Impact of Germany's EEG

Graphic display of year reports by BDEW* **

Grafische weergave van jaarrapporten door BDEW*

* Bundesverband Energie und Wasserwirtschaft

Links en verder lezen!

BRD PV-marktanalyses 2010 prequel 2009 2008 2007 def. 2007 cf. BSW 2006 2005

** In september 2010, Bundesumweltministerium (BMU) published slightly revised data including 16,4% renewable electricity for 2009, instead of the 16,1% reported in the BDEW 2009 study. Bundesnetzagentur published the new EEG Umlage for 2011, which is considerably higher than the 2 Eurocent/kWh suggested here. It has been fixed at 3,53 Eurocent/kWh by BNA. In the next year report, updated numbes for 2009 will be given if these deviate from the ones given on this web page.

Introductie/Introduction

On this webpage I summarize the most important results from the year reports of the German society for energy and water economics, Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft (BDEW), that summarize the main economic indicators showing the impact of the EEG Law. The effects of growth of (EEG-supported) renewable electricity are depicted graphically, as well as the financial consequences, in particular on the "cost" side. The "benefit" side of the EEG - often totally ignored by groups disliking the rapid development of decentralized generation of renewable energy - is rather complex to evaluate, and will be summarized at the end of this informative webpage.

Figure 1. End-user electricity consumption (gray columns, left Y-axis), and physically measured cumulative feed-in of renewable electricity with EEG incentives (green columns, right Y-axis). 2000 has been measured only from April 1st (BMU spreadsheet). Germany's end-user electricity consumption more or less stabilized in 2005-2008. 2009 has been a global crisis year, with a considerable drop in electricity consumption (Germany: minus 5,6% as compared to 2008). Renewable electricity production under EEG feed-in conditions - almost all fed directly into the net - grew continuously, up till 74,9 TWh in that "crisis" year, with strong to massive (PV) growth of new installations promising more full-year renewable electricity production in coming years. Average growth of EEG production in this period has been 7,2 TWh/year. Year-on-year growth percentage was, on average, 26%.

Figure 2. Graph comparable to Fig. 1, but now with share of EEG electricity in total electricity consumption in percent (green columns, right Y-axis). A level of already 16,1%* has been reached in 2009, with good perspective for sustained further growth. Please note that burning of biomass in fossil-based power plants is not accepted under German EEG conditions, which makes this already high percentage the more surprising. Example: in the Netherlands, in 2009 only 8,89% of total electricity consumption has been considered as "renewable" (formerly: "sustainable", see CBS table) by CBS. 2,15% has been the contribution of mostly imported biomass burnt ["cogeneration"] in fossil coal- or gas-fired power plants, that is 24% of total "renewable". Only wind on land, a "true renewable" produced with single-source renewable electricity generating machines, contributed more, 38%...

* In an update to their year report (published June 2010, see pdf), the Environment Ministry BMU published actualized data in August 2010. According to that update, renewables would already contribute 16,3% tot gross electricity consumption in Germany. Source: this document.

Figure 3. Contribution to physical, measured production (in TWh/year) of major renewable electricity options in Germany up till 2009, with prognosis for photovoltaics in 2010 (last column). Wind energy has been the dominant driver of renewable electricity for years and has grown strongly (over half of total production in 2009). It's share in the EEG mix, however, becomes suppressed by biomass (mainly decentralized fermentation on agricultural premises) and rapidly evolving photovoltaics. Only strong development in repowering of old wind-parcs on land, and increasing the pace with off-shore wind parcs can reverse that trend. Small-scale hydropower (EEG: maximum for highest tariff 5 MW, only extensions of existing and modernized plants allowed for much lower tariffs) has been stabile for years. The output is mainly dependent on yearly rainfall. Up till 2003 also the production of the three renewable "gases" has been included in this category (hatched columns 2001-2003). As of 2004 a separate class was created for this trio: landfill-, water purification plant-, and biogenerated mine-gas (dark green segments). For 2000 data for all categories were unavailable and only total production of EEG electricity has been shown (open column at left, 10,4 TWh). For 2009 the contributions of the separate options have also been given in absolute numbers.

Prognosis PV contribution in 2010
The final column gives a prognosis for photovoltaics only for 2010, based on a highly interesting article by Andreas Beneking in Photon (august 2010, caption "Umlage 2010", p. 29). According to Beneking, the latest net managers' predictions would account for a total of 8.296 GWh in 2010. The latest published prognosis for PV (up till 2015, see pdf on EEG-KWK website, dated May 11, 2009) however, only predicted 6.639 GWh for that year. Note that these new "insights" of the net managers apparently promise 25% more solar electricity... To make prospects more exciting: On basis of the enormous growth of installed PV-capacity in 2009 (3.806 MWp), the boom in the first half year of 2010 (app. 3.400 MWp), and further very strong growth expected in the second half of 2010, Photon claims even over 11 GWh of PV-generated production in this year. The difference between "suggested new claim of net managers" (8,3 TWh), and the extra 2,7 TWh suggested by Photon, has been illustrated graphically in the two-tiered hatched column on the right under 2010. If the "Photon scenario" will turn out to become true, it is obvious that photovoltaics is rapidly becoming a major contributor to Germany's renewable electricity mix, if further "political accidents" with the market conditions could be avoided. Notwithstanding the outcome of that red-hot political process, it is for certain that the world market for photovoltaics again will experience exciting years to come.

Figure 4. Graph comparable to Fig. 3, with exclusion of the years 2000 and 2010 (lack of data). In the present graph, the relative proportions of the renewable electricity options have been shown on a 100 percent scale ("total renewable electricity production under EEG conditions"). Also from this graph it becomes evident that wind power is gradually losing some terrain (51,4% in 2009), that biomass has grown considerably (30,6%), and that photovoltaics has great potential to claim more of the total EEG mix, with a share of already 8,8% of total in 2009 (6,58 TWh). In 2009 wind power has been split into wind on land an wind offshore by BDEW (split not shown in graphs), but the latter did not yet contribute much to the mix: only 37,5 GWh or 0,05% of total EEG electricity. The significance of hydropower (including "gases" up till 2003, hatched light blue columns) is dwindling gradually in the mix (share of hydropower only going down from 12,0% in 2004 to 6,5% in 2009). The same applies to the share of the three "gases" as a separate category (dark green column segments as of 2004, 2,7% in 2009). Geothermal, although producing 18,8 GWh in 2009, still is in its nascent stage (several start-up projects) and invisible in these graphs (contribution in 2009 has been 2,5 promille = 0,025%). 100% EEG electricity, of course, has grown in absolute volume from 10,4 TWh in 2000 up till 74,9 TWh in 2009 (see Fig. 1).

Figure 5. In this graph two important factors for determining the ultimate "EEG Umlage" have been shown, as derived from the BDEW year reports. The "Umlage" is the fee included in (or perhaps better formulated: on top of) the kWh price for almost all electricity consumers. This fee ultimately pays for the difference between the cumulation of all EEG feed-in tariffs awarded by Law, and the market price obtained for that amount of electricity sold (by the four biggest net managers) on the Leipziger Strombörse (since Jan. 1, 2010 a new "Wälzungsmechanismus" has been implemented). Administrative costs are now also included in the EEG administration. Green columns (left Y-axis) show the average EEG price. This has increased considerably in recent years, due to strong market growth and accumulation with the production of all the older installations still included in the pay-out regime of the - often over 20 year valid - EEG feed-in conditions. Added to this the relative expensive feed-in for PV (market volumes having grown rapidly), explains the growing average price.

