Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The German FIT for Renewable Energy -- A Bargain!

By Marcus Maedl
April 14, 2008   |   15 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

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.

15 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 15
April 15, 2008
Well said Marcus. Bravo!
Comment
2 of 15
April 16, 2008
Paul,

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

I have to laf.
Comment
3 of 15
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
4 of 15
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
5 of 15
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
6 of 15
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
7 of 15
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
8 of 15
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
9 of 15
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
10 of 15
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
11 of 15
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
12 of 15
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
13 of 15
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
14 of 15
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
15 of 15
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
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

Advertise With Us

Talesun Solar Renewable Energy World Europe Schneider Electric K2 Solar,Inc. The Stella Group, Ltd. Intersolar AREDAY
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters