Auf Deutch and in English: Germany Is Becoming An Electricity "High Price Island."

[NNadir]

Two articles, one in German, one in English about the cost of electricity in Germany compared with the rest of Europe.

In English, or if you prefer in German: Energy: No country in Europe is as vulnerable as Germany

It is well known that Germany depends on Russian gas supplies. But how does the economy fare in this respect compared to other industrialized countries? Not good, sums up the Mannheim ZEW.
According to a study, Germany 's energy supply is particularly vulnerable in an international comparison - both to rising prices and to supply bottlenecks.

In the analysis published on Tuesday, the Mannheim-based economic research institute ZEW comes to the conclusion that the Federal Republic of Germany is becoming a "high-price island" together with the Netherlands when it comes to electricity supply. In terms of susceptibility to missing deliveries, Germany is therefore particularly vulnerable, together with Italy.

According to the ZEW, both factors endanger competitiveness and make Germany unattractive for industrial sectors with high energy consumption. The client was the Foundation for Family Businesses. The ZEW took a look at the energy supply of 21 industrialized countries from the point of view of how much the national economies would suffer from price increases and supply bottlenecks. The economists compared 16 EU countries, as well as the USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain and Switzerland.

According to this, the security of supply of the three major non-European economies is not endangered at all because of the Ukraine war. The price increases there have so far been "extremely moderate or non-existent," says the paper.


In Europeis therefore the vast majority of countries with noenergy suppliesless vulnerable than Germany, which is particularly dependent on Russian gas.

Striking differences within Europe

"The price effects of the energy crisis for electricity and gas are largely limited to European locations," explained study author Friedrich Heinemann. There are striking differences within Europe. "Germany, together with the Netherlands , is increasingly becoming a high-price island." According to a ZEW analysis, electricity prices have not increased significantly in France or Switzerland, for example.

Another news article on the same topic is only available in German apparently:

WIRTSCHAFTSFORSCHUNGSINSTITUT

Deutschland bei Energie extrem verwundbar

To be perfectly honest, it has been many, many years since I had to read or translate German, and my German was never really great, but I gather that it says essentially the same thing as is reported in the Berliner Zeitung.

Dass Deutschland von russischen Gaslieferungen abhängt, ist bekannt. Doch wie steht die Wirtschaft in dieser Hinsicht im Vergleich zu anderen Industriestaaten da? Nicht gut, resümiert das Mannheimer ZEW.
Die Energieversorgung Deutschlands ist einer Studie zufolge im internationalen Vergleich besonders anfällig - sowohl für steigende Preise als auch für Lieferengpässe.

Das Mannheimer Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitut ZEW kommt in der am Dienstag veröffentlichten Analyse zu dem Schluss, dass die Bundesrepublik bei der Stromversorgung gemeinsam mit den Niederlanden zu einer «Hochpreisinsel» wird. Was die Anfälligkeit für ausbleibende Lieferungen betrifft, ist Deutschland demnach gemeinsam mit Italien besonders verwundbar.

Beide Faktoren gefährden laut ZEW die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und machen Deutschland für Industriezweige mit hohem Energieverbrauch unattraktiv. Auftraggeber war die Stiftung Familienunternehmen. Das ZEW nahm die Energieversorgung von 21 Industriestaaten unter den Gesichtspunkten in den Blick, wie sehr die Volkswirtschaften unter Preisanstieg und Lieferengpässen leiden würden. Die Ökonomen verglichen 16 EU-Staaten, außerdem die USA, Japan, Kanada, Großbritannien und die Schweiz.

Demnach ist die Versorgungssicherheit der drei außereuropäischen großen Volkswirtschaften wegen des Ukraine-Kriegs gar nicht gefährdet. Die Preissteigerungen seien dort bislang «ausgesprochen moderat ausgefallen oder ganz ausgeblieben», heißt es in dem Papier.

In Europa ist demnach die große Mehrheit der Länder bei ausbleibenden Energielieferungen weniger verwundbar als das von russischem Gas besonders abhängige Deutschland.

Markante Unterschiede innerhalb Europas

«Die Preiseffekte der Energiekrise bei Strom und Gas sind weitgehend auf europäische Standorte beschränkt», erklärte Studienautor Friedrich Heinemann. Innerhalb Europas gebe es markante Unterschiede. «Deutschland wird zusammen mit den Niederlanden immer stärker zu einer Hochpreisinsel.» Nicht nennenswert gestiegen sind die Strompreise laut ZEW-Analyse etwa in Frankreich oder der Schweiz.

The rumor is that so called "renewable energy" is "cheap" and nuclear energy is "too expensive."

Don't look behind that curtain to see that the highest priced electricity in Europe is that of Denmark, followed closely by Germany.

I'll chalk that one up along side the similar claim that wind and solar are faster to build than nuclear, even if, after half a century of wild cheering and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, the wind and solar industry only managed to produce 10.4 EJ of energy according to the last issue of the World Energy Outlook, a little more than 1/3 of the energy produced by the nuclear industry, 29.4 Exajoules, produced in a climate of hostility and highly selective criticism.

Germany is burning coal, pretty much continuously, and dumping the dangerous fossil fuel waste directly into the planetary atmosphere. This they say is not "too dangerous," even if they financed Putin for decades, buying Russian gas, oil, and coal, essentially funding his war. The Ukrainians may feel, with justification, that in fact that practice proved rather dangerous to them.

Um, France, isn't.

Have a nice evening.

[hunter]

1. These high prices are paid by residential and small business users.

Large industries such as Volkswagen generate their own cheap power, mostly from coal.

Volkswagen is currently upset because many of their "green energy" public relations campaigns were dependent on cheap Russian natural gas. Basically they were going to convert their coal plants to gas and trumpet a reduced carbon footprint, "carbon footprint" being another advertising campaign originally cooked up by BP to deflect blame for its own environmental misdeeds. (The only thing green about them is their logo.)

Aggressive solar and wind energy schemes in places like Germany, Denmark, and California have failed and will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. It also creates a perverse situation in which lower income consumers end up subsidizing the solar and wind fantasies of very affluent consumers.

If we truly want to quit fossil fuels we simply have to ban them. The "invisible hand" of the free market isn't going to solve this problem, nor are government sanctioned "creative accounting" techniques ( i.e. lies ) such as net metering and industrial exemptions.

Too many people still think natural gas is somehow better than coal. It's not. Hybrid gas/wind/solar systems are not going to save the world. The experiment has been done, the data is freely available, anyone can look at it, and any numerate person can understand it.

The only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power.

[NNadir]

2. It does seem to me in recent weeks that German Industry is facing idling some plants because...

...of lack of access to electricity. This seems to be the tenor of some reports I've read beyond those in the OP.

It is true that German industry was free from the cost of so called "renewable energy" for a long time, but now, with their Russian pals cutting them off, that's less true than before.

They'd better hope the wind blows heavily all summer, particularly in an age of extreme heat.

They've chosen a very dangerous course economically and frankly physically.

The real cost, the external cost, of the German energy policy leading to coal combustion will fall on all humanity.

[Finishline42]

3. I think the only positive of high prices

Is that people and companies find ways to use less. High prices also drives innovation.

When gas is $1.50/gal how many are thinking of buying an EV when you can fill your tank for $20. Change that to $100 a couple times a week and now an EV sounds great - if you can find one...

[NNadir]

4. Buying an EV in Germany would be even a worse idea than buying one here.

The problem is that they can't generate enough electricity without burning coal.

I have always thought that antinukes were fond of poverty.

I'm not.

For the whole time they've been cheering for cobalt mining by children and defacto slaves to satiate their bourgeois fantasies, billions of people on this planet have lacked access to safe drinking water and even marginally improved sanitation. Somehow this seems more of an issue to me than spending 43 years whining about Three Mile Island.

Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone. Contaminated water never stops killing people.

An ethical point of view in my opinion would be to increase the availability of energy to those who lack it.

To increase access to energy it is a necessary and sufficient requirement that it be reliable.

As for Germany, the people who will suffer most from the cruel decision to make the country dependent on Russia and the weather will be the citizens already living on the margins.

I am accustomed to the contempt the solar/wind/coal/gas people display towards the poor of course. They display it freely and openly at the drop of a hat. Although it's par for the course, it never fails to stimulate my sense out outrage.

Despite the obvious nature of this report, they will continue with the obvious lie that solar and wind are "cheap."

Have a pleasant day.

[Finishline42]

5. It will help to add some context to your numbers

I'll chalk that one up along side the similar claim that wind and solar are faster to build than nuclear, even if, after half a century of wild cheering and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, the wind and solar industry only managed to produce 10.4 EJ of energy according to the last issue of the World Energy Outlook, a little more than 1/3 of the energy produced by the nuclear industry, 29.4 Exajoules, produced in a climate of hostility and highly selective criticism.

That was in 2020 BTW. And most of that total will continue to produce for another couple of decades so the investment is still producing revenue. And one more fact to add is that 10.4 EJ produced in 2020 was 500% more than was produced in 2010. I doubt that we will see another 500% increase by 2030 but I will bet that it will be close to the 29.4 EJ produced by nuclear without the need to pay for fuel.

[NNadir]

6. If I relied on speculation rather than data or trends, I would take this specious "percent talk..."

...bullshit seriously.

But I do rely on data and trends, not wishful thinking and speculation, so it's exactly equivalent to the same crap that's been going on for decades while we got here.

