Examining the Energiewende
The Kaiser Has No Clothes
show comments
  • Boritz

    When government policy central to energy production. When government policy incidental to energy production.

  • FriendlyGoat

    1) While America’s fell three percent last (last) year, not a Trumpian-era matter
    2) Thanks to cheap, abundant shale gas
    3) So, Germany needs gas, no? Russia sells gas. America will sell LNG. No?

  • LarryD

    North America has been net carbon dioxide negative for decades. Where is our carbon-credit money from Europe?
    Without government intervention, our technology gets more efficient (because efficiency is cheaper, up to a point).
    Then add fracking which the greens oppose.

    Government run economies are environmentally unfriendly.

    • Andrew Allison

      Too bad that President Trump was content with withdrawing from the Paris Agreement rather than calling out Germany in particular for, unlike the US, failing to actually do anything about emissions.

    • Blackbeard

      “North America has been net carbon dioxide negative for decades.”

      I’m very interested in this statement. I’ve seen some data that would support it but the data was quite old. I haven’t been able to find anything current. Have you?

      • LarryD

        What I’ve seen is;
        1) an analysis of ground station data up to the year 2000
        2) analysis of Japanese satellite data, from the carbon dioxide monitoring sat they put up after that.
        Nothing more recent, but if anything contradictory had come out, I’m sure we’d have heard about it.

  • Isaiah6020

    Self-righteous Germans while being wrong? No way….
    I was thinking about it. If there’s one country outside the usual suspects I wouldn’t want to visit, that’s Germany. It’s full of Germans and Muslims. Can’t think of a less appealing combination.

    • Andrew Allison

      They’ve been equally self-righteous about exterminating Jews and welcoming Muslims. “They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind”.

  • rheddles

    f. merkle

  • LivingRock

    Devistating post.

  • Andrew Allison

    I realize that most the staff of TAI are the product of what passes for an education system these days, but doesn’t anybody there understand that Frau Merkel would be a Kaiserin, not a Kaiser (not the first time I’ve had to point this out)?

  • Gary Hemminger

    How many times do we need to hear this? Once, twice, three times, 10 times? Everyone who really cares about this already knows this. Why do we keep having to hear it? This is the least kept secret around. The only ones that don’t know this are the idiot greens that won’t accept this as fact. this includes Gov. Brown and all the other idiot California greens that want to copy Germany and think they are leaders.

    • We expect accumulation to do what revelation has not. So far, no success but when ‘green energy’ is relied upon and delivers brownouts from sea to shining sea no one can say they didn’t know. Okay, they still will. Whatever. Forward.

  • Jim__L

    “Germany imports hard coal to supply 17 percent of its power, and sources
    another 23 percent of its electricity from domestically produced
    lignite, an especially dirty variety of coal.”

    Thanks for the hard numbers. 40% coal vs. 29% renewables…

    • Blackbeard

      Worldwide coal supplies about 81% of electric power and that percentage is not decreasing. About 1,600 new coal-fired power plants are in various stages of planning, design or construction and China is building and/or financing a large portion of them. In addition, about 600 of those plants will be in China itself. In contrast the US only had about 600 coal-fired plants at our peak and those are being steadily replaced by natgas plants because gas is cheaper. Trump has done nothing to change this.

      Interestingly, this situation is described by progressives as the US ceding “climate leadership” to China.

    • CaliforniaStark

      Just to break down the hard numbers a bit more. As far as German electricity generation it is about 17% wind and 8% solar. Total energy used, which includes fuels used by transportation & industry: renewables make up about about 15.5%; the share of wind and solar in this percentage is in the mid-single digit range.

      The German environmentalists know who is to blame for Germany’s import and use of U.S. coal imports:

      “Activists put some of the blame on the U.S. and President Barack Obama.
      “This is a classic case of political greenwashing,” said Dirk Jansen, a spokesman for BUND, a German environmental group. “Obama pretties up his own climate balance, but it doesn’t help the global climate at all if Obama’s carbon dioxide is coming out of chimneys in Germany.”
      It’s a global shell game that threatens to undermine Obama’s strategy of reducing the gases blamed for global warming and reveals a little-discussed side effect of countries acting alone on a global problem. In the global accounting system set up to track carbon dioxide emissions, only fossil fuel consumed inside a nation’s borders is counted when calculating that country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
      The contribution of this exported pollution to global warming is not something the U.S. administration wants to measure, or even talk about.”


      Next we will ask then to do something awful, like paying their fair share of the cost of defending them with NATO.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Modern Civilization is built on replacing “muscle power” with “Energy”. From a logistical standpoint, America has become the best place for Modern Civilization to thrive, because it’s energy supplies are cheaper than any other 1st world nation.

  • NoPasaran

    The archetypal German Besserwisser eventually learns, but this usually comes at the cost of the sort of failure that comes with waiting too

    long and trying too hard to prove ones’ theory.

    The principal problem is the energy poverty caused by the electricity model they had adopted. Non-pixie-dust power gets an extra levy to pay for pixie-dust power. As time goes on, and more pixie-dust power is built, the non-pixie-dust power cost ever much more. This makes energy inaccessible to the people who need it most: those that live modestly on a fixed income.

    This is the same reason the Ontario Hydro market it forcing many retirees to have to choose between food and heat – in Canada in the winter.

  • Nukes out and emissions RISE .7%. Doesn’t this reveal the OTHER Inconvenient Truth? There actually are no “carbon savings” from solar/wind. If Germany were really providing one third of its power from ‘renewables’, the net increase from nukes being removed would be swamped in carbon savings, right? Wind and solar are fatally intermittent. To maintain grid stability there must ALWAYS be a nearly equal capacity on the boil somewhere. This seems to mean brown coal. Well, replacing that with cheap, clean ‘merican frakked nat gas would improve things mightily on the carbon front. As for the money costs, just shut down the wind/solar and pocket the euro savings. There are no carbon savings from these boondoggles and in any case, nothing is greener than CO2.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.