Almost all Germans oppose combustion engine bans and meat reduction measures to save the planet

Most Germans oppose key government proposals, such as banning combustion engines, restricting meat consumption, or imposing flat-rate taxes on air travel, according to a poll conducted shortly before the 30th UN Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil.

The survey suggests that citizens are more likely to back environmental measures that either benefit them directly or avoid placing major financial burdens on households.

As reported by Stern, 69 percent of respondents said they opposed a ban on diesel and petrol vehicles, while 68 percent were against limiting weekly purchases of meat and dairy products, while 56 percent rejected the idea of higher air travel costs through a flat-rate ticket tax.

Conversely, strong majorities supported subsidies for energy-efficient housing (69 percent), measures to strengthen domestic production (71 percent), bans on single-use plastics (69 percent), and higher taxes on high-emission companies (66 percent).

The German government has pledged to reach Net-Zero by 2045 — sooner than many industrialized nations—but its progress in reducing emissions has slowed, particularly in the transport and housing sectors.

According to the survey, while most Germans agree that climate change exists and largely caused by human activity, the willingness to change personal behavior remains limited.

Only 25% of those surveyed said they would voluntarily reduce air travel or meat consumption, or switch to an electric car.

Even fewer expressed willingness to stop eating animal products altogether or to buy only second-hand clothing.

Measures that are convenient or low-cost — such as avoiding single-use plastics or adding greenery to balconies — were far more popular.

Despite a reluctance to alter lifestyles, 46 percent of Germans believe climate change cannot be prevented, even if drastic changes are implemented, while 16 percent think the status quo is fine, and 15 percent believe humans cannot alter the climate.

Concern about global warming has drastically declined: only 63 percent say they are familiar with the issue, the lowest figure for two years.

Global conflicts, high inflation, high consumer prices, stagnant real incomes, high unemployment, and tens of millions of "culture-destroying "refugees" are far more important than climate change. which is happening, regardless of any human efforts.

ADDITION

CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-v...

By Willem Post

The IPCC, etc., has endowed CO2 gas as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.

Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:

1) increase command/control by governments, and

2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 50 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.

CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.

CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an essential ingredient for:

1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, including desert areas, and

2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially

The W/S systems uglify the countryside, kill birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, view-sheds, etc.

The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly (c/kWh) to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.

All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices (c/kWh) in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the moneyed elites who live in the poshest places.

Native People Suffer Extra Burdens: Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations, already burdened by the wind/solar/batteries nonsense, and then further burdened by the bureaucrat/moneyed elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, unskilled, ghetto-trash, crime-prone, poor folks, from dysfunctional countries.

Those folks are sucking from the multiple, government-program tits, while making:

1) minimal efforts to produce goods and services; and

2) maximum efforts to be chaotic, culture-destroying burden, the native populations never voted for.

Minimal Temperature Change due to CO2: The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by at most 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which:

1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C) of the warming, such as the UHI of about 700 miles, from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning.

Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands

About 65% of the US linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that UHI effect warming occurred before 1970.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-...

2) CO2 accounts for less than 0.3 C, with the rest from

3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,

4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.

BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.

The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.

Any graphs should show accuracy bands.

The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html

Here are four articles attesting to the small global warming role of CO2 in the atmosphere

Eight Taiwanese Engineers Determine Climate Sensitivity to a 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is 'Negligibly Small'

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eight-taiwanese-engine...

By Kenneth Richard

The Fairy Tale of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850...A Look at The Real Science

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-...

By Fred F. Mueller

Achieving 'Net Zero by 2050' Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/achieving-net-zero-by-...

By Kenneth Richard

German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming ...Practically Insignificant

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-researcher-doub...

By P Gosselin on 19. November 2024

EUROPE AIMS TO WEAKEN THE US WITH EXPENSIVE OFFSHORE WINDMILLS THAT PRODUCE EXPENSIVE, LOW-QUALITY ELECTRICITY

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/europe-attempts-to-ent...

By Willem Post

Net zero by 2050 Euro elites tried to weaken the US, with help of the unpatriotic, leftist Biden clique, into going down the black hole of 30,000 MW by 2030 of expensive, highly-subsidized, weather-dependent, grid-disturbing offshore windmill systems, which would need expensive, highly subsidized, short-lived, battery systems for grid support.

.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies

The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar. Power plant to landfill cost basis.

This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.

Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.

Any US tariffs on the European supply of wind systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.

Almost the entire supply of the wind projects would be:

1) designed and made in Europe,

2) then transported across the Atlantic Ocean by European specialized ships,

3) then unloaded at new, taxpayer-financed, $500-million storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading areas,

4) then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the windmill systems.

5) The financing would be mostly by European pension funds, that pay benefits to European retirees.

Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have jobs during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have long-term O&M jobs, using mostly European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.

Conglomerates owned by Euro elites would finance, build, erect, own and operate almost all of the 30,000 MW of offshore windmills, providing work for many thousands of European workers for decades, and multi-$billion profits each year.

.
That Euro offshore wind ruse did not work out, because Trump was elected.

Trump-hating, Euro elites are furious. Projects are being cancelled. The European windmill industry is in shambles, with multi-$billion annual losses, lay-offs and tens of $billions of stranded costs.

Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal, that used an autopen for Biden signatures, and bypassed on-the-beach/in-the-basement Biden, an increasingly dysfunctional Marionette.
.

Trump declared a National Energy Emergency, and put W/S/B systems at the bottom of the list, and suspended their licenses to put their rushed, glossy environmental impact statements, EIS, under proper scrutiny.

Euro elites used the IPCC-invented, “CO2-is-evil” hoax, based on its own “science”.

These elites used:

1) the foghorn of government-subsidized Corporate Media to propagate scare-mongering slogans and brainwash the people,

2) censorship to suppress free thinking on town hall forums,

3) election interference, as in Moldova and Georgia,

4) ostracizing /marginalizing major political parties to produce desired outcomes, as in Germany.

Wall Street elites saw an opportunity for tax shelters for its elite clients.

Woke politicians/bureaucrats were “cut-in” on $juicy deals to pass subsidies, favorable rules and regulations, and impose government mandates.

Euro elites wanted the US to deliver electricity to users at very high c/kWh, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance with the US.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is...

NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-...

By Willem Post

It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar

In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.

That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies

The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.

This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.

Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.

Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.

The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average

Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.

Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b

Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b

Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh

Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million

Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton

Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion

The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.

Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.

Other costs:

Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)

Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)

Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh

Year 1 Cost

O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b

Coal = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b

Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b

Total = 1.130 b

Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b

Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh

Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues

For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%

Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.

For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.

China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical...

THE IMPOVERISHED, DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE OF MAINE

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-dysfunctional-stat...

By Willem Post
.

The over-taxed, over-regulated, already-impoverished Maine people are super-screwed, trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real growth Maine economy
The Maine economy has lots of low-tech/low-pay/low-benefit, bs jobs
The Maine economy has lots of woke, leftist bureaucrats
Screwed-over Mainers also have to pay for poverty-stricken, aliens of different cultures from all over, who illegally enter the US, a federal felony
.
Those unvetted, illegal, often voting aliens, from all-over, are:
- the dregs of Third World countries, sent to Maine by their US-hating, leftist, woke governments, in cahoots with Soros/Biden-financed NGOs
- getting free housing, free food, a never-empty credit card, free phones, free healthcare, free education/job training and whatever other goodies they want.

They mainly suck from the government tit:
- have no skills, no training, no education, no modern industrial experience.
- will take low-tech/low-pay/low-benefit jobs at 30% less than screwed-over Mainers.
- are often good at crime, murder, rape, drug and human trafficking, and driving vehicles into native merrymakers.

- the tens of millions of incompatible, subversive, walk-ins would rather undermine, instead of fight for traditional European and US values and culture.
.
Many millions of illegal aliens have to be shipped back where they came from, before they forever ruin the US, as they ruined Europe, France ,the UK, Ireland, Spain, etc.
.
Visual Ugliness of wind and Solar: Down-trodden Mainers often have to put up with the visual ugliness and noise of hundreds of windmills, that are often idle, because of too little wind year-round, and many thousands of acres of solar panels, that are often covered with snow and ice in winter; there is no solar at night.
.

Girls Competing with Boys on Girls Teams: Down-trodden Maine families also have to endure the insults of government-imposed mandates of having their girls compete with “boys” on girls’ teams, and “sharing” girl bathrooms and locker rooms, and “losing” their matches to the “boys”, all as mandated by woke Governor Mills, surrounded by her cabal of idiots and her ingrown clique of bureaucrats sucking from the government tit.
.
Experience of Denmark with Palestinians

The first generation (1992 arrivals):

Total accepted: 321 Palestinians

Still in Denmark by 2019: 270 people; about 84% remained.

Convicted of crimes: 204 people (63.6%).

Prison sentences: 71 people (22.1%).

Welfare dependency:

In 2003, 238 of 321 (74%) received some form of benefit.

In 2019, 176 full-time equivalents were on welfare.

Of these, 122 were on disability pensions; meaning roughly two-thirds of working-age people were on permanent pension payments.

The second generation (their children):

Total children: 999 born or raised in Denmark

Each couple has many children, because each child gets a monthly government check until 18.

Convicted of crimes: 337 (33.7%).

Prison sentences: 65 (6.5%).

This means the crime rate dropped between generations; from 63% down to 34%; but remained far higher than the Danish national average.

93-95% of Palestinians are Muslim, who do not marry Danish women.

In 2019, the Danish Justice Minister stated: “These asylum seekers should not have been let in”.

Norway, Sweden, etc., had similar experiences.

Denmark: 72% of gang-crime convicts have non-Western background, i.e. 15% of the Danish population has 5 times the crime rate.

https://willempost.substack.com/p/denmark-72-of-gang-crime-convicts...

EXPENSIVE FLOATING OFFSHORE WINDMILLS IN IMPOVERISHED STATE OF MAINE

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...

By Willem Post

Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 850-ft-tall floating offshore windmills, each mounted on a 50% submerged, steel platform at least 250 ft x 250 ft x 75 ft tall to maintain the windmill in upright position in all conditions.

Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.

Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for: 1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and 2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.

Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)

Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.

About 500 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 200 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...

The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government

The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment

Electricity Cost

Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $375 million, 50% of project, at 6.0%/y for 20 years, 9.194 c/kWh.

Owner return on $375 million, 50% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 12.385 c/kWh

Banks and Owners get 21.579/36.579 = 59% of the project revenues

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh

Total cost 9.194 + 12.385 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 36.579 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 18.290 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 18.290 c/kWh

Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh

- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh

- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh

- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh

Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh

Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 36.6 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 47.6 c/kWh, no subsidies

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 18.3 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 29.3 c/kWh, 50% subsidies

The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar. Power plant to landfill cost basis.

This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.

The whole set-up is s super-expensive nightmare, the extent of which has been clear in Germany for the past 10 years and the UK for the past 5 years.

Both have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDP, the highest electricity prices in Europe, and stagnant real wages.

The W/S variable output, or too-little output, or too-much output, creates operational difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and expensive to counteract.

Maine Folks Need Lower Energy Bills, Not Higher Energy Bills

The over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.

THE DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS WITH GIANT BATTERIES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-dysfunctional-stat...

By Willem Post

A recent announcement is for a statewide, 4-h battery system, installed capacity 5000 MW/20,000 MWh.

Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full and not discharging to less than 20% full, to achieve normal life of 15 years and normal aging at 1.5%/y.
The delivered capacity would be 20,000 MWh x 0.6, Tesla factor x aging factor x 0.9, outage factor = 10,800 MWh

The batteries would 1) absorb midday solar peaks and deliver the electricity during peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, and 2) stabilize the grid, due to varying W/S output, 24/7/365

The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 20 million kWh = $12.0 billion, about every 15 years.

There will be annually increasing insurance costs for risky W/S/B projects.

If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 6% over 15 years = $608 million/y

If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 10% over 15 years = $774 million/y

The two items total $1,382 million/y; another hell-of-a-big subsidy for W/S systems

There are many more cost items

Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction, etc.)

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

No banks will finance W/S/B projects at acceptable interest rates and no insurance companies will insure them at acceptable premiums, no matter what the leftist, woke bureaucrats are announcing.
The sooner the U-turn, the better for New England, the US and Europe

NOTE: Trump has declared a National Energy Emergency. A new gas line from Pennsylvania to New England and new gas/oil storage systems near each CCGT power plant are needed, because most of the “planned” W/S/B systems will never be built, especially after the application of tariffs.

NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY 100% FROM WIND AND SOLAR by 2050?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-electricit...

By Willem Post

.
New England has Net Zero nut cases. They know nothing about energy systems and fantasize lots of nonsense.

“Keep it in the ground”, they say. “All electricity from wind and solar”, they say.
When presented with numbers and facts their eyes glaze over

Here is a simple analysis, if no fossil fuels, no nuclear, and minimal other sources of electricity

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-ele...

It is assumed, 1) all W/S output, based on historic weather data, is loaded into batteries, 2) all demand is drawn from batteries, based on historic load on the grid, as published by ISO-NE.

An annual storage balance was created, which needed to stay well above zero; the batteries are not allowed to "run dry" in bad W/S years. The balance was used to determine the wind and solar capacities needed to achieve it.

New England would need a battery system with a capacity of about 10 TWh of DELIVERABLE electricity from batteries to HV grid.

Daily W/S output would be fed to the batteries, 140 TWh/y

Daily demand would be drawn from the batteries, 115 TWh/y in 2024

Battery system roundtrip loss, HV to HV, would be 25 TWh/y, more with aging

Transmission and Distribution to users incur additional losses of about 8%, or 0.08 x 115 = 9.2 TWh

Fed to user meters = 115 – 9.2 = 105.8 TWh

The battery system would cover any multi-day W/S lulls throughout the year
Batteries would supplement W/S output, as needed, 24/7/365
W/S would charge excess output into the batteries, 24/7/365
Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full and not discharging to less than 20% full, to achieve normal life of 15 years and normal aging at 1.5%/y.
The INSTALLED battery capacity would need to be about 10 TWh / (0.6, Tesla factor x aging factor x 0.9, outage factor) = 18.5 TWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet.
The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 18.5 billion kWh = $11.1 trillion, about every 15 years.

I did not mention annually increasing insurance costs of risky W/S projects.

If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $5.5 trillion at 6% over 15 years = $557 billion/y

If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $5.5 trillion at 10% over 15 years = $708 billion/y

The two items total $1265 billion/y, about the same as the New England GDP.

There are many more cost items

Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction)

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

No banks will finance W/S projects at acceptable interest rates and no insurance companies will insure them at acceptable premiums, no matter what the woke bureaucrats are pronouncing.
The sooner the U-turn, the better for New England, US and Europe

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

by Willem Post

Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.

Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.

Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems cost much more than $500/kWh

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh; turnkey cost $104.5 million; 104,500,000/181,900 = $574/kWh, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan, 50% of $104.5 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return, 50% of $104.5 million, at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage, 15 years at 10%; loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction, etc.) is 92.3c/kWh

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt.
.

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1 / (0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh

COMMENTS ON CALCULATION

Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, see top URL, i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.

That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to charge the batteries

Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, in sunny California and other such states. The more solar systems, the greater the midday peaks.

See top URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England

40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.

Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.

Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

Regarding any project, Banks and Owners have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the Bank loan and Owner’s investment

Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, to get c/kWh, as shown.

Loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9), from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., draw about 50 units from HV grid to deliver about 40 units to HV grid. That gets worse with aging.

A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been misled by self-serving folks, that “battery Nirvana is just around the corner”.

NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years

NOTE: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.

NOTE: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates.

HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-s...

By Willem Post

People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.

If owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty

.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar, and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.

What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.

At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.

The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system

Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:

1) increase command/control by governments, and

2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:

1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit 10%; Federal tax credit of 30%; State tax credit; other incentives up to 10%);

2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation to write off of the entire project;

3) Loan interest deduction

Utilities forced to pay at least:

15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems

18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind

10 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from largersolar systems

Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh

- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh

- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh

- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh

- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh

Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh

Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies

The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.

This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.

The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.

Europe has near-zero, real-growth GDP. Its economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

Norwegian-Owned Empire Wind, 810 MW; turnkey capital cost $5 Billion; Bank loans $3 Billion; Investors stake $2 Billion; Cost/kW = $5 Billion/810 MW = $6170/kW

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/empire-wind-810-mw-tur...

By Willem Post

Per various laws, the federal government and NY State government will pay enough subsidies so the foreign Owners can sell for 15.5 c/kWh, for 20 to 25 years, instead of 31 c/kWh, without any subsidies, such as:

Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:

1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit 10%; Federal tax credit of 30%; State tax credit; other incentives up to 10%);

2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation to write off of the entire project;

3) Loan interest deduction

Utilities forced to pay:

At least 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems

At least 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind

At least 10 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems

Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh

- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh

- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh

- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh

- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh

Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh

Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies

The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar. Power plant to landfill cost basis.

This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.

The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.

No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth GDP is in de-growth mode.

That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

Remove your subsidy dollars using your vote, none of these projects would be built, your electric bills would be lower.

Ban Corrupt Mail-in Ballots and corruptible Voting Machines; No Valid ID, No Vote; Paper ballots and hand counting only.

The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.

That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.

Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.

NEW YORK STATE DYSFUNCTIONAL ENERGY POLICY

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-york-state-dysfunc...

By Willem Post

If owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would be a serious disadvantage for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.

The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system

Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to:

1) increase command/control by governments, and

New York State Utilities will be paid foreign Owners 15.5 c/kWh for 20 to 25 years

New York State Utilities will mark this up before averaging it into their cost of purchased electricity.

Ratepayers and taxpayers are being screwed

Per various laws, the federal and state government will pay enough subsidies, so the foreign Owners can sell for 15.5 c/kWh, for 20 to 25 years, instead of 31 c/kWh, without any subsidies, such as:

1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of up to 10% – Federal tax credit of 30% - State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);

2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;

3) Loan interest deduction to reduce any taxable profits from whatever source.