Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Utility-Scale Thin-Film: Three New Plants in Germany Total Almost 50 MW

Germany has been breaking records with its thin-film developments, and with three developments totalling almost 50 MW of new capacity, this rapidly emerging technology continues to set the bar higher.

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
'In light of the current capital market crisis, solar energy has now become a safe and sought-after investment.'

-- Jochen Kirmaier, Managing Director, Conergy Deutschland
19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
March 11, 2009
35.49 eurocents/kWh = 45.35 US_cents/kWh. This is an enormous price to pay for electricity (and to guarantee to pay for 20 years) and does not even include distribution costs. If I was buying my electricity in Germany I would be reading such articles with great dismay.
Comment
2 of 19
Germany suinlight is a little more than half of what the US gets in the Southwest. Thus same systems in SW would be about 17 c/kWh - pretty close to peak power price in daytime. Irony is Germany led the way despite sunlight. But what do they pay for their peak power - and how about their natural gas dependence? Sounds worth it. PV has made great progress with the help of the German leadership.
Comment
3 of 19
March 13, 2009
The point with this feed-in system is that the power producers are guaranteed that high rate of income over a sustained period (which makes installation of a plant a good economic proposition). But cost of the whole 'pot' of feed-in payments is then passed on by the utilities to every single electric power consumer in the country. With every billpayer paying just a few euros a month, (a sum that shows up clearly on the utility bill) it's a very small, shared burden. And as the German renewables industry has been built up on the back of that system - bringing jobs, exports and clean power - the collective benefits are enormous and the system is broadly perceived as well worthwhile.
Comment
4 of 19
March 13, 2009
You hit it right on, Jackie.
Germany chose to take the lead in green energy and they knew they had to make it profitable, and to guarantee grid access. These "feed-in tarriffs" do in fact decline over time, to reflect expected progress and economies of scale for makers. Thus new projects starting in future years will get somewhat lower rates, but should still be ahead of break-even.
Our provincial government here in Ontario just announced a similar plan, inspired in large part by Germany (and California). We're committed to closing the last coal-fired power plants here by 2014. (Next we have to pressure our neighbours upwind, in Michigan and the Ohio valley, to follow suit!)
Details of the Ontario plan are at http://www.greenenergyact.ca and there is detailed commentary on it at Tyler Hamilton's news/blog site: http://www.cleanbreak.ca including exact $Cdn rates proposed for our new programs.
Comment
5 of 19
March 13, 2009
I want my company in on this comming exploding new market, Please contact me with any info, at we7hunt@msn.com Thanks, Rick
Comment
6 of 19
March 13, 2009
The notion that paying more that the market rate for something will eventually lead to producers supplying it cheaply is deeply flawed. Germany would have been far better off if it had put the money squandered on these solar FITs into R&D for designing better methods. They are now on the hook to pay these ghastly high rates for twenty years whereas hopefully the rest of us will eventually develop renewables that cost a small fraction of these prices.
Comment
7 of 19
March 14, 2009
The cost of coal power plant includes other components:
1. Cost of health care from pollution from mercury in fish, acid rain destroyed forests; smog caused health issues, etc.
2. Coal is a non-renewable resource. Majority of our chemical raw materials come from coal. Burning them up is a tremendous waste of resources.
Comment
8 of 19
While Steven is basically right from a first sight point of view when calling the guarateed feed-in rates "ghastly high rates for twenty years", Jackie Jones invites broader understanding by adressing the background concept (guaranteed income for the investor into application of new and still risky technology over a sustained period), the shared energy-consumer- billpayer approach for repayment (in fact not subsidies) and the additional public money R&D-support (subsidies) to promote technological innovation and market introduction of new systems in Germany.
This strategy is gradually becoming an effective pathway to promote solar-energy innovation in a country with only half the sunshine of (e.g.) Florida but strong interest to promote sustaibable development based on renewable energies. This may happen through various CO2-mitigation efforts, including ecologically progressive technological solutions and sustaibable development of renewable energies. It would finally be economically rewarding if viable solutions (supported by e.g. ghastly feed-in-pay systems) would find buyers on external markets. Rick Hunton is just in time looking into this potential. Good luck, Rick!
Comment
9 of 19
March 14, 2009
Hmmm... isnt Cadmium one of the most toxic materials on the EURO ROHS list? Is seems appalling that they would get excited by and remove a little Chrisotile Asbestos from the roof of the admin building and then go plant acre upon acre of CADMIUM (more toxic than Lead) based photovoltaics... just wait till a few panels get cracked by weather or the seals start to leak...

I suppose, when this happens, the 'greenies' will keep their traps shut because, after all, solar is by definition, green.
Comment
10 of 19
March 14, 2009
An interesting twist on this is that if high inflation happens, the FIT that goes down will be worth much less.

If oil and gas availability get interrupted, the value of the power will go up, but the owners of generating capacity won't have a way to adjust, if these contracts are honored as written.

Advances are being made in cleaning up metals toxicity with plants and fungi. I recall calling poison control when my husband and his brother baby-sat small children who got into cadmium paint. They said it will just go through, don't worry too much. Airborne cadmium would be a different matter, I'm sure.

In general, most of the Europeans seem pretty on top of toxicity issues. Remember the Chinese ships loaded with plastic toys that were not allowed to unload in Europe?

Thanks for the article.
Comment
11 of 19
March 14, 2009
If we are really serious about combating global warming, we shouldn't let the so-called high cost of solar PV (and other renewables) be a stumbling block. Germany has found a way-out with the encouraging feed-in tariff. And the high electricity cost is still driving a healthy economy in that country. Is this not America's argument against Kyoto?
Comment
12 of 19
March 14, 2009
In comment #12 Taofeek Ayinde writes: "Germany has found a way-out with the encouraging feed-in tariff. "

True, if by this it is meant that lawmakers have found a way to spend the public's money without taxes via mandated FITs. Wasteful expenditures on inefficient technologies with payment obligations twenty years into the future won't stop global warming; they will only lead to very high energy prices and the loss of energy intensive industries. These solar projects are costing at least a factor of 5 times as much as wind energy projects now and that spread will only increase as wind costs continue to decline. It is a dark irony that much of the world's solar cell production is being sited in cloudy Germany for grid based generation rather than in sunny off-grid areas where it might make sense.
Comment
13 of 19
March 15, 2009
Perhaps these FIT prices should be viewed as a Prediction of power rates at the Mid-point of the 20-year contracts, as fossil fuels continue to rise from:
- more energy demand from China, India, Brasil, etc
- more scarcity of oil (incl. political uncertainty of source contries)
- more concern to avoid/remove air pollution (see comment 8) and include
health-care costs in the Real cost of fossil-fuel energy
- higher inflation (caused by current anti-depression stimulus pacakges)
Comment
14 of 19
March 15, 2009
Germany doesn't slack regarding wind energy. There's a lot of installed base in wind. They are diversifying their RE.

The Germans are also ahead in passive design. If China hops on the passive-design train, we will see huge changes in world energy use.

I object to mandated anything. It works poorly. People don't like to be told what to do, and they work around mandates, sometimes squandering energy in rebelliousness.

Initial subsidies are baby boondoggles with the potential to grow too big to fail, by the government's definition.

Tax credits are different from subsidies. The people wanting to do something get to keep some of their own money to try it out. Let a thousand mushrooms fruit is my attitude on these.

Given the heavy burden of taxation and the possibility of serious inflation, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would oppose tax credits designed to increase resiliency of grids in the case of breaks in delivery from distant production.

Installing generating capacity that doesn't spew heavy metals into the air is happening. For now, the logic of it appeals, and the installed base of this kind of generation is increasing.

An event like Bhopal might put a dent in it. I do not know whether RE manufacturing is at risk of that kind of disaster.

We have major industrial disasters, such as massive river pollution, that do not get the attention or coverage they should.

Even if a disaster happens, it may not slow RE very much in economies where it takes off.
Comment
15 of 19
March 15, 2009
In comment #14 Lorne writes: "Perhaps these FIT prices should be viewed as a Prediction of power rates at the Mid-point of the 20-year contracts..."

If the free market was offering these prices there might be merit to this, but these FIT rates are being set by government and paid for by those with little control over the process. Already there are several methods (wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc.) that produce energy at much lower costs so it would be a disaster if prices in general rise to this level.

FITs end up picking winners in the competition over how to generate energy without a fair competition and in the absence of rational analysis.
Comment
16 of 19
March 16, 2009
A lot of comments here focus on the cost to the consumer, but I must echo Jackie Jones point: "With every billpayer paying just a few euros a month, it's a very small, shared burden. And as the German renewables industry has been built up on the back of that system - bringing jobs, exports and clean power."

The bottom line for Germany is that they position themselves as a nation in the forefront of a growing renewable energy industry (not just solar), just as they have in many other industries. Unless anyone is arguing that nobody should make ANY solar power, why not be one of the leaders? You can call the higher tarriff a tax if you prefer, but like most taxes there is a payback. It may not be cheap electricity right now or even in the near future, but it is reduced dependency on imported or fossil fuel, more jobs, exports, foreign investment. In this economic climate it sounds pretty sensible and I wish the UK government would do the same.
Comment
17 of 19
March 16, 2009
Regarding some of Charlie's comments in comment 16:
Virtually every time a large sum of money is spent one gains something (jobs, clean energy, etc., in this case), the relevant question is whether or not one might have gained much more from another investment. Huge solar FITs are an inefficient investment by this crucial measure; in particular, more R&D almost surely would have been a better use for these resources.

The fact that each energy consumer only has to pay a few euros does not make this a good investment. Each US taxpayer only has to finance a small part of the recent AIG bonuses, but you will be hard pressed to find someone happy about it (unless they got a check); spreading the consequences of an unfortunate expenditure among many does does diminish the deficiencies of the decision at all. At these high rates, the German energy user should be grateful that solar PV is so unsuccessful and generates so little energy, otherwise electricity costs would exceed food costs in the average family budget.

As for improving exports, these particular PV cells are being IMPORTED.

As for "reduced dependency of imported fuel", Germany almost certainly produces enough coal for its own needs so this does not displace imports.

I am not arguing solar power never be utilitzed, but merely suggesting it should be used in places when and where it is efficient to do so--the cloudy skies of Germany don't yet seem to be such a place.
Comment
18 of 19
March 17, 2009
To fireofenergy regarding comment #19: There rates US$0.45/kWh, which do even not include transmission costs, are 5 times as much as one usually pays, and if 20% of my electricity was mandated to come from them my bill would rise at least 80%, and YES that would be way too much to pay. At those increases, I'm sure all the companies smelting Al would go elsewhere and quite a few others would raise prices so I'd get hit from secondary effects as well. As for the "innovation that would come as a result" I don't see the connection between overpaying for something and innovation--if we want innovation it is far more efficient to pay for it directly by R&D funding.
Comment
19 of 19
March 18, 2009
Regarding comments in comments 23-24:

A carbon tax (not a cap and trade scheme, which involves bureaucracy) would disadvantage coal (albeit only in the country with the tax) but not select the replacement generation scheme; while not my favorite option, that at least is better than mandating a buildout of one of the least efficient schemes (solar PV) in the naive hope that somehow it would eventually become more efficient. At this time I'd rather see money put into aggressive research programs (in a wide variety of generation methods), a better transmission grid, and--where already efficient--wind and geothermal projects. Perhaps solar PV will one day be cost effective, but it isn't now and mass-producing inefficient cells seems ill advised.
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
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World

With 30,000 subscribers and a global readership in over 170 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine is targeted at those who make growth happen in renewable industries. Covering policy, technology, finance,... more »

 

David Appleyard

View David Appleyard's Profile
About: David Appleyard is Chief Editor of Renewable Energy World. He also currently holds the position of Chief Editor for sister publication Hydro Review Worldwide.... more »

Advertise With Us

US Solar Institute RES Offshore Fairtrade-Messe PLANSEE SE Talesun Solar Comment:Visions Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
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