Germany Passes More Aggressive Renewable Energy Law

Paul Gipe, Contributor
July 25, 2011 | 22 Comments

Despite widespread rumors in North America that Germany was abandoning its system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs, the country's upper chamber of parliament, the Bundesrat, approved the latest revision of its pioneering Renewable Energy Sources Act on July 8.

The action follows approval by Germany's House of Commons, the Bundestag, on June 30. The new version of the law first introduced in Germany in 2000 will go into effect January 1.

Approval of the latest revisions of the Renewable Energy Sources Act, the Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG) in German, is significant because it follows the nuclear accident at Fukishima, Japan and the debate in Germany about the future of nuclear power.

The 30-year debate on nuclear in Germany was settled earlier this summer when parliament decisively voted to quit nuclear power by 2022. Germany is currently ruled by a coalition of the Conservative (CDU/CSU), and the neoliberal (FDP) parties. Thus, the vote on revisions to the Renewable Energy Sources Act for 2012 follows the decision to quit nuclear power and further expand the role of renewable energy in the electricity sector.

The revisions for 2012 were part of regularly scheduled periodic revisions. Previous revisions occurred in 2004 and 2009.

The 2012 EEG sets a minimum requirement of not less than 35 percent of renewable energy in electricity supply by 2020, not less than 50 percent by 2030, not less than 65 percent by 2040 and not less than 80 percent by 2050.

However, the law actually sets a target of between 35 and 40 percent of supply within the next decade. This conforms to a decision made by the Ministry of Environment in 2010. Rather than reducing its commitment to expanding renewable energy, Germany has codified a more aggressive target than in the previous law.

Final interpretation of the complex 204-page law will be issued by the Ministry of the Environment (BMU) later this summer.

Some key provisions of the 2012 EEG include

Raising biomass tariffs nearly 30 percent from €0.11/kWh ($0.16/kWh) to €0.14/kWh ($0.20/kWh) for plants less than 150 kW in size.
Increasing geothermal tariffs more than 50 percent from €0.16/kWh ($0.22/kWh) for small projects to €0.25/kWh ($0.36/kWh) for all projects.
Increasing offshore wind tariffs 15 percent from €0.13/kWh ($0.19/kWh) to €0.15/kWh ($0.21/kWh).
Increasing the "starter" bonus for offshore wind nearly 25 percent from €0.15/kWh ($0.21/kWh) to €0.19/kWh ($0.27/kWh).
Maintaining the 2011 degression for solar photovoltaics (solar PV) into 2012.
Maintaining the tariffs for wind energy on land, including the repowering bonus.

Significantly, parliament again stated its support for the rapid development of solar PV in Germany. The 2012 EEG continued the current policy of regulating solar PV development within a "growth corridor" of 3,500 MW per year.

If Germany maintains growth of solar PV of 3,500 MW per year it will remain the world's largest solar market for the foreseeable future. Both the government and the industry expect solar PV capacity to exceed 50,000 MW by 2020.

Solar PV growth will be regulated by adjustments in the annual degression rate of 9 percent. If the growth exceeds the target, the degression is increased. If growth is less than the target, the degression is decreased.

In addition, the 2012 EEG continues the German reference yield system for wind energy both onshore and offshore. The system is designed to ensure that not only wind energy at windy sites can be developed but also wind energy at less windy sites as well. The system has proven successful. Today, nearly 60 percent of all wind energy in Germany is developed in the less windy interior of the country, taking development pressure off the windy North Sea cost.

See Tables of Feed-In Tariffs Worldwide for details on the 2012 EEG as well as updated feed-in tariffs on Britain's Renewable Heat Incentive.

22 Comments

Upali Wickramasinghe
August 1, 2011

phil-manke-79191

I hope that you will accept 21 as true.

Upali Wickramasinghe
August 1, 2011

steve-poppitz-157135.
I have identified a group of plants, whose yields vary depending on the cultivar.At the lowest end they ( 3+1) can replace all fossil fuels and nuclear energy as transport fuel.At the higher end the bio fuels production projected is massive.( An American Prof in the energy field said that it was too optimistic)My studies were based on bioethanol. Now I find that similar yields could be obtained as Bio butanol. In which case biobutanol can replace fossil fuel in toto as fuels, not as intermediaries in the Chemical industry.

Steve Poppitz
July 29, 2011

Plants absorb CO2 as they grow. Plants are renewable.Raising them, harvesting them, and burning them in electric generation creates local jobs.
There pollution when burnt is minimal.(no heavy sh_t released when burnt like oil and coal) Worry about getting off of IMPORTED oil first, coal second, and in a few decades we can transition away from burning wood, ethanol, and other forms of carbon based life forms. BUT UNTIL THEN, give me biofuels, give me pellet stoves, give me any intelligent way of getting away from oil & coal.

Phil Manke
July 29, 2011

Several points;
*degression is "a downward movement".
*I am not into appreciation of religion. Just truth.
*"Burn-tec" is just that, and it will increase the production of CO2 into the atmosphere along with many other pollutants in its use and manufacture while reducing the bio-reserve of the planet. I encourage moving away from it as we can, rather than finding new things to burn, with the possible exception of hydrogen.

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 29, 2011

phil-manke-79191
You have diverted the discussion to religion. The ground situation is that cheap fossil fuels are on the way out.With the known and yet to be identified / discovered sources of fossil fuels the world may run till about 2100, but at a price.The recently discovered sources off the coast of Venezuela the stock is reported to lie 21000 meters below the sea level and there is a rock in between. There may be many more sources like this still to be resourced but oil off these will not be available cheap- rather gasoline from such sources would be at super luxury prices.That is why world is in search of alternatives.I have already dealt with the limits on geothermal,solar thermal, wind and solar.You can forget any inclusion of hybrids, ammonia, hydrogen,H2CNG, Nitrogen and compressed air.All these need energy to produce and at present what is used is fossil fuel based.
You can forget members of the grass family oil palm and jetropa as long term measures, because of the water requirement and exposure of the soil to solar based heat which will dry the soil and cause dehydration of the soil.You can forget Algea because it had been like a carrot -it is there but not there.
The final solution will lie in canopied plants with long life cycles, not life cycles limited to a few months as corn and others.Switch grass may supply the bulk for biofuels but they do not protect the soil or help to preserve the moisture in the soil.

That is the principle involved. Out of the Tropical plants biologists will identify a wide variety and combinations - that identity is not sarcosant, but the principle is.

I do hope that I have cleared your doubts.

ANONYMOUS
July 29, 2011

Can someone define degression?

Phil Manke
July 28, 2011

Well, my views on burn-tec still remain, and is not supported by nature.
My goal is to elevate the level of thinking of all who are willing. Those who are not will be eventually.
If we think we are an effect of this world, then we are lost. If we accept that we have caused this world we believe we see, then we have a chance to change it. Only by accepting our true role as co-creators with God will we see our responsibliity as unavoidable. Practical reason displays the next steps to the reasonable mind and ths path is plainly seen. Conflict is the forum of the little mind that sees itself as separate and alone, fighting for scraps of sustainance in a finite universe. There may be those who do not believe this, and that is OK. The world is filled with many evolving minds, and the way cannot be shared through force or war, because that is reinforcing difference and separation. Any government that uses these methods is small thinking and, at best, will soon end by whatever means.
Realizing that we make the world we see is key to changing it. That it exists outside our mind is a belief, and that can be changed, even tho the ego counsels otherwise.

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 28, 2011

If this project is implemented, the lead time is about 10 years. By that time the plantations will provide enough wood that can be pelletized and shipped to the temperate north for use as material for prime power.I find that this is happening on a limited scale in the US, using waste from wood work.

After all this what nature wanted not pull out dead plants that died millions of years ago. nature wood like us to allow those to rest in their death bed 1000s of feet below the ground.

Do hope that this will clear your doubts.

As an aside, the world can exist with the known and still to be known fossil fuels till about 2100.But this will be at a price.There are a group of people who advocate the destruction of the weak, as in Greece of yore.As modern day human beings I doubt that either of us will contribute to that philosophy.
So the only available and viable alternative is my proposa

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 28, 2011

phil-manke-79191
What I said was"The rational solution lies in growing canopied plants in the tropics as feed stock for bioethanol or bio butanol and the temperate countries to grow plants for base power. The tropics can find the biomass for prime power".

What the temperate countries are conversant with are members of the grass family or related species ( jetropa, oil palm) All these suck a massive amount of water in the ratio of Yield :to water in excess of 1000 some near 5000. What this means is that by depending on renewables based on these plants we depriving the mankind of water.Solar power is OK when there is sunlight.Solar power in the night is still in the laboratory stage.Wind power is ok, as long there is wind.Solar thermal is OK as long as there is sun ie about 8hrs a day max and not during your winter.Geothermal is OK as long as you have the underground":facilities"If there are no hot springs no geothermal.

When I spoke of canopied plants grown in the tropics, they should act as feedstock for biofuels.A well grown canopied plant does not require agro chemicals, water( in fact they help to preserve soil moisture and build soil moisture levels.A combination of tropical plants can keep the ethanol refineries self fed with it's, energy requirement and produce excess feed stock.

Marie Burton
July 28, 2011

There are so many problems with wind turbines and I am glad to see that Germany has considered them and decided to make sure there are more stringent laws regarding their approval, however most are not efficient nor profitable without government subsidies. There should be non biased representatives who will research their safety and efficiency before any more are approved. Wind power will never provide what is needed there are far better renewables that even a country like India they have built a power generator from human waste surely one of the better ideas than wind power which needs backup from some other source as the wind does not blow continually nor if it blows too much the turbines have to be shutdown. Go solar, geothermal,wave, waste, methane and any others besides wind which is too inefficient, expensive, and adds to CO2 emssions with its construction and the tonnnes and tonnes of the world's worst source of pollution i.e. concrete to anchor them. I cannot see wind providing enough energy to meet the mtargets the government requires.

John Giannasca
July 28, 2011

Phil, you make good points that are lost in the language...not that I think you care. Reading through these forums you would never guess that we have more in common than not. We are where we are. Its the next move that counts. "How do you eat an elephant...one mouthful at a time". Zealotry will ruin the debate. The move forward needs to be economically achievable and the process sold to the masses. I work in the area of Remote Area Power Systems where the addition of renewables to diesel generation provides a simple and economic alternative to diesel as a fuel. There are some in this industry that want 100% renewable and see any diesel generation as a sell out. Problem is these projects don't get up. My argument is that I could do 10 projects at $1M each that save 50% of the diesel consumption at each site or spend $10M and reduce the diesel consumption by 80% at one site. I know which alternative gives the best result for the environment.
My poor attempt at making a point is this. The move to increased penetration of renewables has to be economically sustainable or else we are giving governments an easy out of the problem. They will just say they cant afford it...initiate another study/report/committee to examine the problem and in 10 years we will still be at the same point. Small definite steps, that's what is needed.

John Giannasca
July 28, 2011

Thanks Steve. You have given me cause to think. I guess because I don't have a renewable energy background (process control and energy storage systems) I have fallen into the trap that I have cautioned people against i.e. criticism without the facts. You are right. Biomass has a role and I should not have dismissed it out of hand.
I guess that's why I love these forums.
As I mentioned energy storage before, my hope is that this industry is fostered and acknowledged as the enabler not just for the large scale uptake of variable remewables (wind and PV) but to support the aging grid while the inevitable structural changes that need to be made to the grid are made.

Phil Manke
July 27, 2011

3.5 or so, billion years of evolution could not concieve a "tinkers damn" for your percieved energy needs. The creatures that did not leave the site of their nurture in better shape for their passing have perished, and still are. No exceptions, except for a few parasites.

Steve Poppitz
July 27, 2011

JohnG, I liked your first two comments, however I believe that biomass & biofuels are renewable and abundant here in the USA. You noticed in this article that the Germans are raising their F-I-Tariffs by 30% for small scale biomass plants. And do you know where they are getting a bunch of their pellet fuel? Suburban Atlanta,GA. I do admire the Germans for their leadership in renewables. I hope we can follow their lead. But we in America have to break the strangle hold of Big Oil & Big Coal, and I think we have to do it at the state and local level.
Our federal gov't elected officials are bought and sold like street walkers, selling to the highest bidders. They will be of little or no help until we change the system. State and local people need to take back our power generation. Big solar in the Southwest.Onshore wind in the Midwest.And if we can grow and pelletize wood in suburban Atlanta, I'm sure we can do it all over the South. Etc.Etc. When you burn wood and compostable waste there is a tiny fraction of the pollution of coal,(no sulphur dioxide, no heavy metals) and it is local, and it is renewable, and it makes local jobs. So John, I agree with you A LOT. I believe we can completely replace fossil fuels.But I hope you reconsider your position on biomass use. And ruffie, I agree that Politicians come and go, and so do nuke plants ( The one in N.E.Japan is gone and will be in clean up for a generation or two. All of them in Germany will be gone soon.)

Phil Manke
July 27, 2011

When I am at peace, I understand that we do not have any energy problems in truth. We may experience a problem in perception and in the leaders we accept in our life. Public servants are not leaders by the office they hold. They are elected to be civil servants. Leaders are known by their actions. The stories and dogma that politicians spread is only that. It is not un-patriotic to disbelieve it, indeed it is our duty to question all of it.
I also appreciate the German government's adoption of RE in many forms. It seems they realize this world is not glorified by contest over resources or wealth.
In the USA we have glorified the childish bullies with greedy life values that can only be considered as insane. They must be called to task to pay for the life style choices they embrace as well as the choices they have made concerning the people they are to represent. They act like decadent fools and out of touch with common needs of the many. Yet, we have allowed them.

John Giannasca
July 27, 2011

Phil I agree. I do remember reading that if people lowered their thermostats by one degree in the winter we would go a long way to solving our energy problems. Not sure how true the fact is but the sentiment is right. We need to spend as much effort in reducing energy waste as we do on finding or supporting alternatives to fossil fuel to make the energy discussion sensible.
I have never been a supporter of biomass for fuel given that we do have alternatives that are cleaner.

Phil Manke
July 27, 2011

Commenter #4 starts with an embrace of sage advice and then clamps it with his/her own extremist solution.
Do you really accept that using biomass vegetation for fuel will maintain the planet in a viable condition, when all history and human nature has proven that any expandable energy source will be developed to unsustainable proportions? A more peaceful mind may not care to foolishly demonstrate that the burning of any fuel for insatiable energy appetites will eventually render the planet denuded and mortal.

Maria Petrova
July 27, 2011

I applaud Germany for taking a brave and decisive step towards renewable energy.

Maria
BC Power
www.bcpower.eu

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 27, 2011

ruffie: Politicians come and go, and as T.S.Elliot said " An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes hve a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry"
or as H.L.Meneker said"Looking for an honest politician is like looking for an ethical burglar"

Politics is politics,but in the West public objections do matter,what does not matter is arriving at a rational solution. The rational solution lies in growing canopied plants in the tropics as feed stock for bioethanol or bio butanol and the temperate countries to grow plants for base power. The tropics can find the biomass for prime power.

John Giannasca
July 27, 2011

Ruffie you are right. We need power 24/7. Ruffie you are wrong. Renewables will do it. No one is saying that it will happen over night, but it will happen. The trend is there and the debate is constant. I am glad you have your view and you put it the way you do because it keeps the renewable zealots in check. Its the zealots who want 100% renewables now at any cost who are the problem. The transition to renewables has started and commercial interests will now take over. Some years ago it was said that if it could be proven that mans intervention did not cause earths temperature to rise then the renewable industry would have fallen in a heap. I agree with that statement. The reality now is that the renewable industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with a critical mass to move forward. It still need public money to be viable, just not as much as it did. Good old economies of scale are taking over. Traditional power generators can fight the increased penetration of renewables but that's a waste of time and effort, they should be changing their power mix to add renewables and change peoples perception of what a power generator should look like. Nobody is going to shut down plants tomorrow, they are looking for a sustainable plan for the future.

tom clark
July 26, 2011

Politicians come and go and this bunch will be long gone while the nuclear plants will still be running and new coal plants will be built - that's reality. We need power 24/7 that we can afford and renewables will not do that -period.

John Giannasca
July 26, 2011

This article is no surprise. Germany has led the way in how governments can push the renewable agenda which both benefits the environment and builds an economy. One day other countries will sit back in awe and just wonder why. Why did all the other countries not see that Germany was able to transition its economy away from fossil and nuclear to renewable in a way that spawned new industries that lead to job creation and economic growth.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Paul Gipe

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 its impact on the environment and the communities of which it is a part. For his...