In orange columns (right Y-axis) the share of EEG electricity for the "non-priviliged" consumers has been shown, revealing a strong trend upwards. There are approximately 500 large companies consuming large amounts of electricity (like the railways) that are excluded from this regime, but that have to comply with a maximum of 0,05 eurocent per kWh as a special EEG tariff for this category. The rest of the EEG feed-in has to be paid by the "non-priviliged" rate-payers, defined as a fixed fee per kWh consumed. Note that all hundreds of thousands of owners of PV-installations, also having the standard consumption meter next to their new feed-in meter, will have to pay that fee for their consumption. The fee is calculated as follows:

EEG-Durchschnittsvergütung = average EEG feed-in tariff (total tariffs paid in Euro divided by total kWh feed-in by EEG installations per year).

Durchschnittliche Strombezugskosten = average price for year futures for electricity on Leipzig Electrictiy Stock Exchange (Future Base Year), as of Jan. 1, 2010.

Differenzkosten = difference between above-mentioned components.

EEG-Quote = percentage of EEG electricity to be paid by non-priviliged electricity consumers via their yearly energy bill, in other words: their "obligatory share".

EEG-Umlage = fee per kWh on top of normal/other kWh-related variable costs to be paid by non-priviliged end-users consuming electricity, contributing to cost-recovery of the feed-in tariffs paid to EEG-electricity producers by the local net managers. The amount of money paid by the electricity consumer thus depends on their consumption and could - in theory - help in stimulating him/her extra to use less electricity ("polluter pays principle"). Hence, total fees paid will be higher if consumption is high, and lower if consumption is low. If rational electricity use would indeed be promoted by this mechanism, the financial pressure on big electricity consumers would rise as consumption with more conscious users would diminish, since the Umlage depends on total electricity use.

The fee to be paid in 2010 has been based on prognoses of the development of the electricity consumption and EEG production, and has been fixed at 2,047 Eurocent/kWh (this site). A combination of research institutes (DLR, IWES and IFNE) recently published a study (download from this webpage) in June 2010. In that study a prognosis for 2011 has been made, taking into account strong growth of the photovoltaic market in Germany that probably necessitates a higher Umlage fee for 2010. The difference (expectation: app. 0,3 Eurocent/kWh) will have to be compensated in 2011. For that year, the authors calculated an expected Umlage (including compensation for 2010) of 2,7 Eurocent/kWh excl. VAT. For development of the EEG Umlage in historical terms and with prognosis, see Figure 9.

Figure 6. Feed-in costs (amounts of money paid by local net managers to EEG-compliant producers of renewable electricity) per option in 2000-2009 in Germany. Refer to left Y-axis for amounts in million Euro/year for individual options. In gray (broad, translucent columns) total direct EEG feed-in costs are given (right Y-axis, in billion Euro/year, note that this amount is not yet compensated for avoided net costs or other corrections). For 2000-2001 individual cost components were not provided by BDEW. Costs increase strongly for photovoltaics (yellow) and biomass (green), as new capacities are built in large numbers and with increasing average and overall power, cumulating on top of the existing installations. Wind power cost in 2009 had dropped compared to 2008, mainly due to a bad wind year (and start of repowering projects, taking older turbines from the grid).

Figure 7. Graph comparable to Fig. 6, excluding the years 2000-2001 (no individual data available). Again (like in Fig. 4), relative shares of each option have been visualized on a 100 percent scale (total cost of all feed-in incentives paid out). Original data have been added for each option in numbers (million Euro/year). The significance of the total fees paid for wind as related to total costs is strongly decreasing, as it is the cheapest renewable electricity option (although volumes are still growing each year). Biomass and photovoltaics have comparable strong impact on total costs, as they grow in volume, and with higher tariff structures for the feed-in. Photovoltaics reached a level of 3,16 billion Euro in 2009, and will grow further considerably in 2010-2011.

Figure 8. After adjusting for net costs avoided by decentralized production of renewable electricity, and compensating for correction of data in earlier years, total "feed-in costs" are calculated by BDEW, from which the average feed-in tariff can be derived. Total costs increase each year, as Germany succeeds in bringing large volumes of new installations (in particular PV), and healthy growth in the market for - on average - bigger renewable energy installations. Total "cost" has been 10,45 billion Euro in 2009, but one should not forget that this is only one side of the medal. The other, the "net income" side, is much harder to calculate, because of the "free market" mechanisms that have to be taken into account. With volatile market prices for "average electricity" on the Leipziger Strombörse, the politically very sensitive CO2 emission "rights" issues (in particular the price to be paid per tonne), and the uncertain avoided social costs for reducing internal consumption of dwindling, highly problematic, polluting, and ever further monopolized fossil sources. See further below for discussion on the "benefits" of the EEG regime.

