Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Germany Takes a Close Look at its FIT

By John Blau, European Contributor
December 15, 2009   |   14 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
14 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 14
December 15, 2009
IIRC, Germany doesn't have the solar and wind resources to make those non-fossil sources of energy as economic as other parts of the world.

The high feed in tariffs (FIT) are only subsidizing dubious investments.
Comment
2 of 14
December 15, 2009
Germany has good solar sources, there are better ones but line losses would kill the improvement. More importantly, is what Germany does not have: No oil or gas sources, so completely exposed to price increases in that area, and not much hydro sources. So it is left with wind and sun, which it should make best use of. Besides, FIT means there has to be production or there is no payment, as opposed to US grants where sometimes no production is required (installed capacity is what matters, what comes out of the meter doesn't). I wonder about the green capacity - I heard numbers as high as 15%, but here they claim only 5%. Too bad no cost is associated with nuclear fuel disposal, or it would likely never get off the ground.
No image available
Comment
3 of 14
Anonymous
December 15, 2009
The author writes: "Of the total price German households pay for electricity, renewable energy currently accounts for about 5 percent, a level that is not likely to show any marked increase in the future, according to the German Federal Environment Ministry."

This is a very unclear and dubious statement and the link provided as a reference is merely to the environment Ministry rather than a detailed calculation of the 5% figure. Given that Germany produces ~15% of its electricity from renewable sources, a purely grammatical reading of the sentence cannot be correct. Nor does it sound plausible that renewable energy produces only a 5% greater price than would be the case if there was so investment in renewables. Consider that by the end of 2008 solar PV accounted for 0.7% of generation and costs 6 times as much (not even counting distribution costs) as normal generation should. Thus solar alone must add at least 3.5% to total generation prices even if no new capacity had been added this year. Germany's wind and biomethane generation is also more costly than fossil fuel and nuclear generation so clearly renewables must lead to much more than a 5% cost increment. Given that Germany's electricity rates are among the highest and Europe and large rate increases are coming, this undocumented and vague 5% figure sounds like an intentional distortion of the true costs.
Steven
Comment
4 of 14
December 15, 2009
the EEG has not the only advantage that it makes electricity from renewables cheaper. Through that Germany has an great wind industry and a strong solar branche. additional just think about copenhagen and co2, through that could avoid a lot of them.
the 5 % from the author is correct, cause this are the costs for private households with an consumption of 3500 (kwh/ year) , this makes total cost 755€ per year for the electricity. In this are included 37,20 € for the EEG.
All this you will find here at side 26.
http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/broschuere_strom_aus_ee.pdf

You have bring in all the other costs but than you have also too bring in all the other avoided costs, the additional investments, additional workplaces and avoided social costs for the system.
No image available
Comment
5 of 14
Anonymous
December 16, 2009
The author of comment #4 has clarified that the 5% figure denotes the amount of an average bill that is directly dedicated to support FITs. This is only a small portion of the cost of renewable energy costs however--which is what the author of the main article suggested was 5%. Perhaps the most obvious indication of renewable costs is the overall price, which according to the pdf file mentioned in comment #4 is ~21 euro cents/kWh (or ~$0.30/kWh in US currency). This is 250% of what I pay in the US. If the same surcharge per kWh (1.1 euro cents=1.6 US cents) was applied to my bill in the US and magnified by the usual taxes and fees, it would add 15% to the bill. I'd consider that a lot to achieve a <1% market penetration rate for solar PV....
Steven
Comment
6 of 14
December 16, 2009
This is interesting for governments to make note of.
It seems that the Ute's will be able to severely leverage their margins for a supply that they are not at risk for. Where else will the consumer go?
Controls are required, which is what government is for.
The origional intention of FIT's is that they be cut back or phased out as RE becomes more mainstream. Early adopters would and should benefit most.

To keep my net metering electric outlay at near zero, I will need to supply enough electricity to cover the per-diem charge of the utility; over half my bill, or disconnect entirely and install batteries.
No image available
Comment
7 of 14
Anonymous
December 16, 2009
In comment #6 Phil writes: "To keep my net metering electric outlay at near zero, I will need to supply enough electricity to cover the per-diem charge of the utility; over half my bill, or disconnect entirely and install batteries."

Grid connection is a valuable service that the utilities should be allowed to charge a fee for providing. My utility co. estimates that ~40% of the cost of electricity is from distribution costs. Using battery backup is much more expensive than the small monthly utility fee, which suggests to me that this service is provided at bargain prices. I don't think that other rate payers should have to subsidize the value of grid connection for early adopters of solar PV.
Steven
Comment
8 of 14
December 16, 2009
"Consider that by the end of 2008 solar PV accounted for 0.7% of generation and costs 6 times as much (not even counting distribution costs) as normal generation should."

What exactly should be considered "normal" generation? The cost argument against renewables is cloudy without reference to a thorough and realistic inventory analysis of ALL costs associated with electricity generated from what is being considered as "normal" sources. I find that the direct and indirect costs for the exploration, excavation, transportation, refinement, more transportation, pollution (toxic and otherwise), distribution and ultimate transmission of all "normal" sources of fuel are usually not considered as relevant by anti-renewable pundits.

I have been on oil rigs with roughnecks, been an inventory assistant in a copper mine and have also been on solar installations with installers. Anyone else who has had these experiences knows the difference. Working with solar, wind and other renewables makes for cleaner and usually safer jobs than do the other "normal" options. Creating clean tech jobs makes life better for a lot of people. Seems very simple to me that we would find financial value in cleaning things up. Consider a permanent variable column in financial modeling tools for the human and environmental ramifications of a given industrial activity.

The German FIT should be more dynamic and the playing field should be leveled in the incentive schemes around the world. Favoritism for a particular kind of energy source looks to inevitably lead to the human tendency for greed, jealousy and possibly in extreme situations anger. Would it make sense to simply provide one tax credit across the board for anything labeled as fuel? Simplification seems imminent and immensely beneficial for us all. Our constitution was originally printed on 4 pages. The California Solar Initiative is over 200. I think something is wrong. Any comments?
No image available
Comment
9 of 14
Anonymous
December 16, 2009
You can get accurate data at the houshold level from a source which is rather pro-fossil and pro-nuclear than in the "green" corner: the German industry association of electricity and waterworks (BDEW). I.e. unsuspected! Unfortunately all in German, but here follows my free translation, and indeed the RE part is about 5% of the total costs for a typical household, summarized (from source link below).

Electricity generation, Stromerzeugung Euro/mth
distribution and marketing transport und -vertrieb 41,53 61%

VAT Mehrwertsteuer 10,81 16%

License Konzessionsabgabe 5,22 8%

Taxation to compensate
for environmental
damage
(also on gasoline etc.) Stromsteuer (Ökosteuer) 5,97 9%

FiT Erneuerbare Energie
Gesetz (EEG) 3,5 5%

Co-Gen Kraft-Wärme-Kopplungsgs. 0,67 1%

Total mth expenses for typical houshold in Euros in 2009 67,7 100%

Full data since 1998 in this file:
http://www.bdew.de/bdew.nsf/id/DE_20091120_PM_Unterschiedliche_Entwicklungen_bedeuten_unterschiedliche_Preise/$file/Stromrechnung_f%C3%BCr_Haushalte.pdf

I have attended many conferences on the topic of CO2 emisson costs, quota etc. All studies show that FiT is the more cost-effective solution. Even easier would be high GHG taxes, but no politician will do that, or do you vote for the politician who makes you pay the 10 fold for your coal generated electricity? Coal nowadays cost 2 Euro/GJ, while a vegetable oil costs (w/o taxes) 15 to 20 Euro/GJ. Unfortunately these basic facts are nit well known and often distorted by taxes and a public opinion not interested in complicated matters.

Reynier Funke
No image available
Comment
10 of 14
Anonymous
December 16, 2009
Reyneir Funke writes in comment #9:
"I have attended many conferences on the topic of CO2 emisson costs, quota etc. All studies show that FiT is the more cost-effective solution. "

If the metric for success is installation rates for renewables, then sure, paying well above market rates via FITs will lead to relatively large installation rates in the short term (half the world's production of solar PV is going to cloudy Germany for a reason--they pay too much for it). This seems to me to be a poor measure of success though. I'd be much more interested in the percentage of market penetration in the long term (decades) as well as in long term costs. Almost surely increased funding for R&D is, at this point, a better use of funds than FITs if one is interested in long term goals. I have never seen a study that compared FITs to R&D expenditures--if anyone has please point it out....
Steven
Comment
11 of 14
December 16, 2009
The uptake in solar electric in Germany is responsible for an increase in power cost on a number of levels but it is the fault of how the government set up the system, not the fault of the installers of solar electric systems.

http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/09/german-fit-system-brilliant.html

It doesn't have to be so and no incentives are needed from the government.

http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/solar-electric-government-role.html

William
wlhgmk@gmail.com
Comment
12 of 14
December 17, 2009
Folks, Germany's renewable energy law is based on the USA's PURPA law from 1978. The feed-in tariff for renewable energy is an AMERICAN concept. The best quality solar modules (both crystalline and thin-film) come from AMERICAN manufacturers (SunPower, First Solar, and others) and they make most of their revenue in GERMANY because America is too scared of the perceived incremental costs of solar.

