Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
Sun and Wind Don’t Pay the BillsThe latest auction results from the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) in February 2026 for onshore wind turbines paint a clear picture: the expansion of wind power is becoming increasingly unattractive for many investors. In the auction, the average awarded value fell to just 5.54 cents per kilowatt-hour – a decline of around 25 percent compared to the values two years ago and the lowest level since 2018. The wind itself produces electricity, but it does not pay the bills – and at these prices many projects simply no longer add up economically. Heavily oversubscribed – yet still getting cheaperThe onshore wind auction was heavily oversubscribed, as in previous rounds. With a tendered volume of 3,445 megawatts (MW), 924 bids were submitted totaling around 7,858 MW. Ultimately, 439 bids were awarded – exactly the tendered volume. The awarded prices ranged between 5.19 and 5.64 cents/kWh, with a volume-weighted average of 5.54 cents/kWh. For comparison: two years ago the values were still around 7.35 cents/kWh, and in the previous round about 6.06 cents/kWh. Each time it becomes cheaper because only the lowest bids are accepted.Particularly striking: in the southern federal states such as Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, only about two percent of the awarded volume was allocated. Wind conditions there are weaker. The maximum value for such locations is higher (previously up to 11.39 cents/kWh), but with an average of only 5.54 cents, turbines there are hardly profitable anymore. Wind turbines need wind – and in low-wind areas it simply produces too little output to cover the high investment and operating costs. A real calculation example: From return to lossA concrete example of a community wind turbine project (based on an earlier sales prospectus) by Stefan Spiegelsperger in the video illustrates the problem. Under earlier assumptions of around 20 million euros in revenue over 20 years, and after deducting operating costs, interest, and repayments, investors would achieve a return of about 4.16 percent – with invested capital of roughly 2.1 million euros. Many investors would reject such an offer: the money is tied up for 20 years and the return is modest.Now additional burdens are being added. Since April 2025, negative-price hours are no longer remunerated. In the previous year alone, this would already have resulted in about a 7 percent reduction in payouts. Experts expect 700–900 negative hours in 2026 – a sharply rising trend as more and more renewable energy plants connect to the grid and supply during weak demand pushes prices down. The lost hours are added back at the end of the 20-year support period, but that only helps to a limited extent. In the example of the community wind project, total revenue declines significantly as a result. Costs, however, remain the same. The result: instead of a small return, the investor would have to inject additional money over the course of 20 years. Even in good wind locations it becomes tight; in weaker regions it becomes nearly impossible. Solar by comparison: Similar system, but higher prices – for nowFor comparison: in the parallel auction for rooftop solar installations and systems on noise barriers, the bid volume was actually undersubscribed. The awarded prices ranged between 7.88 and 10.00 cents/kWh, with an average of 9.56 cents/kWh (slightly below the previous value). Solar therefore remains comparatively attractive – competition is weaker than for wind.In principle, the subsidy system for solar works the same way as for wind: there is no longer a fixed guaranteed feed-in tariff, but rather an “applicable value” (awarded value) that serves as the reference for the sliding market premium. The operator sells electricity on the exchange and receives the actual spot market price plus a premium (up to the applicable value if the exchange price is below it). If exchange prices are higher, the operator keeps the additional revenue. If prices are zero or negative, the premium disappears entirely – the operator bears the negative price themselves or curtails production. The pure levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for new solar installations is often around 4–7 cents/kWh for large ground-mounted systems, with rooftop installations somewhat higher. The difference to the applicable value of 9.56 cents does not simply represent “profit,” but mainly covers risks (negative prices, curtailment, uncertain yields), financing costs, and an appropriate return for investors. The cannibalization effect: the sun shines “everywhere or nowhere”This is precisely where the growing weakness of the solar business model lies. Solar power is generated mainly at midday and on sunny days – highly correlated and simultaneous. The more systems feed electricity into the grid at the same time, the more they push exchange prices downward during those hours (the cannibalization effect). In 2025 there were already around 575 negative hours; for 2026, 700–900 hours are expected, especially during the summer months.The old model of “build lots of solar and feed everything into the grid” is being cannibalized by its own success. The market value of solar electricity is falling, and the buffer provided by the market premium is shrinking. Pure full feed-in becomes riskier. More robust are models with high self-consumption, storage (batteries), sector coupling (e.g., EV charging or power-to-heat), or long-term supply contracts (PPAs). Without sufficient expansion of storage, grids, and flexibility, the economic incentive for new installations will decline despite low generation costs. For 2026, the projected EEG financing requirement amounts to around €16.2 billion. These costs are borne by the general public – in other words, taxpayers. A large share of this goes to solar installations. Good news for forests, nature, and taxpayers?YouTuber and energy analyst Stefan Spiegelsperger sees the falling awarded values as “good news.” Many wind projects, especially in forests or sensitive regions, could now become economically unattractive. The “gold rush” for wind power investors, he argues, is over.Solar is also facing increasing pressure due to rising negative hours. Subsidy costs (market premiums) are financed from the federal budget (tax revenues) – no longer directly via the EEG surcharge on electricity bills, but still ultimately at the expense of the general public. Critics of the energy transition have emphasized for years that it is not only about climate targets, but also about hard economic realities. If projects generate permanent losses or require massive subsidies and additional funding, taxpayers ultimately suffer, consumers face higher grid fees, and affected regions bear the environmental impact. Anyone planning wind or solar installations should examine the new figures carefully – not only the planner’s optimistic prospectus, but also scenarios with many negative hours and declining market values. The current development shows that the market for onshore wind is becoming more selective. Only the very best locations with strong wind and low costs still have a chance. For solar, the business model must become “smarter” – more flexibility instead of pure full feed-in. The wind (and the sun) produces electricity – but it does not pay the bills. And under the current conditions, that is simply no longer enough for many projects. For comparison, the generation costs of lignite, hard coal, natural gas, and nuclear power without CO₂ pricing: Lignite: In earlier studies, costs without CO₂ pricing were often in the lower range of 4.6–8 ct/kWh with high full-load hours. Hard coal: Similar to lignite, costs without CO₂ pricing in older calculations were often around 6–10 ct/kWh. Natural gas (combined-cycle gas turbine plants, efficient): Costs for combined-cycle gas plants without a CO₂ price are about 8–13 ct/kWh, especially at medium full-load hours. Gas turbines used for peak loads are higher: 12–25 ct/kWh. Nuclear power: Nuclear power has very high investment and construction costs but extremely low fuel costs. For existing plants that have already been amortized, pure operating costs are often around 2–5 ct/kWh. If CO₂ pricing and the subsidies for wind and solar were eliminated, wind and solar would have no real advantages. The problem is their unstable availability. Additional investment in storage is required, which pushes the costs of such systems upward. High energy prices are a result of political requirements rather than actual operating costs. Total system costs of the energy transitionStudies speak of around €90 billion per year until 2035, regardless of subsidy models. In the long term (until 2049), the cumulative costs of the energy transition (including imports, grids, and generation) could rise to €4.8–5.4 trillion.Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Long Night of Vaccinations – against Covid and Flu! Vaccination rates are to be increased.I would once again say: The stuff has been ordered and needs to go into people!... zum Artikel |
 | An Oath That Remains: Why I Wouldn’t Send My Boys to Ukraine!Reunification didn’t just bury an army, it also buried careers, dreams, and biographies – mine included. From an NVA officer I became a lawyer, now looking at an army whose gen... zum Artikel |
 | Final Declaration of the Conference »Peace and Dialogue 2025« at the Ordensburg LiebstedtWars cause endless, senseless suffering and rarely lead to sustainable solutions.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |