CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power Angela Merkel.
Image Credit: Peter Weis

Published on June 18th, 2013 | by Mridul Chadha

71

Merkel Promises To Cut Renewable Energy Subsidies Post-election

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

June 18th, 2013 by
 
If Chancellor Angela Merkel comes to power after elections in September, Germany may become the latest European country to curb support for renewable energy infrastructure. Amidst the poor economic environment in Europe, a number of countries have pulled back support for the renewable energy sector by either reducing subsidies or introducing taxes on revenues from renewable energy projects.

Angela Merkel has promised that she would reduce the $24 billion per year subsidies being provided to renewable energy projects after the September elections as she feels that the sector is now mature enough to support the cost of grid upgrades.

Germany Renewable Energy Share 2011

The share of renewable energy sources in the electricity generation in Germany has ballooned over the last few years. According to data available at Eurostat, the electricity generated by renewable energy sources in Germany was over 20% of the gross electricity consumed in 2011.

There is no doubt that the renewable energy sector, especially solar photovoltaics, has blossomed tremendously under the liberal and supportive renewable energy policies of Germany. Over the past couple of years, we have had numerous record generation days for the Germany solar power sector. The most recent was on 6 June when solar power met 39% of Germany’s entire peak electricity demand. On 6 June 2013, Germany’s solar power production touched a new high of 23.4 GW surpassing the earlier record of 22.68 GW achieved in April 2013.

Renewable Energy To Strengthen Its Own Future

Germany has announced that it would retire all its nuclear power capacity by 2022, a decision taken after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Moving to fossil-fuel based power generation, as Japan has down, would be very short-sighted. Japan currently has no international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and may not adopt any targets until at least 2020 when the next climate change treaty, the one that would replace the Kyoto Protocol, comes into effect.

Germany has a direct obligation to reduce emissions under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as well as under the Kyoto Protocol as part of the EU. Moving to fossil-fuel based generation would only undermine the standing of one of EU’s largest and most powerful members as a crusader in the fight against climate change.

By the end of April 2013, Germany had a total solar PV installed capacity of 33.5 GW. The country also witnessed a 20% increase in wind energy capacity in 2012. With renewable energy the only plausible future for Germany’s electricity sector, it seems fair that solar and wind energy sectors contribute to strengthen the power sector.

Other European countries too have decided to reduce subsidies for the renewable energy sector. The Czech government has decided to retroactively levy tax on revenues of solar power projects while Romania plans to reduce the number of green certificates issued to renewable energy projects, thereby reducing the revenue these projects can earn from selling these certificates.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

currently works as Head-News & Data at Climate Connect Limited, a market research and analytics firm in the renewable energy and carbon markets domain. He earned his Master’s in Technology degree from The Energy & Resources Institute in Renewable Energy Engineering and Management. He also has a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Engineering. Mridul has a keen interest in renewable energy sector in India and emerging carbon markets like China and Australia.



  • Daan

    Due to the overcapacity on the German energy network Dutch consumers pay less for energy: http://blog.prizewize.nl/energie/lagere-energierekening-voor-nederland-door-duitsland/ which is a possitive thing. In the end I think that there should be much more cooperation throughout Europe when it comes to energy. Southern countries should specialise in sun northern in wind.

  • mishasibirsk

    German wind capacity up by 20% in 2012? Hadn’t heard that before. Impression was it only one or two GW – a few percent; heard they had hit a few snags with planned offshore installations.

  • Stanley Mayer

    With just a few million euros in initial investment, the aneutronic fusion reactor can produce, in a clean, safe, economically affordable, environmentally friendly way, an awesome quantity of electric power directly to the grid to meet the energy needs, within small land areas and without governmental subsidies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrt186pWoA

    • Bob_Wallace

      Aneutronic fusion is being researched. It might or might not pan out.

      The claims you are making go way overboard. We have zero proof that this technology will ever be shown to work. Therefore, there is no basis for making the claim “can”.

      (Why are so many people taken in by Youtube fantasy videos?)

      • Stanley Mayer

        Fusion power is our best hope to get off of fossil fuels, for reducing emissions from coal plants, which are primarily responsible for the heat-trapping gases cooking the planet.

        There was no proof that heavier-than-air flying machines would work.
        “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” – Lord Kelvin
        Even so, they worked.

        • Bob_Wallace

          If/when fusion is brought on line and if it proves to be cheap then we can switch to it.

          It makes no sense to put our faith in something unproven when we have workable solutions right now.

          • Stanley Mayer

            workable energy solutions today are always associated with environmental impact: carbon dioxide emissions, radioactive waste, extensive use of land.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I don’t get your point. Sure there are downsides to all our present technologies, but the downsides of some are fairly insignificant. Both solar and wind have quite low lifetime carbon footprints, don’t use unreasonable amounts of land and create no radioactive waste.

            We don’t have time to see if something better gets invented 20, 50, 100 years from now.

          • Stanley Mayer

            Solar and wind have low environmental impact when employed in small scale energy production but in large scale the effect can be awesomely disastrous for our beloved Earth.

            “Utility scale solar farms, on the other hand, do require large amounts of land to produce electricity on a commercial scale. This fact raises concerns about the potential impact of such projects on natural habitats …”
            http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/positive-negative-effects-solar-energy-2684.html

            “The environmental impacts associated with solar power can include land use and habitat loss…”
            http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-of.html

            “Installing and operating wind turbines may have a negative impact on birds and other type of wildlife through the fragmentation of their habitat.”
            http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1466

          • Bob_Wallace

            Those are “can”s and “could”s.

            Those are warnings, not “absolutely will”s.

            We have more than enough existing rooftop, parking lots, landfill, brownfield, and low quality land for all the solar we need.

            We know that with proper siting bird death and habitat disruption is minuscule.

            It’s the sort of “concern troll” stuff that the fossil fuel industry pushes.

          • Stanley Mayer

            The fossil-fuel industry is ever furtively spreading masked concerns.
            But I believe even low quality land (deserts) has a diversity of life forms that should be protected.
            With industrial parks and ever-growing population, it will require an awesome nonstop energy with relatively no risk of environmental impact, just satisfied by a secure, compact and dense source of neutron-free energy.

          • Bob_Wallace

            ” even low quality land (deserts) has a diversity of life forms that should be protected”

            Of course. But we’re up against events which can potentially wipe out the flora and fauna on 100% of that low quality land.

            The first question we have to ask is whether it makes more sense to give up a tiny portion of that land or mess over all of it.

            We can protect, should protect, and are protecting the species, not every single plant or insect, but the genetic pool, as we build on desert or low quality farm land.

            At the same time what is going on is an immense extinction event which we have already put in play through our use of fossil fuels. That’s where we need to be paying more attention. We’ve got to stop what we’re already doing and we’re going to need a relatively minuscule amount of land for our alternative energy use.

          • SA Kiteman

            I find it interesting how anti-nukes are SSSOOO willing to use hypothetical cans and coulds to argue against nuclear power but get all hoity toity when they are used against their beloved unreliable sources.

  • youareme7

    I can’t wait until we’re not beholden to a subsidy to be successful in the renewable industry, it’s a nightmare for wind in the US. Congress just needs to develop a 5 or 3 year sunset and be done with it; I’m sick of waiting 3 months and then getting slammed because the ptc was updated at the 11th hour. I have even higher hopes for PV, hopefully that 2014-2017 grid parity turns out true!

    • Bob_Wallace

      The problem of the “11th hour scramble” was eliminated with the last round of wind subsidy approval in December. Going forward projects have to be ‘in progress’ by the end of 2013 in order to receive 2013 subsidies upon completion. The IRS has defined what ‘in progress’ means.

      I think the solar subsidy program ends in 2017. At that point solar may no longer need subsidies, grid parity is likely to have been reached.

      What we might want to do post 2017 is to use federal money in other ways to boost renewable installation, using the money to subsidize the storage industry, for example. This is the next piece of the clean energy puzzle that needs developing.

      • youareme7

        It was hardly solved this time around, it may have been set up in december but the irs took its sweet time defining “in progress”; most, but not all of our wind projects were delayed and put months behind schedule because of the irs, there was a lot of confusion from our clients and questions remain. Yes, it is good that they defined it such that substantial construction activities need to be started before the end of the year as opposes to finished by the end of the year and that as long as construction continues it can keep building for some time, I know a client in particular that’s doing their best to “phase” large sites to maintain construction. It still doesn’t solve the root problem that the government is both helping and hurting the wind market and to a lesser extent the solar market.

        • Bob_Wallace

          The first of 2013 disruption is the fault of the way subsidy legislation was written for 2012. That problem is now eliminated with the 2013 legislation.

          The IRS released its interpretation of ‘in progress’ in April, I think. Earlier would be better, but large organizations tend to not move swiftly, be they public or private.

          Renewables are opposed by fossil fuel interests. As long as we have senators and representatives depending of campaign financing from the fossil fuel industry things will not run smoothly.

          One of the best things we could do for our country it to get big money out of politics.

    • Matt

      Yes, but why can’t we kill all the subsidy to coal/oil/gas. They have been around >100 years and still get massive amounts. Nuclear is >50 years. Every major country has agreed to cut them,but no one does. Where TF is the level field. Yes electric from coal would likely be 5 times higher in the US; but that is what we need to be on a level field. NG would go up also with all the leaking that they have impacting climate.

      • SA Kiteman

        I am interested, what subsidies does the nuclear industry get?

        • Ronald Brakels

          Generally the largest subsidy for nuclear power is it doesn’t pay for the full cost of its insurance. For Germany one study put the lowest price nuclear power would have to pay to be fully covered at 19 cents a kilowatt-hour. Note this was the minimum price. The maximum price was much higher.

          • SA Kiteman

            See my comment above re the PAA (Price Anderson Act). So far, no subsidies. And in the US, the industry DOES pay the full price of all their insurance.

        • Bob_Wallace

          In the US taxpayers accept liability for a major disaster and are responsible for dealing with spent fuel.

          New reactors get federal loan guarantees which leaves taxpayers responsible if construction is never finished. A lot of reactors have been started and not finished.

          And nuclear would be eligible for the same PTC subsidy that wind gets.

          In Georgia (and I think South Carolina) money is seized from utility customers for the utility companies to use in building new reactors. That’s money taken from customers for which they will receive nothing.

          In the UK apparently the government is going to guarantee a high price for all the electricity produced for 20 years or more. UK taxpayers will kick for the extra cost of electricity over other cheaper sourced electricity when nuclear has to sell at a loss (which will be most of the time).

          In some countries, China, Iran and North Korea for example, they just build them with government money.

          • SA Kiteman

            Too bad this software is so restrictive, it makes a point by point difficult.
            Unlike that famous “renewable” hydro for which the taxpayer is immediately and 100% liable thru federal flood insurance, the PAA does NOT make the taxpayer liable for the costs of a major cleanup. This is a common fallacy. After the individual plant’s policy is exceeded, and the INDUSTRY’S larger policy is exceeded, THEN congress makes a decision on where to go for the rest. So far, 50 years and no recourse to the situation, and US plants just keep getting safer. So far, the taxpayer has paid NOTHING. No subsidy here.

            Unlike renewables, where the loan guarantee closing costs and administration costs etc. are paid for directly by the taxpayer, LG costs for nukes are paid for by the industry. Also, they don’t get them unless they ave shown long periods of effective business management experience… unlike Solyndra, A123, Beacon Power and how many other dozen failures? AFAIK, the federal taxpayer has paid NOTHING. No subsidy here.

            Re: PTC, this is new to me, I was under the impression that nuclear was forbidden by internation convention to be allowed the receive such credits. But if it is a matter of the FedGov encouraging low-carbon power, then … well, they shouldn’t, … but if they must, tis best done fairly.

            So it is ok for K-Mart to “seize” money from their customers to buy new merchandise and facilities, but not for Georgia Power? You have an odd definition of subsidy.

            And the UK is doing things wrong, IMHO. There are nuclear options (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers) that can do all that the big unit can, and probably faster to first power, and cheaper too. But then again, almost all power systems are only built with a power contract in place. A wind system in the NE USA is demanding $0.23 per unreliable kWh. And that is before the subsidies.

            Re China… now I KNOW you are stretching. In those places, the government builds all power systems. Duh!

          • Bob_Wallace

            Yes, nuclear reactor owners carry small liability policies. The cost of Fukushima is estimated to be at least $250 billion with others estimating much more.

            We Homer one into a stinkin’ pile of radiation and Congress will go straight for taxpayer money.

            You get no points by trying to equate failed startups with the nuclear industry which has had 60 years of taxpayer support and still cannot stand on its own feet. After over a half century of subsidies nuclear produced electricity simply has become more and more expensive.

            There’s a point at which a wise investor recognizes that they are pouring money into something which simply is not working.

            There are no liquid fluoride thorium whiz-bang reactors. There are no reasons to think they would be cheaper to build or generate electricity at a competitive price.

            “A wind system in the NE USA is demanding $0.23 per unreliable kWh.”

            Are you talking about our first offshore wind farm?

            I believe there are some private companies building wind and solar in China, but that is not the point you are trying to obscure.

            The only places where new nuclear reactors are being built is where they are being built with government money or with massive government financial assistance.

            It’s math. The private sector does the math and does not invest in nuclear. Nuclear does not make enough money to survive in a free market. Even paid off nuclear reactors are going bankrupt.

          • SA Kiteman

            “Yes, nuclear reactor owners carry small liability policies. The cost of Fukushima is estimated to be at least $250 billion with others estimating much more.

            We Homer one into a stinkin’ pile of radiation and Congress will go straight for taxpayer money.”
            Each plant carries their own, and the industry carries a lot more. So far it has covered everything, and the plants keep getting safer. No subsidy, little likelihood of one. Whereas renewables have made the FedGov pay out billions in insurance subsidies. This is the pot calling a white towel black.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I didn’t realize that reactors and the nuclear industry carried that much liability insurance. How about giving us some numbers.

            The Fukushima meltdown is projected to cost as much as $250 billion with some suggesting that the final price will be higher.

            A meltdown of one of our reactors located close to a more urban area (Fukushima was fairly rural) could cost several times more. You probably need to show that the combined insurance coverage carried by reactors and the nuclear industry covers more than half a trillion.

            Oh, and give us your source for the federal government paying billions in insurance subsidies for renewables.

            Again, you bring me new news. Looking forward to learning more from you.

          • SA Kiteman

            “You get no points by trying to equate failed startups with the nuclear industry which has had 60 years of taxpayer support and still cannot stand on its own feet. After over a half century of subsidies nuclear produced electricity simply has become more and more expensive.

            There’s a point at which a wise investor recognizes that they are pouring money into something which simply is not working. ”

            What subsidies? You keep claiming them, but other than research which belongs to the government, I can’t find any subsidies. Where are they? Try to be specific this time, and make it “nuclear”, not general.

            The industry stands quite well considering the outlandish regulatory burden they are under. Not only do they pay their own way, but they subsidize the government regulatory burden while they do it. Since there is not penalty for the NRC to drag it’s feet, and the plants have to pay per hour FOR that foot-dragging, it is a miracle they are as cheap as they are. And by one short stroke of the pen, they could be just as safe but a lot cheaper. But that might upset the blood-sucker of the country so I doubt it will happen here in the states. But other countries are not so dumb.

          • Bob_Wallace

            You can start learning about the subsidies that the nuclear industry has received from these links. Be sure to follow their links for more information…

            http://cleantechnica.com/2012/08/03/oil-gas-over-13-times-more-in-historical-subsidies-than-clean-energy/

            http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

          • SA Kiteman

            In the first one they say that nuclear has been subsidized because the government wanted nuclear power for their submarines and other military purposes. Blaming commercial plants for those costs is just palin ludicrous. If anything, the commecisliation of nuclear REDUCED the amount the the government needed to pay for its military needs.

            The other bid hunk of cash the FedGov layed out was for Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors, which are also not commercial reactors.

            The second report is one of those half-truths resulting in a lie. They compare nuclear (8.5 to 30 cents/kWh) to “renewables” (6 cents/kWh) without telling you up front that those “renewables” include ~6 parts hydro which is generally VERY cheap but is no longer expandable and ~1/2 part unreliables which are very expensive. They also don’t seem to include the cost of the fossil fuel generator needed to back it up.

            And since the subject is nuclear GETTING subsidies (note the PRESENT indicative) the two links seem just a tad off topic (can’t answer, deflect?).

            I ask again… what subsidy is nuclear getting these days.

          • SA Kiteman

            For some reason, this software won’t let me edit. Please excuse the several instances of dis-digita (palin vs plain for instance)

          • Bob_Wallace

            “Blaming commercial plants for those costs is just palin ludicrous. If anything, the commecisliation of nuclear REDUCED the amount the the government needed to pay for its military needs.”

            That is very lame logic. There’s no way that commercial nuclear fed any cost savings back to military nuclear.

            “They also don’t seem to include the cost of the fossil fuel generator needed to back it up.”

            More lame logic. Renewable generation displaces existing fossil fuel use. We’ve built no additional fossil fuel generation to back up renewables.

            I’m getting the feeling that you have a very shallow knowledge pool.

          • SA Kiteman

            “That is very lame logic. There’s no way that commercial nuclear fed any cost savings back to military nuclear.”

            As an ex-engineer with the Navy, I know how much commercial tech the Navy relies on. Having an expensive to maintain technological capability like specialty materials manufactory spread across a much larger customer base reduces the cost to all customers. This is such a big deal that they even have a name for it… “Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) procurement.

            “More lame logic. Renewable generation displaces existing fossil fuel use. We’ve built no additional fossil fuel generation to back up renewables.”

            If you claim to replace anything but natural gas capability you are fooling yourself. And there is no excess natural gas capability to cut into for baseload power. When wind energy is mandated to be purchased, it cuts into baseload generating capability, which then must be replaced by additional NG.

            As that beacon of liberal “renewable energy” promotion, RFK Jr said, wind and solar projects are really natural gas projects.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’ll give you the possibility that having commercial nuclear on line might have cut military costs a bit in that it helped to firm up the supply chain.

            However, you need to recognize that natural gas is a fossil fuel. That our use of coal has dropped from over 50% to under 40% of our total electricity production. And that wind and solar will come close to producing 5% of our total electricity in 2013.

            That ~5%, if it did not come from wind and solar, would have come from fossil fuels. We would have either had to use more NG or burn more coal.

          • Ivor O’Connor

            Bob,

            Who are you? How do you get so damn much information under your belt? How many hours a day do you spend cataloging it all?

