Germany’s Generous PV Subsidies Have Had Serious Implications: What Can We Learn?

Frequent commenter Cameron Atwood sent me this article describing Germany’s generous subsidies for solar PV and asked me to react to it.

Yes, the German program was overzealous; no one (no one I’ve come across, at least) disputes that.  The program’s meteoric rise and fall over the past few years has sent huge shock waves all throughout the PV arena, and to the universe of clean energy as a whole.  And those who follow the industry more closely than I tell me that the reverberations will continue to bounce around for many years hence.

I’m sure there is voluminous discussion as to exactly why and how this happened; I’m even more certain that I can’t answer those questions.

Having said this, all these events are happening within an even larger set of discussions:  What is the proper role of government in our lives?  In particular, how should the public sector react to the potential catastrophes that are headed our way if the nature and quantity of our energy consumption doesn’t change quickly? How should powerful interests be regulated, or provided incentives, such that the technologies they bring to bear change our world for the better, and keep our civilization from going over the edge as our population quintuples over a 100-year period?

Everyone can see that Germany made a misstep here.  From there, they can proceed to point fingers, form snap judgments, and jump to irrational conclusions — and, if that is their mission, conclude that renewable energy doesn’t work.

Obviously, I don’t see it that way.  At this point, it’s fairly clear that we either find a way to make public and private interests work together towards a clean energy future, or realize that we as a civilization are in for an enormous amount of suffering.

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
2 comments on “Germany’s Generous PV Subsidies Have Had Serious Implications: What Can We Learn?
  1. Larry Lemmert says:

    What if the U.S. had pumped huge subsidies into CFL lighting? Would LED lighting development be as robust today if that had happened? There are large subsidies for cities to replace sodium vapor lamps with LED lighting. Is this going to squash the next big development that comes after LEDs? What about OLEDs? Maybe they should win. Why should the government be in a position to choose the winners? Survival of the fittest means just that. The best product survives as long as inferior products are not subsidized unfairly.
    For every government success story in the energy meddling crap shoot there are countless examples of waste and fraud.

    • Cameron Atwood says:

      “The best product survives as long as inferior products are not subsidized unfairly.”

      Excellent point, with which I agree wholeheartedly! Fossil entities should most definitely not continue to have their completely inferior products subsidized with our tax dollars and with less apparent policy subsidies. These subsidies are highly unfair – particularly as the largest fossil firms are not merely some of the most profitable in existence (due in large measure to these subsidies), but also because they are some of the most damaging, and among the very heaviest externalizers of burdensome and lethal costs.