8 ms·

I'll just add in some empirical results. German power has risen to be some of the most expensive in Europe since they started the Energiewende. They have very l

I'll just add in some empirical results. German power has risen to be some of the most expensive in Europe since they started the Energiewende. They have very low wholesale prices (driving the coal producers out of business) combined with very high retail prices (might be top 3 in Europe?). The high retail price appears to be driven by the mechanisms driving the Energiewende ie transition to wind and solar. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-house... https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-elect...

cabaalis 9y ago
The NYT article reads as though Germany is benefiting from the switch to renewables, and that the only problems are that sometimes there's so much power around that they have to pay people to use it. It mentions high cost of electricity, and that it's due to fees and "renewable investment costs" but then immediately hand-waves that away because "household energy bills have been rising over all anyway." When combined with your information above (those hand-wavy fees actually account for fully 50% of the costs, with 24% being the renewables surcharge) it would seem that the NYT is being misleading. It seems they want to convey the idea that the renewables are an immediate good thing for everyone (which I do not take issue with politically) while downplaying the significant costs to consumers. Am I missing something? If I'm not, then this does nothing but contribute to the current view of American media as being intentionally misleading when it suits their interests.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Perhaps. But the price of oil is manipulated and subsidized as well.
  - JanSt 9y ago
    I'm not aware of the US-situation, but as this article is about Germany, I can tell you that 2/3 of the german oil price are taxes. We usually pay $6-7 per gallon.
    - eej71 9y ago
      The gas tax at the pump is somewhat complicated here as each state does their own tax. This can create interesting price differences as you drive across state lines. Also, we have a change over in the summer to a "summer blend" of gas which causes a change in prices (usually upwards) as I believe it's more expensive to produce. https://taxfoundation.org/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2017/ https://taxfoundation.org/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2017/
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- louithethrid 9y ago
  The problem is, that companys are freed from the renewable energy tax- a aluminium hut for example is tax exempted and thus can use the generated green energy at the price point of nuclear/coal energy- which amounts to privat households subsidizing industry.
- milankovic 9y ago
  No, I don't think you're missing something here. The price for electricity is indeed very high in Germany, rising to new heights with the new year, again. The problem is, unsurprisingly, regulation and policy, i.e. the fees you already mentioned, and the subsidies for industrial usage, etc. So, yes, it actually seems that the NYT is misleading here. Let's leave this as an exercise for the reader, to judge if anyone should really be surprised here. I always think of this old "Trust, but verify" quibble, and that it is actually based on an old Russian proverb. The irony.. :)
  - JanSt 9y ago
    > The price for electricity is indeed very high in Germany It's not only very high, but the second highest in the world, and we are about to take over the first spot [1] > The problem is, unsurprisingly, regulation and policy, i.e. the fees you already mentioned, and the subsidies for industrial usage, etc. The problem are the subsidies for all the green energy. It's not only the direct costs but also the costs for grid interventions (turning on/off capacity), paying for renewables even if they are not producing because there is too much energy available, the huge requirements for new energy lanes from north to south, getting rid of nuclear power etc. Subsidies for industrial usage is often quoted as increasing the costs by interested parties, but it's also a direct need of the Energiewende, because the economic damage would be gigantic. Unless you want to get the energy intensive factories out of your country, you have to factor in those costs. > So, yes, it actually seems that the NYT is misleading here. Yes, as does most media - especially in Germany. Those negative prices are no win for any german. Why else is it, that we will soon pay the highest prices for electricity in the world? [1] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/energiekosten-in-oecd-laendern-deutsche-zahlen-zweithoechste-strompreise-1.1959449 http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/energiekosten-in-oecd-...
    - westurner 9y ago
      "Several countries in Europe have experienced negative power prices, including Belgium, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland." > Yes, as does most media - especially in Germany. Those negative prices are no win for any german. Why else is it, that we will soon pay the highest prices for electricity in the world? AFAIU, it's because you're aggressively shaping the energy market in order to reduce health and environmental costs now. The technical issue here is that batteries are not good enough yet; and [hemp] supercapacitors are not yet at the volume needed to lower the costs. So, maintaining a high price for energy keeps the market competitive for renewables which have positive negative externalities.
- downandout 9y ago
  These kinds of articles, that falsely try to paint renewables as economically competitive with traditional energy sources (and now, they are actually at a negative cost!), are constantly popping up in NYT and other lefty publications. They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. They understand that the only way for this to happen is to use smoke and mirrors to convince the populace that the enormous upfront cost of these initiatives (often borne by governments and then passed onto taxpayers) will eventually be a financial net positive. Unfortunately, most of these claims are either completely false, or come with huge caveats. The reality is that with upfront costs included, most renewable energy today is significantly more expensive to produce than traditional forms of energy. No amount of clever journalism will change that.
  - leeoniya 9y ago
    > They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. i'm not aware of any left-leaning readers who want renewables to succeed because of their lower costs. the point is to reduce environmental impact and externalities that the fossil fuel industry simply chooses to ignore. even if the burden of upfront cost must be borne by taxpayers, it's no different than simply taking into account all factors of power generation using existing infrastructure and methods.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Even as someone who is very left wing on the environment, it's hard for me to overlook how much misinformation exists on the issue from left-leaning media. This article is a great example: the central implication is that renewable energy is so cheap and plentiful, that it's driving energy prices negative!
      - kelnos 9y ago

cabaalis 9y ago

The NYT article reads as though Germany is benefiting from the switch to renewables, and that the only problems are that sometimes there's so much power around that they have to pay people to use it. It mentions high cost of electricity, and that it's due to fees and "renewable investment costs" but then immediately hand-waves that away because "household energy bills have been rising over all anyway." When combined with your information above (those hand-wavy fees actually account for fully 50% of the costs, with 24% being the renewables surcharge) it would seem that the NYT is being misleading. It seems they want to convey the idea that the renewables are an immediate good thing for everyone (which I do not take issue with politically) while downplaying the significant costs to consumers. Am I missing something? If I'm not, then this does nothing but contribute to the current view of American media as being intentionally misleading when it suits their interests.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Perhaps. But the price of oil is manipulated and subsidized as well.
- JanSt 9y ago
  I'm not aware of the US-situation, but as this article is about Germany, I can tell you that 2/3 of the german oil price are taxes. We usually pay $6-7 per gallon.
  - eej71 9y ago
    The gas tax at the pump is somewhat complicated here as each state does their own tax. This can create interesting price differences as you drive across state lines. Also, we have a change over in the summer to a "summer blend" of gas which causes a change in prices (usually upwards) as I believe it's more expensive to produce. https://taxfoundation.org/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2017/ https://taxfoundation.org/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2017/
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
louithethrid 9y ago
The problem is, that companys are freed from the renewable energy tax- a aluminium hut for example is tax exempted and thus can use the generated green energy at the price point of nuclear/coal energy- which amounts to privat households subsidizing industry.
milankovic 9y ago
No, I don't think you're missing something here. The price for electricity is indeed very high in Germany, rising to new heights with the new year, again. The problem is, unsurprisingly, regulation and policy, i.e. the fees you already mentioned, and the subsidies for industrial usage, etc. So, yes, it actually seems that the NYT is misleading here. Let's leave this as an exercise for the reader, to judge if anyone should really be surprised here. I always think of this old "Trust, but verify" quibble, and that it is actually based on an old Russian proverb. The irony.. :)
- JanSt 9y ago
  > The price for electricity is indeed very high in Germany It's not only very high, but the second highest in the world, and we are about to take over the first spot [1] > The problem is, unsurprisingly, regulation and policy, i.e. the fees you already mentioned, and the subsidies for industrial usage, etc. The problem are the subsidies for all the green energy. It's not only the direct costs but also the costs for grid interventions (turning on/off capacity), paying for renewables even if they are not producing because there is too much energy available, the huge requirements for new energy lanes from north to south, getting rid of nuclear power etc. Subsidies for industrial usage is often quoted as increasing the costs by interested parties, but it's also a direct need of the Energiewende, because the economic damage would be gigantic. Unless you want to get the energy intensive factories out of your country, you have to factor in those costs. > So, yes, it actually seems that the NYT is misleading here. Yes, as does most media - especially in Germany. Those negative prices are no win for any german. Why else is it, that we will soon pay the highest prices for electricity in the world? [1] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/energiekosten-in-oecd-laendern-deutsche-zahlen-zweithoechste-strompreise-1.1959449 http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/energiekosten-in-oecd-...
  - westurner 9y ago
    "Several countries in Europe have experienced negative power prices, including Belgium, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland." > Yes, as does most media - especially in Germany. Those negative prices are no win for any german. Why else is it, that we will soon pay the highest prices for electricity in the world? AFAIU, it's because you're aggressively shaping the energy market in order to reduce health and environmental costs now. The technical issue here is that batteries are not good enough yet; and [hemp] supercapacitors are not yet at the volume needed to lower the costs. So, maintaining a high price for energy keeps the market competitive for renewables which have positive negative externalities.
downandout 9y ago
These kinds of articles, that falsely try to paint renewables as economically competitive with traditional energy sources (and now, they are actually at a negative cost!), are constantly popping up in NYT and other lefty publications. They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. They understand that the only way for this to happen is to use smoke and mirrors to convince the populace that the enormous upfront cost of these initiatives (often borne by governments and then passed onto taxpayers) will eventually be a financial net positive. Unfortunately, most of these claims are either completely false, or come with huge caveats. The reality is that with upfront costs included, most renewable energy today is significantly more expensive to produce than traditional forms of energy. No amount of clever journalism will change that.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  > They satisfy the cravings of their left-leaning readers, who desperately want the world to embrace their feelings about the environment. i'm not aware of any left-leaning readers who want renewables to succeed because of their lower costs. the point is to reduce environmental impact and externalities that the fossil fuel industry simply chooses to ignore. even if the burden of upfront cost must be borne by taxpayers, it's no different than simply taking into account all factors of power generation using existing infrastructure and methods.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Even as someone who is very left wing on the environment, it's hard for me to overlook how much misinformation exists on the issue from left-leaning media. This article is a great example: the central implication is that renewable energy is so cheap and plentiful, that it's driving energy prices negative!
    - kelnos 9y ago