Germany will stop subsidising solar energy by 2018 at the latest, its environment minister said Monday after last year initiating a scaling-back of generous state support for the faltering industry.
Germany will stop subsidising solar energy by 2018 at the latest, its environment minister said Monday after last year initiating a scaling-back of generous state support for the faltering industry.
A good place for a – wait for this – sunset law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sunset+laws
Have they run out of other people’s money to flush down the Great Greenie Gaia Crapper?
5 years too late.
Imagine if Germany had put that money into fusion.
The ‘sun’ would never set in Berlin.
Thanks for bringing this forward from the reader’s tips a couple of days ago.
Recent studies found solar energy in Germany was 4x more expensive per Kwh than new nuclear in Finland.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/cost-of-german-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/
Germany! What a bunch of Dummkopfs!
If they only would have adopted the economics of Dildo McDinky’s Green Energy plan they wouldn’t be in such an essiggurke!
Say now, do you think that The Dildo might have time to stop at Hamburg on his way to Harvard?
I mean, The Dildo’s going to be heading up the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, so I’m sure he could be persuaded to give his Teutonic brothers and sisters a helping hand.
Well at least some Politicians have come out of the Environmentalist haze of lies, married to a Religion of Earth worship. encouraged by our economic foes, if not paid for it to exist.
Once they found out how efficient they were, the novelty wore off.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/
From a economic standpoint, Wind, solar or bio-fuel makes no sense.
Power Source
2010 U.S. Power Consumption
(million bbl. oil equivalent)
Subsidy Cost per Energy Equivalent Barrel of Oil Consumed
Coal 3,439 $0.39
Oil and gas 10,012 $0.28
Nuclear 1,394 $1.79
Biomass / biofuels 381 $20.37
Geothermal 35 $7.80
Hydro 414 $0.52
Solar 18 $63.00
Wind 153 $32.59
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Peter, the nuclear number put out by the EIA is crocked. They are including the debt finacing guarantee put up by the US government for new construction. What they’re not telling you is that the US government is charging a big premium for the guarantee, sufficient to generate a significant surplus. A guarantee is NOT a subsidy in any event. It’s only a subsidy to the extent to which the US taxpayer incurs cost, and avoiding that cost is why there’s a premium.
What’s also part of that number is the US R&D program, and that can’t really be trusted either, as part of it is defence, not commercial nuclear power. There’s always been a lot of jiggery-pokery in how DOE allocates program costs between its energy departments and its strategic materials programs. And in that regard, the number also leaves out the huge burden nuclear electricity ratepayers have been shelling out for 30 years for a nuclear waste disposal project (Yucca Mountain) that the US government refuses to deliver. The value of those contributions (5 cents/kWh x 100 plus reactors x 30 years) would probably drive the overall number negative.
But for the rest, you’re absolutely right. The renewables all come at a big cost to the US taxpayer.
From a economic standpoint, Wind, solar or bio-fuel makes no sense. Posted by: peterj
Incorrect. The used veg oil that powers my truck and the fuel wood and solar energy that heats my house/office make excellent economic sense to me. They cost much less than petro fuel.
Just because it does not make sense to you isn’t a good enough argument.
On a individual basis I agree with you. I doubt if you had huge taxpayer subsidies though, did you ?
subsidies? Nope, didn’t want ’em, didn’t need ’em.
People shouldn’t need a government subsidy to do the right thing.