Germany's solar experiment collapses. $$$ down the drain.

[tinydancer]

Wow. "Green" appears to be coming apart at the seams. And a disclaimer. I do believe in trying to integrate green energy with our standard energy supplies.

But when you get government involved in projects and let alone when one allows a government to throw billions and billions of taxpayers money at projects that could never meet the "dream standards" of green green green, they are bound to be doomed.

Governments always screw things up.

Germany's solar experiment collapses

Bjørn Lomborg, Financial Post · Feb. 22, 2012 | Last Updated: Feb. 22, 2012 5:19 AM ET

Germany once prided itself on being the "photovoltaic world champion," doling out generous subsidies - totalling more than US$130-billion, according to research from Germany's Ruhr University - to citizens to invest in solar energy.

But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit.

Philipp Rösler, Germany's Minister of Economics and Technology, has called the spiralling solar subsidies a "threat to the economy."

Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.

- Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Tools

 

[Staidhup]

Moral of the story, open free markets are created by supply, demand, and cost benefits. The market directed by the demand for low cost energy dictates development, not fads, not government mandate. Government interference in supply and development disrupts markets resulting in higher consumer expense, and market contraction.

 

[uscitizen]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

 

[ekrem]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

It's no failure.
Germany subsidizes home-owners to put solar-panels onto their roof.
Last year homeowners used subsidies twice the amount Finance Ministry planned to grant. It's a good investement in these times of economic uncertainty to build these panels and sell the electricity to the State.

They're now cutting back on the subsidies and the price the state will buy the excess electricity you don't use.
But the generated electricity from solar-panels is still cheaper than what you would've to pay to an electricity company.
State will buy excess energy for around 20 cent from now on, electricity company sells you electricity for about 26 cent.
It still makes sense for solely personal use, but it isn't a good investment anymore for people "who want to sell electricity" as an income return.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

at some point in the future, people are gonna look back at this period and laugh about how much work we had to do to get fuel out of the ground (and how much international power certain countries had) when the power from the sun pounds down on us for free virtually every day.

i'll be glad when some current 7th grader solves the solar power issue.

 

[ekrem]

Moral of the story, open free markets are created by supply, demand, and cost benefits. The market directed by the demand for low cost energy dictates development, not fads, not government mandate. Government interference in supply and development disrupts markets resulting in higher consumer expense, and market contraction.

Markets care only for money.
If Germany decides to "exit" solar-energy then only because of Germany's climate. They'll put the money from unproductive solar-energy into other renewable-tech which more suits Germany.
They subsidized everything with "watering-can"-principle.

 

[tinydancer]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

I'm not gleeful. The author of the piece isn't gleeful. The German government isn't gleeful.

I'd like a sane and tactical approach to converting to as many renewable energy forms as possible.

But all we have witnessed in various governments rush to be the "greenest" is epic failure and monumental waste of tax dollars.

All for egos. The gentleman in particular who wrote this article does believe in climate change but the world isn't ending tomorrow and we can tackle these climate issues in a sane and rational manner.

But that hasn't been happening has it?

 

[Trajan]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

where do you see that in her OP?

 

[uscitizen]

at some point in the future, people are gonna look back at this period and laugh about how much work we had to do to get fuel out of the ground (and how much international power certain countries had) when the power from the sun pounds down on us for free virtually every day.

i'll be glad when some current 7th grader solves the solar power issue.

He/she will create cure for stupidity?

 

[Trajan]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

It's no failure.
Germany subsidizes home-owners to put solar-panels onto their roof.
Last year homeowners used subsidies twice the amount Finance Ministry planned to grant. It's a good investement in these times of economic uncertainty to build these panels and sell the electricity to the State.

They're now cutting back on the subsidies and the price the state will buy the excess electricity you don't use.
But the generated electricity from solar-panels is still cheaper than what you would've to pay to an electricity company.
State will buy excess energy for around 20 cent from now on, electricity company sells you electricity for about 26 cent.
It still makes sense for solely personal use, but it isn't a good investment anymore for people "who want to sell electricity" as an income return.

you are challenged. for them to make such a pronouncement, is, well, immense.

next- the sate subsidizing a private home owner, who cannot solely power their home and still needs electricity form other sources.

in the mean time, the homeowner still has to pay off his portion of the money he spent to put them on his home. I had a solar co. spec. my home, even with massive subsidies I would still cost me over 14K.

My year to year saving on what the solar panels would provide means it would take me 16 years to realize the cost of my outlay back, that is how long it would take the panels t pay themselves off. That is a HORRIBLE investment.

 

[uscitizen]

This is in capitalistic USA he was referring to Socialist Germany.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Might be different in Germany. Electric prices are a whole more there.

They are going to be scrambling soon. They are Kyoto committed and they forswore all nuclear

 

[tinydancer]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

It's no failure.
Germany subsidizes home-owners to put solar-panels onto their roof.
Last year homeowners used subsidies twice the amount Finance Ministry planned to grant. It's a good investement in these times of economic uncertainty to build these panels and sell the electricity to the State.

They're now cutting back on the subsidies and the price the state will buy the excess electricity you don't use.
But the generated electricity from solar-panels is still cheaper than what you would've to pay to an electricity company.
State will buy excess energy for around 20 cent from now on, electricity company sells you electricity for about 26 cent.
It still makes sense for solely personal use, but it isn't a good investment anymore for people "who want to sell electricity" as an income return.

Well Lomborg is contradicting you.

And he clearly states the expense of solar.

Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3% of Germany's total energy.

This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the "world wind-energy champion").

 

[tinydancer]

Might be different in Germany. Electric prices are a whole more there.

They are going to be scrambling soon. They are Kyoto committed and they forswore all nuclear

Brits are freaking out now over their wind farms. Mirrored situation where billions of tax dollars have been spent with little return.

I swear it was like every government got drunk with power in the "good times" and bought into all the propaganda that the climate scientists were handing them because they could see mega $$$$$$$$$$$$ in taxing the ever loving crap out of their constituents to fund these projects and non green projects.

Because after all "this was for the planet". YIKES. What a scheme. Billions and billions wasted with no results.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

I'm not gleeful. The author of the piece isn't gleeful. The German government isn't gleeful.

I'd like a sane and tactical approach to converting to as many renewable energy forms as possible.

But all we have witnessed in various governments rush to be the "greenest" is epic failure and monumental waste of tax dollars.

That is because you are not including the costs that fossil fuels impose on health care systems and the environment. When you include those costs fossil fuels cost 2 times more than renewables

Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy

Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.

Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.

Coal Is Cheap Because Of The Massive Unpriced Externalities | ThinkProgress
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.: study | Reuters
^Coals negative impact on health and the environment is estimated to cost the united states over 400 billion dollars yearly.

 

[tinydancer]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

It's no failure.
Germany subsidizes home-owners to put solar-panels onto their roof.
Last year homeowners used subsidies twice the amount Finance Ministry planned to grant. It's a good investement in these times of economic uncertainty to build these panels and sell the electricity to the State.

They're now cutting back on the subsidies and the price the state will buy the excess electricity you don't use.
But the generated electricity from solar-panels is still cheaper than what you would've to pay to an electricity company.
State will buy excess energy for around 20 cent from now on, electricity company sells you electricity for about 26 cent.
It still makes sense for solely personal use, but it isn't a good investment anymore for people "who want to sell electricity" as an income return.

you are challenged. for them to make such a pronouncement, is, well, immense.

next- the sate subsidizing a private home owner, who cannot solely power their home and still needs electricity form other sources.

in the mean time, the homeowner still has to pay off his portion of the money he spent to put them on his home. I had a solar co. spec. my home, even with massive subsidies I would still cost me over 14K.

My year to year saving on what the solar panels would provide means it would take me 16 years to realize the cost of my outlay back, that is how long it would take the panels t pay themselves off. That is a HORRIBLE investment.

My former neighbors went solar. No other back up except a generator. The summer they went solar literally was the cloudiest rainiest summer I can remember in a long time.

Let's just say it was so rainy that slugs were drowning in the back yard and I was contemplating converting to rice paddies as a crop alternative for that year.

The poor souls (and they were really trying to give this a go) had to run the gas generator almost all summer. And their expectations were outrageous in the sense they had three teenagers who wanted to run their computers, and all the top of the line energy saving appliances but they just did not have enough juice to handle what they expected to be able to use.

They finally calculated as you did that if they upgraded to meet their requirements as a family it would take two decades to have their investment pay off.

They have since moved and sold the property as a "summer cottage".

Now my husband and I went primal. Straight Amish. Wood stove, fireplace, candles, and hand pump in a 2,000 square foot home.

Minimal investment. Batteries for radios and flashlights. A kerosene heater for an added boost when needed and we lived like that for several years just to see if we could do it.

Saved a ton of money and really enjoyed ourselves.

You would be amazed at how good you can get at schezuan cooking in a fireplace.

But you have to have realistic expectations and really know what you are getting into.

But no tv. No computers. Nothing. Nada. And you better like radio programming and books.

 

[KissMy]

Are there any real functioning carbon neutral cities in the world?

Masdar Abu-Dhabi is spending a fortune to be a low-carbon city. "Masdar City, the world's first carbon neutral city that's banned cars and skyscrapers from its streets, gives us a glimpse of what other parts of the world might look like in the future."

Perhaps the mother of all sustainable architecture projects, Dongtan on Chongming Island in China will be powered by wind, biofuels, and solar energy.

Sydney, achieves the incredible feat of becoming Australia’s first carbon neutral city by purchasing huge carbon offsets.

The City of Seattle, WA decided to make the city carbon-neutral by 2050.

Puerto Princesa: The first carbon neutral city in the Philippines

 

[ScienceRocks]

at some point in the future, people are gonna look back at this period and laugh about how much work we had to do to get fuel out of the ground (and how much international power certain countries had) when the power from the sun pounds down on us for free virtually every day.

i'll be glad when some current 7th grader solves the solar power issue.

It's still 20-30 years off economically. How about nuclear until then?

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody surprised by this has the IQ of a handball.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why do some take pride and glee in failures to replace fossil fuel?

If it was a real replacement, it would not have failed. Bigger Better Faster Stronger Cheaper. Those are the measuring sticks of every new technology. What is it that it does better than all other technologies before it in the field, or what does it do that cannot be done any other way?

If you cannot show value in these categories, you will fail every time.

Solar has potential, but it's still 50-75 years out, barring some major breakthrough of some unforseen tech. Till then, Drill baby drill.