• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Energy Expert: Germany’s Green-Energy Scheme Will Fail From ‘Astronomical Cost’

by Thomas Richard
November 20, 2020, 9:05 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
4

wind farm germanyThe German transformation to green energies will fail due to wind power

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, Die kalte Sonne

(German text translated, edited, and subheadings by P. Gosselin)

The goals of the German transition to green energies are simple in terms of energy policy:

  1. phase-out nuclear energy by 2022,
  2. phase-out coal by 2035,
  3. phase-out oil and gas in parallel and completely by 2050.

The energy needed for electricity, heat, mobility, and industrial processes in climate-neutral Germany will then have to be supplied by wind and solar energy and a few percent by hydropower and biomass.

This is at least according to the plans of the German government, which are supported by all major social players.

Is this realistic?

Today, wind and photovoltaics supply slightly less than 30% of the 600 terawatt-hours of electricity (1 terawatt hour TWh is 1 billion kilowatt-hours KWh).

Today 126 TWh is supplied by wind energy and 46 TWh by photovoltaics. For 600 TWh, the same mix would need 439 TWh of wind and 161 TWh of solar.

For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that this amount of electricity should be generated by the largest wind turbines, namely 5-megawatt turbines positioned 1000 m apart.

With an annual efficiency of 25%, a turbine produces an average of 5 MW x 0.25 x 8760 (hours) = 10,950 Mwh = 0.01095 TWh. For 439 TWh we would need 40,000 such turbines. To accomplish this, an area of 200 km x 200 km (40,000 sq km) would be required.

Too much-unneeded surplus power

But we still would not reach the goal. Wind energy is produced when the wind blows, and not necessarily when the consumer needs it.

With a power supply in Germany based solely on volatile sources, 36% of the electricity generated annually can be consumed directly (source: Dr. Ahlborn).

The rest is surplus electricity that has to be stored. For economic reasons, storage in hydrogen alone is the best option here. For this purpose, a gigantic number of electrolysis plants would have to be installed.

Huge area required for electricity from wind turbines

However, it is completely uneconomical to dimension the capacity according to the extreme peaks of strong wind events. Therefore, about 12% of wind energy has to be regulated.

This now leaves 52% of the electricity generated that can be stored in hydrogen. Electrolysis of hydrogen, storage/methanation, and conversion back into electricity leave only 15.6% of the 52%.

The entire conversion chain generates a loss of 2/3 of the electricity used. 36% plus 15.6% result in about 50% of the generated wind power being used. Thus, we need twice as many turbines.

The area for the 80,000 wind turbines becomes 80,000 km², which corresponds to an area of 283 km x 283 km (80,089 sq. km).

Now add the demand for transport and heating…

But we remain very far from the finish line. Up to now, we have only covered the electricity demand with 2 x 439 Twh, but without supplying the demand from transport and heating.

Also with demand from transport (today 600 TWh) and heat (today 1200 TWh), we have storage and conversion losses when the necessary electricity is generated by wind and solar.

Here we only consider wind for this, because with photovoltaics, the annual efficiency of 10% full load hours is significantly lower and the land consumption is many times higher. This makes our calculation extremely conservative.

Devastating lack of efficiency

Assuming that the transport sector can actually be powered by battery vehicles, which is justifiably doubtful, converting cargo transport, maritime transport, or air cargo transport over to electricity is already adventurous. Instead, synthetic fuels would have to be used.

And here as well the electricity calculation is devastating. As Dr. Detlef Ahlborn was able to show, the Frankfurt airport alone consumes 14.7 million liters of kerosene per day (before Corona), which comes out to 4.3 million tons annually.

4.3 million tons of kerosene correspond to an energy value of 47 TWh. If one wanted to synthesize kerosene from electricity with the help of hydrogen (assumed efficiency 50%), 100 TWh of electricity would be needed.

Just for the Frankfurt airport alone, this comes out to being as much as the German wind energy industry currently produces (126 TWh).

Minimum 900 Twh for heating and transport

Next, we conservatively assume that all passenger transport also can be powered with electricity and that only a quarter of the amount of the 600 TWh of energy consumed today (since electric cars are more efficient by this factor) is needed.

However, we also want to drive a car when there is no wind, and as explained above, most of this electricity has to be put through the chain of hydrogen, storage, and re-electrification, thus doubling the input electricity to 300 TWh.

We further assume that the current demand of 1200 Twh for heating can be reduced to a quarter through electrification (heat pump) so that here too, due to the necessary intermediate storage of wind power via hydrogen, the necessary doubling of wind energy leads to 600 TWh.

If synthetic gas from wind power, hydrogen, is used directly, the yield is even worse because the efficiency of the heat pump is not applicable. Transport and heat therefore in the best case lead to a wind power demand of 900 TWh.

This results in an area requirement of another 80,000 km², thus we are up to 160,000 km² of area needed by wind turbines (approx. half the area of Germany).

Another 600 TWh for heavy industry

But we still haven’t reached the ultimate target because the most difficult part is still unsolved. Emissions from the steel, chemical, and cement industries (10% of CO2 emissions) require 600 TWh, according to industry estimates (www.in4climate.nrw).

This is easy to understand if one remembers the above example of Frankfurt Airport. And plastics, pharmaceuticals, insulating materials, paints, varnishes, adhesives, detergents, and cleaning agents may then only be produced using CO2 plus hydrogen.

The replacement of industrial CO2 emissions thus leads to a further 55,000 km² area for wind turbines, so now we are up to 215,000 km² – much more than half of Germany’s total area.

Two-thirds of Germany would end up plastered with wind turbines

Two-thirds of Germany would now be outfitted with 200-meter tall rotating wind turbines at a distance of 1000m, no matter if there is a city, a river or a highway, a forest, a lake, or a nature reserve.

Can we and policymakers imagine such a Germany?

Environmental catastrophe, obstinate policymakers

If you wish to know which effects wind power plants in large numbers have on the extinction of birds of prey, bats, the decline of insects already today, then read it in our book Unerwuenschte Wahrheiten (Unwanted Truths).

There you’ll find the hidden fact that wind farms lead to considerable warming in their area of influence of about 0.5°C because the rotating blades compensate for the strong temperature gradient at night and shovel warmer air back to the ground. Numerous studies have shown that the soil in the wind parks has dried up considerably.

Ten-fold higher electricity prices

But politicians refuse to discuss the environmental incompatibility of a massive expansion of wind power plants.

Recently the German Bundestag decided that the so-called legal, suspensive effect of objection and action for rescission is no longer applicable to lawsuits against turbines taller than 50 meters.

In this way, Germany can be now turned into a single giant wind park without all the annoying objection.

It is almost superfluous to point out that we are talking about astronomical costs. Electrolysis and power-to-gas plants cannot be operated free of charge.

From today’s point of view, one has to expect a tenfold higher electricity price. Any person can imagine the consequences for jobs and prosperity.

Read more at No Tricks Zone

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 4

  1. Nigel Franks says:
    5 years ago

    Don’t be so alarmist: wind turbines only take up a few square metres of land for their base and maybe an access road or path.

    Off shore wind power doesn’t take up any land and has load factors of 35% or more.

    Solar PV can be combined with agriculture and increases the profitability of the land. And obviously, as you can see everywhere, solar PV can be fitted on top of existing infrastructure where it takes up no land at all.
    As for your calculation for transport: only about 20% of the fossil fuel used in transport actually provides useful energy, the rest is just wasted due to the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine when not operating at its most efficient regime. Surely you know the difference between primary energy and useful energy. If you don’t, then you are under informed, if you do then you are being disingenuous.

    And, of course, EVs use less energu overall because they benefit from regenerative braking.

    Reply
  2. Steve Bunten says:
    5 years ago

    Well, other than all these issues what could possibly go wrong here, right!?

    Reply
  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    5 years ago

    Its all about World Government with our lives controled by the Eco-Freaks and back to nature screwballs

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • judge gavel courtFederal Judge Tosses Plagiarized Climate Lawsuit In Puerto Rico
    Oct 15, 2025
    Federal judge ends San Juan’s plagiarized climate lawsuit, marking Puerto Rico’s third and final climate case to collapse. […]
  • Coal Power: The Common-Sense Choice For America’s Energy Future
    Oct 15, 2025
    Coal still delivers what Americans value most—affordable, reliable energy that keeps the nation secure, powered, and independent. […]
  • rainstorm droughtGlobal Warming Claims Crumble As Data Challenges Media Hysteria
    Oct 15, 2025
    From heat deaths to hurricanes, actual facts undermine global warming scare stories, exposing media's big-league exaggerations. […]
  • Sen Curtis COP30GOP Lawmakers Consider Attending COP30 In Break With Trump’s Energy Agenda
    Oct 14, 2025
    Republican lawmakers may join the UN’s COP30 summit in Brazil, signaling a break from Trump’s America-first energy agenda. […]
  • Earth under fireClimate Dogma: When Orthodoxy Overrules Evidence
    Oct 14, 2025
    Scientists challenge modern climate research, showing exaggerated warming claims, rising CO2 benefits, and how orthodoxy overrules evidence. […]
  • Fire-burned homeData Contradict Claims That Climate-Driven Weather Drives Higher Insurance Rates, Dropped Coverage
    Oct 14, 2025
    A news outlet is using the Palisades Fire to push false claims that climate change is making homes uninsurable and storms more destructive. […]
  • pope leo vaticanPope’s Ice Blessing Stirs Debate Over Church Doctrine And Climate Activism
    Oct 13, 2025
    A pope’s ice blessing melts into controversy as faith, politics, and climate activism collide. […]
  • Earth orbit satelliteMeteorologist Calls Out ‘Settled’ Climate Claims, Reveals Overlooked Atmospheric Dynamics
    Oct 13, 2025
    A meteorologist disputes the oversimplified 'settled science' narrative, highlighting a 3D view of the atmosphere and the water cycle’s role in warming. […]
  • Protest you decideCOP30 Climate Summit Sparks Backlash Over Net Zero Edicts, Soaring Energy Costs
    Oct 13, 2025
    COP30 exposes the flaws of Net Zero policies, rising energy costs, and global climate claims as experts and voters push back worldwide. […]
  • Media fear complexThe Climate Creed: How Fear Replaced Science
    Oct 13, 2025
    When fear replaced science, climate bureaucrats and media narratives turned inquiry into obedience—and faith over facts. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky