Global Warming

[tonyh29]

Ze Germans show how not to do it 

 

Germany’s energiewende, the country’s move away from nuclear and fossil fuels towards renewable energies has been regarded by some commentators as an example for the rest of the world. But now Germany shows the globe how not to make green policy. It is failing the poor, while protecting neither energy security nor the climate.

Last month, the government said that 6.9m households live in energy poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. This is largely a result of the surcharge for renewable energy. Between 2000 and 2013, electricity prices for households have increased 80 per cent in real terms, according to data from the OECD and the International Energy Agency.

More video

This means more and more money is going from the poor to the rich. Low-income tenants in the Ruhr area or Berlin are paying high energy prices to subsidise wealthy homeowners in Bavaria who put solar panels on their roofs.

Some have argued that Germany’s energy policy could be seen as a huge bet on developing the energy of the future – and if it works, it would secure Germany’s engineering future.

However, most of Germany’s money was spent, not on research into future technology, but on buying existing inefficient green technology. Three weeks ago, in a report to the German parliament, a group of energy experts delivered a damning indictment of the current subsidies. They said that the policy has had a “very low technology-specific innovation impact in Germany”. Essentially, it is much safer for companies to keep selling more of the old technologies of wind, solar and biomass because these are already getting huge subsidies instead of trying to develop new and better technologies that have similar pay-offs but much higher risk.

The legislation does not offer more protection for the climate. Instead, it makes such protection much more expensive. ”There is no justification for a continuation of the Renewable Energies Act”, the report concludes.

German energy policy is an expensive way to achieve almost nothing. For solar alone, Germany has committed to pay subsidies of more than €100bn over the next 20 years, even though it contributes only 0.7 per cent of primary energy consumption. These solar panels’ net effect for the climate will be to delay global warming by a mere 37 hours by the end of the century, according to a report cited in Der Spiegel.

A McKinsey study published earlier this year found that Germany energy prices for households are now 48 per cent above the European average. At the same time, European power prices have risen almost 40 per cent since 2005, while US electricity prices have declined.

Despite exemptions from renewable obligations for energy-intensive companies, German industrial power costs are 19 per cent higher than the EU average. German industrial costs have risen 60 per cent since 2007, compared to increases of about 10 per cent in the US and China. This makes Germany an ever less attractive place for industry. German chemical giant BASF has already said it will make most if its future investments outside of Europe.

Green energy cannot meet Germany’s need for reliable electricity. That is why Germany still needs copious amounts of fossil fuels; German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear power phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for renewables.

Germany is an example of how not to do green energy. Instead the solution is to research and develop better green energy technology. A study by some of the world’s top climate economists including three Nobel Laureates for the Copenhagen Consensus Center shows that subsidising existing renewables does so little good that for every euro spent, 97 cents are wasted. However, every euro spent on green innovation could avoid €11 in long-term damages from global warming.

If we can reduce the price of future green technology below the cost of fossil fuels, everyone will switch. And such cheap green energy will not leave us at the mercy of Russia, it will actually fix global warming – and it will help rather than hurt the poor.

[Kingfisher]

When it comes to how not to do things the Germans have nothing on us in terms of energy supply.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26734203

The Germans have high energy taxes, we have high energy prices. The German government is collecting huge sums and reinvesting in renewables. Ours isn't.

Why do I get the feeling that in 20 years time we'll be looking over at the German energy situation with envy?

[PaulC]

Aren't Germany doing a bit of a u-turn on their renewable energy plan because of the cost and now reverting to Coal and other non-green energy.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Yes. I made it.

 

My bad.

[colhint]

When it comes to how not to do things the Germans have nothing on us in terms of energy supply.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26734203

The Germans have high energy taxes, we have high energy prices. The German government is collecting huge sums and reinvesting in renewables. Ours isn't.

Why do I get the feeling that in 20 years time we'll be looking over at the German energy situation with envy?

 

Not quite true is it? 

 

Germany has higher energy prices than us,  gas by about 25% and electric by about 40%

 

And now they are going back to lignite power stations. Lignite being the Nastiest and least efficient coal there is. Just they are sitting on tons of it

[Kingfisher]

When it comes to how not to do things the Germans have nothing on us in terms of energy supply.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26734203

The Germans have high energy taxes, we have high energy prices. The German government is collecting huge sums and reinvesting in renewables. Ours isn't.

Why do I get the feeling that in 20 years time we'll be looking over at the German energy situation with envy?

Not quite true is it?

Germany has higher energy prices than us, gas by about 25% and electric by about 40%

And now they are going back to lignite power stations. Lignite being the Nastiest and least efficient coal there is. Just they are sitting on tons of it

Our wholesale prices were the second most expensive in Europe after Cyprus in 2013.

The new coal power stations are replacing older less efficient ones, they produce less CO2. Coal is being used to fill the gap that Nuclear will leave during the ramp up to renewables, when the country decommissions it's last nuclear power station in 2022. Germany have the most ambitious renewable targets in the world, 60% by 2050. High energy taxes are paying for it. They're taking the medicine now, and I think we'll be looking at them with envy in 20 years.

Is this policy harming their economy? Well, they're one of the strongest performing economies in the world.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Kingfisher

[mjmooney]

Whether it's 'man made' or not is irrelevant. The question we need to ask is: What - if anything - can we do about it, starting now?

[colhint]

We may not have the cheapest wholesale, I don't know, where did you get your info? But the EU energy portal, reports on prices to customer. That's where I got my prices from

 

http://www.energy.eu/

 

Secondly they are not just  building new more efficient energy plants, which will take years to be ready. They are re commissioning existing plants which run on Lignite. 

 

Last year Energy from Lignite, was at it's highest level in germany for  nearly 25 years.

 

Is it harming their economy, Well they are being investigated by the EU, because to forestall job losses they are exempting companies who depend on electricity (I can't think of any company that doesn't depend on Electricity) from paying any green taxes.. This is quite clearly against both EU green laws and competition laws. 

 

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21594336-germanys-new-super-minister-energy-and-economy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly

 

So I would say yes it is harming their economy, wouldn't you?

[CrackpotForeigner]

Of course it's bloody man-made. About 95% of scientists are in agreement on this. We might as well have a thread on how evolution is "just a theory".

 

And there's sweet **** all we can do about it, seeing as financial interests rule just about every country in the world.

 

The only possible solutions would be worldwide revolution or plague.

[colhint]

I also think it's man made, but only to a point, I think part of it is natural. I can't decide how much is man made and how much is natural. However mankind could do a lot,  just don't  buy so much. People don't need to replace everything, just because there is something newer on the market.

[limpid]

It's a little more than 95%.

[blandy]

Whether it's 'man made' or not is irrelevant. The question we need to ask is: What - if anything - can we do about it, starting now?

It is man made. But the question is hugely relevant, because given that man's activities have largely caused it, where the people denying it are by and large to paraphrase someone on twitter wryly put it "a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies exposing an environmental crisis conspiracy contrived by 97% of the world's scientists" - so if and while the fossil fuel industry and it's paid pals is fighting tooth and nail to pretend it's all bollex, then the "doing something" part aspect gets skewed, because the answer is "stop using (or use much less) fossil fuels that is against their enormous commercial interests.

 

The there's the type of thing the Gov't has lamentably just done, which is to remove various measures which in the long term would move us away from fossil energy, based on a short term compaint that bills are too high for people's/co.s energy.

 

Short termism and vested interests are the things to be overcome, but Gov't doesn't have the courage or the will.

[CrackpotForeigner]

No democratic government does. Career politicians' only aim is to get elected, and there are no votes in a strategy of short-term pain for long-term gain. Not when "long-term" means longer than a term of office.

 

Q.E.D. We're ****.

[colhint]

Unless I have misinterpreted that, it's not quite what I mean't. I am certain I agree with the scientists. What I was trying to get at in a low key way was, how much could be apportioned to humans and how much to natural effects. I think that said that almost all scientists believe that humans were to blame in some form. I might just have read it wrong, and it's fish and chips tonight and my minds more on that.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Yeah, we had our chance to change and **** it up.

 

It's really about damage limitation now.

[Kingfisher]

We may not have the cheapest wholesale, I don't know, where did you get your info? But the EU energy portal, reports on prices to customer. That's where I got my prices from

http://www.energy.eu/

Secondly they are not just building new more efficient energy plants, which will take years to be ready. They are re commissioning existing plants which run on Lignite.

Last year Energy from Lignite, was at it's highest level in germany for nearly 25 years.

Is it harming their economy, Well they are being investigated by the EU, because to forestall job losses they are exempting companies who depend on electricity (I can't think of any company that doesn't depend on Electricity) from paying any green taxes.. This is quite clearly against both EU green laws and competition laws.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21594336-germanys-new-super-minister-energy-and-economy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly

So I would say yes it is harming their economy, wouldn't you?

My argument is that no significant harm is being felt. Of course the transition to renewables isn't pain free. But to put it in perspective europe's largest economy recorded larger than expected growth in 2013.

Germany's co2 emissions are actually going down because they're producing more energy from less coal.

In this country we have higher energy prices, before tax, so unlike Germany our country isn't generating much tax revenue from household energy bills. Our government isn't gearing for a future without fossil fuels. Germany is.

People are looking closely at them, waiting for it to fail, looking for cracks. Vested interests want it to fail. We should look at Germany, learn from the mistakes. But ultimately we need to be on their path, not the path we are on.

[PaulC]

Yeah, we had our chance to change and **** it up.

 

It's really about damage limitation now.

 

Yes the latest ipcc report stated it 95% certain it was man made. Maybe it is only damage limitation now but its better to do something than not. 

[donnie]

Nah not buying it. Funny how most of the scientists who say its man made are government appointed. Its blown out of all proportion to give the government a reason to tax us even more.

Cows produce way more co2 then humans, so blame the cows innit.

Edited March 28, 2014 by donnie

[AVFCforever1991]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not? 

[Davkaus]

Nah not buying it. Funny how most of the scientists who say its man made are government appointed. Its blown out of all proportion to give the government a reason to tax us even more.

Cows produce way more co2 then humans, so blame the cows innit.

 

 

I think the fact that you confuse Methane with carbon dioxide, and somehow think that the contribution cows have to any sort of byproduct that harms the atmosphere is not entirely due to humans undermines your entire point of view and makes you look a bit simple.