Why is this so important the article attached he makes a number...

Why is this so important the article attached he makes a number of very important points in addition:


http://www.renewablesinternational.net/technology-neutral-whats-that/150/537/73089/
""Technology-neutral," what's that?


Feed-in tariffs drastically increase the number of power producers and ramp up all types of renewable energy sources at once. Yet, economists speak of quotas as being "market-based" even though they merely require corporations to offer a certain amount of renewable power, with the providers being asked to pick the cheapest one – which has always been onshore wind.

Last month, I mentioned the recent proposal that Germany should throw out its feed-in tariffs and switch to a quota system. Via e-mail (would everyone please use the comment boxes below so we can move the discussion where it belongs?), a couple of people pointed out that I called feed-in tariffs "technology-neutral" whereas Haucap, the member of the German Monopoly Commission I was criticizing, calls quotas "technology-neutral."

From the standpoint of profit margins (which I was talking about), feed-in tariffs are indeed technology-neutral. Quotas (like US-style Renewable Portfolio Standards) are considered technology-neutral in that policy-makers don't care what is built; they offer a single price and leave those decisions up to the market. But then, feed-in tariffs don't care what you build either, which is why Germany is currently building solar faster than wind even though it needs more wind than solar.

- Germany is ramping up all types of renewables at once. The only way to reach its target of at least 80% renewables by 2050 is to have a mixture, just as it does today in its largely fossil-based energy supply. Focusing on the cheapest technology now will only slow down the transition and make it more expensive by drastically increasing the need for power storage.
Germany is ramping up all types of renewables at once. The only way to reach its target of at least 80% renewables by 2050 is to have a mixture, just as it does today in its largely fossil-based energy supply. Focusing on the cheapest technology now will only slow down the transition and make it more expensive by drastically increasing the need for power storage.

energytransition.de

I would prefer to call quotas "technology-blind." They simply do not see what the benefits of specific technologies are; the cheapest thing – always onshore wind up to now – is built. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, Germany cannot reach its 80% renewable electricity target by focusing solely on onshore wind – and I say that as someone who thinks we need to focus more on wind.

Run through these numbers with me – Germany had just over 31 GW of wind power installed last year, but the country only got 7.3% of its electricity from wind power. Non-wind renewable electricity made up roughly 15% of the pie. If we are going to ramp up to 80% renewable electricity by focusing on wind, we would therefore need 65% wind power to complement 15% non-wind.

Installed wind power capacity would therefore need to grow nearly ninefold to some 270 GW – that in a country with peak power demand of 80 GW. The need for storage would be dramatic, and the only way around this dilemma would be a better balance between wind, solar, biomass, and power trading with neighbouring countries. So here's what you need to know:

Anyone in Germany arguing for a focus on the renewables technology with the lowest price tag does not want to reach the government's target of 80% green power by 2050. (Craig Morris)
"
My point here for Bluegen is that Price is not the predictor of Bluegens market potential.

Its great efficiency @85% supports its use even thought it clearly has a price premium.( say 39,000 Euros outside NRW.)

Centralized CHP still has 10% less efficiency than Bluegen due to transmission loss. Therefore it is effectively say 90%+ efficient c/w centralized CHP at 85% efficiency.

So when the some posters compare it with other technologies on a centralized scale they are missing the point IMHO which is Bluegen is 10% more efficient as a decentralized source of power, very flexible and reliable which justifies a price premium.