Germany Embarks on Historic Alternative Energy Push
As it phases out nuclear power in wake of public outcry, Germany to make largest investment since World War II
Spurred by a public outcry following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, Germany's Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, announced last year that Germany would phase out all of its nuclear power plants. Now, with a looming 20% energy gap to fill, the European nation plans to follow on its early leadership in the green energy sector with an unprecedented investment in alternative and renewable sources, including wind and solar.
Germany's plan is seen by some as an economic gamble, but many traditional energy companies -- including nuclear power companies -- are now lining up to invest in the strategic plan. One financial and energy analyst observed the plan would would make Germany's energy market, the most important in Europe, "into a massive energy laboratory."(Photographer: Ken James/Bloomberg) The program will cost 200 billion euros ($263 billion), about 8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2011, according to the DIW economic institute in Berlin. And Bloomberg News reports that, "Not since the allies leveled Germany in World War II has Europe’s biggest economy undertaken a reconstruction of its energy market on this scale."
Germany's plan is seen by some as an economic gamble, but many traditional energy companies -- including nuclear power companies -- are now lining up to invest in the strategic plan. One financial and energy analyst observed the plan would would make Germany's energy market, the most important in Europe, "into a massive energy laboratory."
And though Germany's plan to phase-out of nuclear energy assumes some reliance on natural gas, the plan is a firm commitment to reach an energy economy fueled 80% by renewables, or higher.
Bloomberg: Germany’s $263 Billion Renewables Shift Biggest Since War
Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning to build offshore wind farms that will cover an area six times the size of New York City and erect power lines that could stretch from London to Baghdad. The program will cost 200 billion euros ($263 billion), about 8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2011, according to the DIW economic institute in Berlin.
Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors that supplied about a fifth of its electricity with renewables such as solar and wind. Merkel to succeed must experiment with untested systems and policies and overcome technical hurdles threatening the project, said Stephan Reimelt, chief executive officer of General Electric Co. (GE)’s energy unit in the country. [...]
“The German energy transformation is as challenging as the first moon landing,” said Peter Terium, who in July takes over as chief executive officer of RWE, Germany’s second-largest utility. “It’s a huge challenge we’ll be able to master only if everyone works together.”
Germany is among the first nations to grapple with a global need to upgrade power stations. By 2035, at least $10 trillion of investment is needed to add 5,900 gigawatts of generation worldwide, more than five times the capacity of all U.S. utilities, the International Energy Agency estimates. Half of that will come from renewable. A gigawatt is about enough to supply 800,000 homes in the U.S. and a bit less than the capacity of a nuclear reactor.
Oil & Energy Investor with Kent Moors, PhD.: The German Renewable Revolution
Germany has become the first nation to really tackle the rising energy crisis. To succeed, the country will require new technologies and fresh approaches, some not even yet on the drawing board.
The most important European market will transform into a massive energy laboratory. But success is hardly certain.
Either way, all eyes will focus on this huge German experiment.
It will cost German consumers even more than they pay now – some analysts say as much as 60% more. It holds captive the survival of a government, political careers, industrial prospects, and continental-wide financial policy.
As the euro zone wrestles with debt contagion and questions the strength of cross-border banking, the main lynchpin of that zone – Germany – is embarking on a very ambitious and risky path.
For those accustomed to seeing renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and even biofuels dependent upon heavy government subsidies, the German experiment will be a significant change.
The large public sector injections of tax revenues and credits will still be there.
Germany will have to increase taxes to pull off this grand departure. That could make it the most expensive government debacle in recent memory.
What changes is this [...]
For the first time, a huge, guaranteed market will be opening up for alternative energy.
It will require new developments, infrastructure, improvements, and breakthroughs to make it work.
From Renewables International: The German switch from nuclear to renewables – myths and facts
...Germany actually has an action plan to reach 80 percent renewable power, and natural gas is a temporary part of that plan. In addition, a number of studies have been published to show how Germany could go 100 percent renewable such as here, here, here (PDF in German), and here (PDF in German). And let’s not forget the organization called 100% Erneuerbar – or the study called Energy Rich Japan that German researchers and one from Japan did on how Japan could get all of its energy from renewables way back in 2003. Do we Americans have any such plan?
'Open Heart Surgery' and The Business Buy-In
From Bloomberg:
"The energy transformation is open-heart surgery," Hannelore Kraft, state prime minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, said Dec. 20 in Essen. "We need a master plan and careful monitoring so this operation can succeed."
After lobbying against clean-energy subsidies for years, utilities are gearing up to make money from the industry. EON, the country's biggest operator of nuclear power stations, plans to invest 7 billion euros in renewable energy projects in the next five years. That includes 1 billion euros on the Amrumbank West wind farm in the German North Sea, a project that Siemens AG will supply with 80 of its turbines.
"We don't do this because we think it's nice, but because we believe we can be successful," Johannes Teyssen, EON's chief executive officer, said Dec. 20 in Essen. The German energy experiment, Teyssen said, is "a task that will occupy an entire generation." [...]
Already, Germany has built the world's biggest renewable generation complex, with 53.8 gigawatts of wind and solar generators at the end of last year. Italy last year added a record 9 gigawatts of solar panels, overtaking Germany for the first time. The U.K. plans 18 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2020, up from 1,500 megawatts now.
Some of Germany's biggest companies are entering the renewables business and backing the innovations needed to make expand the scale of the industry.
Robert Bosch GmbH, the world's biggest car parts supplier based in Stuttgart, has invested about 1.5 billion euros into its solar energy business by purchasing companies and building new plants. Hochtief AG, Germany's biggest builder, has commissioned four heavy-duty ships to erect wind farms at sea including the 200 million euro "Innovation." [...]
"This energy transformation is about innovation," Roesler, the German economy minister, said in Stuttgart in January. "If we do it right, there will be many chances for economic growth." http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/19-5
Wind Turbine Health Impacts Examined by Senate Committee .. [ Australian, yet relevant .. all red original ]
Thursday, 29 November 2012
In those long, dark nights of the soul, one can thrash furiously in one's bed, wondering furiously whether one's worldview is simply the product of one's political leanings, itself generated by a hazy combination of neurological and psychological leanings.
Do I think what I think because the current body of evidence deems it so, or are my thoughts, beliefs and actions entirely subject to the arbitrary, subjective schema .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias .. that form the bulk of my mind?
It's nice, occasionally, to have someone else check the validity of your position. It's also nice to know that they're free of any vested interests, so you can be fairly sure that they're not subject to the same biases you are.
The anti-wind lobby are eager to present an over-inflated impression of public dissatisfaction. The report quotes the Waubra Foundation:
"over 40 families from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who have left their homes because of excessive noise from the wind turbines near their former homes, and the consequent serious health problems they experienced."
The committee simply points out some figures, putting Waubra's statements in perspective:
"Given that as of April 2012 there were approximately 1345 turbines operating in 59 facilities around Australia,10 the numbers expressing concern appear small compared to the numbers of residents near these turbines."
They also point out something incredibly obvious, yet, this concept had not yet occurred to me:
"The committee received just over 160 submissions, of which a little under 140 supported the bill and/or expressed concern about noise effects. Of these, the majority were from people worried about whether they might experience noise or health effects from proposed wind farms, rather than from people who claimed to have actually experienced annoyance or other adverse effects. The submissions related to a minority of Australia's wind farm operations."
Yep. The majority of people complaining were facing proposed developments, and did not actually live near operational wind farms. This highlights an extremely important factor in the modus operandi of the anti-wind lobby - they focus their efforts on stifling development, rather than stirring discontent for operational wind farms.
Committee view: "The number of health-related complaints about wind farms is small in proportion to the number of people living near these facilities. The numbers also vary greatly from one facility to the next, for reasons not apparently related to the number of residents in the area."
They then go on to state that though the number is small, the nature/cause should be taken seriously. This is the basis for the next two sections.
Audible Sound
It's good that the committee distinguishes between audibly perceived sound, and infrasonic, inaudible sound. One (particularly nasty) tactic of the anti-wind lobby is to intentionally conflate the two. Confusion and ambiguity are their stock-in-trade.
"The study by Nissenbaum and others included 38 respondents near two wind farms, and 41 respondents in a control group, with results that increased daytime sleepiness and reduced sleep quality was reported among those closer to turbines though, counter-intuitively, there was no difference in the use of sleep medications as a result."
They point out what I feel is the most telling flaw in the studies; namely that the papers do not discuss the variety of causes that could have returned the results they recorded. Professor Chapman is quoted:
"Both of those studies suffer from the same problem. That is that there has been considerable activity, in both regions studied in those two papers, of anti-wind-turbine activity."
In the end, the committee is quite blunt about the possibilities raised by the submissions:
Committee view: "There is limited, and contested, published evidence that wind farm noise may be associated with annoyance and sleep disturbance in some individuals, but the causes are not clear"
Importantly, they recognise the caution that must be deployed when considering research - no scientific field has been free of research that is of poor quality. The papers by Nissenbaum and Sheperd possess their fair share of methodological and scientific flaws.
Infrasound
Though the bill boasts the phrase 'excessive noise' as part of its title, the main body of submissions focused instead on sound in the inaudible frequency range:
"most inquiry participants appeared to refer not to normal audible noise issues, but to possible health effects from low frequency sound, or infrasound."
"While this low frequency noise or sound energy (aka infrasound) may be inaudible and thus not able to be consciously perceived by the human ear, it does appear that the ear's vestibular system is still capable of perceiving the presence of this infrasound, and so send signals to the central nervous system for processing, in this case without the conscious awareness of the affected individual."
"So, the ear is extremely sensitive and responds very strongly to infrasound stimuli"
Say Salt, as part of his interview with the committee. Geoffrey Leventhall, an experienced consultant in noise vibration and acoustics, is quoted in the report summarising the issue neatly:
"There is no mystery about infrasound, but it has been falsely used by those opposed to wind turbines in order to alarm others, and also as a distraction, which they know will be difficult and time consuming to work on, whilst at the same time they ask for a moratorium on further constructions until the work is done"
"that review in fact only showed health effects from low frequency sounds at levels typically around one million times higher than those generally involved in the case of wind farm noise."
The committee then points out another study instance by the Waubra Foundation that involves "levels several orders of magnitude higher than those involved in wind farms". It is refreshing to note that this tactic of active misrepresentation did not pass by the committee unnoticed. The key counter to Laurie's assertions is simply that the infrasonic emissions from wind turbines are both non-harmful, and unremarkable, as explained by Dr Peter Seligman .. http://www.bionicsinstitute.org/our-staff/Pages/Peter_Seligman.aspx :
"My first comment is that the environment is awash with infrasound, which is both from natural and man-made sources and which is often far in excess of what is produced by wind farms."
If wind turbines really don't cause direct physiological harm, why the reports of health effects? The committee explores this in the next section.
Psychogenesis and the Nocebo Effect
An important and significant new study, accepted, peer-reviewed and due for publication in the journal 'Health Psychology', was referred to by the committee. The study used real and 'sham' infrasound to demonstrate that expectations of harm can lead to reports of ill effects:
"Conclusion: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms which aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound.
Symptom expectations were created by viewing information readily available on the internet, indicating the potential for symptom expectations to be created outside of the laboratory, in real world settings. Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints."
The committee notes that the submissions provide (unintended) support for the noecbo hypothesis - here is one example they give, which neatly demonstrates that complainants express tellingly informed expectations of harm:
"I will be close to proposed wind development if it is built, and don’t want to be getting sick in my own home and unable to sleep just like the people at Waubra who came and told me about their situation."
The unbridled inventiveness of the symptoms and range of wind turbine syndrome are both recognised by the committee as further evidence that the symptoms may have psychological, rather than physiological underpinnings. As the committee reiterates:
"Anecdotal evidence submitted to the committee includes symptoms being associated with phenomena other than wind farms, symptoms not occurring coincident with the start of wind farm operation, not being related to whether there is wind blowing, or being at distances far greater than those usually reported"
The committee delivers an emphatic and strongly worded conclusion:
"The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating health problems.
In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases."
Similar to nearly all other governmental and legal proceedings clearing wind turbines of physiologically induced health effects, the content of this report is likely to be quoted out of context, and nearly always without reference to the original documents.
This will be done in the realm of forums in which the anti-wind lobby are not required to provide citations for their claims, or exercise reason and logic in their conclusions. The key point of affect remains, for them, the hostile community gathering, not the measured parliamentary review.
The onus now lies on members of the wind industry to properly understand, and eagerly disseminate the logical prowess contained within this report, and to do it in a way that is significantly more interesting than the fictional narrative presented by anti-wind lobby groups.
Meanwhile, I feel I might sleep slightly better. Only slightly, though.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
