Renewable Energy Review: Germany

Renewable energy markets in countries expand and shrink as policies, technologies and financial incentives change. This series of articles examines which technologies are flourishing where.

Dr. Frank J. Matzen and Dr. Florian Ropohl, Ernst and Young
December 27, 2012 | 31 Comments

Developers, manufacturers, investors and other renewable energy industry stakeholders need to know where the next big market is going to be so that they can adjust their business decisions accordingly.

Since 2003, global consultancy Ernst & Young has released its Country Attractiveness Indices, which gives a numerical ranking to 30 global renewable energy markets by scoring renewable energy investment strategies and resource availability. The indices are updated on a quarterly basis and the most recent report can be found here.

Here is the firm’s assessment of Germany.

Policy Tensions as Electricity Prices Rise

Grid operators announced on 15 October that the surcharge on retail electricity prices, which funds renewable energy subsidies, will increase by 47% to just over €0.053/kWh in 2013. Given politicians’ earlier claims that the surcharge would remain at €0.036/kWh, this announcement is likely to spark both a public and political backlash.

The dilemma for Chancellor Merkel is how to balance the need for additional renewable capacity in response to the Government bringing forward the planned phase-out of nuclear power from 2036 to 2022, with a desire to keep consumer costs as low as possible in the run-up to next year’s election. The Government intends to raise its renewable electricity target from 35% to 40% by 2020, however, it seems almost inevitable that it will also need to rein in support for renewables in some way to cushion the blow to consumers.

Indeed, less than a week before the surcharge announcement, the new Environment Minister, Peter Altmeier, announced that he is considering a reform to the renewables system that would cap subsidies for wind and biomass power once government targets are reached. This could supplement the plan announced in June to cap solar payments at 52 GW.

However, this is just one of a range of options that the Government is looking at while it seeks to revise the German support scheme. Industry has called for a reduction in the number of surcharge exemptions for energy-intensive companies, while others are proposing a quota system as an alternative to the FIT. Merkel has already announced a review of exemptions, as well as a plan to prevent utilities from closing unprofitable gas plants to ensure security of supply.

It’s unlikely any of the proposed reforms will be completed before the Federal election next year, therefore energy reform proposals will be a hot topic for the 2013 election. However, it should also be noted that Article 14 Para 3 of the German Constitution stipulates that existing rights can only be withdrawn for an important reason and not without compensation. The Environment Minister has emphasized that existing FIT-qualified renewable energy installations will not face any retroactive changes in the renewable support scheme.

Notwithstanding the likely period of energy reform ahead, Ernst & Young’s German Energy Transition Index (DEX), jointly published with German grid agency, DENA, indicates sentiment over the German renewables sector has improved for most stakeholders since Q2. The index, which seeks to reflect the industry’s opinions on the progress of the transition from traditional to renewable energy, increased to 102.8 out of 200 from 100.8 earlier in the year, although grid operators and consumers in the country remain concerned security of supply.

Wind Still Key but Grid Issues Remain

Wind power is expected to remain the backbone of Germany’s energy switchover — in the first half of the year, an additional 1 GW of wind power was installed, taking total installations past the 30GW mark. This is in the context of 2020 targets of 35GW onshore capacity and 10GW offshore capacity.

The pace of offshore developments, however, remains slower than expected, with only 200MW installed as of June 2012. While some projects are under construction, a string of high-profile postponements due to grid connection issues highlights the importance of a quick implementation of new liability regulations agreed by the Government on 15 August (due to be ratified in December).

This energy law amendment aims to raise investments and increase clarity over grid connection liability compensation, after utilities threatened to halt projects and grid operators struggled to raise financing and complete projects on time. In the meantime, DONG announced in late October that it will continue to postpone any further works on its Riffgrund 2 wind park until grid operator, TenneT provides a connection date, while TenneT has called for a moratorium on new connections until it has a clearer view on government plans.

The draft bill would make power consumers pay up to €0.25/kWh if turbine connection delays result in operators being unable to sell their electricity, while grid operators will have to pay up to 20% of damages subject to a cap of €100 million per claim. This cap limits the compensation to approximately four months of delay; in context, RWE’s Nordsee Ost wind project is currently experiencing delays of one to two years, therefore, it is unlikely this legislative amendment alone will completely solve the grid-related woes of the offshore industry.

Solar Growth Exceeds Target

According to data release by DENA, installed solar PV capacity increased by 4.9 GW peak in the first half of 2012, well above the Government’s target of 3.0 GW for the whole year. It is likely this was primarily driven by developers rushing to beat the deadline for 20%—40% FIT cuts that took effect on 1 July.

Initial data for Q3 already indicates a dramatic slowdown in installations as consumers respond to the new monthly routine of FIT cuts, which aims to avoid demand peaks. Nevertheless, total installed solar capacity now exceeds 30GW and despite the FIT cuts, the solar sector is still expected to see healthy growth as a result of module prices continuing to fall dramatically.

For more information on renewable energy development in Germany, contact the report's authors Dr. Frank J. Matzen and Dr. Florian Ropohl.

Lead image: German flag via Shutterstock

31 Comments

Bob Wallace
January 4, 2013

No, Geoff, I'm being absolutely serious and you very well know it.

Pro-nuclear people try to claim that nuclear energy is safe by carefully controlling the parameters of the discussion.

They dismiss the Chernobyl/Fukushihma problems - "It didn't happen here".

They dismiss TMI - "The containment dome caught most of it".

They dismiss the nuclear waste problem - "We could seal it up in glass".

What it comes down to is that pro-nuclear people simply lie. They lie about the danger of nuclear energy and they lie about having an acceptable solution to the waste problem.

If you wish to be one of those people, that's your choice.

But you aren't going to duck out of the responsibility by ridiculous feints like "warbling on about "Boys' Own" tales" junk. That's a bogus tap-dance past the graveyard.

Either own up to the fact that you support using an inherently dangerous technology or come over from the dark side.

We have cheaper, safer and faster to implement solutions to our energy needs. We don't need to bring more danger to our lives and the lives of those who follow us.

Geoff Sherington
January 4, 2013

Bob,
Sorry, you are not taking this seriously. You are warbling on about "Boys' Own" tales from comic book level, like a boy scouts sitting around a camp fire telling each other stories.
That fire that they sit around is enormously dangerous. Fire has killed millions of people. There is a difference between a source of danger and a catastrophe. Count the gravestones, Bob, don't count the scare stories.
The boy scouts have come to accept that the benefit of the campfire exceeds the danger with proper management.
Time you did also. Over and out.

Bob Wallace
January 4, 2013

Geoff. Let's cut straight to the bottom line.

Nuclear reactors are dangerous places.

It takes extraordinary effort to keep us safe from the dangers of radioactivity.

We do not have acceptable solutions for the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Sometimes our safety systems fail.

Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, biomass and biogas technologies do not create a new source of danger similar to nuclear technology.

Geoff Sherington
January 4, 2013

Bob, I mentioned the Bomb sites in Japan because nobody has vacated them for 10,000 years. They were resettled within decades.
The figures you give for Chernobyl are in line with the International Atomic Energy Authority, a group that has done many studies. I am gratified that you did not go on to quote some activist groups who talk in terms of 100,000 or more Chernobyl deaths. It's no wonder nobody takes NGOs with such agendas seriously.
About 350 people in my home town of Melbourne died in vehicle accidents last year. Does this make the car as harmful as nuclear energy" Let's keep apples with apples, but that nuclear safety record is far, far better than hydro, coal, oil. On a less busy day 'll grab the cumulative deaths from direct solar and wind. It's far from zero in a much shorter time.

The garbled material from Lake Karachay does not get an alarm mention in the professional material I read. Keep in mind that if you stay more than a mile away from such accumulations, harm is unlikely. (As we sy here, people get bitten by snakes by trying to kill them, instead of walking away).

It is useful to know that if you dilute high level rad waste with a glass or synthetic like Synroc, then store it for a few hundred years, the gross radiacticity will fall below the value of the uranium ore that was mined to make it. We operated one of the world's largest, rich uranium mines from 1980 with zero harm from radiactivity to any worker known. Some US military waste has already been stored for 70 years, so the technical problems do not appear daunting to those who measure and engineer. It's a matter of being an ethical professional rather than a clost revolutionary.

Bob Wallace
January 4, 2013

Oh, you asked about spent fuel storage -

"Karachay, a small lake nestled in the Ural mountains in Western Russia, is home to a nuclear waste dumping site so radioactive it has been declared the most polluted locale on the planet.

During the early 1950s, the Soviet Union began ditching radioactive waste from Mayak, a nuclear waste storage and reprocessing facility in Ozyorsk, into Lake Karachay.

Many years later, the Worldwatch Institute on nuclear waste rendered the area "the most polluted spot on Earth." Radiation levels at the lake are so high that one hour of exposure is considered lethal. The accumulated levels of radioactivity are around 4.44 exabequerels (EBq) with 3.6 EBq of Caesium-137 and 0.74 EBq of Strontium-90.

To give better perspective of how toxic Karachay is, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster released between 5 to 12 Ebq of unconcentrated radioactivity. "

http://brainz.org/10-most-toxic-places-earth/

You are aware that for several years France sent its used nuclear fuel to Russia for "reprocessing". They got back approximately 10% what should have come back. The rest simply disappeared.

"For decades members of organized crime syndicates and other western companies have been freely dumping tons of radioactive nuclear waste into the unregulated shores off Somalia's coastline, poisoning the seas and devastating the local population.

Somalia has not had a functioning government for many years; the scores of rusty leaking hazardous waste tanks that have been washing up on their shores prove just how many criminals have been exploiting the nation's inability to protect their own waters."

EcoLocalizer (http://s.tt/12tPk)

Bob Wallace
January 4, 2013

Chernobyl -

"One person was killed immediately and his body was never found. Another died that same day as a result of injuries received during the explosion.

Acute radiation sickness was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases.

Of these 28 people died within weeks of the accident, six of whom were firefighters tasked with attending the fires on the roof of the turbine building.

Nineteen more subsequently died between 1987 and 2004. "

And I wouldn't have brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the discussion, but since you did...

"On August 6, 1945 the uranium bomb, "Little Boy", was dropped on Hiroshima killing 70,000-80,000 people immediately.

Three days later, the plutonium bomb, "Fat Man", was dropped on Nagasaki killing an estimated 40,000-75,000 instantly.

Those that survived the initial blasts were then subject to severe radiation and thermal burns, radiation sickness and related diseases all aggravated by the lack of medical resources.

It is estimated that another 200,000 people had died by 1950 as a result of health effects of the bombings.

http://listverse.com/2010/03/25/10-famous-incidences-of-death-by-radiation/

As I said - nuclear energy is very dangerous. We do our best to protect ourselves from its dangers but, like a game of Russian roulette, sometimes the hammer falls on a loaded chamber.

Some of us see no need to play the game. In fact, more and more of see no need to play because we have better ways to make all the power we need.

Bob Wallace
January 4, 2013

You show me some answers Geoff. Show me how we are going to keep people safe from nuclear wastes for 100,000 years.

Tell us what it was like for the people exposed to radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Tell us how safe it was for them.

You need proof that nuclear accidents can and have killed people?

"Japan's worst nuclear radiation accident took place at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo, on September 30, 1999. The direct cause of the criticality accident was workers putting uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, exceeding the critical mass, into a precipitation tank. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality.

Three workers were exposed to lethal radiation doses. One of these workers, Hiroshi Couchi, was transferred to the University of Tokyo Hospital and three days after the accident he could talk and only his right hand was a little swollen with redness. However, his condition gradually weakened as the radioactivity broke down the chromosomes in his cells."

" On July 4, 1961 under the command of Captain Nikolai Vladimirovich Zateyev, (Soviet nuclear submarine) K-19 developed a major leak in her reactor coolant system causing the reactor temperature to rise to a very dangerous 800 deg. Celsius. Due to poor design and failure to have a backup cooling system installed, Captain Zateyev had no choice but to order a team of seven engineering officers in crew to undertake a repair despite the lethal rates of radiation exposure.

The repair crew was successful in stopping the leak however all seven were dead within a week. The incident contaminated the entire boat and within a few years twenty more crew members were dead attributed to the incident at sea."

cont...

Geoff Sherington
January 4, 2013

Numbers Bob, show me the numbers. You are merely blustering. Means nought. Never heard of anyone being harmed by spent fuel storage.

You should go to the thriving cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as I did in 1990) to realise the silliness of your 'large areas of land being unsafe for human habitation'. I'd have gone to Chernobyl also except the food is too unpalatable the way they cook and present it in those parts.

As for Germany leading the way, reverse causation thinking suggests that Germany's loopy power decisions helped to cause the start of the GFC and they have staggered from worse to worse under ideology instead of engineering. It is stupid for a country to try to cut GHG emissions by closing off the nuclear option and there is no valid counter-argument that I've seen since I started in this field of study in 1969.

Wow, there are some dreamers on this blog!

Bob Wallace
January 3, 2013

Oh, I forgot the dangers of leftover wind and solar fuel.

Bob Wallace
January 3, 2013

Gee, Geoff, surely you don't need that. Just look at the containment domes, emergency cooling systems, backup generators, public evacuation plans, highly trained staff on hand 24/365 ready to intervene in an emergency, squads of armed guards....

Nuclear is very dangerous and we expend a great amount of energy and money protecting ourselves from it. It's one of the targets that our intelligence services have to consider. We keep fighter planes standing by to intercept large airplanes which veer off course and head toward reactors.

When we look at TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima along with all the "near misses" it's clear that we are playing a major game of Russian roulette with nuclear and sometimes the hammer falls on a loaded chamber.

Now, comparing nuclear to other power generation technologies. That's kind of hard to do.

We've got records of the number of people killed while working in the wind industry and some data about the number of people killed working in the solar industry. People have fallen. Trucks have overturned. Loads of equipment have fallen off trucks. The sort of stuff that happens on construction sites.

We don't have, as far as I can determine, similar records for the number of people killed in the nuclear industry.

There's no database that I've found that lists the two workers scalded to death at Rancho Seco, the seven (?) scalded to death in Japan, the workers who have fallen to their deaths or died in other ways while building and operating nuclear reactors.

Pro-nuclear people like to talk about how few workers have been killed by radiation. If we use the same yardstick then I'm not sure we've seen anyone in the wind industry killed by wind nor anyone in the solar industry killed by sunshine.

I think we can safely say that no wind turbine or solar panel has failed in a manner that caused thousands of cases of cancer nor resulted in large areas of land being unsafe for human habitation.

Geoff Sherington
January 3, 2013

Bob Wallace,
Please list the dangers of nuclear energy, using some overall index like accident rate per unit of output, or mortality from accident/output.
Then tell me a major form of power generation with a better safety record. If you can invent one.

ANONYMOUS
January 3, 2013

Bob writes in comment #19:
"Germany is leading the world in CO2 reduction."

This is clearly untrue. In recent years US CO2 reductions have been much higher than Germany's. Germany's last reported yearly CO2 reduction was a trivial 2%, due in large part to unexpectedly mild weather--hardly the magnitude of reduction needed to head off climate change. Moreover, Germany is not planning any further significant reductions in the CO2 in the next decade, which is irresponsible. It is not unlikely that their CO2 generation will actually increase if the reactors go offline on schedule and there are no upside surprises in the predicted growth of renewables.

Then Bob writes:
"Why do you think Germany should assume the role of being a super-reducer and do the job for other countries?"

Well, EVERYONE is going to need to do much more and the richer nations should lead the way because the developing nations don't have the capability to lead the way. Germany is often held up as some shining example of success, but it has only made modest progress at disproportionate cost and is now planning to slack off. This is an example we cannot afford for the world to follow.

Bob also writes:
"Germany has paid its CO2 dues. If Germany wants to remove the danger of nuclear energy from its neighborhoods I'm going to respect that decision."

Germany has made a minor contribution to a huge undertaking; if the climate change models are correct we are not remotely on track to prevent very significant changes. It is not a time to slack off. Nuclear power is relatively safe and relatively clean power. If the German's have some irrational desire to phase this out early they should do this IN ADDITION to phasing out coal usage, not instead of phasing out coal. There will be no gold stars given out for the early leaders of a failed effort to prevent climate change and no exemptions from the environmental damage. This is not a time to get sidetracked.
Steven

Bob Wallace
January 3, 2013

Germany is leading the world in CO2 reduction.

Why do you think Germany should assume the role of being a super-reducer and do the job for other countries?

Germany has paid its CO2 dues. If Germany wants to remove the danger of nuclear energy from its neighborhoods I'm going to respect that decision.

ANONYMOUS
January 3, 2013

aligatorhardt writes in comment #17: "It seems that rampant speculation on these comments is used instead of real numbers. Germany has met it's CO2 reduction schedule, and is already seeing reduced spot electric prices as a result of renewable energy investments."

Speculation? The projections on renewables growth in this article suggest that Germany won't be able to increase renewables by as much as it is decreasing nuclear generation.

As for Germany "meeting its CO2 reduction schedule," CO2 reductions are very tepd--the sources for the article you cite state that the last reported yearly CO2 reduction was a meager 2.2% and due primarily to milder that usual weather. Worldwide CO2 generation is increasing at a shocking rate and as one of the world's richest nations Germany should be doing what it can to address this problem. Instead it has decided to phase out nuclear power EARLY--something that is a far less serious environmental concern. If Germany opted not to replace nuclear power this might be reasonable, but shutting down reactors early is shockingly wasteful: most of the expense of nuclear power comes from building the reactor, not from fuel of operating costs. Germany could and should have been accelerating the shutdown of coal generation. The largest CO2 reductions are actually occurring in the US, although this is an unintended side effect of the shift to cheaper natural gas.
Steven

Allen Gerhardt
January 3, 2013

It seems that rampant speculation on these comments is used instead of real numbers. Germany has met it's CO2 reduction schedule, and is already seeing reduced spot electric prices as a result of renewable energy investments. The grid improvements are somewhat behind generation additions, but that will be dealt with, as shown by the legislative changes planned. With the rest of nuclear power planned to be phased out over the next ten years, there is time for additional generation to come on line. Germany long before Fukushima had studied the cost of keeping older nuclear power plants online and found the investments were not as desirable as replacement with renewable energy and efficiency gains.
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/renewables-payback-7-billion-euros-in-2011/150/537/56285/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/09/the-truth-about-germanys-coal

ANONYMOUS
December 30, 2012

A few points I'd like to make:

- Onshore wind power in germany has an efficiency factor of about 20%. Offshore wind power has an efficieny factor of about 35-40%. Thus 35GW onshore + 10GW offshore will generate about 90-100 TWh of electricity by 2020 compared to 38 TWh in 2010.

- in 2012 nuclear power provided only 13% of electricity compared to 18% in 2011 and 23% in 2010 pre-Fukushima.

- Solar power in expected to provide about 10% or 55-60TWh of electricity in 2020

- Biomass has grown from basically 0 to 30 TWh or 5% of electricity from 2000 to 2010 and expected to grow further

- Also total electricity use is expected to decrase from about 600Twh to 550 TWh by 2020

So considering that the new coal and gas power plants are more efficient that the ones they replace, Germany in projected not to increase it's CO2 output, although it would do a lot better by keeping it's nuclear plants.

Bob Wallace
December 29, 2012

Yes, the use of natural gas, along with cheap wind power, is allowing the US to greatly cut the use of coal. A few years back coal supplied over 50% of all US electricity. It was down to 36% for the first half of 2012 and will continue to fall as we continue to close coal plants. There are several dozens scheduled to close over the next few years.

The US hit a CO2 peak in 2005 and has been slowly dropping its output since. Some of this is abandoning coal, some from cutting the use of heating oil by about 40%, some from more efficient vehicles. But we aren't dropping nearly fast enough and natural gas is a nasty ally in the war on climate change.

We need grid storage to replace NG.

Gorn Detlef
December 29, 2012

@Anonymous
Yes - you are right - the power price in Germany for private or little consumers is very expensive in relation to other countries. This is an effect of higher taxes on power and lower taxes on employment ("ecotax"). F.e. France has a lower power price - but higher employment costs and so higher unemployment rates. And another reason ist, that the cost of the german renewable FIT-System must be overtake mostly by the little (private) consumers and not through the industrial sector with facing international competition.

As Bob Wallace wrote, Germans won't live with a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood. Also they won't accept fracking. Germany has a higher population density then some US States with fracking were nearly no one live.

@Bob Wallace
I think, the US make very big steps in reducing CO-Emissions due to replace coal through gas. Anyhow it's reported here in Germany this way.

Wind, Biogas and Solar in Germany isn't a theme of CO2-reduction. It's more a theme of step-out from dangerous nuclear power and to have power when the oil and gas area is over. Remember that you can't build a new energy system in 10 years or so and states like china heavently increases their oil or coal consumption that means that the end of this area comes much quicklier as expected years ago. Foreseeable this, states like US maybe better save their own gas reserves for themself and will not export energy to germany.

Every private person with no thinking of saving power in the past, can save minimum 25 % of her power consumption. LED-Lightning, power saving plugs, energy saving refrigerator or induction cooker, a better heater ... . The german government pays energy reduction advices for private persons and also firms. Reduce the power consumption is a big point in nearly each famliy and in the public discussion in radio or TV here in Germany.

A big challange is the heating energy reduction in the house sector.

Geoff Sherington
December 29, 2012

At least in Germany there seems to be scope to cooperate with large banks to get windfall returns.
Does anyone have an estimate of how the electricity price to retailers would drop if there had been no scams, as alleged?
Is Germany now home for a number of new multimillionaires who have pocketed slick proceeds from renewable energy schemes and incentives?
Are you sure that no politicians have prospered from paybacks?
From the news that reaches my country, the Germany economy seems very sick because the vultures are already feeding.

Anumakonda Jagadeesh
December 28, 2012

Germany continues to advance in Renewables. The pace of Renewables is expected much as German Government policies are more towards Renewables than Nuclear.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

ANONYMOUS
December 28, 2012

Bob writes in comment #9:

"Germany's new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.

Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing.

Germany is doing more than any other country to cut CO2 levels. "

If Germany was not going to continue to rely of coal for decades to come it would not need new coal fired plants. Bob suggests that overall capacity will decrease, but this does not say anything about what total generation will be from coal. If nuclear generation amounting to ~18% of total generation goes off line and ~5% of total demand is added from wind resources, and a few percent from solar, then the rest is likely to come from fossil fuels--primarily coal (either imported or domestically generated). The remarks in the article above suggest Germany is not on track to fully replace the lost nuclear generation with renewables, so fossil fuel use will go UP. Bob says that "Germany is doing more than any other country to cut CO2 levels" but this simply isn't true. In the last couple years they have had modest declines in CO2 whereas the US has had much larger declines due to the shift from coal to natural gas generation. In deciding to phase out its nuclear power Germany has put the phaseout of coal on the back burner. They will make almost no progress in reducing CO2 emissions in the next decade, which is not consistent with the propaganda about their being environmentally progressive. Their energies policies are a very bad example for the rest of the world to follow. They have caused high electricity prices for themselves, a catastrophic boom/bust cycle in the solar PV sector, and a major retreat in the plan to control green house gas emissions.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
December 28, 2012

gorn-detlef writes on comment #8:

"Steven writes about 40 US-Cent per kWh. That's not true.

Ca. 38 US-Cent is the price for private end-users in the expensively basic tarif of their local power supplier. But private end-users can change to a cheaper supplier with f.e. 33 US-Cent."

I was using Bob's numbers from comment #1, but let's use those of gorn-detlef instead. $0.33-0.38/kWh is still VERY expensive. Alas, gorn-detlef is vague about whether or not he is quoting values before or after the VAT. In any event, Germany has very high electricity rates that are likely to continue to rise faster than in the US.
Steven

Bob Wallace
December 28, 2012

Germany's new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.

Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing.

Germany is doing more than any other country to cut CO2 levels.

If we even start to catch up then perhaps it might be reasonable for us to complain that they are putting their desires to get rid of nuclear dangers ahead of leading the world toward a carbon free future even faster.

Gorn Detlef
December 28, 2012

I'am from Germany.

Steven writes about 40 US-Cent per kWh. That's not true.

Ca. 38 US-Cent is the price for private end-users in the expensively basic tarif of their local power supplier. But private end-users can change to a cheaper supplier with f.e. 33 US-Cent. Or maybe using solar power with cost of ca. 24 US-Cent

Middle class firms get power for 15 - 19 US-Cent. Local solar power in this sector is a topic.

Great firms can get power for 6 US-Cent. Depending on the time and stability of the power demand.

Under the line there are three open questions:
1. Offshore Windpower get a FIT of 19 Euro-Cent in the first 8 years and 3,5 Euro-Cent in the next 12 years - when the installation comes until 2018. This can increase the power price for private end-users. But if the government reduce the FIT, their will be maybe no the needing investments.

2. Due to increasing renewable energies with feedpriority new gas power plant don't get their investments back. This reduce the stabiality of the grid.

3. Power saving of solar and wind power. German carmaker AUDI install a test installation of 2 MW Power-to-Gas to use the german gas grid. This seems to be the best solution in the moment.

ANONYMOUS
December 28, 2012

Bob writes in comment #6:
"People who shift their power production to renewables are going to end up with the cheapest energy possible."

When? Prices are currently rising and at $0.40+/kWh even if there were price declines it would be a LONG time before costs were comparable to those in the US.

Bob also writes: "They are investing now for a better future. It's an idea that we should consider...."

This "better" future involves a lot more coal fired reactors than would otherwise be needed. Its almost as if the Germans don't believe in the climate change models....

Steven

Bob Wallace
December 28, 2012

Steven - Perhaps you should consider the fact that German citizens would rather pay a bit more for their electricity than to live with nuclear reactors in their neighborhoods.

They recognize that in the short term their utility bills will be larger. They also realize that as they bring more renewables onto their grids they will enjoy decreasing utility bills. Those solar panels and wind turbines that are now producing electricity will be paid off and will give them almost free electricity later on.

People who shift their power production to renewables are going to end up with the cheapest energy possible.

They also realize that they are in a transformation from European grids which are largely self-contained within countries to a very much larger grid which will tie together inputs and shared storage in a regional grid reaching from Iceland to the Middle East.

They are investing now for a better future. It's an idea that we should consider....

ANONYMOUS
December 28, 2012

Dimitar argues in comment #4 that the EEG surcharge will decrease in coming years. Perhaps this is true, in part because the cost of non-renewable generation will increase as nuclear power is phased out, but I predict overall electricity prices--which is what consumers really care about--will continue to increase.

Dimitar also argues that high electricity prices are not so bad because Germans don't use a lot of electricity. I suppose having rates 400% higher than in the US will tend to cause a certain degree of conservation, but the tone of the first part of the article suggests that not all Germans are content to pay very high prices for electricity. Certainly this isn't a model that we would want to adopt in the US.

Dimitar: Any idea how Germany is going to meet the shortfall from shutting down its reactors? As I remark in comment #2, the projections for increased wind power are going to fall very far from what is needed....

Steven

Dimitar Mirchev
December 28, 2012

Steven

Germans do not use air conditioners and for most part they use natural gas for heating thus their electricity bill is not big.

And the EEG surcharge will peak 2013 and start decreasing from 2014.

ANONYMOUS
December 28, 2012

Bob writes in comment #1: "So the renewable subsidy is set to rise from €0.036/kWh to €0.053/kWh, a €0.018 bump.

That's on top of a €0.2541/kWh current rate. A 7% increase.

Not huge. German's pay about $0.34/kWh for electricity."

Once you add in the EEG subsidy electricity costs are in excess of $0.40/kWh and that is BEFORE the VAT is added in. This is 400% of the average cost in the US. Will all the stranded costs from shutting down their cheap nuclear generation early and the shift to expensive offshore wind we can expect further hefty prices increases for many years to come, but no significant reductions in CO2 generation. German energy policy is something of a disaster....
Steven

ANONYMOUS
December 28, 2012

The authors write: "Wind power is expected to remain the backbone of Germany's energy switchover — in the first half of the year, an additional 1 GW of wind power was installed, taking total installations past the 30GW mark. This is in the context of 2020 targets of 35GW onshore capacity and 10GW offshore capacity. "

So if wind generation capacity will increase by about 50% it might contribute ~4-5% additional generation, but the nuclear phase out will eliminate ~18% of generation--if I remember the numbers correctly. How are the German's planning to deal with the remaining ~13+% shortfall from the nuclear phase out? It is hard to see solar meeting more than a few percent of this shortfall, especially if they want to meet demand during winter nights. This all sounds like good news for the coal generation industry.
Steven

Bob Wallace
December 28, 2012

So the renewable subsidy is set to rise from €0.036/kWh to €0.053/kWh, a €0.018 bump.

That's on top of a €0.2541/kWh current rate. A 7% increase.

Not huge. German's pay about $0.34/kWh for electricity. One can see why solar is so attractive.