Skip to main content

Solar Power in Germany

We mentioned in an earlier post that we didn’t think Germany was a notably good locale for solar power. This snap judgment came due to our visits to Germany, where the sun was, at best, a fickle friend. But let Germany’s Economics and Technology Ministry tell you. Maybe we were wrong:

The solar industry is a new industrial sector in Germany which has seen enormous growth over the last number of years thanks to state support through the EEG. German solar technology turnover has risen within the last six years from around 450 million euros to some 4.9 billion euros.

Okay. But then, this gave a us a bit of pause

The number of people employed directly and indirectly in the industry had risen to around 50,000 in 2006 (source: German Federal Association of the Solar Industry (BSW), as of April 2007).

That seems rather low - Germany has about 82 million people - and here, they kind of agree with our first assessment, though for considerably less dumb reasons:

Although Germany's geographical position on the world map does not make it the ideal location for solar energy due to it only receiving moderate levels of solar radiation, it has become the largest solar thermal market in Europe, helped by the MAP. Germany takes second place only to Japan in the world in photovoltaic power generation.

Well, all right, though we admit we now wonder how close to wrong we were. We took a look at IEA’s stats. It’s a little behind – the last figures are for 2006 – but at least at at that time, solar was generating about .3% of Germany’s electricity or 2220 gWh. By contrast, nuclear energy produced 167,269 gWh and coal 302,297 gWh. (Wind was at 30,710 gWh.)

Now, in fairness, Germany passed a law specifically encouraging development of renewable energy sources. See here for an anecdotal account of Germany’s embrace of solar power.

We won’t rehash nuclear’s standing in Germany here – they’re liking it more since the last election - but we will mention that ramping down on nuclear, as has been discussed, would have a dual impact on the country. It would not only impact on its own people, but the IEA’s numbers show it would impact on its neighbors, too – Germany exports a lot of its nuclear-generated electricity.

But, as the ministry shows, solar has the, um, sun at its back, so we expect the low showing in 2006 has increased since then and will continue to do so. Also, Germany prides itself on its manufacturing capacity, so it may well be that solar energy will have a larger impact on Germany’s economy by exporting panels to sunnier climes – Spain, maybe, or Greece.

A solar array sitting atop a highway tunnel – see here for more. And hey!, what’s that in the background? Perhaps not – there was a plant in nearby GroĂźwelzheim, but it closed in 1985.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Solar has received massive subsidies from the German government, I believe in order to achieve the underwhelming result you quoted. To get a correct impression, the amount of funding from the general public needs to be determined. I think you will find your original assessment of the unsuitability of Germany for Solar power was correct. The only analysis I've seen (David MacKay) that would allow Europe to get large amounts of solar power is to build the arrays in North Africa and transmit the power back to Europe through DC HV lines. That has it's own political issues. The area needed would be 36,000 square miles.
Bill said…
Tom Blees has more recent data at BraveNewClimate.com — "Germany – crunched by the numbers". Manufacturing solar panels in Germany may make sense; installing them in Germany, not so much.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...