boutons_deux
11-27-2011, 08:30 PM
The FIT concept is totally proven having worked far above expectations in Germany for the past 10 years.
Example: Germany set a 2010 target of 12.5% share of renewable energy in electric generation in 2000. They surpassed that goal in late 2007 with 15.1 %.That is 20% better and two years ahead of schedule. Keep in mind that Germany gets half the sun the U.S. gets on average.
FIT’s pay for themselves in less than a year:
In 2008 Germany’s additional cost for their national FIT was $3.2 billion euro’s.
The return for the cost of the FIT calculated by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment was as follows:
$7.8 billion euro’s from reduced amounts of fossil and nuclear fuels purchased
$9.2 billion euro’s saved from the avoidance of external costs.* (see note at end)
A total of $17 billion in savings for $3.2 billion in additional costs is clearly a superior return - what we would call in the U.S. – a “no brainer”.
It does NOT depend on any tax payer contributions (therefore it is NOT a subsidy) and no new public debt is needed to fund the FIT program - ideal in the current recession environment. As a result it is not as subject to the uncertainty and unpredictability of the political environment.
The FIT has clearly proven itself superior to any other programs currently in use around the world, such as subsidies with public money, tendering models or quota models. In fact, since the German’s have launched their FIT program approximately 35 to 40 counties have followed suite and implemented their own.
http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine/2011/11/feed-in-tariffs--the-proven-road-not-taken%E2%80%A6why/1806
=========
but in the US?
A feed-in tariff that started in Germany in 1991 is credited with powering an expansion of solar there. At about the size of Montana, Germany has five times the number of installed solar panels that the United States has and is second only to Japan in terms of photovoltaic power generation, according to the German government.
A similar program could be a boon to U.S. solar power. Largely because of cost, solar has generated little interest here. In 2007, it made up less than 0.02 percent of the country's electricity generation.
But feed-in tariffs are controversial. They are blamed for sharply higher electricity prices in countries where they exist. Some question whether Americans accustomed to comparatively low electricity costs would tolerate paying more.
Utility companies also argue that they are not needed, since Congress is poised to pass legislation that would set financial penalties for carbon emissions from traditional power sources. And there might not be a political appetite for a fight over a national tariff.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/03/24/1
in SA:
"An example in Texas comes from CPS Energy, a municipal utility serving the City of San Antonio, which recently opened its Solartricity program offering solar developers long-term contracts for clean energy produced."
http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/08/06/feed-in-tariffs-will-allow-home-owners-to-sell-solar-generated-electricity-back-to-the-grid-accelerate-growth-of-solar-energy-adoption/
but CPS only accept feed-ins from utility-scale plants, like 100 MW minimum.
California is of course ahead of TX, as usual:
http://solarfinancing.1bog.org/feed-in-tariffs/california-feed-in-tariff/#step=signup
A few other states, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff
Example: Germany set a 2010 target of 12.5% share of renewable energy in electric generation in 2000. They surpassed that goal in late 2007 with 15.1 %.That is 20% better and two years ahead of schedule. Keep in mind that Germany gets half the sun the U.S. gets on average.
FIT’s pay for themselves in less than a year:
In 2008 Germany’s additional cost for their national FIT was $3.2 billion euro’s.
The return for the cost of the FIT calculated by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment was as follows:
$7.8 billion euro’s from reduced amounts of fossil and nuclear fuels purchased
$9.2 billion euro’s saved from the avoidance of external costs.* (see note at end)
A total of $17 billion in savings for $3.2 billion in additional costs is clearly a superior return - what we would call in the U.S. – a “no brainer”.
It does NOT depend on any tax payer contributions (therefore it is NOT a subsidy) and no new public debt is needed to fund the FIT program - ideal in the current recession environment. As a result it is not as subject to the uncertainty and unpredictability of the political environment.
The FIT has clearly proven itself superior to any other programs currently in use around the world, such as subsidies with public money, tendering models or quota models. In fact, since the German’s have launched their FIT program approximately 35 to 40 counties have followed suite and implemented their own.
http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine/2011/11/feed-in-tariffs--the-proven-road-not-taken%E2%80%A6why/1806
=========
but in the US?
A feed-in tariff that started in Germany in 1991 is credited with powering an expansion of solar there. At about the size of Montana, Germany has five times the number of installed solar panels that the United States has and is second only to Japan in terms of photovoltaic power generation, according to the German government.
A similar program could be a boon to U.S. solar power. Largely because of cost, solar has generated little interest here. In 2007, it made up less than 0.02 percent of the country's electricity generation.
But feed-in tariffs are controversial. They are blamed for sharply higher electricity prices in countries where they exist. Some question whether Americans accustomed to comparatively low electricity costs would tolerate paying more.
Utility companies also argue that they are not needed, since Congress is poised to pass legislation that would set financial penalties for carbon emissions from traditional power sources. And there might not be a political appetite for a fight over a national tariff.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/03/24/1
in SA:
"An example in Texas comes from CPS Energy, a municipal utility serving the City of San Antonio, which recently opened its Solartricity program offering solar developers long-term contracts for clean energy produced."
http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/08/06/feed-in-tariffs-will-allow-home-owners-to-sell-solar-generated-electricity-back-to-the-grid-accelerate-growth-of-solar-energy-adoption/
but CPS only accept feed-ins from utility-scale plants, like 100 MW minimum.
California is of course ahead of TX, as usual:
http://solarfinancing.1bog.org/feed-in-tariffs/california-feed-in-tariff/#step=signup
A few other states, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff