• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

100% Renewables At 764 Euros Per Household Per MONTH… Germany’s 4.6 TRILLION Euro Green Energies Flop

By P Gosselin on 8. May 2019
The 4.6 trillion euro German green energies flop


By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Frank Bosse
(German text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
The demands for the phasing out of coal, fuel and natural gas are becoming ever more shrill in Germany. At first early this year it began with the bold proposal of the coal commission, half of which was occupied by green activists from the Federal Chancellery, calling on the phase-out of coal by 2038. Then came the demand by Green party leader Robert Habeck and his green friends for the phase-out of the internal combustion engine by 2030. And when it was very dry for four weeks in April, Annalena Baerbock declared a climate crisis and called for doubling the CO2 price and a strong regulatory law!
Now the Friday Children of Lummerland are demanding a CO2 tax of 180 euros per tonne this year, and that we reduce “greenhouse gas emissions to zero” by 2035, i.e. 100% renewable energies.
So far wind and sun cover only 2.5% of Germany’s primary energy needs
So it is worth taking a look at the study of the Academy project “Energy Systems of the Future” of the “Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities” to see what’s ahead of us. All sectors, electricity, transport and heat are considered together. And look: 80% of the energy is produced by fossil fuels, 7.5% by nuclear energy and 13% by renewable energies. Once biomass (including biogas and biofuel) is subtracted from renewable energies, only 1.5% of primary energy is generated by wind power and 1% by photovoltaics (p. 10 of the study).
This is a long way from 100%. The study comes to the conclusion that if one wants to go the way of decarbonization, e.g. by 90% by 2050, then “around 1150 terawatt hours, almost twice as much electricity will be needed than today” will be needed (p. 10) because traffic and heat are also to be powered from electricity.
7-fold increase in wind and sun needed

Since only photovoltaics and wind power are considered, the study concludes:
In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”
Today, we (Germany) have around 28,000 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 57,000 megawatts and 46,000 megawatts of photovoltaics. A sevenfold increase in the photovoltaic area would require covering almost all roof-facades and other residential areas possible in Germany. A sevenfold increase in the capacity of the wind turbines would change Germany even if the capacity of the individual turbines were doubled. Every 1.5 kilometres a 200-meter tall 3-5 MW turbine would have to be installed.
Approaching abyss

The study also hints at the abyss that we are approaching in this way.

The dominance of the fluctuating renewable energies requires high flexibility on the electricity generation side and on the consumption side.”
In other words, if nature does not provide enough wind and solar power, you have to do without electricity for a while. It is interesting to note that even in the beautiful new world of decentralized green energy generation, it still wouldn’t be possible to go without large centralized power stations. The study estimates that some 60 – 100,000 megawatts of large-scale power plants, which of course would run on biogas or synthetic methane or hydrogen, would help prevent short-term grid collapses. For comparison: today’s large power plant capacity is 90,000 MW.
Storage absurdly expensive . . .


 
Daniels's article was published in the Washington Post. It was based on a plan published in Scientific American.

It's hard to know with your posts. The last book you referenced was from LuLu.com. Did you know that you can send a WORD file or a PDF file to LuLu, and you will have a published book next week. Maybe the author's mother could read it - that's peer review, right?
 
It's hard to know with your posts. The last book you referenced was from LuLu.com. Did you know that you can send a WORD file or a PDF file to LuLu, and you will have a published book next week. Maybe the author's mother could read it - that's peer review, right?

Your sloppy work is your own problem to solve.
 
