Black Hole Sun: Germany Spends €100 Billion in Solar Subsidies

Written by Nick Sibilla, Reason Online.

Solar Array récupéré de http://en.wikipedia.or...

Image via Wikipedia

Step aside Solyndra. Germany is the true leader when it comes to solar boondoggles. Over the past decade, Germany has spent over €100 billion subsidizing solar energy. In 2011 alone, these subsidies topped €8 billion ($10.2 billion). Yet solar is still a niche industry in Germany, generating only 3 percent of its electricity. That's about the size of two nuclear power plants.

The main source for these subsidies have been feed-in tariffs (FiT). One blogger vividly described FiT:

Imagine if the government forced supermarkets to buy bread from plain white bread bakeries, ordered them to pay these bakeries a fixed price that’s 5 times higher than normal for 20 years, and forced them to buy up all the white bread these bakeries could produce, whether needed or not...that's exactly what Germany is doing with electricity.

First used in the early 1990's, FiT became a lavish subsidy after the German Renewable Energy Act (EEG) was enacted in 2000. Basically, FiT mandate utilities to buy renewable energy at a higher cost, with the tariff benefiting the owner of the renewable energy project. As a sweetener, these tariffs are locked in for 20-year contracts. Because of this, the German think tank RWI estimates that the contracts for solar installations just in 2011 will top €18 billion over the next two decades.

Technically, utilities are supposed to bear the higher costs, not the ratepayer. But as RWI elaborates:

While utilities are legally obliged to accept and remunerate the feed-in of green electricity, it is ultimately the industrial and private consumers who have to bear the cost through increased electricity prices.

Unsurprisingly, Germany has the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. (Denmark, another heavy green energy subsidizer, is first.) Currently, this green energy surcharge is 3.59 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity. Each year, this surcharge adds up to €200 more in electric bills. 

To justify these higher rates, proponents claim that FiT for solar are essential to thwart global warming and incentivize clean energy innovation. But even by the logic of reducing carbon emissions, heavily subsidizing solar is a poor choice:

To avoid a ton of CO2 emissions, one can spend €5 on insulating the roof of an old building, invest €20 in a new gas-fired power plant or sink about €500 into a new solar energy system.

Meanwhile, using renewable energy avoided 120 million tons of carbon in 2010. But solar energy represents just 7.6 percent of these avoided emissions, even though solar took more than half of all renewable energy subsidies.

Read rest…

Comments  

 
Gator
# Gator 01-31-2012 18:00
Hey anne! Isn't it funny that when we accuse them of this, they become the 'deniers'! ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 01-31-2012 17:54
"Unsurprisingly, Germany has the second-highest electricity prices in Europe. (Denmark, another heavy green energy subsidizer, is first.) Currently, this green energy surcharge is 3.59 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity. Each year, this surcharge adds up to €200 more in electric bills."

This is what they want. This is what they call success.

"But solar energy represents just 7.6 percent of these avoided emissions..."

Bullcrap! Solar does not even do that much, they are not figuring in the CO2 emissions produced by the mining and manufacturing processes.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 01-31-2012 19:21
Talking of sucking black holes guess who's broke? You guessed it :D that bastion of moral righteousness and incidentally forerunner of the Nation... Kalifornskya!

"California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers today."

'But wait!' you're thinking. Can't they just trim some spending??? Well..... no....

"But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on." blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/controller-state-to-run-out-of-cash-in-march-without-action.html

See, they've already spent it!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 01-31-2012 19:43
Hey Jeff! How is that possible? I mean, they finally got rid of that muscleheaded moron Schwarzenegger, and elected...



...Jerry Brown!

oh. :oops:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Ralph
# Ralph 01-31-2012 21:23
But their air is clean! :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 01-31-2012 22:09
But all of our air is cleaner, bankrupt or not! "The state of air quality in Canada has improved significantly since the 1970s, in most regions, with respect to all major pollutant types... Yet environmental and health care organizations continue to scare people into thinking that air pollution is increasing and that this presents a serious health risk in Canada. These claims are exaggerated or outright wrong." www.fraserinstitute.org/.../Air-quality-improving-across-Canada-since-1970s,-risk-of-pollution-related-illness-overstated
-ultra-fine particulate matter concentrations have decreased since wide-spread monitoring began around 2000
-Ground-level ozone has decreased in most Canadian provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, since 1980.
-concentrations of carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide have decreased in Canada by 87 per cent and 80 per cent, respectively
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 01-31-2012 22:15
Or there's the Kalifornskya Brown Plan... "In many instances, tightening air quality regulations would only increase costs and have no discernible effect on improving air quality". But might save a smelt or two! :o
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh