Die Welt: Poor Households Suffering Most From Green Energies, Households Crushed By “540 Euros In Extra Costs In 2016”

Martin Greive and Daniel Wetzel at Germany’s center-right national daily Die Welt have a commentary on renewable energy, telling readers that it will hit the poor in Germany the hardest.

They write that the Energiewende (transition to renewable energy) will result in 540 euros in extra costs for each German household in 2016.

And things are going to get much worse, they warn, adding:

Economic experts believe that extra costs will be 100 billion euros over the next ten years.”

The figures were calculated by the Cologne-based Institute of German Economy (IW Cologne). The costs stem from the 6.35 cents/kwhr feed-in surcharge consumers are forced to pay for green energy, power grid costs, and other charges. Greive and Wetzel also write that the long technical delays dogging North Sea wind parks is causing additional costs for consumers to the tune of 17 euros.

The flagship daily quotes IW Cologne energy expert Esther Chrischilles, who points out that the costs are especially hitting the poor:

Most of the costs a politically dubious with respect to wealth redistribution.”

The Die Welt journalists write that in total the added costs will amount to 100 billion euros for companies and private households over the next ten years, according to Eric Schweitzer, President of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry DIHK).

Michael Fuchs of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party says, “I ask myself how consumers are supposed to handle this.

German Vice Chancellor and Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel is coming under increasing fire for failing to get the electricity costs under control and failing to reform Germany’s crushing EEG feed-in act.

 

30 responses to “Die Welt: Poor Households Suffering Most From Green Energies, Households Crushed By “540 Euros In Extra Costs In 2016””

  1. sod

    Die Welt is a conservative paper. There are a lot of anti-environment articles in it.

    I would be cautious with cost estimates. I am actually shocked that often conservatives and free market supporters do not understand the most important aspect of alternative power. It is an investment. Those cause costs now, but we will reap the benefits in the future.

    1. Most likely, if we include some environmental damages into the cost analysis, it will turn positive immediately.

    2. It is also unclear, which strange costs of our aging fleet of power plants and other infrastructure we compare to. (most likely keeping the old stuff will be much more expensive than it seems)

    3. we will also benefit directly from those investments by saving money after they are paid of (soon the first solar PV and wind power pants will be).

    4. Finally, we are also exporting this kind of stuff and as an export nation we also benefit from countries not wasting their money on oil and coal.

    Last point: the social cost distribution is wrong. Will you folks support a different distribution, for example by paying more of the costs via taxes or by stopping the stupid special rules for all kind of businesses?

    1. David Johnson

      Pierre’s introduction stated that Die Welt was right wing, why did you feel the need to repeat that? The rest of your article is just too funny.

    2. DirkH

      sod 6. November 2015 at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “Die Welt is a conservative paper. There are a lot of anti-environment articles in it.”

      Die WELT is a CDU paper, which is a social-democrat internationalist party hell-bent on islamizing Europe. There is nothing conservative about DIE WELT or CDU.

      Please point to an “ANTI ENVIRONMENT” article in the shit rag would ya stupid.

      1. sod

        “Die WELT is a CDU paper, which is a social-democrat internationalist party”

        no, it is not. In this piece, “Die Welt” clearly is in a position to the right of the CDU, arguing for CSU to become a party in all federal states.

        http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article148103532/Eine-CSU-ueberall-im-Bund-waere-besser-als-die-AfD.html

        “Please point to an “ANTI ENVIRONMENT” article in the shit rag would ya stupid.”

        Do a google news search (die welt energiewende) and show me one positive article.

    3. DirkH

      “3. we will also benefit directly from those investments by saving money after they are paid of (soon the first solar PV and wind power pants will be). ”

      Please one day learn about the concepts of DEPRECEATION and RETURN ON INVESTMENT stupid thank ya.

      1. sod

        “Please one day learn about the concepts of DEPRECEATION and RETURN ON INVESTMENT stupid thank ya.”

        You do not understand that, i do. Today those paid of coal plants are making it very difficult for alternative power sources to enter the market. This is the market reality and you attempt to split words will not change it.

        In the future, paid of alternative power will make it utterly impossible for fossil fuels to come back. That is the good news of this delay battle by the big power companies.

    4. Walter H. Schneider

      sod, I hope that you know what sod stands for in the English language. Given your fanatical devotion to green propaganda and irrational assertions relating to green policies as they relate to environmental issues, “sod” is indeed a fitting pseudonym for you. You did well in picking it but need to consider that in circumstances such as yours it is customary to give it a modifier that expresses considerations of pity, such as in, “You poor sod.”

      Sod can also be used to identify an important – usually green – ingredient of man-made landscaping, for which the German expression, with an identical etymology, is “Soden”. Unlike the economics of alternative energy sources, the planting of sod can be kept simple and much less confusing: Green side up.

  2. DirkH

    “The figures were calculated by the Cologne-based Institute of German Economy (IW Cologne).”

    FINALLY! Regime media commissioned Regime economists to try and figure out what 28 billion divided by the number of households really is! The high art of arithmetic enters into German political debate! That’s what, 6 years after I started tracking that number.

    Even better – it looks like the journalists managed to copy and paste the number out of an e-mail right into their article without adding or dropping zeros! Whoa!

    Next they’ll figure out how ruinous importing millions of analphabets REALLY is…

  3. DirkH

    Lubos Motl about that Exxon thing that sod is so excited about (and that the German system media shout from the rooftops, that “Exxon knew about Global Warming 40 years ago”) – as Lubos points out, that’s an obvious pile of horseshit.
    http://motls.blogspot.de/2015/11/the-incredibly-indefensible-prosecution.html

    Doesn’t stop USA from trying to shake down Exxon – which tells me that David Rockefeller has sold his stake, otherwise they would NEVER EVER go for it.

    1. sod

      “Lubos Motl about that Exxon thing that sod is so excited about”

      Lubos is wrong and he is simply totally ignoring the tobacco example from the past.

      Companies like Exxon do this all the time. They do a study about the environmental effect of some project. The study finds a huge negative effect. They hide this study and do a new one.

      Most of the time, they do not get caught. But if they do (like tobacco did) they are in trouble.

  4. Francis Massen

    Pierre, please correct the link to the “Welt” article

    1. sod

      “Welt has only a few free articles per week, the rest is behind a paywall, so the link is of little use anyway.

      You can get around it by doing a google search each time.

      here is the title and subtitle:

      “Energiewende belastet vor allem Einkommensschwache

      2016 werden durch die Energiewende für jeden Haushalt Zusatzkosten in Höhe von 540 Euro anfallen. Wirtschaftsvertreter gehen insgesamt von 100 Milliarden Euro Mehrausgaben in zehn Jahren aus. ”

      http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article148286057/Energiewende-belastet-vor-allem-Einkommensschwache.html

  5. Svend Ferdinandsen

    It is a bit strange, that as the market prise for elektricity falls, the consumers pay more. In Danmark we pay around 2,2 kroner for a kWh, but the power is traded to something like 0,30.
    http://www.emd.dk/el/
    At the same time many complaints that we are not using enough of that cheap electricity.

  6. cementafriend

    Francis, this seems to be the article http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article148286057/Energiewende-belastet-vor-allem-Einkommensschwache.html
    I have it in English with google translate

    From afar it seems that Angela Merkel has mentally lost it or is such a strong socialist (with a wish for dictatorship) that she wants to destroy Germany as self governing country. I prefer the Swiss democracy with citizen initiated referendum. I suggest that sensible voters would be opposed to subsidies and targets for so called renewal energies which give costly and unreliable electricity.

    1. sod

      “unreliable electricity.”

      Germany still has the most reliable grid in the world. Your claims are just false.

      1. cementafriend

        From Queensland University (Brisbane Australia) data on their 4 PV (3 solar farms separated by about 50km and a 4th a 1000km away on an island in the Barrier reef) research stations and BOM data on average daily radiation input one can find that the maximum energy production over a year before considering surface efficiency (dirt, bird droppings, salt deposits) or orientation reductions (ie lack of tracking of the sun’s position) is 16% of capacity. Then on any day that the sky is not clear the actual electricity production can fall to zero. On the UQ web site there is a graph of the aggregate of the 4 stations showing a power drop from about half capacity (cloudy in all centres) to zero in less than 10 minutes.It is very clear that none of these solar farms could guarantee a fixed amount of electric power over 15 minutes. That is clear evidence of unreliable.
        SOD you have shown that your understanding is zero and it is no wonder that most readers of this site think you are nothing but a troll. However, keep making stupid comments because you show to everyone the stupidity and brainlessness of all the AGW alarmists.

      2. DirkH

        sod 7. November 2015 at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Reply
        “Germany still has the most reliable grid in the world.”

        Good enough to run a washing machine.
        Not good enough to run a factory.

        As you are devoid of any knowledge about anything, let me just tell you that factory machinery is designed to expect CONTINUOUS power supply. You don’t switch that crap off. Ever. A few milliseconds outage means that some very big electric motors stop for a heartbeat. Which can wreck the entire shift’s output in a paper mill. Or throw some computers on a factory line off track – again meaning you have to run the 5000 motor electronics you made in that shift again through the testing as your database just got corrupted.

        So why don’t they have backup generators and buffer capacitors? Because the factories were designed in a time when German power supply WAS stable.

        Not anymore, sod, not anymore. Of course those who can’t move easily to other nations are scrambling to install backup generators and buffers – which costs them a fortune.

        We have an ongoing export of production capacity. I am currently working at a company that will shut down 200 factory jobs next year.

        1. sod

          “Not good enough to run a factory.”

          So you think the most stable grid in the world can not support a factory?

          Where are you numbers, supporting that claim?

  7. Die Welt: Poor Households Suffering Most From Green Energies, Households Crushed By “540 Euros In Extra Costs In 2016″ | wchildblog

    […] From NoTricksZone, by P Gosselin […]

  8. sod

    In case anyone is interested in some facts about the Fraunhofer report:

    http://www.pv-magazine.de/nachrichten/details/beitrag/so-billig-geht-die-energiewende_100021044/

    It does indeed not take into account any positive effects of the change. And the costs are based on conservative estimates. And doing a faster coal phase out does not increase costs.

  9. sod

    Those poor households could profit in the near future: In Texas, power is for free at night now.

    http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/texas-strom-koennte-es-bald-fast-umsonst-geben-a-1061872.html