How high are those costs really? Well, the average German household uses 3500 kWh per year and pays 20 eurocents per kWh including all taxes. That's 700 Euros per year in electricity costs. Even if the 5% added cost figure above is accurate (and I believe it's too high), that still means that solar adds only 5% of 700 EUR in yearly costs, i.e. 35 EUR per year i.e. 2.91 EUR per month. Yesterday, I had a glass of mineral water in a bar in Munich. It cost me 3 EUR...about US $4.50...probably less than you spent on coffee this morning.

So for less than the cost of a glass of water per month Germany is using an AMERICAN idea to drive manufacturing volumes for solar up and costs (and prices) down. And it's working -- something that critics of solar power consistently ignore. The price of a 100 kWp solar power system, for example, has decreased by over 12,5% per year from Q3 2006 to Q3 of this year. Prices were down AGAIN this quarter. Has the price YOU pay for electricity been dropping 12% per year? The figures I have from the US Department of Energy show that retail, residential electricity prices INCREASED on average 6% per year from 2001-2007 (latest year of full-year data).

Germany's renewable energy law (made in the USA!) WORKS. It delivers falling prices for solar power (and many other renewables), cleaner air, green jobs (including for those AMERICAN manufacturers). But instead of giving credit where credit is due and surpassing Germany's record (easily done given America's sunnier climate). Solar power critics find fault, bitch and complain. How utterly disgusting.
No image available
Comment
13 of 14
Anonymous
December 17, 2009
With REFORESTATION emerging as the preferred solution to reducing not only CO2 emissions but other GHG's , as well as providing many side benefits---wildlife habitat and aquifer enhancement, etc. ; expensive alternative energy sources are becoming less desirable.

Read this about the pending endorsement from Copenhagen: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/science/earth/16forest.html?scp=3&sq=&st=nyt

When a commenter asks "Has the price YOU pay for electricity been dropping 12% per year? "....the answer is which price...generation or distribution?

Generation costs in Maine are about to take a big drop from an interconnect with QUEBEC hydro; while distribution costs are not only going up due to the remote location of wind farms, but newly organized resistance from Environmentalists has halted several big wind projects in the past month.

The Public Utilities Commission has already liberalized our NETMETERING bill; and reburses individual generators at the combined generation & distribution rate and rolled subsidies into bulk rates for hydro.

The primary reason the proposed F.I.T. was defeated was that it was a financial burden on poor and elderly who could not afford rate increases or retrofit their homes for alt. energy generation.

Cap N Trade also adds costs to energy purchased by the poor and elderly and people living on fixed incomes and is meeting the same opposition from groups like the AARP who prefer fixed income be spent on health care and not more expensive energy.
No image available
Comment
14 of 14
Anonymous
December 17, 2009
Regarding Brian's comments in comment #12:

If you read the article carefully you will see that next year the EEG is going to 2.03 euro cents/kWh (~2.9 US cent/kWh). In the US such a charge would be a ~30% increase in electricity bills. And the fee would be much higher if the FIT had worked "better" and caused generation from PV to exceed a measly 0.7% (for 2008) of total generation. Most Americans would consider that a high price to pay--especially for such limited returns.

Brian claims that FITs led to dramatic price drops for PV cells. This is far from clear; new technology usually has prices that decline rapidly with time. For instance, computer memory never benefited from FITs but displayed even more dramatic price declines. I'd argue that artificially high demand from German and Spanish FITs SLOWED competitive pressures that would have driven prices down even faster. Price supports and shortages of silicon made nearly any manufacturing process profitable until quite recently. Much of the recent progress in solar technology seems to be coming from the US and China. Perhaps if the Germans had spent their money on R&D they would be in a better position to contribute to real progress.

Brian also seems to conflate critics of FIT policies with solar energy critics; this is faulty reasoning.
Steven
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

John Blau

View John Blau's Profile
About: I'm based in Germany where I have accumulated more than 25 years of experience as a journalist focused on business, economics, technology and the environment. I... more »

Advertise With Us

Magnum Energy Inc. Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative Kipp & Zonen Prudent Living, Inc. Rolls Battery Engineering Blue Sky Energy, Inc.
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