The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Dark Clouds Threaten German Clean Energy Ambitions

John Petersen, Contributor
January 26, 2012  |  48 Comments

Print

During the fourteen years that I've lived in Switzerland, the Germans have been the world's staunchest supporters of green power and alternative energy. Their aggressive development of wind power was breathtaking, as was their warm embrace of photovoltaic power.

Over the last few weeks, however, there has been an ominous change in the mainstream German media's tone as the political class finally comes to grips with the unpleasant reality that rooftop solar panels are worthless on short, grey winter days and, "For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity." Three recent and highly negative articles from Der Spiegel Online include:
  • Solar Subsidy Sinkhole; Re-evaluating Germany's Blind Faith in the Sun
  • Solar Subsidy 'Insanity' Will Cost Consumers
  • Solar Energy Row is an 'Undignified Spectacle'

As recently as last year, articles like these would have been unthinkable. Today they're viewed as reasonable discussions of critical issues as the laws of thermodynamics and economic gravity assert their absolute primacy.

The Germans have been trailblazers in all things green since the emergence of the Green Party in the 1980s. In fact, it's hard to name an alternative energy technology that Germany hasn't welcomed with open arms. When it comes to green power and alternative energy, the Germans have been on the far left of the technology adoption curve for a very long time.

If the tone of the recent Der Spiegel articles is a reasonable indicator of public sentiment, the innovators are getting ready to throw in the towel on green panacea solutions and get down to the serious work of conserving energy instead. They're weighing the costs and benefits, and reaching an entirely predictable conclusion that it's impossible to depend on variable and inherently unreliable power sources as the backbone of an industrial economy. As Germany goes, so goes the world. 

If the world's standard-bearer for green power and alternative energy abandons the quest and chooses a more sensible path of conservation and energy efficiency, the backlash against the solar power industry will be immense and risks to the wind power industry will skyrocket. After all, it's hard to argue the merits of "One for the Price of Two" power solutions; which is exactly what you get when wind and solar power have to be fully backed up by conventional power plants. If the solar and wind power dominoes fall, they'll almost certainly take out the emerging electric vehicle industry that demands huge amounts of money and natural resources to simply substitute one fuel source for another.

Currently all eyes are on Germany as the epicenter of European efforts to restore fiscal balance in an age of profligate and unsustainable government spending. The apparent German surrender on green power and alternative energy may just be an unfortunate victim of that broader effort. Until the dark clouds dissipate and we have a clearer view of the landscape, I'd minimize my exposure to solar, wind and electric drive and focus instead on less costly energy efficiency technologies that work with the laws of thermodynamics and economic gravity instead of fighting them.

Disclosure: None

This article was originally published on AltEnergyStocks.com and was republished with permission.

48 Comments

Register To Comment
Larry Gilman
Larry Gilman
July 24, 2012
Peterson writes: "After all, it's hard to argue the merits of 'One for the Price of Two' power solutions; which is exactly what you get when wind and solar power have to be fully backed up by conventional power plants."

And when is that, exactly? Approximately never in real-world practice, rendering this a silly canard. E.g., the US has integrated over 17 GW of wind power (actual production, 1st four months of 2012 -- 4% of total US electric generation in that period -- see page 3 of http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf ) into its grid without adding a single megawatt of dedicated conventional backup. The conventional grid has always included a sprinkling of backup generators (in recent decades, mostly natural gas), because even conventional generators are inherently intermittent. (E.g., nuclear power plants close for weeks on end for refueling.) This built-in backup capacity has sufficed to handle the intermittency for all wind and solar capacity installed in the US grid to date. At some high level of renewable penetration, more backup may be required, but it is absolutely false that there is any "one for the price of two" requirement inherent to renewables. No country, even the heavily renewables-installing Germany, Spain, and Portugal, has had to build backup for its renewables on such ruinous terms. Any hint of such a requirement is fiction.

Mr. Petersen has apparently not attempted to seriously understand how renewables are integrated into the grid by working scientists and engineers. See, e.g., http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2010/ewits_final_report.pdf and http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47514.pdf .
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
February 2, 2012
@ Steven again.. Basically I misunderstood and thought that you meant that PV was not feasible bc it was causing these increases in the price germans pay for power.
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
February 2, 2012
@ Steven... As I said whether or not you meant it, that is what I read it as. Since you do not feel that way its fine.

Also, though I am no expert on Germany, my guess is that the energy prices are higher in Germany due to many of the same reasons CT prices are almost double the national average. And not sure if the comparison between renewables is fair bc in the US our renewable energy comes primarily from hydro power and not PV.

