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.
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.”
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.