            This field is so damn big I just can’t seem to get a grip on anything. Is there a cataloging method you use? A skeleton that the details can be added on to easily. Every time I attempt to start cataloging I find information that never fits neatly in one area. And then I fall apart.

            How do you catalog it all?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Google Documents am my friend.

            And Google Alerts. I’ve got alerts set for various topics (Ambri, floating wind turbines, EV battery price, etc.).

            When I see something interesting I put it in a Doc. Usually copy a bit and the link. Create a heading and a Contents at the top of the page.

            So if something comes up about subsidies, for example, I’ve got a Subsidies Doc with stuff already located.

            I started long ago with bookmarking and sometimes doing Docs on my hard drive, but GooDocs are much easier to access.

            I even write out generic comments for the standard issues that crop up from time to time. Just copy over what I may write on a site and then punch it up as new info emerges.

            I’d rather do that than work crosswords to keep my brain from petrifying….;o)

          • SA Kiteman

            Except that in that time, at least two nuclear plants, very low carbon emission energy plants, have been closed due to the perversion of market forces brought on by mandatory purchase requirements for unreliables. That power capacity has been replaced by high carbon fossil fuel capacity in parallel with the unreliables that started the perversion in the first place. So, Big fossil has successfully supported unreliables in order to increase their market share.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Oh, horse poop.

            So far in 2013 five reactors have proven unable to compete in the open market. These were paid off reactors which were supposed to give us electricity too cheap to meter.

            Nuclear simply isn’t competitive in today’s market. Some of our less expensive to operate plants will hang on for a while, but we’re almost certain to see more reactors shuttered over the next few years.

            Deal with it.

            For now we’ll use wind, solar and natural gas to fill in for them and the coal plants we are closing. As we perfect storage then we’ll phase out NG.

            Coal and nuclear. So last century….

          • SA Kiteman

            >> = BW
            :: = me
            >> “So far in 2013 five reactors have proven unable to compete in the open market. These were paid off reactors which were supposed to give us electricity too cheap to meter.”
            :: Wow, two, clap-clap two, clap-clap TWO lies in one! You strive to exceed you past lie ratio!
            First, there is no open market. There is a market wherein an otherwise valueless sector is given massive subsidies ($18B in direct subsidies in the past several years) AND has laws requiring that it be purchased, no matter HOW valueless it is. Hardly an OPEN market.
            Second, the too cheap to meter was a comment made about the promise of FUSION power.

            >> “Nuclear simply isn’t competitive in today’s market. Some of our less expensive to operate plants will hang on for a while, but we’re almost certain to see more reactors shuttered over the next few years.”
            :: “This may be true. The fossil fuel behemoths have gotten fools to promote valueless unreliables in order to drive their only competitor (nuclear) out of the market. And Germany is an example of the eventual result of that. Hideously high electric prices, unreliable power, and the highest per megawatt production of GHGs in all of Europe. Well done “greens”. Please leave that green hell in Germany.

            >> “For now we’ll use wind, solar and natural gas to fill in for them and the coal plants we are closing. As we perfect storage then we’ll phase out NG.”
            :: No, the downturn in the economy is closing coal plants, with the help of artificially low NatGas prices. And you just don’t seem to grasp the ENORMITY of the storage requirement to bring your fantasy to life.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Look, you’re getting a little over the line with your “lies” stuff. You need to dial that back.

            There most certainly is an open market for energy in non-regulated markets. Those are the places where reactors are going to be closed first. In regulated markets the extra cost of running a reactor can be passed on to customers.

            All those reactors which are being closed were developed and built with a massive subsidy program for nuclear energy. And, realistically, they are closing because cheap natural gas is undercutting their market. Wind and solar are playing a secondary role for now.

            “Too cheap to meter” was initially made about fusion (and please don’t shout). But it has been repeated over and over while talking about what fission would bring us.

            Coal plants are closing. I hardly see how they have caused nuclear to close.

            Coal plants are closing because they can’t meet EPA emission requirements.

            You’re just posting crap.

          • Bob_Wallace

            What subsidy is nuclear getting these days?

            Free liability insurance (taxpayers are on the hook for everything above the small policies carried by reactor owners).

            Free used fuel disposal/storage. Storage since there is no safe way to dispose of the used fuel.

            Government guaranteed loans.

            Government permitted overcharges of customers.

            Here, educate yourself…

            http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

          • SA Kiteman

            “What subsidy is nuclear getting these days?”
            * “Free liability insurance (taxpayers are on the hook for everything above the small policies carried by reactor owners).”
            This is a standard anti-nuke lie. The PAA defines how much insurance each individual plant must buy, and how much the industry must buy to cover the whole industry. It has done a remarkably good job since in the many decades it has been enacted. it has never been exceeded. So, no subsidy, just a lie on your part.

            * “Free used fuel disposal/storage. Storage since there is no safe way to dispose of the used fuel.” This is another anti-nuke lie. The industry pays a significant fee for every kWh sold to cover the cost of waste disposal. So far, the government has taken the money and done little for it. This is currently a case where the industry is subsidizing the government, not the other way around. So, another lie on your part.

            * “Government guaranteed loans.”
            A load guarantee is only a subsidy if the loan is defaulted upon or if the government picks up the cost of making and maintaining the loans. Unlike LGs to the unreliables, neither case applies to nuclear plant building, nor will it unless the government CAUSES the default. In which case, thy SHOULD pick up the cost. So, another lie by anti-nukes except if anti-nukes are successful and cause a default.

            * “Government permitted overcharges of customers.”
            Wait a minute. The fact that government DECLINES to stick its nose into a free business dealing between a business and its customers is now a SUBSIDY??? Wow, now I KNOW you are stretching your line of meadow muffinage!

            The “government subsidy” myth is one of the common tools of the anti-nukes, but being a common statement does not mean it is not also a lie. So, four lies in one short message, well done!

          • Bob_Wallace

            “Free liability insurance (taxpayers are on the hook for everything above the small policies carried by reactor owners).” This is a standard anti-nuke lie.”

            Price-Anderson puts the nuclear industry at risk for the first $12.6 billion of damage. After that it’s on the taxpayers. Fukushima is well over $50 billion and it may go over $200 billion. A meltdown near a US city could run into trillions.

            “* “Free used fuel disposal/storage. Storage since there is no safe way to dispose of the used fuel.” This is another anti-nuke lie.”

            Taxpayers have forked out the money for Yucca Mountain. We’ve spend billions of dollar so far and if we were to follow through it would cost taxpayers $50 to $100 billion.

            “* “Government guaranteed loans.” A load guarantee is only a subsidy if the loan is defaulted upon or if the government picks up the cost of making and maintaining the loans. ”

            A loan guarantee is an insurance policy. Taxpayers are giving this insurance to the nuclear industry. Insurance is assumed risk and it has value. That is a subsidy.

            “* “Government permitted overcharges of customers.” Wait a minute. The fact that government DECLINES to stick its nose into a free business dealing between a business and its customers is now a SUBSIDY???”

            The government, state governments, have stuck their noses in to free business and permitted utilities to overcharge their customers and use that seized money to build new reactors. This is nothing but government-assisted theft of customer money.

            Sorry. You aren’t going to get away with a program of pro-nuclear disinformation here.

          • SA Kiteman

            >>=me
            :: = BW

            >>”Free liability insurance (taxpayers are on the hook for everything above the small policies carried by reactor owners).” This is a standard anti-nuke lie.”
            :: Price-Anderson puts the nuclear industry at risk for the first $12.6 billion of damage. After that it’s on the taxpayers. Fukushima is well over $50 billion and it may go over $200 billion. A meltdown near a US city could run into trillions.
            >> No, it is not automatically on the taxpayers. It is on Conress to decide who pays and the default is a tax on energy already sold. And so far, the only significant accident in the US was less than te limit, and the plants are getting safer all the time. A meltdown would ruin the plant, not the city. The US industry doesn’t have the option to choose not to install safety gear like TEPCO chose not to. The situations are quite different.

            >> “Free used fuel disposal/storage. Storage since there is no safe way to dispose of the used fuel.” This is another anti-nuke lie.”
            :: Taxpayers have forked out the money for Yucca Mountain. We’ve spend billions of dollar so far and if we were to follow through it would cost taxpayers $50 to $100 billion.
            >> Another anti-nuke lie. The nuclear power industry pays a per kWhr fee on all energy sold and that fee goes into a fund for handling nuclear waste. THAT fund, not the taxpayer, paid from Yucca Mt. Please stop lying to these good folk.

            >> “Government guaranteed loans.” A load guarantee is only a subsidy if the loan is defaulted upon or if the government picks up the cost of making and maintaining the loans. ”
            :: A loan guarantee is an insurance policy. Taxpayers are giving this insurance to the nuclear industry. Insurance is assumed risk and it has value. That is a subsidy.
            >> ALL direct and indirect costs related to a loan guarentee to the nuclear industry are borne by the industry, unlike the renewable industry where the government pays the fees. And having value is NOT a subsidy. You might as well claim that there is a subsidy becasue it is build in the US and being in the US has value. Quit pererting the language to try to prove your mistaken point.

            >> “Government permitted overcharges of customers.” Wait a minute. The fact that government DECLINES to stick its nose into a free business dealing between a business and its customers is now a SUBSIDY???”
            :: The government, state governments, have stuck their noses in to free business and permitted utilities to overcharge their customers and use that seized money to build new reactors. This is nothing but government-assisted theft of customer money.
            >> Businesses charge their customers enough to prepay business capital expenses all the time. Is it a subsidy when Walmart charges you $1.30 rather than $1.25 on a pack of mapkins so they can build a new store? ABSURD!!! And coal fired plants can charge whatever they want to their customers in order to build new coal power plants. Why should the nuclear industry be any different. A freedom is not a subsidy. Please stop perverting the language to try to prove your mistaken point.

            :: Sorry. You aren’t going to get away with a program of pro-nuclear disinformation here.
            >> Whereas you seem fully willing to ply your anti-nuke lies with impunity. Can you say “two faced”?

          • Bob_Wallace

            That’s a difficult comment to read, but I’ll give it a try.

            I’m I’m going to ask you one more time to quit calling me a liar. One last time.

            OK, we melt down Indian Point. Kill a few thousand people. Destroy several hundred billion dollars worth of real estate.

            Congress is going to collect from whom? Possibly the company that owned that particular reactor. But probably not. Most likely they have isolated each risky portion of their business from the others, as is commonly done in corporations. Legally Congress cannot reach across a corporate structure and seize assets from a wall-off portion of the corporation.

            And certainly not from other companies that own reactors.

            They are protected by Price-Anderson. The bill is going to the taxpayers as is happening right now in Japan.

            You do some research on Yucca Mountain and find us documentation that fees paid by reactors have paid that bill.

            RE: whether a financial benefit provided is a subsidy or not a subsidy is simply your attempt to define away the assistance given to the nuclear industry by taxpayers.

            Loan guarantees and assumed liability have value. A default or a disaster that exceeded the Price-Anderson limit comes back on taxpayers.

            Taxpayers are accepting the risk. This is what insurance companies do and they collect a premium for doing so. We are charging the nuclear industry nothing for this insurance.

            That is a subsidy. A subsidy is a grant or other financial assistance given by one party for the support or development of another. Free insurance is a form of financial assistance.

            Walmart sells a product. It operates in a semi-free market in which it competes against other retailers and makes a profit when it can.

            Utilities, such as the one building the Vogtle reactors operate in a regulated market. Being essentially a monopoly we put some controls on what is considered a fair profit.

            The State of Georgia allowed the utility to charge an additional fee, over and above cost plus a reasonable profit in order to give Southern Company some extra money to build reactors.

          • SA Kiteman

            >>= BW
            ::=me

            >> I’m going to ask you one more time to quit calling me a liar. One last time.
            I’d be happy to if you stopped fibbing.

            >> OK, we melt down Indian Point. Kill a few thousand people. Destroy several hundred billion dollars worth of real estate.
            :: Not going to happen. We might melt it down, but not the other stuff. Answering loaded hypotheticals is a mugs game. Might as well ask what if it exploded. Ain’t gonna happen.

            >> Congress is going to collect from whom? Possibly the company that owned that particular reactor. But probably not. Most likely they have isolated each risky portion of their business from the others, as is commonly done in corporations. Legally Congress cannot reach across a corporate structure and seize assets from a wall-off portion of the corporation.
            :: If there is a melt-down, the current insurence will cover it. If it doesn’t (unlikely) then it will decide what to do. Default is to back tax.

            >> And certainly not from other companies that own reactors.
            :: Yes, from ALL companies that own reactors. And EVER DID, IIUTC.

            >> They are protected by Price-Anderson. The bill is going to the taxpayers as is happening right now in Japan.
            :: They are held MUTUALLY liable by the PAA. Read it.

            >> You do some research on Yucca Mountain and find us documentation that fees paid by reactors have paid that bill.
            :: Don’t need to. To many lawsuits I’ve read about regarding it to wade thru. You find something that supports YOUR claim that the FedGov paid. I don’t mean that they budgeted and authorized the spending of money to repay the funds they had collected and spent for other things. The FedGov does that all the time, kind of like highway funds. They collect gas taxes for highway maintenance and they spend it on a building for the welfare department or smething else. They “borrow it” from themselves. They then budget and appropriate funds to pay it back later. Still highway funds. Thats the way the FedGov fiddles with our money.

            >> RE: whether a financial benefit provided is a subsidy or not a subsidy is simply your attempt to define away the assistance given to the nuclear industry by taxpayers.
            :: What “financial benefit given by the taxpayer”? There IS none. No taxpayer money, no subsidy. It really is that simple. All else is political lies to bolster a point.

            >> Loan guarantees and assumed liability have value. A default or a disaster that exceeded the Price-Anderson limit comes back on taxpayers.
            :: They have no cost to the taxpayer UNLESS they are called upon. Until then they are words. If they get called upon, THEN they will be subsidies. If NOT, then NOT. Simple.

            >> Taxpayers are accepting the risk. This is what insurance companies do and they collect a premium for doing so. We are charging the nuclear industry nothing for this insurance.
            :: With the loan guarentees, the taxpayers are accepting risk that THEY may do something stupid. That is the only risk they have, that they decide to shut things down. It is the self paid anti-stupidity tax. If we didn’t have a habit of being stupid like that, we wouldn’t have that tax. And we WON’T have it if we aren’t stupid. SO, don’t be stupid. Simple.

            >> That is a subsidy. A subsidy is a grant or other financial assistance given by one party for the support or development of another. Free insurance is a form of financial assistance.
            :: There IS NO financial assistance there. Make up what odd scenarios you want, there is still no financial assistance unless something happens, and it won’t.

            >> Walmart sells a product. It operates in a semi-free market in which it competes against other retailers and makes a profit when it can.
            :: So does a nuclear power plant, except the market is loaded AGAINST them in favor of other energy providers by market perverting policies by the various governmental levels. None-the-less, they should have the same freedom to charge their customers for their product that any other sector in that market can.

            >> Utilities, such as the one building the Vogtle reactors operate in a regulated market. Being essentially a monopoly we put some controls on what is considered a fair profit.
            :: Right, and the regulator said that they should be able to charge what they want for their reliable power to plan for and provide for future service at the best future rates. In an unregulated market, they could do it without asking. In this regulated market, they asked and the regulators said yes. Just COMMON business practice and good business sense. NOT a subsidy.

            >> The State of Georgia allowed the utility to charge an additional fee, over and above cost plus a reasonable profit in order to give Southern Company some extra money to build reactors.
            :: As I stated, just good, and common, business practice, NOT a subsidy.

          • Bob_Wallace

            It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge facts.

          • SA Kiteman

            So you DO understand how I feel. Remarkable.

          • SA Kiteman

            “There are no liquid fluoride thorium whiz-bang reactors. There are no reasons to think they would be cheaper to build or generate electricity at a competitive price.”

            True, but there have been and it wouldn’t take long to make them again. And given their superior safety and efficiency and given the lack of the need for a high pressure vessel or huge containment dome, they should be substantially cheaper. All studies to date suggest about $2 per watt.

          • Bob_Wallace

            If they worked well enough to generate cheap electricity then rational people would expect that the nuclear industry would have built more.

            $2/watt, overnight cost, is not cheap. That would, in fact, generate electricity too expensive to sell. The LCOE would be well over $150/MW which would be totally unacceptable to the market.

            I’m afraid you’re not well versed in the economics of energy.

          • SA Kiteman

            “The only places where new nuclear reactors are being built is where they are being built with government money or with massive government financial assistance.

            It’s math. The private sector does the math and does not invest in nuclear. Nuclear does not make enough money to survive in a free market. Even paid off nuclear reactors are going bankrupt.”

            This is flat out false. Except for places where basically EVERYTHING is built with government money (China) the business community provides funding quite well. Heck, there are three new plants going up in the US NOW without government money. Shame on you for lying to us.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Four paid off US reactors have been permanently shut down this year because it was not financially feasible to continue operating them.

            At the same time we are seeing existing, paid off reactors failing for financial reasons.

            The Kewaunee, Wisconsin reactor shut down on May 7 of this year. (Last week.) The owners, Dominion Power, were losing money and could not find anyone to buy the reactor from them.

            A few weeks earlier (February, 2013) it was announced that Crystal River, Florida would be permanently closed. It had been down while repairs were contemplated. After looking at the repair cost the owners decided that they couldn’t make money.

            Just a few days ago a decision was made to permanently close the two San Onofre, California reactors.

            Oyster Creek, New Jersey is scheduled to close in 2010 as the cost of rebuilding the cooling tower makes it unprofitable.

            James A FitzPatrick plant in Oswego, New York and Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vermont are going to be operating at a financial loss for the foreseeable future. Pilgrim nuclear reactor in Plymouth, Massachusetts may also be losing money.

            About one fourth of our existing reactors are in danger of bankruptcy. Cheap wind and natural gas have taken away their profitability.

            The two reactors being built in Georgia by the Southern Company are being financed with federal loan guarantees. This is the taxpayer going on the hook for paying the lenders if the reactors are not brought on line.

            Additionally utility customers have been overcharged for their electricity for some time with the state government approving the seize of private funds for Southern Company to use in construction. This is essentially the state government taxing citizens and giving the money to a private company.

            BTW, those reactors are now significantly over budget and at least 14 months behind schedule.