My point was not to say that energy prices in Germany are higher because the add the costs of societal damage are included. As far as I know they do not do that especially as it would not make sense to have the consumers pay more when the factories themselves are no cleaner. I was making a point in general to the economics of solar. If coal factories were made to pay for the environmental damage they cause, then the price difference between renewables and coal would be much much less. It is an extremely unfair process that harms society as a whole. It is like saying that nuclear plants don't have to pay to store/ recycle their waste. They could just dump it wherever they want and they have society deal with the mess.
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 2, 2012
Hi:

All these issues have been beat to death, the areas that need to be improved/ changes etc.. Stephens remarks as usual take the extreme ... 10 to 1 areas are very few, 4 to 1 is more average and there are areas where 3 to 1 is the reality... but of course he will site the worst... frankly discussing the same things over and over and over is like watching the same movie over and over again and about as intellectually stimulating as counting sheep... people who have a heavy profit motive though will always be happy to engage in the repetition and lack of real creative thought...

If you want answers to these questions, just search previous posts on this site or anyone of a 100 other sites... The info is already out there if you just bother to look a little...

.....Bill

.....EOL
rolf westgard
rolf westgard
February 2, 2012
Test
ANONYMOUS
February 2, 2012
William writes in comment #40: "The case for PV is obvious...."

Well, if one bothers to consider economic factors the case is rather dubious--at least at current prices. And then there is the intermittency issue that William conveniently ignores.... One especially serious aspect of PV intermittency is the seasonable variability. Solar provides much less output in winter than summer; in northern regions the difference between July and January solar insolation can be a factor of 10. For a PV market penetration of only a few percent of total generation this imbalance isn't so bad because we currently use more electricity in the summer, but seasonal consumption differences are not as large as one might think: in 2010 the US only used about 13.5% more electricity in July than January (alas, I don't have similar data at hand for Germany). Going forward, if we are really concerned about atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we will need to transition much of our heating from fossil fuels to electricity so winter will eventually become the period where we need the most electricity. Wind has a more mild seasonal variability than PV, with more generation in winter, and this will help smooth out the PV seasonal variability slightly; however, you don't really need all that much solar PV before you have to start worrying about what type of generation to add to meet WINTER demand. Germany's renewable budget is too heavily weighted toward solar PV, and investment in new technologies that might allow renewables to achieve high market penetration is very low (wind and PV are only going to get you so far). Solar PV may one day become reasonably priced, but by then Germany may already have installed all the PV it can reasonably accommodate in its generation mix and will have done so at premium prices. I don't think anyone aiming for a long term strategy would be in favor of the German FIT policy.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 2, 2012
@Bob regarding comment 34:
You said "So from your original comment it is to be inferred that the sole reason they have much higher energy costs is bc of renewables. "

I think if you read my various remarks carefully you will see that I discuss TWO issues. One is that the FIT payments are very high when compared to what has been obtained for this investment, and I detail the precise EEG costs. The second point is that even factoring out the EEG issue German electricity prices are very high and that Germans should be wondering about why they have to pay so much. At no point did I suggest this was also due to renewables--lots of other reasons exist for why energy can be overpriced.

Bob also remarks: "I think that if you factored in all of the damages from other sources such as coal, the costs would be very comparable if not less."

Externalities are a complicated matter, but they are rarely reflected in the price of electricity. Furthermore, the US and Germany have similar sources for their electricity: Coal contributed 43% to German electricity in 2011 and 45% to US electricity in 2010 (the last year for which full statistics are available). Nuclear contributed 17.7% in Germany in 2011 and 19.6% to US electricity in 2010. Renewables contributed 10% in the US in 2010 and will end up at about 12-13% in 2011; in Germany renewables contributed 16.5% in 2010 and 19.9% in 2011 so Germany is running about 7% ahead of the US in the renewables fraction. The balance is mostly in natural gas, where the US has a slightly higher dependence. The externality issue is pretty much a wash when comparing the US and Germany. Thus, the question remains: even after accounting for the EEG charge Germany pays vastly more per kWh for electricity that the US does--why?

Steven
Jan S
Jan S
February 1, 2012
@aligatorhardt our long transmission lines are above ground and underground within the cities

and @Bill the efficiency of the panel only matters if you work with limited or costly space. otherwise you would take least cost/watt. of course mentioning 20% on the package is a marketing advantage, but a project developer will look at what he really needs i suppose. power the system or power the system and use the least space.

I always find the pricing discussion annoying as i cant really argue against it because i cant really tell the real comparison costs.
Also i find it frustrating that making a lot of sense is not enough. To bring something forward it has to make sense financially. I am willing to pay some on top in the beginning. On the other side i do agree with the concerns that the higher prices, although it might only be 100 Euros per year, can be a problem for people who are less well off, and we do have families in germany who need every euro. We have many social schemes in germany (you could never think of that in the US. Just saw michael moores Sicko) and i figure that this sort of has to get aligned, too.

Living and working in bangladesh, i find it interesting to see, that it is easier to convince someone with a monthly income of 30$ to make an investment of 60$ for a solar lighting device. Electricity is even more expensive from small solar lamps where the panels still cost around 3-6$ per Watt. Only the comparison (lighting from kerosene an no electricity) is a different one. So here people save money, though still paying more for their energy. And they love it. Bangladesh is btw, the worlds most affected country from climate change. People here are poor, have to move away from the coast and suffer from increasing groundwater salinity. Just because western countries pollute the atmosphere for free and dont want to pay 5euro extra per month, while saving a lot of money on cloth made in BGD by people earning less than 2cents per hour.
D Rees
D Rees
February 1, 2012
@Bill - 20% efficiency is not the issue with PV. #1 issue for PV is cost until it can get close to grid parity at a wholesale level.

More efficient panels can help reduce the cost, but I know that if you could build a 10% panel for $0.25/W or a 20% panel for $1.00/W I know what you're going to sell a LOT more of.

More here:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/dont-be-a-pv-efficiency-snob/
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 1, 2012
Hi:

The case for PV is obvious.

Many years ago when PV was just at the beginning, the earliest user (NASA) said that the ability to take something with no moving parts, no chemical reactions and by simply setting it in the sun you get electricity, is extraordinarily compelling from an engineering perspective. The simplistic elegance of PV is undeniable. It is this simple fact that makes PV attractive even at 20% eff.. As the efficiencies rise, the appeal of this energy transforming device will be as potent as sexual attraction....
For reasons of money, people vested in competing industries will ALWAYS try to tear down with half truth, lies or a mix of both to shift opinion to their profit side. Such is the nature of running a planet on currency, rather than truth, ethics and well being..
When evaluating you simply have to look beyond the money and focus on the engineering or potential engineering and any related harm. If you do this, most of the time you will see with clarity.

.....Bill
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
February 1, 2012
I am not a German resident, but I have heard most of their neighborhoods have underground power lines. Underground transmission can cost as much as 4 times the price of overhead wires on poles. That difference alone can explain much of the price differences. I hope someone who lives there could speak to this detail. People are comparing prices, but for what? Subsidies are also an important consideration, as railroad subsidies should be added to coal, and our huge military costs should be added to petroleum. What of the environmental costs? In the US polluters do not clean up their contamination, often it falls on taxpayers to fund those clean ups after the corporate polluters have abandoned the sites.
Another important consideration is the fact that those fuel free systems will reach a pay off point then electricity costs go down, but fuel dependent system costs continue to rise with fuel costs and transportation costs. A long term investment is underway in Germany, and the payoff cannot be expected in the early years.

There is more value in solar electricity than just the power produced. A thriving manufacturing industry benefits the whole country. The money saved on reduced pollution related health care costs that result from the use of clean energy is another bonus.
Carolyn Luce
Carolyn Luce
February 1, 2012
energizer wrote,
"1000kwh per household? thats weird... thought the US was famous for energy wasting ^^. Just looked up the values for germany. They state average consumption per year is 1790kwh for single person HH, 3030kwh for 2 persons, 3880 kwh for 3 persons and around 4430kwh for 4 person households."

That's not weird. That's 1000 kWh per US household per month, while your Germany numbers are per year. So at roughly 12,000 kWh per year, a US household uses about 3 times as much electricity as a German household.

As for the lower cost of electricity in the US, I suspect it has something to do with the abundant natural resources in the US. The US imports maybe 10% of its natural gas, and is expected to start being a net exporter of natural gas soon. The US also has lots of coal and has been a net exporter of coal. Meanwhile Germany imports most of its natural gas and about 20% of its coal.

If you seriously want to look at US subsidies, look on the internet for the 100+ page EIA report "Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010"
Divide the 2010 $1,189 million coal-electricity subsidy in Table ES4 by the 1,847,290 million kWh generated by coal in 2010 and you get less than one tenth of a cent per kWh. Divide the $11,873 million electricity production subsidies and support for all fuel sources as well as transmission and distribution by the 4,125,060 million kWh of electricity generated in the US and you get about 0.3 cents/kWh.
Jan S
Jan S
February 1, 2012
the 3bn Euros on coal annually btw only comprise of direct subsidies. There is additionaly tax exemtions on power usage, free carbon CERs, some ease in water usage expenses....
Greenpeace (yep... i know...) states a total of 350bn Euros of subsidies between 1950 and 2008. 7bn a year. But nobody really knows.

