


And the Germans did it at roughly half the price.

In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the German solar industry finished 2011 off with a bang — installing 3,000 megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.

Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany installed almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S. developed during all of 2011. Preliminary figures show Germany ended the year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended up with about 1,700 megawatts, according to GTM Research.

Oh, and I should probably mention that the Germans installed all of that solar at almost half the price. The average price of an installed solar system in Germany came to $2.80 in the third quarter of 2011. In the U.S., it was about $5.20 in the third quarter.


Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not creating a “market” like we imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end of 2011 is representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a rush in December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do in the U.S. when tax credits and rebates are about to expire?

It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech Republic which caused an unsustainable boom before crashing down. But when looking at the numbers and pricing that the German solar market continues to post, there’s still a very compelling argument for states and municipalities to consider moderate, long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in tariffs.

33 Responses to Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011

  1. prokaryotes says:

    This is so lame! What are people expecting, what will likely happen if we keep this carbon footprint up???

    How stupid are humans??

  2. john tucker says:

    That is totally ridiculous. Realistically now we should probably be around 15-20 GW / year just solar. PV and thermal.

    No “green” group should be satisfied or fixating on distractions until they can achieve that at least. By whatever economic shell game that actually can make it happen.

  3. The number for Q4 is 4.15 GW, as the link you are giving in the “update” above reports.

  4. Mark Shapiro says:

    This is an astonishing success story. 4 GW of PV installed in one quarter in Germany, At 55 deg N!

    Feed in tariffs can fail badly, as you note about Spain and the Czech Republic.

    The price tells the story: $2.80 per Watt. Wow! Imagine how fast our desert Southwest would fill with PV at that price!

  5. fj says:

    We’re in an age of technological metamorphosis where mechanics is rapidly being replaced by electronics.

    This never ceases to amaze me.

  6. John Tucker says:

    Us peak demand is probably up around 850 GW summer. Installed at optimal locations solar PV is 20% of nameplate. Solar Thermal can as high as 60.

    If that number I said seems ridiculously high – remember in 20 years that would only be 400 Gw or around 100 GW of power tops with todays tech – at which point (20 year mark) a good deal of it would be needed to replace existing systems too.

    Since our electricity use peaks in summer and so does solar supply it is probably ridiculously low to only expect for 400 GW as a responsible amount of solar.

  7. Solar Jim says:

    The trend almost seems to be toward electricity “too cheap to meter.” And it is nuclear – the safe kind. It is especially too cheap to meter if you decide not to have one because you disconnect via on site storage. (In Connecticut this past Fall the utility disconnected almost the entire state for a week, due to snow in October. And that was a month after Hurricane Irene outages.)

    Maybe the US (which invented silicon based photovoltaics) can grow up some day to be more successful, like no-nuke Germany. Or are we stuck as an atomic petro-state with close Arab relations?

  8. David B. Benson says:

    Actually, there is a world price (range) for installed solar PV. One has to properly account for all the various incentives + tax breaks. In Germany the taxpayers are subsidizing ratepayers. Even so only the fortunate (and rich) can afford a roof top sized solar PV installation. Many live in apartments (flats) without the opportunity for this investment.

    Not clear that by anybody’s notion of economics this is equitable; it seems to me a quite expensive way to generate electricity. Germans already pay the second highest rates in Europe (but then Germans are, on average, quite prosperous so maybe it doesn’t matter).

  9. sault says:

    Well, since everybody who breathes is subsidizing fossil fuels by bearing the burden of pollution on their bodies and wallets, a feed-in tariff is the LEAST the government can do to try and level out the playing field. How about we put a price on on each ton of mercury, soot, fly ash, NOx, SO2, particulate matter, ozone and CO2 emitted instead? It would be more difficult to manage, but it would correct the horrendous Market Failures that all the externalities of pollution present.

  10. Don Natvig says:

    Really, an expensive way to generate electricity?

    At $3 per watt, the cost of solar is now less than half and maybe only a fourth or fifth of the startup costs of a nuclear power plant, and this does not even scratch the surface of the true cost of nuclear when upkeep, management, safety, and the long-term storage of wastes are added to the picture.

    Put another way, at $3 per watt, the solar equivalent of a 2 gigawatt nuclear plant (which is on the large side of such plants) would cost $6 billion. That means the Iraq war at $1 trillion could have purchased the SOLAR EQUIVALENT of 1 trillion/6 billion = 167 nuclear power plants (3 for each state). But we got so much more for the money by going to war, didn’t we?

  11. Speedy says:

    Keep in mind that PV has a 20% capacity factor at best, while nuclear routinely have >90%. With that in mind, a 3$/W PV installation effectively becomes 15$/W, while a 5$/W nuclear plant (in the ballpark of the much over budget Olkiluoto 3) becomes 5,56$/W.

    This completely ignores the cost of storage and/or backup (usually dirty and dangerous gas) during night and cloudy days.

  12. J4zonian says:


    Keep in mind that coal, gas, and oil are causing the destruction of civilization and the possible extinction of most life on Earth and even the self-perpetuating cybernetic system of all life on Earth that we call Gaia. How do we factor the cost of that into the equation to compare to the cost of solar, wind and other renewables that don’t cause all those inconveniences?

    Also consider the synergistic effect of combining different sources like wind and solar across broad geographic areas in a distributed system… and the existence of clean storage like pumped storage, solar thermal, etc. ?

    Keep in mind the high capital costs and long lag time of nuclear–it’s long construction time, long time to pay back its carbon construction costs, less-incrememental and thus less interest-compounding growth, its decreasing fuel reserves, toxic qualities and storage problems, etc. Compared to efficiency, organic carbon sequestration and renewables it makes very little sense unless the goal is to reduce economic and therefore political democracy.

  13. David B. Benson says:

    Don Natvig & J4zonian — No matter how figured solar PV together with a low carbon backup costs more than NPPs until the fully internalized cost of solar PV (plus low carbon backup) is around US$0.08/kWh LESS than electical energy from NPPs. That might seem strange, but both solar PV and NPPs have very low variable costs;essentially all costs are either capital costs or fixed O&M. So the way the economics works out isn’t a clear cut as one might initialy think nor as rosy as the solar PV promoters would have yu think.

  14. sault says:

    We also need to keep in mind the undeniable link between the Light Water Reactor Fuel Cycle and weapons grade nuclear material. The LWR was selected PRECISELY because its fuel cycle was the most mature at the end of the Manhattan Project. If we had abandoned nuclear power as we should have in the 1970s, Iran would have ZERO ability to use its civilian nuclear power program as a blatant cover for its weapons program.

  15. russh says:

    @speedy I disagree that nuclear has a load capacity of >90%, research shows that as reactors get older their performance suffers and the average over life is ~60%

  16. J4zonian says:

    Continued use of fossil fuels will cost us the planet. So any costs of solar, wind, etc., no matter how they compare to the skewed, externalization-ridden and profit-oriented prices we have today are miniscule by comparison. Nuclear’s high capital costs, numerous externalities and continuing subsidies, long lag time for construction and payback for construction carbon and the need to solve the climate problem before even the first nuclear reactor started now would likely be online mean it can’t be the solution. And I would think that the lessons of TMI, Brown’s Ferry, Chernobyl and Fukushima as well as hundreds of other incidents of leaks, corruption, and the inevitably-accompanying lies and cover ups would be that nuclear is not the way to go.

  17. Jim says:

    Utility scale PV in the US today is between $2.30-$2.50/Wac installed. Today, right now.

    Capacity factor in the southwest is around 30%.

    Today, right now.

  18. SmilingAhab says:

    You seem to not be accounting for the fact that all these aging, dilapidated reactors are 70s technology. Reactors have come a long way since then, to the point of gen-3+ and gen-4 reactors costing a sixth in startup capital & time and costing much less in management as the manner of handling and processing nuclear materials has completely departed from the old rod/pellet in a giant bucket of water model, such as thorium salt and breeder reactors. LFTR reactors can burn off what is called waste by other facilities. Breeders can burn most all of it.

    Just remember that the failures of today are of corporate complacency and lack of innovation due to using market ideology to run a utility. Modern reactors and their designers’ being shunned are not nearly to blame.

  19. David B. Benson says:

    J4zonian — I’ve looked into all those matters rather carefully. In comparison to other industries, NPPs are highly and well regulated and are much safer. Could do better, of course, but the LLE risk from NPPs is about the same as the LLE risk of eating peanut butter.

    To replace coal burners with a low carbon source there is no alternative except at a cost too high to seriously consider. Learn to do the electrical energy economics yourself; don’t just take somebody’s word for it.

    russh — One should cite sources. By following Wolrd Nuclear News it is quite evident that the capacity factor of NPPs has increased over time. It now stands at around 92%; the new Gen III designs under construction ought to do a bit bettr than that, but time will tell.

  20. David B. Benson says:

    The capacity factor is the Mohave desert is 25%. As a result, the LCOE for solar PV stands close to US$0.20/kWh, much higher than for even an expensive NPP such as the Areva EPR.

  21. MorinMoss says:

    With the kind of sustained and predictable insolation that most of the US Southwest gets, it would be a tremendous benefit to focus on solar PV and thermal, cut back on new wind farms, and aggressively shut down the worst coal plants in the area.
    Five years of concerted effort towards those goals should pay a great many local dividends including jobs, jobs, jobs.

  22. MorinMoss says:

    It’s a great irony that it’s Germany who’s leading on solar when their average insolation is not all that good.
    It should be the US with its large flat roofs, sprawling parking lots, vast sunny states and insatiable demand for power and cooling that should be the world’s Solar Champion.

  23. J4zonian says:


    Maybe you’re not accounting for the fact that commercial “next-gen” thorium and breeder reactors don’t exist, and projected costs of new nuclear are astronomical and growing, not shrinking. And thank Gaia they don’t exist; the last thing we need is an over militarized country like the US, obsessed and paranoid about terrorists and using every excuse to ramp up weapons and surveillance systems and disappear human rights, trucking plutonium back and forth all over.

    All kinds of technologies looks better before they actually exist. Too cheap to meter, safe as houses, blah blah blah. And then they actually build some, and what we get is half a century of subsidies with no end in sight, TMI, Brown’s Ferry’s comedy of errors, Chernobyl’s pathetic tragedy, Fukushima’ horror. Thousands of incidents, near-misses, lies and cover ups… and construction times and costs waaaaaaay over the projections and estimates and the costs of the alternatives. OMB gave it a 50% chance that loan guarantees for reactors would be defaulted on, leaving the US public holding the bag…again. And what about the next accident? Where will it be—and how bad?

    Expectations have been halved for reactors built by 2035, so nuclear has even less chance than it ever did (which was almost zero) of helping solve the climate crisis in time. In the end, probably the most pernicious effect of nuclear power is its concentration of profits compared to decentralized efficiency, solar and wind, and the resulting destruction of practical democracy.

    The failures of today are exactly the same as the failures to come—caused by arrogance, corruption, and addiction to profits (among other things). To say that reactors are not to blame is like saying guns don’t kill people, etc. etc.. OK, true. But how many fatal drive-by spatula-slappings have you heard of? In any case, nobody’s blaming reactors, and “their designer’s being shunned”??? Huh-Wha?

    Blame is irrelevant. Preserving life on Earth is the issue, and nuclear is making it harder.

  24. J4zonian says:


    To say that the nuclear industry is well-regulated and safer than other industries suggests you haven’t looked into these matters carefully enough. Fukushima alone is enough evidence that that’s not true, and there’s a pile of other evidence. We’ve been lucky so far, but the several major and many minor accidents as well as continued crimes and cover ups, including the collusion of captured regulators make the nuclear industry an unacceptable burden to humanity.

    And to say that there is no alternative except at too high a cost just seems ludicrous. Since you give no evidence or support and cite no references it’s hard to even know how you arrived at that conclusion but clearly wind, solar and other renewables are being produced at a cost that is perfectly acceptable, and are growing at a phenomenal rate (though still not fast enough). The cost of efficiency is even less, and to change our lives to make our lives more rational, connected and ecological the net benefits are enormous.

  25. MorinMoss says:

    It shouldn’t be an either/or between advanced nuclear and solar. Nuclear is baseload; solar PV is typically well-matched to daytime peaks.

    Nuke plants have long construction times – 4 Areva EPR are all behind schedule, especially Olkiluoto, 75% over budget (so far), 3 yrs behind schedule and MIGHT fire up 9 yrs after construction began.
    Yes, it’ll produce plenty of power but that’s a long time to live off candles.
    Solar (and wind),notwithstanding their lower capacity factors can be producing power within months, weeks, even days, if the transmission is in place.

  26. David B. Benson says:

    J4zonian — I have looked at all those matters rather carefully, including the big publicity events at Fukushima Dai Ichi. I have looked at the alternatives, with great care. The usual proponents leave out the bulk storage required to utilize sources subject to uncontrollable variation.

    If coming to a rational conclusion is of interest to you, I recommend the TCASE series on Barry Brook’s Brave New Climate.

  27. J4zonian says:

    Here’s something i don’t often do; offer advice. Stop saying you have looked into these matters very carefully and start presenting evidence. All you’re doing is making it clear you haven’t looked into anything carefully. And…”big publicity events”? Hmmm. Now it sounds as though you’re treading on the line dividing reality from conspiracy lunacy. The ongoing accident at Fukushima is kind of a black hole of publicity; it’s the opposite of a publicity ‘event’. There seems to be a gravity vortex that keeps all light and truth from getting out. We have very little idea what’s going on there, except it seems to be slowly getting worse. When will it stop? How long will the areas around it and Chernobyl be relegated to mutant wildlife?

    All energy sources are subject to some uncontrollable variation, as Fukushima and hundreds (at least) of other nuclear accidents (aka excursions, incidents, etc.) have shown. But wind and solar are actually pretty predictable, especially over wide geographical areas with distributed generation. As shown in Germany:

    The sun shines during the day, brightest at peak demand times, during summer in warm climes. Pretty predictable. The power, however, can be used at night, as Spain has shown:

    And wind blows strongest in many areas at night, and in winter. Complementarity.

    And careful proponents HAVE incorporated storage and complementarity requirements, like Rocky Mountain Institute, just to name one. It works out, anyway, quite a bit better than that meltdown-and-radiation-leakage-making-vast-land-areas-uninhabitable-for-millennia thing.

  28. MorinMoss says:

    I agree with some of your points on complementarity but unless there’s significant overlap, it implies building up to twice as much generation to fulfill X amount of demand.

    The Torresol plant is cool – I certainly hope to see more like it, where appropriate, if the tech is reliable but there’s no way it can produce 20 MW around the clock.
    So the question is what’s the average output when it’s producing for a full day.

  29. Greg Dees says:

    Mohave Desert and south would be great, as long as the eco-crowd don’t find some rare lizard or plant and block the use of the desert.

  30. Ceal Smith says:

    The problem in the US is that Wall Street/old energy interests run the county and they are obstructing virtually every effort communities and states are making to progress with local, distributed renewable energy. Until there is a mass movement to overcome excessive utility/corporate powers, and wage a ground-up push for FIT’s, we will be stuck in the dirty dark ages. Solar Done Right just launched a Call to Action for Energy Democracy, join us!

  31. Uncle B says:

    Bill Gates escapes the “American Nuclear Establishment”, goes to a more enlightened Chinese intelligentsia tells the story. China pursues Thorium fueled reactors, Thorium fueled CANDU in China proof it works, LFTR variety to be examined, tells story, this time, not by U.S. “slide rule club” of the 1950’s – who did in fact have great success, but by computer armed intelligentsia selected from all the Eurasian gene pool – for intelligence, not ability to pay or play ball, as in American schools,
    Solar, Wave, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, Geothermal, Anaerobic sewage digestion, Bio-mass, All, domestic, all safe, all well known processes, will promote a non nuclear Germany to highest status – remember: U.S. faces astounding “decommissioning fees”for nuclear electricity already used – another deficit that goes unmeasured in GDP calculations, and dangerously so!
    Fukushima, the final monument and tomb stone to Uranium fissioning here on earth, and the final marker for American nuclear technology. Bill Gates in China now takes the lead, and a CANDU revival under corporate direction soon to come from Canada.

  32. Kinda interesting when someone is proud to be knowledgable about technology, and at the same time proud to be ignorant about biology.