Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Germany's Solar Identity Crisis

By Ucilia Wang, Contributor
January 10, 2012   |   22 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
22 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 22
January 10, 2012
This article has a number of inaccurate statements:

- feed-in tariffs are indeed tariffs. "Tariff" has different meanings and refers, in addition to the better known meaning of an import tax, to utility documents that set forth various agreements or billing arrangements. So a feed-in tariff sets forth the terms by which a utility will buy power from third parties
- also, the federal cash grant for solar applies to projects completed in 2012 (under a one year extension passed in late 2012) as well as those completed in 2011
- last, solar projects qualify for a 30% investment tax credit through 2016, which is equivalent to the cash grant in its amount, but does require that the entity claiming it have sufficient tax liability. So I won't be at all surprised if the US solar market continues its breakneck pace through 2012 and onward.
Comment
2 of 22
January 11, 2012
Tam,

I'm not aware of the legislation that authorized an extension of the cash grant for solar. Could you post a reference?

Sincerely,
-John
No image available
Comment
3 of 22
Anonymous
January 12, 2012
We should learn from Germany that did 2 things very right. First, they simplified regulation by saying that all utilities must accept renewable power. With hundreds of utilities, this forced working out the process quickly and efficiently. Second, they have a great idea on how to fund the new technology. The feed in tarrif basically means that all users of electricity pay a bit more to support anyone who installs renewables. The amount is adjusted regularly to keep this amount in check while getting the new industry started. This has lead to Germany being not only the biggest consumer, but alos the largest in terms of making and exporting the techology and know-how of PV. It would make sense to apply this model to other new and needed technologise such as electric vehicles (via added gas taxes).
No image available
Comment
4 of 22
Anonymous
January 12, 2012
The author of comment #3 writes: "The feed in tarrif basically means that all users of electricity pay a bit more to support anyone who installs renewables."

In 2012 the FIT cost to residential users is 3.592 euro cents/kWh, which is $0.0458/kWh at today's conversion rate. Most people would not call that "a bit" as it is about 46% of the average cost of US residential electricity and about 80% of the average cost to generate a kWh of electricity--all to reach a mere 3% of total generation. The FIT costs will exist for decades and go up every year. Almost no where in the world would this be considered affordable.

The author also writes:
"This has lead to Germany being not only the biggest consumer, but alos the largest in terms of making and exporting the techology and know-how of PV."

I wonder where he gets these notions. The largest exporter would be China, the largest source for R&D is the US. Germany is the biggest customer and they continue to overspend their target growth of 3500 MW/year of new capacity, suggesting that their projections of future expenses are way off. So much for top-down central planning....
Steven
Comment
5 of 22
January 12, 2012
Steven,

When do we Americans finally wake up and stop cheating ourselves? Our energy prices are dumping prices and far lower than in any other developed nation of the world because the industry is trying to keep any alternatives out. I don't even want to speak about related costs for military operations or environmental damages. Everyone in this country must finally realize that we have to move to alternative energy sources because we simply do not have a choice! You can be sure that the price for conventional energy would be already far higher today if there wasn't the competition from renewable sources.

Add the $0.0458/kWh for the FIT to our rate and you still would pay less for the kWh than almost anywhere else. This investment into the future will pay back in incredibly short time since a true solar market in the US would lead to further and substantial price decreases. There is no doubt that solar can be competitive with any other source of energy as soon as we reach a certain level of production capacity.

You can argue about Germany's investment into solar because of the bad weather there. Here in the US and especially in the sunshine states with twice the radiation this is just out of discussion.

Frank
Comment
6 of 22
January 12, 2012
As a German I can tell you that Frank is one hundred right and I myself and the young of this country like to see the USA taking the lead in renewable energy but individuals like Steven do the opposite perhaps he is the ugly American spraying the bad seed, I do not know what he is trying to accomplish in this forums!!
As you can see no matter the opposition we install more gigawatts in 2011.
Comment
7 of 22
January 12, 2012
John, I mis-typed the date and should have wrote 2010. This was the tax compromise that included an extension of the Bush tax cuts, back in December of 2010. It extended the section 1603 cash grant program by one year for all renewable technologies.
Comment
8 of 22
January 12, 2012
Steven, where is that cost figure to German residential rates from? It sounds far too high to me.
Comment
9 of 22
January 12, 2012
Steven,

The correct figure for German renewable generation is 20%, not 3% as you are incorrectly stating. 3% is the share of PV. The so-called 'EEG-Umlage' is also paying for wind and biomass.

And do not forget that the big guys do not pay any contribution. It's only the residential and small business market that pays for the system. That may muddy the picture, since it does not reflect the true cost per kWh of the EEG. You have to account for the kWh's that are not burdened by the EEG-Umlage.

Tam,

The figure is correct: http://www.50hertz.com/cps/rde/xchg/trm_de/hs.xsl/1531.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=de&rdeCOQ=SID-7CD294B2-004E311C
No image available
Comment
10 of 22
Anonymous
January 12, 2012
Tam,
Here is one source for the latest EEG:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/germany--eeg-levy-only-0062-higher-for-2012_100004645/
This isn't direct from the German government, but I have seen the figure repeated in official reports (I always find it slower reading in German so I just googled this one and took the first obvious hit). There was a very large increase for 2011 pricing so perhaps you are remembering the 2010 cost that was significantly lower.
Steven
No image available
Comment
11 of 22
Anonymous
January 12, 2012
Anne,
Naturally, I am referring to the 3% solar generation that is the subject of the article. The EEG does fund other things as well and the share of renewable electricity generation in Germany in 2010 was 16.5% and preliminary figures suggest it was ~20% for 2011, but only part of that renewable generation was funded by the EEG. For example, Hydro generation is about 3% of total generation and nearly all of this dates back decades before the EEG. A large percentage of the EEG is due to the costs of solar PV and the recent increases are nearly all due to runaway solar PV costs.

It is certainly true that the FIT is funded only from residential users and industrial energy costs are kept artificially low in Germany. This is a regressive funding mechanism that I would oppose on fairness issues that are distinct from my concerns about the program's effectiveness. It would certainly be nice if there was more transparency regarding the costs of the German PV program so that its value could be assessed objectively.
Steven
No image available
Comment
12 of 22
Anonymous
January 12, 2012
"Sol-up" writes in comment #5:
"When do we Americans finally wake up and stop cheating ourselves? Our energy prices are dumping prices and far lower than in any other developed nation of the world because the industry is trying to keep any alternatives out."

Just to correct a few of these errors I'll point out that energy companies in the US are typically publicly traded and they make good profits. "Dumping" is selling a product at a LOSS to try to push your competitors into bankruptcy; US electricity vendors are making healthy profits so obviously they are not dumping. In fact, many public utilities have to have their rate increases approved by commissions and ask for higher rate increases than are approved.

I also wonder what he means by "any other developed nation of the world" because lots of other countries have competitive electricity prices; it is the German electricity rates that are the outlier. If renewable electricity is to be successful it needs ultimately to be affordable in places such as China and India that will be experiencing the largest new demand.
Steven
No image available
Comment
13 of 22
Anonymous
January 12, 2012
Carlos writes in comment #6: "but individuals like Steven do the opposite perhaps he is the ugly American spraying the bad seed"

I see that Carlos has a knack for polite conversation that matches his appreciation for economics. Concerns about climate change should have us all focused on an effective strategy to transition to non-CO2 generating energy infrastructure. This is going to be expensive and we need to make careful choices if we are to be successful. People who are blind to economic realities simply do not have the data they need to make sound decisions.
Steven
Comment
14 of 22
RM
January 12, 2012
I have an underground apartment so no heat or airconditioning
required so that is saving energy.

35% of electrial cost is transmission lines (7% line losses)
so local PV helps there. PV on garage roofs also have shade
(air conditioning ) value in the summer when you get into your
hot car to go home. Look up FACTS (Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System) so now wind PV power can be
used more easily by the grid (before only constant hydro, nuclear, coal outputs).
Pres. Carter put PV on the White House and Pres. Reagan admin
took them down. PV in 2012 is now cost competitive with the grid at $1.00/att installed.
Comment
15 of 22
RM
January 12, 2012
I have an underground apartment so no heat or airconditioning
required so that is saving energy.

35% of electrial cost is transmission lines (7% line losses)
so local PV helps there. PV on garage roofs also have shade
(air conditioning ) value in the summer when you get into your
hot car to go home. Look up FACTS (Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System) so now wind PV power can be
used more easily by the grid (before only constant hydro, nuclear, coal outputs).
Pres. Carter put PV on the White House and Pres. Reagan admin
took them down. PV in 2012 is now cost competitive with the grid at $1.00/att installed.
Comment
16 of 22
January 13, 2012
Steven,

I am absolutely convinced that you post your comments here in clear conscience and I totally support your approach to carefully evaluate the best and most economic strategy for our energy future. And I strongly appeal to anyone in this forum to keep polite in the discussion. The issues we are dealing with are far too important to get engaged in small-minded arguments.

When I speak about dumping prices in the US I want to point out that since all fossil energy sources are limited an honest price calculation would have to take this into consideration. Energy companies unfortunately just care about their short term profit. It's ridiculous to exploit the resources of this planet which have been built up in millions of years and don't care about the consequences for the generations to come. The "healthy profits" of the energy companies you are referring to are nothing else than an incredibly short sighted act of simple greed.
Comment
17 of 22
January 13, 2012
@Steven

We have discussed these questions on another thread already. I would like to add that electricity prices in Germany are high be design. In addition to the renewable surcharge there is an electricity tax introduced with the express purpose of making energy more expensive, so that people get motivated to use less.

As to the proposals of Minister Roesler, the German Solar Industry Association just presented a study by PROGNOS AG (a fairly well known economic research institute) that concludes this would reduce electricity prices by 1% (about 10 cent euro per average consumer and month), while leading to massive losses of jobs and tax income. In contrast, keeping the flexible caps in place right now would increase costs by 1.9% (19 cents per month) and lead to solar providing 7% of consumption by 2016.
No image available
Comment
18 of 22
Anonymous
January 13, 2012
Sol-Up:
Regarding your remarks in comment #16, I can't quite fathom how you expect that energy companies should act differently. Suppose a group of energy suppliers got together and decided to raise prices ostensibly because "all fossil energy sources are limited an honest price calculation would have to take this into consideration." This would be price collusion, which is a crime, and they would end up in prison. For the most part, energy companies operate in a legal manner and provide a needed service at a fair price. It isn't in the nature of businesses to do much more than that and offhand I cannot think of any business that is run by a group of saints inspired solely to do good deeds.

There is a faction, and perhaps you are among them, who always seem angry that the oil and gas companies do not become more involved in the renewable sector. I frankly do not want them to. I can't imagine anything more damaging than to have a group of people with no particular skill or motivation taking control of such an important endeavor. Businesses typically develop skill in one area and rarely venture far from that zone of competence. New industries are almost invariably founded by new companies that possess the talent to excel in a new task.

I think energy policy should be set by the public rather than a select set of industry insiders--which is exactly what would happen if a group of energy companies were to decide they were the sole stewards of the energy resources. I think it is a harsh assessment to say traditional energy companies are guilty of "an incredibly short sighted act of simple greed" but you seem to want them to branch out into dictatorial control and I think you would eventually find that worse than the status quo.
Steven
No image available
Comment
19 of 22
Anonymous
January 13, 2012
Karl,
Regarding comment #17:

I think that energy taxes intended to limit consumption tend to hit poor people very hard and are unnecessary evils. The notion that the best energy policy involves having pensioners live out their lives in the cold and the dark because they are being priced out of the energy market strikes me as strange. Still, if Germany wants to explore the merits of consumption taxes I suggest they add a huge consumption tax on beer; I suspect this would spark a spirited national dialog on tax policy :)

The German FIT policy has had a lot to do with the boom and bust cycles in the solar PV industry and I think a sudden cap on new PV at 1000 MW/year as Roesler suggests would be irresponsible at a time when many solar companies are struggling to survive. This is precisely the sort of disaster that often occurs with attempts at top-down market control. High prices, high taxes, and a sharp boom/bust cycle in the PV industry are clear products of German FIT policy decisions and I think we should think very carefully before we go down the same path in the US ....
Steven
Comment
20 of 22
January 21, 2012
Resently I have been calculated cost of sun water heater for multyflats (71 flat big hause) and 7m3 hot water consumption per day. My price with all installing was only 15000€.
Comment
21 of 22
January 23, 2012
Tam: There are no inaccuracies in my story. I explained what the feed-in tariffs are, and that explanation remains valid. You are the one being uncleared about the cash grant program. It expired in 2011. If you aren't able to complete a project and put it in service before the end of 2011, you can still qualify for the grant by having started construction on a project or bought a certain amount of equipment for the project. You can read more here:http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/1603.aspx.

It's fine if you disagree with SEIA and market analysts about the impact of the demise of the cash grant program, but don't claim there are inaccuracies in my story when they don't exist.
Comment
22 of 22
January 26, 2012
Sol-Up's comment, "Energy companies unfortunately just care about their short term profit." is very true, at least where I live (Alabama). As an example of how far behind Al. Power. Co. is in even the most basic energy-saving technology, it is illustrative to examine their periodic appliance sale bulletins (often enclosed with one's power-bill). In these bulletins, you will see numerious appliances, such as water heaters. To date (I've lived here most of my 54 years), they have never even offered on-demand, tankless water heaters. The idea that they would even suggest solar-assisted systems (despite the quicker payback that thermal systems offer over photovoltaic) is laughable. Yet here in the SouthEast US, we have plenty of sunlight throughout much the year (long summer days especially). The lack of ANY initiative on the part of Southern Company, or our State government, to help the poor and middle class to reduce their energy costs in such ways as tankless water heaters and/or solar collectors is truly revealing.

I recently returned from a tour of Australia and Fiji, and I noticed how popular and common solar thermal systems are in both these places - and for obvious reasons . . .
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

Ucilia Wang

View Ucilia Wang's Profile
About: Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff... more »

Advertise With Us

Renewable Energy World Africa Idaho Department of Commerce Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. Ambient Technologies, Inc. Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America American Wind Energy Association Apricus, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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