Subsidies:
This spending is not for development, but for operating costs, a complete waste.
Posted on 06/04/2012 12:12:32 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Germany is successfully limiting the amount of carbon, energy and resources required to grow its economy. Though the public is generally satisfied with the level of environmental quality, the OECD’s Environmental Performance Review of Germany warns that challenges remain in areas like air and water quality, the protection of biodiversity, and de-carbonising energy production. It says that Germany will need more cost-effective policies to achieve its ambitious environmental objectives which, in some cases, go beyond those established in the European Union.
Stringent environmental requirements have helped to make Germany a leader in the environmental goods and services sector. Worth up to EUR 300 billion by 2020, ‘green’ is an important source of economic growth and jobs.
OECD Environment Director, Simon Upton said, “Today’s massive environmental challenges demand cost-effective solutions that promote innovation and avoid technological lock-in. New sources of green growth can play an important part in the recovery from the current economic and financial crisis. In this, Germany is leading the way.”
See the data in Excel here See the data in Excel here
The report presents 29 recommendations including:
Strengthen assessment of the impact of economic policies on the environment and the impact of environment-related policies on the economy. Design financial support for ‘green’ innovation to encourage private investment capital Systematically assess the environmental impact of subsidies, with a view to phasing out those that are environmentally harmful and economically and socially inefficient. This includes adjusting subsidies for renewable energies. Tax energy in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System and provide a consistent carbon price signal across the economy.
For further information, journalists should contact Ivana Capozza in the OECD’s Environment Directorate; tel.: +33 1 45 24 16 78. For a copy of the report, email: news.contact@oecd.org.
For more information on this report see the Highlights. For information on the OECD’s environmental work see: http://www.oecd.org/environment.
“....and de-carbonising energy production.”
Yah, good luck with that, while shutting down your nuke plants!
Guess they may get to shiver in the dark while waiting for wind, like Scotland.
Lovely comment backed up by lots of fact. Well said /sarc.
Actually during the weekend before last, 50% of German electricity demand was covered by solar power.
Are there a lot of challenges? Absolutely. Is it technically feasible. Absolutely.
I remember a few years ago when Americans used to believe that anything was possible and that they were the country that could make it happen. Nowadays and unfortunately very frequently at FR when it comes to energy-related topics, the comments seem to be about how anything that embraces systematic energy change is a left-wing plot and that there is no way the US can do it. It’s a shame that belief in yourselves has been so intensely sapped.
Um, wow. What a bunch of eco-hobbit blather. Seriously. Subsidized “green energy” companies are a drain, not a plus. If Germany stays this course, they’ll fall, too, until the populace latches onto to some charismatic leader who starts killing large numbers of people wholesale.
Read this book before. It ends poorly for everyone...
Oh, and to elaborate: the only economically viable sources of energy neceesary to sustain a real economy are fosil fuels and nuclear. “Greens” oppose both. Thorium reactors show some promise with no negative impacts from the “green” perspective, but greens oppose those, too, because the goal of the “green” leaders is power over others, not the environment.
The only shortages that will exist will be self-imposed.
Germany is refusing, out of pride, abstinence, I don't know, to peruse shale gas and existing resources.
If there really was a need to helter-skelter into a dynamic change, and not AGW driven, I'd agree with you that free enterprise can do it.
But they won't do it alone without government because any current technology is not cost effective. Just like electric cars.
“Actually during the weekend before last, 50% of German electricity demand was covered by solar power.”
Unless you can cite a link from a reputable source, I call bullsh*t. There simply isn’t enough energy in sunlight to do that for an economy of Germany’s size.
Oops, should have added: unless they’ve quietly added arrays of photovoltaic cells that cover an are about the size of Delaware (and nobody noticed).
Is the Wall Street Journal reputable enough for you?
Apology accepted. You could also use the google machine yourself though.
You may also wish to ask some others who have posted here to back up some of their outlandish claims. I have seen only opinions to date.
I have lousy luck looking up past articles.
But examples of how poorly the “Green” charade actually works are legion.
Once the “Subsidies” subside, so does the “success” of the companies involved.
