25.08.20 A different incentive for energy efficiency Thomas Schmidt • 7 min.

Scroll to Read
Summary

German companies have already plucked most of the long-hanging fruit of energy-efficiency improvements along with the government subsidies that encourage them. Offering them still more subsidies is having little effect. That’s because companies are reluctant to make big investments in energy efficiency unless the risks are lower.

By 2050, Germany aims to halve its consumption of primary energy relative to a 2008 baseline. One of its key policy mechanisms is subsidies. “The return on investment of energy efficiency,” trumpets the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, “is usually higher than on investments in the capital market." Experts like Eberhard Jochem of the Fraunhofer Institute ISI concur: energy-efficiency investments frequently generate double-digit returns.

The problem is that the hefty return can take four to seven years to materialize, whereas companies typically want an investment to pay for itself within two or three years. Energy prices are another imponderable: if they decline, reducing consumption doesn’t yield a meaningful competitive advantage. Consequently, despite lavish government subsidies, German companies’ interest in further enhancing their energy efficiency has so far been tepid.

Minimizing risk

Michael Schmidt, an energy-efficiency project manager at Düsseldorf-based energy company Uniper, has an idea for enhancing companies’ savings cravings. “If companies need faster returns and less risk, the government should meet them halfway. I propose the establishment of a government-financed fund managed by Germany’s KfW Development Bank that would indemnify companies for taking the risk of investing in energy efficiency.”

The fund would work like insurance: everyone pays in, but compensation is only made to firms whose energy-efficiency investments don’t pay off. Take, for example, a company that invests €1 million to make a factory more energy efficient. It expects this investment to pay for itself within five years. If, after three years, the factory suspends operations, the fund steps in and repays the company the remaining €400,000.

To quality for this risk protection, the company must pay an upfront fee of, say, 3 percent of the total investment. Presumably only a fraction of companies will actually need to avail themselves of the risk fund.“ The fund would probably have to repay the entire investment only in very exceptional circumstances”, Schmidt says. He estimates that the fund could cope with a 10-percent default rate.

Making money instead of giving it away

The advantage for the German treasury, according to Schmidt: instead of dispensing money, the fund would likely see its assets grow, encouraging more companies to take energy efficiency seriously. The fund would also create a sense of solidarity, since all companies that use it would support and safeguard one another.

“So far, Germany’s approach has been counterproductive,” Schmidt says. In his opinion, there are two options. Germany can either abandon the goal of halving its primary-energy consumption by 2050. Or it can consider new, unconventional ideas.

Disclaimer

The contents of this website are created with the greatest possible care. However, Uniper SE accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness and topicality of the content provided. Contributions identified by name reflect the opinion of the respective author and not always the opinion of Uniper SE.

You might also like

Atomkraft, Atomkraftwerk
Energy • Economy • Innovation The future of nuclear power Thomas Schmidt • 8 min.
Energy • Economy Can electricity be both renewable and reliable? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Climate Cutting carbon cost-effectively Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 6 min.
Energy • Innovation Will hydrogen’s future arrive? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 7 min.
Energy • Climate • Economy Can our emissions be undone? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Innovation • Science A British biologist’s uncanny clairvoyance Dariush Jones • 6 min.
Energy • Society • Climate A new era, a new color, a new world view Dariush Jones • 5 min.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Energy • Society • Economy Russia modernizes its fossil power plants Dariush Jones • 7 min.
Energy • Society • Innovation Less fretting about jetting Thomas Schmidt • 4 min.
Energy • Innovation Harnessing more renewable energy, decarbonizing industry Thomas Schmidt • 3 min.
Energy • Event Debate.Energy Conference: Best of Jochen Brenner • 15 min.
Energy • Society “Corona is accelerating developments that we didn’t expect for several years” Hannah Meisters • 4 min.
Energy • Innovation “As green as hydrogen can get” Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 6 min.
Energy • Climate #Anthropause: is corona climate-friendly? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 7 min.
Energy • Climate • Politics • Economy Gas is the ideal enabler of a successful energy transition Andreas Schierenbeck, Vorstandsvorsitzender Uniper SE • 4 min.
Joe Biden
Energy • Society • Climate • Politics Biden's climate plan: jobs, workers, unions. Oh, and clean energy too. Dariush Jones • 6 min.
Donald Trump
Energy • Society • Politics • Climate Donald Trump's climate policy: “A golden age of energy dominance” Dariush Jones • 7 min.
Bremst der Coronavirus die Energiewende aus?
Energy • Climate • Society Opportunity or obstacle? What corona means for the energy transition Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 9 min.
Energy • Innovation • Climate Podcast: "Städte spielen eine zentrale Rolle für die Energiewende" Jochen Brenner • 30 min.
Wasserstoff: Energieträger der Zukunft
Energy • Climate • Opinions Hydrogen: Jules Verne’s vision brought to life Andreas Schierenbeck, Vorstandsvorsitzender Uniper SE • 8 min.
Energy • Innovation Nuclear fusion: elation or illusion? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Economy • Science Fuel cells for passenger cars: hope or hype? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 8 min.
Follow us on Social Media
Follow us
on Social Media