Germany’s transition to renewable energy, the EnergieWende, has been on a breakneck pace for a decade, surprising even its most ardent proponents, and continuing to confound nay-sayers in the fossil fuel sector who have predicted disaster at every turn. Stay alert for a steady drumbeat of Germany bashing, as the fossil fuel industry keeps cranking out misinformation, and encouraging negative reporting of the process.
While fossil fuel dominated political system political system in the US continues to push for more and more climate killing release of CO2 – the Germans keep plugging away, somehow defying the critics. The country maintains low unemployment, a booming fiscal surplus, and now, in recent weeks, has done away with University tuition – a crushing burden to students in the US and elsewhere.
Because solar PV and wind power are weather-dependent, they are often considered unreliable — at best, a feel-good contribution to the energy supply of industrial countries. Critics charge that intermittent power generators such as wind and the sun cannot replace base load capacity — the minimal volume of energy that must be available at all times — even on windy and cloudless days, to keep factories humming and homes warm in the winter. In the past, coal, gas and nuclear provided steady base load energy day in and day out from huge, centralized plants in the vicinity of urban centers and industry.
But a system based on renewables looks different from the old model. Instead of a base-load supply that is pretty much the same from day to day, low-carbon energy systems like Germany’s rely on a patchwork supply that differs every day, even every hour, and differs from region to region, village to village. When the sun is shining in Bavaria but there’s no wind on the North Sea coast, the decentralized smart grid seamlessly distributes electricity where it’s needed — and the other way around when it’s windy but not sunny. Bioenergy and small hydroelectric power plants contribute regularly to the mix and, in the future, so will offshore wind farms.
The smarter the grid is and the better it is connected across regions, countries and international borders, the more smoothly power will be generated and traded, keeping the supply as steady as the old base-load models. German experts say that storage technology that harnesses electricity at times of overproduction is not imminently necessary if a system has a decentralized smart grid — another technology that, far from the stuff of science fiction, is ready and affordable now.
One indisputable piece of evidence on behalf of this new model: Power outages in Germany have decreased (to 15.3 minutes in 2013) as the renewable content of its power supply has increased since 2006; in all of Europe, only Denmark (which has higher renewable content than Germany in its power supply) and Luxembourg have higher supply security.
Cleantechnica:
Germany’s electricity bills are a small percentage of overall household bills. One of the underlying arguments put forth by the NYTimes is that electricity rates are “skyrocketing” and putting the population in a whole lot of hurt. BS. Let’s actually look at some numbers. In the US, electricity accounts for about 4–6% of an average American’s budget. Here are some more details from a Charlotte Business Journal article:
Based on 2011 rates, the largest share of income going to power bills was in Hawaii, where those charges consume 6.2% of residential customers’ disposable money. That is no surprise. Power rates in Hawaii are famously high (34.68 cents per kilowatt hour in 2011, according to Moody’s)….
North Carolina’s average residential rate was 10.26 cents. That consumes 4.4% of customers’ disposable income, Moody’s says. States that take a larger share, after Hawaii, are South Carolina, 5.5% of disposable income; Alabama, 5.4%; Mississippi, 5.4%; Georgia, 4.9%: Tennessee, 4.7%, and Texas, 4.6%.
Arizona ties North Carolina at 4.4% of disposable income.
The two major Southern states that are not on that list are also interesting. Florida just misses getting the cut, with its power bills accounting for 4.3% of residents’ disposal income. All other traditional Southern states are also in the 4% range except for Virginia and Maryland. Power bills in each of those states account for 3.7% of disposable income. But Virginia and Maryland are both higher-income states than most in the South, largely because of the Washington D.C. suburbs.
In Germany, electricity now accounts for about 2–2.5% of a person’s budget. Hmm, unbearable, eh? Sure, that is an average, but even for the poorest 10%, the rate is just up to about 4.5%, probably less than the average American. Also, as I note in another section below, that is inevitable (no matter the power source), and the health benefits from switching to clean energy at least help to reduce sickness, early death, and healthcare bills (perhaps even having a net positive financial impact on the poor, who are disproportionately affected by such costs).
The US National Academy of Science has totaled up some of the impacts from burning fossil fuels.
US National Academy of Science:
Coal is a non-renewable fossil fuel that currently accounts for approximately one-third of total U.S. energy production and nearly half of electricity produced; it has also produced more damages in aggregate than any other form of energy production whose damages were monetized by the committee. The model that was used to estimate coal’s external costs calculates damages associated with pollution’s effects on health, crop yields, building materials, and other areas.
Health damages include premature mortality and morbidity (the development of chronic bronchitis or asthma, for example). Non-climate damages resulting from the use of coal in electricity generation amounted to $62 billion in 2005, or 3.2 cents per kilowatt-hour(kWh). These damages are twenty times higher per kWh than damages from electricity generated by natural gas. More than 90 percent of the damages are associated with premature human mortality. Approximately 85 percent come from SO2 emissions, most of which are transformed into airborne particulate matter.
Below, I asked Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University to weigh in on fossil fuel health impacts, when I interviewed him in December 2013.
Sorry, but electricity in Germany IS expensive. It’s very expensive, by US standards. Which is exactly why Germans don’t use much of it, by US standards.
And it is indisputable that the Energiewende is largely responsible (both directly and indirectly) for recent increases: some through direct FIT taxation, and some through governmental Energiewende costs that are passed back to ratepayers via base price increases. And some costs are just eaten by taxpayers.
Germans are to be commended for reducing their usage of coal. But that decline hit bottom five years ago and bounced. Natural gas hit bottom three years ago and bounced harder. Electricity demand is increasing in Germany, and Energiewende’s renewables-only, turn-off-the-nukes policy has not been able to keep up. So right now, they’ve got the worst of both worlds: increasing CO2 emissions, AND some of the highest electricity prices in Europe.
In the first 9 years Energiewende has been policy, German CO2 emissions declined by about 10%, and since then they have bounce back by about 3%, leaving a net decline of about 7% over 14 years. In a similar 15 year period (1979-1994) France reduced its CO2 emissions by more than 20% with their nuclear transition, and they still have among the lowest electricity prices in Europe.
Energiewende isn’t a failure, at least not yet. But it’s still a long, long way from being a success.
a much larger percentage of electric expense is taxes and duties compared to very small increment for energiewende.
The fact that energy is expensive is in Germany does not vacate the fact that they are doing something about it. energy costs keep rising in the US as well, and new central power plants of any type are risky because of their expense, and the technical revolution of solar energy that is underway.
again, you keep repeating the canards about how terrible things must be in Germany, and they keep plugging away and proving their concept. when their economy collapses unequivocally due to energy prices, there will be a good time for post mortem and lessons learned. Till then, shouldn’t we consider that someone else who has obviously had some success, might have something to teach us? to say otherwise seems blinkered and arrogant.
http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution
Well sure German energy taxes are high. They have to be, so that Germany can afford $20 billion per year in subsidies for otherwise-uneconomic renewables.
Blaming it on taxes doesn’t change a thing. Those taxes are there for a reason, and the reason is the Energiewende.
You are ignoring Peters comments and making another half true statement. Go ahead and prove us wrong with a reference. Only some, not all of the retail electric rate goes towards renewables. Renewables are lowering wholesale rates, not increasing rates. The whole renewables are uneconomic and have subsidies is a complete flop. Everything is comparative. And in comparison, other energy sources also have subsidies, and massive ones at that.
I include a reference to dbl,investors so you don’t think Peter is the only one who thinks the renewables get too much subsidies is phony.
http://breakingenergy.com/2011/12/20/dbl-investors-oil-subsidies-far-higher-than-federal-renewables/
It’s quite curious, only when considering renewables do critics consider things like reserves, bird mortality, and subsidies. That’s why researchers like Sovacool use the word ” context”. One other word to consider. Parity. Hoping renewables would collapse? Too late. Already talking taking over.
This is a common misconception about German Energiwende: the main goal is not reducing carbon emissions (that’s just a positive side effect) but transformation of energy system to renewable energy.
If Energiewende was only about reducing carbon emissions, then they would first close down lignite power plants and nuclear later. But it’s not primarily about that. It’s about renewable energy. It’s an example that large industrialized country can get large fractions of energy from renewable sources.
Carbon emissions are a separate issue and Germany deals with carbon emissions together with other EU countries under european emissions scheme.
And btw, France has weaker economy than Germany, despite their ‘nuclear miracle’.
Keith- “it is indisputable that the Energiewende is largely responsible (both directly and indirectly) for recent increases: some through direct FIT taxation, and some through governmental Energiewende costs that are passed back to ratepayers via base price increases. And some costs are just eaten by taxpayers.”
It may be indisputable, but if it is, it can be documented and referenced with a citation. Also, the statements have no numbers and are an interpretation. If you would be so kind as to spare us the interpretation and show us the numbers so we can all decide for ourselves?
I don’t think that anyone can reasonably dispute that the Energiewende cost something or that there are increases (recent is how you put it, but did not describe which ones were recent or how much) in rates or taxes.
But the real question is, what are the benefits. Since something is paid for, its fair to ask what is gained. Here the answer is not so simple. The German people want a say in how their energy is produced and what society they want to live in. Its not just about CO2 for them, and Energiewende started long before the present era.
As far as the statement,
“Electricity demand is increasing in Germany, and Energiewende’s renewables-only, turn-off-the-nukes policy has not been able to keep up.”
That statement requires some explanation and some proof if you want anyone to believe it.
“As a reaction to the nuclear phaseout, Germany has thus started building zero coal plants but stepped away from six. At current power prices, all conventional projects are on hold, and coal power may soon be unprofitable in Germany.”
The truth is that coal plants are being mothballed, shut down, and cancelled. Base load plants are becoming unprofitable everywhere large amounts of solar is installed, in Germany, California, South Australia, and everywhere else.
Why is that?
If you want the truth, you should be asking what is the cost of solar today? What is the cost of wind today? What is the cost of nucear today? And what are the costs of all of these in the future?
Germany is an example of a country that was willing to pay to make an energy future they sought. Now the cost of solar is much lower and partly because of it.
Counting backward to what it cost them to do that is not very meaningful, now that the costs are lowered because of it. I think its completely commendable that they did so. And the results of this? Germany is the strongest economy in Europe and has better power reliability than any other country in Europe except Denmark. If thats what it took, maybe we should all be doing what they are doing. As far as being a success is concerned, look to the carbon targets set by the plan. Germany has met them. One more thing. Germany has lowered CO2 and continues to do so. Pointing to a recent uptick is not meaningful. Its not the electricity sector that is producing the most carbon. Its the transportation sector. Likewise France. No progress in the regard for many years. Whats on the horizon? EVs. Then there will be big changes everywhere.
Its easy to criticize Germany. And sure, we would all like much more. But it is one of the countries doing something and succeeding. Save your criticism for the areas where there are real failures. We need to get the lead out of the countries that are lagging or even backsliding. In many of them, their people are desperately asking for an Energiewende, but their governments are doing the bidding of fossil interests. Thats what is really holding up the show. I detect the smell of frustration with nuclear. If so, you need to show how its going to clean up its act, reverse years of decline, and become suddenly cheap enough to matter. In the real world, it isn’t happening.
http://energytransition.de/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/citigroup-says-the-age-of-renewables-has-begun
Here we go again—-Germany and France (can Denmark be far behind?) And when will Arcus and E-Pot arrive so that we can have a round-robin on what great stuff is going on with 85 and 80 and 5 million people in countries that have had electricity for a long time. Good examples to follow and it’s nice to see “progress” being made, but that’s not where the real problem lies
One-fifth of the world’s population has little or no access to electricity, including 300+ million Indians (that India number alone is about double the combined populations of Germany and France). People are flocking to the cities in China and India and coal is what they’re going to use to generate the electricity. I keep thinking we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope all too often (and I don’t mean just Omno).
Ooooops. Typo. France has only 66 million people, not that an error of 14 million matters much in the big picture.
India and China don’t care that much about their emissions because they didn’t cause the CO2 problem. They point their finger towards developed countries.
Everyone wants to burn coal because it’s the cheapest. If other sources become cheaper then other sources will be used.
Solar is already cheaper and China is now paying the mortgage for “cheap coal”. They got the easy now, pain later plan by bankrupting their skies, which are now a sewer and that is costing them dearly. Coal is cheap in Australia, too, and yet coal plants are closing, yielding to wind and solar. The future really is now. Right now. The thing is, nobody gets it yet. Its already happening and no one knows it.
Thank adelady for waking us up.
“The scope of lower demand was officially recognised by the Australian Energy Market Operator in June, when it highlighted the fact that energy demand across the country the National Electricity Market was 5.7 per cent lower than forecast in 2011/12 because of the combined effect of energy efficiency measures, solar PV, and lower manufacturing.”
This is another place we can look to as an example. The war is being waged there right now, with the Abbott government trying unsuccessfully to stop inevitable change.
“It noted that just a few months ago, the Brattle Group released a study that showed that 30 GW of coal power was likely to be retired by 2016. The researchers have just updated their report: Now they think it’ll be 59-77 GW that goes down. As David Roberts notes over at Grist, that’s 20-25% of the United States’ entire coal fleet in just a few years.”
We live in interesting times.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-coal-fired-generation-49290
“Coal is cheap in Australia, too, and yet coal plants are closing, yielding to wind and solar. The future really is now. Right now. The thing is, nobody gets it yet. Its already happening and no one knows it”???? You got that right—nobody gets it and nobody knows it because they are being bright-sided and ignoring facts.
Here’s just a small portion of the EIA analysis on Australia that shows what’s really happening in Australia. Read the last paragraph as many times as necessary until you get it.
“Australia is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for its primary energy consumption. In 2012, petroleum and other liquids accounted for an estimated 36% of the country’s total energy used. The share of oil consumption has risen in the past few years as it supports the country’s commodity production growth, mining, and petrochemical industry as well as the transportation sector.
“Coal and natural gas account for 36% and 21% of the energy demand portfolio, respectively. Severe flooding in the state of Queensland in 2010 and 2011 affected coal production in the country, and the government has promoted policies to reduce coal consumption, particularly in the power sector, in favor of cleaner fuels. Renewable sources, including hydroelectricity, wind, solar, and biomass accounted for more than 6% of total consumption. Although the country is rich in uranium, Australia has no nuclear-powered electricity generation capacity and exports all of its uranium production.
“Australia implemented a fixed-price tax on carbon dioxide emissions to be paid by the top emitting companies in July 2012 as part of the country’s goal to reduce emissions by 5% in 2020 from 2000 levels. This tax was expected to lead to an increase in natural gas and renewable energy use, particularly in the electricity sector, and replace coal-fired power. In 2012, BREE projected that the shares of natural gas and renewables for primary energy consumption will increase to 34% and 14%, respectively, by 2050. However, the current government, which was elected in mid-2013, repealed the carbon tax legislation in July 2014 to remove the financial burden on industries required to pay for releasing emissions. This policy reversal is likely to allow coal to continue to hold a significant share of the energy consumption mix, particularly in the power sector. The reversal also may temper the expected pace of growth in renewable energy use as these sources are more expensive to develop than coal.
It lead to a decrease in natural gas use. The policy change is past doing anything. The cost of electricity is 40c/ kwhr. The changes are happening already and they are irreversible. Not the Abbott government or anyone else, koch brothers, you name it, are going to change that fact. Solar and wind have already reached the parity point and are now crossing over. It can be delayed politically, but in contradictory fashion, putting up more barriers has only made renewables stronger.
Wind him up and watch him mindlessly babble on in his delusional state of bright-sidedness. Did you even read the quotes in my comment? Do you EVER look at the data on where the world’s energy is coming from RIGHT NOW, and will be coming from for a long time as we wait for “lines to cross”?
And WHAT led to a “decrease in natural gas use” in Australia? Got a “reference”? And do you know how much LNG Australia EXPORTS? And to where? Stop focusing on renewables and look at the real world for a change.
It’s not very hard to find references to solar reducing gas powered generation in Australia.
The gas fired generators are also suffering, because they are being marginalised from acting as base load generators to only intermediate and peak roles. The peaks in the state’s grid have also been pushed back at least one hour, and shrunken in duration – which is good news for consumers, but not for generators.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/the-remarkable-energy-transition-in-south-australia-24648
Nearly all major generators are winding back or mothballing capacity in gas-fired generation as the rising cost of gas make gas-fired generators more expensive to run. Baseload gas generation – once hailed as the great “transition” fuel from coal to renewables – is now being priced out of the market.
The situation in energy markets in Australia is broadly comparable to what is happening in Germany, where some 30GW of gas-fired generation has been mothballed or facing closure, even those newly opened. Even in the US, where gas prices are lower, plans for new gas generation have been dumped in favour of large scale solar plants purely on the basis of price, Citigroup has reported.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/gas-price-surge-sends-wrecking-ball-through-energy-markets-19541
My recommendation? Read a book. The Tipping Point.
Do you ever really read ALL of these magnificent meaningless references you tout to us? You have a great talent for picking out the bright-sided pap and ignoring the full truths contained in them.
Do you ever notice the “COULD becomes” and “IF the numbers work out” that the folks who are making 10-YEAR projections seem to be clever enough to put in there to avoid accusations of throwing BS? Look for them—they’re in there, as is “AEMO SUGGESTS that rooftop solar PV and energy efficiency will account for more than 20 per cent of South Australia’s PROJECTED electricity demand by 2023/24. WOW! 20% ten years from now! SUGGESTS? PROJECTS?
Did you notice that the “segments” graph is another one of those that always trap you because you’re “graph-impaired”? The data begins at 8,000m GWh, so all those huge wedges at the top actually represent a lot less change than you want them to, to say nothing of the fact that they are 10-year-out “coulds” and “ifs”. You can’t understand the nature of the “climb” by looking only at the top steps
Did you miss the following statements in the other “reference” you cited?
The relentless surge of gas prices that are bound to occur as Australia ramps up its new LNG export capacity on the eastern seaboard has barely begun, but already it is having a devastating impact on the country’s electricity markets.
“It’s a crazy situation because the gas will be exported to replace coal in China,” one analyst noted. “So coal is burned in Australia to make gas that is shipped to China to replace coal. Of course the process is itself energy intensive.”
My recommendations? Read the stuff you post—it does not say what you want it to say. Read the stuff I have posted—it does not say what you want it to say either, but is based on FACT. Why do you never specifically refute any of it but instead just throw more bright-sided horsepucky against the wall? Read the many books I have recommended to all on Crock. The Tipping Point was an interesting read, but it is more of a social science/psychology/behavioral screed, and is even a bit “pop”. True, it has some applicability in the psywars that are going on around AGW, but we are better served by reading books that focus on the science and math and economics.
PS Forgot to say that South Australia is no more typical of the entire country than Mississippi is of the U.S. What’s going on in the rest of Australia? I spoke the whole picture. Are you cherry picking?
DOG – the reason the whole article is quoted is so you can read the whole thing and disagree with it if you like. Its all there for everyone. Thats why I reference so much. You have disparaged my use of reference in the past and now, but you don’t seem to understand that their whole point is to allow differences and open discussion, not merely to take a position.
My point is simply that solar displaces fossil fuels, nothing more, nothing less. Neither I nor the article says that solar is the only thing changing natural gas use.
Take whatever you want from the article. That is what I get. Here is a quote from the article.
“It’s not just the rising gas prices that are forcing these write-downs, it is also the record low wholesale prices, caused by falling demand and the impact of renewables.”
That pretty much sums it up.
Yes, I really do read whole articles. And books. Look at it all as many ways as you like, by all means. If its not a real energy revolution, its nothing.
Lets not miss the point made by Peter. Germany and South Australia, or California or Hawaii are not important because they are the whole world. They are important because they are examples of what we could be doing and will be doing more and more. We all know fossil fuels are dominant. What Peter is reporting on is how that is starting to change. We would all like it to transform overnight. Thats not going to happen. I just would like to know what is actually going on and its not going to be reported on MSM. What bone can you pick with a site dedicated to news about renewables? I think it adds balance to a sea of fossil fuel propaganda. If you have a problem with what is happening in South Australia, blame it on adelady. She is the one that brought my attention to coal plants closing there in the first place. Coal plants closing in the land of king coal or anywhere really is news. Everyone is doing a pretty good job of ignoring it, and the balance would be served by letting a few more people know about the changes that already have taken place.
As Yoda would say, “The motivated reasoning is strong in this one”, and Yogi would follow that with “It’s deja vu all over again”.
You say “read the whole thing and disagree with it if you like”. I don’t disagree with the FACTS that may be contained in those articles, just the OPINIONS on where we MIGHT be 20 or 30 years from now. You, on the other hand, pick and choose among the opinions to find ones that you like and ignore the facts. Open discussion my ass, you are a propagandist who just keeps pushing the same bright-sided horsepucky and refuses to be diverted.
And I will say again, you NEVER deal with any of the arguments that are presented to you. What is your interpretation of “It’s a crazy situation because the gas will be exported to replace coal in China,” one analyst noted. “So coal is burned in Australia to make gas that is shipped to China to replace coal. Of course the process is itself energy intensive.”? Why do you not respond to what I pointed out about the misleading “segments” graph? (As well as your misinterpretations of other graphs on other threads?)
Actually, you are so far over the line, that I’m beginning to think that you’re some sort of a mole here. Perhaps a shill for the fossil fuels interests with your mindless knee-jerk rejection of nuclear power? That’s perhaps too obvious. Much more subtly, you shill for them by spouting “don’t worry, be happy” crap about how renewables are taking over and all will soon be well? Those who buy into that will sit back and say “It’s OK, Arcus says the lines will cross SOON”, and never notice that the fossil fuel interests plan to burn every last bit of fossil fuel until it’s too late and thereby destroy the planet.
You would like to know “what is actually going on”? I call BS on that—what is going on is that we are close to losing the battle and you don’t want to face that—you are either just plain afraid or you ARE the fossil fuel “lull them to sleep while we burn it all” shill that your remarks seem to show (especially that closing paragraph).
You never deal with facts at all, dog, and you seldom make references. Dispute the quote or admit you are just a grumpy guy. It’s turning everyone off. All that verbiage and not a single refutation of the simple quote. Your conspiracy paranoia is just that. FYI. Resorting to personal attack reveals the paucity of your argument.
“It’s not just the rising gas prices that are forcing these write-downs, it is also the record low wholesale prices, caused by falling demand and the impact of renewables.”
I used to think Arcus was a pretty reasonable, intelligent, and well informed guy, but this latest string of comments has me wondering if he has gone off the deep end. Perhaps he’s just playing with me, and making inane remarks to goad me?
Either way, this comment requires a response. I will leave it to other Crockers to decide who deals in “facts” more. A measuring stick that might be applied is that I make many statements of fact (or opinion based on analysis of facts) and invite Arcus to refute them. I dispute many of his so-called “facts” in detail and invite Arcus to respond. He never does either, and merely responds with the kinds of inanities we see in this comment.
Now he is DEMANDING that I refute a quote from a “reference”. (In his mind, a “reference” is something you can pluck a sentence or a few words from and then use to support arguments way beyond their original contextual meaning). Let’s look at his oh-so-important (to him) quote:
“It’s not just the rising gas prices that are forcing these write-downs, it is also the record low wholesale prices, caused by falling demand and the impact of renewables.”
Starting at the beginning with a short Journalism/English Composition review, the title of the “reference” from which the “quote” comes is “Gas Price Surge Sends Wrecking Ball Through Energy Markets”, and that tells us the topic of the piece. The very first sentence is: “The relentless surge of gas prices that are bound to occur as Australia ramps up its new LNG export capacity on the eastern seaboard has barely begun, but already it is having a devastating impact on the country’s electricity markets”—-that’s known as a “hook” to get your attention and is an info followup to the title. The rest of an article or essay fleshes that out. This “hook”would seem to be leading us to gas price surges, LNG export, and disruption of electricity markets.
Some FACTS about this article that is a “reference”
1) it is 20 paragraphs long.
2) It mentions “coal” and “gas” ~20 times.
3) it mentions “renewables” twice and “solar” twice, and those mentions are asides rather than major parts of any argument.
4) that can be seen in the single sentence from one of those 20 paragraphs that Arcus says MUST be refuted if I am to have any credibility
5) FOUR things are “forcing writedowns”—-“rising gas prices, record low wholesale prices, falling demand—–AND (oh yes) the impact of renewables”.
There is really nothing to refute or dispute in the quote. The article makes the statement, it seems reasonable in light of what the other TWENTY paragraphs say, so I accept it. What I do NOT accept is Arcus trying to make some huge argument out of nothing. He insults us all. So, I have laid out much more “verbiage” and refuted not the quote but Arcus’s credibility—will he admit his error or keep on ignoring the FACTS that I lay on his wishful thinking at every turn?
(And Arcus now speaks for “everyone” with “It’s turning everyone off”?. I await the outpouring of support for that comment. Methinks that my “conspiracy theory” has both hit home with Arcus (hence the squirming) and will gain more support from Crockers than his “personal attack” on me).
Other CCees have voted. Yes. You are grumpy.
And on what do you base that bald assertion? Who’s counting the ballots and where’s mine? Have all the hanging chads been accounted for?
Peter – thanks. More evidence that renewables provide energy reliably in large amounts. Coal and natural gas plants are less needed and their demise is an inevitable consequence of adding renewables. The transition to renewables is accompanied by a better, smarter, grid and that leads to a more resilient, reliable supply.
The bottom line is that it’s not like there’s a real choice here. Energy transition has to happen one way (renewables) or another (nuclear, or renewables plus nuclear). Fossil carbon won’t last, it is highly pollutive, and long before we’ll run out of them the costs will start to skyrocket as production rates fall past their peaks and as we move more and more to unconventional sources. Germany is one of the few countries on the planet that doesn’t have its head completely up its arse.
I’m kind of reserving judgment on Germany itself. I’m personally very skeptical of the idea that energy transition PLUS economic expansion really does much to mitigate climate change. On a global scale, it does nothing, and it probably has the opposite effect, as GDP growth requires manufacturing, which these days is relegated to the developing world, which then in turn develops and ramps up their own emissions and demand.
But energy transition itself is an essential step if we have any desire to maintain civilization past this century. It’s too early to nitpick this and that with Germany’s approach. There are some bad signs (lignite use) and good signs (total renewable energy provided). EVERY country SHOULD be at least attempting rapid energy transition in whatever way they deem best. It’s foolishness to simply sit with our hands under our legs and pretend the problem solves itself (via the ‘free market’ and money influencing politics).
“Germany is one of the few countries on the planet that doesn’t have its head completely up its arse.”
which is why you see all the germany bashing.
Where is all this Germany bashing taking place? Not on Crock. I myself admire the Germans for making much better progress than the U.S. and setting a good example. I don’t see why they had to abandon nukes and instead burn more coal, but even the Japanese, who were so much more dependent on nukes, shut them down and are now looking to Australia to provide them with fossil fuels to replace them. All because some fools didn’t know enough to put the emergency generators on top of the hill rather than next to the beach?
Any “bashing” I do that mentions Germany is actually “bashing” those folks who want to take the progress that Germany has made and the projections for the future and say “Look, our problems can be solved if we just do like Germany”. They say this while ignoring the very grim worldwide picture regarding continued and even expanded fossil fuel use. I speak often about too much bright-sidedness and wishful thinking based on “Germany” here on Crock, but that’s not “germany bashing”.
Incorrect use of quotes. A correct use of quotes is a direct copy of statements in the record surrounded with quotation marks, preferably indented and spaced. “Those folks” is not a correct authorship attribution.
As far as your emotional response to a largely technical issue, all I can say is that no one with such an emotional response has any grounds criticisizing the Japanese people or the German people for choosing to move away from nuclear on any grounds, particularly emotional ones. And once again, we are talking about nuclear
And an emotional obsession with that technology instead of talking about the broader perspectives of Energiewende and technology. Yes. I am not bashing Germany, either. But then I am not obsessed with complaining about renewables so I can advance my thinly disguised bias in favor of nuclear.
Where were we?
Natural gas use decreased in Australia when solar was introduced. Baseload plants are going out of business in Germany. Renewables reduce carbon. Pope catholic. News at 11.
Deja Vu
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/10/18/breaking-news-dog-bites-man-pope-catholic-wind-energy-saves-carbon/
Yeah, yeah, yeah, my style is abrasive and I am not making friends.
” I get complaints, but it keeps getting worse.”
Yep, I must have hit home with the accusation of shilling, because Arcus is now doing a “Tasmanian Devil” and whirling around frantically as he seeks to make it “all about DOG” rather than his own “failings”. Standard tactic for evaders.
I have to laugh at his punctuation lesson. I have probably forgotten more about grammar and punctuation than he has ever learned, but I AM glad that he has looked something up, even though he seems to have “quoted” someone else rather than use his own words and is therefore in “violation” of the “rules” he gave us. Everyone may note that I have used quotation marks SIX times already here and that I often use them in similar fashion in comments. If Arcus dug a little more, he might discover the idea of a “qualifier”, which can be a word or punctuation marks meant to modify the meaning of a word. It denotes a “special” meaning or usage of a word—-it can imply irony, sarcasm, or “read between the lines because there is something beyond the literal here”. It is also akin to the “air quotes” people sometimes make with their fingers while speaking, which are often further “qualified” by facial expression or body language.
And here comes “straw man time”. Arcus now tries to define me on his terms so that he can attack me. He is now just another “demented rooster strutting in the barnyard” (I’m stopping the overuse of qualifying quotation marks now—I’ve made the point)
I am intense but never emotional about things like this, and I do criticize both the Japanese and the Germans for their “emotional” reaction to Fukushima. It WAS idiotic to place the emergency generators there and the Japanese have criticized themselves over it and the whole world agrees. Existing Nuclear reactors should be shut down only if they present a safety hazard, and should be kept running at least until all the coal-fired plants are gone. Along with Hansen and many others, I see nuclear power as a necessary evil if we hope to get CO2 under control. That does not constitute bias.
I am not obsessed with nuclear, never mind emotionally so. E-Pot is really not either—he merely takes a strong position to counter the crap that people like you throw out there. You are the one that is obsessed with bright-sidedness about renewables. I do not complain about renewables, I complain about YOUR mindless obsession. I am strongly in favor of renewables of nearly every kind and fervently hope that the “lines” will cross soon enough to save us from destruction. I also talk more about the “broader perspective” on Crock than you do—-as in Population dynamics and sustainability, worldwide fossil fuel use and energy sources. No one ever said YOU were bashing Germany.just that it was all you wanted to look at (and now you’re adding a rather misguided view of Australia—you should stick with Germany where you have a better case)
Lord love a duck, but there is straw all over the place now! Give it up!
Where were we, you ask? I don’t know—the rest of this makes no sense.
Jimbills – yes. same page as me. Has to be renewables plus sustainability in the context of a larger framework. A culture, society, and economics that values sustainability, resources, and environment. your vision is clear. Yes. Nitpicking has little relevance in a big picture. We need to see what matters most clearly. Economic expansion sounds too much like exponential, compound growth. When that subject gets discussed openly with good ideas, that’s when real progress will be made. Until then, renewables are only a grappling hook preventing backsliding against the forces demanding growth and consequent resource depletion.