Why Solar and Wind cannot power Germany

[Nicodeamus]

Michael Schellenberger (ex Renewable lovr) also agrees with me.
The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

Germans believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. Many of them will insist that the renewables effort was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The Energiewende was doomed to fail.

www.forbes.com

“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” write Der Spiegel’s Frank Dohmen, Alexander Jung, Stefan Schultz, Gerald Traufetter in their a 5,700-word investigative story.

Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.

“The politicians fear citizen resistance” Der Spiegel reports. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”

The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

Germans believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. Many of them will insist that the renewables effort was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The Energiewende was doomed to fail.

www.forbes.com

Here is the original article in Der Spiegel.

German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future

In 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the country was turning away from nuclear energy in favor of a renewable future. Since then, however, progress has been limited. Berlin has wasted billions of euros and resistance is mounting.

www.spiegel.de

"But the sweeping idea has become bogged down in the details of German reality. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, the greatest political project undertaken here since Germany's reunification, is facing failure. In the eight years since Fukushima, none of Germany's leaders in Berlin have fully thrown themselves into the project, not least the chancellor. Lawmakers have introduced laws, decrees and guidelines, but there is nobody to coordinate the Energiewende, much less speed it up. And all of them are terrified of resistance from the voters, whenever a wind turbine needs to be erected or a new high-voltage transmission line needs to be laid out."

So @Johnatan56, are these people crazy, wrong, misinformed, biased, out of touch, not embracing the future, bought by coal lobbies, conspiracy theories? Or do they have a point that we should be concerned?

Or do they have a point that this entire transition has a hefty price tag and subsequently it is impoverishing people (if you haven't figured it out yet, that is the central premise of my argument). Energy Poverty has political consequences (Gillet Jaune in France, ADF in Germany, Nigel Farage etc) all these guys are screaming at the renewables and this is also what my German colleges tell me,

 

[Johnatan56]

"Solar and wind power provide roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity needs, but only when the sun is shining or the wind blowing. The biggest demand for electricity generally comes in the late afternoon—right when the daily contribution from solar is dropping. That mismatch in supply and demand is a big but predictable challenge for power managers: They know that every day, they’ll have to fill that gap with another power source.
“It is fairly well known that the sun sets in the evening,” says Amol Phadke, an energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “We can predict the exact time it will set many years in advance.”
Sometimes the wind can step in for the sun, but it’s obviously fickle too. Nuclear and hydroelectric plants provide power more consistently, and their presence helps to smooth out the peaks and valleys of solar and wind production. But in California these days, it’s natural gas that picks up most of the slack, largely because the state’s nearly 200 plants can respond quickly to upticks in demand."

You do know that hydro is renewable, right? And then you ignored the second statement where gas peakers are.

That is another negative consequence of intermittent sources, they end up requiring subsidies for technologies that have a proven record, because the reliable ones only have a few hours to work.

You do know that nuclear has been subsidized for years, right? Near all nuclear power plants have some form of guaranteed purchase price, and that is one of the main reasons for France's EDF having issues (since France went from 75 to 50% from nuclear, and lots of plants are now aging with the tariffs not having included decommissioning costs).
We also don't take into account the US military/navy nuclear research as a subsidy.
But not really going to argue any of this since you're going to ignore it anyways as usual, since this was already answered in a previous thread. Again, we do know how expensive they are, that's what the levelized costs are for. Check things like the Lazard report.

The problem is that they are highly inefficient at providing electricity, compare the supply and consumption graph? 8% is ridiculous compare to the subsidies that they got.

Source (get your media here, CNN ETc and celeberate)
View attachment 959400

Consumption (look away from the reality)

View attachment 959402

Those are both consumption? Did you factor in cost per Wh for those installs? If it costs less than half as much to provide a Wh, why wouldn't you just build two? Another dumb argument again.

View attachment 959410

Now look in red the countries that have the so called "expensive" Nuclear Option.

What does a sensible person make of that? Are they wrong to criticize expensive energy prices?

Has nothing to do with higher wages at all. Also, why aren't you marking GB in red? They have Hinkley point. Or ignoring Belgium's 7 nuclear reactors?

No it's not BS, factors might slightly change, but the central argument remains, renewable proponents keep looking away at two fundamental problems, diffusion and intermittence.

Who said it wasn't being addressed? You just fail to mention it every time.

That mix system increases the overall consumer price, why don't you seem to grasp that?

Prove it, long-term that it increases cost over say 2020-2030 based on projections. Note to take into account carbon tax as well. I see no direct increase in costs besides places like California where they jumped early, or Germany where they were also moderately early and are sorting out their grid system.

California has housing issues as well, because these same renewable guys wants to push Smart homes (that also increase housing prices), its all part of the same trio.

Wow, that's a reach, even for you.

Again I am not against renewables for heating your water or helping some remote kid put the lights on, but on a grid size it is completely oversold.

Except it seems to be working out just fine in most places?

That is just not true, its cheaper to generate, but you need a backup for it, gas in the mix,

If you look at half the system then yes, its cheaper, but you're misleading yourself, if you argue like that.

That's the entire point, mix of system with the gas peaker is still cheaper.

I have made this argument a few times here already, if you buy a renewable system then you inherently buy a mix energy system. From what I understand, you actually agree with that, but you keep on hamering on how cheap and wonderful renewables is (which is true if you only look at the renewables), but kindly ignore the increase in prices that it creates for the rest of your system. (that is dishonest)

When did I do that? I only post levelized costs, never solar or wind on its own.

No, I am giving you a few facts and you're ranting like a child, because you don't like hearing the alternative argument.

Absolutely not, that's a red herring if I've ever seen one.

Consequently people suffered in Energy Poverty... that is quite a statement though, here take something that is expensive, it is good for the environment, but you know it is going to put you in poverty.

Brilliant ethics there, you need to feel good while others suffer.

So because California is a rich state, already went down that path and paved the way for the rest of it, we should just completely ignore it and run headlong down a cliff instead? That's got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've heard in a while. Then how are you into nuclear? It was subsidized by the US military and state, should we ignore it because others sacrificed first? Should we find out who suffered from the first coal plants fumes and then give up on it because back then it was expensive and harmed health (and actually still does, just look at Eskom's coal plant ring/area).

How is it biased? It shows the impact of Energy Poverty in Germany, they did a study and that proved it.

Wow, that kind of summarizes all your arguments, obviously unable to detect any bias if it conforms to your narrative.

 

[Johnatan56]

Michael Schellenberger (ex Renewable lovr) also agrees with me.
The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

Germans believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. Many of them will insist that the renewables effort was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The Energiewende was doomed to fail.

www.forbes.com

The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

Germans believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. Many of them will insist that the renewables effort was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The Energiewende was doomed to fail.

www.forbes.com

Here is the original article in Der Spiegel.

German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future

In 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the country was turning away from nuclear energy in favor of a renewable future. Since then, however, progress has been limited. Berlin has wasted billions of euros and resistance is mounting.

www.spiegel.de

"But the sweeping idea has become bogged down in the details of German reality. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, the greatest political project undertaken here since Germany's reunification, is facing failure. In the eight years since Fukushima, none of Germany's leaders in Berlin have fully thrown themselves into the project, not least the chancellor. Lawmakers have introduced laws, decrees and guidelines, but there is nobody to coordinate the Energiewende, much less speed it up. And all of them are terrified of resistance from the voters, whenever a wind turbine needs to be erected or a new high-voltage transmission line needs to be laid out."

So @Johnatan56, are these people crazy, wrong, misinformed, biased, out of touch, not embracing the future, bought by coal lobbies, conspiracy theories? Or do they have a point that we should be concerned?

Or do they have a point that this entire transition has a hefty price tag and subsequently it is impoverishing people (if you haven't figured it out yet, that is the central premise of my argument). Energy Poverty has political consequences (Gillet Jaune in France, ADF in Germany, Nigel Farage etc) all these guys are screaming at the renewables and this is also what my German colleges tell me,

Schellenberger is definitely not a valid source:

Article by Michael Shellenberger mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change - Science Feedback

"Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying...

climatefeedback.org

Misleading Arguments Abound in Op-Ed Promoting New Michael Shellenberger Climate Denial Book “Apocalypse Never”

Misleading Arguments Abound in Op-Ed Promoting New Michael Shellenberger Climate Denial Book “Apocalypse Never”

climatenexus.org

The environmentalist's apology: how Michael Shellenberger unsettled some of his prominent supporters

The American environment and energy commentator’s piece in the Australian has found praise in conservative media

www.theguardian.com

I remember watching one of his things, he often made up facts/lied in the video, there are lots of articles on it and there are pieces from professors in the field correcting it. Not going to bother linking it, you can do that yourself, might learn how to get credible sources then.

 

[Nicodeamus]

right, call what you don't like bias and not credible and ignore the poverty that these policies cause,

great argument strategy.

Here is more evidence that California's over all policies are increasingly unpopulation,

The California exodus is speeding up

People have long dreamed of moving to California, but increasingly the people in the state are looking to get out.

qz.com

people are leaving the state.

So much for "paving the way forward", one of the biggest migrations of middle classes in the US in the last few years have been away from California and New York,


but let's not pretend that policies have anything to do with that.

 

[Nicodeamus]

What do you know, over all people like to move to places that offer them affordable energy.

Two Decades of Interstate Migration | Newgeography.com

www.newgeography.com

and away from policies that are green and renewable....



No trend to see here guys?

 

[Johnatan56]

right, call what you don't like bias and not credible and ignore the poverty that these policies cause,

You have yet to post credible sources for pretty much anything I've called you out on.

great argument strategy.

Here is more evidence that California's over all policies are increasingly unpopulation,

The California exodus is speeding up

People have long dreamed of moving to California, but increasingly the people in the state are looking to get out.

qz.com

people are leaving the state.

So much for "paving the way forward", one of the biggest migrations of middle classes in the US in the last few years have been away from California and New York,
View attachment 959452

but let's not pretend that policies have anything to do with that.

That's got nothing to do with electricity prices again, that's mostly housing prices. You're messing up correlation vs causation again.

No one is moving states because of a 2.7% of household income fee for electricity.

How Much Do Americans Spend on Electricity? (2026) — Electric Choice

How much of your income goes to electricity? See state-by-state data on electricity spending as a percentage of household income, and who pays the most.

www.electricchoice.com

Now stop posting nonsense and come back with a proper argument.

What do you know, over all people like to move to places that offer them affordable energy.

Two Decades of Interstate Migration | Newgeography.com

www.newgeography.com

View attachment 959454


and away from policies that are green and renewable....

View attachment 959456

No trend to see here guys?

Wow, so you picked Florida, the state people go to retire, Texas where a lot of new businesses are opening because California taxes/business laws and property prices are insane, etc. to make your point that electricity prices are the issue. You really stretch there.
From your own article:

Where are people going? Mostly cheaper states nearby, like Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon, as well as Texas, according to an analysis from the Sacramento Bee. As housing in California continues to skyrocket in expense, it increasingly makes sense to leave. According to the real estate company Zillow, the average house in California has risen from about $300,000 in 2012, to about $550,000 in 2019. Those numbers have scared many a family out of the state.

 

[Nicodeamus]

You have yet to post credible sources for pretty much anything I've called you out on.

That's got nothing to do with electricity prices again, that's mostly housing prices. You're messing up correlation vs causation again.
View attachment 959458
No one is moving states because of a 2.7% of household income fee for electricity.

How Much Do Americans Spend on Electricity? (2026) — Electric Choice

How much of your income goes to electricity? See state-by-state data on electricity spending as a percentage of household income, and who pays the most.

www.electricchoice.com

Now stop posting nonsense and come back with a proper argument.

Wow, so you picked Florida, the state people go to retire, Texas where a lot of new businesses are opening because California taxes/business laws and property prices are insane, etc. to make your point that electricity prices are the issue. You really stretch there.

Taxes, housing and ....wait for it

Electricity prices. (they are cheap in texas). Companies prefer cheaper electricity costs and they don't want indirect subsidies so that they can stay competitive.


Don't ignore the third one.

Also just to educate you, energy poverty also includes how much you spend on your car and heating your home. E


And Florida despite its retirement nature is actually where a lot of young families are moving towards.

 

[itareanlnotani]

I pretty much gave up on him. He has a viewpoint, and he's sticking to it, despite the evidence.

In other news -
SA will likely have more unaffordable nuclear, as government is too tied into appeasing Russia?, it seems.
We can't afford it, and it will bankrupt an already bankrupt state.

 

[Nicodeamus]

I pretty much gave up on him. He has a viewpoint, and he's sticking to it, despite the evidence.

You're also the other one that keeps ignoring the evidence.

In other news -
SA will likely have more unaffordable nuclear, as government is too tied into appeasing Russia?, it seems.
We can't afford it, and it will bankrupt an already bankrupt state.

Great decision, but I am skeptical of the Russians and the Potential Guptas. I might actually agree with you on that point.

 

[Archer]

Yet another MyBB thread spawned from people looking for evidence to fit their premade conclusion, and seemingly not able to consider any compromise or alternative view.

Once someone has shown an unwillingness to compromise (especially on complex topics) there really is no point to any form of discussion, at that point you'll have more success convincing rocks that they are in fact flying pigs.

 

[richjdavies]

Dont tell.him... but Texas is BIG into Wind energy... Keep it quiet though!

 

[Nicodeamus]

Dont tell.him... but Texas is BIG into Wind energy... Keep it quiet though!

"Texas is the nation’s leading producer of wind energy. Yet most of the thousands of wind turbines littering the Texas landscape would not exist if Texas had not built subsidized transmission lines. These “CREZ” lines were needed because while the wind blows best in West Texas, most Texans live far to the east and along the Gulf Coast. The CREZ lines will cost Texans around $19 billion over their estimated useful life. Wind and solar farms also benefit from more than $3.5 billion in abatements offered by Texas counties and school districts."

Renewable Subsidies Leading America Toward European-Style Energy Poverty

Recent headlines have touted the record $55 billion renewable sector investments last year. Yet these headlines hide the fact that the renewable energy industry has been engaged in a world-class

www.realclearenergy.org

"In other words, because of the harm caused by the $120 billion that Americans are forced to pay to the renewable industry, we are now being forced to pay billions more to keep traditional generators afloat."



just another ignorant person worrying about energy poverty I suppose. (making the same point that I do),
"Bill Peacock is the Vice President of Research at the Texas Public Policy Foundation."

What would an expert in Public Policy know..

 

[richjdavies]

Wow... Going from "people move to Texas because of cheap energy" to... Texas is being bankrupted by wind energy.

That was quick!

 

[itareanlnotani]

Wow... Going from "people move to Texas because of cheap energy" to... Texas is being bankrupted by wind energy.

That was quick!

It's all those subsidized transmission lines don't you know!

All that investment in infrastructure to enable cheaper production - what a scam!

 

[richjdavies]

Subsidised infrastructure! Its communism damn it. All those highways should be dug up and returned to turn pikes!

(Oh unless my buddies are involved, then keep paying them other people's money to 'support' 'clean' coal - ports for export, railways, pipeslines for gas etc...)

 

[Nicodeamus]

 

[Johnatan56]

I see a lot of sources there.

 

[richjdavies]

20 mins of youtube of a guy talking to himself about "the problem of toxicity of solar panels... "... Great research

So solar panels would leach bad chemicals if we dispose of them (why you wouldn't recycle them is beyond me!) . Alright, so we better get back to burning coal and breathing in those same deadly chemicals and killing miners down shafts instead.

Come on now.
X has some negative side effects so X must be bad.
What matters is if X is better or worse than Y (i.e. the status quo, i.e. burning coal!!!)

Here's how many premature deaths in SA are linked to Eskom power plants - Greenpeace claim | News24

Eskom's pollution has been linked to premature deaths in Mpumalanga and Gauteng, an environmental organisation has charged.

www.news24.com

Even forgetting climate change, coal kills LOTS of people. Anything is better than it.
Solar is cheaper to do NOW. It may not have been 5-10 years ago. It is now

 

[Nicodeamus]

20 mins of youtube of a guy talking to himself about "the problem of toxicity of solar panels... "... Great research

So solar panels would leach bad chemicals if we dispose of them (why you wouldn't recycle them is beyond me!) . Alright, so we better get back to burning coal and breathing in those same deadly chemicals and killing miners down shafts instead.

Come on now.
X has some negative side effects so X must be bad.
What matters is if X is better or worse than Y (i.e. the status quo, i.e. burning coal!!!)

Here's how many premature deaths in SA are linked to Eskom power plants - Greenpeace claim | News24

Eskom's pollution has been linked to premature deaths in Mpumalanga and Gauteng, an environmental organisation has charged.

www.news24.com

Even forgetting climate change, coal kills LOTS of people. Anything is better than it.
Solar is cheaper to do NOW. It may not have been 5-10 years ago. It is now

I am not in favour of Coal apart from the fact that many countries have absolutely no choice but to use it, including South Africa that will probably have to construct a few more power stations. Our economy is structured around the miners and factory workers that depend on it,

Again, I am not against Solar for small scale you, I am objecting to large scale grid use and the issues that it creates (which are well documented by now).

Here is a good PR for the moral case for Coal. 45% of Africans still use Wood to heat up their homes, Coal would be better for the environment for them.

And this is what the C02 Lobby is saying.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Here is what I find rather tragic though, the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in Dubei was build in a record time, a record budget and ahead of schedule, it will supply 25% of Dubei's energy, giving them decent base load capacity. An equivalent plant will produce 10% of South Africa's electricity and its environmental footprint would be negligible.

Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, UAE

The 5.6GW Barakah nuclear power plant (NPP) in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), was jointly developed by Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). It is the first nuclear power project to be developed in the country.

www.power-technology.com

Do you know who ran most of the construction site? Mostly South African expats were managing the site, working for the Korean company. We are known for good project management skills and there is no reason why we cannot repeat that experience in SA.

Fortunately our government is also looking into Nuclear, but like most of you I am concerned about their long fingers.

South African expats build UAE nuclear plant, yet no solutions in Sona laundry list

The UAE has pledged that the last drop of fossil fuel would be in 2050 which is why they are going nuclear, despite their endowments of solar, wind.

www.iol.co.za

The UAE has pledged that the last drop of fossil fuel would be in 2050 which is why they are going nuclear in a big way, despite their natural endowments of solar and wind.

Their nuclear plant has been put in place mostly by South Africans.

Renewables is currently on its hype phase, I am willing to take a bet that in 5 years from now many of its proponents are going to be more skeptical (as I said, all the bright arguments that you guys are throwing out at the moment was made when Germany went into its Energie Wende and the public is growing increasingly skeptical against these claims).

Go and Watch Planet of the humans (they get a few facts wrong, but their central argument holds water)