Small Business Association Leader: Germany’s Climate/Energy Policy Has “Failed Spectacularly”

Dr. Karl Tack is a managing director of a family-owned business that manufactures grinding tools. The company has been in operation over 7 generations and is just one of many that operate all across Germany.

According to Blick aktuell here, family-owned businesses make up 90% of the country’s number of privately owned companies. These German family-run businesses are often innovative, are export powerhouses over a broad range of niche sectors, and not surprisingly they are a major part of the German economic back bone. They are a critical pillar of Germany’s 3-trillion-euro economy.

Tack is also a board member of the industry association Die Familienunternehmer — family business owners — which represents 6000 family operated businesses in Germany with combined annual sales of 460 billion euros, reports the online Blick aktuell here. He is also the Chairman of the association’s energy policy commission.

The Association of Family Business Owners stands by the values of freedom, property, competition  and responsibility.

The success of family-run companies is not only dependent on world-class innovation, but also on a business-friendly environment. Lately, however, Germany’s energy supply has gone from being an asset to one that is now a burden for many. And as a member of the board of family-owned companies, Tack wishes “to shift his focus on energy policy“, Blick writes.

Climate and energy policy failed spectacularly

Blick quotes Tack:

The Energiewende [transition to green energies] ushered in by the German government has resulted in electricity becoming massively more expensive. The long-term consequence: Jobs are being lost, investments being moved to foreign countries and the industrial base is slowly being destroyed. Policymaking has also failed with its climate-political goals. The high-wire act of climate protection targets and efficient support programs has failed spectacularly“.

These are strong words coming from a leader of small companies, and thus a critical part of German industry, and so they need to be heeded by policymakers soon. Germany can ill-afford to see this economic locomotive weaken, let alone die off.

 

52 responses to “Small Business Association Leader: Germany’s Climate/Energy Policy Has “Failed Spectacularly””

  1. AndyG55

    “and the industrial base is slowly being destroyed.”

    This is the absolute aim of the green anti-CO2 agenda.

    1. SebastianH

      No it’s not … and I wonder how he comes to the conclusion that it’s the price of electricity that “the industrial base is slowly being destroyed”.

      Also: GPD per unit of energy use is pretty high in Germany and hasn’t declined due to higher electricity prices.

      https://www.google.de/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&hl=en_US&dl=en_US#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_gdp_puse_ko_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:ECS&idim=country:DEU:USA:FRA:CHN&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

      1. SebastianH
      2. AndyG55

        The aim is to decimated energy supply systems with unreliable, expensive non-energy. If not, why are they doing it. !!!

        And you are part of that, seb. It is in your very dark soul. You just don’t realise it, because of your utter gullibility.

        btw, CO2 emission haven’t dropped either.

        Talks about a USELESS farce. !!

        1. SebastianH
          1. AndyG55

            Poor seb, has to resort to by capita number after Germany import millions of unproductive people.

            So funn.

            Total CO2 has not dropped.. your lies and mis0-direction only FOOL yourself, seb.

            And world CO2 emissions are going to continue to climb and climb for the foreseeable future thanks to China, India, Africa, Asia, etc etc etc.

            And guess what, little child…

            There is nothing your baseless religion can do about it. 🙂 🙂

            You may through political stupidity bring some developed countries to their economic knees, but all it will do is increase CO2 usage in developing countries.

          2. Stephen Richards

            German emissions are up

          3. tom0mason

            However seb,

            NASA says globally CO2 levels have risen — https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
            and
            http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/images/mlo_color_plot.png

            But the EU says their output is dropping —
            http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information

            But then the EU is only 9% of the global fossil fuel CO2 production, so they can’t do much to the overall level.
            https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2017-04/2014_emissions_0.png

            So all this extra expense and effort thus far has achieved little to zip.
            Thankfully CO2 does not affect the climate to any large degree as NATURE and NATURAL variations are the only ruler of changes in climate.

      3. AndyG55

        What were those reliability number for wind, again, seb.

        Below 16% for over half the time.

        Sounds like your work ethics… or am I over estimating.

        Do they have social security where you live ??

        1. SebastianH

          Renewables in Germany provided 12% of the load all the time and 34% of the load half the time.

          1. AndyG55

            roflmao. all that biomass.t chop down those trees. Haiti awaits. !!

            Wind below over 16% of installed capacity for over half the time.

            That really is pathetic., aren’t you seb.

  2. AndyG55

    So seb, who has probably never done a single day’s productive work in his limited pathetic life, wants to argue with a major member of the small business community.

    1. SebastianH

      Are you saying we should listen to the absolute truth people who have achieved a high position in our society are telling and not challenge what they say?

      1. AndyG55

        I’m saying we should listen to people who actually know something about they are talking about.

        You are never going to be in that group of people.

        1. Graeme No.3

          ✔️😀

  3. Lasse

    https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html

    Germany is one of the two most expensive, Denmark the other.
    I guess he is in the aluminium industry?
    Then he can move his production:
    http://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Miljo/Utslapp-internationellt/Koldioxideffektivitet/

    1. Stephen Richards

      Bizaarly we in france have one of the highest but the 3rd highest after Germany and Danemark is …………… UK.

      Another green and pleasant ruined land

  4. sod

    the article gets one point right: small businesses, along with households get punished under the EEG. They carry more costs, because big business carries none. So let us work together and change that. I am all in!

    Meanwhile, in the real world renewable prices are dropping like a stone. We now have about 3ct per kWh of solar in the USA as well:

    https://www.tep.com/news/tep-to-power-21000-homes-with-new-solar-array-for-historically-low-price/

    and the best part is, it includes storage (pushing the price sometimes up to 4.5 ct) which is simply crazy and would have been just utterly impossible a year ago.

    while “sceptics2 might still continue their crazy talk about capacity factors on such a system, the real world will see that it is output in perfect agreement with normal demand. so it will hit the high price periods pretty hard. But your coal investments will still be able to do the night shift, which is where the real business is folks!

    1. tom0mason

      This comment from sod, a specialist in misunderstanding how a grid connected electricity system works, the same person that said

      Nobody gave a damn about nuclear and coal plants producing massive useless amounts of electricity at night, when nobody needs it.

      1. tom0mason

        Ho-humm

        Stuck in moderation for the last 3 hours….

    2. clipe

      You must be very desperate, sod, to be linking to a press release from TEP’s PR department.

      https://www.tep.com/news-type/press-releases/

      Do you actually believe TEP will “power” 21000 homes 24/7/365?

    3. DirkH

      ” the real world will see that it is output in perfect agreement with normal demand.””

      When a crazy person cites a crazy person, does the crazy neutralize itself?
      Perfect agreement with demand? NEGATIVE PRICES AT THE EXCHANGE?

      You warmunists have talked yourself into the crazy for decades now and you should all be deported to rebuild Somalia from renewable energy. Which is CAMEL SHIT in the region.

    4. AndyG55

      In most developed countries, the domestic peak is late afternoon, early evening.

      solar ain’t gunna do diddly-squat !!!

      1. sod

        “In most developed countries, the domestic peak is late afternoon, early evening.”

        Andy please, this is really a honest request, please read the articles i link before you reply. We are talking about a 100 MW solar PV system with 30 MW storage.
        so serving the peak is not a problem to this system.

        https://www.tep.com/news/tep-to-power-21000-homes-with-new-solar-array-for-historically-low-price/

        1. AndyG55

          You are talking about a TINY insignificant number of homes.

          Because that is all your tiny insignificant mind can cope with.

          1. sod

            “You are talking about a TINY insignificant number of homes.”

            what are you talking about? this system is CHEAPER than other new sources of electricity. It will grow and provide service to everyone who wants it.

          2. AndyG55

            roflmao.. the gullible propaganda twit yaps again’

            Sob.. just a bit of very basic information
            Solar DOES NOT work at night..

            Do..
            you..
            under..
            stand.. !!! !!!

          3. tom0mason

            sod says “It will grow and provide service to everyone who wants it.”
            But do they have to supply their own flashlight batteries as the back-up?

    5. Curious George

      “We now have about 3ct per kWh of solar in the USA as well” (excluding the cost of storage, and beginning at the end of 2019) – isn’t it a grandiose plan? Reminds me of Grandiose Five Year Plans in the USSR. For another solar plant with storage, see http://pvtimes.com/news/tonopah-solar-plant-restart

      1. Graeme No.3

        Curious George:
        Thank you for the link; I was wondering when or if they were going to restart.
        7 months down for a minor problem – they had better not have a major problem or they won’t be ready for the start of sod’s 100% renewables revolution.

  5. Kurt in Switzerland

    sod,

    You wrote, “… the real world will see that it is output in perfect agreement with normal demand.”

    Nothing could be further reality-challenged. Take the four months from November through February inclusive.

    https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/

    Whether you choose to realize it or not, installing yet more solar and wind capacity will result in yet more separation between the spikes and troughs. This electricity deficit must be met by another source. So you need to take the cost of having that “backup power” in the big picture assessment of solar & wind.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    Are family-owned businesses treated as households?
    Big companies are exempt from the higher cost?
    Some sort of sliding scale?

    Someone explain, please. Thanks.
    – – – – –

    Also, sod’s link is to a plan in Tucson AZ.
    City is very much pushing solar and this project will be on city owned land.
    Very hard to find the money trail in this.
    Further, this is one of the sunniest places on the planet.
    (Oh, and hotter than h-ll in summer.)

    1. tom0mason

      Yep, I agree with follow the money —
      from tucson¯.¯com
      “TEP and its parent company, UNS Energy, are subsidiaries of Fortis Inc.,
      which owns utilities that serve more than 3 million customers across
      Canada and in the United States and the Caribbean. To learn more, visit https://www.fortisinc.com/ is all I can get to.

      Interestingly they own Caribbean Utilities on the Cayman Islands, and is a public company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:CUP.U).

    2. Graeme No.3

      They get 30% Federal tax credit and State ones too. Just possible that the $1000 rebate normally given to householders installing solar would be redirected to them as well (cannot confirm but they must be getting money from some sucker).

      That would reduce panel costs 41% to $1788 per kW installed capacity.
      From that 100MWh should cost $M179 installed and at 16% capacity factor return $M4.2 per annum or 2.3%. At 10% CF the return drops to 1.5% and without the credits/subsidies the return on capital is below 0.9%.
      I don’t think I would employ sod to assess new investment opportunities.

      1. sod

        “ng solar would be redirected to them as well (cannot confirm but they must be getting money from some sucker).”

        i would take my advice from some guy on the internet, who makes a back of the envelop calculation without having any facts or numbers.

        This is the REAL world. a REAL company has made a REAL investment.

        I know you hate it and i know you do not accept facts that contradict your opinion. But facts are facts.

    3. sod

      you can find the detail here:

      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz#Sonderregelungen_f.C3.BCr_stromintensive_Unternehmenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz#Sonderregelungen_f.C3.BCr_stromintensive_Unternehmen

      Big users have a special deal: When electricity is at about 14% of “income” (“Bruttowertschöpfung” is a little different actually) and the amount used is big (>1GWh/year), the company will get a huge reduction (basically down to paying only 0.05 ct per kWh (CENT! so that is basically nothing)
      In total about 50% of industrial electricity use falls under this rule.

      All others have to compensate by paying an extra of about 1.3 ct per kWh, which is about 25% of the total EEG addition the electricity prices, which is about 6ct per kWh.

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        sod,

        Someone once said, “It’s better to be thought a fool while remaining silent than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

        Do attempt to re-read the text from the Wikipedia article to which you linked.

        While expectedly showering praise on the EEG (as most Wikipedia articles tend to do), it manages to squeeze in some genuine criticism, though only briefly.

        Try § 6.5 Klimaschutz. Therein lies the groundwork for an eventual Epiphany.
        I wonder whether you have the capability to grasp it.

        Hint: seek truth, not dogma.

        But the truly hilarious claim is your statement here: “When electricity is at about 14% of [Gross Value Added] and the amount used is big (>1GWh/year), the company will get a huge reduction (basically down to paying only 0.05 ct per kWh (CENT! so that is basically nothing).”

        “Basically nothing”, you said.

        Now look closely at §3.5 from the Wikipedia article, paying close attention to § 41 from the EEG.

        The 0.05 Euro Cent figure applies for the portion of electricity beyond 100 GWh annually (not 1 GWh). So the first GWh is at the “normal” surcharge, or 6.88 Euro cents per kWh, the next 9 GWh are 1/10 of that figure and the final 90 GWh are at 1/100 of that figure, or 0.0688 Euro cents per kWh. Dropping to 0.05 Euro cents per kWh for the next few dozen or few hundred GWh doesn’t change things much.

        Let’s take an example of a large industrial electricity consumer: BASF’s Ludwigshafen chemical plant. That plant alone consumes some 6 TWh / y. (That’s 6,000 GWh, or 6 Million MWh, or 6,000,000,000 kWh). At 0.05 Euro cents per kWh, that works out to about 3 M Euros “surcharge” in accordance with the EEG.

        So “basically nothing”, like you said.

        What….ever.

        BTW, the price of one kWh electricity in Germany today is 29.16 Euro Cents per kWh. 6.88 Euro cents of that is the EEG Surcharge.

    4. sod

      “Also, sod’s link is to a plan in Tucson AZ.

      Further, this is one of the sunniest places on the planet.
      (Oh, and hotter than h-ll in summer.)”

      This is true.

      But the problem with your argument is this one: These places should have switched to solar PV years ago! PV is following their demand nearly perfectly and now PV and storage can basically eliminate the peak.

      The “base load lovers” here should love that situation, because what is left is a flat day demand curve, perfect for your coal plants (in the real world it is not, because coal plants basically live a parasitic existence on peak demand prices being paid for their inflexible output)!

      The big aspects of the output are these: 3 ct per kWh was seen before, but mostly in countries with massive sun and low labour costs. It now can be done in sunny places everywhere.

      But the real dealbreaker is the storage, which should actually still be prohibitively expensive but obviously is not: solar and storage looks cheaper than gas peaker plants (which now are left with only one advantage: output during long sunless phases).

      1. Graeme No.3

        sod:
        You do not know anything about electricity.
        1. If solar is NOW cheaper than ever why should people have installed it when it was more expensive?
        2. PV does NOT match demand. Peak demand comes AFTER the PV panels stop delivering most of their supply.
        3. Storage adds to the cost, you have no supplied NO proof that it is
        economic, even before that extra cost.
        4. coal plants push out as much as they can because their output is cheaper,
        but they benefit far less than you imagine because of
        a. long term reliable supply contracts (these are unknown with renewables).
        b. gas peaker plants are expensive, but they still make money because PV
        (and wind) are UNRELIABLE, and they can charge MORE than before.
        All your renewables is force the coal plants to run at irregular intervals on standby status. If renewables had to bear that cost, e.g. by providing storage then they would shut down overnight.

        5. 3¢ per kWh is $A39-45 per MWh; Australia’s coal fired stations easily beat that with cheaper prices until our stupid politicians fell for the renewables scam. Now, thanks to renewables, base prices have double, even tripled in SA, thanks to “cheap” renewables (and 5 blackouts in a year).

        By the way, peak output by PV only occurs for 5-5.5 hours a day in summer. Have you noticed that there is less sunshine in winter? And that the sun doesn’t shine at night? And any storage has to be taken out during those limited hours of sunshine, so the Capacity Factor drops 65-70%. [Your solution: spend more on triple the capacity??]. And during hot weather the output from PV panels drops. (yes, I know some PV panels are less, but still affected, so the net result is less than you claim).

        There are subjects called Physics and (Cost) Accounting but I realise these are beyond your intellectual level, so I suggest you seek medical help. Get your Doctor to double (or triple) the dosage of whatever you ingest, or better try some less mind altering substance. Otherwise put up with making a fool of yourself when you blog, even if it comes naturally, and SHUT UP!

        1. sod

          “1. If solar is NOW cheaper than ever why should people have installed it when it was more expensive?”

          because the price was driven down by mass production.

          “2. PV does NOT match demand. Peak demand comes AFTER the PV panels stop delivering most of their supply.”

          I am sorry, but please stop posting stuff that is directly contradicted by facts. Pink line is demand!!!!

          https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/

          “3. Storage adds to the cost, you have no supplied NO proof that it is
          economic, even before that extra cost.”

          Solar is economic at 3ct, it is the cheapest source of electricity. 4.5 cent is cheaper than new gas. It is another one of those facts.

          “4. coal plants push out as much as they can because their output is cheaper,”

          because of the merit order system, coal gets paid premium prices during high demand. This ends with solar PV in many warm places. Guess what, that is another fact.

      2. AndyG55

        They need power at NIGHT too sob.

        So they have to build TWO systems, one that is capable of supply on demand..

        Why would anyone in their right mind do that, when the latter will actually provide power 24/7.

        24/7 is something cheap solar will probably NEVER be able to do !

        1. SebastianH

          Because two systems can be cheaper than just one. This depends on the running costs of boths solutions compared to their capital costs. If the backup costs more than 3 ct/kWh extra when running, then a a 3 ct/kWh source of electricity which only sometimes delivers can make the whole thing cheaper.

          1. Graeme No.3

            In the real world the cost of the output is based on repaying the capital cost and the cost of operation.
            And since most backup systems have to be ready at any time to prevent blackouts then addition of a second variable system just makes things more expensive.

          2. Curious George

            I got it. It is cheaper to buy a Ford F150 plus a Mini Cooper than just a Mini Cooper, where do you live.

          3. Kurt in Switzerland

            “Cheaper” probably means “counting subsidies to which one is entitled” in this case.

            Using the automobile analogy, the intrepid bachelor with a Toyota sedan might take on a Lamborghini Miura to pick up a rich babe and curry favor with her Italian dad, who donates the car plus storage and offers to pay for repairs, too, since he’s such a fan. So our hero uses the Toyota for his day to day business AND gets to go on fancy dates with the Lamborghini. How cool is that?

            Just like the coal and gas plants, the Toyota does all the real work; whereas akin to solar and wind, the Lamborghini is used for the showmanship and virtue-signaling.

            When the relationship with the signorina dries up, time to part with the Lamborghini. Likewise, when the government feeding trough dries up, so will the economics for solar and wind. However, unlike the Lamborghini, which can be towed from the barn to a used car dealer, wind and solar “farms” are costly to decommission and are a blight to the landscape until they’re removed.

            By the way, electricity in Germany costs about €0.30 per kWh, not 3.

          4. sod

            “I got it. It is cheaper to buy a Ford F150 plus a Mini Cooper than just a Mini Cooper, where do you live.”

            your example is wrong. Yes, it might be cheaper to add a small (cheap) car to your existing one with a high use.

            but hey, that is just another fact.

      3. tom0mason

        yes dear sod, you almost made that read like it is workable idea but you left out all the technicalities.
        Ho-hum, nice story though, offer it to Hollywood they like that sort of thing!
        🙂

      4. tom0mason

        sod,

        You let yourself dow again saying “The “base load lovers” here should love that situation, because waffle, waffle, bluff, bluff rubbish

        People are NOT “base load lovers”, the base load is evident on all grid systems with a large number of customers and industrial processes online demanding power 24hrs per day. It is a feature of having those awkward customers demanding generated power every-time they wish it.

        You could off course eliminate those awkward customer demands and dictate when customers can have the power they will pay for. However I think you’ll find you will rapidly run out of customers when they move to other places where power is always reliably available at a lower long term cost.

        To be honest I agree with you! And let German manufacturing move out of Germany to more accommodating countries with reliable electricity systems, and willing to give them a tax break just to get started.

  7. Graeme No.3

    sod:
    You do not know anything about electricity.
    1. If solar is NOW cheaper than ever why should people have installed it when
    it was more expensive?
    2. PV does NOT match demand. Peak demand comes AFTER the PV panels
    stop delivering most of their supply.
    3. Storage adds to the cost, you have no supplied NO proof that it is
    economic, even before that extra cost.
    4. coal plants push out as much as they can because their output is cheaper,
    but they benefit far less than you imagine because of
    a. long term reliable supply contracts (these are unknown with renewables).
    b. gas peaker plants are expensive, but they still make money because PV
    (and wind) are UNRELIABLE, and they can charge MORE than before.
    All your renewables is force the coal plants to run at irregular intervals on standby status. If renewables had to bear that cost, e.g. by providing storage then they would shut down overnight.

    5. 3¢ per kWh is $A39-45 per MWh; Australia’s coal fired stations easily beat that with cheaper prices until our stupid politicians fell for the renewables scam. Now, thanks to renewables, base prices have double, even tripled in SA, thanks to “cheap” renewables (and 5 blackouts in a year).

    By the way, peak output by PV only occurs for 5-5.5 hours a day in summer. Have you noticed that there is less sunshine in winter? And that the sun doesn’t shine at night? And any storage has to be taken out during those limited hours of sunshine, so the Capacity Factor drops 65-70%. [Your solution: spend more on triple the capacity??]. And during hot weather the output from PV panels drops. (yes, I know some PV panels are less, but still affected, so the net result is less than you claim).

    There are subjects called Physics and (Cost) Accounting but I realise these are beyond your intellectual level, so I suggest you seek medical help. Get your Doctor to double (or triple) the dosage of whatever you ingest, or better try some less mind altering substance. Otherwise put up with making a fool of yourself when you blog, even if it comes naturally, and SHUT UP!.

  8. Graeme No.3

    sod:
    You do not know anything about electricity.
    1. If solar is NOW cheaper than ever why should people have installed it when
    it was more expensive?
    2. PV does NOT match demand. Peak demand comes AFTER the PV panels
    stop delivering most of their supply.
    3. Storage adds to the cost, you have no supplied NO proof that it is
    economic, even before that extra cost.
    4. coal plants push out as much as they can because their output is cheaper,
    but they benefit far less than you imagine because of
    a. long term reliable supply contracts (these are unknown with renewables).
    b. gas peaker plants are expensive, but they still make money because PV
    (and wind) are UNRELIABLE, and they can charge MORE than before.
    All your renewables is force the coal plants to run at irregular intervals on standby status. If renewables had to bear that cost, e.g. by providing storage then they would shut down overnight.

    5. 3¢ per kWh is $A39-45 per MWh; Australia’s coal fired stations easily beat that with cheaper prices until our stupid politicians fell for the renewables scam. Now, thanks to renewables, base prices have double, even tripled in SA, thanks to “cheap” renewables (and 5 blackouts in a year).

    By the way, peak output by PV only occurs for 5-5.5 hours a day in summer. Have you noticed that there is less sunshine in winter? And that the sun doesn’t shine at night? And any storage has to be taken out during those limited hours of sunshine, so the Capacity Factor drops 65-70%. [Your solution: spend more on triple the capacity??]. And during hot weather the output from PV panels drops. (yes, I know some PV panels are less, but still affected, so the net result is less than you claim).

    There are subjects called Physics and (Cost) Accounting but I realise these are beyond your intellectual level, so I suggest you seek medical help. Get your Doctor to double (or triple) the dosage of whatever you ingest, or better try some less mind altering substance. Otherwise put up with making a fool of yourself when you blog, even if it comes naturally, and SHUT UP!.

  9. gallopingcamel

    While high electricity prices affect industrial competitiveness, raising energy prices is immoral as it harms the poor:
    http://www.miningpress.com/media/briefs/the-moral-case-for-fosil-fuels_2178.pdf

    Alex Epstein impressed me when he was an undergraduate at Duke university. Somehow he was not brainwashed by the leftists who rule academia.

    1. sod

      horrible article. merchant of doubt?