Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Swiss Adopt Aggressive Feed Law for Renewable Energy

By Paul Gipe, Contributing Writer
July 11, 2008   |   27 Comments
New law makes Switzerland the first nation with a specific tariff for small wind turbines.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
27 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 27
July 11, 2008
Alan: Yes, I would want the most efficient system possible. However, if I could not get one of those I might make a profit at these rates installing virtually anything (possibly my roof is slanted the wrong way and covered in snow much of the year or partly shaded by a big oak tree I didn't want to cut down--I'd never install PV under such conditions if I was funding the installation, but at these rates of return I might).

The Swiss have a very large hydroelectric system and a well developed nuclear energy program--these two production methods account for most of their electricity production and during part of the year they are energy exporters. It would be quite easy for them to add to their nuclear program for capacity additions while funding renewable research so that they install efficient systems when they are ready. Huge FETs will only cause energy prices to jump with very little return.
Comment
2 of 27
July 11, 2008
The Swiss have my vote. In the long run, not only oil but coal, natural gas and all fossil sources will be rising in cost. Cheap electricity may be a thing of the past.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
3 of 27
awb
July 11, 2008
Hey Steven, if you had the opportunity to make 73 cents/kWh to supply energy from your roof, don't you think you would want to install the most efficient system possible and keep it running properly? And don't you think your neighbors, who are paying for your profits with a few extra dollars tacked onto their monthly bill (average $2.50/month in Germany), don't you think they might rush to put solar on their own roofs?

When the US gets serious about responsible energy, there will be robust FITs. And when there is robust renewable energy generation in this country, there will be no more FITs, and clean energy will be cheaper than fossil.
Comment
4 of 27
July 11, 2008
We here in America think we have energy problems, imagine a small landlocked country like Switzerland and how it must depend on non domestic resources. With the recent advances in small turbines, ecspecially the VAWTs, this sounds reasonable. Definitely aggressive, but reasonable non the less.

www.nrgmanager.com
Comment
5 of 27
July 11, 2008
I think that the Swiss set the tariffs so high to try and catch up with their counterparts (as noted in the article) though I am surprised that these high rates are guaranteed for so long, as Steven (above) points out, encouraging people to invest in sub-optimal equipment. Depends what the priorities are though, I suppose. In this case, it seems that the Swiss want in on renewables sooner than later.
Comment
6 of 27
July 11, 2008
These are ridiculously high prices to be paying for electricity--especially with 25 year guarantees. These rates makes it profitable for people to implement highly inefficient systems. If the Swiss have spare money they could be spending it on research to develop economical generation systems. In the meantime nuclear power could provide for all their additional energy needs at a small fraction of these charges. These tariff schemes are the kinds of decisions that are made only when the deciders feel like they are spending other people's money.
Comment
7 of 27
July 12, 2008
Colm writes: "it has been proven that the way to get the most efficient installation is to pay solely on the kWh produced"

If, as I believe is still the case, production of PV systems is constrained by silicon wafer shortages, then every unit ends up getting sold and there is little competition among vendors. Clearly in one respect these price schedules don't lead to the most efficient installations because they favor smaller systems with higher rates. A 29 kW system earn more total return than a 30 kW system--that hardly seems reasonable.

I can't see how overpaying for an initial set of installations is conducive to ultimately getting cheap renewable energy.
Comment
8 of 27
July 12, 2008
Those consumers paying for these subsidies are getting ripped off.

I just commented on a geothermal article for Utah that was only paying $.08 per kWh seemed way cheap for a renewable which normally overcharge.

Oopps, here the Swiss are charging $.30 under a forced gov't subsidy with 20 year guarantee for what a Utah company is selling on the free market for $.08 .

Renewable energies has nothing to do with energy. Its political corruption using utilities and little understood energy pricing systems.

Off the top of your heads, can anyone tell me how much of a premimum the Swiss will pay over 20 years for a 5 MW geothermal system with 75% up time selling at $.30 per kWh in a $.08 per kWh market place?

No, you can't. I can't, The politicians might not. The guys who paid off the politician can. That's why they did it and got away with it.

Remember its GREEN it can't be BAD, no matter the price.
Comment
9 of 27
July 12, 2008
From the different types of subsidies available to PV systems worldwide, i.e. capital grants and/or feed-in tariffs, it has been proven that the way to get the most efficient installation is to pay solely on the kWh produced. It does result in the highest efficiencies, there is no argument in the industry. Again, in this case PV is capped at 5% of the $310 million dollars, a paltry $15 million/year. These funds are not being taken from hydro/nuclear developement so no conflict to be discussed there. This plan is good news for the renewable energy industry. A different model is being tried, and each time a different model is created the entire world benefits from the knowledge gained concerning its strong/weak points.
Is this model perfect ? Probably not. Is it helping the developement of RE ? Most definitely yes.
Comment
10 of 27
July 13, 2008
Smaller systems may be more inefficient and in most cases are, however there are literally no costs to up grade local distribution and regional transmission lines. It means the grid gains power in a distributed fashion and everyone can be a co-generator, it also drives small business growth in the sector which is always the engine for jobs.., living and working in Switzerland and watching the feed debates in the press and on TV, the Swiss covered all the angles..., they will catch up and be a net exporter of renewable technology before most other countries get progressive feed laws like this in place... the cost of doing this versus building new nuclear reactors to meet growing demand in Switzerland is a no brainer
Also think about plug-in hybrid vehicles in 5 years and the demand it will drive, for distributed production of electricity, at that time a nuclear power plant started today is maybe 1/3 complete...
The Swiss got it right, like they do most times...
Comment
11 of 27
July 15, 2008
"they will be a net exporter of electricity"

Who is going to pay 2x the market rate for this stuff unless the Gov't makes them?

Also, Solar PV can't be the primary energy source for a country - unlike nuclear/coal/gas/wind.

Solar peaks in production at noon and fades away by 3 pm in a good spot or 1:30 pm in a bad spot.

In Contrast, the Demand Cycle begins in the afternoon and goes to 7/8 pm. No sun. No Solar PV. You still need a power plant to provide the power that people will use.

Solar Can be only a small part of the solution, because it doesn't produce power when we need it.
Comment
12 of 27
July 16, 2008
There is no mention in the article how the Swiss tax the power produced (Income Tax?) and the power used (Sales Tax?). It makes a big difference
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/04/double-metering-its-insidious.html
Comment
13 of 27
This is FANTASTIC! Every single person I know would not only build a system for their own property, but would oversize it generously if we could get numbers like these.

Jim B and others seem to forget the ENORMOUS subsidies that EVERY OTHER electricity provider gets in this country, including poisoning the planet, depleting our groundwater, buyback guarantees, cheap capital, and super-cheap taxpayer-owned land that they destroy. Once you start adding all that up, the prices start making more sense.

Most importantly, is that this system defeats Big Energy Monopolies and encourages EVERY person in the nation to get involved in the renewable energy paradigm. I am MUCH more resentful of opening another vein to build out another big power plant (including Big Solar/Big Wind) so these creeps can hijack me, than I would be if I were getting paid for every watt I produced and/or conserved. FINALLY, people would start to see real rewards for doing the right thing for themselves and the planet.

The only one it hurts is Big Energy Monopolists, because ratepayers are gonna pay for new infrastructure anyhow, it's inevitable. I have not met one person who would rather have their bill go up because they are building a power plant than because we are installing solar panels.

US - GET A CLUE!! This is absolutely the solution to at least the first 50% of our energy needs. Don't kill off our open spaces until this program has been in place for at least 5 years...
Comment
14 of 27
July 16, 2008
People in Switzerland can obviously afford these high energy costs.

How about the middle-class and lower income population in many other countries.

Remember :
" Your ears will soon be deaf by an operating "windmill" in your neighborhood, but only, if wind blows. South of San Francisco more than 40,000 birds were counted - killed by windmills in a park."
"Solar efficiency" is still questionable, but gamblers are not worried to loose at the end money or ? "

Buy better blankets and warm clothes to survive and do not worry it is getting warmer around the globe anyway.
Comment
15 of 27
@ H. Duepmann
"Keep in mind Windpower and Solar are unsteady, disturbing grid-stability and tremendously increasing overall-cost of electric power."
"main producers like nuclear and lignite are still at 2,5 Cent per kWh."
"Now industrie is leaving the country because of the expensivnes of electrity."

