Once again, the research staff here at SDA outperform the forces of the CBC and CTV combined! Where else in our green-obsessed Canadian "media" will you find this study mentioned?
"Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience(Abstract)
The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the current centerpiece of this effort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. In the case of photovoltaics, Germany’s subsidization regime has reached a level that by far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000)
The Institute for Energy Research summarizes the German think tank's key findings;
* Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.
* In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.
* Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.
* Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.
* Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.
In fact, if you run a search on Google News for "Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung", you'll find only German language hits. Read the findings for yourself (pdf), then send it to your MLA's and members of parliament.
Posted by Kate at October 20, 2009 12:02 AMIt ain't easy to be green.
I anyone surprised by this. Government subsidies never work - especially if the underlying resource is hopelessly uncompetitive.
Meanwhile there is this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386960944758516.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
biofuels do have potential. While I put no faith in any ventures shell and bp enter into - they have made lots of dumb choices - when i see exxon mobil Getting in on the game then there is money to be made. Interestingly solar, wind and grain-based ethanol ventures are all being scaled-back or abandoned.
Posted by: Gord Tulk at October 20, 2009 12:38 AMhttp://taogovernment.blogspot.com/2009/10/nasa-goddard-climate-scientist-charged.html
This is one of NASA's gangsters caught filling his pockets...Ethics NOT.. The Grand Juries must be busy!
Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at October 20, 2009 12:45 AMInterestingly solar, wind and grain-based ethanol ventures are all being scaled-back or abandoned.
This would be as a result of their unreliablity and the lack of a competitive economic advantage.
Posted by: Brian Mallard at October 20, 2009 1:23 AMThanks, Phillip. Great find.
Posted by: Kate at October 20, 2009 2:07 AMI agree that this study should be forwarded to politicians - but especially those that are pushing for green alternatives.
I'd also like to hear David Suzuki respond to this story.
On the other hand, I'd rather keep my breakfast in my stomach.
Posted by: Joanne (T.B.) at October 20, 2009 6:53 AMThis is ridiculous. But No study is going to stop Canadian energy company like Enmax from going the same direction. Now you have to pick a energy provider, if you don't, they charge you the regulated rate. Which is up to ten times the price for electricity. So whats it going to be? Wind, solar, bio-fuel, support the cause or we charge the snot out of you. What a racket.
Posted by: wuberman at October 20, 2009 8:00 AMIn McGuinty's bankrupt Ontario the giant fans are blooming and sprouting. They're causing visual pollution on Wolfe Island across Lake Ontario from Kingston as one eyesore example.
When all are bankrupt some common sense might take over.
Posted by: Liz J at October 20, 2009 8:17 AMsame thing for Denmark . . .
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
Posted by: Fred at October 20, 2009 8:20 AM"When They Say "Green" Jobs, They Really Mean GREEN! (Govt. investment doesn't pay off)
If you invested $76 million in a company only to watch as it lost millions and its stock plunged from $19 a share to $1.83, you’d call that a financial disaster, right?
You know what they call it in the Patrick administration? A public relations problem. Because it’s not their money. It’s yours.
The company is Evergreen Solar, a darling of the Al Gore/environut crowd. Not surprisingly, Deval Patrick is a big fan, too.
Did it matter that the company has never earned a penny? That, as The Boston Globe-Democrat reported, “Evergreen has lost $308 million since its founding in 1994, including $84.6 million in the first six months of this year?”
Not to the governor. Once in office, he threw millions in grants, loans, land and the like at Evergreen to create jobs while fighting global warming."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2366399/posts
"Once again, the research staff here at SDA outperform the forces of the CBC and CTV combined! Where else in our green-obsessed Canadian "media" will you find this study mentioned?"
Posted by Kate at October 20, 2009 12:02 AM
With the exception of two or three Canadian journalists, Canadian MSM by and large have swallowed the "green' and "global warming" Kool-aid and continue to drive the issue for hysterical loony leftist governments.
Naming names of the Kool-aid drinking journalists and the media outlets for whom they write would make an interesting worlwide website.
Hosted by Glenn Beck or Kate McMillan, eh?
Meeting Ont. energy requirements with wind mills and giant mirroirs, is kind of like powering your house with several thousand D cell batteries. In the 1950s, Mechanix Illustrated featured Gyro Gearloose types who claimed to invent cars running on diesel/water fuel mixture, etc. Ont. now has a premiere who believes such claims. The religion of GreenEnergy does not allow for any disenting studies.
Posted by: Martin at October 20, 2009 10:32 AMThis reminds me of this nugget: government is very poor at picking winners, but losers are very good at picking government.
Posted by: Shamrock at October 20, 2009 10:59 AMAn Ontario man has hired a lawyer and is going to challenge the Ontario government's Green Energy Act in court. You can read about the case at www.windconcernsontario.wordpress.com. There is also a legal defense fund available for those who would care to make a donation. It will be interesting to see the Ontario government prove their position in a court of law where scientific facts are required, not just the assurances of a wind developer.
Posted by: Lynne at October 20, 2009 11:05 AMUnfortunately, I don't expect the suit against the Green Energy Act to be successful. The draconian act was rammed through this summer, with almost no attention by the MSM. It allows the Ont. government to ignore any local planning guidelines, as well as any health concerns, with regard to energy developments.
Property rights were conveniently left out of the Charter, and I don't expect the present SOC to read them in. The only part of Ont. safe from wind mill development is the urban core, where McGuinty and Smitherman enjoy strong support.
Kate - too bad you missed that the Cons and Alberta Liberals have just dropped $760 bucks per tonne in long term storage.
Want an insight?
See, there are several generation 'forms' of electricity: hydro, coal, natural gas, nuke, wind, etc.
Those generation forms come with unique cost and operational profiles - each having some benefits and drawbacks in relation to each other. Roughly, here is the per kwh cost for each generation type:
Hydro - $0.03
Coal - $0.05
Gas - $0.07
Nuke - $0.02
Wind - $0.28
Now, in energy trading, there is a notion of a 'spark-spread' - or implied price of electricity, given a price for natural gas.
Want the right question for policymakers?
What exactly is the cost per kwh are you paying for sequestration?
Kate: you get the answer to that, you'll get the precise answer to how much the political ghouls are extracting from the people to build their empires, and reward their buddies in industry.
Say - how about those 'self-storage' lockers? There is lots of them, and they actually might be cheaper!
Posted by: hardboiled at October 20, 2009 12:52 PMTo: All Members of Parliament
Re: Copenhagen 'Climate Change' Meeting
Dear Members;
As you'll be aware, Copenhagen will be hosting a major meeting on 'climate change' this December. Regardless of how frigid the Danish weather might be, the European members will undoubtedly cling to the idea of a warming earth. To that end they will demand that we, as an 'advanced nation', cripple our economy with laws and regulations that will increase our energy costs and reduce our global competitiveness.
I would urge you to read this just published report (link provided) by the Institute for Energy Research which outlines the German experience, with their much vaunted 'renewable energy program'. Reading of the report is important to your policy making, but please allow me to summarize:
---- Added materials from the report were included here -------
The difference between theory (wishful thinking) and reality is stark and must not be ignored. According to the papers' authors (26 people, of whom 22 hold either Professorships or Ph.D positions):
----- some quotes from the authors -----
'Real world measurement' over the last eight years has shown that temperatures are in fact declining rather than increasing - contrary to the computer modeling predictions of the IPCC and the hysteria prone world press. Hence the change from 'global warming' to the much more flexible 'climate change'. Thus it would behoove Canada to stay the course on prudent energy policy and economic development. I would urge you to reject any proposals generated in Copenhagen, that will hobble our independence, our economy or our energy leadership.
Regards
Graf von Goreacle Reportink:
"All-time October low recorded in Bavaria
Meteorologists on Tuesday morning recorded the lowest ever October temperature in Germany, as the mercury dipped to a chilly -24.3 degrees Celsius in Bavaria’s Berchtesgaden national park."
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20091020-22693.html
Posted by: maz2 at October 20, 2009 9:38 PMBefore submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.