# Germany Generated 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy



## Star

.
*Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy*

By Kiley Kroh
May 13, 2014 

On Sunday, Germanys impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion  nearly 75 percent  of the countrys overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the countrys power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International. 

In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the countrys electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year, Bloomberg reported. Much of the countrys renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germanys 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013.

Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050.

<snip>
.


----------



## bianco

Wind turbines...Baaah!

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines cause health problems? "


----------



## jon_berzerk

Star said:


> .
> *Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy*
> 
> By Kiley Kroh
> May 13, 2014
> 
> On Sunday, Germanys impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion  nearly 75 percent  of the countrys overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the countrys power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International.
> 
> In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the countrys electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year, Bloomberg reported. Much of the countrys renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germanys 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013.
> 
> Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050.
> 
> <snip>
> .



for 1/2 of one day

on a nice day 

--LOL

what is it when it is below zero 

or 95 degrees on  a windless day


----------



## jon_berzerk

bianco said:


> Wind turbines...Baaah!
> 
> HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines cause health problems? "



wind works okay 

when all is fine a smooth 

start kicking on the a/c or the heaters ...


----------



## Trinnity

And they pay 3X what we do for power - I read that in my elec coop magazine we get monthly. They're seriously moving away from green energy because it's unaffordable.

SO, when you tout this as some sort of proof that it's great, you're misrepresenting the reality that they tried it and it's been a disaster.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Not to mention it goes to zero at most inconvenient of times.


----------



## Manonthestreet

....and not to mention that despite this they still havent met their Kyoto goals while we have.


----------



## flacaltenn

The outright misrepresentation and lying by stinkprogress should be enough to embarass even a MODERATELY informed reader.. Fortunately for them, MOST of their readers have NO practical intuition or inquistiveness to defend themselves from the shitstorm of propaganda.. 

If you follow back this claim --- it flows from a few hour record of production during ONE DAY in which the following chart was produced.. 

http://cf01.erneuerbareenergien.schluetersche.de/files/smfiledata/3/7/0/9/3/7/bc2RecordG11514.pptx







*Literally a few hours before, renewables were carrying LESS than 20% of the load, and a DAY BEFORE they were carrying NEXT TO NOTHING.. 
*

You cannot switch on a coal plant like a lightbulb. They take a day or two to fire up.. So during these RARE peak events, those BACKBONE sources of generation don't even get shut down. So NOTHING was greener because wind hit a spike for a couple hours. 

At some point, all these stinkprogress know-nothings ought to be left UNPROTECTED and left to face surgery on a day when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow in "ProgressVille"....  *I've got to ask Star how stupid it is to continue reading and feeding this nonsense.. Don't you ever really want to know how the world works? Or do you prefer these fairytales??? *


----------



## Star

flacaltenn said:


> The outright misrepresentation and lying by stinkprogress should be enough to embarass even a MODERATELY informed reader.. Fortunately for them, MOST of their readers have NO practical intuition or inquistiveness to defend themselves from the shitstorm of propaganda..
> 
> If you follow back this claim --- it flows from a few hour record of production during ONE DAY in which the following chart was produced..
> 
> http://cf01.erneuerbareenergien.schluetersche.de/files/smfiledata/3/7/0/9/3/7/bc2RecordG11514.pptx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Literally a few hours before, renewables were carrying LESS than 20% of the load, and a DAY BEFORE they were carrying NEXT TO NOTHING.. *
> 
> 
> You cannot switch on a coal plant like a lightbulb. They take a day or two to fire up.. So during these RARE peak events, those BACKBONE sources of generation don't even get shut down. So NOTHING was greener because wind hit a spike for a couple hours.
> 
> At some point, all these stinkprogress know-nothings ought to be left UNPROTECTED and left to face surgery on a day when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow in "ProgressVille".... *I've got to ask Star how stupid it is to continue reading and feeding this nonsense.. Don't you ever really want to know how the world works? Or do you prefer these fairytales??? *


 

Yep, Germany had one exceptionally good renewable energy day but-----but Germany also had an exceptionally good renewable energy first quarter and-----and according to a May 9th Bloomberg article Germany still "seeks to increase the share of renewables to at least 80 percent by 2050". 

Trinnity: "They're seriously moving away from green energy because it's unaffordable." giggle!


*Renewables Meet Record 27 Percent of German Electricity Demand - Bloomberg*

Stefan Nicola 
May 9, 2014


Clean-energy sources such as solar and wind met a record 27 percent of demand in Germany in the first quarter because of additional installations and favorable weather, according to the BDEW utility lobby. 

Germany, Europes biggest clean-energy market, seeks to increase the share of renewables to at least 80 percent by 2050 to replace atomic reactors shuttered by 2022.


----------



## flacaltenn

They are building more coal plants than ever in Germany.  And the only way they get to 27% is to count hydro and burning garbage.   The investments are killing their poor, and not performing.  You are dressing up a pig with the trash you are seeking out to confirm your biases.


----------



## ScienceRocks

During the first 4 months of 2014, China has only installed around 180mw of solar. Read this in a thread below this one.


----------



## flacaltenn

BTW...It wasnt one good day.  It was aabout a 4 hour period . So did you know this was propaganda when you posted it?  Or are you getting paid to shill  for big wind?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Star said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The outright misrepresentation and lying by stinkprogress should be enough to embarass even a MODERATELY informed reader.. Fortunately for them, MOST of their readers have NO practical intuition or inquistiveness to defend themselves from the shitstorm of propaganda..
> 
> If you follow back this claim --- it flows from a few hour record of production during ONE DAY in which the following chart was produced..
> 
> http://cf01.erneuerbareenergien.schluetersche.de/files/smfiledata/3/7/0/9/3/7/bc2RecordG11514.pptx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Literally a few hours before, renewables were carrying LESS than 20% of the load, and a DAY BEFORE they were carrying NEXT TO NOTHING.. *
> 
> 
> You cannot switch on a coal plant like a lightbulb. They take a day or two to fire up.. So during these RARE peak events, those BACKBONE sources of generation don't even get shut down. So NOTHING was greener because wind hit a spike for a couple hours.
> 
> At some point, all these stinkprogress know-nothings ought to be left UNPROTECTED and left to face surgery on a day when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow in "ProgressVille".... *I've got to ask Star how stupid it is to continue reading and feeding this nonsense.. Don't you ever really want to know how the world works? Or do you prefer these fairytales??? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Germany had one exceptionally good renewable energy day but-----but Germany also had an exceptionally good renewable energy first quarter and-----and according to a May 9th Bloomberg article Germany still "seeks to increase the share of renewables to at least 80 percent by 2050".
> 
> Trinnity: "They're seriously moving away from green energy because it's unaffordable." giggle!
> 
> 
> *Renewables Meet Record 27 Percent of German Electricity Demand - Bloomberg*
> 
> Stefan Nicola
> May 9, 2014
> 
> 
> Clean-energy sources such as solar and wind met a record 27 percent of demand in Germany in the first quarter because of additional installations and favorable weather, according to the BDEW utility lobby.
> 
> Germany, Europes biggest clean-energy market, seeks to increase the share of renewables to at least 80 percent by 2050 to replace atomic reactors shuttered by 2022.
Click to expand...


*and favorable weather*

--LOL


----------



## ScienceRocks

I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.



If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
Click to expand...


 ^^ So butthurt that somebody's using renewables that he invokes Hitler...


----------



## Politico

Manonthestreet said:


> Not to mention it goes to zero at most inconvenient of times.



Shh. We don't want facts creeping into the discussion.



Manonthestreet said:


> ....and not to mention that despite this they still havent met their Kyoto goals while we have.



So? We are the only ones who are expected to.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^ So butthurt that somebody's using renewables that he invokes Hitler...
Click to expand...


Honestly, I was thinking of Merkel's Socialist E. German political roots and her flirtations with the very active Green Party in Germany today. And whilst you think this a joke, people ARE GONNA DIE with this kind of ill-conceived energy policy.. 




> RealClearEnergy | German Energy Policy Is Failing the Poor
> 
> 
> The German government recently said that 6.9 million households live in energy poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. This is partly a result of Germany's Energiewende, the countrys turn away from nuclear and towards renewable energies. This year alone, German consumers are expected to subsidize green energy to the tune of a whopping 23.6 billion ($33 billion) on top of their normal electricity bills for the so-called renewable energies reallocation charge.
> 
> German consumers have already paid 109 billion for renewable energies since 2000, with greater costs looming on the horizon. Between 2000 and 2013, real German electricity prices for households have increased 80%. About one quarter of household electricity costs now stem directly from renewable energy.
> 
> Green energy cant meet Germanys need for reliable electricity  what do you do when the sun doesnt shine or the wind doesnt blow? That is why Germany still needs to base itself on fossil fuels, and it is one of the reasons that the consumption of polluting brown coal rose last year to its highest level since 1990. Thus, German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for renewables


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ So butthurt that somebody's using renewables that he invokes Hitler...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, I was thinking of Merkel's Socialist E. German political roots and her flirtations with the very active Green Party in Germany today. And whilst you think this a joke, people ARE GONNA DIE with this kind of ill-conceived energy policy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearEnergy | German Energy Policy Is Failing the Poor
> 
> 
> The German government recently said that 6.9 million households live in energy poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. This is partly a result of Germany's Energiewende, the countrys turn away from nuclear and towards renewable energies. This year alone, German consumers are expected to subsidize green energy to the tune of a whopping 23.6 billion ($33 billion) on top of their normal electricity bills for the so-called renewable energies reallocation charge.
> 
> German consumers have already paid 109 billion for renewable energies since 2000, with greater costs looming on the horizon. Between 2000 and 2013, real German electricity prices for households have increased 80%. About one quarter of household electricity costs now stem directly from renewable energy.
> 
> Green energy cant meet Germanys need for reliable electricity  what do you do when the sun doesnt shine or the wind doesnt blow? That is why Germany still needs to base itself on fossil fuels, and it is one of the reasons that the consumption of polluting brown coal rose last year to its highest level since 1990. Thus, German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for renewables
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yyyyah.  Sell that in Chernobyl.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ So butthurt that somebody's using renewables that he invokes Hitler...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I was thinking of Merkel's Socialist E. German political roots and her flirtations with the very active Green Party in Germany today. And whilst you think this a joke, people ARE GONNA DIE with this kind of ill-conceived energy policy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearEnergy | German Energy Policy Is Failing the Poor
> 
> 
> The German government recently said that 6.9 million households live in energy poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. This is partly a result of Germany's Energiewende, the countrys turn away from nuclear and towards renewable energies. This year alone, German consumers are expected to subsidize green energy to the tune of a whopping 23.6 billion ($33 billion) on top of their normal electricity bills for the so-called renewable energies reallocation charge.
> 
> German consumers have already paid 109 billion for renewable energies since 2000, with greater costs looming on the horizon. Between 2000 and 2013, real German electricity prices for households have increased 80%. About one quarter of household electricity costs now stem directly from renewable energy.
> 
> Green energy cant meet Germanys need for reliable electricity  what do you do when the sun doesnt shine or the wind doesnt blow? That is why Germany still needs to base itself on fossil fuels, and it is one of the reasons that the consumption of polluting brown coal rose last year to its highest level since 1990. Thus, German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for renewables
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yyyyah.  Sell that in Chernobyl.
Click to expand...


Probably sell like hot uranium cakes in Chernobyl.. Since that was also a failure of Socialist Central planning and management and NOT an indication of the failure of a technology.

Seems to be a pattern here -- Hmmmmmmm......................


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I was thinking of Merkel's Socialist E. German political roots and her flirtations with the very active Green Party in Germany today. And whilst you think this a joke, people ARE GONNA DIE with this kind of ill-conceived energy policy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yyyyah.  Sell that in Chernobyl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably sell like hot uranium cakes in Chernobyl.. Since that was also a failure of Socialist Central planning and management and NOT an indication of the failure of a technology.
> 
> Seems to be a pattern here -- Hmmmmmmm......................
Click to expand...


"Not a failure of technology"??  

That'll sell even better, especially in the Zone of Alienation.  I'm sure the victims will be happy to know they were done in by ideology rather than radiation.

Oh the butthurt.  It must hurt the butt considering what it does to the mind...


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yyyyah.  Sell that in Chernobyl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably sell like hot uranium cakes in Chernobyl.. Since that was also a failure of Socialist Central planning and management and NOT an indication of the failure of a technology.
> 
> Seems to be a pattern here -- Hmmmmmmm......................
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Not a failure of technology"??
> 
> That'll sell even better, especially in the Zone of Alienation.  I'm sure the victims will be happy to know they were done in by ideology rather than radiation.
> 
> Oh the butthurt.  It must hurt the butt considering what it does to the mind...
Click to expand...


Oh the ignorance...   Only if you HAD a mind. 

You don't know why Chernobyl became a mess do you?  There have literally been books written on the government failure to properly design, maintain, and test at Chernobyl. With many high-ranking observers tying to fall of the Soviet Union to the incompetencies and LIES associated with this disaster.. If you HAD a brain -- I'd discuss it with you..


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably sell like hot uranium cakes in Chernobyl.. Since that was also a failure of Socialist Central planning and management and NOT an indication of the failure of a technology.
> 
> Seems to be a pattern here -- Hmmmmmmm......................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not a failure of technology"??
> 
> That'll sell even better, especially in the Zone of Alienation.  I'm sure the victims will be happy to know they were done in by ideology rather than radiation.
> 
> Oh the butthurt.  It must hurt the butt considering what it does to the mind...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the ignorance...   Only if you HAD a mind.
> 
> You don't know why Chernobyl became a mess do you?  There have literally been books written on the government failure to properly design, maintain, and test at Chernobyl. With many high-ranking observers tying to fall of the Soviet Union to the incompetencies and LIES associated with this disaster.. If you HAD a brain -- I'd discuss it with you..
Click to expand...


Tell me world-o-hurt -- how many get exterminated when an incompetent gummint fails to maintain a wind turbine?  What's the Zone of Alienation like after a solar farm blows up?

Sheeeeeeeeesh....

Yes Virginia, there's a good reason innovators look for new methods.  Can't say the same for those who stand on the sidelines trying to shout them down.


----------



## Statistikhengst

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership..*.
Click to expand...



You know, usually I would let this get by, but your passing reference to the Nazi times is just so fucking batshit crazy, I am gonna have to respond to this one.

*Fact:*

1.) Use of renewable energy has nothing to do with 1933-1945. Any attempt make a connection between the two is totally foolish. Renewable energy did not exist between 1933-1945.

2.) To say that moving to renewable energy is going to kill people is just plain old stupid. Where is your PROOF that this is going to happen? Do you have statistics about people who have been killed by solar panels and wind/water turbines? Really?

*So, let me give you some inside information:*

I live 10 kilometers from a wind farm that works perfectly. There are, I believe, 21 turbines in action there. It was created _in agreement_ with farmers, who allow part of the land to be used for wind turbines, who also allow solar panels to be put on their buildings, and they still farm and their animals still graze.  Even with the many grey skies that Germany has - the wind energy output here is immense.  

I live 20 Kilometers from one of the larger solar farms in the world. The installation is right along the A3 Highway between Siegburg and Frankfurt and covers a huge amount of energy needs.

*While American energy bills are going UP, German energy bills are going DOWN.*

The cost for converting to Wind/Solar/Water is now at parity with the costs for maintaining a fossil fuel lifestyle in Germany, about 3 years AHEAD of the original calculations.

I just compared my per Kilowatt price with the price that my sister in Ohio pays and was shocked to see that I pay less per month that she does. Actually, considerable less.

*The biggest controversy,* the one that actually spurred the German government to do what it is doing, was the decision to completely shut down nuclear energy by 2023:

Liste der Kernreaktoren in Deutschland ? Wikipedia

Germany once had 110 reactors, it now has 14 still functioning. 5 of those were supposed to go offline in 2011, but a court case is being fought over them. The last nine are supposed to go offline by December, 2022 at the latest. There are also 8 research reactors still functioning, but not for creating energy to go into the energy-net.

Of course, in order to reduce energy from nuclear, Germany had to IMPORT energy from somewhere else until the solar/wind/water project is completed, and Germany made the mistake of importing lots of energy from nuclear reactors from the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), reactors in terrible shape. By importing more and more energy from those reactors, not only was it totally hypocritical of Germany to do this, it was dangerous, for those reactors started pumping overtime in order to meet the extra energy needs of other countries like Germany. If there are any reactors in Europe that need to be shut down right now, as in, like yesterday, then it would be the reactors from those three small nations. When the German population found out about this in 2009, there was a large outcry. And now Germany is no longer importing from the Baltic States.

Call it what you want out of utter ignorance if that pleases you, but Germany is undoubtedly leading the way in the field of renewables: solar, wind, water. They are doing it less with water, because Germany is mostly landlocked and only a small part of the country has a coastline with the North Sea / Atlantic Ocean.

Not only that, when Germany does reach 80% of it's energy from renewables, it won't have to import at all. In fact, in the forseeable future, Germany will be EXPORTING a lot of energy from renewable energy sources. And we are not even talking about fusion - a subject for another day.

Germany has done this because it had to. Necessity is often the mother of invention, and it is definitely the case here. Germany has very few fossil fuel resources left - oil and coal. *Most of those resources were used up in WWII*. This is fact that most Americans do not know. In fact, the dearth of coal is what led to the Coal/Steel Pact between Germany and France in the early 1950s, just years after the most bitter war in our planet's history ended, even as feelings between those two nations were very, very hard. And that pact is what led to the Franco/Geman Friendship pact of 1963, just 18 years after the end of WWII.

The same lack of natural (fossil fuel) resources is what spurred Germany to move to renewables ahead of the rest of the world. As my ex-father-in-law has often said to me: "Germany's greatest export good is here" - and he would point to his brain, meaning that German know-how, German innovation, which is exported all over the world, fuels a lot of it's economy, which, as you will note, is doing better than the US economy.

Yes, it is true that at the onset, Solar and wind costs more money to put in place and also requires SOME fossil fuels to even build the components. But in the long run, those things last 1000 times longer, or more. Which means that they pay for themselves with time.  That SHOULD be a Conservative battle cry, but once again, Conservatives around the world have totally dropped the ball over an issue that could easily be theirs.

So, I have presented cold, hard facts. Where are yours?

To even suggest that the use of renewables is going to kill people in the future is just plain batshit crazy. And then, for you to suggest that this is because the this is a problem because "but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership" is just so batshit crazy, I don't know even where to begin with you. Do Godwin much? How idiotic.

Next time, before you shoot your mouth off about a country I bet you have never even visited, why not ask someone who actually lives there?


       [MENTION=30473]flacaltenn[/MENTION]
       [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]
       [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] (it's not deceleration, but it's close!!)


----------



## Statistikhengst

Oh, and I forgot to mention this quote from the OP:



> What&#8217;s more, &#8220;in Germany you have the option of earning back your payments, and far more, by investing as little as $600 in renewable energy yourself,&#8221; Lovins writes. &#8220;Citizens, cooperatives, and communities own more than half of German renewable capacity, vs. two percent in the U.S.&#8221;




I, good capitalist that I am, am already investing. I own stock in renewables in Germany. Even the most Right-Wing political party in Germany, the FDP, is strongly behind renewables. That says something.


----------



## Statistikhengst

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ So butthurt that somebody's using renewables that he invokes Hitler...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, I was thinking of Merkel's Socialist E. German political roots and her flirtations with the very active Green Party in Germany today. And whilst you think this a joke, people ARE GONNA DIE with this kind of ill-conceived energy policy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealClearEnergy | German Energy Policy Is Failing the Poor
> 
> 
> The German government recently said that 6.9 million households live in energy poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. This is partly a result of Germany's Energiewende, the country&#8217;s turn away from nuclear and towards renewable energies. This year alone, German consumers are expected to subsidize green energy to the tune of a whopping &#8364;23.6 billion ($33 billion) on top of their normal electricity bills for the so-called &#8220;renewable energies reallocation charge.&#8221;
> 
> German consumers have already paid &#8364;109 billion for renewable energies since 2000, with greater costs looming on the horizon. Between 2000 and 2013, real German electricity prices for households have increased 80%. About one quarter of household electricity costs now stem directly from renewable energy.
> 
> Green energy can&#8217;t meet Germany&#8217;s need for reliable electricity &#8211; what do you do when the sun doesn&#8217;t shine or the wind doesn&#8217;t blow? That is why Germany still needs to base itself on fossil fuels, and it is one of the reasons that the consumption of polluting brown coal rose last year to its highest level since 1990. Thus, German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for renewables
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You think that Angela Merkel is a socialist just because she was born in the former East Germany?  


Really?








The CDU is not a Socialist party. You have a lot to learn about Germany. A lot.


Oh, and what a fucking stupid article. Promoting Wind, Water and Solar IS green innovation.

Bjorn Lomborg, a crazy assed Rightie in Europe, IS the Copenhagen Concensus Center, the organizations he claims to write-for.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Copenhagen_Consensus

So, RCP picked the most crazy of the Righties in Europe to front page an article.

Color me totally surprised.

Here's the deal: Germans know better than that.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Statistikhengst

eagle1462010 said:


>




Prices from 2011 -


THREE YEARS AGO.


It claims that the average in Germany is 35 Cents pro Kilowatt Hour.

I pay 22  Eurocents per Kilowatt hour:

http://www.stadtwerke-bonn.de/energieundwasser/privatkunden/produkte/strom/bonnbasis.html

That is US 30 cents, 5 cents under the price listed in your graphic.

My sister pays 31 US cents per kilowatt hour, and has surcharges, including TAX, also in the bill.


*But there is more:*

In Germany, the tax is ALREADY in the quoted figure of 22 Euro Cents.

See, this is another area where Righties who like to quote old figures look incredibly ignorant.

I bet that you didn't know that in Germany, tax is ALREADY in the basic price, now did you?

So, the graphic is worthless.


----------



## eagle1462010

Germany Amends Green-Energy Regime to Curb Rise in Prices - WSJ.com

BERLIN&#8212;The German government has amended renewable-energy laws meant to help make the country nuclear-free but that have sent power prices rocketing&#8212;squeezing consumers and the country's formidable export machine.

The cabinet approved amendments on Tuesday that it said would contain soaring electricity costs while seeking to protect German jobs in the industrial sector. The changes include less ambitious targets for wind power and a cut in subsidies for certain forms of green energy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's "energy transformation," a bold and initially popular experiment to make Germany the first major industrial economy to run largely on green energy, has met strong resistance from companies and households faced with steep rises in power costs.


----------



## eagle1462010

I have trouble believing you Statist.

I just posted an article about soaring prices that is from this year.  Why are they exempting businesses from the subsidy taxes there...................Could it be that it is having an effect on their bottom line........................

Doesn't matter anyway.  The U.S. is completely different anyway.  And I know that the attack on the coal industry is causing our prices to go up.  Every where these new power plants are going up, the prices to consumers are going up.  In my neck of the woods it has gone up about 15% because of ONE PLANT.  Kemper Power Plant.  Which is attempting to comply with EPA for burning coal underground.  

It is expected to go up again.  The cost overrun's for this experimental plant were well over 2 BILLION DOLLARS over budget. 

The cost of replacing approximately 40 to 45% of our grid to kill coal will be DEVASTATING to every one's power bills here.  The current attack on it will hurt the poor more than any other group of people as they are the least able to pay for the increases.

Your country has attempted to have industry to absorb a good portion of the cost, so people like you will say it's cheaper, when reality is quite different.

On another angle.  To get a decent sized grid installed in a standard home here, consumers would have to pay about 35 k for the system.  That is 10k to 12k systems.  That does not include the installation.  The cost savings over time for this system would take over 20 years to recoup the cost benefits.

Until you can sell solar with lower time periods for break even, you don't have a dog in this hunt.  But of course by raising the prices of our power by attacking fossil fuels, you DRIVE PRICES UP making GREEN LOOK MORE AFFORDABLE.

Which is BS.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Even as the 'Conservative' wingnuts mewl and puke over solar and wind, making all kinds of ridiculous claims, reality is biting their silly asses.
*
Solar Industry Data | SEIA

2013 was another record year for the U.S. solar industry. There were 4,751 MW of new photovoltaic (PV) capacity installed in 2013, representing a 41 percent increase in deployment over installation levels in 2012. Solar accounted for 29 percent of all new electricity generation capacity added in 2013, up from just 10 percent in 2012, which made solar the second largest source of new electricity generating capacity behind natural gas. The record year was driven in part by historical growth in the fourth quarter, as 2,106 MW came online in Q4 alone. (All data from SEIA/GTM Research &#8220;U.S. Solar Market Insight: 2013 Year in Review&#8221; unless otherwise noted.) 

*A 41% increase in one year alone. That is huge. Do that for several years, and solar will be a major component of the grid in this nation. *


----------



## Old Rocks

eagle1462010 said:


> I have trouble believing you Statist.
> 
> I just posted an article about soaring prices that is from this year.  Why are they exempting businesses from the subsidy taxes there...................Could it be that it is having an effect on their bottom line........................
> 
> Doesn't matter anyway.  The U.S. is completely different anyway.  And I know that the attack on the coal industry is causing our prices to go up.  Every where these new power plants are going up, the prices to consumers are going up.  In my neck of the woods it has gone up about 15% because of ONE PLANT.  Kemper Power Plant.  Which is attempting to comply with EPA for burning coal underground.
> 
> It is expected to go up again.  The cost overrun's for this experimental plant were well over 2 BILLION DOLLARS over budget.
> 
> The cost of replacing approximately 40 to 45% of our grid to kill coal will be DEVASTATING to every one's power bills here.  The current attack on it will hurt the poor more than any other group of people as they are the least able to pay for the increases.
> 
> Your country has attempted to have industry to absorb a good portion of the cost, so people like you will say it's cheaper, when reality is quite different.
> 
> On another angle.  To get a decent sized grid installed in a standard home here, consumers would have to pay about 35 k for the system.  That is 10k to 12k systems.  That does not include the installation.  The cost savings over time for this system would take over 20 years to recoup the cost benefits.
> 
> Until you can sell solar with lower time periods for break even, you don't have a dog in this hunt.  But of course by raising the prices of our power by attacking fossil fuels, you DRIVE PRICES UP making GREEN LOOK MORE AFFORDABLE.
> 
> Which is BS.



Damn, fellow you are so full of shit. They are not burning the coal underground, they are attempting to sequester the CO2 in formations underground.

Your prices on solar are also lies. A 5 kw system, including racking, under $8500 at this site, and were you to look at a number of sites, I am sure you could find a better price;

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems


----------



## Old Rocks

And if you don't want to install your own system and maintain it, there is this option;

Solar Panels, Solar Power Energy Systems & Energy Efficiency - SolarCity


----------



## eagle1462010

Old Rocks said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have trouble believing you Statist.
> 
> I just posted an article about soaring prices that is from this year.  Why are they exempting businesses from the subsidy taxes there...................Could it be that it is having an effect on their bottom line........................
> 
> Doesn't matter anyway.  The U.S. is completely different anyway.  And I know that the attack on the coal industry is causing our prices to go up.  Every where these new power plants are going up, the prices to consumers are going up.  In my neck of the woods it has gone up about 15% because of ONE PLANT.  Kemper Power Plant.  Which is attempting to comply with EPA for burning coal underground.
> 
> It is expected to go up again.  The cost overrun's for this experimental plant were well over 2 BILLION DOLLARS over budget.
> 
> The cost of replacing approximately 40 to 45% of our grid to kill coal will be DEVASTATING to every one's power bills here.  The current attack on it will hurt the poor more than any other group of people as they are the least able to pay for the increases.
> 
> Your country has attempted to have industry to absorb a good portion of the cost, so people like you will say it's cheaper, when reality is quite different.
> 
> On another angle.  To get a decent sized grid installed in a standard home here, consumers would have to pay about 35 k for the system.  That is 10k to 12k systems.  That does not include the installation.  The cost savings over time for this system would take over 20 years to recoup the cost benefits.
> 
> Until you can sell solar with lower time periods for break even, you don't have a dog in this hunt.  But of course by raising the prices of our power by attacking fossil fuels, you DRIVE PRICES UP making GREEN LOOK MORE AFFORDABLE.
> 
> Which is BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, fellow you are so full of shit. They are not burning the coal underground, they are attempting to sequester the CO2 in formations underground.
> 
> Your prices on solar are also lies. A 5 kw system, including racking, under $8500 at this site, and were you to look at a number of sites, I am sure you could find a better price;
> 
> Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems
Click to expand...


So sue me.  Sequester it is.  These costs are being passed on to the consumer.

On the second issue, perhaps you are correct.  I just priced checked some 12k grid systems and they have come down in price from back when I was looking into it.

On a quick hit the 12k system was at 18k.


----------



## Old Rocks

Yep. And, considering those costs, wind and solar are cheaper. A 12 kw system would power a very large home and shop, with EV's as well, unless you live in a area with very little sun.

Solar allows the homeowner to be both a consumer and producer of energy. With storage, you have the ability to comfortably ride out grid failure. And if you have an EV, then your transportation is also independent of corperations greed. Most conservatives are very much for individual independence, both in political and economic freedom. It totally baffles me that now we have 'Conservatives' that act as if you seek energy independence you are a traitor. A traitor to the energy corperations? Is that what you people think loyalty to your nation is, loyalty to corperate entities?


----------



## jon_berzerk

*A 12 kw system would power a very large home and shop*

depends on efficiency and what is and how much usage is in the shop and home


----------



## eagle1462010

I just did a check on my power bills.

I pay 11 cents per kwh.  Average usage over the year, would be over 2000kwh per month.  This would take a 15k system with 60 panels minimum.

That system is approximately $24k to $25k to install.  

We use fossil fuels here.  Which is why it is cheaper.  As our coal burners get forced out via the EPA that cost will go up.  If we were to do as Europe and Germany the initial costs of going Green would double and triple our costs as Europe has found out.

After reading several articles Germany is subsidizing costs of going green.  Phase in time to build or something like that.  Secondly the consumer pays a VAT Tax to offset the cost of building them.  Companies there are getting waivers to stop their increased costs to stop them from losing business.

I have considered going Solar in the past.  I have installed small solar systems at work, they are not difficult to install.  But they still have a long way to go to replace fossil fuel electrical production.  They simply are confined to the amount of power per square foot of cells and the amount of day light you have that particular day.

And one more thing.  Perhaps you can save me time on the life cycle of a PV.  Why do companies include DEGRADATION data on cells................on how much they degrade over time until replacement?


----------



## Statistikhengst

I will also note that the German energy grid is much, much more advanced than that of the US, mostly because they completely renovated it (in about 5 waves) over the last 20 years.

In the US, the grid is set up for specific areas: for instance, there is a grid for the East Coast, but it has nothing to do with the Big Sky States, for example. And it has been a long time since the grid was updated.

This has one advantage: in the case of a massive blackout, like in the summer of 2005, only one part of the country is affected.

But the upside to the German grid is that energy from all sources is fed into the same net all at once. In Germany (and most all of the EU), the net is set up for 230 V and 50 Herz is the standard, alternating-current in a three phase distribution to most homes and businesses:







This is the more efficient way to store and transport electrical energy, which also means that the German electrical grid, when compared 1:1 with the US-American grid, is cheaper to operate, maintain and upgrade.

In the USA, the Grid is set up for 115-120 Volt, at 60 Herz, which also means alternating current, but some parts of the country still work with direct current. It's also usually a two phase system. This is why homes in the USA usually have special outlets for equipment that needs 240 volt (like air conditioners, some hair dryers, large appliances like washer and dryers, etc...)

So, if a wind turbine goes overtime in Baden-Württemberg on a day when the wind is hardly blowing in Nordrhrein Westfalen, because everything lands in the same "net", the prices stay lower and more stable than US Americans want to admit and I will remind again, TAX for energy is ALREADY in the kilowatt price. Same deal for solar farms and panels overall, same deal for underwater turbines. Energy net = Energy net = Energy net.

Likewise for Natural Gas and Water - the three pillars of modern energy. Most heating in German homes is with water, btw or electrical floorboard (under the floor) heat. You don't see heating and AC vents in most German homes as you see in US American homes.


----------



## Statistikhengst

eagle1462010 said:


> I just did a check on my power bills.
> 
> I pay 11 cents per kwh.  Average usage over the year, would be over 2000kwh per month.  This would take a 15k system with 60 panels minimum.
> 
> That system is approximately $24k to $25k to install.
> 
> We use fossil fuels here.  Which is why it is cheaper.  As our coal burners get forced out via the EPA that cost will go up.  If we were to do as Europe and Germany the initial costs of going Green would double and triple our costs as Europe has found out.
> 
> *After reading several articles Germany is subsidizing costs of going green.  Phase in time to build or something like that.  Secondly the consumer pays a VAT Tax to offset the cost of building them. * Companies there are getting waivers to stop their increased costs to stop them from losing business.
> 
> I have considered going Solar in the past.  I have installed small solar systems at work, they are not difficult to install.  But they still have a long way to go to replace fossil fuel electrical production.  They simply are confined to the amount of power per square foot of cells and the amount of day light you have that particular day.
> 
> And one more thing.  Perhaps you can save me time on the life cycle of a PV.  Why do companies include DEGRADATION data on cells................on how much they degrade over time until replacement?



Absolutely. And since most of the system is up and running, soon that tax will expire.

Plus, again, residents of Germany can buy stock in renewable energy.

You say 11 cents per Kilowatt, but then you have to pay normal sales tax on top of that as well.

My monthly level billing for 80 cubic meters (262 sq. foot) is 70 EUROS per month, or $95.41 per month, and that is for electricity, gas and water. I usually get about 100 Euros a year back. And that includes the VAT tax you talk about.


Degradation depends almost wholly on environment.

Dry environment, lots of sun - less degradation.

Wet environment, lots of storms, lots of win - more degradation.


----------



## eagle1462010

I just did some math on our costs per square foot.

262 square foot, my shed is bigger than that.

I've got 3100 square foot under temperature contorls.
2 hot water heaters, 2 side by side Refrigerators, one deep freeze, and 2 A/c heat systems.  

My cost was 5% per square foot than your costs on my last bill.  My cost per square foot is 15 cents.

Yours is 2.75 per square foot of usage.

While you have half my bill, I have 12 times the living space you have.  Current home is HIGHLY ENERGY EFFICIENT.

i live in a wet area with many storms.  low average wind output for wind energy.  My degradation would be much higher than our mid western states.


----------



## Mr Natural

Trinnity said:


> And they pay 3X what we do for power - I read that in my elec coop magazine we get monthly. They're seriously moving away from green energy because it's unaffordable.
> 
> SO, when you tout this as some sort of proof that it's great, you're misrepresenting the reality that they tried it and it's been a disaster.



Every new technology is unaffordable at first.


----------



## eagle1462010

Mr Clean said:


> Trinnity said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they pay 3X what we do for power - I read that in my elec coop magazine we get monthly. They're seriously moving away from green energy because it's unaffordable.
> 
> SO, when you tout this as some sort of proof that it's great, you're misrepresenting the reality that they tried it and it's been a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every new technology is unaffordable at first.
Click to expand...


The prices are coming down some since the last I checked, but are still not able to compete with fossil fuels in my area of concern.

I just got an average size to install those panels for my needs and I'd need 1600 square foot of space to install the system to produce my own power.  

I also checked on the FHA power saver program.  it is active until next year.  If I installed the system and went FHA on it I'd get the 30% rebate on the system or to make it easier a rebate check for $7,500 at tax time.  I didn't add in the tax costs, permits and fees to the estimate either.  Which will raise my estimate by about $2,500 to the overall costs of installation.

That puts the initial costs at approximately $27,500.
With the Rebate of $7,500 at the end of the year.
Total cost of the system at 20k. According to the FHA site loan rates are currently at 5% to 7%.


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership..*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, usually I would let this get by, but your passing reference to the Nazi times is just so fucking batshit crazy, I am gonna have to respond to this one.
> 
> *Fact:*
> 
> 1.) Use of renewable energy has nothing to do with 1933-1945. Any attempt make a connection between the two is totally foolish. Renewable energy did not exist between 1933-1945.
> 
> 2.) To say that moving to renewable energy is going to kill people is just plain old stupid. Where is your PROOF that this is going to happen? Do you have statistics about people who have been killed by solar panels and wind/water turbines? Really?
> 
> *So, let me give you some inside information:*
> 
> I live 10 kilometers from a wind farm that works perfectly. There are, I believe, 21 turbines in action there. It was created _in agreement_ with farmers, who allow part of the land to be used for wind turbines, who also allow solar panels to be put on their buildings, and they still farm and their animals still graze.  Even with the many grey skies that Germany has - the wind energy output here is immense.
> 
> I live 20 Kilometers from one of the larger solar farms in the world. The installation is right along the A3 Highway between Siegburg and Frankfurt and covers a huge amount of energy needs.
> 
> *While American energy bills are going UP, German energy bills are going DOWN.*
> 
> The cost for converting to Wind/Solar/Water is now at parity with the costs for maintaining a fossil fuel lifestyle in Germany, about 3 years AHEAD of the original calculations.
> 
> I just compared my per Kilowatt price with the price that my sister in Ohio pays and was shocked to see that I pay less per month that she does. Actually, considerable less.
> 
> *The biggest controversy,* the one that actually spurred the German government to do what it is doing, was the decision to completely shut down nuclear energy by 2023:
> 
> Liste der Kernreaktoren in Deutschland ? Wikipedia
> 
> Germany once had 110 reactors, it now has 14 still functioning. 5 of those were supposed to go offline in 2011, but a court case is being fought over them. The last nine are supposed to go offline by December, 2022 at the latest. There are also 8 research reactors still functioning, but not for creating energy to go into the energy-net.
> 
> Of course, in order to reduce energy from nuclear, Germany had to IMPORT energy from somewhere else until the solar/wind/water project is completed, and Germany made the mistake of importing lots of energy from nuclear reactors from the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), reactors in terrible shape. By importing more and more energy from those reactors, not only was it totally hypocritical of Germany to do this, it was dangerous, for those reactors started pumping overtime in order to meet the extra energy needs of other countries like Germany. If there are any reactors in Europe that need to be shut down right now, as in, like yesterday, then it would be the reactors from those three small nations. When the German population found out about this in 2009, there was a large outcry. And now Germany is no longer importing from the Baltic States.
> 
> Call it what you want out of utter ignorance if that pleases you, but Germany is undoubtedly leading the way in the field of renewables: solar, wind, water. They are doing it less with water, because Germany is mostly landlocked and only a small part of the country has a coastline with the North Sea / Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> Not only that, when Germany does reach 80% of it's energy from renewables, it won't have to import at all. In fact, in the forseeable future, Germany will be EXPORTING a lot of energy from renewable energy sources. And we are not even talking about fusion - a subject for another day.
> 
> Germany has done this because it had to. Necessity is often the mother of invention, and it is definitely the case here. Germany has very few fossil fuel resources left - oil and coal. *Most of those resources were used up in WWII*. This is fact that most Americans do not know. In fact, the dearth of coal is what led to the Coal/Steel Pact between Germany and France in the early 1950s, just years after the most bitter war in our planet's history ended, even as feelings between those two nations were very, very hard. And that pact is what led to the Franco/Geman Friendship pact of 1963, just 18 years after the end of WWII.
> 
> The same lack of natural (fossil fuel) resources is what spurred Germany to move to renewables ahead of the rest of the world. As my ex-father-in-law has often said to me: "Germany's greatest export good is here" - and he would point to his brain, meaning that German know-how, German innovation, which is exported all over the world, fuels a lot of it's economy, which, as you will note, is doing better than the US economy.
> 
> Yes, it is true that at the onset, Solar and wind costs more money to put in place and also requires SOME fossil fuels to even build the components. But in the long run, those things last 1000 times longer, or more. Which means that they pay for themselves with time.  That SHOULD be a Conservative battle cry, but once again, Conservatives around the world have totally dropped the ball over an issue that could easily be theirs.
> 
> So, I have presented cold, hard facts. Where are yours?
> 
> To even suggest that the use of renewables is going to kill people in the future is just plain batshit crazy. And then, for you to suggest that this is because the this is a problem because "but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership" is just so batshit crazy, I don't know even where to begin with you. Do Godwin much? How idiotic.
> 
> Next time, before you shoot your mouth off about a country I bet you have never even visited, why not ask someone who actually lives there?
> 
> 
> [MENTION=30473]flacaltenn[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] (it's not deceleration, but it's close!!)
Click to expand...


Seems like you like want to ignore the piss-poor investments that Germany has made in wind-solar and ignore the performance charts that I posted and the economic analysis I posted just to pick nits about Nazis which I never mentioned. The entire OP is a fraud and a lie pretending to announce some important milestone of performance. When in fact, LOOKING AT THE DATA --- it's the ultimate in public deception.. 

1) I only referred to the consistently bad choices of leadership that Germans have and continue to make. This alliance with the Green Party is the one that is in play today. And I stand by the comparison. Money has been squandered and infrastructure decisions have been made on ideological platforms -- not engineering and facts. 

2) The idea that wind/solar would EVER be a backbone source of generation and a REPLACEMENT for fossils and nuclear is fundamentally wrong and dangerous and WILL lead to getting people killed.. Wind and Solar are PEAKER technologies, not steady backbone generation and as such can NEVER be used to EXPAND capacity to demand. For every MWatt of these sources, there MUST BE parallel resources available. And that means that one or other sits idle and subsidized. 



> Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders - Forbes
> 
> Merkels energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of sea-based wind turbine power by 2030. However through the first six months of 2012 only 45 megawatts had been added to Germanys existing 200-megawatt supply, according to an industry analyst quoted by Reuters. And despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which currently comprises 14 percent of German power bills), major wind projects in the North Sea are being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.
> 
> The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source. Not only that, they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of thousands of birds annually.
> 
> Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it depends on the weather and includes periods without any recognizable capacity for days, or suddenly occurring supply peaks that push the grid to its limits, a 2012 report from Germany energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil notes. There is a threat of power outages over large areas, mainly in wintertime when the demand is high and less (power) gets delivered from abroad.
> 
> Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the past two decades  bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide than hard coal.
> 
> In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy  and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.



3) I'm not surprised that you sit amongst so many ill-conceived renewable projects. Show us the DAILY production charts for "your" windfarm.. If you can find them they will look no different than this --- which is one of the worlds best sited OFF-SHORE danish farms. And one of the FEW BIG wind projects that still post their embarrassing daily production.






You OVER-build THAT and tear down the nuclear plants and people WILL DIE in the wintertime just as the Forbes article suggests.

The jig is up and lying about the performance of this investment is all that is left..


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> Oh, and I forgot to mention this quote from the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What&#8217;s more, &#8220;in Germany you have the option of earning back your payments, and far more, by investing as little as $600 in renewable energy yourself,&#8221; Lovins writes. &#8220;Citizens, cooperatives, and communities own more than half of German renewable capacity, vs. two percent in the U.S.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, good capitalist that I am, am already investing. I own stock in renewables in Germany. Even the most Right-Wing political party in Germany, the FDP, is strongly behind renewables. That says something.
Click to expand...


So the peoples money is squandered in bad energy investments and their bills have increased thru the roof and you are celebrating the fact that the Govt is encouraging them to INVEST MORE in the fraud? Good for you.. Here in the US, the collective market for wind looks like a dead cat bounce.. Have at it.. You and GoldiRocks can continue to announce the rare "good news" (or manufacture it) so that your investments can grow.. 







  [MENTION=27364]polarbear[/MENTION] ought to tell you the tale of how far this crazed leadership will go to try and salvage their investments. Like the very green act of tearing up entire Alpine mountain sides to attempt hydro buffering and storage for wind and solar. Taking a 33% efficient power source and making it into a 15% efficient power source and destroying the environment in the name of saving it.. 

That's insane..

>>> Edit --- And why are you misrepresenting the FDP as being staunch supporters of this leap to oblivion? There is not a renewable ADVOCATE on the PLANET that would agree that FDP is a partner in this hare-brained scheme..


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> I will also note that the German energy grid is much, much more advanced than that of the US, mostly because they completely renovated it (in about 5 waves) over the last 20 years.
> 
> In the US, the grid is set up for specific areas: for instance, there is a grid for the East Coast, but it has nothing to do with the Big Sky States, for example. And it has been a long time since the grid was updated.
> 
> This has one advantage: in the case of a massive blackout, like in the summer of 2005, only one part of the country is affected.
> 
> But the upside to the German grid is that energy from all sources is fed into the same net all at once. In Germany (and most all of the EU), the net is set up for 230 V and 50 Herz is the standard, alternating-current in a three phase distribution to most homes and businesses:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the more efficient way to store and transport electrical energy, which also means that the German electrical grid, when compared 1:1 with the US-American grid, is cheaper to operate, maintain and upgrade.
> 
> In the USA, the Grid is set up for 115-120 Volt, at 60 Herz, which also means alternating current, but some parts of the country still work with direct current. It's also usually a two phase system. This is why homes in the USA usually have special outlets for equipment that needs 240 volt (like air conditioners, some hair dryers, large appliances like washer and dryers, etc...)
> 
> So, if a wind turbine goes overtime in Baden-Württemberg on a day when the wind is hardly blowing in Nordrhrein Westfalen, because everything lands in the same "net", the prices stay lower and more stable than US Americans want to admit and I will remind again, TAX for energy is ALREADY in the kilowatt price. Same deal for solar farms and panels overall, same deal for underwater turbines. Energy net = Energy net = Energy net.
> 
> Likewise for Natural Gas and Water - the three pillars of modern energy. Most heating in German homes is with water, btw or electrical floorboard (under the floor) heat. You don't see heating and AC vents in most German homes as you see in US American homes.



NONE of this has any bearing on the efficacy of mindlessly adding tons of unreliable flaky power to the Generation side of the grid. I can show you German OVERALLS for daily wind and distribution of wind is insignificant to solving any part of the basic problem. IN FACT, the chart I posted on the OP pages ago is a NET German production chart.. 

Let's reproduce that here so you can continue to obfuscate and brag..






You cannot defend that kind of poor performance in light of the CRITICALLY BAD DECISIONS being made by Merkel and her Green Socialist buddies.

Interconnectivity of the grid is NOT a huge advantage. Not for a country the size of the US. In fact, TEXAS is on its own bigger than Germany and TOTALLY disconnected from the other national grid ties. And THEIR wind performance over the WHOLE of TEXAS ain't no better or worse than the chart above. You cannot continue to expand this flaky unreliable power without even HIGHER subsidies for the backbone producers that are forced to idle or dump power while the wind blows. And there are economic reasons why you cannot send power over long distances. DC transmission in this country is ONLY used for a limited number of long haul lines -- hardly ever for local distribution. And contrary to your assertions, STORAGE is not a significant feature of ANY national grid. The power generators need to be responsive and reliable to the loads. And wind/solar cannot be relied on, cannot be scheduled, and can not even be CONTRACTED FOR days ahead.. 

Here's one of your solar "investments" paying for itself last winter. Probably somewhere in Bavaria..


----------



## eagle1462010

FYI............and that's all.....

Gov't programs to loan money on systems with the terms and conditions and even the contact numbers.

http://solarleasedisadvantages.com/solarfinancing.pdf


----------



## eagle1462010

Found at this amusing site..........about why not to lease your system if you choose to do so.

LOL


----------



## flacaltenn

Mr Clean said:


> Trinnity said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they pay 3X what we do for power - I read that in my elec coop magazine we get monthly. They're seriously moving away from green energy because it's unaffordable.
> 
> SO, when you tout this as some sort of proof that it's great, you're misrepresenting the reality that they tried it and it's been a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every new technology is unaffordable at first.
Click to expand...


Solar and wind are ancient as modern technologies go.. I wouldn't be expecting miracles to come flying out of a unicorn's ass anytime soon.. BOTH are commodity products where costs have been wrung out by DOZENS of companies..


----------



## Katzndogz

Germany gets 74% of their power from renewable energy.   Germany refused to go along with US sanctions against Russia because they get the majority of their energy needs from Russian oil.

Both of these circumstances cannot be true.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I hope Germany builds tons of coal plants and stops with decommising nuclear.


----------



## Pogo

Matthew said:


> I hope Germany builds tons of coal plants and stops with decommising nuclear.



Why?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Katzndogz said:


> Germany gets 74% of their power from renewable energy.   Germany refused to go along with US sanctions against Russia because they get the majority of their energy needs from Russian oil.
> 
> Both of these circumstances cannot be true.




That's because your second sentence is a lie.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Matthew said:


> I hope Germany builds tons of coal plants and stops with decommising nuclear.





Wouldn't do any good. There is hardly any coal of value to be mined any more in Germany.


----------



## Statistikhengst

flacaltenn said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If they are stupid enough to believe that can replace all their nuclear with wind and solar,  they are gonna literally kill thousands od people in the near future.. German technologists are not stupid,  but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership..*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, usually I would let this get by, but your passing reference to the Nazi times is just so fucking batshit crazy, I am gonna have to respond to this one.
> 
> *Fact:*
> 
> 1.) Use of renewable energy has nothing to do with 1933-1945. Any attempt make a connection between the two is totally foolish. Renewable energy did not exist between 1933-1945.
> 
> 2.) To say that moving to renewable energy is going to kill people is just plain old stupid. Where is your PROOF that this is going to happen? Do you have statistics about people who have been killed by solar panels and wind/water turbines? Really?
> 
> *So, let me give you some inside information:*
> 
> I live 10 kilometers from a wind farm that works perfectly. There are, I believe, 21 turbines in action there. It was created _in agreement_ with farmers, who allow part of the land to be used for wind turbines, who also allow solar panels to be put on their buildings, and they still farm and their animals still graze.  Even with the many grey skies that Germany has - the wind energy output here is immense.
> 
> I live 20 Kilometers from one of the larger solar farms in the world. The installation is right along the A3 Highway between Siegburg and Frankfurt and covers a huge amount of energy needs.
> 
> *While American energy bills are going UP, German energy bills are going DOWN.*
> 
> The cost for converting to Wind/Solar/Water is now at parity with the costs for maintaining a fossil fuel lifestyle in Germany, about 3 years AHEAD of the original calculations.
> 
> I just compared my per Kilowatt price with the price that my sister in Ohio pays and was shocked to see that I pay less per month that she does. Actually, considerable less.
> 
> *The biggest controversy,* the one that actually spurred the German government to do what it is doing, was the decision to completely shut down nuclear energy by 2023:
> 
> Liste der Kernreaktoren in Deutschland ? Wikipedia
> 
> Germany once had 110 reactors, it now has 14 still functioning. 5 of those were supposed to go offline in 2011, but a court case is being fought over them. The last nine are supposed to go offline by December, 2022 at the latest. There are also 8 research reactors still functioning, but not for creating energy to go into the energy-net.
> 
> Of course, in order to reduce energy from nuclear, Germany had to IMPORT energy from somewhere else until the solar/wind/water project is completed, and Germany made the mistake of importing lots of energy from nuclear reactors from the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), reactors in terrible shape. By importing more and more energy from those reactors, not only was it totally hypocritical of Germany to do this, it was dangerous, for those reactors started pumping overtime in order to meet the extra energy needs of other countries like Germany. If there are any reactors in Europe that need to be shut down right now, as in, like yesterday, then it would be the reactors from those three small nations. When the German population found out about this in 2009, there was a large outcry. And now Germany is no longer importing from the Baltic States.
> 
> Call it what you want out of utter ignorance if that pleases you, but Germany is undoubtedly leading the way in the field of renewables: solar, wind, water. They are doing it less with water, because Germany is mostly landlocked and only a small part of the country has a coastline with the North Sea / Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> Not only that, when Germany does reach 80% of it's energy from renewables, it won't have to import at all. In fact, in the forseeable future, Germany will be EXPORTING a lot of energy from renewable energy sources. And we are not even talking about fusion - a subject for another day.
> 
> Germany has done this because it had to. Necessity is often the mother of invention, and it is definitely the case here. Germany has very few fossil fuel resources left - oil and coal. *Most of those resources were used up in WWII*. This is fact that most Americans do not know. In fact, the dearth of coal is what led to the Coal/Steel Pact between Germany and France in the early 1950s, just years after the most bitter war in our planet's history ended, even as feelings between those two nations were very, very hard. And that pact is what led to the Franco/Geman Friendship pact of 1963, just 18 years after the end of WWII.
> 
> The same lack of natural (fossil fuel) resources is what spurred Germany to move to renewables ahead of the rest of the world. As my ex-father-in-law has often said to me: "Germany's greatest export good is here" - and he would point to his brain, meaning that German know-how, German innovation, which is exported all over the world, fuels a lot of it's economy, which, as you will note, is doing better than the US economy.
> 
> Yes, it is true that at the onset, Solar and wind costs more money to put in place and also requires SOME fossil fuels to even build the components. But in the long run, those things last 1000 times longer, or more. Which means that they pay for themselves with time.  That SHOULD be a Conservative battle cry, but once again, Conservatives around the world have totally dropped the ball over an issue that could easily be theirs.
> 
> So, I have presented cold, hard facts. Where are yours?
> 
> To even suggest that the use of renewables is going to kill people in the future is just plain batshit crazy. And then, for you to suggest that this is because the this is a problem because "but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership" is just so batshit crazy, I don't know even where to begin with you. Do Godwin much? How idiotic.
> 
> Next time, before you shoot your mouth off about a country I bet you have never even visited, why not ask someone who actually lives there?
> 
> 
> [MENTION=30473]flacaltenn[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] (it's not deceleration, but it's close!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like you like want to ignore the piss-poor investments that Germany has made in wind-solar and ignore the performance charts that I posted and the economic analysis I posted just to pick nits about Nazis which I never mentioned. The entire OP is a fraud and a lie pretending to announce some important milestone of performance. When in fact, LOOKING AT THE DATA --- it's the ultimate in public deception..
> 
> 1) I only referred to the consistently bad choices of leadership that Germans have and continue to make. This alliance with the Green Party is the one that is in play today. And I stand by the comparison. Money has been squandered and infrastructure decisions have been made on ideological platforms -- not engineering and facts.
> 
> 2) The idea that wind/solar would EVER be a backbone source of generation and a REPLACEMENT for fossils and nuclear is fundamentally wrong and dangerous and WILL lead to getting people killed.. Wind and Solar are PEAKER technologies, not steady backbone generation and as such can NEVER be used to EXPAND capacity to demand. For every MWatt of these sources, there MUST BE parallel resources available. And that means that one or other sits idle and subsidized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders - Forbes
> 
> Merkel&#8217;s energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of sea-based wind turbine power by 2030. However through the first six months of 2012 only 45 megawatts had been added to Germany&#8217;s existing 200-megawatt supply, according to an industry analyst quoted by Reuters. And despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which currently comprises 14 percent of German power bills), major wind projects in the North Sea are being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.
> 
> The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source. Not only that, they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of thousands of birds annually.
> 
> &#8220;Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it depends on the weather and includes periods without any recognizable capacity for days, or suddenly occurring supply peaks that push the grid to its limits,&#8221; a 2012 report from Germany energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil notes. &#8220;There is a threat of power outages over large areas, mainly in wintertime when the demand is high and less (power) gets delivered from abroad.&#8221;
> 
> Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the past two decades &#8211; bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide than hard coal.
> 
> In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy &#8211; and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3) I'm not surprised that you sit amongst so many ill-conceived renewable projects. Show us the DAILY production charts for "your" windfarm.. If you can find them they will look no different than this --- which is one of the worlds best sited OFF-SHORE danish farms. And one of the FEW BIG wind projects that still post their embarrassing daily production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You OVER-build THAT and tear down the nuclear plants and people WILL DIE in the wintertime just as the Forbes article suggests.
> 
> The jig is up and lying about the performance of this investment is all that is left..
Click to expand...


Gee, I just hate to call anyone out for lying, but you cannot have it both ways.

You wrote:



> German technologists are not stupid, but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...




Since the only, and I mean, only truly dangerous history of leadership in Germany was indeed from 1933-1945, I will not let you get away with this kind of dishonesty.

Secondly, you provide stats from one location for one day and somehow that is supposed to impress me?

The daily stats are not as important as the yearly production stats. For wind, on a windy day, the output will be enormous. On a day where there is no wind, the output will be less. The average is what counts, especially since the energy is being fed all into the same net all the time. This is exactly the same principle that investors in the stock market use for diversifying their respective portfolios.

So, as to coal: Germany is starting to experiment with extracting a lesser quality of coal. The method is being hotly discussed here, most do not want it. But the number of mines (most of which are of course in the Ruhr Valley) are a drop in the bucket compared to the national energy grid.

I will come back and bring you all the facts, not just the few assorted things you have decided to cherry pick.

Once again, shame on you for referring to the Nazi-era. Don't even try to lie again and say it wasn't so. It is quite obvious for anyone with eyes that can see.


One more thing: Germans do NOT want nuclear. They have already made their decision and are quite firm about it.  Funny how you, as a supposedly freedom-loving person, want to spit on the wishes of other people. And cut the crap about this is going to cause people to die in the winter. What unbelievable horseshit.

This is, of course, not going to happen, and after a number of years, I plan to confront you about this. Right here, on this thread.


----------



## Decus

The latest revision of Germany's energy policy was to slow the growth of renewable energy in order to stabilize German energy prices. The EU has said that many German industries have been exempted from having to pay the surcharges related to renewable energy and that these exemptions violated EU rules. 

The heart of the debate revolves around energy prices and German competitiveness - meaning jobs and longer term economic well-being:

_"Key German industries have repeatedly expressed concern that the rapid and costly expansion of renewables could undermine the strength of countrys industrial base, ultimately putting 800,000 jobs at risk."_ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/b...y-moves-forward-on-renewable-energy-plan.html

More and more Germans don't like where this is headed.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Decus said:


> The latest revision of Germany's energy policy was to slow the growth of renewable energy in order to stabilize German energy prices. The EU has said that many German industries have been exempted from having to pay the surcharges related to renewable energy and that these exemptions violated EU rules.
> 
> The heart of the debate revolves around energy prices and German competitiveness - meaning jobs and longer term economic well-being:
> 
> _"Key German industries have repeatedly expressed concern that the rapid and costly expansion of renewables could undermine the strength of countrys industrial base, ultimately putting 800,000 jobs at risk."_
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/b...y-moves-forward-on-renewable-energy-plan.html
> 
> More and more Germans don't like where this is headed.



They need to consider not only stopping the decommising of nuclear but building more.


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany gets 74% of their power from renewable energy.   Germany refused to go along with US sanctions against Russia because they get the majority of their energy needs from Russian oil.
> 
> Both of these circumstances cannot be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because your second sentence is a lie.
Click to expand...


Cerrtainly -- BOTH sentences are lies.. 
The installed of base of wind/solar is not sufficient to power 74% of Germany as a design rule ever...


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> Gee, I just hate to call anyone out for lying, but you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German technologists are not stupid, but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the only, and I mean, only truly dangerous history of leadership in Germany was indeed from 1933-1945, I will not let you get away with this kind of dishonesty.
> 
> Secondly, you provide stats from one location for one day and somehow that is supposed to impress me?
> 
> The daily stats are not as important as the yearly production stats. For wind, on a windy day, the output will be enormous. On a day where there is no wind, the output will be less. The average is what counts, especially since the energy is being fed all into the same net all the time. This is exactly the same principle that investors in the stock market use for diversifying their respective portfolios.
> 
> So, as to coal: Germany is starting to experiment with extracting a lesser quality of coal. The method is being hotly discussed here, most do not want it. But the number of mines (most of which are of course in the Ruhr Valley) are a drop in the bucket compared to the national energy grid.
> 
> I will come back and bring you all the facts, not just the few assorted things you have decided to cherry pick.
> 
> Once again, shame on you for referring to the Nazi-era. Don't even try to lie again and say it wasn't so. It is quite obvious for anyone with eyes that can see.
> 
> 
> One more thing: Germans do NOT want nuclear. They have already made their decision and are quite firm about it.  Funny how you, as a supposedly freedom-loving person, want to spit on the wishes of other people. And cut the crap about this is going to cause people to die in the winter. What unbelievable horseshit.
> 
> This is, of course, not going to happen, and after a number of years, I plan to confront you about this. Right here, on this thread.
Click to expand...


Crazy and dangerous would describe both the pre-Nazi leadership in Germany that led to economic conditions and Nazi rise and the 1/2 of Germany under Socialist rule post war.
Don't know how you can fixate on the Nazis when none were mentioned. 

As to the flaky unreliable nature of wind power, I have OFTEN posted daily production numbers from MiddelGrunden and others. You are free to check them yourself. What I posted is TYPICAL performance. Even the graph that started this whole thread will illustrate that wind is here for for a couple hours and GONE tomorrow. That's not even debateable.

To disprove that -- all you have to do is find daily numbers for any wind farm or regional system that provide RELIABLE week after week performance. The average YEARLY production of a wind turbine is about 32% of the RATED amount. And that is generous. Yearly production DOES NOT MATTER. NO storage means that generation is a minute to minute grid balancing task. And the BACKBONE fossil, nuclear, hydro resources HAVE to be there to provide FULL capacity plus a safety margin. Germany last winter allowed those safety margins to become very dangerously low. Thus -- solar and wind are NOT alternatives to anything. They are merely opportunistic supplements. And if you put too much of that crap on the grid, you flirt with disaster in terms of both energy markets and performance. You cannot create a market in wind. Because you can't write a contract to deliver 1GWatt of wind next Tuesday afternoon. You also destroy the financial incentive for folks to build CONVENTIONAL plants if you legislate that wind goes on the grid whenever available. Because no investors want to build plants that are constantly cycling up and down with the additional wear and tear -- or sitting idle with full staff and fuel reserves. 

Yearly statistics don't mean piss if wind is not available next Wednesday and Friday and half available on Monday and Saturday in 20 minute intervals. 

Trying to do ANYTHING towards a goal of CO2 reduction without nuclear is insane. Those are goals in engineering conflict. So the people of Germany are welcome to believe in hype (like this OP) and fairy tales as much as they want. But it's obvious that they are MORE FRIGHTENED by nuclear technology than they are by Global Warming. Which also speaks volumes about their commitments and energy plans..


----------



## flacaltenn

A random check on MiddelGrunden last December ---- 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/329964-lets-peek-in-on-wind-production.html#post8315848


----------



## whitehall

It's amazing how the left spins this green junk science. The fact of the matter is that Germany's ten year experiment with renewable energy is an abject failure. According to Spiegal the CO2 emissions have increased, electric prices have skyrocketed and the green bubble has burst and cost the jobs of thousands of Germans. The news is so bad that Australia is considering dumping the junk science.


----------



## Shrimpbox

As one who is not at all versed on the inside baseball of green energy, let me forward a hypothesis about how regular people see this. I believe everyone wants to do what is right for the planet, but the pace of technology is so fast that many of us fear any of these new systems will be obsolete before they are done being installed. Batteries are getting better every day(or so we are being told), solar efficiency is increasing every day(or so we are being told), and fusion is right around the corner negating any need for the previous two. Windmills are killing a lot of birds and don't seem to have to follow the same environmental protocols oil companies or fishermen do when it comes to the environment. Remember that oil soaked pelican during the bp oil spill? What if someone showed a tractor trailer sized mound of dead birds that the windmills did in?

so many regular people say I think I will just wait a bit. Solyndra and the new governor of Virginia make a lot of us think this is just another scam to get our money in the name of the world coming to an end, again. Please forgive us our ignorance.


----------



## Pogo

Shrimpbox said:


> Windmills are killing a lot of birds and don't seem to have to follow the same environmental protocols oil companies or fishermen do when it comes to the environment. Remember that oil soaked pelican during the bp oil spill? What if someone showed a tractor trailer sized mound of dead birds that the windmills did in?



For the curious it's not hard to find this stuff out.  How much is "a lot"?  Some perspective:


*Man-made structure/technology -- Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)*

_Feral and domestic cats_ ----  Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
_Power lines_ ----  130 million to 174 million [source: AWEA]
_Windows_ (residential and commercial) --- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
_Pesticides_ -- 70 million [source: AWEA]
_Automobiles_ --- 60 million to 80 million [source: AWEA]
_Lighted communication towers_ -- 40 million to 50 million [source: AWEA]
_Wind turbines_ ---- 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC]

>> Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year.  <<  (table and text from this page)

No, wind turbines are not subject to the same environmental regulations as oil -- of course not.  They don't pollute.  That's the whole point.  That, and not needing fuel.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> Shrimpbox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windmills are killing a lot of birds and don't seem to have to follow the same environmental protocols oil companies or fishermen do when it comes to the environment. Remember that oil soaked pelican during the bp oil spill? What if someone showed a tractor trailer sized mound of dead birds that the windmills did in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the curious it's not hard to find this stuff out.  How much is "a lot"?  Some perspective:
> 
> 
> *Man-made structure/technology -- Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)*
> 
> _Feral and domestic cats_ ----  Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
> _Power lines_ ----  130 million to 174 million [source: AWEA]
> _Windows_ (residential and commercial) --- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
> _Pesticides_ -- 70 million [source: AWEA]
> _Automobiles_ --- 60 million to 80 million [source: AWEA]
> _Lighted communication towers_ -- 40 million to 50 million [source: AWEA]
> _Wind turbines_ ---- 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC]
> 
> >> Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year.  <<  (table and text from this page)
> 
> No, wind turbines are not subject to the same environmental regulations as oil -- of course not.  They don't pollute.  That's the whole point.  That, and not needing fuel.
Click to expand...


Of course the Amer. Wind Energy Assoc is gonna scurry away from the real enviro issue here. Buildings do not deny SPECIFIC TERRITORIAL species habitat. In fact, many species adapt quite well to urban/suburban settings. In the case of wind farms, we are not talking about birds drunk on berry juice colliding with objects, we are talking about Species that die at a such a rate from the location of these farms that essentially the area around these locations are denied as habitat. TERRITORIAL species like hawks, owls, bats, eagles... 

You can just take a map and X out the territory for those species within several miles of a windfarm.. A random migratory warbler or wren hitting a window is NOT denial of habitat.


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimpbox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windmills are killing a lot of birds and don't seem to have to follow the same environmental protocols oil companies or fishermen do when it comes to the environment. Remember that oil soaked pelican during the bp oil spill? What if someone showed a tractor trailer sized mound of dead birds that the windmills did in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the curious it's not hard to find this stuff out.  How much is "a lot"?  Some perspective:
> 
> 
> *Man-made structure/technology -- Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)*
> 
> _Feral and domestic cats_ ----  Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
> _Power lines_ ----  130 million to 174 million [source: AWEA]
> _Windows_ (residential and commercial) --- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
> _Pesticides_ -- 70 million [source: AWEA]
> _Automobiles_ --- 60 million to 80 million [source: AWEA]
> _Lighted communication towers_ -- 40 million to 50 million [source: AWEA]
> _Wind turbines_ ---- 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC]
> 
> >> Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year.  <<  (table and text from this page)
> 
> No, wind turbines are not subject to the same environmental regulations as oil -- of course not.  They don't pollute.  That's the whole point.  That, and not needing fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the Amer. Wind Energy Assoc is gonna scurry away from the real enviro issue here. Buildings do not deny SPECIFIC TERRITORIAL species habitat. In fact, many species adapt quite well to urban/suburban settings. In the case of wind farms, we are not talking about birds drunk on berry juice colliding with objects, we are talking about Species that die at a such a rate from the location of these farms that essentially the area around these locations are denied as habitat. TERRITORIAL species like hawks, owls, bats, eagles...
> 
> You can just take a map and X out the territory for those species within several miles of a windfarm.. A random migratory warbler or wren hitting a window is NOT denial of habitat.
Click to expand...


Fair point (assuming it is a point-- no link) but the same question of perspective presents, to wit: how much denial of habitat do we continue to visit upon such species by clearing land, building factories and constructing the aforementioned urban/suburban settings?  Put that in relation to the whole.

I would also submit that among my list linked above there are species-specific factors besides wind turbines, e.g. pesticides.


----------



## elektra

Sure, Germany produced Green Energy, but did it deliver that energy to the market? Doubtful.

On a day when not much energy was needed, Green Energy can claim to produce 70% of demand, on an easy day. Not a hard winter day when demand is high. 

So Green Energy produced energy, big deal, the Coal Plants continued to operate, the natural gas plants continued to operate, they had to, to provide for the energy needed after the brief spike, what was it, a ten second spike?

How did they smooth out the energy spike caused by Green Energy, they used fossil fuels, computers, loads to dissipate the green energy spike.

Spikes are essentially a waste of energy, they have to go somewhere, where does that spike go? It gets shunted to ground.

