Bishop Hill Der energieshambles
Sep 5, 2013 Energy: solar Energy: wind Spiegel is reviewing Germany's alleged transition to green energy, which is proving just as disastrous as the one in the UK. The story is a familiar one:
If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the "phantom electricity" the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as "negative electricity prices."
On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.
There needs to be a wholesale clearout of both the politicians and the civil servants who did this to us.
Reader Comments (25)
Page 2 talks of how the renewables policy creates fuel poverty and lines the pockets of the wealthy-
"It is only gradually becoming apparent how the renewable energy subsidies redistribute money from the poor to the more affluent, like when someone living in small rental apartment subsidizes a homeowner's roof-mounted solar panels through his electricity bill. The SPD, which sees itself as the party of the working class, long ignored this regressive aspect of the system. The Greens, the party of higher earners, continue to do so."
(Though I'm puzzled why the author says it is only gradually becoming apparent it should have been immediately obvious that any feed-in scheme would have this effect.)
Must Read!!!
The US Senate minority report from the Environmental & Policy Works Committee. This is an easy to read, well sourced challenge to Climate Alarmism.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f4ace657-9490-4f4c-86f3-25d367e2085c
Is the penny dropping?
If the comments below the Spiegel article are any indication, then no. Check this one out:
"There has yet to be an honest answer as to why free sun, water and wind energy should be more expensive than that produced by expensive fossilised fuel or complicated nuclear systems."
If you speak to members of the general public about renewables it's astonishing how often the ‘free’ description is used. They genuinely do not seem to even consider the design, production of raw materials, testing, assembly, installation, servicing and maintenance of the devices which exploit this ‘free’ energy as having any financial cost.
Here are some of the questions posed in the Senate report:
I.1. If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, why is our federal government relying on these models to take unilateral action?
I.2. If global warming has been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim?
I.3. As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?”
I.4. Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions?
II.1. If the present rate of sea level rise would put the world on pace to see an increase of less than 7 inches by the end of the century, then where are the data sets the IPCC and other advocates use to come up with estimates that are in feet and/or meters?
II.2. What science did Al Gore use to come to the conclusion that the oceans would rise 20 feet or more?
II.3. What exactly is meant by the statement in the scientific literature “is consistent with previous analyses of tide gauge records which suggested a general deceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century?”
II.4. If empirical evidence indicates that the rate of sea level rise is decreasing, how does the IPCC claim that there definitively is a strong correlation between sea level rise and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Doesn’t the science tend to indicate that there is a lack of correlation?
III.1. When we are unable to predict extreme weather events, and empirical evidence does not show that extreme weather events are increasing, why would some scientists/activists claim that extreme weather events are the product of human activity?
III.2. Did extreme weather events begin with the advent of the internal combustion engine, or does historical and geological evidence exist indicating extreme weather events have been occurring for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years?
III.3. What is the level of confidence that extreme weather events won’t decrease in a warming climate? Is there evidence that colder climates can be harsher?
A very long time ago I used to design whole energy systems based on "renewable" energy. The scale may have been very much smaller, but the principle was the same ...systems needed about 10days backup.
So, when I was lobbying for a wind industry in Scotland (what a joke that turned out to be) ... I started thinking about how they were going to back up wind ... and I estimated that with the ability to turn off industry, etc. that the system needed 3 days of backup which is about 100 pump storage systems.
Unfortunately as there are very few ideal pump storage sites, the figure was probably way too small. But 100 was a reasonable starting point.
In a meeting with the civil servant responsible (2005?) ... I mentioned the need for pump storage ... they were aware of this and did not disagree with my figure of 100 sites.
But almost a decade later, it is as if there is no problem ... that backup is not necessary etc.
One can argue about the exact number of pump storage sites, but one cannot argue that a considerable number would be needed for the (insane) idea of 100% wind.
All I can imagine is that like so many other things, the SNP are neglecting to mention this in the hope it doesn't tarnish their "independent through energy" PR
... that's any energy so long as its not coal, oil, gas, nuclear, shale ... so it's all wind!
Stuck-Record ... quoting a comment in Spiegel ... "There has yet to be an honest answer as to why free sun, water and wind energy should be more expensive than that produced by expensive fossilised fuel or complicated nuclear systems."
Coal, is also free ... but just like "free" wind, it costs to have the machinery to get this free resource and make it available to people to use.
To get at free wind ... build a 70m tower
To get at free coal ... dig a 70m shaft
I then need a huge turny thing.
For wind ... it has blades.
For coal ... its the wheels that hoist the lift.
The big difference, is that for a coal mine I only need one big turny thing. Whereas for a wind-mine ... I need thousands of bird-mincers.
Pigeons? Roost? Home?
Looks like it Don. Not before time.
Paul Matthews:
As I read this I thought at once of Benny Peiser and his efforts over many years in his native Germany as well as in the UK to establish such basic common sense. The MSM is almost forced to use such language or it would have to say "We failed to bring this to your attention, not because we didn't know, but because we were too cowardly." But, whatever the flannel, we know who to honour: those who spoke for truth and for the poor when it really counted.
"There has yet to be an honest answer as to why free sun, water and wind energy should be more expensive than that produced by expensive fossilised fuel or complicated nuclear systems."
///////////////////////////
This is a crass misunderstanding.
Anything that already exists and does not have to be produced is free. It is simply a question of how much it costs to harvest, and, if required, how much it costs to turn it into something more useful.
Accordingly, coal, gas and oil are just as free as is solar and wind. The issue in the energy production field is, for example:
With coal how much does it cost to dig it out of the ground, transport it to a power station, how much does it cost to build the power station, what is its useful life expectancy, how much does it costs to burn the coal and how much does it cost to couple the energy produced to the grid, how much does it cost to balance the grid, and how efficient is the conversion of heat from coal to electricity.
With wind the issues are how much does it cost to build a wind turbine, transport it to site,erect it (including required earthworks and concrete), couple it to the grid, balance the grid, how efficient is the conversion from wind to electrictiy etc. There are two significant additional costs, first how much does it cost to build back up power when the wind is not blowing (see the full costs of coal above), and the life expectancy of a wind turbine is far less.
Why people think that renewables are free beggars belief. The reality is that they are inefficient and the costs involved in producing what we want, ie., reliable and stable energy, far exceeeds the equivalent costs involved in turning coal or gas into electricty.
The short comings are obvious. In the UK peak energy demad is winter evennings and any engineer would know that the design of an energy system should be that it is capable of meeting that demand, and ought not to be such that it is at its least efficient precisely when demand is at its greatest.
The sun does not shine at night, during the day, in winter, the hours of daylight are short, it is frequently cloudy in the UK and the grazing angle is small such that solar energy is inefficient even during the day. Solar quite obviously cannot meet peak demand. The same is true of wind in that when the weather is really cold, it is usually accompanied by a blocking high and in such conditions there is no, or little wind, with the result that wind turbines drain energy from the grid (energy is required to heat gearbox oil, stop the rotors from icing and sometimes to turn over the rotors to prevent crank/bearing deformation) rather than producing any power.
The fact that you have to build conventionally powered generators to cover the time when the sun does not shine and/or the wind does not blow just emphasises why it is so obviously expensive to go down the renewable route. No one should be surprised by the cost since infrastructure alone is almost double (ie., the windfarm + the back up generator). In fact politicians knew from day 1 that it was going to be expensive since if it were free or cheap no subsidy would have been required. The energy companies would, of their own initiative, build the cheapest power generator possible to maximise their profits. the fact that they would not build windfarms without subsidy was because they (and the politicians) knew that they were expensive and not profitable if left to compete on an open market basis.
Fuel poverty is defined as spending >10% of disposable income on power. Unless there is a workable government plan to increase prosperity in line with their mandated energy prices then increasing fuel poverty is being imposed by their actions.
Yet we see claims that a new wind farm 'will provide power for 10.000 homes' when it will much more likely freeze them.
You could pretty much substitute 'Germany' for Ontario in this article.
Realtime consumption and generation figures for those interested here...
http://ieso.com/
Needless to say despite the billions of taxpayer dollars spent 'renewables' contribute a puny amount to the grid while...
- Receiving massive 'feed in tariffs'
- Often needing to be turned off to balance the grid
- Causing us to sell power to the US at a massive loss
- Requiring us to pay our gas providers for their capacity, rather than what they actually produce
There needs to be a wholesale clearout of both the politicians and the civil servants who did this to us.
How do you expect that to happen?
Rogue
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f4ace657-9490-4f4c-86f3-25d367e2085c
If ever there was a report that needed to be distributed to the four corners of the earth; this is the report.
There are no words to describe this insanity.
Since there is a series of revolving doors from NGO's to media to academia to civil service to government, it is hard to hold any of those at fault accountable.
The widespread perception that renewables are "free" is not confined to energy. The water industry has faced similar ignorance for years.
A revolution in politics is pending.
I found this quote on the third page to be most amusing:
Only a 10% rise in bills!
And that is meant to be a good thing?
Try campaigning on “I want to make electricity 10% more expensive”.
There do exist some very stupid people but that does not make the quite stupid people into role models.
I found this quote on the third page to be most amusing:
Only a 10% rise in bills!
And that is meant to be a good thing?
Try campaigning on “I want to make electricity 10% more expensive”.
There do exist some very stupid people but that does not make the quite stupid people into role models.
While Germany's economy is bleeding to death through its Energiewunde, birdwatchers have been left in dismay at the plummeting populations of kite.
Residents near the "windparks" are becoming increasingly concerned with the shedding of blades from the whirly things; as well as giving the huge monstrosities a wide berth in colder weather because they can throw large chunks of ice a very long distance. I'm guessing that it won't be long before road signs are put up, warning of nearby moneymills.
There seems to be a significant change happening in the solar energy market:
http://tinyurl.com/kfvw22z
M. Courtney; the wording of that quote could be interpreted differently. The Swedish govt imposes a cap which sets the premium paid for renewable power at 10% above standard. However there is no mention of how the standard price is set. As we all know, the economics of wind and solar are disastrous so I suspect that a fair bit of cross-subsidising is going on. Also it is not clear where their, pre-existing large hydro capacity stands in this.
To me it looks as if Sweden is already sitting pretty. Around 45% of their power comes from hydro; they have significant nuclear capacity (around 30%, I think); there is a fair bit of CHP linked to forestry; they are on the profitable end of the power trading with Denmark and, now, Germany where they get excess wind and solar power at little or no cost and sell power back at peak rate during lulls.
It would be very interesting to hear from someone who knows what is really going on.
So - finally the truth is out. Despite ALL the hype; despite all the wind farms built; despite all the political grandstanding - Germany actually produced more CO2 in 2012 than in 2011.
No doubt the same will be shown to apply to the UK - so the politicians will shout: 'MORE windfarms..! We must build MORE windfarms..!'
Can't wait for 2020 (if I make it) to watch Scotland producing 100% of its electricity from 'renewables'... Oh, no, Mr Salmond - we're cutting any cross-border transmission lines, just in case you're tempted to cheat on a cold, still, winter's day (or, come to that, most days)...
"Accordingly, coal, gas and oil are just as free as is solar and wind"
Exactly, Richard Verney.
The cost, as with everything, is in converting it into useable energy. Useable at point of delivery, not just at source!
Why on earth do responsible media sources keep repeating this "free" guff without querying it?
How's this for a collection of misleading information on the UK wind arrays?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom