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.
W
WilderSueden7 Apr 2022 08:47For commercial properties: If you have a warehouse, you typically use relatively little electricity yourself but have a large roof area. The difference between commercial electricity rates and feed-in tariffs is generally smaller, so self-consumption is less worthwhile than for private households. Nobody installs photovoltaic panels on the roof just as a hobby—it has to make financial sense.
And of course, ground-mounted photovoltaic systems. We can already expect that significantly more farmland will be developed in the future.
And of course, ground-mounted photovoltaic systems. We can already expect that significantly more farmland will be developed in the future.
D
Deliverer7 Apr 2022 08:50First of all: I think it’s a terrible and very weak signal from Habeck.
Still, I can explain it: For years, solar installers have been telling the story about low feed-in tariffs and maximizing self-consumption. That seems to be enough for the industry to boom, and it was already busy even before supply shortages and the war. There are even more people now who voluntarily give up the money from feed-in tariffs...
Anyway, photovoltaic systems can support themselves through self-consumption alone. With a heat pump and an electric car, this happens even faster. So this private sector doesn’t really need much subsidy. It’s already working. (And when something works, subsidies should be removed, that’s how it goes.)
What no longer works with low feed-in tariffs are full feed-in systems on outbuildings, warehouses, sheds, multi-family houses, etc. THOSE need support. They are usually larger and make a significant contribution to the energy transition.
The only downside is that surplus feed-in producers are increasingly pushed towards smaller, self-consumption-optimized systems. And that’s exactly the wrong approach—for both finances and the environment. Therefore, I’m in favor of a quick adjustment here and a minimum payment of 8-9 cents (US cents) per kWh. Even then, you’re still giving away money because electricity is usually worth more!
Still, I can explain it: For years, solar installers have been telling the story about low feed-in tariffs and maximizing self-consumption. That seems to be enough for the industry to boom, and it was already busy even before supply shortages and the war. There are even more people now who voluntarily give up the money from feed-in tariffs...
Anyway, photovoltaic systems can support themselves through self-consumption alone. With a heat pump and an electric car, this happens even faster. So this private sector doesn’t really need much subsidy. It’s already working. (And when something works, subsidies should be removed, that’s how it goes.)
What no longer works with low feed-in tariffs are full feed-in systems on outbuildings, warehouses, sheds, multi-family houses, etc. THOSE need support. They are usually larger and make a significant contribution to the energy transition.
The only downside is that surplus feed-in producers are increasingly pushed towards smaller, self-consumption-optimized systems. And that’s exactly the wrong approach—for both finances and the environment. Therefore, I’m in favor of a quick adjustment here and a minimum payment of 8-9 cents (US cents) per kWh. Even then, you’re still giving away money because electricity is usually worth more!
In der Ruine7 Apr 2022 08:52WilderSueden schrieb:
And ground-mounted photovoltaic systems, of course. We can already expect that significantly more farmland will be developed in the future. Unless we need the land for wheat ;-)
D
Deliverer7 Apr 2022 09:22Photovoltaics and agriculture can work quite well together. There are different solutions for different types of crops.
Besides canopy installations, I find photovoltaic fences with transparent modules very interesting. These are set up in a north-south orientation and deliver peak output in the morning and evening—exactly when the usual south-facing systems produce the least. This allows the electricity to be sold particularly well, which can make these systems even more economical than traditional ground-mounted solar arrays. Between two fences, a gap the width of a combine harvester is left, resulting in relatively low land use loss and, depending on the region, additional protection for the crops against extreme weather.
Apart from that, if we stopped the whole inefficient "energy crop" nonsense (which yields a hundred times less energy per m² than photovoltaics) and simply used those areas for photovoltaic installations instead (about 2% of the country’s land area), the solar energy transition would already be largely complete.
Besides canopy installations, I find photovoltaic fences with transparent modules very interesting. These are set up in a north-south orientation and deliver peak output in the morning and evening—exactly when the usual south-facing systems produce the least. This allows the electricity to be sold particularly well, which can make these systems even more economical than traditional ground-mounted solar arrays. Between two fences, a gap the width of a combine harvester is left, resulting in relatively low land use loss and, depending on the region, additional protection for the crops against extreme weather.
Apart from that, if we stopped the whole inefficient "energy crop" nonsense (which yields a hundred times less energy per m² than photovoltaics) and simply used those areas for photovoltaic installations instead (about 2% of the country’s land area), the solar energy transition would already be largely complete.
W
WilderSueden7 Apr 2022 09:31I am also familiar with the theoretical concept of combined use. However, I have yet to see a facility with my own eyes that would be suitable for more than one sheep pasture. 😉
P
Pinkiponk7 Apr 2022 10:16WilderSueden schrieb:
We need to be prepared for significantly more farmland being developed in the future. This will look ugly, just like the wind turbines in landscape and nature conservation areas. I’m curious what will be built behind our house, which is currently (for the past 15 years) still open fields with deer. In the medium term, I don’t even know whether more money can be made from building land, photovoltaic systems, or wind turbines.
Similar topics