Are there any insights in this subsidy issue in the US? Just would like to know, as your electricity is already cheaper even if you entirely exclude all renewables from both countries. As far as i can see Salaries are even higher in the US. Dont know about the energy sector specifics though. A technology issue it cant really be as i assume coal power technologies will be about the same.

Nuclear, same thing. Although i think US nuclear plants have to manage and pay their own waste storage on site and above ground. So thats already cheaper than 16.000 policemen on the road versus some 10.000 protesters throughout germany at walking pace. cost per transport is around 20-30mio Euros + later storage and possible recovery that might be necessary.
Jan S
Jan S
January 31, 2012
I mentioned in my statement that i am aware that some of the cost of RE imposed through EEG are also carried by those who consume the non-green tariff. So yes, its not a correct comparison of cost from RE to those from conventional energy. taking national averages to make a better comparison, this will also show how representative my regional provider example is for consumer prices:
1998 it was 17.13 eurocents per kwh.
2011 it was 24.95 eurocents per kwh.
the share of tax and all those additional costs (EEG... )has increased from 24% to 45% in this time. And just to mention it, the inflation adjusted price (base 1998) in 2011 is 20.47 eurocents.

I did not say that price increase is ok because we have the money anyways. I am saying it is more reasonable to have consumers pay the cost and not taxpayers. Right now, also with the 100% green tariff you will still pay your share of nuclear transports, storage and coal mining (without knowing how much this really comes to) through tax. and that is not ok. The mentioned minister Roesler says REs have grown up and now have to compete on the free market. Obviousely he is not at all aware that there is no free market in power supply.

If you are interested ill look up some numbers for coal and nuclear expenses. But as it is already difficult enough for the real lobby to figure all this out, i do not think that i can do the calculations in the forum. But the follow up cost for recovery of the mentioned Asse and all the stuff in there (which does not all come from power plants) will cost the taxpayer about as much as the total amount of subsidy payed into REs by now. And still there are bills not factored in.

I think its close to impossible to compare real prices and we do not know the real cost for the consumer. It is too distorted. Our coal subsidies have been extended until 2018. Costing taxpayers 3billion EUR annually. And thats only the mining, not the rest that comes on transport, power production.....
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
January 31, 2012
Just noticed I may have made a mistake. I see in your 2nd comment that you say you compared the mean German price to mean American price. If that is indeed triple then disregard the section of my comment about that.

I believe my other points to hold true.
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
January 31, 2012
@ Steven... While that may be true the importance is that power costs from the same source differ in different parts of the country and also different parts of the world. So from your original comment it is to be inferred that the sole reason they have much higher energy costs is bc of renewables. Maybe that is not what you meant but that is what it seems. My point is while the higher energy costs are no doubt in part due to renewables they are not just because of this fact.

Also, it is not entirely fair to compare one average to the regional price of another. Yes the Frankfurt area could have the lowest prices in Germany, but it also could have the highest. Not an assumption that should be made when trying to make an accurate comparison.

Not to mention you are comparing the costs to the consumer and not not the true cost of the energy produced. I think that if you factored in all of the damages from other sources such as coal, the costs would be very comparable if not less.
Edward Wilhelm
Edward Wilhelm
January 31, 2012
Thanks Bill ,I was commenting on the title and second paragraph of this article. Do not notice a mention of storms or rain, only clouds. Evacuated tubes do not seem to do their job on cloudy days. I love solar power of all kinds , including wind and biomass. The nuclear industry will kill almost all of us soon. Our governments have spent more money on nuclear weapons than it would take to solar power the world.Bitter irony ,I would love a warmer planet with blue skies.
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 31, 2012
Hi:

Ah, your nuts Edward...
Global warming is producing, as expected, a more stormy planet, hence more clouds and more grouped less distributed sun /cloudy days..., but it is not the capital "C", it is just a function of a warmer planet.
I do think it is sad that now we are starting to think we have screwed things up pretty badly and that one of the symptoms of that screwing up may make it harder to use the sun as a cure... bitter irony I guess....

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
January 31, 2012
@Bob regarding comment #29;
I was, of course, referring to the mean US rate which is ~$0.10/kWh. The mean German rate is more than triple the mean US rate. The (mean) cost of generation is only $0.06/kWh in the US, with the rest of the cost in distribution and transmission costs. If we compared US generation costs to those for Germany the comparison would be even more dramatic.
Steven
Edward Wilhelm
Edward Wilhelm
January 31, 2012
I think the article is about the dark clouds, which persist for weeks on end. REW should post articles on chemtrails, aerosol spraying, geoengineering...etc. There is a conspiracy to reduce renewable generation via weather manipulation, and conventional power companies have the funding to do it. I witness to solar not producing much on cloudy days. Perfectly clear days are ruined by airplanes spraying white expanding line clouds in my skies. Surprisingly these "cloudy" days are very calm and windless as well, so poor wind generation too.
Think on this thing.
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
January 31, 2012
@ Steven... Triple what we pay in US? That is a broad statement that is simply untrue. I pay 18 cents kw in CT.
ANONYMOUS
January 31, 2012
In comment #27 Energizer seems to suggest that the huge costs imposed by Germany's FIT scheme are reasonable because its people use only small amounts of electricity and are rich enough to pay. This is an unusual defense of a wasteful and ineffectual policy. If I were a German ratepayer I'd wonder why my rates are triple the rates in the US and I'd wonder why 100 Billion + Euros in subsidies bought so little progress in the adoption of renewables even if I could afford the costs.
Steven
Jan S
Jan S
January 31, 2012
here are two pricing lists of a random german power provider (in german). This one in the frankfurt area and offers mostly hydro-energy. only 20% of the sourced RE comes from EEG supported energy (not all REs are under EEG).

green: 24.98cents/kw

non-green: depending on your usage 24.98-27 cents (the less you use the more you pay... also strange), special tariff for 20.7 cents per KWh

(couldnt post the links, but its Mainova and the tarriffs Novanatur and Classic)

So conventional in this case can even be more expensive if you are a low consumer. But most people in fact will pay around 22cents per kwh.
Yes its regionally different, in some reagions you will buy more wind or solar or whatever. Also the here offered Hydro power is one of the cheapest you can have. Still these prices are not far off what you find in other regions.

1000kwh per household? thats weird... thought the US was famous for energy wasting ^^. Just looked up the values for germany. They state average consumption per year is 1790kwh for single person HH, 3030kwh for 2 persons, 3880 kwh for 3 persons and around 4430kwh for 4 person households.
Taking these figures the costs increase for a single person HH would be around 55 Euros and 140 Euros for 4 persons at around 3 cents price difference. Oh no! so expensive!

True, some cost of REs are also paid by those who dont decide to use green tarrifs, thats why the difference is not that immense, but on the other side i am financing nuclear and coal through my tax money. And thats some expense! research the Asse, which is our leaking nuclear waste facility. Yes it leaks... nuclear water stuff already coming out, so i dont even know what im paying for there. (as a matter of fact i dont pay tax in G, but still... a lot of my friends do)
Asse is a salt mine, now used for nuclear waste. Now water leaks in destabilizing the salt structures. calculate costs.
ANONYMOUS
January 30, 2012
Energizer writes in comment #23:
"Now in germany you can easily choose your electricity providfer,you can have a 100% green electricity supply or one that is 100% non-renewable. Funny enough that statistically the price difference here for a 2Person+1child family would amount to 5Eur per month. Even students can afford that (and do so)"

The EEG adds 3.592 Eurocents/kWh to the average cost of electricity. This funds only a subset of the ~20% of German electricity that is renewable (the hydro component, for instance, predates the EEG). Any sort of rational fee for 100% renewables would add more than 5 times the EEG cost or a MINIMUM of 18 Eurocents/kWh (neglecting intermittency costs that would start to be very expensive). So if a "2Person+1child family" used more than 30 kWh per month, their costs to elect 100% renewables should cost more than 5 Euros. I am guessing the average German family isn't that energy efficient! (Mean household electricity usage in the US is ~1000 kWh/month.) Thus, the "5Eur per month" fee to get 100% renewable sourced electricity in Germany has no resemblance to the true market price of renewable electricity. These types of "ecosaint" options are merely ego purchases that don't reflect true costs. Energizer implies that they are popular, but clearly less than 20% of the population purchases them because there is only that much renewable electricity to market.

I predict that the EEG rate for next year will rise considerably, even as FIT payments for PV decrease. The off shore wind program, which is behind schedule, is also going to eventually lead to significant rises in the EEG. As Germany closes down its nuclear facilities the base cost of electricity will also rise. Ultimately there will be a backlash to all these increased costs.
Steven
Jan S
Jan S
January 30, 2012
Actually one contributing factor to last years end-of-year ralley might have been the drop of PV prices over the year. People just waited for even cheaper prices, and they waited until the last possible point before FIT reduction. Getting the max out of it.

So earlier and more frequent revision of the FIT makes a lot of sense to balance installations and prices.
Jan S
Jan S
January 29, 2012
Not finished yet :)


I do agree to concerns that this bonus for the solar is too high and the mechanism leads to end-of-year-rally. Interesting things that happen is for example a farm that covered a shed in PV, not only on the south side but also east, west and NORTH, that was in the early years of EEG when a LOT of money could be made there. 50% of germanies last years installation was in december....

So its balancing it out, which they now do, just by reviewing installations more often throughout the year, resulting in earlier and more frequent reductions of the subsidy. Last reduction was 15% i believe... next one will be about the same.

Seriousely its fine... my parents think so, too and they are using a ****load of electricity! I tried hard to make them buy a rooftop system but failed. So they are paying the "high" price and they even chose the "higher" tariff that is 100% renewable.
Jan S
Jan S
January 29, 2012
So im german and I know the Spiegel. Not really one of my favourite magazines. In fact its one of Germanies more conservative ones and it doesnt surprise me much that there was an article about that (again).

Fact is energy prices have gone up for the consumers and down at the stocks, whyever. Now people start complaining about their high electricity bills...

There was just an article about that after our minister Roesler (Economic minister and one of the more useless ones) started to talk about the FiTs as well.

Now in germany you can easily choose your electricity providfer,you can have a 100% green electricity supply or one that is 100% non-renewable. Funny enough that statistically the price difference here for a 2Person+1child family would amount to 5Eur per month. Even students can afford that (and do so)

Now obviousely this price difference does not mean too much, as prices have gone up for those consuming non-renewables, too. Just fair if you ask me. FITs are the only tax neutral mechanism we have there in germany. So all the nuclear garbage facilities and transports, the coal mining and the subsidies for the power production from coal.... i still pay them from my tax money and im not consuming it. Nobody is discussing that intensely enough at the spiegel.

Also people complaining about higher electricity bills are the ones who refuse using LEDs, CFLs, buy a new TV and keep their PC running 24h for downloads....

Someone called FITs unsocial, because obviousely the investment for rooftop PV can only be stemmed by rich people. Thats also nonsense. end of 2010 (i think) you could still get more than 30eurocents per KWh from your rooftop system and every bank would have loved to give you a loan for that.
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 29, 2012
Hi:

Sorry Stephen, I do not install PV as a business. I am just doing it for myself. I only do thermal evacs...
And the day my business becomes a "vested" anything, I will be happy... I have held these same views long, long before solar in any form was a business.... and probably will be long after as well..... so you have to try and pick a different card from your deck of negatives....

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
January 29, 2012
William writes in comment #19:
"The two things I find most interesting is that their is a set of responders that constantly are negative about RE and that this same set of people can be so largely threatened by, in their own words, a negligible contributory technology."

William fails to distinguish between RE and wasteful, ineffectual policies for funding it. 100 Billion + Euros, most to solar PV, leading to residential electricity prices rising $0.047/kWh, should lead almost everyone to wonder if Germany got fair value from its investment. German FITs are often referred to as "successful" but very little of this 100 Billion Euros has gone to R&D; it was, however, a bonanza for those doing installs and some adopters getting oversized payments. On the other hand, ratepayers will be paying the tab for decades. William is a solar installer, so he has a vested interest in irrationally exuberant expenditures on PV.
Steven
rolf westgard
rolf westgard
January 29, 2012
Good luck with your business, Bill. RE needs entrepreneurs. Long term, solar is probably the best hope, especially if things like nanotech pan out. Short term, RE needs big subsidies.
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 29, 2012
Hi:

Percentage by data chart (2010 column):

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/preliminary/pdf/table2.pdf

1.35% for all solar of total renewable energy (.109 / 8.049)

percentage for all energy (2010 column):

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/preliminary/pdf/table1.pdf

.11 % for all solar for all energy (.109 / 97.89)

No one should argue that the US of A's solar deployment is horrendous considering its incredible potential. The fact, as a previous article stated, that Germany installed more solar in the month of December than the USA did all year says it all.

The two things I find most interesting is that their is a set of responders that constantly are negative about RE and that this same set of people can be so largely threatened by, in their own words, a negligible contributory technology.
The answer is simple of course. RE will grow to be the 95% plus energy provider in the near future, < 100 years. This is a terrifying reality for all those who have long term business interests in conventional energy production....
The development of RE will occur faster than predicted much like the melting of the ice formations will continue to melt at levels that exceed predictions. We tend to underestimate the upward and downward acceleration curves relating to complex systems.... but I think overall we are getting better at it...
Personally I am looking forward to reporting my own home/business energy profile and history, when by this time next year my tracking PV and wind should be in place, making me a net producer by far..

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2012
The chart William gives a link to in comment #15 plots 2010 total energy usage by source--note carefully the distinction from electricity--and gives solar's contribution as ~0.1%, which would be primarily due to heating. Solar's share of electricity generation is much smaller. This table: http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/preliminary/pdf/table3.pdf
available on the same page William refers to, lists 2010 solar electricity as ~1.3 TWh, which is only 0.03% of the ~4125 TWh of electricity generated in 2010. Notice that solar has a much smaller share of the US electricity market than its share of the US energy market and that both shares are nearly negligible.
Steven
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 28, 2012
Hi:

I don't need help, its not my chart...
Argue with them...

.....Bill
rolf westgard
rolf westgard
January 28, 2012
William: A little help for you with the numbers. As of Nov 1, 2011, solar had produced .097 quads. that's one tenth of wind and a little more than one tenth of one percent of total US energy and one third of one percent of U.S. electric energy. Solar is up about 6-7% from 2010. Given the small base, that isn't much growth. My grandchildren could live long enough to see a significant contribution from solar.
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 28, 2012
Hi:

You guys really need to keep pace with the data...
As of 2010, solar is 1%... ten fold your stated figures.

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/preliminary/

This as of 2010... two years later (now) the fractions for all the forms of RE are bigger still, so please, stop trying to understate the reality of RE which is still small BUT growing rapidly....

.....Bill
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
January 28, 2012
I realize how little we use, that does not mean we will not use more in the future. My point was that it needs to slowly be integrated so that the grid can adapt. Also, I was not only speaking of America I was also speaking of Germany which has about 3.5% of its energy come from solar.

I agree with you that wind is definitely the bigger problem, but both are rising and the grid needs time to adapt. Also this article was mainly about solar so I was commenting to that regard.
rolf westgard
rolf westgard
January 28, 2012
Bob, slowly integrating solar is not a problem, as there is so little of it - about one tenth of one percent of our electric demand. Wind is a major integration problem as there is more of it, and it is even more intermittent than solar.
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
January 28, 2012
However, I do encourage everyone to read the links he posts, as he tends to exaggerate. For example, he drops in that wind energy should be avoided at the end of the article. On the contrary in the "Solar Subsidy Insanity" article one of the main points is that subsidies should be taken away from solar tech and given to other renewable energy sources such as wind. The first article he posted also references the lower costs of wind. So to use Germany as a basis to attack all forms of renewable energy is naive. It is clear, Germans want to have their energy supplied by renewable energy, these articles merely state they think the subsidies could be used more efficiently in other renewables and energy conservation.

Also, both John and the other articles site rising costs due to PV, which I find interesting since everyone knows that it is not yet cost competitive with conventional sources. The important part is that PV costs are rapidly dropping year after year while most conventional sources have been rising. PV has amazing potential for the near future, but it is very important for markets to develop before they are cost competitive. Its clear that the existing grid cannot handle renewable energy. That is why it is important to slowly integrate renewables so the grid can adapt before they are cost competitive. Once they are cost competitive I see no reason why there would not be a huge amount of the tech produced. This would be disastrous on a grid that has not had time to develop. Lastly, as everyone knows the costs fall when the tech is scaled up.
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
January 28, 2012
Looking back at other articles by John he is seemingly dedicated to the negatives of renewable energy. So in contrary to the post by brucycle, I do not think he actually thinks that renewable energies are worthwhile. I am a huge supporter of most types of renewable energies and love reading positive articles about them, however I think that skeptics articles like this play a very important role. Any site that does not address the negatives and issues with the things they support is very biased. Reading from those kinds of sites will in turn make you biased when you don't know all of the facts.

Also, similar to what brucycle was saying, reducing your bias and addressing negative factors of something instead of hiding from them will not only make you more intelligent and more honest, but will also help you convince skeptics to change.

In short, nice job to the site for helping to keep things unbiased. I hope it will continue into the future.
bruce gladstone
bruce gladstone
January 28, 2012
This is the first post I have seen from John. The article is carefully crafted with seemingly objective language, but the exaggerations seem intentional to me. My guess is that John is trying to provoke a discussion that looks carefully at the weaknesses of solar and others (and they do exist,) and that leads to more discussion of storage solutions. The "1 for the price of 2" issue is an objection that will be raised again and again, and clean energy advocates have to be ready. Smart grid, peak usage - solar output correlation, and storage technologies have to be part of the justification for the moves in green energy.
I'm an advocate, but it is vital to be able to talk to the skeptics. There are some greenies amongst us that actually hurt the movement through blind devotion and a contempt for math.
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 28, 2012
Hi:

My god, what narrow negative perspectives from not only the author but from most of the responders as well.
The article tries to slither in (hardly a new tactic) the idea that they have been focusing on RE production, solar in this case, and now are finding they should have been focusing on EE. LOL... As if they were somehow mutually exclusive!! You are SUPPOSE to be doing both simultaneously!!, as anyone who has has even given such problems a light "once over" would know....
Storage is the solution as nature does... It is used at the cellular level in our own bodies, without such, we would not exist or any other living thing for that matter...
How ripe these purported RE passion'ed people are when it comes to throwing in the towel. Such offerings show their true directions and interests... and a narrowness of vision, although the word vision is probably far to generous a word for their mental conjurings...

.....Bill
rolf westgard
rolf westgard
January 27, 2012
There is a reason solar and wind combined are about 1% of US total energy, despite billions in subsidies. They simply lack scale, not to mention intermittency.
Ivanpah solar and Cape Wind are our two largest projects. both are multibillion dollar boondoggles which won't do much. There is some hope for solar with nanotechnology but don't hold your breath.
Even Germany could be committing economic suicide in dropping nuclear.
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
January 26, 2012
Of course solar doesn't work well during German winters. Meanwhile, what are thousands of German wind turbines doing? Likely they're peaking, or nearly so. The process is reversed on warm summer afternoons. Not a word from Mr. Peterson about that. Solar and wind often complement each other. Germany is putting huge wind turbines out at sea, and they will be technology leaders in such installations when the Us and China get around to it.
William Brown
William Brown
January 26, 2012
@#5 LOL. Dude, Strong words from someone named "anonymous". I've been reading a 100 articles a week on renewable energy for many years, from more sources than I can remember, including this one. Peterson is a clown.. You on the other hand, are just an idiot.
ANONYMOUS
January 26, 2012
Billtoe:
If you want to live in an echo chamber, I am sure you will be able to find media outlets to accommodate you. Calling someone a clown because he has the temerity to disagree with your viewpoint is inappropriate though. I suppose it is just a symptom of the frustration you must feel when the author presents evidence that conflicts with what you wish was true. Don't despair, you need not face the truth if you don't want to....
Steven
William Brown
William Brown
January 26, 2012
It is very odd that whenever this clown poops out a piece of anti-renewable energy propaganda, that a website called Renewable Energy World will post it on their site. Does anybody have a rational for that?
In any case, the good news is that I have about 12 "renewable energy" type websites bookmarked in my browser that are ordered from what I consider best on down. I can remember in years past, when this site was at the top of the list, but it has been slowly moving down the list, so that at the moment it is dead last. On most days I don't make it that far down the list. I suspect it will be gone from the list soon.
Seriously, there are much more informative websites out there and some of them just keep getting better, but I'm not sharing my list.
ANONYMOUS
January 26, 2012
Drees:
The author is quoting the Der Spiegel story of 1/18/12, which is provided as the first link for the claim on winter PV production. Today was a relatively sunny day in Germany (for January), take a peek at the data for 1/1/12--almost nothing would be a fair characterization of the output on that day. Generation from PV in the winter in Germany isn't very good and if the Der Spiegel story has exaggerated the problem it has only done so slightly. Some hard data from the stories linked above is more interesting:

1) the current EEG is 3.59 eurocents/kWh ($0.047/kWh at today's exchange rate) and the article suggests this will soon rise to 4.7 eurocents/kWh (~$0.062/kWh). This is a pretty high surcharge to add to residential electricity bills. (For comparison, the average cost for generation of electricity in the US is only about $0.06/kWh, and with distribution the average price is ~0.10/kWh).

2) The PV portion of the EEG is ~56% and rising.

3) Current obligations for the subsidies exceed 100 Billion Euros, with 18 Billion Euros added to the total in 2011 alone.

The German FIT is leading to excessive energy surcharges and huge cost overruns, mainly due to the PV component. I'm only surprised the backlash is taking so long to build.

Steven
D Rees
D Rees
January 26, 2012
Where does John get his data? One can easily see that PV has been generating substantial energy in Germany despite winter weather by looking at SMA's web site. And this does not include energy produced by other brands of PV inverters.

http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html

Besides - does anyone really believe that any one single renewable source is the "ultimate" solution? No. It's going to take all types of renewables to minimize fossil fuel consumption.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
John Petersen

John Petersen

John works as a partner in the firm of Fefer Petersen & Co (www.ipo-law.com) and represents North American, European and Asian clients, principally in the energy and alternative energy sectors. His international practice is limited to corporate...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 3
    Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013
  • 3
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc.
  • Reed Exhibitions
  • SRECTrade, Inc.
  • Solar Academy International
  • Solar FlexRack
  • Alternative Matters
  • UnThink Solar
  • Midwest Renewable Energy Association
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information