1

Does 100% wind-& solar power work? SpoileR. No, never.

http://gertjaap.van-ulzen.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Paard-achter-de-wagen.jpg

There are green adepts in our country who think that with wind-& solar power plus large-scale storage for 100% we can provide for our power requirements. Mind you, the power requirement is less than 20% of our total energy needs. The other 80% mainly concerns heat & transport.

Let's take a look at how such (2050) scenario would look based on the actual production figures for wind-& solar current over 2017. According to the experts, there should be 80% wind power produced and 20% solar power. Furthermore, you do not want to produce more than 100% of the demand over the year. Otherwise, you would literally produce waste, that power should be somewhere.

The actual production of wind and solar power in the Netherlands over 2017 saw there – per day – as follows [Figure 1].

The total amount of wind-& solar flow was enough to cover 2.22% of the total energy requirement. On day 254 (September 11, 2017) the total production of wind-& solar flow was combined at its max with 5.31% demand coverage.

We inflate this chart to 100% of the power requirement with 80% wind current and 20% solar power. As if miraculously on 1 January 2017, 11 times more wind turbines stood and 12 x more solar panels. Then you get the following graph [Figure 2].

2

In terms of shape, it is logically quite similar to the first figure, it is not going to blow harder in 2017 and the sun is no longer shining. Still reached the total production of wind-& solar current on day 254 (still September 11th) its maximum but now with 235% – so 135% above demand).

The remark of A.O. Mrs. Madhusudhan (Urgenda) and her companion in the Sustainable struggle (Mr. Jan Rahiman), that solar power and wind flow are already almost flattening each other, we can therefore refer to the realm of fables. There is no form of sustainable generation which is as volatile as the combination of wind and sun.

So We see days with too much wind-&ing solar power and days with too little. The daily surplus or deficit will then be as follows [Figure 3].

3

We See for example around Day 21 (3rd and 4th week January) a few days in succession with a current too short, as well as around day 261 (3rd and 4th week September). For that first period our eastern neighbours have a name called ' Dunkelfleute '. For that second period in September not yet. The total of these surpluses and deficits is zero, after all the starting position was 100% wind and solar power.

Let's say we do a miraculous invention where we can save power without limit and loss of conversion, how much storage do we need? If we accumulate the shortages and surpluses from the previous figure, we will understand how much power storage we need [Figure 4].

4

We have to save power on 14 January (day 14) for 13.1 days to prevent the light from coming out on 30 September (day 273). Give or take 4.45 TWh. In an electric Tesla can 85 kWh. So We need quite a bit of it.

Now we are going back to a more realistic scenario where we only use battery storage for one day storage (so also from night to day, after all at night the Sun does not shine). Then there are two restrictive conditions. Firstly, there must be a current surplus on Day 1 in order to be able to store electricity at all and logically, the next day, a current should be too short to be able to use that storage. We then get the following chart [Figure 5];

That flattening of wind-& solar power by using battery storage appears to be rather disappointing. In reality, only 2.66% of the total power requirement can be pushed forward one day. The storage requirement for the remainder is still around 4.1 TWh. The 3 to 4 million Tesla's used for this are also directly the maximum. There are simply not enough days when you can save a day surplus to use it the next day.

The total power output per day of wind-& solar power, plus the one day storage in batteries looks like this (blue is wind, yellow is sun and the virtually invisible red at the bottom is the one day storage in batteries [Figure 6]);

5

Above the line there is still without any regularity but with great frequency a surplus of power. The same goes for under the 100% streak, where we find the daily shortages.

We sort the above figure from high to low then you get a so called duration curve. Along the X-axis is no longer the day of the year but the number of days [Figure 7].

We see that 137 days more than 100% flow is produced, then 58 days exactly 100% (with battery storage we can flatten the production of wind and Sun). The rest of the year we

6

have a stream too short. Still the current surplus left is exactly equal to the deficit right. Approximately 34% of the total power requirement.

By far the cheapest way of power storage are pump-water basins, approximately €2.5 cents per kWh. The ' free ' wind current is then used to fill the water basins. To move that current surplus from the left in the graph to the right (the required 4.1 TWh storage) would then cost about €105 per billion a year. or about €13,300 per year per household. Only the storage that is and just apart from the question of where we are in the Delta Netherlands that will build water basins then.

Or conversely, with a single ' fossil ' power station of 1GW, the required storage decreases by approximately 7%. The phasing out of this one ' fossil ' power plant costs a sloppy €7.3 billion of power storage extra. Per year.

I look forward to the sustainable business case. But I think we can calmly argue that the energy transition based on Wind & Sun, has already failed before it has started.

What we will see is an extension of the wind-& solar power, without any single ' fossil ' central cannot being phased out. And that dual infrastructure is not free, far from it.

Posted in Green Madness | 9 Comments » | Read more..January/January 22nd, 2018

The unpleasant facts about wind energy that you never hear...

Wind-& Solar current can do no fossil power plants replaced

The wind flow production over the year 2017 is now well-known and looks like this every day;

7

Along the Y-axis you can find the percentage of wind flow generated from the current needs and along the X-axis the day of the year. Keep in mind that current is only about one-fifth of the total energy requirement. On average over the year, wind power has taken 9.12% of the total power requirement (which is only 1.82% of the energy requirement).

You can see peaks in production on for example Day 53 (22 February 2017), on Day 157 (June 7), but also on the days 358 & 359 (both Christmas days). In between – without any regularity – also deep valleys in the wind flow production. The amount of wind flow is logically dependent on the weather. Sometimes it blows, sometimes not and sometimes even too hard.

When we sort the actual daily wind flow production over 2017 from high to low, we get the following graph – a so-called duration curve (red is the trendline).

8

Along the Y-axis you will find Always The percentage of wind current produced from the power requirement. Along the X-axis is no longer the date, but the number of days per year. On the far left you can read that there were about two days in 2017 where enough wind power was produced to supply a quarter of the 100% power requirement (11 Sept. & 7 June). Directly to the right you will find a number of days when roughly 23.5% of the energy requirement was supplied by wind flow (including both Christmas days).

At 26 days a year, enough wind power was produced to provide 20% or more of the total power requirement (the left part of the graph). 148 days a year more than 10%, on 217 days thus less than 10%. On 116 days from 2017 even less than 5% (the right part of the graph).

The remainder of the power requirement must therefore be produced in a different way, as a rule through coal, gas & nuclear power stations. Solar power can do something on average – about 2% – but for that it is just dark at night.

The percentage of the power requirement can logically be increased by placing more wind turbines. But as soon as more than 100% of renewable energy is produced, you have to go somewhere with that wind flow surplus. You can't or hardly save power.

Suppose we quadruple the number of wind turbines, where we do not want to produce more than 100% sustainable current on any day of the year. After all, that is several – without storage – subsidised waste and that is to call it a sustainable business case. Then the duration curve on 2017 looks like this;

9

The shape of the chart does not change in any way, it is not going to blow harder. Only more turbines are installed. The maximum percentage market share of wind power which you can produce without having to switch off wind turbines on a single day per year (due to more than 100% production) is then 37.2%.

On 11 Sept and 7 June (the two days far left on the chart) then 100% of the power requirement could be covered by only wind current. The remainder (62.8%) must still be covered by coal, gas or nuclear power stations.

By quadrupling the number of wind turbines, the ' fossil ' power stations are allowed to run on average – through the year – only at 62.8% of their capacity. After all, those power plants continue to run at higher capacity, more than 100% of the demand for electricity is produced. When wind-& fossils produce more current than the demand, then logically the market price for current sinks.

And that is exactly what happened since 2008. The market price for electricity (the proceeds for the producers) fell from approximately €8 cents per kwh to €3 cents per kwh. The producers of wind power are getting that – to some extent – compensated by means of subsidies. The producers of ' fossil ' current are to carry that reduction of the yield themselves.

The ' fossil ' power plants are thus confronted with lower yields (decreasing market price) and declining share (less kWh). That is why the fossil producers have had to make huge sums of money and have now omitted major maintenance from these plants. There is no payback model.

10

There is therefore a real risk that there will be insufficient ' fossil ' capacity over time to supply power when it is not blowing. Then the light goes out. But what happens when we do not quadruple the number of wind turbines but vertienvoudigen to reduce the required fossil capacity? Then the graph looks like this;

Again, the shape of the chart does not change. On 11 Sept and 7 June 2017, there would be 150% too much wind power produced. On average throughout the year there would be 22% more electricity produced than there would be demand. Of the 100% power demand (the blue horizontal line) would then be 69.3% supplied by wind power and still ' fossil ' power plants should take up 30.7% of the demand. Because of not, insufficient or too much wind.

That 22% must be somewhere or the wind farms must be switched off. Export is pointless, because when it blows in the Netherlands, it really blows in Germany and Belgium. which has 22% Windsurplus – without storage – no economic value and is therefore waste. Literally.

You can also innovate these turbines until you weigh us, it's not going to blow harder. The shape of the duration chart will probably change slightly, but not seriously much. The addition of weather-dependent power (both wind and solar power) is therefore a pointless and extremely costly exercise. Wind-& Solar current can do not replace ' fossil ' power plants!

Before you can add more wind farms without the money being lost over the sustainable fence of the wind operator, you will first need to work on power storage. And the energy bill does not go down either. everything except.

11

Posted in Green Madness | 2 Comments » | Read more..July 6th, 2017

Unsubsidised offshore wind farms? Especially a sustainable dream!

A large number of supporters of weather-dependent power variants expect new offshore wind farms to be able to do so without subsidies. This enthusiasm has been fuelled by a tender that the German EnBW won this spring in order to establish an offshore wind farm in the North Sea, which says without subsidy to go.

Thus headlined the Handelsblatt:  ' Price sensation for offshore wind energy ' http://bit.ly/2ssBY3U And promptly was also very green-loving Netherlands to cheer each other. Unfortunately, the truth is unruly.

As the spokesman for the Agora energy think tank rightly points out: "Bidders expect electricity prices in the wholesale market to rise significantly. However, this will only happen if coal-fired power plants go off the market and, on the other hand, the allowances for greenhouse gas emission rights become more expensive. Becoming ", Graichen said. If bidders ' expectations are not met, Graichen does not rule out the possibility that some wind farms will not be built despite the surcharge granted.

And that is exactly the crux, the O so desired subsidless wind farms are only built at higher market prices for electricity and a higher market price for CO2. Just assume that the company EnBW is not obliged to build loss offshore wind farms when both conditions are not met – the so-called small print in the tender agreement.

Costs ' wind at sea ' are cosmetically reduced

12

First of all, the cost of ' wind at sea ' is accounting cosmetically reduced. Roughly one-third of the ' wind at sea ' costs are the so-called power sockets at sea. These are transferred by the company TenneT from the ' wind at sea ' operator – Read EnBW – directly to the consumer. Furthermore, the ' wind at sea ' operator does not have to pay a lease for the sea land. Finally, wind-& solar power operators are revolving the cost of supply security on the ' fossil ' electricity producers.

After the cost of ' Wind at sea ' has been artificially reduced, it is still significantly higher than the market price for electricity. So huge sums of money are still needed. and is that market price for electricity going to rise? See here the course of that market price to 2020 – those market prices only fall, we are falling into the flow.

A rising market price after 2020 can only be expected when the surplus of wind and solar power is taken from the market. or part of the ' fossil ' capacity. The latter cannot, because Germany also wants to flow when it does not blow or the sun does not shine. Or too much, the market price for electricity will only go down – do not rise.

The proposed reforms of the emissions trading System (ETS) will reduce the market price of CO2 – now €5,- per tonne – perhaps something will rise. But never enough to allow ' subsidless ' offshore wind farms.

EnbW is a virtually 100% government company, the taxpayer pays.

The company's colleagues EnBW were all but happy with the (conditional) zero subsidy offer. or actually downright angry. The company EnBW is a nearly 100% government company (http://bit.ly/2tPppTQ). As a result, any losses on subsidy wind farms will still be passed on to the taxpayer, an escape route which obviously does not have a regular market party. For example, a 100% government company puts pressure on the earning model of an entire industry.

13

Ergo, it is still very questionable whether the ' subsidless ' wind farm at sea is ever realised. And if so, it is mainly because, through accounting tricks, the costs have been shifted and the taxpayer is still running up for the losses of the operator. In this way, there are more similarities between the banking crisis and the subsidised green energy crisis.

Posted in Green Madness, What did it cost? | No Comments » | Read more..juni 29th, 2017

The use of the Netherlands as an example? No thanks!

The German use is full of steam. In The Netherlands Everyone thinks that this is a means of reducing CO2 emissions, but that is only a secondary goal. The primary goal is the so-called Atom Ausstieg, the dogmatic phasing out of nuclear power stations.

In 2000, the Red-Green coalition in Germany decided to close all nuclear power stations. The cabinet Merkel I, moved that decision on the long track, but the federal Chancellor had to climb down before the elections of 2013 (after Fukushima), not to lose those elections. In 2011, a number of older nuclear power stations were closed more or less immediately, in 2015 still one and the remainder must follow around 2022.

Does that Atom Ausstieg unite with the German CO2 target (40% less CO2 in 2020)? To answer that question, we look at the figures of German electricity production by category generation. You will find those at the German CBS http://bit.ly/2k2ZbI7 (PayWall). Graphically it looks like this;

We see that production of ' fossil ' stream light has increased over the period 2000 – 2016 from 369 TWh to 378 TWh, nuclear is halved from 170 TWh to 85 TWh and renewable has

14

increased from 38 TWh to 191 TWh (whose Wind-& solar Current 128 TWh). If we leave ' fossil ', you can see that in particular wind-& solar power has replaced nuclear deconstructions.

The decline in nuclear power production with 85 TWh has been replaced by the increase in wind and solar currents with 128 TWh. With that surplus of unstable wind and solar power you have to go somewhere, you can't save it or barely. And that happens.

That surplus is pushed over the border to the surrounding countries. The import and export figures for German electricity can be found at the Fraunhofer Institute https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de.htm. The net export of German current grew from zero in 2011 to 50 TWh in 2016.

Now, logically, the current coming from the electrical outlet does not see if that is coal or wind current. But since in Germany the fossil power production has not diminished – and there was no net current export until 2011 – we can safely say that the exported flow is entirely renewable. This implies that 43% of the 128TWH generated wind & solar current is exported in 2016.

The data on the production of renewable energy in Germany and the EEC grants provided in this annex can be found here ' EEG in numbers: Remuneration, difference costs and EEG levy 2000 to 2017 ' http://bit.ly/2ksAYZ7 .

It shows that the total production of wind-& solar power in 2016 (128 TWh) cost the amount of €20.825 billion in EEC subsidies. The exported wind-& solar Current has thus received nearly €9 billion (43%) of subsidies. Now, the exported stream also has a market value and the same report provides insight. The total produced 128 TWh to wind-& solar

15

current in 2016 had a market value of – yes – €3.625 billion. The exported stream was worth just over €1.5 billion.

Germany therefore exports not so much wind and solar power, but above all the subsidies. In 2016 for €9 billion with a market value of €1.5 billion.

But there is also a lot of CO2 gains?

In order to be able to approach the CO2 gain of the energy use, we must first determine what CO2 emissions would have been for the period 2000 – 2016 without the Atom Ausstieg and flight in renewable power. The absolute numbers per year are below and count over the period 2000 – 2016 to 5,549 million tonnes of CO2. Again, everyone can see that wind and solar power in Germany do not make a substantial contribution to the CO2 target;

Until the nuclear power stations were phased out in 2011, CO2 emissions per kwh steadily decreased to an average of 540 grams per kwh over the period 2000 – 2010. Then it rose again to descend after 2013.

16

If we look at the total electricity production in Germany over that period 2000 – 2016 (10.559 TWh), the flow-related CO2 emission would have yielded approximately 5.698 megatons CO2 without the energy turn. In reality, CO2 emissions over that period were 5,549 megatons, thus saving 149 megatons.

Over the same period, €188 billion of EEC subsidies have been paid out, or ' a dazzling ' €1.265,- CO2 savings per tonne – with a market price of €5,-!

Is it going to be better in the future?

Perhaps, but the further phasing out of nuclear power plants does not make a positive contribution to this. The total percentage of sustainable current in Germany is currently 30%, which is about the maximum achievable without large-scale storage possibilities. In the case of further increasing production of unstable wind-& solar currents, the export of this will increase and no fossil power is replaced. However, the market price for electricity will continue to fall and the consumer price for German consumers continues to rise.

17

Since those falling market prices together with a desired higher yield of so-called CO2 certificates are the benefits of wind farms, in reality the promised subsidless wind farms are farther away than ever. The lower energy bill by durable flow too. For every €1,- To wind-& solar power, the German consumer must now €5.40 to sustainable subsidy... and counting.

Germany as an example country? No, thanks.

Posted in Green Madness, What did it cost? | No Comments » | Read more..juni 12th, 2017

€37.7 billion for 1.43% extra renewable energy. The energy agreement as a lasting fiasco.

At the conclusion of the famous – if not notorious – energy agreement, a target of 14% sustainable energy was agreed in 2020. and continuously to 16% in 2023. That energy agreement is a monstrosity of the top shelf, in fact it is an agreement among the grant recipients on how the tax money is to be distributed.

The taxpayer himself has never been at the table, and that agreement has never even been put to the vote on the members of the second chamber. For example, there has never been a orderly cost/benefit analysis. What will it cost and how much sustainable energy do I get? The General Court of Auditors attempted an attempt in 2015 and came up with a shocking €73 billion http://bit.ly/1NQYqvR. Other calculations are based on more than €100 billion to 2020. Then we soon have more than €12,000 per household!

We are now a few years ahead and the €37.7 billion of SDE + grants have now been made available. Of course there is time between issuing the SDE + decision and realising the sustainable energy plan. That can just go up to a few years. In order to achieve the sustainable energy target of 14% in 2020, the relevant decisions should be provided this year. The subsidies provided in 2018 and onwards contribute to the target of 16% in 2023.

18

Do we know, therefore, how much renewable energy is generated in 2020 with the €37.7 billion of pledged subsidies? The answer to that question comes from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and State (clogged) in the ' further statement of answer approval Paris ' to the members of the first chamber http://bit.ly/2rmtcD9. That statement of response is, incidentally, a litany to climate idiocy, but that aside. Relevant here is the following quotation;

Page 4: Gross final final consumption amounted to 2076 PJ in 2015 and according to the national Energy exploration 2016 will fall to 2047 PJ in 2020 in the coming years. If all projects that are still under development and for which a subsidy decision has been issued up to and including the Najaarsronde 2016 are fully realised, excluding the wind at sea tenders, the eligible energy production will be approximately 129 PJ in 2020. It is expected that not all projects are fully realised, so that the contribution of the current projects is expected to be around 102 PJ in 2020. If the offshore wind farms in the area Borssele begin 2020, they will produce approximately 24 PJ in 2020.

According to the Secretary of State Sharon Deepak, energy consumption will fall to 2047PJ in 2020. This seems to me to be very optimistic because the organic growth in demand for energy will only increase and the desired energy saving does not come from the ground. But let's go out of that 2047 PJ. In 2020, the sustainably produced part of it is 126PJ, including the offshore wind farms. That is 6.15% and by far no 14% !!

Has produced €37.7 billion than 6.15% of renewable energy. Well, No. Not really. We started in 2012 with 4.72%. That €37.7 billion has thus yielded 1.43% extra sustainable energy in 2020 – in the most optimistic scenario. Let it drop – €37.7 billion for 1.43% renewable energy... €4.700,- Per household for 1.43%...

Let us now appoint the energy agreement for what it is. A phenomenal income transfer without durable energy result with zero climatic result. A sustainable fiasco.

Posted in Green Madness, What did it cost? | 1 Comment » | Read more..april 24th, 2017

Our #KantelKonijn Rahiman – where are the sweet meneren in the white coats?

Our national #KantelKonijn – Mr. J. Rahiman – once again found it necessary to offer an ' open letter ' to the daily newspaper Trouw http://bit.ly/2pVlzE3. Co-signed by a number of his colleagues, all from the subsidised sustainable sector. And the NPO found it necessary to open all the journals. Incomprehensible.

98% of all other professors did not participate and among the signatories, all in was one half physicist. A plea to push €200 billion tax money on the sustainable fence, behind which Mr. Rahiman and the other signatories are already ready to cope with it. A further analysis of the ' We of toilet duck content ' can be found here http://bit.ly/2oloV6d

19

A year ago NUON announced that the new fired power station in the Eemshaven is being converted into a ' super battery '. Green power surpluses are used to produce ammonia and convert it back to power when it is not blowing. Power2Gas, screaming expensive, but as long as NUON pays that itself... fine. I say above all do!

In the evening, Nieuwsuur came up with a report, followed by an interview with our national tilt expert. This 11-minute report can be found here http://bit.ly/1NMXKIx. The image report starts with white water vapour from the cooling towers of the coal plant on the Maasvlakte. Normally, Nieuwsuurs are presenting black smoke plumes, which then have to introduce CO2 emissions.

The report also shows the usual patron of the whale, who has now found a earning model in ' the climate '. The Greenpeace firm – even though not inhibited by any knowledge of the basic laws of physics. After that, we are interviewed #Kantelkonijn and as a green guru – the Bhagwan of the climate, but now in a green jacket – can proclaim his opinion on prime time.

Now Mr. Rahiman will be able to fix something and I just simply haven't discovered anything. But on climate or energy this welcome studio guest is a complete non-valeur. You can also ask Maarten van Hottentotten to explain the divorce right at the school of Law, you get similar answers. The editors of Nieuwsuur have selected the interviewer mainly on his ability to nod during the ' Yes Yes ' call. No critical question escaped the hedge of his teeth.

The transcript of the interview will take you (partly) below – in italics. The (energy) facts as well. For the Greenpeace representative had and I have no patience anymore. Incidentally, my patience with Mr. Rahiman – and his clownish performance – was also long overdue. It was a tenenkrommende show. As usual.

N > Welcome Mr. Rahiman, you are professor of transitional skills at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and have long been involved in climate and sustainability. Let us just pick up on what Greenpeace just says ' The price for CO2 should just go up, the punishment actually '.

Rahiman studied mathematics and only started to focus on climate and sustainability when it was more exposure-related. ' Transitional science ' is therefore a self-devised discipline. We therefore do not oppose Mr. Rahiman as author of scientific publications. The best man writes a lot, only those are political pamphlets. No search results.

KK > Yes that's right, if you look at the current price, which is about €5,- per tonne of CO2, which is extremely low, that should be 10 x higher. Actually 20 or 30 x. For the reason why those gas stations dwell and those coal-fired power plants is that this price is so low. 

N > And, and

This is demonstrable fiction of a green believer. The current market price of a tonne of CO2 is indeed roughly €5,-. Avoiding emissions through wind energy costs €116,- per tonne of CO2 and for solar current €159,-per tonne. That means that not CO2 is too cheap, but wind and solar power are too expensive. It is therefore not for nothing that Denmark and Germany – as exemplary countries – are waving the much-praised.

20

KK > We don't actually pay the pollution we generate, we put it down in the next generations. That is, of course, scandalous.

N > Why is that not raised?

This answer implies that CO2 would be environmental pollution. Again incorrect, CO2 is anything but no environmental pollution. The world is mainly greener. The less emitting of CO2 therefore only has a marginal effect on ' the climate ', in the most optimistic scenario approximately 0.17 degrees Celsius in 2100.

21

Those who want to emit less CO2 should not opt for weather-dependent flow. The only thing we put down in the next few generations is the account of all these green brothers. That is only scandalous.

KK > You can do it in 2 ways. You can do that by taking action with CO2 rights, which we tried to introduce 10 years ago, in Europe. But that doesn't work, there are too many leaks and holes in it, the ceilings are not sharp enough. So those companies get away with it easily. Or you can enter an energy tax.

N > Yes, that can do the government.

The ETS (Emission Trade System) does not work and that is perfectly logically explainable. All this weather-dependent green electricity has loads of CO2 rights on the market, which is precisely because of the same green electricity, less demand. When the supply increases and the demand drops, the price collapses. Economics secondary-3. The energy tax has been there for a long time. Whoever throws away the stops still retains 70% of the current account. The market price of electricity is around 2.5 cents per KWh, the consumer pays 19 cents. Do you have to enter energy tax?

KK > I strongly support this. CO2 tax or energy tax. But you have to imagine that we did at Schiphol, was very effective, because there were also fewer flights, but the energy fossil lobby was so strong that within a year it was also abolished. That CO2 tax.

‘The CO2 tax on flies was very effective, there were less Flights‘. Yes, that's right. All over the Netherlands managed to avoid Schiphol airport in no-time and departed from airports across the border. There was no need for a fossil lobby at all. That CO2 tax was by far the largest fiscal fiasco imaginable. A CO2 tax on electricity will have the same result, an exodus of employment.

22

N > Yes. In the end, the result is that the Netherlands are generating sustainable energy in 2023 16%. The Netherlands is not so good, the share of sustainable energy is 5.6% of that whole. That is so much and much less. How is it that we have stayed so behind in countries such as Germany, Denmark... Sweden?

KK > It's even slightly lower, below 5%, but well that has some causes. It is in the culture. We are glorified peat stokers in the Netherlands. That's in our DNA. We started to stick with peat, then coal, oil, gas. No further political leadership and three, that polder model that always only polder. Where other countries Germany and Denmark and radically opted for renewable energy. Already 10, 15 years ago.

Germany and Denmark are returning from their rapidly. Denmark deletes one wind farm after another, Germany ditto. The closure of the coal power plants has been postponed to at least 2040. Sweden mainly revolves around nuclear power and a little hydropower. The Dutch company TenneT was allowed to pay a sloppy €329 million to the wind farms about 2015, so please do not supply electricity. If we do not count water power and nuclear power (we cannot or do not want to), the Netherlands is in a neat ninth position.

The radical choice of Denmark and Germany has largely cost them a great deal of money. Germany subsidizes with €21 billion per year sustainable current with a market value of approximately €5 billion. In 2016, the contribution of wind and solar power was 3.3%. €21 billion annually, still 25 years long, 3.3%! This has proved to be priceless, and the energy prices in Germany and Denmark have exploded and employment is running out of the country. CO2 result is not or barely.

N > Does that not happen here?

23

KK > That does not happen here and the mighty hand of the fossil energy lobby – nowhere in  Europe do you have such a powerful energy lobby as in the Netherlands. Just think of Shell's influence.

The best man is not good gasp. The lobbying power of our sustainable adepts is roughly twice the size of Shell et al, and that green lobby is paid out of Shell's tax revenues. All these environmental clubs also have a ANBI status. With your generous donations, you can provide Greenpeace's management with a pleasant salary of more than one and a half tonnes. Jan Rahiman himself is also provided with a large salary by the taxpayer.

And so rattles us #KantelKonijn still a while.

Our transition ' expert ' is a proponent of an ' international Criminal Court ' for ' climate deniers '. The modern form of a religious inquisition with witches-combustion as penalty. I am not in favour of juridificering of any science whatsoever, but exceptions confirm the rule.

Posted in Green Madness | No Comments » | Read more..March 2nd, 2017

The ' alternative facts ' of the fake climate factchecker.

At the VVD Congress last November 2016, I tabled an amendment to the draft electoral programme to refer to 'More Extreme Rainfall' On [Accelerating] sea level ageing Remove it from there. Here under that amendment and it has been adopted almost unanimously with a favourable opinion from the board.

In recent days the necessary consternation arose, including in the climate sensitive newspaper Trouw https://www.trouw.nl/groen/vvd-schrapt-zin-over-klimaatverandering-na-kritiek~a401a357/ But also among the green friends of Joop.nl and the website Sargasso.nl and many others. What is extremely peculiar, because at the VVD Congresses the Journaille is always present and these meetings are publicly accessible to members.

24

Our climate friends found it necessary to do a factcheck, which you will find here http://bit.ly/2lYVBzM – Coming to the conclusion that things 'False‘ is.

I have seldom seen so much botched work by a factchecker, but given the signature of the scribe I could not have expected anything else. It is apparently too difficult to decent an amendment, but soit. To begin with, the scribe could have contacted me, I am not unfindable at the end of the day. But let me consider the botched work point by point.

Position NNV out of the thumb sucked

of Ulzen, point 3 is the most important, so let's start with that. He claims there that the Dutch Physical society has recently found that such a ruling is premature. This is a striking statement, because it goes directly against the current climate-scientific consensus. We therefore decided to contact the association and we talked to the director, Noore de Graaf. It strongly denies that this is the position of the association. She calls it shocking that the sentence is removed from the program on the basis of an alleged NNV position and is stripped that the association has been used for this: "This is not our opinion, and it has never  been said."

Apparently, Mr. Joost Berculo called with the director of the NNV (Dutch Physics Association), Noor de Graaf. It strongly denies that a ruling of the NNV on climate is premature. The fact is that the NVV does not (yet) exhaust the climate.

And now the reality. The NVV has appointed a commission to advise the Board on the taking of a position on ' the climate '. There was a lot of resistance to this because many members of the association would like to keep science pure and not want to lend themselves to joining the climate Church – see for example http://www.clepair.net/energie&klimaat-NNV.html

On October 29, 2016, the NVV organised a climate symposium, a concise report can be found here http://bit.ly/2lEk9Lu. In response to the symposium, Prof. J.M. van Beek (the president of the NNV, the boss of Mrs.) wrote. Noor Dan) the following;

25

Add a previous remark from the same president to that; ' The Commission's letter is carefully confined to the expertise of the NNV and calls for more investment in Research‘. Or so, the NNV does not want to burn to statements about the climate because the scientific opinion among the members is very varies.

Because I check the facts, I once again asked Mr. Kees de Lange Whether my view was correct (Emeritus Professor of Physics, member of the NNV and former senator). Here's his answer;

The phrase in the explanatory Memorandum to the amendment is as follows; ‘Nota bene the Dutch Physical Association (NNV) has recently found that such a ruling is premature '. This phrase is so resent ' Sucked out of the thumb ', but just content correctly. At most we can see that the management of the NNV was not aware of the communication of its chairman Prof. J.M. van Beek. Inferior botched work of the Factchecker Mr. Joost Berculo so.

But we are going through...

26

Burden in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom

Then the second argument: "Heavy rain showers are a fiction of the KNMI. In Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom, they do not suffer. "

A short search already provides many sources that claim the opposite. Rainfall in the United Kingdom has become more intense in recent years. The likelihood that this will happen more often in the future will also be highly assessed.

Belgium has "a slow but significant increase in the annual average amount of precipitation",  and there "the annual average number of days with very heavy precipitation is almost doubled" (Source). Also the Deutscher Wetterdienst finds increasing heat and rain, and predicts those for future decades too.

Here, then, we find the crux of the problem in our Factchecker – the communication communications of those weather services, rather than checking the messages themselves. We do this at the KNMI, but for the Deutscher Wetter service, RMI et al applies exactly the same. Here we find the KNMI ideology on 'More extreme Rain ' http://bit.ly/2mKUzFC

The ' Climate Explorer ' of the KNMI is a world-renowned dataset and so we are addressing that 'More Extreme Rain' To Find. Here de Bilt, but the other weather stations do not show a substantially different image. ThatMore Extreme Rain‘ is So just search.

In Germany The same story, only with the difference that the DWD recognizes that the relationship between more/less extreme rain and climate change is lacking. The IPCC had also drawn that conclusion. For Belgium and the United Kingdom idem.

27

The assertion that 'More Extreme Rain' A Fiction is of the KNMI is thus substantively correct. That Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom obviously do not suffer as much.

Our ' Factchecker ' draws the following conclusion; ' The conclusion is therefore that the VVD Congress has been fooled with two lies and one half truth '. What much says about the analytical ability of this factchecker – or the lack thereof.

In fact, our factchecker has not contacted me to ask for the sources, to be inaccurately informed by the management of the NNV (I assume not aware) and the manifestations of the weather services indiscriminately for where adopted. Instead of consulting the underlying dataset (s). The two lies and half truth, appear to be three verifiable trues.

Whether the VVD Congress has let itself be deceived, I leave it to the reader. Or our Factchecker the ball belazert equally. Pretentious nonsense and basic facts ignoring it is anyway.

Posted in Green Madness | 6 Comments » | Read more..February 2nd, 2017

The German use of the gas – hundreds of billions poorer, zero CO2 result

As I noted earlier, the German- http://bit.ly/2kUMBft. Since 2000, the German consumer has had to pay a sloppy €188 billion for renewable electricity without reducing the CO2

28

emissions from that power production. The annual account of that use will also soon be around €30 billion per annum in the coming years – without CO2 results.

The Green Adepts – also in the Netherlands – shout murder and fire. After all, when wind-& solar power does not contribute to the CO2 reduction target, it touches directly on the earning model of this professional group.

Also in the Netherlands since 2012, €25.7 billion has now been pledged for renewable energy plans. The percentage of renewable energy thus increases from 4.79% to 6.10% (chamber letter of Business Renewable Energy, 27 January 2017 http://bit.ly/2kUSb1F). The CO2 emission with the current production, increased in the Netherlands during the period 2012 to 2015 from 8.5 million tonnes to 13.5 million tonnes. While over the same period, the amount of wind flow increased by 2.5 Twh. Apparently, an increase in renewable energy does not necessarily lead to lower CO2 emissions in the Netherlands. Why not?

More weather-dependent flow leads to more CO2 emissions

For Germany – as an example country – The figures for flow-related CO2 emissions are known. As well as the production of fossil, nuclear and renewable currents in TWh since 2000. The CO2 emissions since 2000 can be found at the German CBS (http://bit.ly/2ktmTOt). 2016 is not yet processed in it, but the CO2 emissions amounted to 307 megatons.

29

Since 1990, CO2 emissions have declined by 16%. But since the introduction of the Erneuerbare Energy Gesetz (EEG) in 2000 – say the beginning of the energetic turn – the Cumulative CO2 emissions but with 20Mton. That is 0.36% of the total CO2 emission since 2000. A rounding difference. At the same time, the production of renewable flow variants increased from 38 TWh to 191 TWh – a vervijfvoudiging (!).

The total power production – split to energy carrier – since 2000 is also found in German CBS (http://bit.ly/2k2ZbI7).

The total fossil power production has not declined but increased (!) by 2.4% from 369 TWh (2000) to 378 TWh (2016). Lignite plus 7 TWh, coal minus 33 TWh and natural gas plus 30 TWh.

So it is not so strange that the German stream-related CO2 emissions have barely diminished, the amount of fossil generated power has increased with a small shift from coal to natural gas. That multiple natural gas is, incidentally, imported from Russia, that aside.

But what about the increase in renewables and the disembarkation of nuclear energy? The amount of renewable energy generated is per 2016 191 TWH and the amount of atomic current is halved to 85 TWH.

30

Apparently CO2 free renewable power replaces CO2 free atomic current but no fossil generated power. That is why the German electricity-related CO2 emissions are not reduced.

In fact, there is a surplus of renewable energy from 68 TWH where Germany has no other employs than exports. At a surplus of current without increasing demand the market prices fall. And that is exactly what is happening in Germany & the Netherlands. Why the ECN predicts rising market prices for power is beyond me. They have been dropping for more than a decade and that will continue.

The surplus of German renewable energy – in 2016 roughly 50 TWh – has been exported for roughly €2 billion. Only the German taxpayer has made a sloppy €6.7 billion of green subsidies. 27% of the total EEC (SDE +) expenditure. Rightfully a sustainable business case.

The renewable power production amounted to about 29% of the total electricity production of 2016, of which 21.5% for domestic use. You cannot replace with impunity base load (including nuclear power) with weather-dependent wind-& solar power. In order to keep the grid stable, more and more intervention is needed. Germany is approaching the critical boundary. Moreover, our German friends also like to power when it is not blowing or dark.

31

And what subsidizes the German taxpayer per sustainably generated MWh – this is also deduced from the renewable production figures and the annual report of the German Bundesministerium für Wirtshaft und Energie.

In conclusion

Because of the German energy, the fossil stream production does not diminish but even (light). The flow-related CO2 emission decreases slightly due to a small shift from coal to gas. The increase in wind-& solar power has compensated for the deconstructions of nuclear power stations, but that is not a long way to preserve the stability of the network.

The surplus of weather-dependent flow variants (in particular wind-& solar current) has been dumped in neighbouring countries with €6.7 billion in subsidies. Tax money as an export product can be called sustainable.

The German use of the force has been completely derailed, untenable and unaffordable. That is why the German government would like to reject it – preferably without a loss of face.

The following graph explains the pain points of the use of the gas flawlessly – the costs explode and the CO2 result is hardly there. The difference between renewable production and the cumulatively paid EEG subsidy reflects the imploding market price.

32

Now that the market price is virtually nil and the EEC has a guaranteed price of €200,- By MWH, almost all renewable production must be paid by the German taxpayer. It is logical that it is no longer to be applauded by the green dictates.

Posted in Green Madness, What did it cost? | No Comments » | Read more..January/Jan 25th, 2017

Berlin, you have got a problem. De Energiewende

In Germany, this is gradually the failure of the so-called ' use of the '. The coalition of the CSU and the SPD is desperately looking for ways to get there without face loss.

With the exception of the Netherlands/Belgium, there are no countries that follow the example of this. France is still calling for something, but in substance they hardly do anything, the United Kingdom has long stopped. To say nothing about America, the green thought of Mr. Obama is being dismantled in rapid speed.

Now this energy has turned out to be far more than a transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources. For example, one million electric cars also fall below. The brochures about those electric cars look fantastic. In Reality, the German car industry is looking the other way, the consumer is ignoring it. See http://bit.ly/2jdRMSB

See also the documentary of the German public Broadcasting (ARD) – The fairy tale of electric mobility http://bit.ly/1Mpl7TW. The fact that after years at last, public service broadcasting in Germany is looking at the results of the green idea, is encouraging.

But let us look at the results of the energy of our eastern neighbours, where it is the transition to renewable sources of wind-& Sun. After all, the objective is to achieve less CO2 – partly by replacing fossil fuels with wind farms and sunbathing meadows. And that may cost some, but what exactly?

33

In German CBS we can find out what CO2 emissions – related to electricity production – were since 1990. This CO2 emission over 2016 is not yet mentioned, but is now well known. Namely 307 million tonnes, a decrease of 1.6% compared to 2015.

We take the year 2000 as starting year because from that year the production figures of wind and solar current are well known (the beginning of the energy turn). So what is the CO2 emissions that have been saved since 2000? Directly in 2001, which is already negative, the electricity-related CO2 emissions increased. To 336 million tonnes. Over the period 2000 – 2016, the cumulative CO2 savings in total are only 20 million tonnes. That is actually a rounding difference.

Each year, the Federal Ministry of Economics & Energy A report on the state of the use of the The most recent is 'EEG in figures: Remuneration, differential costs and EEG levy 2000 to 2017'. You can find that report here – http://bit.ly/2ksAYZ7. In this we can find back what the production in terawatt hours has been since the year 2000 to wind and solar power.

We plotted the CO2 emissions over the period since 2000 in a graph along with the production of wind and solar power, then we get the following chart;

34

The amount of wind and solar current peaked in 2015 with 118 terawatt hours and in 2016 noted with 2.4 tWh. Despite the increase in the number of wind turbines and to a much lesser extent the number of sunbathing meadows, it was apparently a bad wind year.

We can at least draw the conclusion that wind and solar power do not replace fossil generated electricity. Weather-dependent power also cannot replace a base load, after all, as soon as it does not blow, our German friends would be in the dark and the cold.

That wind and solar power production is therefore nothing but additional supply and with additional supply without increasing demand, the market price drops. Sometimes even negative. And that is exactly what is happening in Germany. Because the EEC works with guarantee amounts, at a declining market price the amount that the consumer has to ' storage renewable energy ' is also getting higher in pay. Meanwhile, for every euro, German consumers must have €3.27 in subsidy.

35

Every € flow costs €3.27 in subsidy

Over the period 2000 – 2016 those subsidies for only (!) wind-& solar current exploded from €0.5 billion to €21.0 billion per year. Over the period 2000 – 2016, this part of the #Energiewende has now cost €138 billion and will be roughly €25.0 billion a year in the next few years.

If we set the €138 billion against the cumulative CO2 savings over the same period, then every tonne of CO2 saved has the respectable amount of €6.891,- Cost per tonne. The market value within the ETS is currently €5,-.

See here why the Germans are anything but sustainable. Berlin, you have got a problem.

Posted in Green Madness, What did it cost? | 1 Comment » | Read more..december 26th, 2016

Wind energy, it remains subsidised waste.

There are a lot of ghost stories about the question of what (offshore) wind energy really costs. The fan's (and professional stakeholders) are touring around that ' wind at sea ' is the cheapest form of renewable energy. Nobody answers the question as to what the total cost of wind energy actually is.

These costs consist of project development costs, interest and depreciation charges of the turbines, maintenance, the net connection and disposal costs. Not to mention the cost of the standby facility.

36

When it is not blowing, we also want to have electricity and these costs also have to be attributed to the wind farms. This is not happening at the moment, but it is obvious. A proposal in this direction is currently in the EU's energy commission. Security of supply also has a price.

A number of countries (Germany, Spain & the UK) subsidise the fossil power stations or want to do so. So as to avoid massive blackouts like those in Australia are now rather rule than the exception. A tender made by England for this purpose (standby power) was won by the supplier of diesel generators. The registration of the coal plant fell off and the owner closes it now. Coal CO2 replaced by Diesel CO2.

The most recent ' wind at sea ' tends to indicate that the ' Shell conglomerate ' for wind farm Borssele 3 & 4 has registered at 5.45 cents per kWh. Assuming an SDE + bottom price of 4.4 cents, only 1 cent per kWh is required. That sounds hopeful.

Minister Kamp Rept even about ' without subsidy over 7.5 years ' and his officials even have a column in the Volkskrant http://bit.ly/2hGSEz3. They are mistaken, assuming that there is no question of conscious disinformation.

That's like that. The SDE + subsidy refunds the difference between the cost price and the market price for electricity, in so far as that market price above 4.4 cent Per KWh. If the market price drops below the risk for Shell and increases the market price then the subsidy drops accordingly. If the market price for current is 5.45 cents, then there is no difference between cost price and market price and therefore no subsidy is needed. Sounds good.

Only – to begin with – that market price will not rise over time, but only fall further. The Call 2017 for power is currently 2.7 cents, roughly half the Shell price. The ECN – The energy advisor of the officials at the Ministry of Economic Affairs – predict a rising market price for electricity. For years, they have been predicted – each time it has been refuted by reality.

See the ECN forecast from 2004 and onwards, showing a rising market price above €5 cents per kWh.

37

And here the actual market price for current since 2010 (in Germany).

As soon as it blows even slightly, the spot prices for electricity are zero line to negative. The wind flow suppliers have to pay to get rid of their power and when you have to pay to get rid of something, we call that just waste.

38

Here the development of the spot price for current on Boxing Day 2016. (Germany wind Force 4 a 5). From an hour or 10 AM a number of wind farms have been switched off the grid to stabilise the mains (and the price). (The turbine owner still receives 95% of the guarantee rate for the current he could produce).

That reality is utterly contrary to the predictions such as the ECN that Prefaces Minister camp. And that is also perfectly logical. The Unlimited – subsidized – marketing of extra current, has a price-reducing effect at constant demand.

Wind flow – or solar power for that matter – is extra offer. It does not replace an existing ' fossil ' capacity, the so-called ' base load '. And can't do that, that ' fossil ' capacity also just remains necessary. Usually it doesn't blow, not hard enough or too hard. The green idea that it is always blowing somewhere in Europe also rests equally on wishful thinking.

We will therefore have to add to the ' security of supply ' factor at the cost of wind flow. Whether the ' fossil ' subsidies for coal-fired power stations should be allocated to weather-dependent energy sources. The approximately €2 billion Subsiding minister camp to biomass for coal-fired power plants is, in reality, simply disguised wind subsidies. To provide the required standby capacity.

At a market price of 4 cents per kWh, a coal-fired power station can still run profitable, provided that it is allowed to deliver full-year power (a German nuclear power plant for 2.5

39

cents). If the coal-fired power plant is to deliver only half the time, logically the cost price per kwh doubles to about 8 cents per kwh. The variable cost of a coal power plant (the coal) is less than marginal.

At the same time, without weather-dependent wind-& solar power There is hardly any standby power required at all. Why we do not add weather-dependent electricity power knows anyone. Seriously saving CO2 does it only arithmetically, in reality CO2 emissions are only increasing in the case of more wind power production. The demand following energy efficiency of fossil (coal & Gas) plants implodes. But Bon.

The wind farm Borssele supplies power for 5.45 cents and our coal power plant – when it's not blowing – for 8 cents. Triumphantly, the winds conjure up that wind power is cheaper than ' fossil ' power. But that is incorrect.

The price of security of supply (in this case about 4 cent Per kWh) must be added to the cost of wind current. Just like the billions the Tennet company is still investing in the high-voltage grid. The net connection of 1.4 cent Per KWh nor the other Tennet costs to keep the electricity grid stable, are discounted in the Shell price.

With this, the integral offshore windstroom costs per kWh at at least 10.85 cents excluding the billions that TenneT has yet to invest in order to protect the electricity grid for implode. and excluding the billions of biomass subsidy for standby power.

A wind farm (on land or at sea) will therefore never be able to do without subsidies when the cost of delivery security is allocated to the place where those costs belong. The wind farm. At the same time, the economic value of wind flow decreases with its increase. One day it's a bit blowing, that value is already negative and is actually just waste. In case of wind power, subsidised waste.

Posted in Green Madness | 1 Comment » | Read more..« Previous Entries