Germany’s support for renewable energy is “breaking” the nation’s ability to pay for power and threatens the competitiveness of electricity producers, Handelsblatt cited a former [green] industry group leader as saying.
Guaranteed prices for solar and wind power, paid for by consumers, are threatening the renewable-energy industry’s ability to compete, the report said, citing Johannes Lackmann, the former head of Germany’s BEE renewable-energy lobby group.
Installations of solar panels may more than double this year to 9,000 megawatts, Handelsblatt said. That may help to boost the total cost of installed solar capacity in Germany to 85.4 billion euros ($106 billion) from 2000 to 2010, according to a study by the RWI economic institute, Handelsblatt said.
They waste a lot of money. It also means the output needs subsidy year after year. Can we learn from their fiasco?
My sister lives in Germany. Recent cold spring was blamed in media on that poor Iceland volcano. What was the coldest winter for many parts in recent decades blamed on is unclear.
Problem with Germans is, that except gay/love parades, they would not go out to the streets if their own government robbed them on openly false premises.
“…are threatening the renewable-energy industry’s ability to compete.”
Another words : “Oops ! Did we say that this green plan was going to be affordable ? Our bad. Sorry folks, but the affordable energy we promised you isn’t going to happen. We’ll have to quadruple your costs to heat your home. Have a nice day and we wish everyone god speed this winter. But hey, look on the bright side… we’re reducing CO2 by 0.0000000001% per century !”
Perfect example and manifestation of The Law of Unintended Consequences when political interference and economic discrimination rear their ugly heads.
When I look at the electric rates I’ve been paying here, I’d say he’s spot on.
It makes more sense to make polluting sources pay a higher price, than to susidize renewables. That should get around the problem of unrealistic costs for newables. That is the direction of the cap and trade approach that was effective in reducing acid rain in an economical way.
9,000 megawatts of solar? Is that a typo?
California has already drunk the cool aide as has USEPA. Now Obama wants Congress to drink hardy. Gore and IPPC should have won the nobel world pauper prize.
Yeh- let’s tell those Germans how silly they are following that clean renewable energy route. Far better for the economy to go for cheap oil -once you factor out the cost of destroying the odd Gulf here or there. Drill baby drill!!!!
Were NONE of these people alive during the first “alternative energy” boom of the 70s?
During that era, after the oil crisis, every dimwitted idealist had a plan to make alternative energy. That was when bird slicing windmills were designed, and pretty much ALL the current crop of pie-in-the-sky technologies were developed. If they were practical, they would still be in use. They weren’t, and they aren’t.
If your business plan relies on a subsidy, you are going to fail right out of the box. Give me alternatives that work without subsidies and I would be on board. But… that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
BillD says “It makes more sense to make polluting sources pay a higher price….”
Except that CO2 is not pollution.
Yeah, subsidies.
Fossil fuels receive twice the subsidies renewables energy do. 72 billion against 29.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2ygdsSj.KQI
If fossil fuels were priced at market rates, without government intervention, renewables would already be competitive. They are nonetheless becoming competitive in some places. And they will only become more competitive as oil prices go back up – or you have already forgotten 2008?
The gulf oil spill will, as in the case of the 79-80, Permex spill, take care of itself in 3 to 4 years. AND there will be found a TECHNICAL SOLUTION.
I wish all you WHINERS would put your “money where your mouth is” and bike to work and back. (Whoops, sorry, that’s what I..the arch “Drill Baby Drill” Dr. Evil do. Of course use conservative neandrethals tend to actually DO thinks that are enviromentally friendly…)
Worst thing for German society is the so-called wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. The green energy regulations are the ideal way to achieve that. High-income households invest into solar panels and the ridiculous amounts per kWh are paid by all households, even the poorest. The green establishment feels good about it.
mjk says “Yeh- let’s tell those Germans how silly they are following that clean renewable energy route. Far better for the economy to go for cheap oil -once you factor out the cost of destroying the odd Gulf here or there. Drill baby drill!”
“Clean renewable energy”, eh? Well at least so far as you can see….but certainly not in reality. You might want to do some research into the rare earth mines in China which provide the materials for wind turbines, etc. The difference is that the greenies seem to keep their noses out of China and go after the softer targets because the western media are suckers for it.
Quite frankly, oil is not going anywhere, Cap’n tax just hurts the poor the rural, the
farmer,rancher the productive. Industry will go elsewhere. Spain is a grand example
of a Green Economy-not! I Obama thinks that is a model ok. how about 27% unemployment ? The Gulf spill is bad, but it looks like Govn’t is as much to blame
as BP. Suspending the Jones act would’ve gone a long way. Suspending EPA rules
for the building of sand bars to protect wetlands, using booms that were available.
This could’ve been contained a lot sooner. or greatly reduced.
“Drill baby drill”-like Brazil, China, Russia.?
“BillD says “It makes more sense to make polluting sources pay a higher price….”
Except that CO2 is not pollution.
Except CO2 is a net benefit as plant food and we would be much better off at 1000 ppm. Any one who eats food should be subsidizing the coal fired plants. If only it were true that it could create some net warming, we should subside them even more.
BillD, you’re a hoot.
Except that reducing acid rain was actually something we could do, and the microscopic reduction we would accomplish with CO2 would not make one bit of difference.
But you know that already, you’re just going on and on……….
Deutschland über alles?, they were the inventors of the GREEN movement:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8750846/Eco-Fascism-Fascist-Ideology-the-Green-Wing-of-the-Nazi-Party-and-Its-Historical-Antecedents-by-Peter-Staudenmaier
Max Hugoson says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:38 am
On what scientific piece of research are you basing your 3-4 year recovery?? In any event ,even if the gulf –by magic–suddenly repaired itself within this time frame, what are your thoughts on the countless people that have lost their jobs and businesses, animals that have died, fish populations destroyed, marsh lands lost etc etc… in the mean time? You and the rest of the “conservative neandrethals” (your descrption not mine) should take pause next time you shout that feel good chant –Drill baby drill.
MJK
Kids of the future will be GREEN out of famine.
Hypnos says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:37 am
“Yeah, subsidies.
Fossil fuels receive twice the subsidies renewables energy do. 72 billion against 29.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2ygdsSj.KQI
. They are nonetheless becoming competitive in some places. And they will only become more competitive as oil prices go back up – or you have already forgotten 2008?”
You’re thinking about this wrong. First, when related to electricity, the price of oil has very little to do with the cost of energy. About 5% of U.S. electricity is generated by oil, and much of that can be converted to gas generated. Still, even less than that is generated by solar or wind. Go here to see. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html . So, if one were to compare by megawatt, wind in solar get 29 billion for 105 million megawatts compared to coal, oil and gases 72 billion for 3 trillion megawatts. You do the math, if you stripped the subsidies, what sector would charge you more per kWh? They are not competitive now, nor will they ever be without subsidies. If only because of reliability and the need for redundancy. Try again.
As Jaypan says- Worst thing for German society is the so-called wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. The green energy regulations are the ideal way to achieve that. High-income households invest into solar panels and the ridiculous amounts per kWh are paid by all households, even the poorest. The green establishment feels good about it.
Same here in Oz as it’s largely greying baby-boomers, power bill proofing their homes for their retirement and ‘hopping in for their chop’ with the taxpayer funded middle-class welfare subsidies for solar feed-in and forced higher buyback tarriffs. That’s why I refer to green energy as ‘reshiftables’ although ‘greening’ is fairly apt description of it too.
CO2 isn’t a pollutant, but the radiation from coal exhaust is. Pollution is an externality. To maintain healthy markets, one need mechanisms to either regulate the externality (to avoid tragedy of the commons issues), of enable creation of markets for the externalized goods (or costs).
We do need to stop subsidies for all energy sources. These introduce market distortions and interfere with the development of the most economically and efficient solutions.
First, those numbers are suspicious to me. From the article,
So a “subsidy” is a credit for what seems to be a tax paid to another jurisdiction, and I believe that all companies would be entitled to this. [The use of the word “royalty” makes it appear that this might be more properly accounted for as an expense, and that giving a credit is an unwarranted boon — a subsidy — to the companies, but not knowing the details I’ll not stick my head out too far.] My point is that the source of the numbers is hardly unbiased, so apply an appropriate amount of sodium chloride. E.g. if all companies got a 1% reduction in taxes, the oil companies, being very large, would necessarily get a large benefit, but this is hardly a subsidy in the normal sense of the word, with the implication that it’s a benefit given specifically to one company or industry as opposed to generally.
But whatever the numbers are, I’m against all subsidies as a matter of policy. So I’ll march alongside you to protest subsidies to fossil fuel companies, but join me against tobacco (are those still going on?) and other farm subsidies, ethanol, solar, “cash for clunkers,” etc. By construction, subsidies undermine the natural pricing relationships among goods which are arrived at by the free choice of individuals. Subsidies protect products which are not sufficiently attractive that people buy them of their own free will – in other words, inferior in some sense. Products should take their natural courses — if the products aren’t attractive, then they should be allowed to disappear.
Plus, where there are subsidies, corruption is rarely far behind — in fact quite often it’s ahead.