Germany is suffering, just wait and see, lets see if Europe climbs out of the recession of the last 6 years. I would bet money after the election in 2016, we will somehow find the world's economy in a deep depression as the truth about the extreme cost of Green Energy comes to light.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the curious it's not hard to find this stuff out.  How much is "a lot"?  Some perspective:
> 
> 
> *Man-made structure/technology -- Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)*
> 
> _Feral and domestic cats_ ----  Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
> _Power lines_ ----  130 million to 174 million [source: AWEA]
> _Windows_ (residential and commercial) --- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
> _Pesticides_ -- 70 million [source: AWEA]
> _Automobiles_ --- 60 million to 80 million [source: AWEA]
> _Lighted communication towers_ -- 40 million to 50 million [source: AWEA]
> _Wind turbines_ ---- 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC]
> 
> >> Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year.  <<  (table and text from this page)
> 
> No, wind turbines are not subject to the same environmental regulations as oil -- of course not.  They don't pollute.  That's the whole point.  That, and not needing fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Amer. Wind Energy Assoc is gonna scurry away from the real enviro issue here. Buildings do not deny SPECIFIC TERRITORIAL species habitat. In fact, many species adapt quite well to urban/suburban settings. In the case of wind farms, we are not talking about birds drunk on berry juice colliding with objects, we are talking about Species that die at a such a rate from the location of these farms that essentially the area around these locations are denied as habitat. TERRITORIAL species like hawks, owls, bats, eagles...
> 
> You can just take a map and X out the territory for those species within several miles of a windfarm.. A random migratory warbler or wren hitting a window is NOT denial of habitat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair point (assuming it is a point-- no link) but the same question of perspective presents, to wit: how much denial of habitat do we continue to visit upon such species by clearing land, building factories and constructing the aforementioned urban/suburban settings?  Put that in relation to the whole.
> 
> I would also submit that among my list linked above there are species-specific factors besides wind turbines, e.g. pesticides.
Click to expand...


Just want to be fair and not hypocritical. POWER PLANTS should be licensed by similiar rules and impacts. Agriculture is largely grandfathered in.  And we are not granting waivers to farmers to go ahead and kill hundreds of our National Symbol Bald Eagles. 

Raptors and bats are generally not harmed by other types of power plants. Other than power line issues which are present in BOTH cases. NON-territorial birds are not an issue with wind kills because they relocate often and the population is mobile. Not true in these other cases. It's not the absolute number of kills that matters here. It's the licensing and use of the land that PRECLUDES any meaningful mitigation to denial of habitat. 

It APPEARS that wind farms may be required to mitigate this issue because of public pressure and they are experimenting with actual RADAR systems that give enough warning to shut all or a few turbines down before a collision. But that's a huge cost to swallow if it were to be REQUIRED of every large farm operator. Nothing else seems to work. In fact, these predators are ATTRACTED to the turbines because of the enhanced rodent population at the bases. 

Its all land use and licensing. And nobody should be exempt. Oil companies just this past year were tried and fined for Eagle kills.. Fair is fair.. Exemptions make REAL enviros mad..


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Amer. Wind Energy Assoc is gonna scurry away from the real enviro issue here. Buildings do not deny SPECIFIC TERRITORIAL species habitat. In fact, many species adapt quite well to urban/suburban settings. In the case of wind farms, we are not talking about birds drunk on berry juice colliding with objects, we are talking about Species that die at a such a rate from the location of these farms that essentially the area around these locations are denied as habitat. TERRITORIAL species like hawks, owls, bats, eagles...
> 
> You can just take a map and X out the territory for those species within several miles of a windfarm.. A random migratory warbler or wren hitting a window is NOT denial of habitat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point (assuming it is a point-- no link) but the same question of perspective presents, to wit: how much denial of habitat do we continue to visit upon such species by clearing land, building factories and constructing the aforementioned urban/suburban settings?  Put that in relation to the whole.
> 
> I would also submit that among my list linked above there are species-specific factors besides wind turbines, e.g. pesticides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just want to be fair and not hypocritical. POWER PLANTS should be licensed by similiar rules and impacts. Agriculture is largely grandfathered in.  And we are not granting waivers to farmers to go ahead and kill hundreds of our National Symbol Bald Eagles.
> 
> Raptors and bats are generally not harmed by other types of power plants. Other than power line issues which are present in BOTH cases. NON-territorial birds are not an issue with wind kills because they relocate often and the population is mobile. Not true in these other cases. It's not the absolute number of kills that matters here. It's the licensing and use of the land that PRECLUDES any meaningful mitigation to denial of habitat.
> 
> It APPEARS that wind farms may be required to mitigate this issue because of public pressure and they are experimenting with actual RADAR systems that give enough warning to shut all or a few turbines down before a collision. But that's a huge cost to swallow if it were to be REQUIRED of every large farm operator. Nothing else seems to work. In fact, these predators are ATTRACTED to the turbines because of the enhanced rodent population at the bases.
> 
> Its all land use and licensing. And nobody should be exempt. Oil companies just this past year were tried and fined for Eagle kills.. Fair is fair.. Exemptions make REAL enviros mad..
Click to expand...


To be a truly fair comparison you can't limit the observation to power generation only.  The table I originally linked gives a perspective on what we're already doing in terms of bird kills, in other area.  Not related area maybe, but the numbers clearly show the original sentiment, "Windmills are killing a lot of birds" is being purveyed out of its context.  That is, overemphasized in the big picture; if 40,000 is "a lot", how are we to describe 174 million?

Nobody should be exempt from responsibility for their environmental impact, of course not.  My point was that wind turbines simply do not require the pollution standards that oil or coal plants do, because such pollution simply isn't present.  A statement of the obvious perhaps, but in response to that point in the post.

Again the point is all about perspective.  What kind of hazards are _already _posed by existing technology and man-made structure on said raptors and bats?  I don't know the answer to that but absent that context there is no perspective in which to plunk the wind turbine effect.  IOW we don't know what its value is.  We don't know the answer to "is that a lot?".  So I'm not entirely satisfied with "Windmills are killing a lot of birds", especially given the inevitable political demagoguery that doggedly overemphasizes here and underemphasizes there depending on which approach serves its interest.

And it just seems a wee bit disingenuous to only suddenly discover denial of habitat with wind technology after we've been doing it so long with other stuff.


----------



## Bleipriester

Star said:


> .
> *Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy*
> 
> By Kiley Kroh
> May 13, 2014
> 
> On Sunday, Germanys impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion  nearly 75 percent  of the countrys overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the countrys power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International.
> 
> In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the countrys electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year, Bloomberg reported. Much of the countrys renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germanys 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013.
> 
> Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050.
> 
> <snip>
> .


You probably won´t believe it but these are bad news for the German Green Party


----------



## Statistikhengst

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point (assuming it is a point-- no link) but the same question of perspective presents, to wit: how much denial of habitat do we continue to visit upon such species by clearing land, building factories and constructing the aforementioned urban/suburban settings?  Put that in relation to the whole.
> 
> I would also submit that among my list linked above there are species-specific factors besides wind turbines, e.g. pesticides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just want to be fair and not hypocritical. POWER PLANTS should be licensed by similiar rules and impacts. Agriculture is largely grandfathered in.  And we are not granting waivers to farmers to go ahead and kill hundreds of our National Symbol Bald Eagles.
> 
> Raptors and bats are generally not harmed by other types of power plants. Other than power line issues which are present in BOTH cases. NON-territorial birds are not an issue with wind kills because they relocate often and the population is mobile. Not true in these other cases. It's not the absolute number of kills that matters here. It's the licensing and use of the land that PRECLUDES any meaningful mitigation to denial of habitat.
> 
> It APPEARS that wind farms may be required to mitigate this issue because of public pressure and they are experimenting with actual RADAR systems that give enough warning to shut all or a few turbines down before a collision. But that's a huge cost to swallow if it were to be REQUIRED of every large farm operator. Nothing else seems to work. In fact, these predators are ATTRACTED to the turbines because of the enhanced rodent population at the bases.
> 
> Its all land use and licensing. And nobody should be exempt. Oil companies just this past year were tried and fined for Eagle kills.. Fair is fair.. Exemptions make REAL enviros mad..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be a truly fair comparison you can't limit the observation to power generation only.  The table I originally linked gives a perspective on what we're already doing in terms of bird kills, in other area.  Not related area maybe, but the numbers clearly show the original sentiment, "Windmills are killing a lot of birds" is being purveyed out of its context.  That is, overemphasized in the big picture; if 40,000 is "a lot", how are we to describe 174 million?
> 
> Nobody should be exempt from responsibility for their environmental impact, of course not.  My point was that wind turbines simply do not require the pollution standards that oil or coal plants do, because such pollution simply isn't present.  A statement of the obvious perhaps, but in response to that point in the post.
> 
> Again the point is all about perspective.  What kind of hazards are _already _posed by existing technology and man-made structure on said raptors and bats?  I don't know the answer to that but absent that context there is no perspective in which to plunk the wind turbine effect.  IOW we don't know what its value is.  We don't know the answer to "is that a lot?".  So I'm not entirely satisfied with "Windmills are killing a lot of birds", especially given the inevitable political demagoguery that doggedly overemphasizes here and underemphasizes there depending on which approach serves its interest.
> 
> *And it just seems a wee bit disingenuous to only suddenly discover denial of habitat with wind technology after we've been doing it so long with other stuff*.
Click to expand...




Yepp.  Kicking and screaming, we are going to drag the knuckledraggers of the world with us into the future and then in 70 years, they are gonna lie right out their fat asses and say it was all their idea to begin with. Mark my words.

Conservation, preservation of natural resources and use of renewable energy is supposed to be a CONSERVATIVE battle-cry. But once again, those lonely elephants have dropped the ball...


----------



## Spoonman

I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced


----------



## flacaltenn

Spoonman said:


> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced



You generate electricity from wood when the house is 10ft under snow?? ?


----------



## Spoonman

flacaltenn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You generate electricity from wood when the house is 10ft under snow?? ?
Click to expand...


no, i generate it from the sun.  just brush the snow off the panels.


----------



## elektra

The People here are so ignorant, some think the German/European system of using 230 vac is best (which shows ignorance of electricity) So how can anything this user states be taken seriously.

People are speaking how easy it is to power their homes, which I find ridiculous in light of the heavy subsidies which these people never admit too, nor do they really the cost. I have a landlord installed solar hot water heater system on my home, it sucks in the winter, barely warms the water, in the summer its great but I see zero saving on the electric bill. Zero. So who really understands or admits the truth?


----------



## elektra

Statistikhengst said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, usually I would let this get by, but your passing reference to the Nazi times is just so fucking batshit crazy, I am gonna have to respond to this one.
> 
> *Fact:*
> 
> 1.) Use of renewable energy has nothing to do with 1933-1945. Any attempt make a connection between the two is totally foolish. Renewable energy did not exist between 1933-1945.
> 
> 2.) To say that moving to renewable energy is going to kill people is just plain old stupid. Where is your PROOF that this is going to happen? Do you have statistics about people who have been killed by solar panels and wind/water turbines? Really?
> 
> *So, let me give you some inside information:*
> 
> I live 10 kilometers from a wind farm that works perfectly. There are, I believe, 21 turbines in action there. It was created _in agreement_ with farmers, who allow part of the land to be used for wind turbines, who also allow solar panels to be put on their buildings, and they still farm and their animals still graze.  Even with the many grey skies that Germany has - the wind energy output here is immense.
> 
> I live 20 Kilometers from one of the larger solar farms in the world. The installation is right along the A3 Highway between Siegburg and Frankfurt and covers a huge amount of energy needs.
> 
> *While American energy bills are going UP, German energy bills are going DOWN.*
> 
> The cost for converting to Wind/Solar/Water is now at parity with the costs for maintaining a fossil fuel lifestyle in Germany, about 3 years AHEAD of the original calculations.
> 
> I just compared my per Kilowatt price with the price that my sister in Ohio pays and was shocked to see that I pay less per month that she does. Actually, considerable less.
> 
> *The biggest controversy,* the one that actually spurred the German government to do what it is doing, was the decision to completely shut down nuclear energy by 2023:
> 
> Liste der Kernreaktoren in Deutschland ? Wikipedia
> 
> Germany once had 110 reactors, it now has 14 still functioning. 5 of those were supposed to go offline in 2011, but a court case is being fought over them. The last nine are supposed to go offline by December, 2022 at the latest. There are also 8 research reactors still functioning, but not for creating energy to go into the energy-net.
> 
> Of course, in order to reduce energy from nuclear, Germany had to IMPORT energy from somewhere else until the solar/wind/water project is completed, and Germany made the mistake of importing lots of energy from nuclear reactors from the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), reactors in terrible shape. By importing more and more energy from those reactors, not only was it totally hypocritical of Germany to do this, it was dangerous, for those reactors started pumping overtime in order to meet the extra energy needs of other countries like Germany. If there are any reactors in Europe that need to be shut down right now, as in, like yesterday, then it would be the reactors from those three small nations. When the German population found out about this in 2009, there was a large outcry. And now Germany is no longer importing from the Baltic States.
> 
> Call it what you want out of utter ignorance if that pleases you, but Germany is undoubtedly leading the way in the field of renewables: solar, wind, water. They are doing it less with water, because Germany is mostly landlocked and only a small part of the country has a coastline with the North Sea / Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> Not only that, when Germany does reach 80% of it's energy from renewables, it won't have to import at all. In fact, in the forseeable future, Germany will be EXPORTING a lot of energy from renewable energy sources. And we are not even talking about fusion - a subject for another day.
> 
> Germany has done this because it had to. Necessity is often the mother of invention, and it is definitely the case here. Germany has very few fossil fuel resources left - oil and coal. *Most of those resources were used up in WWII*. This is fact that most Americans do not know. In fact, the dearth of coal is what led to the Coal/Steel Pact between Germany and France in the early 1950s, just years after the most bitter war in our planet's history ended, even as feelings between those two nations were very, very hard. And that pact is what led to the Franco/Geman Friendship pact of 1963, just 18 years after the end of WWII.
> 
> The same lack of natural (fossil fuel) resources is what spurred Germany to move to renewables ahead of the rest of the world. As my ex-father-in-law has often said to me: "Germany's greatest export good is here" - and he would point to his brain, meaning that German know-how, German innovation, which is exported all over the world, fuels a lot of it's economy, which, as you will note, is doing better than the US economy.
> 
> Yes, it is true that at the onset, Solar and wind costs more money to put in place and also requires SOME fossil fuels to even build the components. But in the long run, those things last 1000 times longer, or more. Which means that they pay for themselves with time.  That SHOULD be a Conservative battle cry, but once again, Conservatives around the world have totally dropped the ball over an issue that could easily be theirs.
> 
> So, I have presented cold, hard facts. Where are yours?
> 
> To even suggest that the use of renewables is going to kill people in the future is just plain batshit crazy. And then, for you to suggest that this is because the this is a problem because "but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership" is just so batshit crazy, I don't know even where to begin with you. Do Godwin much? How idiotic.
> 
> Next time, before you shoot your mouth off about a country I bet you have never even visited, why not ask someone who actually lives there?
> 
> 
> [MENTION=30473]flacaltenn[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] (it's not deceleration, but it's close!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like you like want to ignore the piss-poor investments that Germany has made in wind-solar and ignore the performance charts that I posted and the economic analysis I posted just to pick nits about Nazis which I never mentioned. The entire OP is a fraud and a lie pretending to announce some important milestone of performance. When in fact, LOOKING AT THE DATA --- it's the ultimate in public deception..
> 
> 1) I only referred to the consistently bad choices of leadership that Germans have and continue to make. This alliance with the Green Party is the one that is in play today. And I stand by the comparison. Money has been squandered and infrastructure decisions have been made on ideological platforms -- not engineering and facts.
> 
> 2) The idea that wind/solar would EVER be a backbone source of generation and a REPLACEMENT for fossils and nuclear is fundamentally wrong and dangerous and WILL lead to getting people killed.. Wind and Solar are PEAKER technologies, not steady backbone generation and as such can NEVER be used to EXPAND capacity to demand. For every MWatt of these sources, there MUST BE parallel resources available. And that means that one or other sits idle and subsidized.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I'm not surprised that you sit amongst so many ill-conceived renewable projects. Show us the DAILY production charts for "your" windfarm.. If you can find them they will look no different than this --- which is one of the worlds best sited OFF-SHORE danish farms. And one of the FEW BIG wind projects that still post their embarrassing daily production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You OVER-build THAT and tear down the nuclear plants and people WILL DIE in the wintertime just as the Forbes article suggests.
> 
> The jig is up and lying about the performance of this investment is all that is left..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I just hate to call anyone out for lying, but you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German technologists are not stupid, but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the only, and I mean, only truly dangerous history of leadership in Germany was indeed from 1933-1945, I will not let you get away with this kind of dishonesty.
> 
> Secondly, you provide stats from one location for one day and somehow that is supposed to impress me?
> 
> The daily stats are not as important as the yearly production stats. For wind, on a windy day, the output will be enormous. On a day where there is no wind, the output will be less. The average is what counts, especially since the energy is being fed all into the same net all the time. This is exactly the same principle that investors in the stock market use for diversifying their respective portfolios.
> 
> So, as to coal: Germany is starting to experiment with extracting a lesser quality of coal. The method is being hotly discussed here, most do not want it. But the number of mines (most of which are of course in the Ruhr Valley) are a drop in the bucket compared to the national energy grid.
> 
> I will come back and bring you all the facts, not just the few assorted things you have decided to cherry pick.
> 
> Once again, shame on you for referring to the Nazi-era. Don't even try to lie again and say it wasn't so. It is quite obvious for anyone with eyes that can see.
> 
> 
> One more thing: Germans do NOT want nuclear. They have already made their decision and are quite firm about it.  Funny how you, as a supposedly freedom-loving person, want to spit on the wishes of other people. And cut the crap about this is going to cause people to die in the winter. What unbelievable horseshit.
> 
> This is, of course, not going to happen, and after a number of years, I plan to confront you about this. Right here, on this thread.
Click to expand...


boy, I could not resist to jump in, you state the only dangerous period of German leadership was the NAZI era? 1933-1945? 

Seems maybe the average student of History in USA has a greater knowledge of German's History then the average German. I do not state this to insult you, and it seems you may get insulted easily. So please consider this, based on you defining 1933-1945.

It was not only the Socialist (NAZI) that were the problem, it was the typical German that was a problem all the way back to the 1800's.

Before Hitler was born the average German citizen called for the killing of JEWS! Sure some defended the Jews, but only by stating, "if only the Jew would change we could accept the Jew into German Society".

Hitler was born into a country that called for the extermination of the Jews, it was the culture, the society in which Hitler was born, not the society that Hitler created.

I wonder if you know this fact?

As far as your ideas about "perfect" Wind Power, how about telling us how many barrels of oil are used at this Clean Perfect Renewable Wind farm. Did you state the name? 

What about maintenance, how much maintenance does this "Perfect" wind farm require.

You state a whole lot that kind of makes me wonder how to even start a debate.

I guess I want to see if you really understand simple History because it seems you may not really understand who killed the Jews.


----------



## elektra

Spoonman said:


> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced



Wow, seems great. A few questions if you do not mind.

Can I have the name of the system, model number? Who built it. Can you take some pics and post them?

Can I know roughly, where your house is, in a city, in the country, on a farm? 

How many square feet is your house. 

Do you use air conditioning all summer, all day and all night? 

How much did it cost, did you get tax credits? How was it paid for? Lease, Bought, Rented? Financed.

How much surplus do you generate, in KWH's?


----------



## Statistikhengst

elektra said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, seems great. A few questions if you do not mind.
> 
> Can I have the name of the system, model number? Who built it. Can you take some pics and post them?
> 
> Can I know roughly, where your house is, in a city, in the country, on a farm?
> 
> How many square feet is your house.
> 
> Do you use air conditioning all summer, all day and all night?
> 
> How much did it cost, did you get tax credits? How was it paid for? Lease, Bought, Rented? Financed.
> 
> How much surplus do you generate, in KWH's?
Click to expand...



Wtf???


----------



## Pogo

Statistikhengst said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, seems great. A few questions if you do not mind.
> 
> Can I have the name of the system, model number? Who built it. Can you take some pics and post them?
> 
> Can I know roughly, where your house is, in a city, in the country, on a farm?
> 
> How many square feet is your house.
> 
> Do you use air conditioning all summer, all day and all night?
> 
> How much did it cost, did you get tax credits? How was it paid for? Lease, Bought, Rented? Financed.
> 
> How much surplus do you generate, in KWH's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf???
Click to expand...


"When will you be on vacation?  If I were... I mean, if _someone _were to steal your system in the middle of the night, what size truck would they need?  Is there a U-Haul facility nearby?"....


----------



## Statistikhengst

elektra said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like you like want to ignore the piss-poor investments that Germany has made in wind-solar and ignore the performance charts that I posted and the economic analysis I posted just to pick nits about Nazis which I never mentioned. The entire OP is a fraud and a lie pretending to announce some important milestone of performance. When in fact, LOOKING AT THE DATA --- it's the ultimate in public deception..
> 
> 1) I only referred to the consistently bad choices of leadership that Germans have and continue to make. This alliance with the Green Party is the one that is in play today. And I stand by the comparison. Money has been squandered and infrastructure decisions have been made on ideological platforms -- not engineering and facts.
> 
> 2) The idea that wind/solar would EVER be a backbone source of generation and a REPLACEMENT for fossils and nuclear is fundamentally wrong and dangerous and WILL lead to getting people killed.. Wind and Solar are PEAKER technologies, not steady backbone generation and as such can NEVER be used to EXPAND capacity to demand. For every MWatt of these sources, there MUST BE parallel resources available. And that means that one or other sits idle and subsidized.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I'm not surprised that you sit amongst so many ill-conceived renewable projects. Show us the DAILY production charts for "your" windfarm.. If you can find them they will look no different than this --- which is one of the worlds best sited OFF-SHORE danish farms. And one of the FEW BIG wind projects that still post their embarrassing daily production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You OVER-build THAT and tear down the nuclear plants and people WILL DIE in the wintertime just as the Forbes article suggests.
> 
> The jig is up and lying about the performance of this investment is all that is left..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I just hate to call anyone out for lying, but you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German technologists are not stupid, but theres a history of ending up with crazy and dangerous leadership...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the only, and I mean, only truly dangerous history of leadership in Germany was indeed from 1933-1945, I will not let you get away with this kind of dishonesty.
> 
> Secondly, you provide stats from one location for one day and somehow that is supposed to impress me?
> 
> The daily stats are not as important as the yearly production stats. For wind, on a windy day, the output will be enormous. On a day where there is no wind, the output will be less. The average is what counts, especially since the energy is being fed all into the same net all the time. This is exactly the same principle that investors in the stock market use for diversifying their respective portfolios.
> 
> So, as to coal: Germany is starting to experiment with extracting a lesser quality of coal. The method is being hotly discussed here, most do not want it. But the number of mines (most of which are of course in the Ruhr Valley) are a drop in the bucket compared to the national energy grid.
> 
> I will come back and bring you all the facts, not just the few assorted things you have decided to cherry pick.
> 
> Once again, shame on you for referring to the Nazi-era. Don't even try to lie again and say it wasn't so. It is quite obvious for anyone with eyes that can see.
> 
> 
> One more thing: Germans do NOT want nuclear. They have already made their decision and are quite firm about it.  Funny how you, as a supposedly freedom-loving person, want to spit on the wishes of other people. And cut the crap about this is going to cause people to die in the winter. What unbelievable horseshit.
> 
> This is, of course, not going to happen, and after a number of years, I plan to confront you about this. Right here, on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *boy,* I could not resist to jump in, you state the only dangerous period of German leadership was the NAZI era? 1933-1945?
> 
> Seems maybe the average student of History in USA has a greater knowledge of German's History then the average German. I do not state this to insult you, and it seems you may get insulted easily. So please consider this, based on you defining 1933-1945.
> 
> It was not only the Socialist (NAZI) that were the problem, it was the typical German that was a problem all the way back to the 1800's.
> 
> Before Hitler was born the average German citizen called for the killing of JEWS! Sure some defended the Jews, but only by stating, "if only the Jew would change we could accept the Jew into German Society".
> 
> Hitler was born into a country that called for the extermination of the Jews, it was the culture, the society in which Hitler was born, not the society that Hitler created.
> 
> I wonder if you know this fact?
> 
> *As far as your ideas about "perfect" Wind Power,* how about telling us how many barrels of oil are used at this Clean Perfect Renewable Wind farm. Did you state the name?
> 
> What about maintenance, how much maintenance does this *"Perfect" *wind farm require.
> 
> You state a whole lot that kind of makes me wonder how to even start a debate.
> 
> I guess I want to see if you really understand simple History because it seems you may not really understand who killed the Jews.
Click to expand...



Well now, that was some interesting but ill-informed bullshit you served up there, [MENTION=46310]elektra[/MENTION].

I am an American living and working in Germany for 17 years and I quite sure I know the history of this land far more than you will ever know.

Not only am I am American living in Germany, I am an American Jew living in Germany, so you can be quite guaranteed that I am well versed in more than one facet of German history.

Germany had a number of rough periods - well, different parts of Germany had rough periods, but the unification happened in the 1880s and no period in any part of Germany's history was dangerous in any comparable way to 1933-1945.

So, no, you didn't insult me, but you indeed showed your ignorant ass for what it is. Just like the first time I encountered you here in USMB and you were unbelievably rough and assholian and uncouth. I am not easily insulted, but don't have much patience with self-aggrandizing fools.  So, your name fits you quite well.

Hitler was not born in Germany, btw. He was born in Austria. And in Austria, there were not cries for the extemination of Jews when and where he was born. 

So, yes, I know exactly who killed "the Jews". 

I never mentioned "perfect" wind power. So, who were you quoting? It wasn't me. Or were you simply lying? Somehow, that would not surprise me. Do you enjoy lying?

Your ignorant and ill-though response shows - once again - how little you understand history.

So, to recap the title of this thread:

*Germany Generated 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy*


It is a fact that Germany is now achieving 3/4 of it's energy output through renewables.

You don't like it? Tough fuck for you.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Pogo said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, seems great. A few questions if you do not mind.
> 
> Can I have the name of the system, model number? Who built it. Can you take some pics and post them?
> 
> Can I know roughly, where your house is, in a city, in the country, on a farm?
> 
> How many square feet is your house.
> 
> Do you use air conditioning all summer, all day and all night?
> 
> How much did it cost, did you get tax credits? How was it paid for? Lease, Bought, Rented? Financed.
> 
> How much surplus do you generate, in KWH's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "When will you be on vacation?  If I were... I mean, if _someone _were to steal your system in the middle of the night, what size truck would they need?  Is there a U-Haul facility nearby?"....
Click to expand...



Yes and "can you happen to provide me with your credit card institute, maybe the card number, and hey, how about a pin and some tans...."

She is


----------



## Spoonman

elektra said:


> The People here are so ignorant, some think the German/European system of using 230 vac is best (which shows ignorance of electricity) So how can anything this user states be taken seriously.
> 
> People are speaking how easy it is to power their homes, which I find ridiculous in light of the heavy subsidies which these people never admit too, nor do they really the cost. I have a landlord installed solar hot water heater system on my home, it sucks in the winter, barely warms the water, in the summer its great but I see zero saving on the electric bill. Zero. So who really understands or admits the truth?



sounds like its a passive system,  not photovoltaic.  there is a big difference


----------



## Spoonman

elektra said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, seems great. A few questions if you do not mind.
> 
> Can I have the name of the system, model number? Who built it. Can you take some pics and post them?
> 
> Can I know roughly, where your house is, in a city, in the country, on a farm?
> 
> How many square feet is your house.
> 
> Do you use air conditioning all summer, all day and all night?
> 
> How much did it cost, did you get tax credits? How was it paid for? Lease, Bought, Rented? Financed.
> 
> How much surplus do you generate, in KWH's?
Click to expand...


my house is rated net zero. yep, I use heat, AC  what ever as needed.  all year long all night and day.   I generate about 2500 kwh surplus per year. the house is in a suburb. the system is owned.  I installed the panels, the electrical hookups as required by law were done by a licensed electrician and hook up to the grid by the power company.  I have a 2nd system on the house which is off the grid and has battery storage.  all that powers now is the all season porch but I have lines run to all critical equipment in the event of a long term power failure.   but for the most part that system is back up and is not currently powering heat, AC or appliances .


----------



## flacaltenn

Stat: You really gonna insist on believing that .... 



> It is a fact that Germany is now achieving 3/4 of it's energy output through renewables.



That happened for a few hours ONE DAY. And a couple days before that, virtually nothing. You cannot run a modern industrialized society on bad investments like that.


----------



## elektra

Statistikhengst said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I just hate to call anyone out for lying, but you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the only, and I mean, only truly dangerous history of leadership in Germany was indeed from 1933-1945, I will not let you get away with this kind of dishonesty.
> 
> Secondly, you provide stats from one location for one day and somehow that is supposed to impress me?
> 
> The daily stats are not as important as the yearly production stats. For wind, on a windy day, the output will be enormous. On a day where there is no wind, the output will be less. The average is what counts, especially since the energy is being fed all into the same net all the time. This is exactly the same principle that investors in the stock market use for diversifying their respective portfolios.
> 
> So, as to coal: Germany is starting to experiment with extracting a lesser quality of coal. The method is being hotly discussed here, most do not want it. But the number of mines (most of which are of course in the Ruhr Valley) are a drop in the bucket compared to the national energy grid.
> 
> I will come back and bring you all the facts, not just the few assorted things you have decided to cherry pick.
> 
> Once again, shame on you for referring to the Nazi-era. Don't even try to lie again and say it wasn't so. It is quite obvious for anyone with eyes that can see.
> 
> 
> One more thing: Germans do NOT want nuclear. They have already made their decision and are quite firm about it.  Funny how you, as a supposedly freedom-loving person, want to spit on the wishes of other people. And cut the crap about this is going to cause people to die in the winter. What unbelievable horseshit.
> 
> This is, of course, not going to happen, and after a number of years, I plan to confront you about this. Right here, on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *boy,* I could not resist to jump in, you state the only dangerous period of German leadership was the NAZI era? 1933-1945?
> 
> Seems maybe the average student of History in USA has a greater knowledge of German's History then the average German. I do not state this to insult you, and it seems you may get insulted easily. So please consider this, based on you defining 1933-1945.
> 
> It was not only the Socialist (NAZI) that were the problem, it was the typical German that was a problem all the way back to the 1800's.
> 
> Before Hitler was born the average German citizen called for the killing of JEWS! Sure some defended the Jews, but only by stating, "if only the Jew would change we could accept the Jew into German Society".
> 
> Hitler was born into a country that called for the extermination of the Jews, it was the culture, the society in which Hitler was born, not the society that Hitler created.
> 
> I wonder if you know this fact?
> 
> *As far as your ideas about "perfect" Wind Power,* how about telling us how many barrels of oil are used at this Clean Perfect Renewable Wind farm. Did you state the name?
> 
> What about maintenance, how much maintenance does this *"Perfect" *wind farm require.
> 
> You state a whole lot that kind of makes me wonder how to even start a debate.
> 
> I guess I want to see if you really understand simple History because it seems you may not really understand who killed the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, that was some interesting but ill-informed bullshit you served up there, [MENTION=46310]elektra[/MENTION].
> 
> I am an American living and working in Germany for 17 years and I quite sure I know the history of this land far more than you will ever know.
> 
> Not only am I am American living in Germany, I am an American Jew living in Germany, so you can be quite guaranteed that I am well versed in more than one facet of German history.
> 
> Germany had a number of rough periods - well, different parts of Germany had rough periods, but the unification happened in the 1880s and no period in any part of Germany's history was dangerous in any comparable way to 1933-1945.
> 
> So, no, you didn't insult me, but you indeed showed your ignorant ass for what it is. Just like the first time I encountered you here in USMB and you were unbelievably rough and assholian and uncouth. I am not easily insulted, but don't have much patience with self-aggrandizing fools.  So, your name fits you quite well.
> 
> Hitler was not born in Germany, btw. He was born in Austria. And in Austria, there were not cries for the extemination of Jews when and where he was born.
> 
> So, yes, I know exactly who killed "the Jews".
> 
> I never mentioned "perfect" wind power. So, who were you quoting? It wasn't me. Or were you simply lying? Somehow, that would not surprise me. Do you enjoy lying?
> 
> Your ignorant and ill-though response shows - once again - how little you understand history.
> 
> So, to recap the title of this thread:
> 
> *Germany Generated 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy*
> 
> 
> It is a fact that Germany is now achieving 3/4 of it's energy output through renewables.
> 
> You don't like it? Tough fuck for you.
Click to expand...


What is "ill-though"? I guess you ain't got a spell checker or you simply ignore the squiggly red-lines that point out your grammar errors. If your ignorant of or ignore the simple how could you possibly know anything of Wind Power?

I assure you my post is well thought out, first and foremost I figured if you simply got angry and failed to actually address any of my points, your not really smart, so I figured I would point this out.



> I live 10 kilometers from a wind farm that works perfectly



Sure you do, that makes you an expert.

 75% of Germany's energy comes from Renewables? More bullshit, does this even need to be addressed? German's goal was to reach 60% by 2050, according to Statistikhengst the Germans already reached a target they think they can't reach until 2050?

Hitler was the only bad guy in Germany as well, all was perfect before Hitler was born, there were no Ghettos nor laws passed against the Jews, 

The fools are easily fooled. Its too bad that so many of these idiots are Politicians who force these projects on the public with nothing less than pure lies and deceit.

I shake my head in disgust when I see the level of stupidity we are up against.


----------



## Statistikhengst

flacaltenn said:


> Stat: You really gonna insist on believing that ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that Germany is now achieving 3/4 of it's energy output through renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> That happened for a few hours ONE DAY. And a couple days before that, virtually nothing. You cannot run a modern industrialized society on bad investments like that.
Click to expand...



And you are still missing the point, because you want to miss the point, which I have already explained TWICE now.


----------



## Old Rocks

The idea of logic is an anthema to Elektra, Flatcern, Westwall, SSDD, and others. Opinion is all that matters to them. The fact that there are people on this board successfully using solar to eliminate their electrical bills, and provide emergency power in case of grid failure means nothing to them. All they see is that a lardass on the radio says solar is bad, therefore it is bad. 

But the future arrives, no matter how they kick and scream. And in a short time, their existance and opinions are not even remembered as we move past them on to a better future in spite of them.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> The idea of logic is an anthema to Elektra, Flatcern, Westwall, SSDD, and others. Opinion is all that matters to them. The fact that there are people on this board successfully using solar to eliminate their electrical bills, and provide emergency power in case of grid failure means nothing to them. All they see is that a lardass on the radio says solar is bad, therefore it is bad.
> 
> But the future arrives, no matter how they kick and scream. And in a short time, their existance and opinions are not even remembered as we move past them on to a better future in spite of them.



That leaves you guys CONDONING public misrepresentations and fraud like this OP.
The same way that GoldiRocks keeps shilling those Installed Power figures for wind and solar when HE KNOWS that what is produced on a yearly basis is a mere 1/3 of that.. 

Tsk Tsk..


----------



## elektra

Spoonman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have solar and power my house 100% with it.  everything is electric, including heat and stove.  I haven't seen a utility bill in 4 years other than a credit for surplus i've produced
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, seems great. A few questions if you do not mind.
> 
> Can I have the name of the system, model number? Who built it. Can you take some pics and post them?
> 
> Can I know roughly, where your house is, in a city, in the country, on a farm?
> 
> How many square feet is your house.
> 
> Do you use air conditioning all summer, all day and all night?
> 
> How much did it cost, did you get tax credits? How was it paid for? Lease, Bought, Rented? Financed.
> 
> How much surplus do you generate, in KWH's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my house is rated net zero. yep, I use heat, AC  what ever as needed.  all year long all night and day.   I generate about 2500 kwh surplus per year. the house is in a suburb. the system is owned.  I installed the panels, the electrical hookups as required by law were done by a licensed electrician and hook up to the grid by the power company.  I have a 2nd system on the house which is off the grid and has battery storage.  all that powers now is the all season porch but I have lines run to all critical equipment in the event of a long term power failure.   but for the most part that system is back up and is not currently powering heat, AC or appliances .
Click to expand...


What is the name of and the model number of your system, how much did it cost? 
What is the name of the batteries? How many are there? 

Can we see pics of everything.

I am not challenging you, I seriously would like to know, I would love to see everything, some simple pics, names of stuff, what it cost, how much maintenance is required. 

Is the surplus 2500 kwh every year? Is it that exactly? Is that surplus generated strictly in the summer? 

How many days can you go without sun before you start to worry?


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> The idea of logic is an anthema to Elektra, Flatcern, Westwall, SSDD, and others. Opinion is all that matters to them. The fact that there are people on this board successfully using solar to eliminate their electrical bills, and provide emergency power in case of grid failure means nothing to them. All they see is that a lardass on the radio says solar is bad, therefore it is bad.
> 
> But the future arrives, no matter how they kick and scream. And in a short time, their existance and opinions are not even remembered as we move past them on to a better future in spite of them.



Only an idiot would thank this post, Old Crock.

Old Crock, all you have stated is Solar is good, the literal tactic you claim others of using. 

Further, idiot, what is "existance"?

I guess the other idiot thanked your poor spelling or the other idiot just likes people who are mean, bitter, close-minded fools.


----------



## Shrimpbox

Pogo, "we have met the enemy and they is us"  A very apt statement for many on this board. Your post on the birds is such a softball thrown my way I can't resist, even though I don't have anything against windmills, in fact when seen up close they are technological marvels. Where I get very upset in this debate is when we creat an environmental two tiered justice system which means we have no justice at all.

If you want to have dueling statistic debates check out bald eagles and windmills, that is if you are curious enough. One article has the combined bat and bird mortality at 1.4 million, a far cry from forty thousand, oh and don't forget that mortality statistics for windmills are compiled by the wind power people. Bald and golden eagle mortality does not even include the worst offender in California. Ok and now let's extrapolate if the wind industry increases ten fold or even 100 fold like all you guys want. That means using your lowball figures we would go to 400,000 and then to 4 million mortality, but you guys will probably claim climate change will kill more birds than that.

Now, let's,point out one of your tactics, which I totally agree with. You claim that the amount of birds killed is insignificant in the scheme of things,rightly insinuating that any form of energy production will have some collateral damage. That sounds sane except that it doesn't work that way I real life. If the govt doesn't like you they want a 100 per cent survival rates, and I don't need to cite any sites because I have lived with this kind of govt overreach for decades as a shrimper. The govt has devasted gulf coast communities by de facto shutting down rec fishing for red snapper and grouper. The rec red snapper season in fed waters is 9 days, 9 DAYS. What a joke. And this is after twenty years of fed management. Needless to say there are beaucoup snapper out there. The point I am making is that whole portions of the economy can be shut down for environmental reasons, but if is the presidents pet project all the environmental rules can go by the wayside. Just plain lawlessness.

Killing an eagle is against the law. 250,000 fine and possible two years in jail. Not if you are getting huge subsidies from the taxpayer and building wind farms.

Another fallacy of your post pogo is that windmills kill a disproportionate amount of the raptor class birds. So we can introduce environmental dogma which says when you remove the predators at the top of the food chain you radically change the wildlife dynamic.(see post under environment about Yellowstone wolves). So maybe you get too many prairie dogs or mice. No one knows what the unintended consequences will be. Do giant wind farms alter the behavior of birds or other animals? Do new power lines run to windmill sites kill even more birds? Do any wavelengths created by windmills run off big game? Could giant wind farms change precipitation patterns? Who knows.


So pogo I am not against clean energy or windmills at all. But there must be a level playing field. If a law is good enough for me then it is good enough for everyone else or we don't need that law. If green energy is just going to be a taxpayer funded slush fund for democratic donors then we don't need it. If  wind and solar and ethanol can't stand on their own two feet then their time has not come yet. I have total faith that with time technology will solve our problems if we let technology find its own way without govt controls, but everyone has to play by the same rules.


P.S. Another point I should have included in the previous post is that the cost of the new home energy technology is coming down so fast the average guy says again, I'll just wait til it is cheaper, and postpones the purchase.


----------



## Pogo

Wow dood.  Thanks for this post.  I sometimes worry I'm too long-winded.  After reading this I don't feel that so much. 

It really really helps if you use the quote function so we all know what you're referring to, rather than have to open another page in another tab and keep switching back and forth.  So here, I'll merge them for you this time...





Pogo said:


> Shrimpbox said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one who is not at all versed on the inside baseball of green energy, let me forward a hypothesis about how regular people see this. I believe everyone wants to do what is right for the planet, but the pace of technology is so fast that many of us fear any of these new systems will be obsolete before they are done being installed. Batteries are getting better every day(or so we are being told), solar efficiency is increasing every day(or so we are being told), and fusion is right around the corner negating any need for the previous two. Windmills are killing a lot of birds and don't seem to have to follow the same environmental protocols oil companies or fishermen do when it comes to the environment. Remember that oil soaked pelican during the bp oil spill? What if someone showed a tractor trailer sized mound of dead birds that the windmills did in?
> 
> so many regular people say I think I will just wait a bit. Solyndra and the new governor of Virginia make a lot of us think this is just another scam to get our money in the name of the world coming to an end, again. Please forgive us our ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the curious it's not hard to find this stuff out.  How much is "a lot"?  Some perspective:
> 
> 
> *Man-made structure/technology -- Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)*
> 
> _Feral and domestic cats_ ----  Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
> _Power lines_ ----  130 million to 174 million [source: AWEA]
> _Windows_ (residential and commercial) --- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
> _Pesticides_ -- 70 million [source: AWEA]
> _Automobiles_ --- 60 million to 80 million [source: AWEA]
> _Lighted communication towers_ -- 40 million to 50 million [source: AWEA]
> _Wind turbines_ ---- 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC]
> 
> >> Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year.  <<  (table and text from this page)
> 
> No, wind turbines are not subject to the same environmental regulations as oil -- of course not.  They don't pollute.  That's the whole point.  That, and not needing fuel.
Click to expand...





Shrimpbox said:


> Pogo, "we have met the enemy and they is us"  A very apt statement for many on this board.



I've never made that statement.  You did.  I know where you're taking it from but it's got nothing to do with any of this.  Moving on...



Shrimpbox said:


> Your post on the birds is such a softball thrown my way I can't resist, even though I don't have anything against windmills, in fact when seen up close they are technological marvels. Where I get very upset in this debate is when we creat an environmental two tiered justice system which means we have no justice at all.
> 
> If you want to have dueling statistic debates check out bald eagles and windmills, that is if you are curious enough. One article has the combined bat and bird mortality at 1.4 million, a far cry from forty thousand, oh and don't forget that mortality statistics for windmills are compiled by the wind power people.



Actually that number is from the American Bird Conservancy.  It's right there in my link. If anything I would think the bird conservancy would have an interest in conserving birds, so I wouldn't expect their figures to be on the light side.  And the table as a whole came from the site "How Stuff Works", which again isn't a wind advocate but AFAIK a neutral site.

I don't know, or have a way to know, what the accurate relevant numbers are.  I just think the concern needs a bit more exactitude than "windmills are killing a lot of birds".  And I'm a birder myself btw.

The question of a "two-tiered justice system" is exactly what I was going after there.  We hear the mantra "wind turbines are killing a lot of birds" (they're turbines, not windmills) but have we ever heard the same about power lines?  Or pesticides?  How many cell phone towers have gone up in the last 20 years?  Why did we never hear the concern that "towers are killing a lot of birds"?  That makes me wonder about who's leading the conversation -- and what they would have to gain from leading it this way or that way.



Shrimpbox said:


> Bald and golden eagle mortality does not even include the worst offender in California. Ok and now let's extrapolate if the wind industry increases ten fold or even 100 fold like all you guys want. That means using your lowball figures we would go to 400,000 and then to 4 million mortality, but you guys will probably claim climate change will kill more birds than that.



Whoa, hold up Homer.  I didn't take a position on either wind generators or climate change.  You're quick on the assumptions.  I'm asking questions that need to be asked.  Maybe you should be too?



Shrimpbox said:


> Now, let's,point out one of your tactics, which I totally agree with. You claim that the amount of birds killed is insignificant in the scheme of things,rightly insinuating that any form of energy production will have some collateral damage.



That wasn't really the point; it's part of the point, but the main thrust of that post is to compare "apples to apples".  If wind turbines kill X amount of birds, or destroy X amount of habitats, we don't know what that means absent a comparison of how many birds those cellphone towers and those power lines and pesticides --- technologies that we have _already accepted_ and integrated into our world -- are already killing.  We already know we're dangerous to wildlife; we already know we encroach on Nature and have been doing so since the Industrial Revolution.  What I'm looking for here is *context*.  And when I hear such a question brought up that was never brought up for those other technologies, even though we already know the effect exists, that's when I start getting suspicious and looking for answers.



Shrimpbox said:


> That sounds sane except that it doesn't work that way I real life. If the govt doesn't like you they want a 100 per cent survival rates, and I don't need to cite any sites because I have lived with this kind of govt overreach for decades as a shrimper. The govt has devasted gulf coast communities by de facto shutting down rec fishing for red snapper and grouper. The rec red snapper season in fed waters is 9 days, 9 DAYS. What a joke. And this is after twenty years of fed management. Needless to say there are beaucoup snapper out there.



I have no possible comment here; I know nothing about shrimping except that it's a tough job, so my hat is off to you for your work.   I did start a thread on a somewhat related area that I'd love to see your opinion on and I'll edit a link to it.  But your greater point is governmental control over these things so we continue...



Shrimpbox said:


> The point I am making is that whole portions of the economy can be shut down for environmental reasons, but if is the presidents pet project all the environmental rules can go by the wayside. Just plain lawlessness.



This is kind of a vague statement, and I'm not even sure what it means.  You're saying the President can waive envrironmental regulations?



Shrimpbox said:


> Killing an eagle is against the law. 250,000 fine and possible two years in jail. Not if you are getting huge subsidies from the taxpayer and building wind farms.



Not sure what this last sentence means either but the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits "the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import", and  Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb".  Have you "killed" an eagle that flew into your wind turbine blade?  Have you _actively_ "killed" a bird that flew into your window or got taken out by your cat?  Has the power company "killed" the eagles that fly into its power lines?  These are the top three bird killers according to those figures (here's another article on power lines).

And about those "getting huge subsidies from the taxpayer".... you know who else got huge subsides from the taxpayer (WAY huger)?  The nuclear power industry.  And I believe Big Oil.  And a lot of other things in the world of infrastructure.  Let's not pretend this is something new, K?  Government subsidizes a LOT of things (including the Coast Guard in your workplace) and sometimes, if it's to nurture a new technology that might be poised to benefit the greater good, it needs to.  Again, looking for *context* here.



Shrimpbox said:


> Another fallacy of your post pogo is that windmills kill a disproportionate amount of the raptor class birds. So we can introduce environmental dogma which says when you remove the predators at the top of the food chain you radically change the wildlife dynamic.(see post under environment about Yellowstone wolves). So maybe you get too many prairie dogs or mice. No one knows what the unintended consequences will be. Do giant wind farms alter the behavior of birds or other animals? Do new power lines run to windmill sites kill even more birds? Do any wavelengths created by windmills run off big game? Could giant wind farms change precipitation patterns? Who knows.



No shit.  That's my purpose in asking the same questions.

I said nothing about raptors; that was Flacaltenn.  I'm not maintaining that wind turbines do or do not kill a significant number of raptors.  That's part of the questioning process of fleshing out the vague statement "windmillls kill a lot of birds".  That's just not nearly specific enough for me.




Shrimpbox said:


> So pogo I am not against clean energy or windmills at all. But there must be a level playing field. If a law is good enough for me then it is good enough for everyone else or we don't need that law. If green energy is just going to be a taxpayer funded slush fund for democratic donors then we don't need it. If  wind and solar and ethanol can't stand on their own two feet then their time has not come yet. I have total faith that with time technology will solve our problems if we let technology find its own way without govt controls, but everyone has to play by the same rules.



"Taxpayer funded slush fund for democratic [sic] donors"?  Wtf are you talking about?  We're not even talking about 'laws' yet, let alone the politicians who would make them, let alone the donors who support _them_; you're getting waaaay ahead of yourself here.  We haven't even established what's up with the birds, pun intended.  Someone seems to have an agenda in his pocket.



Shrimpbox said:


> P.S. Another point I should have included in the previous post is that the cost of the new home energy technology is coming down so fast the average guy says again, I'll just wait til it is cheaper, and postpones the purchase.



 I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable like Spoonman on that.  I love what Spoon is doing with his home, taking responsibility for his own energy.  I like decentralized. 

I originally came to this thread to wag my finger at the naysayers who bend over backward to find fault with any new idea with the tired old "it'll never work" mantra.  You raised the bird question, and I figure if we're going there we should know exactly what we're talking about before we start making judgments on the question.  "That will never work" and "these are killing a lot of birds" are two statements that I find wholly unsatisfactory.  I need to know _*why*_ and _*why not*_.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Shrimpbox.  I'll come back and edit the related article I referred to. 

Edit: Here's the article I referred to.  And I know shrimp aren't scallops  but would invite your thoughts over in that thread.  Cheers


----------



## flacaltenn

Excuses.. Wind Farms are denial of habitat for raptors and bats. Other power plants are not. 
These are highly territorial birds that will be decimated in number by trying to remain there. 

And other energy companies are being dragged to court and FINED by the Feds, while these wind operations get waivers for killing 100s of our national symbol AND get help covering up the dead bodies.

Prettty simple to sniff out the massive hypocrisy there..


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Excuses.. Wind Farms are denial of habitat for raptors and bats. Other power plants are not.
> These are highly territorial birds that will be decimated in number by trying to remain there.
> 
> And other energy companies are being dragged to court and FINED by the Feds, while these wind operations get waivers for killing 100s of our national symbol AND get help covering up the dead bodies.
> 
> Prettty simple to sniff out the massive hypocrisy there..



Sorry, but neither hypocrisy nor ipse dixit are validated by unlinked "because I said so" posts. 

I learned looooong ago that once one goes onto the internet, one's home state becomes Missouri, if you catch my meaning.


----------



## flacaltenn

When's the last time an eagle hit your window? or a hawk or owl? Or a bat? NO ONE is griping about songbirds and migratories. 






The eco-nuts talking about cars and buildings are useless to enviro issues because they don't even understand the importance of WHAT SPECIES are adversely affected or how this denies habitat for CERTAIN species..


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People here are so ignorant, some think the German/European system of using 230 vac is best (which shows ignorance of electricity) So how can anything this user states be taken seriously.
> 
> People are speaking how easy it is to power their homes, which I find ridiculous in light of the heavy subsidies which these people never admit too, nor do they really the cost. I have a landlord installed solar hot water heater system on my home, it sucks in the winter, barely warms the water, in the summer its great but I see zero saving on the electric bill. Zero. So who really understands or admits the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like its a passive system,  not photovoltaic.  there is a big difference
Click to expand...


Entirely different.  What Elektra refers to is a hot water system -- probably far simpler to set up than an electrical system but what Spoon has is the latter -- photovoltaic cells generating electrical energy (not just heat).  Just because both work on sunlight, that doesn't make them the same thing or even similar things.  So Elektra before you start calling people liars check and see if you even know what you're talking about.


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> When's the last time an eagle hit your window? or a hawk or owl? Or a bat? NO ONE is griping about songbirds and migratories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The eco-nuts talking about cars and buildings are useless to enviro issues because they don't even understand the importance of WHAT SPECIES are adversely affected or how this denies habitat for CERTAIN species..



Again, you're not making a point here.  You have a picture of a dead bird wrapped in appeal to emotion.  There's no information in the post.

And I might add, ad hominem.  Why are you wasting our time with this bullshit?  If you have a point, whip it out already.  Your own handle thingy says "not a spectator sport".  Live up to that.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses.. Wind Farms are denial of habitat for raptors and bats. Other power plants are not.
> These are highly territorial birds that will be decimated in number by trying to remain there.
> 
> And other energy companies are being dragged to court and FINED by the Feds, while these wind operations get waivers for killing 100s of our national symbol AND get help covering up the dead bodies.
> 
> Prettty simple to sniff out the massive hypocrisy there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but neither hypocrisy nor ipse dixit are validated by unlinked "because I said so" posts.
> 
> I learned looooong ago that once one goes onto the internet, one's home state becomes Missouri, if you catch my meaning.
Click to expand...

\

Wow Pogo -- We betting again so soon after your last loss yesterday.. You need to read my sig line again. Why is it that all of the most opinionated folks seem to be behind and need tutoring on the issue? 

Be specific about what I alleged that you think I'm bluffing on and I'll help ya out..


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses.. Wind Farms are denial of habitat for raptors and bats. Other power plants are not.
> These are highly territorial birds that will be decimated in number by trying to remain there.
> 
> And other energy companies are being dragged to court and FINED by the Feds, while these wind operations get waivers for killing 100s of our national symbol AND get help covering up the dead bodies.
> 
> Prettty simple to sniff out the massive hypocrisy there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but neither hypocrisy nor ipse dixit are validated by unlinked "because I said so" posts.
> 
> I learned looooong ago that once one goes onto the internet, one's home state becomes Missouri, if you catch my meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> Wow Pogo -- We betting again so soon after your last loss yesterday.. You need to read my sig line again. Why is it that all of the most opinionated folks seem to be behind and need tutoring on the issue?
> 
> Be specific about what I alleged that you think I'm bluffing on and I'll help ya out..
Click to expand...


Wow, what part of "you haven't made a point" -- doesn't make a point? 

You know what ipse dixit means, right?  Well I need something a wee bit stronger than simply your say-so that what you claim is going on, IS going on.  Where's the beef?

Or as the site puts it: 

While you're working on that rest assured I had no "loss" yesterday.  Even my baseball team won, and that's not too common


----------



## flacaltenn

You need not make this personal Pogo. What assertion do you not believe? That Wind companies are getting waivers to slaughter 1000s of raptures whilst the Feds are prosecuting and fining other energy companies for the death of a few raptors? 

Or that the issues is not NUMBER of kills, but types of species especially affected by wind installations to the point of extinguishing their habitat? 

Or is the problem that you just haven't been following this issue?


----------



## flacaltenn

> Wind Farm Bird Deaths Stir Concerns In The U.S.
> 
> CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo. (AP) &#8212; It happens about once a month here, on the barren foothills of one of America's green-energy boomtowns: A soaring golden eagle slams into a wind farm's spinning turbine and falls, mangled and lifeless, to the ground.
> 
> Killing these iconic birds is not just an irreplaceable loss for a vulnerable species. It's also a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines.
> 
> But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly. Instead, the government is shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret.
> 
> More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
> 
> 
> Getting precise figures is impossible because many companies aren't required to disclose how many birds they kill. And when they do, experts say, the data can be unreliable.
> 
> When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.
> 
> Nearly all the birds being killed are protected under federal environmental laws, which prosecutors have used to generate tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from businesses, including oil and gas companies, over the past five years.
> 
> "We are all responsible for protecting our wildlife, even the largest of corporations," Colorado U.S. Attorney David M. Gaouette said in 2009 when announcing Exxon Mobil had pleaded guilty and would pay $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states, including Wyoming.





> For wind power, U.S. extends permit for eagle deaths | The Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8212; The Obama administration will allow companies to seek authorization to kill and harm bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty in an effort to balance some of the environmental trade-offs of green energy.
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> The change, requested by the wind energy industry and officially revealed Friday, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects that obtain a permit and do everything possible to avoid killing the birds. Companies will also have to commit to take additional measures if they exceed their permit limits or if new information suggests eagle populations are being affected.
> 
> But the rule makes clear that revoking a permit is a last resort.
> 
> &#8220;We anticipate that implementing additional mitigation measures ... will reduce the likelihood of amendments to, or revocation of, the permit,&#8221; the rule reads.
> 
> Right now, as an AP investigation has documented, wind farms are killing eagles in violation of the law. Not a single wind energy company has a permit authorizing the killing, harm or harassment of eagles, although five-year permits have been available since 2009. That puts companies at legal risk and discourages private investment in renewable energy.
> 
> It also doesn&#8217;t help eagles, since without a permit, companies are not required to take steps to reduce their impact on the birds or report when they kill them.
> 
> Conservation groups, which have been aligned with the wind industry on other issues, said Friday the decision by the Interior Department sanctioned the killing of America&#8217;s symbol.
> 
> &#8220;Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check,&#8221; Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold said in a statement. The group said it would challenge the decision.



So that you can get educated without us derailing this thread --- let's continue this HERE... 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328213-pardons-2-turkeys-signs-death-warrant-for-1000-eagles.html#post8258372


----------



## Trinnity

Pogo said:


> Again, you're not making a point here.  You have a picture of a dead bird wrapped in appeal to emotion.  There's no information in the post.


There's plenty. Those windmills are bird killers. Fact.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Trinnity said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're not making a point here.  You have a picture of a dead bird wrapped in appeal to emotion.  There's no information in the post.
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty. Those windmills are bird killers. Fact.
Click to expand...



And oil spills don't kill birds?

Puleeze.


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> Trinnity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're not making a point here.  You have a picture of a dead bird wrapped in appeal to emotion.  There's no information in the post.
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty. Those windmills are bird killers. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And oil spills don't kill birds?
> 
> Puleeze.
Click to expand...


That's very true.. Again oil spills tend to target specific SPECIES and habitat. Makes it more serious than random building collisions of birds flying while drunk.. 

But OIL has nothing really to do with generating electricity, so wind would not be a solution to that problem directly..


----------



## Statistikhengst

flacaltenn said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnity said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty. Those windmills are bird killers. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oil spills don't kill birds?
> 
> Puleeze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very true.. Again oil spills tend to target specific SPECIES and habitat. Makes it more serious than random building collisions of birds flying while drunk..
> 
> But OIL has nothing really to do with generating electricity, so wind would not be a solution to that problem directly..
Click to expand...


Oil is a source of ENERGY, just coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, water and solar. And, in the future, anti-matter.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People here are so ignorant, some think the German/European system of using 230 vac is best (which shows ignorance of electricity) So how can anything this user states be taken seriously.
> 
> People are speaking how easy it is to power their homes, which I find ridiculous in light of the heavy subsidies which these people never admit too, nor do they really the cost. I have a landlord installed solar hot water heater system on my home, it sucks in the winter, barely warms the water, in the summer its great but I see zero saving on the electric bill. Zero. So who really understands or admits the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like its a passive system,  not photovoltaic.  there is a big difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entirely different.  What Elektra refers to is a hot water system -- probably far simpler to set up than an electrical system but what Spoon has is the latter -- photovoltaic cells generating electrical energy (not just heat).  Just because both work on sunlight, that doesn't make them the same thing or even similar things.  So Elektra before you start calling people liars check and see if you even know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


No kidding, different systems, your kidding right? 

I stated what I have on my home and asked another for details on thier system. You are one of the problems here, your reading comprehension sucks, how about re-reading the posts before you go spouting off and trying to explain things you have demonstrated you do not understand.

I understand my system, I asked about the other, moron!


----------



## elektra

Statistikhengst said:


> Trinnity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're not making a point here.  You have a picture of a dead bird wrapped in appeal to emotion.  There's no information in the post.
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty. Those windmills are bird killers. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And oil spills don't kill birds?
> 
> Puleeze.
Click to expand...


Windmill production increased Oil Production, took more oil in a shorter time to build the world's largest physical in size Wind Turbine farms. 

Windmill's, Wind Turbines, Solar Power all increase demand for oil, putting unneeded pressure on production. 

When will Green/Renewable Energy admit the obvious guilt they personally bear for destroying the environment.

Yes, Renewable Energy (hardly, requires oil to operate), more like Renewable Bird Kills, Ivanpah Solar and all of California Wind Farms are here forever, Destroying birds forever. The Exxon Valdez spill is gone, Oil Spills dissipate, Renewable Energy means the damage caused to the environment will be daily. Bird Kills, Increased Oil Production to meet the demand of the Renewable Green Energy Heavy Industry, forever and ever after.


----------



## JimH52

Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy | ThinkProgress



> Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050



I guess there are no Republicans in Germany.  They will be relying on solar and wind energy, while we will continue to either sell our souls to the middle east or frack open the very heart of mother earth to find our needed energy.

It is the far right's insistence on abandoning alternate energy sources that demonstrates their true ignorance.


----------



## Statistikhengst

elektra said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinnity said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty. Those windmills are bird killers. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oil spills don't kill birds?
> 
> Puleeze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Windmill production increased Oil Production,* took more oil in a shorter time to build the world's largest physical in size Wind Turbine farms.
> 
> *Windmill's, Wind Turbines, Solar Power all increase demand for oil,* putting unneeded pressure on production.
> 
> When will Green/Renewable Energy admit the obvious guilt they personally bear for destroying the environment.
> 
> Yes, Renewable Energy (hardly, requires oil to operate), more like Renewable Bird Kills, Ivanpah Solar and all of California Wind Farms are here forever, Destroying birds forever. The Exxon Valdez spill is gone, Oil Spills dissipate, Renewable Energy means the damage caused to the environment will be daily. Bird Kills, Increased Oil Production to meet the demand of the Renewable Green Energy Heavy Industry, forever and ever after.
Click to expand...




No, and no.

That is simply a lie.

A big old fat fucking lie.


----------



## flacaltenn

JimH52 said:


> Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there are no Republicans in Germany.  They will be relying on solar and wind energy, while we will continue to either sell our souls to the middle east or frack open the very heart of mother earth to find our needed energy.
> 
> It is the far right's insistence on abandoning alternate energy sources that demonstrates their true ignorance.
Click to expand...


There are SUPPLEMENTAL energy sources like wind and solar -- but those are not ALTERNATIVE energy sources. The way you tell the difference is when you've built too many and folks start freezing to death in the winter or losing power weekly..


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Matthew said:


> I just don't understand how you can be for limiting carbon emissions and anti-Nuclear. Kind of conflicts.



mental conflicts are the way the liberal thinks.    BTW, this is a conservative government that got them into this problem.  Germany had to of a crash course in relabels after the japanese nuke disaster


----------



## elektra

Statistik Hengst said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And oil spills don't kill birds?
> 
> Puleeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Windmill production increased Oil Production,* took more oil in a shorter time to build the world's largest physical in size Wind Turbine farms.
> 
> *Windmill's, Wind Turbines, Solar Power all increase demand for oil,* putting unneeded pressure on production.
> 
> When will Green/Renewable Energy admit the obvious guilt they personally bear for destroying the environment.
> 
> Yes, Renewable Energy (hardly, requires oil to operate), more like Renewable Bird Kills, Ivanpah Solar and all of California Wind Farms are here forever, Destroying birds forever. The Exxon Valdez spill is gone, Oil Spills dissipate, Renewable Energy means the damage caused to the environment will be daily. Bird Kills, Increased Oil Production to meet the demand of the Renewable Green Energy Heavy Industry, forever and ever after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no.
> 
> That is simply a lie.
> 
> A big old fat fucking lie.
Click to expand...


A lie? Bullshit, how do you think Wind Turbines are made of? Sugar and Spice? The world's largest structures covering hundreds of miles did not increase the use of oil? 

Amazing, Green Energy is magically green, must grow on trees. 

Lets of course ignore the fact that once these 300 ton structures start turning that means parts moving. Moving parts in the past needed to be lubricated, but not in the 300 ton Wind Turbines, they operate on magic.

Production and Maintenance, that doesn't count? We are to believe the largest Wind Farms in the World required zero petro-chemicals? No need for even Propene? 

Magic, they simply appear.


----------



## elektra

Star said:


> .
> *Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy*
> 
> By Kiley Kroh
> May 13, 2014
> 
> On Sunday, Germanys impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion  nearly 75 percent  of the countrys overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the countrys power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International.
> 
> In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the countrys electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year, Bloomberg reported. Much of the countrys renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germanys 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013.
> 
> Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050.
> 
> <snip>
> .



Thinkprogress is not credible

A Fair Assessment of Think Progress



> ohn Hinderaker of Power Line Blog has done an excellent job tracking down and debunking the serial lies of Think Progress regarding the Koch brothers.  Ive chimed in too from time to time, but John really has led the charge.
> 
> In a post today, John demonstrates yet another Think Progress lie supposedly connecting the departure of David Koch from a Board position at the National Institutes for Health with the reclassification of a chemical used by Koch subsidiary Georgia Pacific as a carcinogen.  There is no truth to it.
> 
> John sums Think Progress up as follows (emphasis mine):
> Everyone makes mistakes, but ThinkProgress is unique. It doesnt just get things wrong; it consistently fabricates lies out of whole cloth. Anyone who relies on ThinkProgress for information is asking to be deceived.
> I think that is a fair assessment, except Id go one step further.  Many of the people who rely on Think Progress for information, which they then republish, do so with full knowledge of the lack of truthfulness and thereby are complicit.
> 
> 


----------



## Statistikhengst

elektra said:


> Statistik Hengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Windmill production increased Oil Production,* took more oil in a shorter time to build the world's largest physical in size Wind Turbine farms.
> 
> *Windmill's, Wind Turbines, Solar Power all increase demand for oil,* putting unneeded pressure on production.
> 
> When will Green/Renewable Energy admit the obvious guilt they personally bear for destroying the environment.
> 
> Yes, Renewable Energy (hardly, requires oil to operate), more like Renewable Bird Kills, Ivanpah Solar and all of California Wind Farms are here forever, Destroying birds forever. The Exxon Valdez spill is gone, Oil Spills dissipate, Renewable Energy means the damage caused to the environment will be daily. Bird Kills, Increased Oil Production to meet the demand of the Renewable Green Energy Heavy Industry, forever and ever after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no.
> 
> That is simply a lie.
> 
> A big old fat fucking lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lie? Bullshit, how do you think Wind Turbines are made of? Sugar and Spice? The world's largest structures covering hundreds of miles did not increase the use of oil?
> 
> Amazing, Green Energy is magically green, must grow on trees.
> 
> Lets of course ignore the fact that once these 300 ton structures start turning that means parts moving. Moving parts in the past needed to be lubricated, but not in the 300 ton Wind Turbines, they operate on magic.
> 
> Production and Maintenance, that doesn't count? We are to believe the largest Wind Farms in the World required zero petro-chemicals? No need for even Propene?
> 
> Magic, they simply appear.
Click to expand...


I already wrote in my very first response to Flacaltenn that -some- oil products are required to build wind turbines, underwater turbines, solar panels and even nuclear power plants - but those things pay for themselves with time.

It's called "capitalism" and making a wise investment. You should try it, you might even like it.

Just for example: if I need the equivalent of 500 gallons of crude oil for the creation of one wind turbine, but within three years, that turbine creates the energy the equivalent of 50,000 gallons of crude oil, then that's a 5,000 to 1 return.

Thank you for playing.

History is not on your side on this one and in 50 years, a lot of people are going to be laughing at fools like you who scoff at renewables.

Oh, and Flacaltenn, btw, the reason why many Wind-Turbines are taken offline for 2 days in a month is for cleaning and maintenance so that less oil products are needed to keep said wind turbine in good shape. This is why a good wind farm has many turbines working at various rates, depending on wind speed and direction of turbine. And on any given day, assuming 15 turbines, one of them may be offline for this very reason. But it is the average output per month, per farm, that counts, and German wind farms are exceeding the output estimates, by far.


----------



## flacaltenn

Statistikhengst said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistik Hengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, and no.
> 
> That is simply a lie.
> 
> A big old fat fucking lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lie? Bullshit, how do you think Wind Turbines are made of? Sugar and Spice? The world's largest structures covering hundreds of miles did not increase the use of oil?
> 
> Amazing, Green Energy is magically green, must grow on trees.
> 
> Lets of course ignore the fact that once these 300 ton structures start turning that means parts moving. Moving parts in the past needed to be lubricated, but not in the 300 ton Wind Turbines, they operate on magic.
> 
> Production and Maintenance, that doesn't count? We are to believe the largest Wind Farms in the World required zero petro-chemicals? No need for even Propene?
> 
> Magic, they simply appear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already wrote in my very first response to Flacaltenn that -some- oil products are required to build wind turbines, underwater turbines, solar panels and even nuclear power plants - but those things pay for themselves with time.
> 
> It's called "capitalism" and making a wise investment. You should try it, you might even like it.
> 
> Just for example: if I need the equivalent of 500 gallons of crude oil for the creation of one wind turbine, but within three years, that turbine creates the energy the equivalent of 50,000 gallons of crude oil, then that's a 5,000 to 1 return.
> 
> Thank you for playing.
> 
> History is not on your side on this one and in 50 years, a lot of people are going to be laughing at fools like you who scoff at renewables.
> 
> Oh, and Flacaltenn, btw, the reason why many Wind-Turbines are taken offline for 2 days in a month is for cleaning and maintenance so that less oil products are needed to keep said wind turbine in good shape. This is why a good wind farm has many turbines working at various rates, depending on wind speed and direction of turbine. And on any given day, assuming 15 turbines, one of them may be offline for this very reason. But it is the average output per month, per farm, that counts, and German wind farms are exceeding the output estimates, by far.
Click to expand...


Scheduled maintenance was never an issue to me. Wind takes ITSELF off-line regularly and completely -- MANY times a week. As the charts I posted show.. It AVERAGES 1/3 of its specified capacity over a years time. And often -- short periods of wind activity cannot be utilized because of switching times on the grid to remove the primary generators to take an hour of wind power. 

It is unreliable, cannot be scheduled and you cannot write a contract for delivery next Tuesday.. It is merely an opportunistic SUPPLEMENT to the grid -- not an Alternative.. 

How about another chart so that this point sinks in??? 






Note:  IN THAT CHART -- the wind numbers are not related to the absolute demand curve. They merely show the percentage of ACTUAL power from wind versus the design CAPACITY of that system.


----------

