Half-year: Exports – Imports = Net exports (TW-h)
04.03 – 09.03: 53.7 – 46.0 = 7.7
10.03 – 03.04: 32.4 – 21.1 = 11.3
04.04 – 09.04: 19.9 – 23.2 = -3.2
10.04 – 03.05: 34.5 – 22.4 = 12.1
04.05 – 09.05: 25.2 – 29.8 = -4.7
10.05 – 03.06: 38.0 – 22.5 = 15.5
04.06 – 09.06: 26.3 – 25.3 = 1.1
10.06 – 03.07: 38.4 – 20.9 = 17.5
04.07 – 09.07: 25.2 – 24.5 = 0.7
10.07 – 03.08: 40.0 – 19.0 = 21.0
04.08 – 09.08: 23.8 – 22.0 = 1.8
10.09 – 03.09: 34.1 – 20.1 = 14.0
04.09 – 09.09: 21.6 – 20.8 = 0.8
10.09 – 03.10: 35.2 – 17.7 = 17.5
04.10 – 09.10: 25.0 – 23.5 = 1.5
10.10 – 03.11: 35.3 – 20.1 = 15.2
04.11 – 09.11: 20.6 – 27.3 = -6.6
10.11 – 03.12: 35.9 – 22.9 = 13.0
04.13 – 09.12: 28.7 – 23.1 = 5.7

Exports – Imports = Net exports (TW-h)
2003: 53.7 – 46.0 = 7.7
2004: 51.5 – 44.2 = 7.3
2005: 61.9 – 53.5 = 8.5
2006: 65.9 – 46.1 = 19.8
2007: 63.4 – 44.3 = 19.1
2008: 62.7 – 40.2 = 22.5
2009: 54.9 – 40.6 = 14.3
2010: 59.9 – 42.2 = 17.7
2011: 56.0 – 49.7 = 6.3
2012: 67.3 – 44.2 = 23.1

https://www.entsoe.eu/data/data-portal/exchange/

1 TW-h/yr = 114 MW

I included mines because I just saw an Australian discussion about the advisability of speeding up the rate of mining and getting their coal sold while there is still a market rather than risking a stranded asset.

“Australian based analysts at Citigroup says fossil fuel reserves in Australia face significant value destruction in a carbon constrained world, with the value of thermal coal reserves likely to be slashed dramatically if governments get serious about climate action. It says fossil fuel asset owners could be best advised to dig the resource up as quickly as they can.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/dig-baby-dig-citi-says-coal-investments-at-risk-20942

Brings a smile to my face….

1 a cost because of the subsidy programs

2 a cost decrease because solar has diminished the electricity cost because solar has outcompeted a third of the costly eletricity from intermittent gasturbine-generators.
The net effect is a considerable savings to the Consumers and the effects has been analyzed in depht by Fraunhof Institute based on official data from the Bundesnet Agency.
Börje Widerberg

It’s simple:
Photovoltaics and wind connected to the distribution grid reduce demand from large conventional power stations hooked to the transmission grid. In rare cases wind & solar saturate all demand on the distribution grid and electricity is also fed “upstream” into the transmission grid.

Of course this leaves alot power stations idle in Germany, which their operators compensate by producing electricity for foreign markets. (displacing more expansive power plants in neighbouring countries)

Over capacity in conventional power stations… no where near saturation in solar and wind.

Germany is installing for an average of $2/W which means that they’ve been able to get the BOS costs down to around $1.50/W. We’re currently about a dollar higher but we’re whittling away on that.

At $2/W solar would be between 8 to 10 cents per kWh in almost all of the lower 40. That is cheaper than the average cost of electricity (12 cents). The wholesale cost of solar is lower than the cost of gas peaker electricity.

Solar is well established. It’s cheap enough to be competitive in parts of the US and there’s no reason why the price won’t continue to drop. Plus it produces during the time of day when electricity is the most expensive.

Wind is already down to 5 cents per kWh and expected to drop to 3 cents. That includes no subsidies. Wind is on the way to being our cheapest way to install new capacity.

The other ‘least expensive’ technology is natural gas, but the price of gas is expected to rise and a few years out gas and solar will pass each other as gas goes up and solar down.

I’d say that in five years wind and solar will be the sources of our least expensive electricity.

Solar is being installed at the utility level and powering the grid for less than the price of gas peakers. It’s saving money at the utility level.

Solar is being installed at the end-user level and producing electricity for less than the cost of retail electricity in parts of the US. In another year to four the price of solar will likely fall enough for solar to be cheaper in most of the US, even without subsidies.

There’s no one to leap-frog. It’s now an individual race to cut the overall cost of electricity and to avoid the worst of climate change.

And how about going easy on that caps lock key.

For less than the cost of kerosene to light a house a family can purchase a small system that will run a couple of LEDs and charge a cell phone. They can pay for it ‘on time’ with their kerosene savings.

Once people have paid off their basic system they can upgrade to a larger system that will run more lights, a computer or TV or refrigerator.

So far over 1 million micro-solar systems have been installed in Bangladesh. The program is taking off in India, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America.

Here’s a nice piece about the Bangladesh program…

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/17/world-bank-bringing-solar-power-to-over-1-million-homes-shops-in-rural-bangladesh/

Think about how rapidly this is likely to spread. A small local company can easily start up and serve surrounding villages and farms. Installing is not rocket science, someone can learn how in a day or less. In areas where there are few jobs and little opportunity to start your own business there are going to be a lot of people who are eager to build their future.

But at the same time we will have greatly cut the price of electricity. Those panels installed today will be paid off in 20 years and will give us another 20+ years of almost free electricity. (Wind turbines will be doing the same.)

Sort of like the interstate highway system. Lots of lots of people earned their paychecks while they were being built. Not relatively few are employed keeping them in shape. But we are greatly enriched by their existence.

(Nuclear won’t be a major factor. It’s too expensive. It takes too long to bring a new reactor on line. It’s too dangerous. Nuclear has peaked and will now fade away. Look at the number of countries who have decided to shut their reactors and the few new reactors being built.)

In the long run, Germany requires 180-240 GW of PV for a 100% RE-Supply. At the end of 2012 there “just” were 32 GW.

Considering a solar panel life time of 30 years that would require the replacement of 6-8 GW every year. New solar panels have a longer lifetime though.

Everybody knows the solar industry is in a phase of overcapacities & consolidation… but this will be overcome in the coming years.

And chances are not terribly bad that some German companies building machinary for the next generation of solar factories will surive the current difficulties.