By P Gosselin
The Munich-based daily Merkur is finally reporting on something that us skeptics have been pointing out some 20 years: Wind turbines always either produce too little or too much, and are thus uneconomical and unreliable.
In a recent insightful interview with Merkur.de, Prof. Dr. Sigismund Kobe, a renowned physicist from the TU Dresden, explains a phenomenon he calls the “Transition to Renewable Energy Paradox.”
His warning is clear: adding more wind power to the grid might soon yield diminishing returns—or none at all.
Zero times two is still zero
The fundamental problem, according to Prof. Kobe, lies in the nature of weather-dependent energy. Wind power does not scale linearly in a way that guarantees supply. During a lull, when there is no wind, it doesn’t matter if you have 30,000 or 60,000 turbines. The output remains zero. Doubling the capacity does nothing to solve the problem of “Dunkelflaute” (dark doldrums).
Conversely, under windy weather, the existing turbines often produce much more electricity than the grid can handle. Adding even more turbines during these periods only increases the surplus that cannot be used, leading to forced shutdowns.
Building “useless” capacity
Kobe argues that Germany is rapidly approaching a “saturation point.” Data shows that while the installed capacity (the theoretical maximum) of wind power has grown significantly, the actual amount of electricity fed into the grid hasn’t kept pace.
We are essentially building “useless” capacity that only produces power when we already have too much of it, while failing to provide any power when we actually need it.
Economic fallout: paying for nothing
This paradox isn’t just a physical problem; it’s an expensive economic one.
- Redispatch Costs: When the grid is overloaded, grid operators must pay wind farm owners to turn their turbines off. Consumers end up paying for electricity that was never produced.
- Double Infrastructure: Because wind is unreliable, Germany must maintain a completely separate fleet of “backup” power plants (mostly gas-fired) to jump in when the wind stops. This means paying for two parallel energy systems.
Can Storage Save Us?
The standard counter-argument is that we simply need better batteries or hydrogen storage. However, Prof. Kobe remains skeptical. He points out that the sheer scale of storage required to bridge weeks of low wind is technically and financially astronomical. The efficiency losses involved in converting electricity to hydrogen and back again make the resulting power incredibly expensive.
Prof. Kobe’s message is a reality check for policymakers. He argues that the current strategy of simply “expanding at all costs” is hitting a physical wall. Without a breakthrough in massive, affordable storage, adding more wind turbines won’t stabilize the grid—it might just make it more volatile and expensive.
Prof. em. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Sigismund Kobe is a distinguished German physicist and a long-standing academic at the Technical University of Dresden (TU Dresden). Born in 1940, he has dedicated his career to theoretical physics, with a specific focus on the behavior of complex systems.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Zero times two is still zero…” Still stands up to scrutiny…
Advanced mathematics like that will explode Comrade Millibands head!!
Reminds me of the time I was watching a news item on Zambian TV. It featured a group of employees striking for more pay. One held a placard saying “5% of nothing is still nothing, we want 10%!”
I’ve found that proponents of renewables who proclaim the advantages of battery storage usually have no idea what a TWh is and have no clue how many would be needed to run a Net Zero electricity system.
To be fair, when I look at the cost of building 7 TWh of storage, I myself can hardly believe the numbers I come up with , so it is expecting a lot to expect other people to believe them.
Let alone understand them given today’s limited education in physics and science. Now if it were LGBTQ studies that produced something useful then we’d be in fairly good shape. But most degrees are in things that produce nothing of value (Net Zero) for society
I recently read about a district in CA where students who were graduating with 4.0 GPAs, were found to be unable to pass a basic math skills test.
CA grading criteria:
Attendance > 80% and took tests: C
Passed more than half : B
With a score of 70% or better: A
I generally sy something like ‘the UKs energy requirements are the equivalent of 6 Hiroshima bombs a day‘.
Do you want that in a battery near you?
Seven TeraDollars for seven TWhr of storage. Am I correct?
So an old-school incandescent lightbulb would run at $60 an hour?
The numpties should have woken up to the fickles years ago that consumers require dispatchable electricity at the correct voltage and frequency. Instead they got state sponsored dumping that was always going to end badly and so it has with usurious power prices. It can only get exponentially worse with solar and wind factories having already plucked the low hanging fruit of desirable sites close to city users or existing transmission infrastructure.
Utility scale solar in Australia is now a stranded asset. It curtails more energy that it supplies. Utility scale wind is heading the same way.
Rooftop solar is the only source of generation growing strongly because it has captive demand and is now considerably lower cost than grid scale WDGs.
The wholesale demand in Australia’s national grid has been declining since 2008. So lower demand served by every more expensive generation completes the recipe for full de-industrialisation of the country.
Then there’s the issue of Wind Shadow where more turbines behind other turbines actually receive diminished wind energy and are thereby less productive.
.
Then there’s the issue of less than prime wind locations. As ALL the prime wind generation sites are mostly populated with turbines already, anyplace else is less than adequate and will naturally deliver less than optimal conditions for wind generation.
.
Then there’s Wind Stilling. Blamed on Global Warming but likely caused by wind generation removing wind energy from the mix for other downwind turbines.
.
You can only harvest so much energy before there’s nothing left to harvest.
Here’s a solution: build wind turbines close together in a single line aligned with the prevailing wind. That way, they will produce almost nothing, supply is stabilised so the grid is stabilised, and there is no unused power to pay for.
Also, if people live, farm or pasture livestock nearby, their natural microclimates are altered. They also experience detrimental mental and physical health effects from shadow flicker, unnatural noise, and a landscape continually in motion.
I’ve always contended sarcastically that if “green” city dwellers demand ruinable energy, they should put wind farms atop their own urban buildings.
Perhaps the good Professor would have a word in our Ed Miliband’s ear. Maybe he can get through where others have failed?
Ed thinks building ever more wind turbines in wild places like Scotland or way out in the North Sea is a great option, unaware there is no local demand for the energy produced there, The grant chasing builders knowing the truth, demand more power lines to convey the power they claim they will produce hundreds of miles to where it may be required..
The reality is, we have state funded via elevated contract for difference guarantees production of nothing but grant farming facilities.
The wind turbine operators are happy to be paid to shut down when there is a glut of wind, and are happy to be paid when there is no wind, who wouldn’t be up for that sort of guaranteed revenue? It is simply our mad government Net Zero minister who thinks it is a great policy?
Little did we know, the term Net Zero was referring to the advantage renewable energy options deliver to the economy. We suspect Ed knew that……
Good thing batteries are getting cheaper
The Battery Boom Is Reshaping Power Markets
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Battery-Boom-Is-Reshaping-Power-Markets.html
and enables a high amount of photovoltaics
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/highlights-of-the-global-energy-transition-in-2025/
Maybe its time for the professor to update his knowledge. Continuous Learning and all that.
Emerging markets will directly leapfrog to renewable energy.
The Sunday sermon from the mount – of impossible dreams.
You know what’s impossible: stopping progress
Powered by fossil fuels and nuclear.
Indeed,. but it doesn’t lie in the direction you are pointing
Wind and solar are retrograde, totally unsustainable, as well as been highly environmentally toxic.
They destroy electrical supply systems where ever their parasitic load becomes too much for the host to carry.
Wind and solar are reverting to technologies that were abandoned, for good reason, over 200 years ago.
Wind and solar are reverting to technologies that were abandoned, for good reason, over 200 years ago.
That first article, with “energy” in the headline, actually gushes exclusively about power.
Either the author is pig-ignorant and doesn’t know the difference, or knows perfectly well and is shameless.
“She has a Master’s in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK”
Effectively uneducated. No knowledge of physics, arithmetic or engineering.
MUR,
I suggest you re read the article.
The required capacity is simply unfeasible, and although prices have fallen, from astronomical to just expensive is not a sign that batteries will come to the rescue. Cost aside the volume of raw materials is well beyond supply capabilities.
Ember is just another bought and fully paid up renewable wank tank.
Hint: They might actually be lying to you?
The almost certainly are lying – they get well paid to do so.
Renewables are TOTALLY USELESS for emerging markets.
Nothing can be made, homes cannot be lit, fridges cannot run etc etc etc..
… on UNRELIABLE, INTERMITTENT electricity.
African and Asian countries are all heading towards COAL and GAS as their main supply…
…. because they are actually USEFUL.
Even little troll Lusers rely totally on fossil fuels to get through the day.
Just don’t look into what’s happening in countries like Pakistan.
Pakistan is among the last places I’d look to as role model for anything, but go on: tell us what we should see.
The sun in Pakistan delivers twice as much irradiance as in Britain.
When I think Pakistan I still think about Osama BL hiding in a cave, India without Internet or Russian invasions – yeah I know the Russians invaded Afganistan not Pakistan but the two places seem a lot the same from far away. So I looked up GDP by year chart to see how the Pakistan economy has been doing in broad terms. Pakistan’s 2023, the last year on the chart I saw, was lower than Pakistan’s 2017 GDP. What should I look for?
I tend to think of grooming gangs and raping schoolgirls.
OK, but I hope you have a strong magnifying glass to see wind and solar…
And since 2022, looks like Pakistan is heading backwards
Yeah look at what is happening in Pakistan
https://afghandiaspora.org/2025/07/29/pakistans-power-and-energy-crisis-chronic-outages-rising-costs-and-a-dark-future/
There biggest source of renewable power hydro is all dried up
https://www.khaama.com/pakistan-energy-crisis-hydropower-shortage/
So if that is your idea of a great power system you really have issues because that is 3rd world status … a grid always in load shedding.
Short term solutions like this appear reasonable. However longevity of a society is what matters. There are insufficient lithium sources for the long term in the quantities needed. Additionally batteries must be replaced frequently compared say to a gas or steam turbine. Look at your car. After 100 years we still need a new battery every 6 years one so. Of course a lead acid battery is mostly recycle able. I don’t know if we can say that about lithium
My brother-in-law bought a hybrid, it’s currently in the shop. It needs a new transmission.
Falling a few percent is not enough to make batteries affordable.
BTW, if wind/solar/batteries are so cheap, why do they have to be subsidized?
That’s the same question I would ask of subsidies for all supposedly cheap “renewables”.
Everything is easy in a world without weather and seasons. One rainy day and the system collapses.
“Emerging markets will directly leapfrog to renewable energy.”
Why?
You’re even funnier than Griff.
Utility-scale battery systems cost about $600/kWh delivered AC at outlet of power electronics, for 24/7/365 operation.for about 15 years
All costs must be amortized over 15 years to pay off the bank loan and pay the Owner his return on investment.
The a to z loss, HV grid to HV grid, is about 19% when new, more after aging.
The a to Z system aging is at about 1.5%/y
Such systems are not allowed to charge over 80% full and discharge below 20% full, meaning on a daily basis, only 60% of nameplate capacity can be used.
NOTE: the battery packs of EV cars operate about 2 hours/day, on average, for about 6 to 8 years.
Such EVs have a lifetime average speed of 30 mpg.
The cost of the battery packs, not yet installed in the EV, is about $145/kWh.
Most uninformed Yokels mix up the EV and Utility systems.
You cite two obviously biased sources. Oilprice is LONDON-based and a quick read plainly reveals their biases. If you can’t see it, you are part of the hive-mind.
Ember-energy openly admits “We’re a global energy think tank that accelerates the clean energy transition with data and policy.”
Factor in land acquisition costs.
BESS requires, to date, approx 40 sqm per MWh storage.
Extrapolating that to grid scale Long Duration Energy Storage implies 40 sq km per TWh of storage.
Providing the 15% or so of annual demand required of a LDES required for any fossil fuel free national power system, e.g. Ireland, would require up to +/-30% increase in the Built Up Area in the country.
Imagine what that additional demand for land exclusively for a single industrial purpose would do to all other residential, commercial, agricultural industrial and infrastructure land costs!
Seriously idiotic wishful thinking, coupled with scientific and engineering illiteracy.
Over the past 12 months in the UK, wind and solar generation facilities together provided 11.845GW from a combined installed capacity of 57.03GW – so they operated at an outstanding combined capacity factor (efficiency) of 20.76%.
And if we had a week of dunkelflaute, the battery set required to cover for zero generation from that 57.03GW of installed capacity would have to be capable of providing 1,990GWh for the period.
An Li-ion battery set for the above situation would weigh 15 million tonnes (the same as 230 Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers) and would cost GB£600 BILLION;
And LFP battery set would weigh 20 million tonnes (308 aircraft carriers) and cost GB£425 BILLION;
And an Na-ion battery set would weigh 35 million tonnes (538 aircraft carriers) and cost GB£185 BILLION.
Like . . . go and have a bloody roll.
Colin, as your costs show it doesn’t matter if the installed and commissioned battery storage cost is $200/kWh or $400/kWh because storage for more than 4 hours of the full output of any utility scale battery storage system is still insanely expensive.
Current 2025 Li-ion plant gate battery price is $125/kWh, down from $134/kWh in 2024. A commissioned in operation system with site prep, labor, overcurrent protection, switch gear, fire suppression and much more is at least $375/kWh and those costs are inelastic. Battery cost regardless of technology is not going to drop below $25/kWh. A commissioned system is not going to drop below $275/kWh.
The answer for affordable electricity isn’t break though battery technology with inherent limits imposed by chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics. The answer is getting rid of low density, mineral intensive, intermittent, and unreliable wind and solar grid contamination by simply eliminating the mandates and tax credits and forcing the Cap and Trade fraudsters out of the power business.
Cherry picked snippets from a Think Tank.
The spin is great in this one.
90% is a statistic.
If it cost $1M per Whr and that dropped to $10K per Whr, that is a 90% decrease to a price that is still in orbit around Pluto. The point? The actual cost is what matters, not what it was 15 years ago. And, by the way, the cost cannot go down much more as good, bad, or ugly as it is today.
Also, at the bottom of the first piece of propaganda:
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Global-Coal-Demand-Hits-All-Time-High.html
The world’s coal demand is on track to hit a record high this year as policy shifts, weather, and fuel prices have pushed higher consumption in regions previously thought to have leveled off, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.
Wow! It’s almost like there’s an inherent limit on wind energy generation. Just almost like there’s only so much wind available. Funny that no one has named that as a general principle.
Yes. The calculations have been done. On average, there is enough wind and sun to provide a nations electricity needs if you cover everywhere and have the latest free Unobtainium™ based storage technology.
Unfortunately the cost is prohibitive and there is no Unobtanium to be found
Lorenz’ theory in 1955 showed that a maximum of 1 MW/km2 might be taken from the wind without serious consequences. Later measurements confirm that number. But, physics did not constrain the construction of wind facilities taking 10 MW/km2 and more. Those facilities do not perform, to the surprise and disappointment of their purveyors. Man proposes, but physics disposes.
Thanks, but that isn’t what I was referring to at all. While they do predict the theoretical limit of power that might be derived from an device, these equations and principles don’t speak at all about the amount of energy (work/watt hours/BTU/Calories) that might be expected from a (number of) wind driven device(s) in the real world. The wind not only blows inconsistently, but intermittently, and the power delivered to a given device of a given dimension is not delivered consistently over the entire dimension, or identically to a neighboring device.
This is akin to the misleading use of LCOE for wind-generated electricity, or the equally misleading use of generator nameplate capacity in discussing fleet capability over a given period of time.
But I was being sarcastic, and did forget to add the tag: /sarc.
Such a engineering limit has been propose. The truth is out there, you just have to let it in.
Dr. Kobe is starting to get it, but needs to delve much further. The problem with Ruinables is; Everything.
My German ex brother in law sys ‘The trouble with Germany is we have 60 professors of Gender studies and no atomic scientists’.
People are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.
In the beginning windmills made good money for protagonists, made the Greens feel smug and didn’t do too much harm.
Now they are revealing themselves as an expensive terrible mistake. For which even German industry is paying the price.
It will be interesting to see how the debate goes.
They are smelling something.
Battery Storage — in the real world of large power storage the answer has been “pumped storage.”
Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is a type of hydroelectric energy storage. It is a configuration of two water reservoirs at different elevations that can generate power as water moves down from one to the other (discharge), passing through a turbine. The system also requires power as it pumps water back into the upper reservoir (recharge). PSH acts similarly to a giant battery, because it can store power and then release it when needed. The Department of Energy’s “Pumped Storage Hydropower” video explains how pumped storage works.
The first known use cases of PSH were found in Italy and Switzerland in the 1890s, and PSH was first used in the United States in 1930. Now, PSH facilities can be found all around the world! According to the 2023 edition of the Hydropower Market Report, PSH currently accounts for 96% of all utility-scale energy storage in the United States. America currently has 43 PSH plants and has the potential to add enough new PSH plants to more than double its current PSH capacity.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/pumped-storage-hydropower
This has been used to “store” extra output from nuclear power plants. At night when power demand is low, output from the power plant is used to pump water up to a lake. When power demand is high (daytime) the water is released to flow through turbines that drive generators.
PSH might make sense in some circumstances with Nuclear, but makes no sense with Ruinables. Lipstick on a pig.
Rather than relying on PSH to stabilize the grid though, the best option is to have a good mix of energy sources, including coal, gas, and nuclear, without the Ruinables mucking things up.
Even with nuclear, it is only useful as a load leveler.
If the energy system is based on BASE energy sources, backup is not needed, only load following ability and a dynamic reserve. That is the result of 150 years of experience with electrical systems.
And how many MWHrs (note I said MW Hrs) of pumped storage have been added, oh, in the last decade or so? Don’t get me wrong, pumped storage is a good idea (it can also provide balancing services). There are only so many sites suitable for it. And getting through the red tape (see previous post) to get one approved is problematic, at least in the U.S.
Con Edison wanted to build such a system on storm king mountain years ago to take care of peaks in demand. The environmentalists shot it down. Con Edison could have delayed building new generating systems until average demand warranted it.
As batteries burn, pumped hydro will grow. It is only commonsense. Bath County has now been in operation for 40 years, and will undoubtedly be in operation for another 40+ years. Batteries, if they do not self-ignite first, will need replacement within 20 years, or much sooner as Moss Landing demonstrated. CA has plenty of mountains (or 100 m hills) as do all other states except FL.
There’s a reason why no pumped storage project has been attempted in the U.S in the last 36 years Not cost effective, not now, not ever, get over it. N2N, Natural Gas to Nuclear with SMR leading the way.
86 PSH facilities would power the county for how many seconds?
PSH is useful for load leveling, but that is it.
Pumped hydro is cost effective compared with batteries, more than 10 times cheaper. cannot burn, and is available in every state in the Union except FL. Even Missouri has pumped storage. Pumped hydro is not ‘sexy’, – i.e. propagandized – like battery storage.The same is true of passive solar – very cost effective compared with PV. No simple but good idea can go unpunished.
I think the point you seem to be rather seriously missing is, for example, the Welsh pumped hydro facilities (Dinorwig and Ffestiniog) have a capacity of 10.54GWh.
But in the UK, current wind and solar facilities provide 11.84GW from a combined installed capacity of 57.03GW (capacity factor: 20.76%). And hence, in a period of 7 days of dunkelflaute conditions – no wind, no sun, which happens – 1,990GWh would have to be covered for.
The Welsh pumped hydro facilities would provide 0.53% of the shortfall as a result of the loss of the fantastically inefficient wind and solar generation.
Sure, pumped hydro is useful . . . but NOT a cat’s chance in hell for grid-scale storage (certainly not in the UK where we’re somewhat lacking in appropriate topography).
I don’t understand why wind and solar need to be connected directly to the grid. Or to battery storage, for that matter. If we must have these things, we should use the electricity generated by them for electrolysis and gas reforming, to manufacture methane that can be pumped into an existing natural gas network. That way, they can just act as a reserve.
Yes, I know you would lose a lot of efficiency along the way, but you don’t need to be very efficient with this plan, since you’re basically just supplementing an existing, adequate resource. This is what we should do if we are serious about reshoring a real manufacturing base in the USA, i.e. building up multiple layers of redundancy on top of a reliable platform.
Also…Instead of “Multiple Layers of Redundancy” for weather dependent generation AKA massive overcapacity to meet worse case scenario generation possibilities coupled with massive TWhs of battery storage plus additional dedicated capacity to recharge those batteries.
You can’t use the generation to power society and expect any to be available to recharge MegaBatteries in the 4 hours of peak solar generation. And Solar produces Zero during Peak Demand.
Nice to see that someone else understands the obvious. The only reason to install grid scale wind/solar/battery is mining the nonsense. Cap and Trade is a fraudster’s dream come true:
Is Cap-and-Trade Saving the Planet—or Just Creating the Next Wall Street Bubble?
Cap-and-trade sounds like an elegant solution: set a cap on emissions, let companies trade allowances, and watch the market drive efficiency. In reality, it’s less about physics and more about finance.
Here’s how it works: Governments set an emissions cap and issue allowances. Companies that emit less than their allowance can sell credits; those that exceed must buy credits or pay penalties. This creates an artificial market for carbon credits—value driven by regulation, not intrinsic utility. The money flow starts with regulated industries purchasing credits, moves to credit holders and trading desks, and governments skim auction revenue.
Consumers ultimately absorb the cost through higher energy and goods prices. Financial intermediaries—banks, brokers, carbon funds—often profit more than technology innovators, turning this into a trillion-dollar speculative market.
Compare that to a carbon tax: A tax is simple, transparent, and predictable—fixed cost per ton of CO₂. Cap-and-trade offers certainty on emissions but not on price, and it’s prone to lobbying, rent-seeking, and opaque trading. A carbon tax doesn’t guarantee emissions reductions, but it avoids the complexity and corruption risks of a cap-and-trade system. In short: cap-and-trade is a compliance-driven financial ecosystem that incentivizes trading over real decarbonization.
Conclusion:
Cap-and-trade isn’t an environmental solution—it’s an economic distortion. It creates a trillion-dollar compliance market that rewards financial engineering over real emissions reduction, while consumers and manufacturers shoulder the cost. If the goal is genuine decarbonization, transparency and technology—not speculative trading—should lead the way.
Inefficient also means expensive.
If such a scheme made money, it would already be in place.
If you want to “reshore” manufacturing, making electricity even more expensive is not the way to do it.
It doesn’t doesn’t make electricity any more expensive, you idiot. It has nothing to do with the consumer-facing electric grid. That was the whole point. Read again what I wrote, or be quiet. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Huh? I guess this is an attempt to troll. I shouldn’t respond.
Perhaps stop venting and go read
Current renewable hydrogen ranges from $4–$9/kg, while “grey” hydrogen (from natural gas) is much cheaper at $1.50–$3.00/kg
Then you have the capex on the equipment and periodic stack replacement
It’s ******beeping**** expensive is why it’s not done
You have just described what in a sane world…
… would be be listed under the heading “WHY BOTHER !”
Why on earth would you even consider such a process as electrolysis to gas reforming, particularly using “renewable” generation?!!
May I suggest the following will prompt you to re-think:
To produce 1 tonne of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water requires 52.5MWh of electrical energy.
And then using that of 1 tonne of hydrogen to create methane will require a further 12.5MWh of electrical energy (per tonne of hydrogen).
So ENERGY INVESTED will be of the order of 65MWh.
To then use the methane in a CCGT will generate 16MWh, which is ENERGY RETURNED.
Therefore . . . ENERGY INVESTED is 4x GREATER than ENERGY RETURNED!!
And for this to have any credibility in our virtue-signalling world, the electrical supply for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and then methane would obviously have to come from “green” wind and solar generating facilities (and I now look at the UK example).
Over the last 12 months, wind and solar combined generation provided 11.84GW, this from a wind and solar combined installed capacity of 57.03GW . . . which was 20.76% of installed capacity – the “capacity factor” or efficiency.
So, if you want to deliver 1GW of electricity from wind and solar generating facilities, with a load factor of 20.76%, those facilities will have to have an installed capacity of 4.82GW – an “overbuild factor” of 4.82.
In summary:
To make hydrogen by electrolysis, and then methane, requires 4x the energy that will be gained from using that methane, and to generate the electricity needed for that electrolysis and methane production, the installed capacity of wind and solar generating facilities will have to be 4.82x greater than the electricity actually needed.
You get the picture, I hope – generating electricity through wind and solar, and using that electricity to make hydrogen to make methane would be an exercise of downright . . . lunatic profligacy!!
Another thing not mentioned in the above article: increasing the number of fielded wind turbines is CERTAIN to increase the number of catastrophic wind turbine failures over any given time period.
This post is correct, but leaves one major point ambiguous.
My colleague, Dr. Lars Schernikau, whom most of you know, produced the perfect graph to illustrate the point. It is attached with minor additions for which I am responsible, not Lars, just in case someone wishes to disagree with my inferences.
The point is the continuously diminished return on a continuously expanded investment.
The graph shows a remarkable 55% increase in installed renewable power capacity in just under 5 years. That is a fantastically successful effort – until the energy production is considered.
The gain in energy produced corresponds to less than a 15% power gain.
Let me say that again:
Over 55% increase in nameplate power resulted in under 15% gain in energy produced.
Whatever the cost, Germany gained only a one-fourth return in energy production. The reasons are well understood, but that is not the point. The German people have been SCAMMED out of 75% of their money and the German government continues to double down on a failed energy policy. That government needs to be drawn and quartered for their malfeasance.
The message of the chart is unclear because it uses percentages of units not found in most peoples daily lives on a chart with three lines on a monthly timescale. The primary obvious message a person would get from looking at the chart is “Germany has installed a lot of wind and solar”.
You could deliver the primary message more succinctly with a photo of a German countryside full of cows in 1990 beside a photo of a German countryside full of windmills in 2025. People who posess the correct understanding to read the chart the way its author intended will already know why wind power was not a winning idea for Germany.
You should not underestimate the ability of people to read correctly a chart with a few lines, especially if it is spelled out clearly as Dr. Schernikau did.
Correspondingly, your estimate is most appropriate of a politician’s ability to read AND admit the reality of such a chart – abysmally low.
There is nothing in the laws of physics that says that windmills MUST be paid to shut down. That is a construct of the idiots who set up the system rules. But as we all know – except for one whose name begins with M – that if they were just paid for what they supply to the grid nobody would build windmills.
MUST BE PAID to shut down.
Misread as MUST be paid to shut down, my first read concluded you wrote windmills must shut down.
My bad. But, I may not be the only one to get it wrong on the first read.
Over building of wind and solar has been studied fro at least since 1990, 35 years ago.
EUROPE AIMS TO WEAKEN THE US WITH EXPENSIVE OFFSHORE WINDMILLS THAT PRODUCE EXPENSIVE, LOW-QUALITY ELECTRICITY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/europe-attempts-to-entangle-us-with-expensive-offshore-windmills
By Willem Post
.
If we used wind, we would be dependent on Europe
If we used solar, we would be dependent on China
We would be screwed up and down and sideways with high cost/kWh energy
We would be totally uncompetitive on domestic and world markets
No energy dominance ever!!
.
Net zero by 2050 Euro elites tried to weaken the US, with help of the unpatriotic, leftist Biden clique, into going down the black hole of 30,000 MW by 2030 of expensive, highly-subsidized, weather-dependent, grid-disturbing offshore windmill systems, which would need expensive, highly subsidized, short-lived, battery systems for grid support.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar. Power plant to landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.
Any US tariffs on the European supply of wind systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.
.
Almost the entire supply of the wind projects would be:
1) designed and made in Europe,
2) then transported across the Atlantic Ocean by European specialized ships,
3) then unloaded at new, taxpayer-financed, $500-million storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading areas,
4) then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the windmill systems.
5) The financing would be mostly by European pension funds, that pay benefits to European retirees.
.
Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have long-term O&M jobs, using mostly European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
.
Conglomerates owned by Euro elites would finance, build, erect, own and operate almost all of the 30,000 MW of offshore windmills, providing work for many thousands of European workers for decades, and multi-$billion profits each year.
.
That Euro offshore wind ruse did not work out, because Trump was elected.
