The Freiburg Model
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for that; There are a number of large solar installs in my area. 308kW on one new mfg facility, about 19% of the company's needs.
Pretty good propaganda films, but very short on reality.
Quote:
Revenue at Solar-Fabrik fell 22% in 2011 due to increased competition and falling average selling prices while shipments remained flat at 127MW with 2010. Revenue reached €176.89 million, down from €227.27 million in 2010. Gross margin was 13.7%, down from 17.7% in the prior year. Net loss was €360,000 due mainly to impairment charges related to permanently stopping solar cell production in Singapore and cancellation of a wafer supply contract.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/exiting_solar_cell_production_drags_solar_fabrik_into_small_annual_loss
Quote:
Erdmann has calculated the effects that the latest changes to the EEG will have between now and 2030. He believes that subsidies for renewable energy, including an expansion of the power grid, will saddle energy consumers with costs well over €300 billion ($377 billion).
An environmental surcharge known as the EEG contribution, which is already added to German energy bills, will rise sharply. This renewable energy surcharge currently amounts to 3.59 cents per kilowatt hour. Chancellor Angela Merkel previously promised to cap it at 3.5 cents, but Erdmann's calculations show the EEG contribution jumping to "over 10 cents per kilowatt hour," or nearly three times what the chancellor pledged.
Quote:
Photovoltaics are threatening to become the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy. Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country's power supply, and only erratically at that.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...e-a-842595.html
And riding a bicycle in the rain and driving roller skates..
That is what people should be working for? That's a big step backward in living conditions and we should pay more for it?
Quote:
Revenue at Solar-Fabrik fell 22% in 2011 due to increased competition and falling average selling prices while shipments remained flat at 127MW with 2010. Revenue reached €176.89 million, down from €227.27 million in 2010. Gross margin was 13.7%, down from 17.7% in the prior year. Net loss was €360,000 due mainly to impairment charges related to permanently stopping solar cell production in Singapore and cancellation of a wafer supply contract.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/exiting_solar_cell_production_drags_solar_fabrik_into_small_annual_loss
Quote:
Erdmann has calculated the effects that the latest changes to the EEG will have between now and 2030. He believes that subsidies for renewable energy, including an expansion of the power grid, will saddle energy consumers with costs well over €300 billion ($377 billion).
An environmental surcharge known as the EEG contribution, which is already added to German energy bills, will rise sharply. This renewable energy surcharge currently amounts to 3.59 cents per kilowatt hour. Chancellor Angela Merkel previously promised to cap it at 3.5 cents, but Erdmann's calculations show the EEG contribution jumping to "over 10 cents per kilowatt hour," or nearly three times what the chancellor pledged.
Quote:
Photovoltaics are threatening to become the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy. Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country's power supply, and only erratically at that.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...e-a-842595.html
And riding a bicycle in the rain and driving roller skates..
That is what people should be working for? That's a big step backward in living conditions and we should pay more for it?
Quote:
Even Greenpeace is dissatisfied, fearing this will become a race to grab the remaining subsidy money. "This is a dangerous decision," Niklas Schinerl, Greenpeace's spokesperson for energy issues, commented in response to the verdict reached by the arbitration panel on the EEG amendment last Wednesday. Schinerl believes costs will skyrocket unnecessarily. "That puts acceptance of the transition to renewable energy at risk, and ultimately compromises the entire EEG," he says.
It looks like now, once again, the solar industry's lobbyists have managed to get their way. Well practiced at dressing up their own economic interests in noble environmental goals, last Tuesday they made the rounds to win over the federal and state-level representatives on the arbitration committee. They also had serious discussions with Minister Altmaier, in the words of one representative from a major solar panel manufacturer.
The first thing to go was a regulation that would have established a minimum distance of four kilometers (2.5 miles) between large-scale solar plants, opting for two kilometers instead. The driving force behind this modification was former coal-mining company RAG, which wants to construct large solar arrays on old waste dumps in the state of Saarland.
Even Greenpeace is dissatisfied, fearing this will become a race to grab the remaining subsidy money. "This is a dangerous decision," Niklas Schinerl, Greenpeace's spokesperson for energy issues, commented in response to the verdict reached by the arbitration panel on the EEG amendment last Wednesday. Schinerl believes costs will skyrocket unnecessarily. "That puts acceptance of the transition to renewable energy at risk, and ultimately compromises the entire EEG," he says.
It looks like now, once again, the solar industry's lobbyists have managed to get their way. Well practiced at dressing up their own economic interests in noble environmental goals, last Tuesday they made the rounds to win over the federal and state-level representatives on the arbitration committee. They also had serious discussions with Minister Altmaier, in the words of one representative from a major solar panel manufacturer.
The first thing to go was a regulation that would have established a minimum distance of four kilometers (2.5 miles) between large-scale solar plants, opting for two kilometers instead. The driving force behind this modification was former coal-mining company RAG, which wants to construct large solar arrays on old waste dumps in the state of Saarland.
http://energy.aol.com/2012/11/12/can-more-europe-pave-germany-s-path-to-renewables/
Quote:
The benefit to Europeans in Germany and beyond could be substantial: "A Europe-wide grid will complete Europe's internal energy market, a key goal of the EU," says Müller-Kraenner.
"Consumers of electricity, companies and private households, will profit if they can buy cheap electricity from wind and solar. This is the reason why even today, renewable electricity from Germany is being sold to neighboring countries like France or Poland. "
Quote:
Hub and Spoke System Favors Fossil Fuels
Quote:
The benefit to Europeans in Germany and beyond could be substantial: "A Europe-wide grid will complete Europe's internal energy market, a key goal of the EU," says Müller-Kraenner.
"Consumers of electricity, companies and private households, will profit if they can buy cheap electricity from wind and solar. This is the reason why even today, renewable electricity from Germany is being sold to neighboring countries like France or Poland. "
Quote:
Hub and Spoke System Favors Fossil Fuels
"Have German Solar Subsidies Failed?"
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/have-german-solar-subsidies-failed
Quote:
Wrong, Solar Photovoltaic output will account for 4% of Germany's electricity production in 2012.
Bjorn Lomborg is out by 10 times. It must be incredibly embarrassing to have such a huge mistake syndicated around the world.
Quote:
Germany May End Solar Subsidies by 2014, Altmaier Tells Passauer
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/have-german-solar-subsidies-failed
Quote:
Wrong, Solar Photovoltaic output will account for 4% of Germany's electricity production in 2012.
Bjorn Lomborg is out by 10 times. It must be incredibly embarrassing to have such a huge mistake syndicated around the world.
Quote:
Germany May End Solar Subsidies by 2014, Altmaier Tells Passauer
From 7 days ago:
Quote:
It says solar power's share in the country's electricity production rose to 6.1 percent from 4.1 percent.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/05/.../#ixzz2C3RGn8kp
Quote:
Those who believe that the United States should emulate Germany’s model should consider the following: 35 cents per kWh for electricity is three times as much as U.S. customers paid on average for electricity last year (11.8 cents per kWh).[viii]Germany’s solar feed-in tariff alone is 41-152% greater than US total residential electricity rates. Germans also have the 2nd highest electricity prices in Europe—outdone only by wind-dependent Denmark—and this situation will inevitably be made worse by the fact that Germany has pledged to phase out nuclear energy and become more reliant on renewable energy sources.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48216
Quote:
Monday, with green power surcharges expected to rise by 47 percent while overall electricity costs will also go up by 7 percent.
According to the report, the consumer subsidies for renewable energy will rise to 5.3 euro cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) from 3.6 euro cents, while network operators will also receive 20.36 billion euros ($26.4 billion) to utilise green energy sources.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/394995/20...tm#.UKGJ04aWRiA
Is that really the model we should follow? How does higher prices of energy help people?
Quote:
It says solar power's share in the country's electricity production rose to 6.1 percent from 4.1 percent.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/05/.../#ixzz2C3RGn8kp
Quote:
Those who believe that the United States should emulate Germany’s model should consider the following: 35 cents per kWh for electricity is three times as much as U.S. customers paid on average for electricity last year (11.8 cents per kWh).[viii]Germany’s solar feed-in tariff alone is 41-152% greater than US total residential electricity rates. Germans also have the 2nd highest electricity prices in Europe—outdone only by wind-dependent Denmark—and this situation will inevitably be made worse by the fact that Germany has pledged to phase out nuclear energy and become more reliant on renewable energy sources.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48216
Quote:
Monday, with green power surcharges expected to rise by 47 percent while overall electricity costs will also go up by 7 percent.
According to the report, the consumer subsidies for renewable energy will rise to 5.3 euro cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) from 3.6 euro cents, while network operators will also receive 20.36 billion euros ($26.4 billion) to utilise green energy sources.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/394995/20...tm#.UKGJ04aWRiA
Is that really the model we should follow? How does higher prices of energy help people?
I don't think it is, but ending all subsidies may not be wise either. I think the German gov. overreached and needs to put the brakes on this, which they seem to be doing.
They may end all subsidies by 2014. Energy transformation is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of mistakes are going to be made.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/solar-germany-idUSL5E8LV6NS20121031
Quote:
Oct 31 (Reuters) - Germany's solar power systems market continued to grow strongly in September, putting Europe's biggest economy on track for a new installation record this year and increasing pressure on the ruling coalition to curb the spiralling costs to consumers.
They may end all subsidies by 2014. Energy transformation is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of mistakes are going to be made.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/solar-germany-idUSL5E8LV6NS20121031
Quote:
Oct 31 (Reuters) - Germany's solar power systems market continued to grow strongly in September, putting Europe's biggest economy on track for a new installation record this year and increasing pressure on the ruling coalition to curb the spiralling costs to consumers.
Quote:
Energy transformation is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of mistakes are going to be made.
Is "Energy transformation" the new buzz phrase for government central planning of power sources?
They got it wrong, and always will, because they have no idea how people will really react to the incentives they create. The government wanted 3.5 GW and they got 7.5 GW.
Why the 3.5 GW? Where does this number come from? Why exactly does this "Energy transformation" need to come about and according to who's timeline?
Quote:
Opposition parties have accused the government of letting private consumers bear the brunt of the costs, after it exempted energy-intensive heavy industry from green energy and network usage tariffs.
This is highly distortionary. Such wavers are granted to industry so as not to make them uncompetitive in the global market. Why would these wavers be needed if "energy transformation" is a good thing?
Energy transformation is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of mistakes are going to be made.
Is "Energy transformation" the new buzz phrase for government central planning of power sources?
They got it wrong, and always will, because they have no idea how people will really react to the incentives they create. The government wanted 3.5 GW and they got 7.5 GW.
Why the 3.5 GW? Where does this number come from? Why exactly does this "Energy transformation" need to come about and according to who's timeline?
Quote:
Opposition parties have accused the government of letting private consumers bear the brunt of the costs, after it exempted energy-intensive heavy industry from green energy and network usage tariffs.
This is highly distortionary. Such wavers are granted to industry so as not to make them uncompetitive in the global market. Why would these wavers be needed if "energy transformation" is a good thing?
JHZR2
Staff member
My inlaws pay 45c/kWh. They installed solar and are seeing an 8-10% ROI. Cant get that in the market. No subsidy or sellback, just straight offset of the use.
Is that bad too?
Is that bad too?
Quote:
Is "Energy transformation" the new buzz phrase for government central planning of power sources?
It's a mixed effort, always has been and should be. There is no free market. Most of the time things are best left to the market, and most people realize that.
Quote:
Contrary to the anti-planning claims and biases of “free market” doctrine, “capitalist economies are in large part planned by capitalist governments and by “large hierarchical corporations that plan their activities in great detail.” As Chang observes, “the question is not to plan or not. It is about planning the right thing at the right levels” It is about appropriate levels and forms of planning for different activities” Neoliberal economics, sold as purely economic market rationality, is in fact political intervention.....
There will be a lot of trial and error as usual.
Is "Energy transformation" the new buzz phrase for government central planning of power sources?
It's a mixed effort, always has been and should be. There is no free market. Most of the time things are best left to the market, and most people realize that.
Quote:
Contrary to the anti-planning claims and biases of “free market” doctrine, “capitalist economies are in large part planned by capitalist governments and by “large hierarchical corporations that plan their activities in great detail.” As Chang observes, “the question is not to plan or not. It is about planning the right thing at the right levels” It is about appropriate levels and forms of planning for different activities” Neoliberal economics, sold as purely economic market rationality, is in fact political intervention.....
There will be a lot of trial and error as usual.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Pretty good propaganda films, but very short on reality...
And riding a bicycle in the rain and driving roller skates..
That is what people should be working for? That's a big step backward in living conditions and we should pay more for it?
As many of you know, I've been to more than half the worlds countries. But, I've never been anywhere like the good 'ol USA. Using Europe as a model for America is a mistake. I'm not talking about politics. Just simple geography. Our country is markedly different than the whole of the EU.
Pretty good propaganda films, but very short on reality...
And riding a bicycle in the rain and driving roller skates..
That is what people should be working for? That's a big step backward in living conditions and we should pay more for it?
As many of you know, I've been to more than half the worlds countries. But, I've never been anywhere like the good 'ol USA. Using Europe as a model for America is a mistake. I'm not talking about politics. Just simple geography. Our country is markedly different than the whole of the EU.
Tempest said : "Pretty good propaganda films, but very short on reality."
Maybe not VERY short on reality, but full of holes.
Maybe not VERY short on reality, but full of holes.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My inlaws pay 45c/kWh. They installed solar and are seeing an 8-10% ROI. Cant get that in the market. No subsidy or sellback, just straight offset of the use.
Is that bad too?
I believe individual solar units are more the answer. Not solar plants/fields with power distributed along the grid by a power company.
My inlaws pay 45c/kWh. They installed solar and are seeing an 8-10% ROI. Cant get that in the market. No subsidy or sellback, just straight offset of the use.
Is that bad too?
I believe individual solar units are more the answer. Not solar plants/fields with power distributed along the grid by a power company.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My inlaws pay 45c/kWh. They installed solar and are seeing an 8-10% ROI. Cant get that in the market. No subsidy or sellback, just straight offset of the use.
Is that bad too?
If this is true, then they made a good decision for themselves. I would be surprised if there aren't subsidies somewhere along the supply line. The manufactures and installers might get subsidies that your inlaws don't see.
And in the area where I live, that gets about as much sun as anywhere in the US, solar plants don't go up without subsidies and long term price fixing.
My inlaws pay 45c/kWh. They installed solar and are seeing an 8-10% ROI. Cant get that in the market. No subsidy or sellback, just straight offset of the use.
Is that bad too?
If this is true, then they made a good decision for themselves. I would be surprised if there aren't subsidies somewhere along the supply line. The manufactures and installers might get subsidies that your inlaws don't see.
And in the area where I live, that gets about as much sun as anywhere in the US, solar plants don't go up without subsidies and long term price fixing.
Quote:
Most of the time things are best left to the market, and most people realize that.
Why is energy any different?
Quote:
capitalist economies are in large part planned by capitalist governments
LOL Someone doesn't know what capitalism is.
Planning things like this in what appears (on the surface) to be a market economy is Fascism. Private companies continue to exist but they are regulated to the point where they have little to no say in what they do.
Public utilities, cable company monopolies, trash companies, government sponsored enterprises, etc. are text book cases of Fascism. Private companies that exist to serve the whims of the presiding government.
This is done because these companies have some exposure to market forces and the profit motive helps to improve efficiency, but the monopolistic distortions of these entities are impossible to escape from.
As regulations increase on other sectors of the economy, the economy becomes more Fascist. This increased intervention incentivizes companies to buy politicians to shape the economic landscape in their favor. This is typically called "crony capitalism" but fascism is the more correct term.
This is no doubt why industry in Germany is largely insulated from the increased price of feed in tariffs that are actually subsidizing their activity.
Most of the time things are best left to the market, and most people realize that.
Why is energy any different?
Quote:
capitalist economies are in large part planned by capitalist governments
LOL Someone doesn't know what capitalism is.
Planning things like this in what appears (on the surface) to be a market economy is Fascism. Private companies continue to exist but they are regulated to the point where they have little to no say in what they do.
Public utilities, cable company monopolies, trash companies, government sponsored enterprises, etc. are text book cases of Fascism. Private companies that exist to serve the whims of the presiding government.
This is done because these companies have some exposure to market forces and the profit motive helps to improve efficiency, but the monopolistic distortions of these entities are impossible to escape from.
As regulations increase on other sectors of the economy, the economy becomes more Fascist. This increased intervention incentivizes companies to buy politicians to shape the economic landscape in their favor. This is typically called "crony capitalism" but fascism is the more correct term.
This is no doubt why industry in Germany is largely insulated from the increased price of feed in tariffs that are actually subsidizing their activity.
- Status
Similar threads
