Electric Rates in Germany

[Harold Squared]

Where should such a topic belong?

[iNow]

What specifically about the rates are you looking to discuss? As it stands right now, such a topic belongs in a google search bar.

[Harold Squared]

Economics but we have no section devoted to "the dismal science". Looks like prices are up over yonder.

[Harold Squared]

Germany is notorious for embracing "renewable energy" in a big way. If the USA were to follow suit, would our rates double or treble too?

 

Also, nuclear power is actively being phased out, could this be a factor?

[iNow]

https://www.db.com/cr/en/concrete-deutsche-bank-report-solar-grid-parity-in-a-low-oil-price-era.htm

March 10, 2015

 

Deutsche Bank report: Solar grid parity in a low oil price era

 

Despite the recent drop in oil price, we expect solar electricity to become competitive with retail electricity in an increasing number of markets globally due to declining solar panel costs as well as improving financing and customer acquisition costs.

 

Unsubsidized rooftop solar electricity costs between $0.08-$0.13/kWh, 30-40% below retail price of electricity in many markets globally. In markets heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation, the ratio of coal based wholesale electricity to solar electricity cost was 7:1 four years ago. This ratio is now less than 2:1 and could likely approach 1:1 over the next 12-18 months.

We see cost trajectory on pace for a ~40%+ reduction by the end of 2017

Read the entire report here: https://www.db.com/cr/en/docs/solar_report_full_length.pdf

[swansont]

Germany is notorious for embracing "renewable energy" in a big way. If the USA were to follow suit, would our rates double or treble too?

 

 

Probably not. Solar and wind are pretty much at or below grid parity is many places in the US. Solar plants are being built now for less than what fossil fuel plants cost

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89110-is-this-legit/page-2#entry874782

 

In regard to solar, remember that most of the US is located further south than Germany.

[timo]

Few random comments, since I do not know if that actually is supposed to be the discussion thread and if there really was a question:

- Electricity prices in Germany have dropped on the market level due to renewable generation.

- End-user prices have increased, particularly due to technology subsidies for renewables being paid by the consumer. Subsidies for other technologies are paid by the state, i.e. they are contained in taxes and do not appear on the electricity bill.

- More generally: Theoretically you can get to zero electricity costs, irrespective of technology. Just increase taxes and provide free electricity for everyone. Similarly, you can get to any high electricity cost irrespective of technology: Just put a huge tax on electricity consumption. The price of a unit of electric energy depends possibly more on the market design than on technology. And it may not be the relevant quantity, either - even for electricity consumers who usually happen to be tax payers at the same time.

- In other words: You may be asking the wrong question, or at least ask in in a form that is too simple.

Edited July 9, 2015 by timo

[swansont]

Excellent points. Comparing the US and Germany straight up is not a fair comparison.

 

If the US were to start taxing CO2 emissions or put in penalties for exceeding limits, that would tend to drive rates up, but would also make solar and wind just that much more cost-effective. The lack of such a tax/penalty is a de-facto subsidy that fossil fuels have been getting for lo these many years.

[Harold Squared]

 

Probably not. Solar and wind are pretty much at or below grid parity is many places in the US. Solar plants are being built now for less than what fossil fuel plants cost

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89110-is-this-legit/page-2#entry874782

 

In regard to solar, remember that most of the US is located further south than Germany.

An important consideration to be sure. The United States already imports %100 of its medical isotopes from Canada. Perhaps they will be kind enough to sell us some nuclear electricity when the occasion warrants.

Excellent points. Comparing the US and Germany straight up is not a fair comparison.

 

If the US were to start taxing CO2 emissions or put in penalties for exceeding limits, that would tend to drive rates up, but would also make solar and wind just that much more cost-effective. The lack of such a tax/penalty is a de-facto subsidy that fossil fuels have been getting for lo these many years.

But not nuclear, as its emissions of all kinds are demonized, despite their smaller volume.

Few random comments, since I do not know if that actually is supposed to be the discussion thread and if there really was a question:

- Electricity prices in Germany have dropped on the market level due to renewable generation.

- End-user prices have increased, particularly due to technology subsidies for renewables being paid by the consumer. Subsidies for other technologies are paid by the state, i.e. they are contained in taxes and do not appear on the electricity bill.

- More generally: Theoretically you can get to zero electricity costs, irrespective of technology. Just increase taxes and provide free electricity for everyone. Similarly, you can get to any high electricity cost irrespective of technology: Just put a huge tax on electricity consumption. The price of a unit of electric energy depends possibly more on the market design than on technology. And it may not be the relevant quantity, either - even for electricity consumers who usually happen to be tax payers at the same time.

- In other words: You may be asking the wrong question, or at least ask in in a form that is too simple.

So my question is answered both explicitly and by it remaining in the same section of the board. What a relief!

 

So it how could it be "the wrong question"?

 

Never mind, we can treat "German electric policy" as the titular topic since that is where the discussion is going. Thank you all for your responses.

[swansont]

But not nuclear, as its emissions of all kinds are demonized, despite their smaller volume.

 

I don;t understand what you mean by this, but "emissions" probably have to include "waste" which is a very real problem.

[Harold Squared]

So there are 17 nuclear power sites in that happy land on the chopping block and eight of them idle, just in case tsunamis threaten the Fatherland.

 

What are they gonna do with those, build condos or something?

 

Could a whole country go crazy and get but hooked on an idiotic policy leading to destruction?

 

Again?

 

I don;t understand what you mean by this, but "emissions" probably have to include "waste" which is a very real problem.

A real problem with a real solution in neighboring France. I should not be surprised if rates are lower there for kWhs.

[swansont]

So there are 17 nuclear power sites in that happy land on the chopping block and eight of them idle, just in case tsunamis threaten the Fatherland.

 

If you want a serious discussion, maybe you at least include some factual material along with the snark. AFAICT Germany's attitudes against nuclear predate Fukushima.

A real problem with a real solution in neighboring France. I should not be surprised if rates are lower there for kWhs.

 

It may have escaped your notice that politics vary from one country to the next. Ans as timo pointed out, you can't naively compare the rates and have it mean anything.

[zapatos]

The United States already imports %100 of its medical isotopes from Canada.

Unless things have just changed, Mallinckrodt imports their medical isotopes from The Netherlands.

Edited July 9, 2015 by zapatos

[Harold Squared]

Unless things have just changed, Mallinckrodt imports their medical isotopes from The Netherlands.

Good to know. And we are getting off topic.

 

I don;t understand what you mean by this, but "emissions" probably have to include "waste" which is a very real problem.

I would call the eight reactors sitting idle since March of 2011 a waste.

 

Coincidentally this is the same month and year as the Fukushima incident, though the people of the Fatherland had elected a government hostile to nuclear power and determined to phase it out in 1998. This unwise decision was reversed in 2009 but immediately reintroduced in yet another coincidence in 2011.

 

The cost of replacement of nuclear's share of electrical with "renewables" is estimated at 1 trillion euros, "...without any assurance of a reliable outcome, and with increasing reliance on coal, especially lignite."- World Nuclear Association

 

If you want a serious discussion, maybe you at least include some factual material along with the snark. AFAICT Germany's attitudes against nuclear predate Fukushima.

 

 

It may have escaped your notice that politics vary from one country to the next. Ans as timo pointed out, you can't naively compare the rates and have it mean anything.

Policies do vary from country to country. France has elected not to squander a trillion euros in order to pay higher consumer rates. Germany, well...better ask them what they are doing, I can't help you there. Edited July 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

 

I would call the eight reactors sitting idle since March of 2011 a waste.

 

Coincidentally this is the same month and year as the Fukushima incident, though the people of the Fatherland had elected a government hostile to nuclear power and determined to phase it out in 1998. This unwise decision was reversed in 2009 but immediately reintroduced in yet another coincidence in 2011.

 

 

You are entitled to your opinion about the wisdom of the decision, but that's all it is. An opinion about how other people choose to live.

The cost of replacement of nuclear's share of electrical with "renewables" is estimated at 1 trillion euros, "...without any assurance of a reliable outcome, and with increasing reliance on coal, especially lignite."- World Nuclear Association

 

Nice to know the view of an unbiased observer.

[Harold Squared]

Well bless my soul, I give you figures like you always ask for and that is your response?

 

Tell you what, you find me an unbiased observer and we'll both abide by his decision.

 

My OPINION seems to be shared by the UK government if they have been paying attention to the German situation. "Renewable" subsidies seem to be falling out of favor, to the tune of much sqwawking from Greenpeace according to the "Guardian".

 

And why not, given the results?

 

The craziest thing of all to me is that Japan, site of the disaster(in which no one died from radiation release), has more reactors pending restart approvals now (24) than Germany had to begin with(17).

 

But why not, since the Japanese economy is hemorrhaging trillions of yen annually(3.8 to 4)?

 

(All figures derived from world nuclear.org.)

Edited July 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[CharonY]

I am not quite clear what the overall points are here, especially as timo pointed out that direct comparisons do not make a lot of sense. However, in this context it should be noted that Germany electricity costs are generally higher than US/Canada even before renewable energies were relevant.

 

The largest part has always been coal. Germany harbored anti-nuclear sentiments at least since the 80s. I do agree that generally there is a lot of nonsense and misinformation about nuclear power in German public opinion, but it does not seem that that are massive changes (which, again is tricky to figure out).

 

A cursory comparison of average household cost per kW (excluding taxes) seems to indicated 0.142 average cost in the EU (2014). Germany is slightly above with 0.144. UK, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Italy have higher costs. While the newer energies have affected direct cost, it is non-trivial to figuring out total cost (e.g. as maintenance costs could be vastly different, to give one example). Either way, it does not seem that Germany is massively different compared to the others. Take a look at Ausrtia, for example. No nuclear, about 13% fossil fuels and 78% renewables (mostly water). Overall lower prices than Germany.

Again, an indicator that such superficial comparisons actually tell very little. There are conflicting studies regarding costs, but those that are not from energy companies indicate moderate cost increase. Ultimately the decision of energy use in a given country will depend a lot on how strong the decision is influenced by environmental lobbying, the power distribution of existing energy providers and their respective ability to influence legislature. In Germany the fossil industry tends to have the upper hand, for example, and local protests can influence decision making.

In France the nuclear lobby is quite strong and decisions are more central (to provide a very rough and, presumably, mostly inaccurate narrative)

[iNow]

On another note, and along similar lines:

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/invisible-green-triumphs/

Like a number of commentators, I’ve been struck by how people on the right know, just know, that Obamacare has been a dismal failure. More than 15 million Americans have gained coverage, costs are well below predictions, and employment growth has accelerated since the “job-killing” law went into effect — but they know none of that, because all they hear from their preferred information sources is tales of disaster.

 

Some things I’ve been reading lately remind me that there’s another major Obama initiative that is the subject of similar delusions: the promotion of green energy. Everyone on the right knows that the stimulus-linked efforts to promote solar and wind were a bust — Solyndra! Solyndra! Benghazi! — and in general they still seem to regard renewables as hippie-dippy stuff that will never go anywhere.

 

So it comes as something of a shock when you look at the actual data, and discover that solar and wind energy consumption has tripled under Obama.

 

 

True, it started from a low base, but green energy is no longer a marginal factor — and with solar panels experiencing Moore’s Law-type cost declines, we’re looking at a real transformation looking forward.

 

You can argue about how much this transformation owes to federal policy. But only a combination of rigid preconceptions and sheer ignorance can explain the way right-wingers still go around sniggering about Obama’s green-energy promotion. Far from being a bust, that policy was at least a contributing factor to an energy revolution.

[Harold Squared]

A "revolution" in terms of what, exactly?

 

Moore's Law applies to microprocessors, not to big diodes, which is all that PV panels amount to. Panels which cannot produce a single watt after sunset or much more than that on a cloudy day, any more than those produced decades ago could.

 

So maybe the fanfare should wait for the next "revolution", hopefully one a bit more impressive.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Harold Squared

[iNow]

A "revolution" in terms of what, exactly?

From the Latin revolutio, "a turn around."

[Harold Squared]

In terms of a retreat from sanity, maybe.

 

If somebody tried to sell me a computer or even a toaster that only worked in fair weather I wouldn't buy it and would tell them to get lost.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

 

Panels which cannot produce a single watt after sunset or much more than that on a cloudy day, any more than those produced decades ago could.

Sigh. Yet another unsupported assertion. I mean, the topic here is Germany, not the sunniest place in the world, and they have a lot of installed solar capacity generating a lot of power.

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/

http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/our-system/how-much-power-can-it-produce/
"on a sunny day, the peak output is usually between 2,600 and 3,000 watts. On a cloudy day, it could be less than 2,000 watts, and on a very cloudy or rainy day it would be less than 1,000 watts"

That's more than 'not much more than zero'

 

 

If somebody tried to sell me a computer or even a toaster that only worked in fair weather I wouldn't buy it and would tell them to get lost.

And another analogy that completely misses the mark.

[Strange]

Moore's Law applies to microprocessors, not to big diodes, which is all that PV panels amount to.

 

The same advances in fabrication technology can benefit all semiconductor products.

[John Cuthber]

In terms of a retreat from sanity, maybe.

 

If somebody tried to sell me a computer or even a toaster that only worked in fair weather I wouldn't buy it and would tell them to get lost.

I'd be perfectly happy with one, as long as it could store up "computing ability" on sunny days so that I could still use it on cloudy ones.

 

Why would it be a problem?

Or did you forget that it's possible to store electricity?

In the limit, it's possible to store electricity as a coal heap- when it's sunny, the heap doesn't get smaller as quickly. the coal you didn't use because it was sunny can be used when it's night time.

[Harold Squared]

I'd be perfectly happy with one, as long as it could store up "computing ability" on sunny days so that I could still use it on cloudy ones.

 

Why would it be a problem?

Or did you forget that it's possible to store electricity?

In the limit, it's possible to store electricity as a coal heap- when it's sunny, the heap doesn't get smaller as quickly. the coal you didn't use because it was sunny can be used when it's night time.

No electricity is pretty much equivalent to no computing capacity unless you are using slide rule or abacus.

 

Coal heap approach is being used in Germany with high rates as a consequence, explain that.

 

The same advances in fabrication technology can benefit all semiconductor products.

Not so. Moore's Law is dependent upon putting more circuit capacity in the same area.

 

Sigh. Yet another unsupported assertion. I mean, the topic here is Germany, not the sunniest place in the world, and they have a lot of installed solar capacity generating a lot of power.

 

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/

 

http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/our-system/how-much-power-can-it-produce/

"on a sunny day, the peak output is usually between 2,600 and 3,000 watts. On a cloudy day, it could be less than 2,000 watts, and on a very cloudy or rainy day it would be less than 1,000 watts"

 

That's more than 'not much more than zero'

 

 

And another analogy that completely misses the mark.

The ANALOGY is spot on, sir, in that both devices are electrically operated on demand, ergo, a reliable source of current is vital.

 

Thanks for the link to the Canadian household. Looking at their records I see quite a few days in the early part of the year where very little power was produced.

 

I also notice that it is very rare for output to match advertised nameplate capacity and wide variations according to the caprices of the weather.

 

This would be fine if the Canadians and the Germans adjusted their consumption of power to match such caprices, but guess what?

 

THEY DON'T.

 

Your Canuck buddies gleefully admit that the grid acts kind of like a giant battery. A FREE BATTERY, in the sense that they didn't have to pay for it, and they can sell lots of sunshine to the folks who built and maintain the freaking thing at retail rates. This depresses the profitability of that wonderful battery until guess what?

 

It isn't there anymore.