Here:

Week beginning on June 19, 2022: 420.87 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 418.62 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 395.92 ppm
Last updated: June 30, 2022

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

This isn't 10 year "percent talk:" This is the real number 24.95 ppm increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide while we listened this decade, as in previous decades to "percent" bullshit.

The trend is clear enough. In this century trillions of dollars were spent on solar and wind just to get to 10.4 exajoules.

Crowing about 500% can be dismissed without too much effort.

The "percent talk" in this case "500% in ten years" is basically obscene, and assumes stupidity on the part of the reader expected to buy into this dishonesty, because in 2010, solar and wind were producing 2 exajoules.

I've been using this analogy for decades in response to this exercise in bad thinking. Suppose I have $2.00. If after 10 years, I have $10 and 40 cents, no one will be impressed. If on the other hand, I have $2,000,000,000 and ten years later I have $10,000,000,000, that might be impressive.

The "percent talk" is only possible because solar and wind were trivial in 2010, and they remain slightly less trivial now.

As for this nonsense about "fuel," the "fuel" is unimportant. It is the land requirements and mass of the device that is important. I note that while the wind and solar industry struggled to get to 10.4 exajoules, the issue of mining and land use suddenly came to the forefront. The scientific literature is filled with commentary on the material demands of so called "renewable energy." Mining trucks, smelters, bulldozers to trash wilderness for wind plants don't run on wind and solar, anymore than Germany runs of wind and solar. I noted recently elsewhere that the German copper smelter Aurubis doesn't have any fucking idea how they're going to run their copper plant, which presumably provides copper to build this rickety crap and string it all together.

Ott added the group was also in talks about credit lines from state-lender KfW (KFW.UL), which has drawn up a support scheme for companies hit by a surge in gas prices.

Aurubis (NAFG.DE), Europe's top copper smelter, said it is also looking for substitutes, but that adapting power plants is expensive and time-consuming...

As Russia cuts gas, German industry grapples with painful choices.

Thus the prediction that solar and wind will magically get to 50 exajoules on a planet consuming 600 exajoules in 10 years strains credulity, as does the bullshit excuse that it's two years since the data in the last WEO was recorded.

And let's be clear on something OK? This money, these trillions of dollars to get wind and solar to 10.4 exajoules was squandered not to do away with fossil fuels, which kill people when they operate normally, but to displace nuclear energy.

Germany didn't announce except with vague "by such and such a year" they would phase out coal. They never actually intended to do so. They're killing their own citizens, citizens of neighboring countries, and, in fact, the future of humanity because of stupid rhetoric attached to the dubious and largely unproved LNT hypothesis which has never been more than assumption. Even if were proved - it may never be - it's not clear that the risk is as great as the risk of not using nuclear energy.

The fact is that not only would this stupid fantasy have to increase by 40 exajoules to grow "500%" in the next ten years, but it will also need to replace all of the infrastructure approaching a 20 year life time, finding a place to dump the millions upon millions of tons of waste. (The total quantity of used nuclear fuel in this country, after well over half a century of use is less than 90,000 tons.)

Now, let's speak about "fuel." Anti-nukes talking about nuclear fuel is rather like Clarence Thomas talking about carrying a baby and going through childbirth. A kg of plutonium contains about 80 trillion joules, fully fissioned. By contrast, a gallon of gasoline contains about 1.2 million joules. The ratio - one cannot expect anti-nukes to be able to do mathematics - is thus the energy density of plutonium is about 6.6 million times higher than gasoline. Thus the cost of plutonium, were it to cost $1000/kg - there's no reason it should; it does right now but there is no reason it should - is the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline 0.015 cents a gallon, not dollars, cents.

It's not the cost of fuel; it's the cost of the device. The early proponents of nuclear energy were so excited, the cost of fuel is trivial. The devices for "free" solar and "free" wind are incredibly expensive, given that they require redundancy. This explains why Germany's electricity prices are obscene. (Predictably the poor, not the rich, will pay.)

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zero that the proponents of solar and wind have ever taken fossil fuels and the people they kill seriously; at best it's an after thought, at worst a lie.

That is why we are here.

Once again, Here:

Week beginning on June 19, 2022: 420.87 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 418.62 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 395.92 ppm
Last updated: June 30, 2022

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

Anyone who thinks there is anything positive about energy policy over the last ten years is either delusional or just doesn't give a fuck or both. I'll go with "both."

To repeat my standard reference on the amount of money squandered on a dangerous and idiotic fantasy:

Recently I updated the expenditure on so called "renewable energy" as we happily run along trashing huge stretches of wilderness, rendering them into industrial parks to serve the clearly failed rhetoric of anti-nukes.

Source: UNEP/Bloomberg: Global Trends in Renewable Energy.

I manually entered the figures in the bar graph in figure 8 to see how much money we've thrown at this destructive affectation since 2004 (up to 2019): It works out to 3.2633 trillion dollars, more than President Biden has wisely recommended for the improvement of all infrastructure in the entire United States.