Figure 9. Development of the "EEG Umlage", the fee that all non-priviliged electricity consumers have to pay, as explained in the caption under Fig. 5. I used four sources for this graph. Up till 2009 ("historical development") the BMU report "Erneuerbare Energien in Zahlen. Nationale und internationale Entwicklung" (p. 29), most probably with price corrections (based on 2009 conditions) for earlier years. Since the data for 2001 and 2003 were not given I interpolated the possible "2009 reference" value. Columns for these years have been indicated with a dashed (black) outline.

For 2009, a correction of the earlier stated 1,2 Eurocent/kWh has been given in an August 2010 update by BMU. In that update, for 2009 the Umlage has been fixed at 1,3 Eurocent/kWh. This is 18% higher than the fee in the previous year.

For 2010 I used the present fee fixed by the four big "Übertragungsnetzbetreiber" on the KWK-EEG website, 2,047 Eurocent/kWh (57% higher than the - adjusted - fee in 2009). The prognosis for 2011, 2,7 Eurocent/kWh excl. VAT (dashed open column at the right) comes from an interesting report from a consortium of research institutes under the guidance of Bernd Wenzel and Joachim Nitsch of June 2010 (Institutes involved: DLR's Institut für Technische Thermodynamik, Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik IWES, and Ingenieurbüro für neue Energien, IFNE). Paragraph 4.5 of that report summarizes the expected development of the EEG Umlage. Taking into account the surprising, but policy-driven, very strong market growth of photovoltaics in Germany, the KWK-EEG claim of 2,047 eurocent/kWh for 2010 most probably has been on the low side. This will have to be corrected by the retail companies selling electricity in 2011, and again, strong growth of renewables - in particular PV - will further stimulate increase of the Umlage to be paid by all rate payers in coming years.

Umlage rising: multiple cause
The strong rise of the EEG Umlage in 2010 has a threefold cause: (1) collapse of value of EEG electricity sold on the market (7 to 5,3 Eurocent/kWh, due to economic world crisis). Because of the lower value of the EEG electricity in this crisis period, the "difference costs" have to be paid by the unpriviliged consumers. If market prices will rise again, difference will again become smaller, and rate-payers will have to pay less for the EEG Umlage. (2) Transfer of marketing costs for sale of EEG electricity. These were "hidden" in the transportation costs, and now are administered under the EEG cost umbrella. The end effect for consumers (paying less transportation costs, but more for the EEG Umlage) will be zero, but the transferred sum (app. 0,4 billion Euro/year) will, of course, appear as such in the EEG "cost" structure. (3) Rising new capacities of renewable installations, the most "expensive" options PV and biomass (e.g., fermenters) in particular.

Wenzel and Nitsch also extrapolated further EEG Umlage development, which they expect will follow this trajectory for the "Deutlich" (most aggressive) cost scenario: 2010 2,3 €ct/kWh, 2015 2,7 €ct/kWh, 2020 1,9 €ct/kWh, 2025 1,0 €ct/kWh, and 2030 0,1 €ct/kWh (table 1.1 in pdf).

Protest against rising Umlage costs
In an article by Roland Schmied of the industrial lobby organisation VIK ("Energie für die Industrie") of July 29, 2010, it has been suggested, based on a "conservative calculation", that the Umlage for 2011 could rise to 3,532 Eurocent/kWh (suggesting an even higher possible level if market growth will be very strong). Details were not given, but even if the 3,5 Eurocent/kWh will not be reached, further political turmoil can be expected if the Umlage reaches levels that VIK considers a threat for its industrial members that fall out of the "priviliged" class (the latter have to pay only 0,05 Eurocent/kWh as their "EEG contribution"). VIK claims that two-third of its "unpriviliged" members will bear the full load that also consumers will have to take. VIK even suggests a cap on the EEG market ("Deckelung der EEG-Umlage") to stall rising energy costs for their members. But such a drastic measure will spell disaster for market conditions for, in particular, the most "expensive" renewable options such as PV (capping of the Umlage almost certainly implies capping new capacity volumes accepted, or non-economic feed-in tariffs for PV). What VIK forgets, of course, is that their members pay a much lower price for electricity than private consumers, and that market prices have collapsed due to the economic crises. In addition, that "market price" is pushed downward, just because of the huge volumes of renewable electricity obligatory traded by the four biggest net managers on the Leipziger Strombörse. Even negative prices are becoming apparent on some very windy days (on those days, in theory, VIK members could join a free ride with electricity for a bargain). As capacities are increased further, the damping effect of renewables on market prices will benefit to all electricity consumers. Even solar electricity, just 1-2 percent of total electricity consumption in Germany, has shown starting to shave midday consumption peaks at Leipzig's EEX electricity exchange. Graphs were shown implying smoothing of costs and preventing starting up of expensive peak-load facilities (article in Photon, august 2010: pp. 22-29, "Photovoltaik stellt die Systemfrage"). In the end, part of the socialized EEG feed-in costs to be paid by VIK members could, of course, be earned back by installing a PV-system on the mostly large roofs of their premises under present-day, still interesting EEG conditions.

Renewables are not the biggest kWh price driver
What many critics of the "cost" structure of the EEG also forget is that, although the fee to be paid still is rising, the biggest cost driver for the kWh price remains the costs of production, transport and marketing of electricity from centralized fossil and nuclear sources, as revealed by the yearly publication of the EEG developments by the Environment Ministry, BMU for household customers:

^^^ Graph from p. 29 of the June 2010 report, see this link. Clearly, production, transport and marketing of electricity remains by far the largest kWh determining component (dark blue base of each column). This large post grew from 60,1% in 2000 to 61,2% of total kWh costs in 2009. The EEG Umlage to be paid by all non-priviliged consumers (orange segments) grows as well, but it was only 5,2% of total kWh price in 2009, 1,4% in 2000 when the EEG was implemented. In 2009, the EEG Umlage still was one third smaller than the so-called "concession fee". And it was half of taxation on electricity ("Stromsteuer" or "ecotax") and less than one third of VAT, both to be paid to the State. Note that some data slightly differ from earlier reports by BMU (2008 year report: for 2001 Umlage 0,3; 2002 0,4 instead of 0,3; 2003 0,4; 2004 0,6 instead of 0,4; no further changes in Umlage price). This probably is related to market-related price corrections, since in one of the tables given by BMU "In Preisen von 2009" is mentioned. Historical data provided by BMU do not correspond with the data provided by industrial lobby organisation VIK. © 2010 BMU

In the report worked out by Wenzel & Nitsch (2010) it is further emphasized that, due to an expected maximum of the "EEG-Differenzkosten" in the years 2015-2016, the ultimate EEG-Umlage for non-priviliged customers would sink again, reaching a predicted maximum of around 3 Eurocent/kWh (excl. VAT) in those years. The authors claim that in coming years the "EEG cost zenith" will be reached, but that photovoltaics will dominate the total costs of EEG. For a household using 3.500 kWh/year, the monthly contribution to the incentives for the world market in photovoltaics would rise to a maximum of approximately 3 Euro/month (ex VAT) in the strong development "Deutlich" case (in the years 2015-2016, sinking afterwards, for impact of the whole EEG Umlage, see table below). That would amount to a per household contribution of approximately 36 Euro a year to the decentralized photovoltaics revolution applicable to millions of sites. Less if that household will limit its yearly consumption, which in many cases is within reach (the webmaster of Polder PV used only 1.200 kWh/year for a long time in a household of two persons). Of course, these data will be influenced if the photovoltaics boom continues, with new capacities probably much larger that predicted in these scenario's (W. & N. estimate 6 GWp for photovoltaics in 2010, it could turn out to be considerably more, with already 3,4 GWp realized in the first half year, according to Bundesnetzagentur).

Finally, also calculation examples for the yearly costs are given for two price development scenario's. For the "high price" ("Deutlich") scenario the table from the Wenzel & Nitsch study is given below:

^^^ EEG costs (all options included) for different types of customers estimated in the Wenzel & Nitsch study for four selected years, and for the "strong growth" ("Deutlich") scenario. Note maximum fees in 2015 and decreasing fees in later years. Households with low electricity consumption (2.000 kWh/year) pay a fee approximately 56% of that of "average" households ("Referenzhaushalt) with 3.500 kWh/year consumption in 2010. And 33% of the 138 Euro to be paid by households consuming 6.000 kWh/year. "Gewerbe" are companies with consumption rates between 20.000 (small) and 150.000 kWh/year (large). Industrial companies are divided into four categories with consumption rates between 3 million and 1,5 billion kWh/year. There is a big difference between "protected" ("privilegiert") and "unprotected" ("nicht priviligiert") industrial companies with respect to their contribution to financing the succesful EEG system. Reaching a maximum difference of 540.000 Euro/year in 2015 (for unpriviliged companies using 20 million kWh/year) as opposed to only 64.000 Euro for priviliged companies. © Wenzel & Nitsch (2010), see this document published June 2010

Merit order drives market price down - by renewables (BMU report 2009, page 29). As explained in increasing detail, BMU has stressed that apart from the intensively debated "cost" side of the EEG, there are also many benefits that should be taken into consideration for a fair and balanced discussion on its impact on society. One of these benefits is the so-called "merit-order effect", resulting from the mechanism of decreasing market prices as a result of obligatory sale of large volumes of renewable electricity having no fuel costs. Therefore, renewables like wind are already off-setting the most expensive final contributers to the spot-price mix, resulting in a lower spot-price on the market. Depending on the contract conditions, customers most likely will profit from that lower market price. BMU has planned to monitor the effects in increasing detail, and their first revelations have been published in this table in their 2009 year report:

The table shows that the merit-order effect could have resulted in profits for society amounting to 5 billion Euro in 2006, 3,7 billion Euro in 2007, and 3,6-4,0 billion Euro in 2008.

Other benefits
Of course there are many other benefits for society, such as jobs (for photovoltaics many thousands in the installation sector*), avoiding expensive social unemployment fees to be paid, generating income tax, keeping an increasing amount of the staggering fossil-fuel based money transfers "normally" leaking away in the region, thereby increasing social-economic stability, eroding the dangerous dependencies on foreign and/or further strongly monopolizing fossil and nuclear energy conglomerates, democratizing national energy production, cleaning up the environment, re-using large stretches of contaminated or wasted "fossil fuel sites" like big lignite mines and polluted former power plant sites (large PV power plants possible on these premises), cleaner air, more self-responsibility, etc. Many of these positive impacts, hard to calculate in a precise manner, will also have indirect, but massive impact on monetary relations. Because more money will be invested in hardware producing healthy and dark green energy for many years to come, instead of in immense, not physically-backed air-balloons like those that brought the financial sector on the brink of collapse. Another highly questionable "balloon" being the very misty "trade" in CO2 emission "rights", fraude-generating "clean development mechanisms", double booking of "green" certificates, and the like...

* Jobs according to year report BMU (p. 27): 300.500 in renewable energy, 8% increase in crisis year 2009 as compared to 2008. Solar energy including photovoltaics: increase of 74.400 (2008) up till 79.600 in 2009 (almost 7% increase in a year).

One of the most promising direct effects is that preliminary calculations by BMU resulted in avoided costs of 70 Euro per tonne CO2. One of the studies commanded by BMU came up with a total of 7,8 billion Euro avoided costs for the environment for a combination of renewable electricity (5,7 billion Euro) and heat (2,1 billion Euro). Taking into account the (avoided) costs for CO2 certificates and partial internalisation of costs for the environment, still 4,8 billion Euro would remain as positive effect for renewable electricity, and 2,0 billion Euro for renewable heat. Again: these large benefits should be taken into account when considering "costs and benefit calculations" of total EEG impact (and other regimes stimulating renewables). BMU will further analyse detail effects in coming years.

If we would only take the average merit-order effect of the three years shown in the table above, app. 4,2 billion Euro, and the above-mentioned remaining 4,8 billion Euro for avoided environment costs by renewable electricity, already 9 billion Euro should be put on the other side of the "10,5 billion Euro cost scale" (Fig. 8) for EEG feed-in billed to the rate-payers. Hence, these two benefit posts compensate for the biggest part of what some critics suggest would be a waste of money if they write about the impact of the EEG (only stressing "costs").

In addition avoided CO2 emission costs for all options in Germany (renewable electricity, heat, and motor fuels) would bring another app. gross 7,4 billion Euro as "profit" (before internalisation of CO2 costs) as "vermiedene Klimaschäden" for the 107 million tonnes of CO2 avoided by renewables in 2009.

For further reading and two interesting "climate costs graphs per option", see pp. 33-34 of the 2009 study by BMU. In the report extensive details are given for the impact of all renewables in that year.

Further results of the "all-renewable" package deal of Germany
The EEG is not the only Law or measure that has made Germany the world market for succesfull implementation and strong growth of renewables. A summary of some of the highlights of the 2009 year report is given here. Please, be aware of the fact that these are data for one of the most heavily industrialized nations on Earth...:

• 10,3 % renewable share in total end-user energy consumption (2008: 9,3 %);
• 16,1 % renewable share in gross electricity consumption (2008: 15,2 %);
• 8,8 % renewable share in end-user energy consumption for heating (2008: 7,4 %);
• 5,5 % renewable share in the consumption of motor fuels (2008: 5,9 %);
• Investments in "crisis" year 2009: 20 billion Euro in renewables (2008: 15,3 bn. Euro);
• Value creation from exploitation of renewable energy installations 16 billion Euro (2008: 15,3 bn. Euro);
• Avoided greenhouse gas emissions [CO2 equivalents] in total approximately 108 billion tonnes.

Links

Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft (BDEW, data source for most graphs presented on this page)

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/2720/5466/ (comprehensive state of knowledge of effects of German EEG in the 2009 year report, "Erneuerbare Energien in Zahlen - nationale und internationale Entwicklung"; several other fascinating documents, and full-spreadsheet with summary of all relevant details. Unparalleled "Deutsch-Grundlich").
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/45026/main/ (page from which the Wenzel/Nitsch study of June 2010 can be downloaded)
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/46260/4590/ (future of German EEG analyzed with reference to strongly changed market conditions and cost development, BMU, juni 2010)

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/43981/ (questions and answers pertaining to German's EEG Law)
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/45911/43981/ ("six critical questions about and misinterpretations of the German EEG regime")
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/46348/4613/ (adapted EEG 2010 Novelle dated August 11, 2010, including strong extra degression steps as of July 1, 2010, and exclusion of new free field PV-installations from the EEG Law as of that date)

http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/de/solarenergie/detailansicht/article/36/foerderung-fuer-oekoenergien-kosten-und-nutzen-transparent-machen.html (11 oktober 2010: "Förderung für Ökoenergien: „Kosten und Nutzen transparent machen“" - Study of Wuppertal Institut in abstract. Watch the included graph!!!)

http://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/de/solarenergie/detailansicht/article/39/grafik-dossier-stromkosten-privater-haushalte.html (electricity costs for German households - all aspects in graphs and informative notes and lots of very interesting links)

Webpage published August 30, 2010. Updates: September 1, 2010 (EEG Umlage 2009 by BMU); December 9, 2010 (Abstract link Wuppertal Institute study, electricity costs German households link)