4 ms·

German coal has been heavily subsidized for more than half a century. No one really knows how much money exactly went in there, but it's assumed something like

German coal has been heavily subsidized for more than half a century. No one really knows how much money exactly went in there, but it's assumed something like 200-350 billion euros (http://www.foes.de/pdf/Kohlesubventionen_1950_2008.pdf http://www.foes.de/pdf/Kohlesubventionen_1950_2008.pdf).

petermcneeley 8y ago
From the article: "Wind, solar and other renewable sources, which account for 55 percent of German electricity capacity, are even more subsidized than coal mining, adding about 25 billion euros to power bills last year."
- jabiko 8y ago
  It makes sense to promote renewable energies, as this makes sense both from a social and environmental point of view. Keeping coal mining on life support makes no sense. In the Ruhr area, the consequences of coal mining will still be felt for a very long time. It is necessary to run pumps for centuries to come so that the toxic mine water does not reach the groundwater level.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  The difference is that the subsidies for renewables had the purpose of propping up reshaping the power supply system, are time limited (20 years of life time, rates are locked in when the system is brought up, rates were falling over time) and decentralized (put up a panel on your roof that's connected to the power grid, you're eligible). In contrast, the coal subsidies propped up a well-established industry with few players, with no end in sight and little oversight (as stated upthread: "No one really knows how much money exactly went in there").
- CalRobert 8y ago
  How much did they save the health service compared to coal though? Air pollution kills.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > How much did they save the health service compared to coal though? Air pollution kills. Killing people can be a net savings for health services. The dead consume no services.
    - rurp 8y ago
      But unhealthy and dying people DO consume a lot of health services. Not to mention the fact that unhealthy levels of pollution can lower the quality of life for a great many citizens, something most people think that governments should care about.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > But unhealthy and dying people DO consume a lot of health services. Yeah, sure, and I'm not saying something that kills people early always saves health system money. Just that it can (a lot of analysis of cigarette smoking have showed that reducing smoking in many countries has a net public cost, considering the aggregate of health and public pension payments, and I think in some cases that was true of health costs alone. > Not to mention the fact that unhealthy levels of pollution can lower the quality of life for a great many citizens, something most people think that governments should care about. Sure, quality of life is another important concern aside from health costs. I'm definitely not saying deadly pollution is a net good, even if it might save public health costs.
- pergadad 8y ago
  It's complex and a calculation that you have to do carefully. To start at the most obvious point: what is the subsidy subsidising? The largest cost item of a coal power plant is in building it and the matching infrastructure, then costs continue mainly as salaries of those running the plant and raw material, disposal, repair, ... Setting up wind power plants will necessarily also have the building phase as the highest cost, but then direct running costs will be much lower as there's no raw material and much less personnel. The subsidies that you are looking at currently for coal are essentially spent to avoid the mining operations and coal plants from making a loss. The subsidies for wind power are primarily to finance new turbines to be built (& infrastructure). But you don't actually subsidise the operations. In other words, if you look at current wind subsidies they are mainly to add capacity, if you look at coal subsidies they are to ensure the previously built capacity is used/available. In addition, you have to remember previous subsidies- those of building, renovating, etc the coal mines and plants. If you do count those and calculate them eg per year of lifetime you get much higher amounts of 'real' subsidies, it's just that that money has already been spent. A big downside of it all though is that Germany lost most (all?) of its wind & solar power manufacturers - so it's buying stuff from China, rather than supporting local industry. That is an element the government urgently needs to address ..
- mikeash 8y ago
  Remember to account for the implicit subsidy of being allowed to pollute without paying for the damage it causes.
- Arnt 8y ago
  Very different subsidies. The companies that built solar power generation in 2004 got a guarantee of a certain price for x years, and a guarantee that the people who built in 2005 would get a lower price. IIRC the price decrease was set in advance. In effect a market introduction price, for a limited time. The sums are low/high until the market introduction ends, and the producers knew that as long as they could innovate 10%/year they'd make a profit. (Except that the actual number wasn't 10%.) The companies that ran coal mines got a subsidy with no defined end-by date, and one cannot by any stretch of the imagination call it "market introduction aid" or "conditional on 10%/year innovation".
- namuol 8y ago
  These aren't apples-to-apples with subsidies on coal because there are significant long term health and climate costs associated with coal.
- the_why_of_y 8y ago
  The explicit subsidies for coal are one of the reasons why renewable energy sources need subsidies to be able to compete in the market; another reason are the implicit subsidies for coal, i.e., the coal producers not having to price in the the consequences of air pollution and climate change.