Trump-hating, Euro elites are furious. Projects are being cancelled. The European windmill industry is in shambles, with multi-$billion annual losses, lay-offs and tens of $billions of stranded costs.
.
Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal, that used an autopen for Biden signatures, and bypassed on-the-beach/in-the-basement Biden, an increasingly dysfunctional Marionette.
.
Trump declared a National Energy Emergency, and put W/S/B systems at the bottom of the list, and suspended their licenses to put their rushed, glossy environmental impact statements, EIS, under proper scrutiny.
.
Euro elites used the IPCC-invented, “CO2-is-evil” hoax, based on its own “science”.
These elites used:
.
1) the foghorn of government-subsidized Corporate Media to propagate scare-mongering slogans and brainwash the people,
2) censorship to suppress free thinking on town hall forums,
3) election interference, as in Moldova and Georgia,
4) ostracizing /marginalizing major political parties to produce desired outcomes, as in Germany.
.
Wall Street elites saw an opportunity for tax shelters for its elite clients.
Woke politicians/bureaucrats were “cut-in” on $juicy deals to pass subsidies, favorable rules and regulations, and impose government mandates.
Euro elites wanted the US to deliver electricity to users at very high c/kWh, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance with the US.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is-a-dog-eat-dog-business
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
by Willem Post
.
If we used wind, we would be dependent on Europe
If we used solar, we would be dependent on China
We would be screwed up and down and sideways with high cost/kWh energy
We would be totally uncompetitive on domestic and world markets
No energy dominance ever!!
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems cost much more than $500/kWh
.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh; turnkey cost $104.5 million; 104,500,000/181,900 = $574/kWh, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan, 50% of $104.5 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return, 50% of $104.5 million, at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage, 15 years at 10%; loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction, etc.) is 92.3c/kWh
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt.
.
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1 / (0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, see top URL, i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to charge the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, in sunny California and other such states. The more solar systems, the greater the midday peaks.
See top URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
Regarding any project, Banks and Owners have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the Bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, to get c/kWh, as shown.
Loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9), from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., draw about 50 units from HV grid to deliver about 40 units to HV grid. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been misled by self-serving folks, that “battery Nirvana is just around the corner”.
.
NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
.
If we used wind, we would be dependent on Europe
If we used solar, we would be dependent on China
We would be screwed up and down and sideways with high cost/kWh energy
We would be totally uncompetitive on domestic and world markets
No energy dominance ever!!
.
People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.
Owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:
1) increase command/control by governments, and
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of up to 10% – Federal tax credit of 30% – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write-off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction to reduce any taxable profits from whatever source.
.
Utilities forced to pay at least:
15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
NY STATE DYSFUNCTIONAL ENERGY POLICY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-york-state-dysfunctional-energy-policy
.
People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. If owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty
.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.
.
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:
1) increase command/control by governments
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 50 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
NY State Utilities will:
Pay foreign Owners 15.5 c/kWh for 20 to 25 years
Mark this up before averaging it into their cost of purchased electricity.
Ratepayers and taxpayers are being screwed
.
Per various laws, the federal and state government will pay enough subsidies, so foreign Owners can sell for 15.5 c/kWh, for 20 to 25 years, instead of 31 c/kWh, without any subsidies, such as:
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of up to 10% – Federal tax credit of 30% – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write-off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction to reduce any taxable profits from whatever source.
.
Utilities forced to pay at least:
15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar. Power plant to landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Excellent excellent article, short, in plain language, everyone can understand it, proves wind, solar and storage can’t sustain the grid or a modern society plus it is incredibly expensive. Stop wasting our time, money and resources on stuff that doesn’t work. Fossil fuel and nuclear work are affordable, safe and clean. It is that simple.
In the UK battery’s are being added allegedly to store energy, however they can only store small amounts that last hours not days. They are putting them next to wind turbines and PV farms not next to the consumers so the grid bottlenecks stop them from transmitting large amounts of power. If only used in low Wind and PV they cannot make money. They are actually making money from short term trading of price differentials over 15 mins and are really for Grid Inertia. Another smokescreen.