[FONT=&quot]Fracking[/FONT]
[h=1]Frac’ing Goes Green… The Electric Frac Job Is Here![/h][FONT=&quot]Guest commentary by David Middleton This morning, Charles passed a couple of articles on to me about electric fracking. One was from a WUWT Tip submission by RonPE and the other was in an email he received. My first thought was that it might be referring to the use of microwaves to free kerogen from…
[/FONT]
 
More renewables, more record prices


Once again, bad luck for renewables. The AEMO put out their report for the first quarter of 2019. Despite a massive growth in renewables, power prices are still not falling as predicted.
The report highlights that record high spot wholesale electricity prices were set in Victoria and South Australia, and nearly in everywhere else as well:
• Victoria and South Australia’s quarterly average spot wholesale electricity prices of $166/MWh and $163/MWh were their highest on record.
• Victoria and New South Wales recorded their highest underlying energy price on record, while Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania recorded their seconded highest energy prices on record.
These record highs were not just billion dollar price spikes, but the actual underlying energy prices as well.
Looks like a trend here:

Wholesale electricity prices, NEM, Australia, Q1, 2019 | Click to enlarge.
The news gets reported but somehow coal and heat get the blame?
Record power bills in NSW, Vic

Perry Williams, The Australian
Power prices in NSW and Victoria soared to their highest level on record in the first quarter of 2019, with the jump blamed on high coal and gas tariffs and searing summer temperatures which cut output from hydro-generators.
Significantly, solar partly soothed grid pressures over that period with rooftop units soaking up some of the demand.
Nice theory, but intermittent energy is a burden on the grid that forces up the prices of all the baseload providers. It simply eats into their profits, but doesn’t reduce their costs, so they charge more the rest of the day.
Again, coal gets blamed:
Coal, often cited as the cheapest form of generation in the market, also contributed to the cost hike, with 800MW of supply moved to a price above $100/MWh in the first quarter after being offered below $100/MWh last year.
Firstly, the cheapest form of generation by far is brown coal, which we are cutting back the fastest. Black coal is often twice the price. And if black coal is charging even more (and it appears to be), it’s partly to compensate for the “intermittent burden” on the grid, and partly because it can. Less competition means … less competition.
It was of course, bad luck that the snowy hydro dams are so low. But relying on hydro to get us through very hot summers was never going to be a great idea in Australia.
Gas prices were also high, but then, if we didn’t need so much gas, the gas prices might not be as high. And if we used some of our 300 years supply of coal instead, we wouldn’t care less about the gas price.
Cheaper prices are just around the corner, except when they aren’t

More bad news (for consumers). The traders buying futures contracts don’t see prices coming down.
• Forward wholesale prices also continued their upward climb: the price of calendar year (Cal) 2020 electricity swap contracts traded on the ASX rose between 12-23% over Q1 2019 and have risen by 49% in Victoria since July 2018.
The reason that the salad-days of electricity are gone — not enough Brown coal:

Prices leapt when Hazelwood brown coal power closed. They jumped, and never came back down. . . . .

Keep reading →
 
More renewables, more record prices


Once again, bad luck for renewables. The AEMO put out their report for the first quarter of 2019. Despite a massive growth in renewables, power prices are still not falling as predicted.
The report highlights that record high spot wholesale electricity prices were set in Victoria and South Australia, and nearly in everywhere else as well:
• Victoria and South Australia’s quarterly average spot wholesale electricity prices of $166/MWh and $163/MWh were their highest on record.
• Victoria and New South Wales recorded their highest underlying energy price on record, while Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania recorded their seconded highest energy prices on record.
These record highs were not just billion dollar price spikes, but the actual underlying energy prices as well.
Looks like a trend here:

Wholesale electricity prices, NEM, Australia, Q1, 2019 | Click to enlarge.
The news gets reported but somehow coal and heat get the blame?
Record power bills in NSW, Vic

