I moved to Germany in 2011 from Austria. Bought a duplex with a small roof. I was immediately confronted with almost double electric rates compared to Austria. Reason being I was forced to subsidize my neighbors solar installation. I said if you can’t beat em, join em. Installed a modest 3Kw Rooftop system. It was artificially throttled back to 2.5 Kw. Then one could install extra equipment to allow the utility to shut down your system during peak hours or take a 30% reduction off the top. This reduction was recently removed for new installs just last year.
In any event I receive 16 cents for my excess solar production. Early installations received over 50 cents. My income is about €250 a year. With ever increasing electric rates I invested further. I added 4 more modules on my carport ( shaded in winter) and an additional 3Kw inverter (Bluetti) and 6 kWh batteries. Later another 3 KWh battery and 5 Kw inverter to handle typical house loads. Recent changes in law removed the VAT (19%) on anything solar.
So now in June I am 72% self sufficient and use 55% of my solar. Grid feedback is actually reduced due to battery installation and what I purchased also decreased. I run my refrigerators, washing machine and heat water for kitchen all from solar.
In June. NOT in November to March. In winter I depend 95% on the grid.
On top of this there was no thought or consideration of the batteries in the EV’s being used for the house until just recently. V2G. Vehicle to Grid. In Asia being done for years. German electric cars not capable. No well thought out economical and scientific feasible plan. Just put wind turbines where there is no grid and millions of mini generators on a grid not designed to support it.
During this time period Germany shut down all of its clean and paid for Nuclear generators. And keeps paying the Nuclear generator owners for what they didn’t earn. And pays the home owners for the electricity they cannot use and have to pay to dump. And enjoys one of the highest electricity rates in the world.
Thanks for this explanation. I've been fascinated by the idea of negative electricity prices - a phenomenon which also affects the US state of California. Could you explain a bit more why such prices develop? I've never run a power grid, but it seems to me that there should be some option to simply "turn off" power supplies that aren't needed, rather than paying users (often in some distant area) to use power that's unneeded. Are there legal requirements that grid operators buy all renewable energy regardless of grid needs? Is it technically infeasible to cut off some suppliers for several hours when generation is too high?
Most of the German renewable assets that were built in the past receive subsidies based on the EEG scheme. For 20 years with a floor price based on produced electricity, meaning if market price is below the guaranteed floor price or even negative, the government will compensate the asset owner with the difference to the floor price. This was good at first because project developers received guarantees that their investments would be worth it, but with much more solar capacity today, assets are cannibailzing each other during the summer months and there is no incentive for asset owners to shut them down when prices go negative, since they would lose money then.
Thanks - I suspected something like this. But I still don't understand why negative prices appear. To use the US example, California generates more solar power than California can use, at least for some hours on some days. This leads to negative prices in California, which means that California actually pays Arizona utilities to use California solar power. I understand that generators must be paid (it may be bad policy, but it is the policy), but I don't understand why California goes farther and pays Arizona to use the power. Why not simply disconnect the excess generation, while continuing to pay the generators? Is there a technical reason, or is it also policy? Or maybe just a stupid action by the grid operator?
I’m also confused by energy pricing and don’t know much about California (I live in Minnesota) but I do believe that utilities make money on things besides the wholesale price of energy. For example, Renewable Energy Certificates are generated when renewable energy is produced and these can be sold by the utility if a willing buyer can be found. Utilities can also make money with production tax credits as well. So maybe those sources of revenue are greater than the negative price received for the electricity itself.
Viewpoint from German home owner.
I moved to Germany in 2011 from Austria. Bought a duplex with a small roof. I was immediately confronted with almost double electric rates compared to Austria. Reason being I was forced to subsidize my neighbors solar installation. I said if you can’t beat em, join em. Installed a modest 3Kw Rooftop system. It was artificially throttled back to 2.5 Kw. Then one could install extra equipment to allow the utility to shut down your system during peak hours or take a 30% reduction off the top. This reduction was recently removed for new installs just last year.
In any event I receive 16 cents for my excess solar production. Early installations received over 50 cents. My income is about €250 a year. With ever increasing electric rates I invested further. I added 4 more modules on my carport ( shaded in winter) and an additional 3Kw inverter (Bluetti) and 6 kWh batteries. Later another 3 KWh battery and 5 Kw inverter to handle typical house loads. Recent changes in law removed the VAT (19%) on anything solar.
So now in June I am 72% self sufficient and use 55% of my solar. Grid feedback is actually reduced due to battery installation and what I purchased also decreased. I run my refrigerators, washing machine and heat water for kitchen all from solar.
In June. NOT in November to March. In winter I depend 95% on the grid.
On top of this there was no thought or consideration of the batteries in the EV’s being used for the house until just recently. V2G. Vehicle to Grid. In Asia being done for years. German electric cars not capable. No well thought out economical and scientific feasible plan. Just put wind turbines where there is no grid and millions of mini generators on a grid not designed to support it.
During this time period Germany shut down all of its clean and paid for Nuclear generators. And keeps paying the Nuclear generator owners for what they didn’t earn. And pays the home owners for the electricity they cannot use and have to pay to dump. And enjoys one of the highest electricity rates in the world.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Thanks for this explanation. I've been fascinated by the idea of negative electricity prices - a phenomenon which also affects the US state of California. Could you explain a bit more why such prices develop? I've never run a power grid, but it seems to me that there should be some option to simply "turn off" power supplies that aren't needed, rather than paying users (often in some distant area) to use power that's unneeded. Are there legal requirements that grid operators buy all renewable energy regardless of grid needs? Is it technically infeasible to cut off some suppliers for several hours when generation is too high?
Most of the German renewable assets that were built in the past receive subsidies based on the EEG scheme. For 20 years with a floor price based on produced electricity, meaning if market price is below the guaranteed floor price or even negative, the government will compensate the asset owner with the difference to the floor price. This was good at first because project developers received guarantees that their investments would be worth it, but with much more solar capacity today, assets are cannibailzing each other during the summer months and there is no incentive for asset owners to shut them down when prices go negative, since they would lose money then.
Thanks - I suspected something like this. But I still don't understand why negative prices appear. To use the US example, California generates more solar power than California can use, at least for some hours on some days. This leads to negative prices in California, which means that California actually pays Arizona utilities to use California solar power. I understand that generators must be paid (it may be bad policy, but it is the policy), but I don't understand why California goes farther and pays Arizona to use the power. Why not simply disconnect the excess generation, while continuing to pay the generators? Is there a technical reason, or is it also policy? Or maybe just a stupid action by the grid operator?
I’m also confused by energy pricing and don’t know much about California (I live in Minnesota) but I do believe that utilities make money on things besides the wholesale price of energy. For example, Renewable Energy Certificates are generated when renewable energy is produced and these can be sold by the utility if a willing buyer can be found. Utilities can also make money with production tax credits as well. So maybe those sources of revenue are greater than the negative price received for the electricity itself.
What is the point of spending billions on RE when it fails on nights with little or no wind?
We just get more costly and less reliable energy with massive damage to the planet.
The German trifecta of failure.
You have to import power and deindustrialise.