petermcneeley 8y ago

From the article: "Wind, solar and other renewable sources, which account for 55 percent of German electricity capacity, are even more subsidized than coal mining, adding about 25 billion euros to power bills last year."

jabiko 8y ago
It makes sense to promote renewable energies, as this makes sense both from a social and environmental point of view. Keeping coal mining on life support makes no sense. In the Ruhr area, the consequences of coal mining will still be felt for a very long time. It is necessary to run pumps for centuries to come so that the toxic mine water does not reach the groundwater level.
pgeorgi 8y ago
The difference is that the subsidies for renewables had the purpose of propping up reshaping the power supply system, are time limited (20 years of life time, rates are locked in when the system is brought up, rates were falling over time) and decentralized (put up a panel on your roof that's connected to the power grid, you're eligible). In contrast, the coal subsidies propped up a well-established industry with few players, with no end in sight and little oversight (as stated upthread: "No one really knows how much money exactly went in there").
CalRobert 8y ago
How much did they save the health service compared to coal though? Air pollution kills.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > How much did they save the health service compared to coal though? Air pollution kills. Killing people can be a net savings for health services. The dead consume no services.
  - rurp 8y ago
    But unhealthy and dying people DO consume a lot of health services. Not to mention the fact that unhealthy levels of pollution can lower the quality of life for a great many citizens, something most people think that governments should care about.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > But unhealthy and dying people DO consume a lot of health services. Yeah, sure, and I'm not saying something that kills people early always saves health system money. Just that it can (a lot of analysis of cigarette smoking have showed that reducing smoking in many countries has a net public cost, considering the aggregate of health and public pension payments, and I think in some cases that was true of health costs alone. > Not to mention the fact that unhealthy levels of pollution can lower the quality of life for a great many citizens, something most people think that governments should care about. Sure, quality of life is another important concern aside from health costs. I'm definitely not saying deadly pollution is a net good, even if it might save public health costs.
pergadad 8y ago
It's complex and a calculation that you have to do carefully. To start at the most obvious point: what is the subsidy subsidising? The largest cost item of a coal power plant is in building it and the matching infrastructure, then costs continue mainly as salaries of those running the plant and raw material, disposal, repair, ... Setting up wind power plants will necessarily also have the building phase as the highest cost, but then direct running costs will be much lower as there's no raw material and much less personnel. The subsidies that you are looking at currently for coal are essentially spent to avoid the mining operations and coal plants from making a loss. The subsidies for wind power are primarily to finance new turbines to be built (& infrastructure). But you don't actually subsidise the operations. In other words, if you look at current wind subsidies they are mainly to add capacity, if you look at coal subsidies they are to ensure the previously built capacity is used/available. In addition, you have to remember previous subsidies- those of building, renovating, etc the coal mines and plants. If you do count those and calculate them eg per year of lifetime you get much higher amounts of 'real' subsidies, it's just that that money has already been spent. A big downside of it all though is that Germany lost most (all?) of its wind & solar power manufacturers - so it's buying stuff from China, rather than supporting local industry. That is an element the government urgently needs to address ..
mikeash 8y ago
Remember to account for the implicit subsidy of being allowed to pollute without paying for the damage it causes.
Arnt 8y ago
Very different subsidies. The companies that built solar power generation in 2004 got a guarantee of a certain price for x years, and a guarantee that the people who built in 2005 would get a lower price. IIRC the price decrease was set in advance. In effect a market introduction price, for a limited time. The sums are low/high until the market introduction ends, and the producers knew that as long as they could innovate 10%/year they'd make a profit. (Except that the actual number wasn't 10%.) The companies that ran coal mines got a subsidy with no defined end-by date, and one cannot by any stretch of the imagination call it "market introduction aid" or "conditional on 10%/year innovation".
namuol 8y ago
These aren't apples-to-apples with subsidies on coal because there are significant long term health and climate costs associated with coal.
the_why_of_y 8y ago
The explicit subsidies for coal are one of the reasons why renewable energy sources need subsidies to be able to compete in the market; another reason are the implicit subsidies for coal, i.e., the coal producers not having to price in the the consequences of air pollution and climate change.