Perry Williams, The Australian
Power prices in NSW and Victoria soared to their highest level on record in the first quarter of 2019, with the jump blamed on high coal and gas tariffs and searing summer temperatures which cut output from hydro-generators.
Significantly, solar partly soothed grid pressures over that period with rooftop units soaking up some of the demand.
Nice theory, but intermittent energy is a burden on the grid that forces up the prices of all the baseload providers. It simply eats into their profits, but doesn’t reduce their costs, so they charge more the rest of the day.
Again, coal gets blamed:
Coal, often cited as the cheapest form of generation in the market, also contributed to the cost hike, with 800MW of supply moved to a price above $100/MWh in the first quarter after being offered below $100/MWh last year.
Firstly, the cheapest form of generation by far is brown coal, which we are cutting back the fastest. Black coal is often twice the price. And if black coal is charging even more (and it appears to be), it’s partly to compensate for the “intermittent burden” on the grid, and partly because it can. Less competition means … less competition.
It was of course, bad luck that the snowy hydro dams are so low. But relying on hydro to get us through very hot summers was never going to be a great idea in Australia.
Gas prices were also high, but then, if we didn’t need so much gas, the gas prices might not be as high. And if we used some of our 300 years supply of coal instead, we wouldn’t care less about the gas price.
Cheaper prices are just around the corner, except when they aren’t

More bad news (for consumers). The traders buying futures contracts don’t see prices coming down.
• Forward wholesale prices also continued their upward climb: the price of calendar year (Cal) 2020 electricity swap contracts traded on the ASX rose between 12-23% over Q1 2019 and have risen by 49% in Victoria since July 2018.
The reason that the salad-days of electricity are gone — not enough Brown coal:

Prices leapt when Hazelwood brown coal power closed. They jumped, and never came back down. . . . .

Keep reading →

You have a fetish with Australia. The state of Texas has some of the lowest priced electricity in the US, and it has more wind energy than the next 3 wind energy states combined! Sounds like you've got your signals crossed.
 
You have a fetish with Australia. The state of Texas has some of the lowest priced electricity in the US, and it has more wind energy than the next 3 wind energy states combined! Sounds like you've got your signals crossed.

[h=3]An uncertain future for America's wind energy capital – Center for ...[/h]
[url]https://publicintegrity.org/state.../an-uncertain-future-for-americas-wind-energy-capita
...
[/URL]



Oct 9, 2018 - About 2,200 new wind turbines were built in Texas in 2017, more than .... cost of more than $25,000 to tear them down and restore the land.
 
You have a fetish with Australia. The state of Texas has some of the lowest priced electricity in the US, and it has more wind energy than the next 3 wind energy states combined! Sounds like you've got your signals crossed.
I think our low energy prices in Texas is because of how ERCOT handles grid distribution charges.
For the last 20 years or so, the delivery charge is a separate line charge from the power usage.
There is also a meter charge. On my last bill I paid $36.41 for the electricity, $21.91 for the delivery charge, and a $5.47 meter fee.
I cannot say for sure, but this would likely reduce the net metering costs incurred by other utilities.
 
You have a fetish with Australia. The state of Texas has some of the lowest priced electricity in the US, and it has more wind energy than the next 3 wind energy states combined! Sounds like you've got your signals crossed.

OMG...

Texas is also the 2nd largest state in the union, and the largest of the 48 contiguous. California is the next largest, but none of the rich nimby-pansy rich liberals want it in their back yard. Then there is Montana, which has one of the lowest population densities among the states, and nobody would think of placing large wind farms there. Then New Mexico...

Is this really the level of your debate comprehension skills?

Alaska Montana and New Mexico are the 1st, 4th and 5th states my land area, but rank 48th, 43rd, and 36th in population, and are 50th, 48th, and 45th in population density. Without building an expensive HVDC infrastructure, it will never be cost effective to build large wind operations in these states.

California has the largest population but is the 11th most population dense state. Very few places you can build wind without serious repercussions by the public. Texas has the 2nd largest population, but is the 26th in population density. There are still lots of wide open spaces with wind can be, and only offend a few people.

Texas is less expensive than most states in many different economic sectors. It's one reason they can take on the burden of wind.
 

With the subsidies expiring, I give it 10 years tops, after the expiration, until we start seeing at least one graveyard of a windfarm in Texas. The laws don't require decommissioning and removal of the structures, and many places are already left to rot. I believe we will see that in Texas too. it will become cheap land where the next buyer will need to remove to build something new.

Just my honest belief.
 

Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over?

From The GWPF 5/11/19 Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor The European renewables industry press, which is usually unequivocally upbeat in its assessments, is currently reporting a broad spectrum of substantial problems in the sector, ranging from bankruptcies and technical problems to tepid policy support and increasing public resistance. In a fundamentally viable energy generation…
 
[FONT=&][/FONT]
Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over?

[FONT=&]From The GWPF 5/11/19 Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor The European renewables industry press, which is usually unequivocally upbeat in its assessments, is currently reporting a broad spectrum of substantial problems in the sector, ranging from bankruptcies and technical problems to tepid policy support and increasing public resistance. In a fundamentally viable energy generation…
[/FONT]

How long ago did I predict such events if attempted so early?
 
How long ago did I predict such events if attempted so early?
You are likely correct, it seems odd that companies with contracts in place and orders waiting to be filled,
would be having financial issues, unless their maintenance and warranty cost were higher than anticipated.
 
The problem is gonna be the IPCC and the other doomsayers will just ramp up their propaganda.
 
You are likely correct, it seems odd that companies with contracts in place and orders waiting to be filled,
would be having financial issues, unless their maintenance and warranty cost were higher than anticipated.

You can count on it. I have been involved with industrial type manufacturing and repair for over two decades now. I know, with almost certainty, that the levelized costs I see portrayed, are seriously low-balled.
 
I think the renewable s will be fine, just as soon as viable grid level energy storage is ready.
Before then, it could still be very useful, but in very limited rolls.

Yeah, but you didn't give it that "Kick Butt" emphasis.
 
Yeah, but you didn't give it that "Kick Butt" emphasis.

Please let us know when energy storage plus renewable energy is cost competitive to natural gas. Until then, I don't think any of us are interested in your media propaganda.
 
Renewables will continue to KICK BUTT!

2019 Renewable Energy Industry Outlook | Deloitte US

2019 Renewable Energy Industry Outlook
Strong fundamentals bolstered by three enabling trends

Gas fracking is the way to go. Its far cleaner and offers cheap energy for at least the next century without expensively replacing current power production infrastructure . Current renewable technology is expensive over subsidised bunk that could never exist in the free market
 
Gas fracking is the way to go. Its far cleaner and offers cheap energy for at least the next century without expensively replacing current power production infrastructure . Current renewable technology is expensive over subsidised bunk that could never exist in the free market

No link. Typical!

Electricity_LevelizedCost_byType.webp
 
Please let us know when energy storage plus renewable energy is cost competitive to natural gas. Until then, I don't think any of us are interested in your media propaganda.

Storage currently does not have to factor in. Take the state of Texas, for example. They are using a "Wind-First" philosophy, where the available wind power is 100% utilized. They are filling the voids, primarily with Natural Gas powered plants. They have some of the most affordable electricity in the nation. It will get even less expensive, when they get rid of their 2 extremely costly nuclear power plants, which from what I've read, is probable.

Eventually, storage will have to factor in. We are a long way from that...
 
Storage currently does not have to factor in. Take the state of Texas, for example. They are using a "Wind-First" philosophy, where the available wind power is 100% utilized. They are filling the voids, primarily with Natural Gas powered plants. They have some of the most affordable electricity in the nation. It will get even less expensive, when they get rid of their 2 extremely costly nuclear power plants, which from what I've read, is probable.

Eventually, storage will have to factor in. We are a long way from that...

Without storage, wind and solar have hard limits.
 
Without storage, wind and solar have hard limits.

A link would help to back up your statement, because although there are hard limits, what are those limits? Getting 30-40% of our power from renewables, with a backup NG plant is probably feasible. Maybe even 50-60%. Maybe even 80-90%. What the heck, who needs links - right?
 
Back
Top Bottom