Hi everyone,
I’m starting a general discussion thread about Habeck’s photovoltaic Easter package. We are currently in the new construction phase and are considering waiting until all the details are clear. If it becomes interesting, do you have any information—or would you start right away? Without higher self-consumption, the topic of photovoltaics is becoming less and less attractive. I’ll quote an article on the subject:
“For private new builds, the coalition government aims to make the installation of photovoltaic systems standard. To this end, Habeck promised better funding rates and simplified use of photovoltaics.”
At first, I thought the Easter package mainly referred to commercial systems, but apparently, there is also support available for private homeowners.
I’m starting a general discussion thread about Habeck’s photovoltaic Easter package. We are currently in the new construction phase and are considering waiting until all the details are clear. If it becomes interesting, do you have any information—or would you start right away? Without higher self-consumption, the topic of photovoltaics is becoming less and less attractive. I’ll quote an article on the subject:
“For private new builds, the coalition government aims to make the installation of photovoltaic systems standard. To this end, Habeck promised better funding rates and simplified use of photovoltaics.”
At first, I thought the Easter package mainly referred to commercial systems, but apparently, there is also support available for private homeowners.
[QUOTE="Deliverer, post: 568275, member: 29380"]
First of all: I think it’s terrible and a very weak signal from Habeck.
But I can still explain it: Solar installers have been telling the story for years about insufficient feed-in tariffs and maximizing self-consumption. That seems to have been enough to make the industry boom, and it was well utilized even before supply shortages and war. There are even more and more people who voluntarily forego income from feed-in tariffs...
Anyway, photovoltaic systems can cover themselves through self-consumption alone. Especially quickly with heat pumps and electric cars. So the private sector doesn’t really need much promotion. It’s already working. (And when something is working, subsidies should be removed—that’s how it goes.)
What no longer works with the low feed-in tariffs are full-feed systems on outbuildings, warehouses, sheds, apartment buildings, and so on. THOSE need to be supported. They are usually large and significantly help with the energy transition.
The only downside is that full-feed operators are increasingly being pushed into smaller “self-consumption optimized” systems. And that is exactly the wrong approach, both financially and environmentally. That’s why I’m in favor of quick improvements here, paying at least 8-9 cents per kilowatt-hour. And even then, it’s still giving money away, since electricity is usually worth more!
The problem is that while guaranteed, artificially high feed-in tariffs create incentives for expansion, they do not build a sustainable market if the tariffs don’t decrease. This eliminates price pressure on manufacturers and system installers. Eventually, you can’t get off that path. Because even if we have a lot of photovoltaic electricity, if it is extremely expensive (or at least more expensive than alternatives) for decades due to subsidies, we haven’t really achieved much.
The original idea behind photovoltaic support was to develop an industry (which we have succeeded in doing, even domestically for a time), so that one kilowatt-hour of solar electricity no longer costs 60 cents to produce. That goal has long been reached. It’s actually a point where subsidies should stop, at least at the previous level.
First of all: I think it’s terrible and a very weak signal from Habeck.
But I can still explain it: Solar installers have been telling the story for years about insufficient feed-in tariffs and maximizing self-consumption. That seems to have been enough to make the industry boom, and it was well utilized even before supply shortages and war. There are even more and more people who voluntarily forego income from feed-in tariffs...
Anyway, photovoltaic systems can cover themselves through self-consumption alone. Especially quickly with heat pumps and electric cars. So the private sector doesn’t really need much promotion. It’s already working. (And when something is working, subsidies should be removed—that’s how it goes.)
What no longer works with the low feed-in tariffs are full-feed systems on outbuildings, warehouses, sheds, apartment buildings, and so on. THOSE need to be supported. They are usually large and significantly help with the energy transition.
The only downside is that full-feed operators are increasingly being pushed into smaller “self-consumption optimized” systems. And that is exactly the wrong approach, both financially and environmentally. That’s why I’m in favor of quick improvements here, paying at least 8-9 cents per kilowatt-hour. And even then, it’s still giving money away, since electricity is usually worth more!
The problem is that while guaranteed, artificially high feed-in tariffs create incentives for expansion, they do not build a sustainable market if the tariffs don’t decrease. This eliminates price pressure on manufacturers and system installers. Eventually, you can’t get off that path. Because even if we have a lot of photovoltaic electricity, if it is extremely expensive (or at least more expensive than alternatives) for decades due to subsidies, we haven’t really achieved much.
The original idea behind photovoltaic support was to develop an industry (which we have succeeded in doing, even domestically for a time), so that one kilowatt-hour of solar electricity no longer costs 60 cents to produce. That goal has long been reached. It’s actually a point where subsidies should stop, at least at the previous level.
Private owners of photovoltaic systems will not receive anything. At most, bureaucratic requirements and regulations may change. If anything changes in terms of price, it would be a stable 6-cent payment per kilowatt-hour. Small homeowners like us simply are not worthwhile when a farmer can cover his field with panels or large commercial buildings with huge roofs easily outcompete us.
It is only logical that incentives are targeted there. After all, we mostly install modules on our roofs even without subsidies.
It is only logical that incentives are targeted there. After all, we mostly install modules on our roofs even without subsidies.
P
Pitiglianio7 Apr 2022 12:16That's how it is. Why promote something that private property owners would build anyway?
Question for the experts:
I have a 2500m² (27,000 sq ft) garden. Should I now use the garden as a full feed-in system?
Question for the experts:
I have a 2500m² (27,000 sq ft) garden. Should I now use the garden as a full feed-in system?
P
Peter Pohlmann7 Apr 2022 12:26It can be assumed that higher feed-in tariffs or other forms of government support will directly lead to price increases and thus higher investment costs.
Module prices have already risen by 25 percent compared to last year. Most photovoltaic modules come from China or other parts of Asia. Manufacturing them cost-effectively in Germany is no longer feasible. The same applies to inverters.
Politicians encourage everyone to install photovoltaic systems but do not specify where these should be sourced from or how to activate the additional skilled workers, electricians, and so on.
The much-publicized Easter package has at best turned into an Easter letter.
Starting to heavily invest in agrivoltaics now is also very risky. On one hand, it affects food supply and, on the other hand, domestic agriculture.
The lease for one hectare of farmland varies depending on soil quality, roughly between 200 and 800 euros (about 220 to 880 USD) per year. Photovoltaic investors pay between 2,000 and 5,000 euros (about 2,200 to 5,500 USD) in rent annually. Where is this supposed to lead? And who will be the investors in large photovoltaic installations on farmland? Certainly not the small local farms, but rather large corporations like Aldi, Fielmann, and others.
Small farmers will no longer be able to afford the leases on their meadows, which they need as a source of animal feed. This will completely upset the entire market.
Module prices have already risen by 25 percent compared to last year. Most photovoltaic modules come from China or other parts of Asia. Manufacturing them cost-effectively in Germany is no longer feasible. The same applies to inverters.
Politicians encourage everyone to install photovoltaic systems but do not specify where these should be sourced from or how to activate the additional skilled workers, electricians, and so on.
The much-publicized Easter package has at best turned into an Easter letter.
Starting to heavily invest in agrivoltaics now is also very risky. On one hand, it affects food supply and, on the other hand, domestic agriculture.
The lease for one hectare of farmland varies depending on soil quality, roughly between 200 and 800 euros (about 220 to 880 USD) per year. Photovoltaic investors pay between 2,000 and 5,000 euros (about 2,200 to 5,500 USD) in rent annually. Where is this supposed to lead? And who will be the investors in large photovoltaic installations on farmland? Certainly not the small local farms, but rather large corporations like Aldi, Fielmann, and others.
Small farmers will no longer be able to afford the leases on their meadows, which they need as a source of animal feed. This will completely upset the entire market.
D
Deliverer7 Apr 2022 12:53Open space is initially not eligible for remuneration under the Renewable Energy Act. This doesn’t have to be a problem, as market-based compensation is likely to be higher most of the time anyway. However, you do need to obtain the building permit / planning permission...
But once you have cleared all the bureaucratic hurdles: a very clear "YES, PLEASE!" ;-)
But once you have cleared all the bureaucratic hurdles: a very clear "YES, PLEASE!" ;-)
W
WilderSueden7 Apr 2022 13:15Pitiglianio schrieb:
That's how it is. Why promote something that private property owners will build anyway. Because there are two conflicting goals here. The builder wants an economically viable system—large enough to meet the photovoltaic requirement but small enough to be cost-effective through self-consumption. The government wants more photovoltaic capacity installed. As a result, roof areas for 5-10 kWp sometimes remain unused.
Similar topics