Germany ‘s $130 Billion Investment In Solar Energy Delays Global Warming A Whole 23 Hours!

MUST READ!

Boy, I’m sure our great grandchildren will be thanking us for that one extra day!

Here’s a sad, yet funny evluation of one of the greatest engineering follies of all time.  H/t DirkH

Björn Lomborg has a new article out that assesses Germany’s solar energy “boom”.

Germany’s Sunshine Daydream

By

COPENHAGEN – One of the world’s biggest green-energy public-policy experiments is coming to a bitter end in Germany, with important lessons for policymakers elsewhere.

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies – totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University – to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

There is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

To put it another way: by the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.” Continue reading…

For all you others countries out there considering the German model – think about it! What more do you need to be convinced it’s a folly?

 

13 thoughts on “Germany ‘s $130 Billion Investment In Solar Energy Delays Global Warming A Whole 23 Hours!”

  1. If every country would be able to do this… that would be great! I’m currently installing solar systems at home, so I can also help in caring for the environment!

    1. Cost in germany : 200 EUR (approx 280 USD) per year per man, woman, and child. This buys us : about 20% of our electricity.

      Of the total energy consumption of households, 13% are electricity.
      http://www.energiedebatte.com/wissen/detail/energieverbrauch-im-haushalt-49-prozent-fuer-heizung.html

      So we pay 280 USD per year for 2.6% of our energy. If we had to pay this price for all our energy, we would have to pay 7692 USD per person and year, which would be about 14 % of our GDP.

      We would survive that but what would be the point? We would surely no more be able to pay for Greece. So you want an EU-wide economic collapse?

      1. Solar produces 2 % of the electricity but costs half of all the subsidies. So we pay 100 EUR / 140 USD per year and person for 2 % of 13 % of our household energy; that’s 0.26% of our household energy. Getting all energy used in our households from solar would therefore cost 38461 EUR or 53846 USD; 1.4 times our GDP.

      2. Main thing that matters isnt whether germany can afford silly spending, its whether the rest of the world can, if they can’t, then its all for naught, its “global” warming after all, not local warming.

  2. I repeat my question. What Global Warming?

    Really, even the 23 hour delay is a bridge to far if we look at the current global temperatures.

    The entire investment is good money thrown out of the window.

      1. “Ron, Lomborg is a warmist.”

        That probably explains why every comment on the linked article shouts him down for spouting nonsense! He’s clearly upset a few people who might expect him to have different views…

  3. Unfotunately, you are missing the point. This issue isn’t global warming as much as it is energy security, pollution reduction, and water use reduction. I expect Germany will be pretty happy with their energy position when oil is at $300 per barrel expected within a decade. An extra 10 bucks per month for solar and with no fuel escalation seems like a pretty good deal rather than being at the mercy of volatile fuel markets.

    1. $300 a barrel? Though we cannot exclude that it may spike to that level for a short time over the next 10 years, to think that $300 (2011 dollars) will be the average price for a barrel of oil in 10 years is hysterical and pure nonsense. What do you base that on? A crystal ball?

      1. $300 /bbl isn’t going to sell for fuel use when CTL (coal to liquid) is viable at about $80/bbl using conventional Fischer-Tropsch and as low as $60 (or thereabouts) when using a nuclear reactor for process heat. GTL (gas to liquid) is a little cheaper as well.

        And at an estimate of $120/bbl equivalent, one could use nuclear power to produce liquid fuel out of thin air , using the CO2 we’ve been cleverly sequestering into the atmosphere. 😉

    2. Kevin, oil can often be replaced by NatGas when the economics are there. NatGas prices are dropping. Also, when oil becomes more expensive, Coal To Liquid becomes viable – it already is, but as yet nobody’s investing for fear that oil prices might drop back.

      You are right, energy security was a reason, but an irrational one.

    3. Kevin;

      So called green energy is not in any way a replacement for oil. Oil is not used for electrical generation other than in portable and emergency systems. Further there is no energy security provided by a system that only functions 10% of the time. It is uncontrollable and dependent on the weather. The focus on price comparison is misleading as wind and solar are not very useful at any price. Oil at $300 is still good value due to its usefulness.

      Have you ever looked into renew-ables beyond reading propaganda?

Comments are closed.