"Free," my ass.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Finishline42]

7. What???

If I relied on speculation rather than data or trends, I would take this specious "percent talk..."

Do you happen to remember the chart from page 294 of the World Energy Outlook for 2021 that you posted???

Care to look at the totals for Wind and Solar in 2010. Looks to me like 0.8 and 1.2 EJ or 2.0 EJ. What is it for 2020??? 10.4 EJ So it's not 500% increase in ten years it's a 520% increase. Your chart, your reference. Seems like old age is getting to you... so sorry...

Jump up and down some more, it only creates another wind or solar farm to add to that 10.4 EJ.

By 2030 it going to at least equal what nuclear produces is my best guess.

[NNadir]

8. I've been reading the WEO every year since 1995.

Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2022, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Very few of the speculative numbers, based in previous years on BAU, "current policies," and serious "climate policies" - in 2010's the "climate policy was called the "450 ppm" scenario - scenarios ever are accurate even ten years later, never mind 20 years later.

I have well over 20 PDFs of each of them going back decades.

The 2010 WEO predicted that "other renewables" would be 299 MTOE (12.3 EJ), under the "new policies" scenario, and 340 MTOE (14.3 EJ) under the "450 ppm" scenario.

(The 2020 table is slightly different than previous years, having switched from the stupid unit "MTOE" to the SI unit EJ, and dispensing with the nonsensical wishful thinking and BAU to the neutral "stated policies." )

At the current rate of dangerous natural gas increases, roughly 25 ppm/decade and rising, we'll be scraping 450 in 12 years. So much for the "scenario."

Does this real world outcome mean anything to the "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nukes who've been shitting about Three Mile Island for the last 43 years while hundreds of millions human beings were killed by air pollution?

The German "Stated Policy" was to phase out coal. How's that working out?

The 2021 WEO also shows the reliance on dangerous natural gas to rise by 27.2 EJ to 155.9 EJ. Where's the new gas coming from? Putin?

I wonder to myself if anti-nukes ever fucking bother to open a newspaper or news website. All the dreamy shit is collapsing in 2022 because the fossil fuels provided by Putin that were "not too dangerous" according to Germany are suddenly insecure.

Only idiots embrace soothsaying and treat soothsaying as if was the equivalent of facts.

If one really assumed that the soothsaying was accurate, one would have to note that solar and wind so called "renewable energy" will be growing more slowly than energy demand, not that "renewable energy" advocates give a fuck about demand.

It's soothsaying, equivalent to Amory Lovins 1976 prediction that we'd have 16 "quads" (EJ) of solar energy "by 2000," not in the world as a whole but in the United States, where we have a bunch of credulous provincial rubes.

Another fucking "best guess" from a "nuclear is too expensive" but "climate change isn't too expensive" anti-nuke doesn't mean shit, because I've been hearing "best guesses" from shit for brains bourgeois consumer brats like Amory Lovins since the 1970's.

They weren't serious in 1976; they're not serious in 2022.

I read scientific journals pretty much every fucking day and have been doing so for many decades. Doing so teaches one to engage in something the handwaving "renewables will save us" assholes seldom every engage, "critical thinking."

My son cited the 2021 WEO in his essays applying for a Ph.D. program in nuclear engineering, stating his view, and my view, that the "stated policy" outcome is unacceptable. It's a climate death sentence..

If nuclear energy is "only" producing 34 EJ of nuclear energy, the planet will be in a death spiral. (It's not looking promising, but we must do what we think we cannot do.)

He's becoming a nuclear engineer because the "stated policies" - including German fantasy statements - must be bullshit if we are to survive.

The material costs of so called "renewable energy" are coming to the fore, as are the land costs. We're still hearing the same bullshit about energy storage of course, that we heard in 2000, but for the first time, benefit of Vladimir Putin, the German funded warrior/imperialist, the costs of so called "renewable energy" are being brought before the world in an irrefutable fashion.

So called "renewable energy" was always expensive - since it required redundancy - but as long as the redundant Russian fueled back up was there, people could ignore the reality by selective attention, for example, announcing that wind energy was "cheap" when the wind was blowing while not opening their fucking idiot mouths about the cost of electricity when the wind isn't blowing. (This evening Germany, with a carbon intensity of 398 g CO2/kwh, has a capacity utilization of it's wind crap of 29.9% (13 GW) compared to a capacity utilization of coal of 51.3% (39.9 GW).

The coal redundancy is killing the planet.

Anti-nukes should really hand out this line of bullshit to credulous children, the same children who will be fucked over by these fairy tales. They shouldn't try to pass this tiresome chanting bullshit on me. I'm way, way, way past the "fool me once" event. I don't do "best guesses." I evaluate real world data.

We're above 420 ppm in 2022. That's a fact.

Facts matter.

Have a happy Friday.