7 ms·

I feel this article is missing the forest for the trees: > German electricity consumers paid 80 million euros in tariffs to get 8 million euros worth of wind p

I feel this article is missing the forest for the trees: > German electricity consumers paid 80 million euros in tariffs to get 8 million euros worth of wind power to the market. > There is simply no point to make any market-driven investments in Germany; the tariffs are simply too large compared to the market value of electricity. > (...) > This might not be a problem if “getting more renewables” is the end-goal one prefers, but I think the goal should be decreasing emissions. That is the stated end-goal. The subsidies are (overly) high so that lots of renewable energy production/infrastructure is built instead of whatever might be more profitable otherwise. While this is related to eletricity production (payout per MWh etc.), the actual building part is what is ecouraged. You can of course argue whether that it is a good goal to pick, but to me this sounds not like an unintended "problem" but rather as the subsidies achieving exactly what they intended to.

teraku 7y ago
But most subsidies are towards coal and gas. They even stopped wind subsidies, because windenergy was too flexible and pushed coal out of the market, since coal is not flexible enough. So now we have to wait until more power plants get shut down before they pick up on building more wind energy again. Until then, they are powering the existing wind energy platforms up. The "stated end-goal" and what is actually done is very divergent in modern day Germany. Just saying that right now you pay on average 0,25€/kWh here. Although the market price is almost naught.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > But most subsidies are towards coal and gas. Germany has/had extensive coal production (complete exit by 2038 IIRC) with lots of employment tied to it; of course that has subsidies. > They even stopped wind subsidies, because windenergy was too flexible and pushed coal out of the market, since coal is not flexible enough That sounds more like a conspiracy theory. You don't stop stuff for being "too flexible" but because of other problem, e.g. offshore vs. onshore, transmission to the south, environmental concerns, wanting a different mix of renewables etc. . > The "stated end-goal" and what is actually done is very divergent in modern day Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany There are more and more people employed in these industries. Production capacities went up etc. . Seems to be doing what it says on the tin. > Just saying that right now you pay on average 0,25€/kWh here. Although the market price is almost naught. Yeah, so? Consumer electricity prices were never even mentioned in the "end-goal"?
  - teraku 7y ago
    >Germany has/had extensive coal production (complete exit by 2038 IIRC) with lots of employment tied to it; of course that has subsidies. I get that and I am glad it happened, it's just way too late for my liking. At least it's done, I can agree on that. >That sounds more like a conspiracy theory. You don't stop stuff for being "too flexible" but because of other problem, e.g. offshore vs. onshore, transmission to the south, environmental concerns, wanting a different mix of renewables etc. . You can't have energy produced disappear. So if you overproduce, it has to go somewhere and you need to stop production to not fry your energy grid. If you overproduce, and your coal energy can't shut down, so your network becomes more green/clean, the obvious choice is to shut down the flexible generator, i.e. wind energy. >Yeah, so? Consumer electricity prices were never even mentioned in the "end-goal"? That is true, but the EEG is making renewable energies more expensive for end-consumers. And I think that is the main point of this article.
logifail 7y ago
> The subsidies are (overly) high so that lots of renewable energy production/infrastructure is built In the first half of last year a total of 35 new wind turbines were added across Germany[0], the lowest rate for 19 years. If German government policies are supposed to encourage the creation of new renewable energy production then they don't appear to be working particularly well. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/windenergie-die-grosse-windkraftkrise-a-1279820.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/windenergie-die-g...
- Faark 7y ago
  Keep in mind there is a difference between subsidies we have to pay now for existing installations but were promised years or decades ago when those were built (this seems to be what the article is mostly about) and those guaranteed payments to turbine owners and rules around adding capacity now (and consumers will have to pay for in the decades to come). Yes, the political "enthusiasm" for renewable energy has faded quite a bit...
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  As the article stresses since 2017 and for two reasons (different from what is discussed in this thread): - Switching to an auction model in 2017 to drive prices down, which was implemented very poorly. - Strongly incentivizing small "citizen" project to increase acceptance in the population. Which messed up larger scale deployments and lead to awful bureaucracy.
  - logifail 7y ago
    > Strongly incentivizing small "citizen" project [...] Doesn't Germany have restrictive distance regulations between wind turbines and residential areas?
    - moepstar 7y ago
      Yep, that exactly is the problem. Due to distance regulations between residential areas, existing turbines etc etc (and basically each viable spot already taken / in use, besides offshore) the numbers built are shrinking - unless some kind of change regarding the laws are done... Source: gf is a landscape architect
marcus_holmes 7y ago
Creating more renewable energy is pointless unless it reduces/replaces the use of fossil fuels. Having more energy than we need is useless, and there's an environmental footprint to even the greenest wind farm. The point the article is making is that because of the way the renewable industry is being funded (from taxes on electricity consumption), consumers are opting to continue burning fossil fuels rather then use electricity. This means that the supply of electricity is greater than demand for it, and prices go below zero. This has two knock-on effects: 1. Investment in electricity production is guided by government policy goals and support, rather than actual demand. The only source of revenue is government redistribution of energy taxes, and that can change quickly depending on government policy. This is not sustainable, there is no incentive here to produce efficient, long-lasting energy production infrastructure. There is only an incentive to maximise government subsidy payouts in the short term. 2. Germany is producing more energy than it needs, and producing energy (from any source) has a negative environmental impact. These policies that were intended to preserve the environment and reduce fossil fuel use are actually causing more environmental damage and preserving fossil fuel use. Of course, this only considers domestic consumption, and specifically heating. It may be that the policies do better in other areas.
- Faark 7y ago
  I'm more familiar with the solar aspect of Energiewende, but a goal was to kick-start an industry to make renewable energy viable in the first place. This couldn't happen without significant amounts of installation caused by political commitment. Yeah, I'd love for them to fix the bad power-vs-gas incentives. But I would not expect this to happen any time soon in the current political climate were no one will be willing to take the hit for something consumer will feel that directly.
- lispm 7y ago
  > Creating more renewable energy is pointless unless it reduces/replaces the use of fossil fuels. It does. > The point the article is making is that because of the way the renewable industry is being funded (from taxes on electricity consumption), consumers are opting to continue burning fossil fuels rather then use electricity. No, it doesn't. Renewable energy has a systematic preference and its share in electricity production has risen from 6% (in 2000) to 42% (in 2019). > Investment in electricity production is guided by government policy goals and support, rather than actual demand That's always the case. Energy policy is a government task. No nuclear would be build without MASSIVE government support and government demand. Germany actually created an energy market, which before did not exist, since electricity production and distribution was in the hand of 4 big companies, each having a full monopoly in a large region. > Germany is producing more energy than it needs It doesn't. Far from. Also Germany is importing energy. Lots. > reduce fossil fuel use are actually causing more environmental damage and preserving fossil fuel use. This is not what is happening. The goal is to have more than 85% renewable energy for electricity production in 2050.
mattrp 7y ago
It also doesn’t state what is obvious to those of us who build infrastructure: Germany and Denmark have no way to store wind power so it has no choice but to pay others to take it. Norway is home to one of the worlds largest batteries.. its hydro power. Already cheap, but has the added benefit of being storable for sufficient duration to take german and danish wind power when it suits them (ie when they get paid). It baffles the mind why the danish and Germans don’t use some of their subsidy to invest in storage — but therein lies another catch 22. The lithium needed for that isn’t being mined in sufficient quantities in Europe and 100% of the supply from China is earmarked to autos. There are some jr mining countries spinning up in Europe but it will be awhile before any meaningful impact will be felt. One wonders if by then other storage techniques will be viable. In the meantime, they will be forced to pay the Nordics to take their green energy while supplementing with coal from Poland or succumbing to the siren call of another controversial Russian pipeline.
- atoav 7y ago
  I recently listened to a long podcast with a German that is working on hydro-gravitational storage with water lifting a huge (multiple hundred meters in diameter) rock cylinder to store energy. He recently finished a smaller scale prototype (if I recall right 20m diameter) that tests all the insulation, the cutting techniques and power generation

teraku 7y ago

But most subsidies are towards coal and gas. They even stopped wind subsidies, because windenergy was too flexible and pushed coal out of the market, since coal is not flexible enough. So now we have to wait until more power plants get shut down before they pick up on building more wind energy again. Until then, they are powering the existing wind energy platforms up. The "stated end-goal" and what is actually done is very divergent in modern day Germany. Just saying that right now you pay on average 0,25€/kWh here. Although the market price is almost naught.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
> But most subsidies are towards coal and gas. Germany has/had extensive coal production (complete exit by 2038 IIRC) with lots of employment tied to it; of course that has subsidies. > They even stopped wind subsidies, because windenergy was too flexible and pushed coal out of the market, since coal is not flexible enough That sounds more like a conspiracy theory. You don't stop stuff for being "too flexible" but because of other problem, e.g. offshore vs. onshore, transmission to the south, environmental concerns, wanting a different mix of renewables etc. . > The "stated end-goal" and what is actually done is very divergent in modern day Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany There are more and more people employed in these industries. Production capacities went up etc. . Seems to be doing what it says on the tin. > Just saying that right now you pay on average 0,25€/kWh here. Although the market price is almost naught. Yeah, so? Consumer electricity prices were never even mentioned in the "end-goal"?
- teraku 7y ago
  >Germany has/had extensive coal production (complete exit by 2038 IIRC) with lots of employment tied to it; of course that has subsidies. I get that and I am glad it happened, it's just way too late for my liking. At least it's done, I can agree on that. >That sounds more like a conspiracy theory. You don't stop stuff for being "too flexible" but because of other problem, e.g. offshore vs. onshore, transmission to the south, environmental concerns, wanting a different mix of renewables etc. . You can't have energy produced disappear. So if you overproduce, it has to go somewhere and you need to stop production to not fry your energy grid. If you overproduce, and your coal energy can't shut down, so your network becomes more green/clean, the obvious choice is to shut down the flexible generator, i.e. wind energy. >Yeah, so? Consumer electricity prices were never even mentioned in the "end-goal"? That is true, but the EEG is making renewable energies more expensive for end-consumers. And I think that is the main point of this article.

logifail 7y ago

> The subsidies are (overly) high so that lots of renewable energy production/infrastructure is built In the first half of last year a total of 35 new wind turbines were added across Germany[0], the lowest rate for 19 years. If German government policies are supposed to encourage the creation of new renewable energy production then they don't appear to be working particularly well. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/windenergie-die-grosse-windkraftkrise-a-1279820.html https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/windenergie-die-g...

Faark 7y ago
Keep in mind there is a difference between subsidies we have to pay now for existing installations but were promised years or decades ago when those were built (this seems to be what the article is mostly about) and those guaranteed payments to turbine owners and rules around adding capacity now (and consumers will have to pay for in the decades to come). Yes, the political "enthusiasm" for renewable energy has faded quite a bit...
diffeomorphism 7y ago
As the article stresses since 2017 and for two reasons (different from what is discussed in this thread): - Switching to an auction model in 2017 to drive prices down, which was implemented very poorly. - Strongly incentivizing small "citizen" project to increase acceptance in the population. Which messed up larger scale deployments and lead to awful bureaucracy.
- logifail 7y ago
  > Strongly incentivizing small "citizen" project [...] Doesn't Germany have restrictive distance regulations between wind turbines and residential areas?
  - moepstar 7y ago
    Yep, that exactly is the problem. Due to distance regulations between residential areas, existing turbines etc etc (and basically each viable spot already taken / in use, besides offshore) the numbers built are shrinking - unless some kind of change regarding the laws are done... Source: gf is a landscape architect

marcus_holmes 7y ago

Creating more renewable energy is pointless unless it reduces/replaces the use of fossil fuels. Having more energy than we need is useless, and there's an environmental footprint to even the greenest wind farm. The point the article is making is that because of the way the renewable industry is being funded (from taxes on electricity consumption), consumers are opting to continue burning fossil fuels rather then use electricity. This means that the supply of electricity is greater than demand for it, and prices go below zero. This has two knock-on effects: 1. Investment in electricity production is guided by government policy goals and support, rather than actual demand. The only source of revenue is government redistribution of energy taxes, and that can change quickly depending on government policy. This is not sustainable, there is no incentive here to produce efficient, long-lasting energy production infrastructure. There is only an incentive to maximise government subsidy payouts in the short term. 2. Germany is producing more energy than it needs, and producing energy (from any source) has a negative environmental impact. These policies that were intended to preserve the environment and reduce fossil fuel use are actually causing more environmental damage and preserving fossil fuel use. Of course, this only considers domestic consumption, and specifically heating. It may be that the policies do better in other areas.

Faark 7y ago
I'm more familiar with the solar aspect of Energiewende, but a goal was to kick-start an industry to make renewable energy viable in the first place. This couldn't happen without significant amounts of installation caused by political commitment. Yeah, I'd love for them to fix the bad power-vs-gas incentives. But I would not expect this to happen any time soon in the current political climate were no one will be willing to take the hit for something consumer will feel that directly.
lispm 7y ago
> Creating more renewable energy is pointless unless it reduces/replaces the use of fossil fuels. It does. > The point the article is making is that because of the way the renewable industry is being funded (from taxes on electricity consumption), consumers are opting to continue burning fossil fuels rather then use electricity. No, it doesn't. Renewable energy has a systematic preference and its share in electricity production has risen from 6% (in 2000) to 42% (in 2019). > Investment in electricity production is guided by government policy goals and support, rather than actual demand That's always the case. Energy policy is a government task. No nuclear would be build without MASSIVE government support and government demand. Germany actually created an energy market, which before did not exist, since electricity production and distribution was in the hand of 4 big companies, each having a full monopoly in a large region. > Germany is producing more energy than it needs It doesn't. Far from. Also Germany is importing energy. Lots. > reduce fossil fuel use are actually causing more environmental damage and preserving fossil fuel use. This is not what is happening. The goal is to have more than 85% renewable energy for electricity production in 2050.

mattrp 7y ago

It also doesn’t state what is obvious to those of us who build infrastructure: Germany and Denmark have no way to store wind power so it has no choice but to pay others to take it. Norway is home to one of the worlds largest batteries.. its hydro power. Already cheap, but has the added benefit of being storable for sufficient duration to take german and danish wind power when it suits them (ie when they get paid). It baffles the mind why the danish and Germans don’t use some of their subsidy to invest in storage — but therein lies another catch 22. The lithium needed for that isn’t being mined in sufficient quantities in Europe and 100% of the supply from China is earmarked to autos. There are some jr mining countries spinning up in Europe but it will be awhile before any meaningful impact will be felt. One wonders if by then other storage techniques will be viable. In the meantime, they will be forced to pay the Nordics to take their green energy while supplementing with coal from Poland or succumbing to the siren call of another controversial Russian pipeline.

atoav 7y ago
I recently listened to a long podcast with a German that is working on hydro-gravitational storage with water lifting a huge (multiple hundred meters in diameter) rock cylinder to store energy. He recently finished a smaller scale prototype (if I recall right 20m diameter) that tests all the insulation, the cutting techniques and power generation