calls-climate-change-deniers-neanderthals-during-border-speech-texas.amp )
The problem is, Habeck is Minister of Economics and Minister of Climate Protection – will say 2 contradicting positions.
That’s Germany !
Isn’t it the Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz? One ministry, not one minister with two portfolios.
It’s like the Ministry of Agriculture and Space Exploration
Or more aptly, the Ministry of Defence and Silly Walks
He’s the Minister for Commerce and Climate Protection, not the Minister of Commerce and the Minister of Climate Protection. The Minister of Oxymorons
No difference for me, what ever he may built up with his hands, while turning around he breaks it down with his backside. 😀
“No person or organization could have screwed Germany up this bad. Only government is capable of this kind of destruction.”
Or, as I like to say it Bob: “To err is human, but to really screw things up requires government.”
Somebody needs to tell Herr Birnbaum and the other CEOs that appeasement never works. Those CEOs need to tell it like it is and stop f*rting around trying not to upset their farcically incompetent government. The people would understand, and when the people turned up in Berlin with pitchforks, guess what – the government would understand too.
In big companies the CEO is not the boss, he is just the top employee, who got a mandate from the owners, when he was appointed. Therefore ones shouldn’t expect too much criticism of governments coming from CEOs, it’s just not their job to do so. Crucial are the wealthy owners of the companies, but especially for them the Green Transition scam was seen as “next big thing” to get high profits from subsidies paid by taxes. If the owners start to change their view, when also their profits go downhill, the CEOs will end their appeasement and there are first signs that this is now starting to happen. But IMHO more important will be the outcome of EU-election in June, since the majority of Green Deal supporters is small.
The norm in Germany is a 3-party political coalition. In order to accomplish unanimity, the coalition must pander to the lowest common denominator constantly reducing and simplifying substantive issues to a level they can agree to, rather than putting things at a level that’s more suitable for the Country as a whole.
Lowest Common denominator
disapproving — used to say that the quality of something is poor because it is designed or intended to appeal to the largest possible number of people
Other sources
The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator
Part of: Populism In Europe
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2013
Matthijs Rooduijn
…populists in different times and places have four characteristics in common: (1) they emphasize the central position of the people; (2) they criticize the elite; (3) they perceive the people as a homogeneous entity; and (4) they proclaim a serious crisis. These four characteristics constitute the core elements of populism….
“Surprise, surprise, surprise.” -Gomer Pyle, USMC
Talking of a real mess…
“(Labour leader) Keir Starmer, this is for Gaza,” Galloway said in his victory speech which was interrupted by a heckler challenging him on his climate change credentials. She was drowned out by his supporters chanting “Galloway”.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/with-labour-his-sights-left-winger-galloway-wins-english-town-2024-03-01/
The English electorate, and maybe the Scottish too, is off the leash and liable to run almost anywhere. Its going to be a very interesting general election. Reform are probably encouraged by the result, though their own performance was pretty poor. Because it shows that the electorate is very mobile.
“”The English electorate””
The constituency is majority Muslim
And Galloway is nothing if not opportunistic…
In reality the electorate is faced with an Anti Semitic Labour party, a Tory party split into those who revere Tony B. Liar, the worst prime minister in a lifetime and those who lean towards Margaret Thatcher, possibly the best. Plus the Limp Dims, a coalition of hand wringing bleeding heart liberals with all the ability of a wet blanket and the charisma of a dung beetle, supporting eco EU policies…
Plus the Scottish National Party in Scotland who have done more to render Scotland utterly dependent on England than any one could imagine was possible, Plaid Cymru who along with their socialist chums ae busy destroying Welsh transport and agriculture. A northern Ireland now in the process of being handed back to the EU.
I mean who wouldn’t vote Reform? What ultimately could be worse?
Rochdale by-election results in full
These are the full results of the Rochdale by-election:
I think Rochdale is about 30% Muslim. But something else is going on, in additon to Gaza – look at Tully, independent. I think the signs are that the electorate in England generally is getting very volatile.
Labour has been a religion in many places in England. When you lose your religion, you don’t end up believing nothing, you end up believing anything at all that presents itself. This is what is happening. Happened previously in Scotland and the vote swung to the SNP. Now that is dying, all bets are off.
Going to be a very interesting general election.
For clarity.
Was not standing as the Labour Candidate. The Labour Party was not endorsing him. As such, the Labour vote had to go elsewhere.
The Labour party sacked Azhar Ali when a recording of him spouting paranoid conspiracy theories was found from back in September.
Shortly after the massacre by Hamas, Ali said at a private meeting that Israel knew the attack was coming and permitted it to go ahead as a pretext to invade Gaza.
Very silly. Blaming victims for the massacre is also morally wrong.
And besides, Israel has never needed a pretext to invade its neighbours as they all hate Israel in return.
I’m not sure I’d bet much money on Ali ultimately being proven wrong. I’m no fan of Hamas and a supporter of Israel, but for Mossad and the IDF to truly have been caught unawares is almost completely inconceivable to me. I understand just how cynical this makes me.
Maybe the innocent explanation is that there were double agents preventing intel from being properly interpreted. Or even total incompetents in critical roles. But is it not conceivable that Netanyahu would make the calculation that he needs a war between the West and Iran to neutralize the nuclear threat before it’s too late? A lot more Israelis would die in an airburst over Tel Aviv. Without some dramatic change in Iran, that day can’t be too far off.
The needle is moving in Oz-
‘Needle is moving’: Poll shows people prefer lower power prices to power source (msn.com)
It was always their looney prescriptions that will bring the doomsters undone.
My sister’s ex husband, from Bavaria:
“In Germany, there are fifty two professors of Gender Studies, and only one professor of Nuclear Science. The Socialists and the Greens have destroyed Germany”.
They can TikTok together on their Chinese coal fired phones-
Global energy-related CO2 emissions hit record high in 2023 – IEA (msn.com)
You shouldn’t believe everything.
It was probably just a joke that would turn out to be directionally accurate, Lusername.
Obviously there are more than 52 Gender Studies professors in a country the size of Germany. But I agree with you that there probably aren’t any Nuclear Science profs.
It fails even as a joke. It’s just nonsense.
It’s actually not a joke. I had a look online to debunk it and I struggled to find more than 2 current professors of Nuclear Science anywhere in Germany. On the other hand, Berlin University alone has 7 professors of Gender Studies currently. You’re right, it fails as a joke but tell me where the nonsense is please?
Another irony meter-melter.
The Stupid! It burns!!
So true.
Especially when “leaders” tell you that untested “vaccines” are “safe and effective”.
A few nuclear profs still work in Germany. Some of them working in nuclear energy research have been interviewed on the Titans of Nuclear podcast.
But like many if not most other advocates of nuclear in the western nations, they are deep into pushing the Net Zero transition as a means of promoting nuclear power and technology.
We buy nuclear for its energy reliability and energy security benefits. For which we are obliged to pay a premium over what combined cycle gas-fired generation costs, mostly in the form of amortizing the large upfront capital costs.
The real question for potential customers of nuclear power is this. How much of a premium should we be willing to pay for the energy security and reliability benefits of nuclear power over and above what we would pay for CCGT?
What you should be asking is how much longer will anti-human advocates be permitted to use excessive regulation and lawfare to artificially inflate the cost of nuclear power? It was once the lowest cost source. The French transitioned to 70% nuclear in what, 10 years?
Regulation and lawfare is no longer a primary factor in the cost of nuclear power. It is an important secondary factor, especially for the advanced reactor designs which have yet to receive NRC approval. But it is no longer a primary factor.
The primary driving factor in the upfront cost of nuclear is the worldwide competition for industrial resources in general, and the growing worldwide demand for specialized and competent nuclear industrial base resources in particular.
France no longer has a nuclear construction industrial base which is comparable to the one that existed in France forty years ago. Nor does the UK nor does the United States.
Another two decades of hard work will be necessary to recover the level of nuclear construction expertise and capability the US had in 1985. Until that capability is recovered, we will not see the capital costs of nuclear construction projects done in America return to levels comparable to what they were at the end of the 1980’s
Sorry BB, I don’t find that to be a persuasive case. Yes, the decline and aging out of skilled technical workers is a problem across the board. But that is a secondary factor to design and testing requirements that mandate excessive redundancy and labor relative to techniques applied in the 1970s and 1980s. It’s also not a factor in the ambiguous business risk that regulations might be tightened or capriciously delayed by politically motivated bureaucrats. Who can risk a multi-billion dollar investment on unpredictable regulatory actions?
Labor and skills shortages certainly imply a competition for workers that increases cost. But if you had no shortage at all, doubling the amount of labor operations would still double the cost. And obviously, drag out timelines and increase demand and competition for labor when it is in short supply.
The country needs to stop training gender studies justice warriors and return to training skilled tradesmen and engineers. That applies to every industrial enterprise, not just nuclear power. Even if we do that, it won’t revive the nuclear industry unless we get the regulatory monkey off its back.
Rich Davis, speaking as someone who has spent most of my working career dealing with the NRC’s and other federal requirements for nuclear construction and operations, I can say that sure, the NRC’s ALARA requirements and other facets of its regulatory requirements which affect conduct of operations once a nuclear plant becomes operational should be reduced and/or even eliminated.
But the NRC’s quality assurance requirements for the manufacture and installation of safety-affecting systems and components cannot and will not be either reduced nor eliminated. The public interest demands that elimination of the QA requirements cannot and will not be allowed to happen.
It is these QA requirements which, if properly followed, have the collateral benefit of supplying the basic project management discipline needed to keep a nuclear construction project on course for completion.
The cancellation of the NuScale Idaho project is a prime example of what is happening with the problems now being faced by Nuclear Renaissance 2.0.
NRC approval for the uprated NuScale design was on track for timely approval. The US-DOE’s commitment to support the project was still in place. The NuScale-Fluor project team had met their commitment to UAMPS and its member utilities to provide an honest and accurate project cost and schedule estimate for constructing the Idaho plant.
Here was/is the real problem.
NuScale’s honest and accurate cost and schedule revealed that the costs of all facets of the Idaho construction project, not just those affected by nuclear safety considerations, had risen substantially over the last four years — steel, concrete, mobilization, skilled professional and craft labor, industrial consumables, major power generation and distribution equipment such as the steam turbine/generators and the power transformers. And last but not least, the cost of money.
Nuclear power is an industrial endeavor with a capital ‘I’. The basic issue here is that neither the US nor the UK nor France nor most western nations currently have the robust industrial base needed to pursue a revival of nuclear power construction in a way that is cost effective enough to satisfy the needs of potential nuclear power customers.
Unless that situation changes for the better, we will not see a revival of nuclear power construction in the United States.
It’s possible that Canada will move forward with new-build nuclear construction. But only because the Canadians have the commitment, the deep pockets, and the government funding needed to push their nuclear programs forward in the face of these very serious industrial base issues.
I’m not sure we really disagree as much as you think BB. My perspective is more along the lines that alarmists want us to believe that these cost issues permanently disadvantage nuclear power relative to offshore wind for example. But these cost issues actually impact the entire economy. Even as we see SMR projects struggle with wage and price inflation, we see offshore wind contracts terminated and re-bid at outrageous new prices.
If we go through a new learning curve with a new workforce, nuclear power can be a competitive source of power again, but no matter what is done with wind and solar capital cost-wise, they still remain intermittent unreliable sources that require full backup. Compared to the eye-watering cost of dangerous battery backup, and the expansion of the grid into wilderness areas, nuclear is downright cheap.
The difference between Nuscale and NY/NJ offshore wind projects, if you will look at it honestly, is that in the latter case, the bidders are so confident of the lack of political risk that they terminate binding contracts and pay penalties in order to be able to make new, much higher bids that they rightly expect their corrupt cronies to sign off on, while the former can’t even be confident that living up to their commitments, they would be allowed to begin operation in a timely manner.
I don’t buy in to the need to constrain carbon dioxide emissions, so if it were my decision, we would focus on natural gas exclusively so long as that is the least cost solution. However, if we were going to waste a trillion dollars a year pursuing a pointless goal anyway, I would want all of that money to go toward overpaying for nuclear power plants.
Natural gas is very versatile for a great many applications. It seems wasteful to simply burn it for base load energy supply, for which nuclear is ideally suitable. IMHO, we ought to use nuclear to supply a significant fraction of the non-variable portion of electricity demand, and for industrial heat needs, and reserve natural gas for the variable portion and chemical uses.
Great idea but first CCGT needs to be widely deployed to restore affordable electricity. If we keep pouring money down the unaffordable and unworkable sunshine and breezes rabbit hole, we’ll never have the capital resources to make the transition to small scale modular nuclear.
I don’t get the fascination with the idea that we need to save oil or natural gas for making plastics and other petrochemicals, James. We can never ‘use up’ methane any more than we could use up water electrolyzing it to make hydrogen. The carbon isn’t going away. It’s all about the energy. As long as there’s CO2 in the atmosphere, we will always have biomass that can be used with any heat source to make synthesis gas. Not to mention centuries of coal supply.
What you are in effect proposing is that we pay more today for energy so that we end up at the same place—where we have to use nuclear power to produce synthetic fuels for transportation and petrochemical production. It is better to always use the least-cost solution and pay more later. This is basic economics. The saying is ‘buy now pay later’ not ‘pay now enjoy later’.
The only rational argument for using a more expensive solution today is if you assume that there are externalities that need to be avoided (for example, you believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or you anticipate that you can’t rely on a hostile power to maintain a stable supply of gas).
Cookie cutter identical assembly line manufactured small scale modular reactors delivered to the job site by semi-trailer and assembled in two years avoids the upfront cost issue. The amount of power produced isn’t as important as the need to provide an alternative that will end the environmental and economic destruction from wind and solar for those voters who are afraid of plant food.
As you report not even SMR could compete with CCGT, especially if all of Europe would follow the US lead and maximize their horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking potential.
Rather stunning how Germany can be so incompetent. At what point will the German government and frankly the German people wake-up to the fact renewable energy is utterly foolish? Will their economy need to literally crash and burn? Then you have NATO discussing intervention in Ukraine. Obviously, there is a serious problem with cognitive dissonance.
Yellow Vests are not so known in Gernany…
Germans are much to patient.
Its too late. You can’t infuse overnight a work ethic and a unified determination to sacrifice for the economic betterment of the next generation.
Germany isn’t so incompetent. It’s government, though, is a complete mess. Germany has always had a tendency to defer to the opinions of those in authority – whether it’s a government minister, an expert or someone else. The feeling has been that they wouldn’t have got the job if they didn’t know what they were doing – a nice idea but doesn’t seem to happen in reality.
Peter Zeihan on a recent Power Hungry podcast continued with his prognostication that Germany is dead man walking. At this point, there is nothing Germany can do to prevent the inevitable total economic collapse. (Grain of salt: Zeihan is also absolutely convinced, and is visibly giddy about the prospect, that Biden wins “in a landslide”)
It makes sense in a mechanical way of looking at it: Germany, through social conditioning programs its population into lethargy, sloth, indifference and openness to diluting its productive population, destroying its industry and the ability to even manufacture; then regulating and taxing itself into the grave. Since industry requires power, and the Germans have mutually decided that power is a Bad Thing and must be exorcised from their economy. Evidence is their continuing fascination with removing every trace of reliable and affordable power in service of the WEF’s climate agenda, while not caring in the least how non Western Nations are on massive construction and utilization Crusades of coal and other hydrocarbon power generation.
Essentially this is the trial run to what is happening throughout the formerly Western nations as they each take the path to irrelevancy and third-world economies and governance.
I agree with Zeihan in that German has stripped away its ability to recover by destroying its financial base (through inflation, taxation and high interest rates) its intellectual base (DEI rather than STEM education), a skilled and productive workforce (immigration and destruction of work ethic), crippling its ability to produce power adequate to fuel domestic manufacturing economy, and a deeply entrenched political class that profoundly hates their population, is utterly corrupt and is best understood as sadistic, sociopathic aristocrats.
AWG, well said, but the AfD party has recently doubled in popularity, if they can get into a 3-party governing coalition this next election Germany has a chance of avoiding a permanent recession.
Birnbaum blames “increased investment costs” as the expansion of renewable energies and their integration into the electricity grid requires “rapid and intelligent grid expansion as well as sufficient reserve capacity”.
To bits of idiocy that impact U.S. energy prices also.
Investment ends up going into rate base which then commands a large return, larger return than one can find in most alternative investment — the rate payer covers it. Yet, I think PUCs struggle with the concept of how “used and useful” are these new investments.
Renewables and reserves. Two concepts that are total strangers and should remain so.
Germany, home of the Greens, is the new crash test dummy for renewables. How long before the EU members realize they are being led to the slaughter house?
They still don’t get it, even with a new tax package.
Germany Preparing €7 Billion Tax Package to Prop Up Economy (yahoo.com)
Tax your your way to prosperity!
“German Deindustrialization Is A Wake-Up Call For U.S. Manufacturers”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski/2024/02/29/german-deindustrialization-is-a-wake-up-call-for-us-manufacturers/