article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (15) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
April 14, 2008

The German FIT for Renewable Energy -- A Bargain!

by Marcus Maedl

The year 2004 marked the beginning of the solar-age for Germany. In that year alone, 600 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity systems were installed. Up until 2004, the combined number of all systems ever installed in Germany was 405 megawatts. What caused this explosion in solar installations? It is called the "EEG" (Energie-Einspeise-Gesetz), commonly referred to as a "Feed-In Tariff" in the U.S. Because this renewable energy model has been in place for some time now, it's possible to analyze and derive value from its real costs to determine if the model is truly viable.

The EEG concept is simple — legislation obligates electric utility companies to purchase renewable energy at set rates (such as solar electricity at about 4 times the market price) over the next 20 years. At minimum, utilities must pay the market rate. So did the poor utilities get suckered? No, absolutely not. They are allowed to redistribute the additional cost to the general public in the form of higher electricity rates — call it hidden taxes. Just to address the obvious suspicion of the critical reader, note that the increase as of 2008 has been a mere EU € 0.007 [US $0.01] per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for German rate payers. It is a well-implemented approach that deserves recognition. The fact that many neighboring countries have adopted their own flavors of feed-in tariff models underscores the overall attractiveness of the program.

So why is the U.S. so timid in dishing out similar incentives? Many in the U.S. believe that the overall cost of such a program makes it economically unwise. Using actual data from the German incentive program as an example, along with some realistic estimates for future growth, it is possible to understand the magnitude of the true cost.

The tariffs paid for green electricity are defined in a table whereby small systems and façade installations get more and large industrial installations and utility-scale ground-mounted systems get less. The tariffs have an annual reduction factor of at least 5%, adjusted as necessary going forward. The starting point in 2004 was an average of EU €0.55/kWh [US $0.86/kWh] guaranteed for 20 years. In 2008 the average tariff has dropped to EU €0.45 [US $0.71]. So, for example, a solar system installed in 2008 will receive EU €0.45 cents/kWh until 2028. All solar PV systems put in service up until end of 2007 account for 3.8 gigawatts (GW) total peak performance.

So how much did the Germans pay for this amount of solar? Let's first estimate what the total PV electricity production was up until now. In cloudy Germany on average, one kilowatt (kW) of installed PV capacity will generate about 800 kilowatt-hours (kWh) over the year. (Yes, that's low compared to the approximate 1,600 kWh/year harvested in sunny California.) Approximately 7.5 billion kWh have been generated by solar PV systems in Germany from 2004 through 2007. The price tag in terms of tariffs for this amount of solar energy was EU €3.9 billion [US $6.1 billion]. The same amount of energy would have been purchased from the power utilities for approximately EU €1.2 billion [US $1.9 billion]. That means the "cumulative additional net cost" of the program so far is in the range of EU €2.7 billion [US $4.2 billion]. So 3.8 GW installed for EU €2.7 billion? That is not a bad ratio if compared to other programs, especially considering that the 3.8 GW are actually installed and not simply the wishful thinking or projections what installations might yield.

Looking forward, one might argue that EU €2.7 billion is only the tip of the iceberg and that the remaining 16 to 19 years for those systems' output plus the additional installations from now on will cause an enormous extra burden. Wrong again! Assuming an aggressive 17% compound average growth rate (CAGR) in installed systems over the next decade and a low-end, realistic annual increase of about 4.25% in general electricity cost over the same period, the critical cross over (or grid-parity) point will be reached as early as 2016. (This is all detailed on the attached chart.) This may of course vary by a few years plus or minus, but it will be reached in the not too distant future. The "cumulative additional net cost of energy" will plateau approximately 8 years after grid parity is reached at around EU €27 billion [US $42 billion]. Furthermore, assuming the 17% CAGR to be a low estimate, the picture doesn't change much. Due to the fact that the majority of the cost will be realized near the point of grid parity, the impact of a simulated 25% growth in installations will be a mere two to three billion EUR in total additional cost. An amount that would easily be made up by the additional sales tax alone that such a deployment would trigger. (Let alone the income tax and corporate tax as a direct result of the more than 200,000 jobs created by the renewable energy industries in Germany to date.)

To put this in perspective, over the next two decades, German electricity users will pay an additional EU €1.5 billion [US $2.35 billion] per year — this is equivalent to the current amount that the U.S. budget deficit increases per DAY.

The German feed-in tariff approach has demonstrated with hard facts that it is the best, most efficient and most cost effective incentive program there is. In 2007 alone Germany installed more PV systems than the U.S. has ever installed in history.

On a related note, there seems to be something equivalent to the famous "Moore's law" in computer science going on in solar PV, not in terms of cell performance but in the cost of production. Available statistics seem to agree that the cost per Watt decreases by 20% for each doubling in production capacity. If that is the case, the argument for fast increases in production can't be over emphasized.

Looking at the program from a pure economic viewpoint (the considerable costs of global warming issues, health risks and energy independence aside), the ultimate measure is the "cumulative additional net cost." That number shows how much extra money Germany has dished out for green energy from the start of the FIT program. It compares the feed-in tariff payments to the alternative of purchasing electricity from the utilities at market rates. This number is the final "all-in" cost of moving from conventional energy to renewable energy. That final number is around EU €30 billion [US $47 billion]. Using German population figures from 2005, that equates to about EU €363 [US $573] per person over 20 years. So should Germans make such an investment? Most of the "shareholders," such as myself, approve highly. After all, the cost of securing fossil fuel reserves in various geographic locations around the world seems to be sky-rocketing these days....

Marcus Maedl was born in Stuttgart, Germany to an American mother and a German father enabling him to carry two passports and exposing him to both cultures all his life. In 2003 he was introduced to the solar PV industry in Germany. He started working in sales of photovoltaic systems (PV) for a small company and in 2004 the skyrocketing demand there transformed his role into a freelancing purchasing agent for various project developers in Germany. Equipped with transferable letters of credit, he went on a global sourcing quest for silicon cells. This brought him to China, India and many other interesting places including California, where in 2006 he started the regional office for SunTechnics in Carlsbad, CA. The turbulences of SunTechnics' mother company Conergy in 2007 contributed to closing of that career path and opening an exciting, new one. As of October 2007, Marcus is heading the newly formed division Applied Technologies - Energy Solutions in Paso Robles, CA. Privately held Applied Technologies Group is a strong and healthy technology and service provider to the oil and gas industry with 36 locations world wide.

Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (15)
 
No image available
April 15, 2008
Well said Marcus. Bravo!
Comment 1 of 15
No image available
April 16, 2008
Paul,

You were tying faster than I was. I also carried on a bit more.

I have to laf.
Comment 2 of 15
No image available
April 16, 2008
Mike,

You can't "set at any price the country wants". That tarriff has to include the salaries of the corporate officers, profit for the investors, and whatever else doesn't go toward generating electricity.

It's bad enuf with the current situation. Subsidizing business is seldom a good idea, tho it is very popular with the industry being subsidized.

Perhaps (no source quoted) the Europeans rates went up only a penny but that only indicates the high base rates of their electric bills or the low usage of the feed-in electricity.

The author mentions the low productivity of the PV units but conveniently uses peak capacity when talking about the price. I am amazed that pointing out the power could have been purchased at one third the cost is considered a selling point.

Too many industries are already subsidized. It's time to reduce that number, not add more. If you build a better product people will buy it. There's no need to force us to buy anything. Texas has already deregulated it's electricity market. People were told up front they would be paying 15% more to the 'green' providers and yet many did. Choice, not socialism.
Comment 3 of 15
No image available
April 16, 2008
You can't set prices wherever you want. Someone has to pay for the difference. The FIT increases the price of electricity for everyone to subsidize those that choose to install it.

It's not that "many" in the US that believe the cost is unwise. It is proven time after time that policy (like FIT programs and other subsidies) are never as good at setting price as the free market.

The only arguement for FIT is to help "kick start" this new and developing industry. Is this needed? Put it out to a vote. This is a democracy.
Comment 4 of 15
No image available
April 16, 2008
How could many in the U.S. believe that the overall cost of feed-in tariffs are economically unwise when feed-in tariffs can be set at any price the country wants?
Comment 5 of 15
No image available
April 16, 2008
America is notorious for waking up slowly, but in big fashion such as we did for WWII (militarization), the Great Depression (infrastructure investment), etc. Its time for us to do it again! Nothing will launch the necessary mass-deployment of earth-friendly energy like constructive financing models like what Germany is doing here. The fact is that Wall Street measures success in Quarterly intervals. Energy investments pay back in decades so without help - Wall Street won't invest. This is exactly why we massively subsidized oil companies throughout the 1900s (even until today with 3/4 of all US energy tax credits) to launch the lifestyle we life today. With Germany's approach and diverting those tax credits, based on goals/merits, to new national energy goals we would absolutely become the worlds preeminent earth-friendly energy provider.
Comment 6 of 15
No image available
April 18, 2008
Rereading this article myself:

"The EEG concept is simple - legislation obligates electric utility companies to purchase renewable energy at set rates (such as solar electricity at about 4 times the market price) over the next 20 years. At minimum, utilities must pay the market rate."

Hey Paul and Art, why can't the US set prices at the market rate (i.e. without subsidies)?
Comment 7 of 15
No image available
April 18, 2008
Another point is that Paul and Art appear to be Texans, many of whom claim to have competitive electricity markets, even though I have read competition has not developed in any states within the US.

Does Texas require old utility coal and nuclear plants to pay back stranded benefits to ratepayers that financed their old plants?

Did Texas repeal "grandfather" exemptions for old plants that allow them to avoid meeting costly environmental laws imposed on new plants?

Moreover, regulated utility monopolies should not be allowed to dump surplus power at below cost into deregulated states.

Monopolies should be broken up and antitrust laws enforced (like the EU is trying to do).

The U.S. should build a national grid to connect more potential competitors (like EU is trying to do with the building of an international grid).

If the US were to make a legitimate attempt to foster real competition in all states, I would see no reason for feed-in tariffs.

Paul and Art seem to be spreading utility propaganda. Just who do you two work for?
Comment 8 of 15
No image available
April 18, 2008
The comments by Paul and Art led me to compare American and European definitions of feed-in tariffs. It appears to me the real problem with adopting feed-in tariffs in the US is that Americans just don't understand them.

A European source states "A feed-in tariff is a renewable energy law that obliges energy suppliers to buy electricity produced from renewable resources at a fixed price, usually over a fixed period - even from householders." The prices don't have to be set such that any renewable energy generator can even meet the cost. These prices could be set at the cost of the lowest cost generator, a new coal plant (even though it would be difficult to build.

American definitions of feed-in tariffs assume a premium price is paid to the renewable energy generator, over and above what a utility monopolist receives for a new coal plant in a regulated state. It assumes subsidies. It appears Americans are buying propaganda from utility monopolists!
Comment 9 of 15
No image available
April 19, 2008
Mike, just because I disagree doesn't mean I work for a utility. Even if I did, that would not make a difference.

The question I asked is whether or not the FIT is needed. If it were put to a vote and the majority voted for it, put it in.

Just don't forget the utilities may be forced to pay the set rates but they really aren't. The costs are just passed on to the consumers - rich and poor alike. This is why it should be voted on.
Comment 10 of 15
No image available
April 20, 2008
I noticed Paul isn't denying he is a utility monopolist spreading his propaganda across this site.

Putting FITs to a vote would be ridiculous since Americans don't even understand what they are. Policy is the job of elected officials. People didn't vote for every policy when electricity was deregulated in Texas.

Even you can't seem to understand that FITs need not pass any additional costs unto consumers.
Comment 11 of 15
No image available
April 22, 2008
Paul, you really should use your mind as I am getting sick of repeating myself to you. I already told you during comments of another article that I had plenty of economics courses on my way to an MBA. If you have seen any of my postings you would also know that I not only support free markets, but am knowledgable enough to know that this country does not foster competition, but rather monopolization. I have never seen you nor any of our political leaders propose anything to de-monopolize the electricity industry like I have even though all sources I have read claim competition has not developed in any state. The big problem with electricity is not that the grid is a natural monopoly, but rather that the generation side was deregulated such as to foster monopolization. Moreover, if you had read my postings you would know that I propose that FITs need not create any additional costs for consumers, and may even lower rates, if they are set at the market price for electricity or the cost of the lowest-cost alternative (eg coal) and capacity is not allocated beyond consumer demand.
Comment 12 of 15
No image available
April 22, 2008
Mike, you really should take an economics course or read a couple of books on economic principles so you could understand the basics. If you have seen my postings, you know that I am a strong support of RE but an equal supporter of free markets because they work. Trying to fight against the free markets doesn't work.

Once you have the basics in economics, you would know that I am totally against monopolies. The big problem with electricity is that the grid is by default a monopoly. Where Texas became deregulated is on the marketing an generating side and it is exciting to see the changes and options offered.

If you could answer one question on FIT programs. Who pays the additional costs? Do you honestly believe the utilities are just going to eat the increase?
Comment 13 of 15
No image available
May 25, 2008
The German FIT system requires double metering. One metre measures all the power you produce, the other all the power you use. Since you are getting much more for the power you produce than you pay for the power you use, you are very keen on double metering. Do you ever get suspicious when someone is giving you something for nothing. Even now, when Germany is trying to get the maximum uptake of Solar Electric, she adds your revenues from the power you produce to your income for tax purposes. The top tax rate in Germany is 46% so if you are in the top tax bracket, you only get 54% of your nominal earnings. It gets worse. In Germany you pay Sales tax at a whopping 19% on anything you buy, including electricity. This adds almost a fifth to the cost of every kwh you buy. And worse still. The power company lives in the same tax structure and it costs them for power they sell (income tax) and power they buy (sales tax). How keen do you think they will be to serve as your batteries when the FIT system comes to an end. I should imagine that at that point they will no longer be allowed to charge the extra .007 euro per kwh to all their customers to get the necessary revenues to compensate for their losses. If they are allowed to make this extra charge, the burden is simply passed on to all the energy users. The solution is single metering in which your generation simply turns the metre backwards. Simpler, less expensive and transparent to the tax man. wlhgmk@gmail.com
ps. Note that since all electricity customers are paying a little more for their electricity to pay for this system, they are also paying a little more sales tax to the German government. A sweet system.
Comment 14 of 15
No image available
May 31, 2008
We need no EEG concept, we can do better !

Only the price of energy and not the man-made worldwide pollution or global warming can change human greed.

One of the 14 innovations you can see in the 12-minutes video AND MORE
in
http://turbojack.blogspot.com.

If in Indonesia the Royal Family under the leadership of Sutan Dr. Taswin Tarib can establish an 8,o [ GW ] Mega-GEO POwer Plant, why is nobody in the US interested to get the same low-cost electricity for only 2,o [ cents/kWh ] ?

Crimes against humanity and deadly WMDs are :
1. Change food into fuel.
2. Every INCREASE in power costs.
3. Deadly and dangerous pollution by fossil and nuclear power stations.
4. The inefficient production and use of energy.

All these crimes we can prevent, if we join the advanced >> utilizing high temperatures of 500 degrees Celsius with new vertical tunnels and the attached GEO Power Plants.

Learn more in YAHOO and educate yourself at
turbojack.com
or at
GESO.biz.

With your u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this only realistic energy solution in production of power and the appropriate use of electricity, compressed air etc. we can reduce more damages to life and nature

Best
Gene.
05-31-2008
Comment 15 of 15
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Second Wind Inc. Third Sun Solar and Wind Power, Ltd. American Wire Group ATAS International, Inc. POWER-GEN India and Central Asia Poet
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo