4 ms·

Great idea, but we need to think through execution. So far "green laws" like Germany Energiewende is not that successful: http://www.economist.com/blogs/econom

Great idea, but we need to think through execution. So far "green laws" like Germany Energiewende is not that successful: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-10 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/ec... On the other tax, high taxes on oil encourage efficiency and public transport.

cyphunk 12y ago
I can't understand how they made this conclusion in the article "This means that traditional utilities have turned instead to much more climate-damaging coal for generation." Also cannot find references for the claim "Germans have ended up emitting more carbon dioxide as a result of the extra coal"
sjtrny 12y ago
"Not successful" according to conservative publication The Economist. A massive uptake in solar and wind power seems successful to me. They just need to iron out some kinks in the incentive scheme.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  Indeed. Portugal had a similar system, the kinks are that the subsidies are a bit high, there's a lot of people buying solar panels just to sell the power back to the network. This is because the price per kilowatt uploaded is more expensive than downloaded. This is great, you get a big installed base with this short-term carrot, and when the subsidies are removed the panels are still in use. Win-win.
cjg 12y ago
The problem outlined by the economist article essentially boils down to the fact that the government wanted to subsidise renewable energy but didn't want to pay the subsidy so foisted the extra cost onto consumers with legislation requiring the utility companies to buy renewable energy when it was available. That's not a problem specific to all "green laws" as you seem to imply. The Economist does seem to come across as slightly biased in its reportage (I'm surprised), when they say "renewables undercut relatively climate-friendly natural gas on price". Relative to what? It becomes clearer as you read further, relative to coal, but the quoted statement makes it sound like natural gas is more climate-friendly than renewables. Clearly not.

cyphunk 12y ago

I can't understand how they made this conclusion in the article "This means that traditional utilities have turned instead to much more climate-damaging coal for generation." Also cannot find references for the claim "Germans have ended up emitting more carbon dioxide as a result of the extra coal"

sjtrny 12y ago

"Not successful" according to conservative publication The Economist. A massive uptake in solar and wind power seems successful to me. They just need to iron out some kinks in the incentive scheme.

JetSpiegel 12y ago
Indeed. Portugal had a similar system, the kinks are that the subsidies are a bit high, there's a lot of people buying solar panels just to sell the power back to the network. This is because the price per kilowatt uploaded is more expensive than downloaded. This is great, you get a big installed base with this short-term carrot, and when the subsidies are removed the panels are still in use. Win-win.

cjg 12y ago

The problem outlined by the economist article essentially boils down to the fact that the government wanted to subsidise renewable energy but didn't want to pay the subsidy so foisted the extra cost onto consumers with legislation requiring the utility companies to buy renewable energy when it was available. That's not a problem specific to all "green laws" as you seem to imply. The Economist does seem to come across as slightly biased in its reportage (I'm surprised), when they say "renewables undercut relatively climate-friendly natural gas on price". Relative to what? It becomes clearer as you read further, relative to coal, but the quoted statement makes it sound like natural gas is more climate-friendly than renewables. Clearly not.