Germany’s New Government Plans To Use 10% Of Country’s Land Area For Wind Turbines
Germany’s coalition agreement and the 2% target for wind energy
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
After the phase-out of nuclear energy at the end of 2023, the coalition agreement aims to bring forward the phase-out of coal, “Ideally, this already would be achieved by 2030“.
To this end, renewable energies are to take over 80% of electricity generation, which is to increase from 600 TWh (terawatt hours) today to 680-750 TWh (p.56). While concrete generation targets are named for solar energy (quadrupling of today’s capacity to 200 GW) and for off-shore wind energy (also quadrupling to 30 GW), the agreement only speaks of a target for on-shore wind energy of a land take of 2% of the country’s surface area.
If we were to talk about an increase of 30,000 turbines – and this can be assumed if the area doubles from today’s 0.9% of the land area – this would not go down so well in the countryside.
But is the 2% area really accurate? It is just as inaccurate as the figure of 0.9% for today’s land area. This is because the area figures refer in each case to the narrowly defined area covered by the B-Plan. The necessary distances to residential buildings are not included in this area figure. The 0.9% corresponds to 3100 km² today (source: Federal Environment Agency and Competence Centre for Nature Conservat...).
“1,325 square kilometres and thus approximately 42 percent of the areas considered – taking into account the existing installations as of the cut-off date December 31, 2017 – are free for the installation of wind turbines.” This means that there were 28,500 turbines on 1800 km² in 2017 (today there are 30,000 turbines). This is, as I said, the area of the B-plans. This area does not include the necessary distance to residential buildings, which, however, must be covered by planning.
If you divide the number of turbines (28,500) by the area (1800 km²), there are 16 turbines/km², i.e. an average of 62,500 m² per turbine or 250 m by 250 m. This shows that the necessary distance to residential buildings is not sufficient.
6 times the area
If we calculate an average size of 5 turbines per wind farm, the wind farm would cover an average area of 176,000 m² (420 m x 420 m with 4 wind turbines at the edges and 1 in the middle) without distance areas (at a distance of 300 m between the turbines). With a distance of 600 m (which is already questionable from the point of view of emission protection) to the nearest residential area, the park requires an area of 1020 m x 1020 m = 1.04 km². This is six times the area of the B-Plan area, which is merely nestled around the plant configuration.
Even if one takes into account that today 5% of the turbines are located in the forest (where there are no distance restrictions) and in the future perhaps 20% will be built in the forest, the area required would only be reduced to five times the B-Plan area.
In other words, those who demand 2% of the land area with B-plans for wind power plants actually need 10% of the land area.
Now it will be conceded that the size and height of turbines will increase significantly, so that we can expect less than 30,000 turbines. That is correct. But the land consumption will remain in the same order of magnitude, because larger turbines also need a greater distance between each other (5 times the rotor diameter, at 120 m that is 600 m distance).
Moreover, they need a distance of at least 1000 m from residential areas. The output increases, but so does the land consumption. The fact that a multiplication of wind energy does not result in a guaranteed output does not need to be mentioned again here.
Even the windy November showed that wind energy production was often enough close to zero to 5000 MW, and thus less than 10% of the possible output of 60,000 MW. And 3 times zero is zero.
“BUILD BACK BETTER” WOULD COST $4.490 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE, IF PROVISIONS WERE MADE TO LAST 10 YEARS
Distrust in Government
I am not surprised at the lack of public trust in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. The games of smoke and mirrors played in Washington are off-the-charts outrageous.
Never, ever, has there been such a level of deceit, as Democrats have inflicted on the US People, since January 2021, after using a fraudulent election in 2020 (see Appendix), to achieve a coup d’etat, to relentlessly push for a major increase of:
1) The size and intrusiveness of government, and
2) Democrat command/control over the federal government and the American people.
Here is a most egregious example:
Build Back Better' Would Cost $4.490 Trillion Over the Next Decade, if Provisions Were Made to Last 10 Years
PHASE 1; All BBB programs have carefully chosen expiration dates
Some BBB Bill History
The cost of the original BBB bill was $6.0 trillion, as crafted by left-leaning Sanders. When that proved to be a non-starter, he “whittled it down” to an alleged $3.5 trillion, which, he declared, was the “absolute minimum”. Whittled down means, he shortened the duration of some programs from 10 years to 1 year, or 2 years, etc., as explained in next sections. See table 1
Manchin, a moderate US Senator from West Virginia, who knows how to co-operate with moderate Republicans, had stated, he would consider a BBB bill costing about $1.5 trillion.
Frustrated Sanders and White House staff further whittled down the cost of the BBB bill from $3.5 to $1.75 trillion, to placate Manchin, mainly by shortening program durations. See table 1
Manchin and Sanders had frequent shouting matches about:
1) BBB budgeting smoke-and-mirror shenanigans, such as short program durations to reduce costs
2) BBB causing a major increase in the size, bureaucrat headcount, and intrusiveness of the federal government
3) BBB worsening high inflation rates in 2022, and beyond
4) BBB worsening multi-billion US budget deficits in 2022, and beyond
5) BBB worsening the rapidly-growing US national debt
6) BBB worsening US trade competitiveness and US trade deficits
7) BBB worsening the precarious financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare Systems. See Note
The BBB bill is a Green New Deal cornucopia for boosting Democrat constituencies. See table 1
The BBB bill, aka “budget reconciliation bill,” has morphed into a vast expansion and increase of:
1) The socialistic welfare state for individuals, and
2) The decades-long bonanza for multi-millionaire subsidy-seekers in the renewable energy sector.
The EU is facing an energy crisis, because:
1) Brussels’ RE idiots refused to sign long-term contract for gas from Russia
2) NATO and the US are stupidly trying to contain and pressure Russia.
3 There is minimal wind, minimal solar, and some nuclear plants are down with “issues”
4) Russia retaliated by merely limiting gas flow to the EU to CONTRACTED amounts, plus 5%, to ensure TOTAL compliance with SIGNED contracts.
5) Owners are diverting LNG carriers to the EU to rake in on the bonanza.
US spot price $7/million Btu
EU spot price $65/million Btu
7) The 5% is sold by Gazprom on the spot market at very high prices.
WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050
Energy systems analysts of Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, etc., have known for decades, if you have a significant percentage of (wind + solar) on your grid, you better have available:
– An adequate capacity, MW, of other power plants to counteract any variations of (W+S), 24/7/365
– High-capacity, MW, connections to nearby grids
– An adequate capacity of energy storage, such as:
1) Pumped hydro storage
2) Hydro plants with reservoir storage
3) Grid-scale battery systems
The more presence of variable (W+S) on the NE grid, the more the other generators have to vary their outputs, which causes these other generators to be less efficient (more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh).
Owners in European countries with much wind and solar on the grids get compensated for their losses.
Those compensations are charged to the general public, not to the Owners of wind and solar systems, as part of the political (subsidy + cost shifting) regimen, to make wind and solar appear price-competitive versus fossil fuels.
RE folks often advocate:
1) Electricity must be 100% renewable, or zero carbon, or carbon-neutral by 2050
2) Getting rid of the remaining nuclear plants
3) Getting rid of natural gas, coal, and oil plants
4) More biomass burning
About This Article
This article has four parts and an Appendix
Part 1 provides an introduction to miscellaneous energy topics, and consumption of world energy quantities
Part 2 provides an introduction to existing NE grid conditions
Part 3 provides an introduction to daily NE grid load shaping, to deal with heat pumps and EVs in 2030
Part 4 provides the future NE grid conditions with 20% wind and 10% solar in 2050
The Appendix shows various energy topics, such as Turnkey Capital Costs of Grid-scale Battery Systems; Grid-scale Battery System Operating Cost in New England; Energy Losses of Battery Systems; “All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
NFL ‘Caves To Communist China’ As It Releases Map Falsely Claiming That Taiwan Belongs To China
Doctor Gives Best Explanation In 10 Minutes For Why COVID Is A Con & The Shots Are Meant To Kill
I doubt that the citizens of Germany will tolerate $4000 per Mwh rates for very long, as they have had to endure over some periods in recent years due to lack of wind power that they now seem to rely on.
If this is part of the Great Reset, better stock up on candles and strike anywhere matches. Stupid is as stupid does. The people of Germany have the power to change the trajectory of their future. They need to use it. And so do we.
Exposed: The Banking Cartel’s School For Globalist Political Operatives
Elitist "school" produces minions of the New World Order.
Learn how our corrupt “leaders” were given marching orders to create the Great Reset nightmare being rolled out today.
© 2023 Created by Webmaster. Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine