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

[tinydancer]

The Chicago Tribune article spins only the Environment Minister "rosy outlook". Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Economic Minister and others in Merkel's Cabinet want to throttle him.



Check this out. From Der Spiegel.

Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels received more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but contributed only 3 percent of Germany's total energy supply.
.

And this should scare the crap out of any sane taxpayer.

Under Germany's renewable energy law, each new energy system qualifies for 20 years of subsidies.

A flood of new solar farm operators and private users have pushed up the costs of those subsidies, opponents argue, passing the costs of the government support on to all electricity consumers nationwide.

I'd open up a solar farm too if the government would pay me to harness the sun for 20 years..... Sheesh this is nuts.

The World from Berlin: Solar Energy Row Is an 'Undignified Spectacle' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

[rdean]

The Chicago Tribune article spins only the Environment Minister "rosy outlook". Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Economic Minister and others in Merkel's Cabinet want to throttle him.



Check this out. From Der Spiegel.

Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels received more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but contributed only 3 percent of Germany's total energy supply.
.

And this should scare the crap out of any sane taxpayer.

Under Germany's renewable energy law, each new energy system qualifies for 20 years of subsidies.

A flood of new solar farm operators and private users have pushed up the costs of those subsidies, opponents argue, passing the costs of the government support on to all electricity consumers nationwide.

I'd open up a solar farm too if the government would pay me to harness the sun for 20 years..... Sheesh this is nuts.

The World from Berlin: Solar*Energy*Row Is an*'Undignified Spectacle' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

From your link:

Already this year, the kilowatt hour of Germany-produced solar energy will be remunerated, depending on the size of the installation, with 15 to 21 cents. Under current proposals, that amount will be 10 to 15 cents by 2015. It would be so cheap, that it would no longer be worth using state subsidies. New installations could then theoretically manage without support. Those then, who would buy from Grossmann, instead of producing their own energy, would pay twice as much. Solar subsidies were put in place to make solar energy competitive, and it has worked."

 

[Big Fitz]

Solar subsidies were put in place to make solar energy competitive, and it has worked."

Translation: Solar is NOT competitive, and will not be competitive after we remove the subsidies because it is not viable technology yet

 

[HUGGY]

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?

Ya you are gleeful. There are a lot of countries on the planet that should be competing for the "king" of solar. Germany isn't one of them. Their experiment strikes me as somewhat desperate. Don't they have a buttload of mountains in Germany? One would think they would be real big on hydro electric.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Government invests in concepts/ideas that may and sometimes turn out to be great ideas, but private industry didn't see an immediate return on investment so they didn't invest. Isn't that the story behind the polio vaccine and the internet? Neither would have happened if not for government investment.

Think about who's pushing the message you are selling. The oil companies. They don't want the government coming up with good alternative energy! They want to ride gas and oil and coal out as long as they can and then once that has been depleated, then we will worry about wind/solar/battery.

Government needs to invest in Green technology because Private Industry has a monopoly on Gas and oil and they are gouging us.

 

[sealybobo]

Anyone watch the Jerry Lewis Telethon? Ever donate and then the next year think to yourself, "boy was that a waste of $$$. $$$ down the drain because they haven't yet come up with a cure?

No you don't. We know it takes research and research costs $$$.

 

[Big Fitz]

Anyone watch the Jerry Lewis Telethon? Ever donate and then the next year think to yourself, "boy was that a waste of $$$. $$$ down the drain because they haven't yet come up with a cure?

No you don't. We know it takes research and research costs $$$.

apples and oranges. Government cannot be a charity for it gains funds through use of force. Don't believe me? Refuse to pay your taxes and see where it gets you.

"Charity" in terms of funding research is called "Investment".

 

[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?

Ya you are gleeful. There are a lot of countries on the planet that should be competing for the "king" of solar. Germany isn't one of them. Their experiment strikes me as somewhat desperate. Don't they have a buttload of mountains in Germany? One would think they would be real big on hydro electric.

I'm not gleeful at all Huggy. I'm a major conservationist and if you read my other posts you would see that I am disgusted and dismayed at how all of this "rush to green" has been handled.

That's why so many projects are falling apart. Did you see where the German government had promised to subsidize for 20 years? That's unsustainable. And it's on the backs of the taxpayers and the consumers.

A huge backlash is happening now.

I'm huge on Hydro Electric. That is our source where I live. The penultimate renewable energy.

 

[tinydancer]

Anyone watch the Jerry Lewis Telethon? Ever donate and then the next year think to yourself, "boy was that a waste of $$$. $$$ down the drain because they haven't yet come up with a cure?

No you don't. We know it takes research and research costs $$$.

With all due respect, please read the articles provided. In Germany alone over $130 billion dollars have been spent for poor results.

That's tax payers dollars. Costs have shot up thru the roof for the consumer to subsidize these solar farms for 20 years. Freaking 20 years. And I believe they are paying the second highest price for energy in all of Europe.

So that means something went horribly wrong.

I'd actually like to see an independent team of economists and scientists perform an autopsy on the project and see where the fatal wounds came from so no other government makes the same lethal planning mistakes while continuing to try to incorporate "green" into energy programs.

 

[MikeK]

I am comparatively ignorant in the technical aspects of this subject so all I know about it is what I read. What I've read and heard is while solar energy is presently incapable of replacing fossil fuels the technology is constantly but slowly evolving. In spite of that it seems there is little encouragement to continue pursuing development of solar energy.

 

[NoNukes]

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

Ignorance. People on the right oppose any issue supported by liberals, and will blindly do so without putting any thought into it.

 

[Political Junky]

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

No link to this? - Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
Tools. He doesn't sound very open minded.

 

[PeteEU]

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

No link to this? - Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
Tools. He doesn't sound very open minded.

Bjørn Lomborg is a hack, not to mention a borderline criminal. He is also the darling of the US right, who dont realize that is actually gay and says he is left wing.. actually far left wing.

He use to be the head of a Danish Environmental R&D group under the Danish state (independent), where they put out reports on enviormental issues that the Danish state were thinking of implementing, or reports on the impact of existing rules and laws.

The Sceptical Environmentalist was judged to by a review panel, to be not within "good standing and method" for scientific papers in Denmark, which threw every single report from the institute he headed into doubt. There was mass resignations by professors and experts from this group and in the end he was fired basically to save the whole project. In the end the ministry in charge some what cleared him, but his standing in the Danish scientific community was ruined.

 

[rdean]

Solar subsidies were put in place to make solar energy competitive, and it has worked."

Translation: Solar is NOT competitive, and will not be competitive after we remove the subsidies because it is not viable technology yet

so you give subsidies to something that works? It only works if it gets subsidies? And your favorite color is "moon"?

 

[Big Fitz]

Solar subsidies were put in place to make solar energy competitive, and it has worked."

Translation: Solar is NOT competitive, and will not be competitive after we remove the subsidies because it is not viable technology yet

so you give subsidies to something that works? It only works if it gets subsidies? And your favorite color is "moon"?

False conclusion. Solar power works, but it is NOT as good a solution as nearly all other power sources, save for like Wind. For the same amount of money, more energy, jobs and profit can be made by making nuclear power plants that are a greater benefit to the people. The power density is greater, requiring less land. The energy production is more stable because it works all the time, not just when the sun is out. The EROEI is greater by many multiples as well as the ROI on the financial investment.

Solar energy may look on the surface to be a good deal but that is only if you do not take into account what it's strengths are and ignore it's glaring weaknesses logistically and economically. There are many other ways of creating a product from applesauce to Zyrtec, but industry survives and grows profitable by finding the best way to produce the most product for the least amount of effort and money. It is referred to, in some industries, as a "Red Queen Race". That means to remain in the same place, you have to run faster and faster. This is true for all industry though, and subsidies do not help any technology or company be better than another. It only falsely hides it's failings and makes it competitive by unfairly giving them an advantage at the expense of others.

I reiterate, solar is 50-75 years off from being able to compete equally with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro. That also means that there will have to be great efficiency jumps in the amount of energy collected per panel to make their land consumption worth while. Or of course such a drastic reduction in manufacture/installation costs that it your ROI is very significant and quickly. You compete with the strongest competitor, not the weakest.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Markets only care for short term money.
Long term planning for the future requires that you ignore the short term mentality.

 

[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."




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

No link to this? - Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
Tools. He doesn't sound very open minded.

Bjørn Lomborg is a hack, not to mention a borderline criminal. He is also the darling of the US right, who dont realize that is actually gay and says he is left wing.. actually far left wing.

He use to be the head of a Danish Environmental R&D group under the Danish state (independent), where they put out reports on enviormental issues that the Danish state were thinking of implementing, or reports on the impact of existing rules and laws.

The Sceptical Environmentalist was judged to by a review panel, to be not within "good standing and method" for scientific papers in Denmark, which threw every single report from the institute he headed into doubt. There was mass resignations by professors and experts from this group and in the end he was fired basically to save the whole project. In the end the ministry in charge some what cleared him, but his standing in the Danish scientific community was ruined.

Shows you are completely out of touch with reality in current time. Pitiful attempt at deflection.

He has always believed that global warming/change existed. You really need to get up to speed.

And what does that have to do with the "facts" of this OP of mine. That the German government has fucking blown their load on solar with no bang for their buck.

It's truth and you are actually wrecking the conservation movement when you back idiotic projects just to "feel good".

Your attempt to malign the messenger is duly noted because that's all you have.
And by the way, he was cleared of those charges.

And the reason I like him is his argument has not been against global warming or climate change, but his argument has been on how to approach to these issues with some form of fiscal sanity. Even though I am not personally convinced on global warming I always admired his stance for approaching these issues in a rational way.

Until 2010 Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.

In 2010, in conjunction with an announcement of a forth-coming book, Lomborg revised his position regarding mitigation of anthropogenic global warming.

He has consistently supported the position that global warming exists, but cost benefit analyses, as calculated by the Copenhagen Consensus ranked climate mitigation initiatives low on a list of international development initiatives when first done in 2004.

In 2008, the issue of global warming saw an increase in its priority ranking, culminating with examination of a broader list of possible solutions.

He announced his agreement with "tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change" and declared global warming to be "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront".[1][2]

In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."[3]

Sheesh, you really need to get up to date.

 

[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

No link to this? - Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
Tools. He doesn't sound very open minded.

Get up to speed. He has never denied that there is climate change/warming.

His position has always been on how governments have wasted money trying to deal with the issue.

He announced his agreement with "tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change" and declared global warming to be "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront".

In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Dumb of your neighbors. The realistic route is grid parallel.

Here is Oregon, we had some major incentives for solar, but as the price of solar has came down considerably, we changed the max incentatives from 2 kw to 5 kw.

Now there is a lot of yap-yap about the payback period, and always it is based on the current cost of electricity. A more realistic estimate would be to look at the slope of the increases for the last 20 years, then figure your cost by the yearly increase on the slope. I think you would find the payback period considerably shorter than what many here are stating.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Actually, if they develop the thorium reactor, there is no reason, other than cost, not to have nukes indefinately. Right now, nukes are very expensive, and they are hardly failsafe.