I mentioned Scotland, several articles make it clear that wind has been an utter failure there, particularly since the dread “Carbon” is required in order to keep the turbines warmed and viable when the temperature and wind both drop.
“Solyndra” ring a bell?
How about the sudden death of Solar companies in Spain?
No subsidy = “Green” cannot compete.
Gov. Org. can fake it for a while, but in the end reality becomes apparent.
Carbon is king because it WORKS the best, that is reality, good intentions and fairy dust will not change that reality.
BTW, I have a “Green” propane powered truck (which I despise, very anxious to be rid of it!), my home is run from a grid that has one of the largest percentages of Geo-Thermal in the world.
So do not assume I dismiss the “Green” fantasy out of hand, I’ve done more research than the average poster here.
Um. Open mouth insert foot perhaps? Boy, you sure are spouting off without being very well informed.
C’mon, it’s the OECD, an arm of the EUSSR. Started as the Organization for European Economic Cooperation.
They’re quoting Reuters, with the disclaimer “according to”. And assuming that’s true, it’s for only a single day. It’s not going to replace coal, the new “green” fuel for Germany.
I guess you are also part of the “it’s impossible” group.
I don’t believe that solar is going to be THE solution in cloudy Germany. I do beleive that a low-carbon economy is possible though. CCS will have to play a role. The biggest progress on that is being made in the US at the moment.
For the record, there are dozens of reports on the 50% mark. It wasn’t “just” Reuters. Feel free to type it into google. If you type in “Deutchland 50% Solarstrom” you will get even more, but you may need to use google translate
I’m sure there are more reports aside from Reuters, but how to ascertain their political slant?
Merkel Tightens Grip on Energy Overhaul as Progress Lags
May 21, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-21/merkel-tightens-grip-on-energy-overhaul-as-progress-lags.html
"Germany has boosted the share of renewables in the power mix to about 20 percent from about 16 percent in 2009."
Out of curiosity, how much did solar produce this last winter?
So you are citing an article that shows that there has been a 25% increase in the renewable mix in Germany while the economy was growing as supporting YOUR point?
Methinks you don’t understand what we are talkin about here. Either that, or you don’t get math.
The only way “green” works is if you export manufacturing and switch to a service based economy then tax the hell out of it to subsidize the “green” crap. So what should become obvious to anyone is that doing so does not really reduce carbon output much, it just shifts it to other lesser developed countries. It might even increase carbon output since those lesser developed countries are going to have less advanced infrastructure and power utilities...and more transportation efforts getting the finished goods shipped back to the developed world.
It makes an interesting little social engineering experiment for the ruling elites to play with. But I see no benefit to the planet or to humanity.
You cite a reputable source, but the physics just doesn’t add up. This is simply not possible. But believe the propaganda if you will.
Can you please explain to me why the physics don't add up. Feel free to use complex numbers. I am literate.
Look at the headline, “progress lags”.
You throw enough money at anything and you will get some results. If you gave away all electric cars, more people would use them.
I suspect you didn’t read the article which points out the Germans are spending 4 times as much on their renewable energy program as the debt owed Germany by Greece.
Also note that 20% is less than 50%.
But you will probably just try another insult to distract the casual reader.
The relationship of Germany’s expense on RE to Greece is an irrelevant distraction to the conversation.
The fact that I originally wrote that 50% was covered on the weekend by solar alone was an indication of what was possible, not a comment on current status. Don’t you understand that?
Lastly, the fact that since 2009, with a growing economy, Germany has increased its renewables context by 25% is an amazing achievement that proves significantly more is possible. Not sure why you don’t get that either.
To extrapolate a bit, assuming that this approximate 8% growth rate could be maintained, 50% could be achieved by mid-2016. If it dropped down to 6% it would be achieved by 2018. Slower means longer, but it still can be achieved.
The cost is an issue and the solar panel production industry in Germany has gone bust due to the Chinese. Of course, Germany has a near monopoly on the companies that produce the machines that produce the solar panels. And, by building the grid and corresponding technology to manage it, the country positions itself to take advantage of massive opportunities internationally.
I would kindly ask you to explain to me what it is that you actually disagree with. I just don’t get it.