sure ... ever considered that nuclear and lignite power are just as de-stabilising? since they cannot load-follow they require major balancing power plants. Which explains the keen interest of the French for hydrogen rpoduction from excess electricity. They need to stbilise their grid (77% nukes).
Also, due to the size of units, risk backup requirements are high, locking several GW-class capacity in standby. 2.5 cent/kWh only works out once you have written off the investment. A newly-built reactor clocks in at 4 to 5 cent/kWh ... comparable to a good wind site (General Atomics figures, so do not try to shout at me). These figures do not even include the operation's insurance - which does not exist. The governement pays in case of a nuclear accident. Can anyone tell, what sort of a subsidy that means? With wind, insurances are included.

and yesssss ... still waiting for that list of firms leaving the country due to wind electricity prices. Been waiting a loooong time. So? Guess it just does not exist!
By the way: I have a 100% green electricity contract at home. When el.prices went up on Jan.1st, my contract remained unchanged. Today, I pay the same for green electricity as I would for regular grid electricity. The only difference is a 1 Euro flat-rate surcharge per month. Beat that!

Seems we have been hearing a lot of urban legend lore recently.
Comment
16 of 27
July 16, 2008
I work for a solar PV company and we have a policy that we will not install on an unsuitable site. You will get cowboys in every industry, and you have to shop around. If you install a system in a shaded/north facing (in the northern hemisphere) or otherwise unsuitable site, you won't earn any real money out of it anyway, FiT or not, you just wont get the generation. If you contact a solar company without doing your homework and understanding the technology you might get ripped off, but other consumers won't be paying for your system because the amount of electricity you generate will be minimal and the FiT payments will therefore be very low. Therefore, if a person motivated purely by greed who would install a sub-optimal system will end up out of pocket.

With regard to nuclear I ask once again, in these comments - how many times should people pay for their energy? First in tax breaks and subsidies during the building, second paying for the electricity you use, third, the tax breaks and subsidies during operational life, and fourth the taxes your great-grandchildren will pay to decommission. Given that NO nuclear power station has been built on time, or on budget. Anywhere in the world. Ever. At least with solar PV, thermal, small/community wind, people own their own power and aren't beholden to those lovely global corporations who care SO much about their customers! Yes, the prices are high, but as it adds a small amount to each persons' bill, no one person is hit. Cheap energy is gone. We need to start looking at the alternatives, and that means a proper mix of sources.
Comment
17 of 27
July 16, 2008
Keep in mind
Windpower and Solar are unsteady, disturbing grid-stability and tremendously increasing overall-cost of electric power. Over the 10 years of horrible windpower-expansion in Germany cost for consumers have increased for app. 10 EUR-Cent to 20 EUR-Cent /kWh, even if the main producers like nuclear and lignite are still at 2,5 Cent per kWh. Main reasons are:
-the high costs for Solar and Windpower
-transportation-Cost (upgrade of grid)
-managing the grid with shadow-utilities

Now industrie is leaving the country because of the expensivnes of electrity.
Comment
18 of 27
July 16, 2008
Finally the Swiss government made the bold move too. Like Germany and other European countries they have realized that they can help boost new markets and industires with the right stimulus package. It's too bad that US Congress still does not understand this concept and yet again chokes the domestic RE industry with recent decisions (by not extending the alternative energy tax credit).
Yes, a concept like this does cost money. But it also stimulates innovation, creates jobs, new markets, new companies... all in the end contributing yet again to tax revenues.
Comment
19 of 27
July 16, 2008
I bet if you faced your panels west, you could get decent PV generation until late afternoon. Especially at high altitudes, which the Swiss definitely have.
Comment
20 of 27
July 17, 2008
Kudos for the Swiss!!!
And to responde Steven's comments, I like to said that his brain works backwards and individuals like him deserve no part of the human race.
I wonder where country is he from?
I hope he is teaming up with Mr. Cheney and company.
Comment
21 of 27
Another country leaving the US in their dust when it comes to THE only real way to fast track truly green renewable energy production and use in this country. The people claiming tariffs won't work (even though other countries are proving them wrong) and local generation is not the answer, are the ones who stand to gain from a continued Big Energy monopoly and stranglehold. T Boone Pickens is proving that the folks who brought us oil dependency and high gas prices are the same folks that want us to surrender our open spaces for their highly subsidized (our money) high profit killing fields. Meet the new Big Energy bosses - same as the old Big Energy bosses!
Comment
22 of 27
July 17, 2008
Interesting how a list one supposes is made up of pro-renewable energy folks, generates so many anti-renewable and pro-nuclear comments.

The whole function of feed-in tariffs is to overcome inertia and get renewables up-and-running ASAP. And one can only install today's rechnology, and it takes a 20 year pay-back to amortize the capital cost.

As the man said, "the Swiss got it right". The US will continue to strip-mine (rape) its countryside while we Canadians will continue to pretend dirty tar-sand production doesn't generate enormous emissions of co2 and spoil the groundwater for future generations. Sigh.
Comment
23 of 27
July 18, 2008
Steven, you seem to forget that the world is facing an energy crisis. The Swiss are wisely allowing their citizens to quickly do something positive to ease the problem. Electric cars are just about to be made available, so more than ever electrical sources must be expanded. Since Switzerland has large hydro power dams which can act as storage batteries the fluctuations in power production of wind and solar panels can be handled efficiently. Perhaps you are wealthy enough to handle the capital cost of such installations on your own, most are not able. This allows the general population to participate. Nuclear power is fantastically expensive to build and should be given no consideration. Expanding fossil fuel plants is foolish if we are to reduce global warming, so I am in full support of the Swiss action. I wish Canada would do something meaningful instead of doing nothing.
Comment
24 of 27
July 18, 2008
What a terrible idea.

Lookit, I'm all for alternative energy. My house runs on 100% solar and wind combined. That's not an issue.

My issue is forced buys by government of this energy. I'm pretty sure that nobody here would approve of minimum price controls for coal or oil. Guaranteed prices for farmers, milk, peanuts--these are all things we rail about when we talk about the high price of government. So why in the world are guaranteed prices for wind okay with some folks?

What a poor idea.
Comment
25 of 27
July 18, 2008
My practical experience is showing that grid panel orientation isn't that important. I have 20 east facing panels and 10 south facing panels. From Feb 29 through yesterday my east facing panels have produced 2354 kWhr and my south facing panels 1210 kWhr. That is 3564 kWhr total from a system rated at 6500 kWhr / yr. So the system is performing very well.

The east facing panels have produced a little over 97% ( .973 = (2354/2) / 1210) of the power of the power of the south facing panels (on a per panel basis). I do suspect that east is actually better than west for two reasons. One reason is temperature. It is cooler in the morning (providing better efficiency) when the east facing panels are lit up. The other reason is atmospheric. I believe that more sun is available in the morning than the evening due to afternoon thunderstorms. North facing is, of course, not a good application.
Comment
26 of 27
July 20, 2008
We should fire the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed "new congress in town" and outsource The function to the Swiss.

Americans already know that the 110th congress is dysfunctional. We give it a 15% approval rating; lower than that we give GW Bush.

At last count there were 200,000 well paying jobs in the German Renewable Industry. That is as many as are presently employed in the German Auto Industry. I think the Swiss get it. The "new congress in town" does not!!

America is exporting those well paying jobs to Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Japan and now to Switzerland!
Comment
27 of 27
July 25, 2008
Jim Berry wrote: "Solar peaks in production at noon and fades away by 3 pm in a good spot or 1:30 pm in a bad spot. In Contrast, the Demand Cycle begins in the afternoon and goes to 7/8 pm."

Just apply solar trackers and you will add 30-40% more energy in the morning and evening, more closely matching peak loads. Neither nuclear, coal can follow peak loads easily, so solar has a major advantage in following peak. With 2-3 hours storage the peak is covered with solar.

Stephen, get your facts right: The automobile industry in Germany is one of the largest employers in the country, with a strong labour force of over 866,000 (2005) working in the industry. (Wikipedia). I guess a quarter of that is not bad, but it is far from parity.
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

paul gipe

View paul gipe's Profile
About: Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize it... more »

Advertise With Us

350 Media RussTech Inc. Growth Energy Ambient Technologies, Inc. Kipp & Zonen Helios Solar Works LORD Corporation
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