Industry Group Warns German “Electricity Prices To Rise Significantly”, Fueled By Green Energies!

One thing is clear: Germans were fooled and deceived by politicians and activists into thinking that the transition to renewable energies would not cost much, reduce pollutants, create a clean environment, improve the climate and create many jobs.

None of these have come true.

Electricity prices have skyrocketed, the landscape is being industrialized and Germany has not reduced its greenhouse gases in more than 7 years. Moreover the climate is still the same. Now Germany’s industrial base is eroding.

Today we will look at the first point: cost. Yesterday the online industry journal Deutsche Mittelstand Nachrichten (Midsize Company News) here carried the headline:

“Association of Energy: Electricity Prices To Rise Significantly”

So the bad news continue, and this will further adversely impact consumers, small businesses and the all-important Mittelstand.

And because the Mittelstand employ some 70% of all workers in Germany, most of them highly skilled and well-paid, the news is bad. The Mittelstand is already facing crisis on a number of fronts. First is the lack of skilled workers on the labor market. Second: many of these companies are now being handed down to the next generation, but there are no successors. In fact Chinese companies have been busily snapping up the companies along with their patents and technical expertise.

Now, thirdly, comes the extreme energy prices (and volatile supply) – thanks to Germany’s mad and poorly thought-out rush into utopian green energies.

Rising feed-in costs

The main factor driving the higher prices remains the EEG green energy feed-in act, the site reports. Association head Christian Otto told German daily Bild that the feed-in subsidy will rise to 7 cents per kwh (currently 6.88 cents).

Three of the four power transmission grid operators have already announced an increase in the grid fees.”

The four German grid operators are Amprion, TransnetBW, Tennet and 50Hertz. Only East Germany-based 50Hertz does not plan to raise the fees for the time being.

Uncompetitive

The higher feed-in surcharges make push German electricity prices to 30 cents a kwh, almost three times more expensive than power in the USA, for example. Little wonder that some are now calling to “make Germany great again”.

Moreover, citing analysts, the site reports that heating oil as well has become 11 percent more expensive, and warns more increases lie ahead as winter approaches.

Grid instability adding to costs

The Deutsche Mittelstand Nachrichten site cited the head of the BDEW energy association, Stefan Kapferer, who blasted the “constantly more frequent and expensive interventions that are needed to keep the grid stable due to the fluctuating feed-in of renewable energies“.

 

20 responses to “Industry Group Warns German “Electricity Prices To Rise Significantly”, Fueled By Green Energies!”

  1. posa

    Object lesson. As with Australia, Germany has become a laboratory for a FAILED experiment called Green Energy. The rest of the world needs to pay close attention.

    1. toorightmate

      A basic problem with Germany and Australia is that they refuse to pay attention.

  2. John F. Hultquist

    Is there a company size (small versus large) under which price of electricity has risen?
    Is it true that larger companies are shielded from the new costs?

    This is interesting, and not on my radar:
    Second: many of these companies are now being handed down to the next generation, but there are no successors.

    Seems, in such cases, new owners can get value from the company by reducing R & D, maintenance, and labor cost. Finally, a zombie company can be sold for scrap and land. The intellectual value is passed onto the company that did the first purchase.

    If the government had, instead, incentivized home grown companies to invest and evolve, there would be local investors willing to buy, or buy into, such a thing. When taxes and regulations take all the profits away, owners cannot pay for and guide an evolution.
    Too late now.

  3. yonason

    Oh, yes. I read something similar to that recently.
    https://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-800-billion-climate-flop-how-merkels-green-energy-policy-has-fueled-demand-for-coal/

    “Germany has spent some 650 billion euros ($780 billion) on subsidies for green power in recent decades. But the country’s climate targets ‘won’t be a near miss but a booming failure’.”

    Looks like business as usual for the political consensus.

    1. SebastianH

      “A booming failure”? Hmm, reducing the CO2 emissions by 30% instead of 40% is a failure? Ok 😉

      Anyway, I am not a fan of those absolute targets since they don’t take population growth and other things into account. Claiming that we would reduce our emissions by X percent is not as good as claiming we would reduce emissions per person by X percent. As far as I know, the German government has also the goal to reduce electricity usage which makes zero sense in the coming phase when all traffic (and some part of home heating) is switched over to electricity. So yeah, they could clearly define their targets better …

      1. AlecM

        Not in Germany, where CO2 emissions have risen. There is also the cO2 ration that followed export of jobs. Time to prosecute polticians who defrauded the public.

        1. yonason

          Even NASA acknowledges that increased CO2 is greening the world.
          https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

          Only a fool who believes CO2 causes imaginary increases in temperature wants to stop it’s increase.

          The warmist devotees are like this lunatic, who what his mother’s friend, because that friend was flirting with his imaginary girlfriend.
          http://nypost.com/2017/10/13/man-killed-for-making-pass-at-imaginary-girlfriend/

          THAT is the mentality of warmunists, in a nutshell.

          1. yonason

            “who what his mother’s friend” should have been “who shot his mother’s friend”

            Sorry. No idea how I did that.

  4. Bitter&twisted

    I’m waiting for SebastianH to come along and “re-educate” us.

    1. SebastianH

      Why would I need to do that? You guys believe what you want to believe. If you think any company is paying 30 cents per kWh for electricity then do that and get angry about it.

      As for costs being too high, you’ll be surprised how expensive fossil fuels would be if all costs were included in the electricity price 😉

      1. Robert Folkerts

        Hi SebH
        I have a little difficulty figuring your logic when you say co2 emissions in Germany should reflect population growth.
        Surely it must be the total co2 emissions which is clearly going to destroy the planet, not the co2 emissions per person!

        1. SebastianH

          Total worldwide, yes.

          You could also perfectly predict population growth/shrinking and be ok with total CO2 targets of course.

      2. ClimateOtter

        Considering wind gets 52 times the subsidies that FFs do, probably nowhere near as high as you imagine.

        1. SebastianH

          The costs of fossil fuel doesn’t exclude only subsidies. Countries spend much more on securing their energy supplies then just the price of the resource plus subsidies … and there is also the issue of health costs

          1. Robert Folkerts

            Boy do I cringe everytime I read “fossil fuels”.
            Do ya’all really think we are burning dead dinosaurs! Have you not read up on the abiotic nature of oil. That hydrocarbons have been produced in labs with heat and pressure like what one finds deep in the earth.
            To me, it’s as bad as labeling co2 a pollutant!

  5. Green Sand

    One of the ‘unicorn’ projects destined to ‘solve’ our carbon ‘problems’ appears to be in doubt yet again!

    Carbon capture in doubt after Norway buries 90pc of budget

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/14/carbon-capture-doubt-norway-buries-90pc-budget/

    This is in the same week the unproven technology featured strongly in the UK’s clean growth strategy.

    1. AlecM

      I worked on the two major international CCS projects in the 1990s. CCS can’t work because pumping liquid CO2 is very expensive.

  6. gallopingcamel

    One has to love Germany. You take dumb ideas to the extreme. Thanks to you wonderful people the world can understand the consequences of open borders, wind turbines and industrial scale solar power.

    Thanks for doing what you do so the rest of us won’t have to.

  7. Bitter&twisted

    Fossil fuels are stored solar power.

  8. yonason

    Gone with the wind?

    or

    Location, Location, Location!
    https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/09/revisiting-wind-turbine-impacts-by-paul.html

    How much land are we talking about, to generate 25 billion megawatt-hours of global annual electricity? Assuming top quality wind sites, at 5 kilowatts per acre (average output per land area for any turbine at the windiest locations), onshore turbines operating 24/7/365 would require some 570 million acres.
    ==========================
    That’s 25% of the United States – or 30% of the Lower 48 US states. It’s almost all the land in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona combined!

    Think BEFORE you commit to something so monumentally stupid!