Power consumption per capita in 2009 for Germany was about 6,700 kwh per year.
Population of Germany: about 82,000,000.
Available power per square foot from solar power is about 20 kWh per year.
Do the math: 82,000,000 times 6,700 = about 550 billion kWh. So to produce 50% of that demand would take solar cells covering an area of 26 million square feet. Delaware is about half a billion square feet, so I was off there - I'll accept the hit on the hyperbole. But 26,000,000 square feet is HUGE.
That's the problem with you green types: basic math.
Ooops, I dropped the 50%: “ONLY” 13 MILLION or so square feet...
You really just don’t get it do you.
First of all the 50% number is completely arbitrary. Why is it important to say half? Mathematically it is irrelevant. It is just a milestone. When that milestone is reached is just a matter of human habit.
It could just as easily be a Kilowatt hour number - but that would be meaningless to most people.
The point of the article and my point to begin with is that a low-carbon power system is clearly possible and Germany is leading the way.
I suppose your point is to say that it isn’t possible, but you have provided absolutely no basis for this whatsoever. Just unsubstantiated statements and a frequent use of profanity. Feel free to read my tagline in that respect.
I suggest that you read How to make friends & Influence People before you continue posting here.
No reply is needed.
Germany's low end energy intensive industry has been outsourced to China. Remaining industry does well adding value per unit of energy (e.g. high end cars). Germany helps China with "clean" coal technology. This is their greenspeak for adding billions of tons of CO2 emissions to the world while pretending that they are combatting global warming. Meanwhile our stupid moron of a president has been shutting down coal electric plants so instead we export that coal to Germany to use in their coal electric plants (about an 8x increase).
The solar power contribution that you keep touting was only possible due to the 50 cent per kWh subsidy now being lowered to 20 cents. That was basically a tax on poor people to pay their rich neighbors so those neighbors could pretend to save the environment (and make money). The average household pays about 22 cents per kWh, double our rates. But being crowded into apartments with the heat set to 60 degrees is the German people's choice, although not mine.
This article is all about whistling in the dark. The German people are fed up, read the articles about Merkel and the perception that she is forcing this issue which is hurting the German economy and standard of living. You ignore logic and common sense to ignore the facts that: available forms of green energy are double the cost,are dependent on sunny days and no nights, require backup carbon based energy because of inconsistent generation. The thing that has caused the standard of living to rise as nations develop is increase in productivity. Solar/green energy has proved it severely decreases productivity by increasing costs via subsidies, increased generation costs, decreased efficiency of production and the need for backup systems. Therefore green energy will decrease the standard of living for great swaths of people as was seen in Spain and as is being seen in Germany. Climate change is a fairy story, being maintained by those eager to control us and get rich by schemes to purportedly fix what isn’t broken. The Germans are waking up so the compliant press is attempting to cheerlead them back into line. Your”facts” are cherry picked” factoids that dissolve when examined.
Thanks. Read it. Been here longer than you. I am getting bored anyway.
From my casual perusal, 50% was achieved at one time on a Saturday. The math done by your “opponent” Piyar is far more convincing. Can you counter it. Do you understand it?
Piyar's math doesn't take in to account external costs. What are the costs of pollution from burning coal, land degradation of strip mining coal, and railroading the coal. We externalize these costs by socializing them. The rate payer is not paying for them, the taxpayer is.
The rate payer in Japan didn't pay the external cost of the nuke meltdown. If you factor in those external costs then that power is very, very expensive.
What about the subsidies for wind and solar. Are we subsidizing wind and solar companies or are we subsidizing technology development the same way we subsidize development of clean coal technology. Plus, we subsidize ethanol and nukes a lot more than we do wind and solar.
Subsidies:
This spending is not for development, but for operating costs, a complete waste.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098
What a tangled web “solar” weaves.
This is much akin to “Ethanol” production...dirtier from beginning to end than fossil fuels.
Uh-huh. That's why even the German MSM reports that electricity rates are projected to increase by 70% by 2020 (due to the necessary massive subsidies) when these rates are already at or near the top of rates in the Western world. All this idiocy to achieve the pipe dream of "Energiewende" - to reduce a globally insignificant amount of emission of a benign compound known as CO2, and to destroy the nuclear energy business. Congratulations, chalk up a "win" for the ecofascists! The destruction of any energy-intensive industry (and that's a lot) in Germany by this is a given. Stupid^3
You still have not done the math. Do you know how?
Um, I got the 50% number from you. Apparently you thought it was important, and now you turn around. Typical when arguing with “greens.”
And as far as more math goes, have you ever looked into the energy balance of manufacturing solar panels - most of which are made in China using very inefficient processes - versus their lifetime output? Short version: it’s better than break even using the best processes, but not the ones used in China. And we can also get into the industrial polution issues, but why bother? I’m sure they don’t matter, right?
All your “green” energy does is suck up money to relocate fossil fuel energy use to one of the dirtiest fossil fuel burning nations on the planet. One that generally doesn’t bother with “clean coal.”
I don’t think there’s much question who doesn’t “get it.”
Meant to ping you two on my response: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2891219/posts?page=40#40
And you two, too: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2891219/posts?page=40#40
“Climate Change” is a fact, there has never been a stable climate. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the fairy story.
Let's not allow their watered down, less hysterical label, that is for MSM consumption, to divert attention from the original hysteria associated with AGW.
CO2 is about 383PPM, or .000383 (.0383%) of the atmospheric mix.
AGW is about 10.5PPM, or .0000105 (.00105%) of the atmospheric mix.
The only reason we are having this discussion is that pagans, like the Germans, have swallowed this tripe for science and have created an new “Unholy Crusade” to save their precious “Gaea”.
It has infected everything.
This “Great Whore” (Gaea) will be shed from the beast.
When it's cost effective, I will put in solar on my house, to SUPPLEMENT, and I will do it in a conservative mindset.
This crap will never be primary...that would be insane, i.e. “Socialist”. Right or left.
Exactly so.
My challenge is always: Show me where a utility-sized “alternate energy” installation was put in without either subsidies or mandates (which latter are just hidden subsidies).
They can’t do it.
Doing it due to “carbon footprint” is just spending huge money on a lie. The “science” there, isn’t.
That's a little vague and probably wrong. The rise from 260 or 280 up to the present 395 ppm is from fossil fuels. If mankind were not in the picture there would have been a rise anyway, but only to perhaps 300 ppm at the most. The reason is simple: oceans warming naturally (as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age) were outgassing CO2. Now they are ingassing and that is measurable and factual. So the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is not from the oceans, it is from fossil fuels and land use changes.
Thanks for the ping. It’s unbelievable how arrogant these Germans are about their environmental purity when all they have done is ship their dirty and energy intensive industries to China where the GDP to fossil fuel ratio is much lower. That has made their phony global warming problem worse not better.
I wasn't doing the math, I was doing accounting.
I don't really have to do the math. You may think reality is determined by what gets posted at Free Republic, but reality and the math is being done on the ground in the real world.
Places like Texas are moving forward because they are planning on growth. Sure, a nat gas surplus may come along but that is temporary and planning is looking out into 2035 and 2050.
Whether you call it Cylindra or Solyndra, technology is being developed and it has been subsidized, it is being subsidized, and it will be subsidized.
SCOTUS said in in 2007 that CO2 is a pollutant and SCOTUS said last year that only the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2
I wasn't doing the math, I was doing accounting.
I don't really have to do the math. You may think reality is determined by what gets posted at Free Republic, but reality and the math is being done on the ground in the real world.
Places like Texas are moving forward because they are planning on growth. Sure, a nat gas surplus may come along but that is temporary and planning is looking out into 2035 and 2050.
Whether you call it Cylindra or Solyndra, technology is being developed and it has been subsidized, it is being subsidized, and it will be subsidized.
SCOTUS said in in 2007 that CO2 is a pollutant and SCOTUS said last year that only the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2
You've bought into the dogma when your accepting that the number spouted is all man-made.
The last ice age was accomplished with 2000+ CO2.
2000+ man-made? That is what you'd be suggesting.
Well, Ben Flicklin, if you think Solyndra had anything to do with developing technology as opposed to 100% pure corruption, there is no point talking to you any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.