German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble has proposed that developing green-energy resources could be a good way for Greece to generate much-needed economic growth. On paper, it sounds like a perfect solution to the country’s dire fiscal problems: Greece, according to Schauble, could export solar electricity to Germany.
At first glance, monetizing an abundant natural resource such as solar energy to strengthen the national accounts sounds like a straightforward idea, particular given that electricity in central and northern Europe is becoming more scarce and expensive, owing to Germany’s decision earlier this year to phase out nuclear power. However, has Schauble really found a magic bullet to hold down German electricity prices while restoring economic growth to Greece? Yes and no.
First, the bad news: Electricity currently produced in photovoltaic installations is far from price competitive with conventional technologies. “Grid parity” — meaning that the cost of electricity produced by a rooftop solar panel is equal to that of electricity from the wall socket — will only be reached in the middle of this decade.
Even then, solar power will still be more expensive than conventionally produced electricity because “grid parity” excludes transmission and distribution costs, which typically account for about half of the final electricity price. Moreover, even if solar power were competitive, exporting it to Germany would not make economic sense: The required transmission lines do not exist and the power losses incurred in transporting electricity over long distances is a disincentive to building them.
Indeed, electricity prices in Germany are not systematically higher than in Greece, which nowadays is an electricity importer. As a result, Greek solar electricity would, above all else, merely replace more expensive conventional generation in Greece.
Even the reduced need for fuel imports — a quarter of Greece’s electricity is produced from oil and gas — would not have a large impact on the Greek current account. After all, because solar panels are unlikely to be produced domestically, they will have to be imported.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that solar-electricity production does not promise high returns. It is very capital-intensive and only a relatively small number of jobs would be created, for mounting the panels. Even if Greece were able to produce surplus solar electricity, exports would yield little revenue, because standardized technology means that companies and countries can develop almost no productivity advantage. As soon as solar electricity becomes competitive in Greece, other countries with similar levels of irradiation — Spain, Italy, Portugal, Bulgaria, etc — will enter the market. This will quickly drive electricity prices toward production cost, as solar-generating capacity in Europe approaches electricity demand.
However, while Greece cannot reasonably hope that large-scale deployment of photovoltaic systems will turn it into the Saudi Arabia of solar electricity, Schauble is right to point out that producing it in Greece makes more sense than producing it in Germany. Indeed, German support for solar power is aimed at lowering the cost of solar panels, which is the main justification for paying a high feed-in price — currently about 200 euros per megawatt hour, compared to current electricity prices of roughly 55 euros (US$78.78) per megawatt hour.
Of course, whether the cost is lowered does not depend on where the deployment takes place: Using German money to support solar deployment in sunny Greece would be more efficient than using it to support deployment in gloomier Germany. A photovoltaic system installed in Greece would be able to cover a higher share of its cost, thus requiring fewer subsidies.
The best way to ensure that German money and the Greek sun support the development of solar-energy technology would be to implement a European “green certificate system.” Under such a system, every European electricity supplier would have to guarantee that a certain share of the electricity that it sells comes from renewable energy sources. Suppliers’ targets could be differentiated, reflecting countries’ varying potential for deploying renewables or developing renewable-technology industries.
The countries that are able to deploy more renewables, such as Greece, could then sell the certificates to countries that need more of them, such as Germany. This would make German support for renewables cheaper and generate some income in Greece, without compromising on European renewables deployment. However, no one should expect to strike solar gold.
Georg Zachmann is a research fellow at Bruegel, and was formerly at the German Ministry of Finance and the German Institute for Economic Research.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US