            The TVA Bellefonte reactor (TVA is a government organization) is not a complete build, but a completion of a reactor that was 80% constructed some years ago and then set aside. The original budget for completed that reactor was $2 billion. Last week they announced a new estimate of $4.9 billion and that talks were underway to abandon the project.

            In fact, TVA has just announced that they are laying off staff at the site which is usually the first sign of a project abandonment.

            —————————————————————-
            Be careful with the lying charges. Don’t make them unless you can prove them.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan
  • JamesWimberley

    You are describing Angela Merkel’s electoral platform. She may get an absolute majority, and be able to carry it out; she may lose to an absolute Socialist majority, and her programme has no relevance; or – most likely – she will stay in power but as head of a different coalition, perhaps without the neoliberal FDP, and with either Greens or Socialists, both of which are pro-renewables. In that scenario, her programme is only a opening bid.

    Second, cutting the subsidies is easier said than done. The FITs are locked in for 20 years and retroactive cuts or new grid access charges would spark a firestorm of protests and litigation. The current FITs for solar and onshore wind are at or below market electricity rates and there’s little or no subsidy to cut. The one major sector with a subsidised FIT is offshore wind, sponsored by influential corporations. The subsidy that could and should be cut is the steadily widening industrial exemption from the renewables surcharge; but somehow I doubt that’s what Mrs Merkel has in mind.

    • ThomasGerke

      Your absolutly right.

      In addition:
      A – The FiT is not a subsidie :-P
      At least not more so than grid-service fees or electricity rates in a regulated monopoly market.

      B – Pre-Election theather
      In recent years rather radical anti-renewable energy proposals by Merkels current administration have frequently been watered down by the members of her own party, before being put up for vote. Afterwards they were either killed or significantly altered by the states (Bundesrat)… again even with the votes of states ruled by Merkels conservative party.

      Quoting a conservative member of the Bundestag:
      “Bills (on renewable energy) never leave this house unchanged.”

      My take on this:
      Mrs. Merkel and her Party want to make alot of noise to:
      1. Get campaign contributions from industry donors (They currently have significantly less money than they did in 2009)
      2. Gain popularity among the tabloid reading folk
      3. Avoid being blamed for renewable surcharge rate hikes since 2009 – that are largly caused by developements that benefit 4% of Germanys industrial companies.

      The only substance from her recent comments is the fact that the entire electricity market design will be overhauled after the election…

  • Wolfgan

    off course that right to cut back given that solar power is not working and Germany running out of money. Germany import more power than any other nation in the world after the roll out of solar power its the right way to go and put an end to the waste of money that renewable energy is.

    • ThomasGerke

      Germany imports about the same amount as it did 10 years ago and it exports more than ever…. resulting in a multi-billion net-profit from electricity exports for Germany electricity generators.

      Conservative politicians are putting out a lot of non-sense before the election in September. They are pandering to ignorance, with the goal to ensure their (allegedly) uninformed base a “reasonable approach” in light of special interest driven anti-energy transition media campaigns.

      • SA Kiteman

        Germany doesn’t “export” power, it shoves it down their throats. They push power that is unwanted and destabilizing on their neighbors who don’t want it.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Some people make that claim. But apparently the “surge” problem is not due to Germany pushing excess renewable generation on to its neighbors’ grids, but what problems there are result from market forces. Money, not wind.

          “Poland and the Czech Republic charge that surges in renewable power are becoming uncontrollable, but the researchers could not confirm these findings.

          On page 76, they note that loop flows with Poland exceeding 2.5 gigawatts only occurred in 2011, when wind power production was between four and eight gigawatts. And “significant loop flows of up to 2,000 megawatts” occurred when wind power production was “virtually negligible.”

          So what is the problem? The researchers found that prices are high when production is also great. The way the market is designed, power might then be imported from neighboring countries (such as Denmark) if import prices are lower. This power then hits a congested part of the grid and is rerouted along a path of lower resistance. This outcome is not infrequent but also not directly related to surges in wind or solar power production as charged.

          Once again, price – not technical capacity – is the culprit. A number of Eastern European countries had even proposed that Germany and Austria, which currently share a power trading platform, be split – a demand that the researchers take as a clear indication that the market’s design, not surges in renewable power, is causing loop flows.”

          This is from a very interesting multi-part piece on Germany’s role in Europe’s electricity system. The quoted bit above is from the third part.

          http://energytransition.de/2013/02/german-energy-transition-and-its-neighbors-part-1/

          There’s a major program of disinformation designed to harm renewable energy. You can guess who is behind it.

          Don’t fall for their lies….

          • SA Kiteman

            As you say, the market forces (the way people buy power) don’t want it. Thus “shoved down their throats.”
            Oh, I get it, because these guys support your druthers, they can label market forces as insignificant. So THEIR druthers don’t count, only yours.

        • arne-nl

          We wants it.

          The precious.

          Clean and cheap electricity from Germany.

          http://www.easyswitch.nl/energie/energie-nieuws/hoge-import-duitse-stroom

          http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/2764/milieu/article/detail/1648064/2013/06/07/Belgische-elektriciteitsmarkt-meer-afhankelijk-van-invoer.dhtml

          In The Netherlands and Belgium there is a shortage of electricity and we *depend* on Germany to cover the shortfall.

          Thank you Germany, shove it down our throats. Please.

          • SA Kiteman

            Then build your own Xmission lines and don’t make it get routed through 90% of Europe to get to you. Sheesh!
            Oh, and while you are at it, thank to fools in Germany for subsidizing it so much that by the time it gets to you it is “cheap”, cuz it isn’t anywhere else in the world!

          • Bob_Wallace

            Wait a minute. You’ve got your bloomers in a bunch about Poland and the Czech Republic experiencing grid surges.

            You’re trying to blame this on German solar (even when the facts don’t support your claim).

            And now you’re somehow routing German solar-electricity through Poland and the Czech Republic in order to get to the Netherlands and Belgium?

            Those are some very creative anti-renewable efforts you’re making SA. Perhaps we should award you a “Great Effort” medal with a “Massive Fail” cluster.

          • SA Kiteman

            Actually, I was responding to arne-nl who said they wanted it. He(?) implied they were merely routed thru the east to get to the west. Please keep your posts in order.

            As to it being “solar”, that was the topic of discussion. Perhaps I should have included wind by call them “unreliables”.

            Actually, I like renewables just fine, it is the unreliables that I oppose. Iceland is a truly blessed location in that they have sufficient hydro and geothermal to actually economically provide most of their electricity. But such is not the case in most of the world. But the point is that the unreliables (solar, wind) just don’t cut it for producing low carbon electricity to power a civilization.

          • Bob_Wallace

            It’s very clear to whom you were responding. Look right after your name on the post. There’s an arrow and the name of the poster to whom you are replying.

            And then I replied to you. In order.

            “So the point is that the unreliables (solar, wind) just don’t cut it for producing low carbon electricity to power a civilization.”

            That is, I hope, a claim made from ignorance. You can fix that problem by reading a few of the several studies which find that “unreliables” are perfectly fine for running a modern civilization.

            “100 Renewable Energy” – upper right of this very page.

          • SA Kiteman

            Re: “100%…” not when I look.

            I’ve read a number of them and all have been jokes. They start with conclusion in mind and pick the data to reach it. The ONLY way that unreliables will power a civilization is is someone developes a storage system that will only add a few cents to the cost of a kW. So far, they are nowhere near it.

            And even if someone did, the area needed would be disasterous to the ecology.

            Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers (LFTRs) can provide the lean, clean, green energy needed to power a civilization for your children and your children’s children, unto the millionth generation.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Well, I must say that I’m impressed with your depth of knowledge. This could be a great opportunity for you to educate us.

            How about you take some of the “100%” papers and give us your critique of them. And please start with Jacobson and Deluchhi (2009) and Budischak, et al. (2013) as those are the two I’ve read the most carefully and have hard copies at hand.

            And, what really interests me are your calculations of the amount of land needed to power ourselves with renewable and in what form the ecological disaster would take.

            Oh, and tell us where a working LFTR is now operating and the cost of the electricity it produces.

          • SA Kiteman

            YOU place a statement about “100%… Hmmm, it doesn’t say %. Did you change it? Anyway, there is nothing that says “100 Renewable Energy” at the top of the page either. The phrase “100 Renewable Energy” doesn’t make much sense.

            Re the two books: can you send me copies? Are they freely downloadable? If not, I will not look as I have no desire to pay for BS and without a reliable recommendation I must assume they are BS. Way too many studies I have seen “breathlessly promoted as the proof that unreliables are great” have proven to be so.

            Re amounts of land, etc.: Without super-cheap storage or intercontinental super-conductive transmission capacity (neither of which have EVER existed); and given their capacity credit of about 1%, I am unconvinced it is possible to run a civilization with them at all. But even at MUCH lower penetration levels, wind is already devastating bird and bat populations and making people ill; and both PV and ST plants are wrecking large tracts of fragile desert ecology. And that is when they can still steal back-up services from a robust (but increasingly less so) grid.

            Re the existence of LFTRs: there was a prototype. It was remarkably inexpensive to build and operate. Multiple studies result in a current price estimate of about $2/W, which with effectively free fuel and practically self controlling stability, the cost per kWh is estimated to be cheaper than coal… even natural gas at world average prices.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Geezus Squeezeus…

            You can’t look at the upper right of the page and find “100% Renewable Energy”?

            OK, you can’t. So here, I’ll give you the links to the two papers.

            Jacobson and Delucchi

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

            Budischak, et al.

            https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit

            ————-

            I asked you to share your land use calculations. Responding with hand-waving about other stuff including totally disproven bird/human health junk about wind does not fill the bill.

            ————–

            Anyone who takes an estimate of $2/watt, overnight cost, and arrives at a LCOE estimate of affordable doesn’t understand the economics of electricity.

          • SA Kiteman

            Thank you for the links. I will read the first annon, the second assumes electro-chemical storage. The best EC storage to date adds ~$1.00 to the cost of a kWh of electricity. If you get to pretend that after 100 years of trying, the next 30 years will reduce that substantially, I get to assume that after 50 years of ignoring Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, we can get the cost to about $0.02/kWh. That is a number I have seen repeatedly.
            ————-
            It is very difficult to do a land use calc for something that you think can’t happen.
            ————–
            $2 per cotinuous, reliable watt is a remarkably low total system overnight cost, especially when the fuel is free. The system O-N cost for unreliables are on the same order, but for PEAK, not including the capacity credit. With the CC they work out more like $200/watt.

          • Bob_Wallace

            “The best EC storage to date adds ~$1.00 to the cost

            –of a kWh of electricity.”

            Actually bog-simple lead acid storage adds about $0.20/kWh. The Eos zinc-air storage going on the New York grid is expected to be approximately $0.10/kWh.

            An estimate of 2 cents for a LFTR isn’t worth 2 cents. It’s simply absurd.

            “It is very difficult to do a land use calc for something that you think can’t happen.”

            No, it’s fairly easy. What you’re telling us is that you don’t even know where to start.

            “$2 per cotinuous, reliable watt is a remarkably low total system overnight cost, especially when the fuel is free.”

            No, another piece of ignorance. You, again, do not understand the economics of energy. It takes so long to build a new reactor or coal plants that overnight costs are roughly double by financing costs making their LCOE, even considering rather low fuel costs, the most expensive of all sources of new capacity.

            “The system O-N cost for unreliables are on the same order, but for PEAK, not including the capacity credit. With the CC they work out more like $200/watt.”

            This, my friend is bull shit. Pure and simple bull shit.

    • Bob_Wallace

      In 2012 Germany exported 66.6 TWh of electricity, earning 3.7 billion euros or 5.6 cents/kWh.

      In 2012 Germany imported 43.8 TWh of electricity, paying 2.3 billion euros or 5.25 cents/kWh.

      http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-power-exports-more-valuable-than-imports/150/537/61663/

      Germany exported 52% more electricity than it imported. And on the 43.8 TWh they sold and bought back Germany earned a 7% profit.

      Germany has been a net exporter of electricity – they sell more than they purchase – since 2008 with the exception of a short period in 2011 when they were closing reactors and had not yet brought enough new generation on line.

      Solar reduced the wholesale price of electricity in Germany by about 5 billion euros in 2012.

      http://qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/RA-January-2013_Germany-Wholesale-Power-Report-3.pdf

      I don’t know where you get your information, Wolfgan, but it’s obviously a deeply flawed source. You should move away from it quickly before you suffer brain rot.

Back to Top ↑