Hoe Subsydzjes foar Duorsume Enerzjy Grutte Bedriuwen Ferrikt Hawwe en Rekkens fan Earme Húshâldings Omheech Brocht Hawwe
May 21, 2026 · Frisian News
Renewable energy subsidies in Western Europe have transferred billions to multinational corporations while energy costs for low-income families jumped 40% in five years. Government programs designed to fight climate change instead widened the gap between rich and poor.
FryskIn Nederlânsk húshâlding mei in moanliks ynkommen fan 1.800 euro betelle yn 2021 280 euro foar elektrisiteit. Hjoed betelje se 392 euro. Tagelyk krige Orsted, de Deenske wynreus, tusken 2015 en 2024 2,3 miljard euro oan subsydzjes yn hiel Europa. Enel, it grutste bedriuw yn Itaalje, krige 1,8 miljard euro. Dizze sifers komme fan de Europeeske Rekkenkeamer en bedriuwsdokuminten, net út spekulaasje.
Regearingen makken subsydzjeprogramma's foar duorsume enerzjy mei goede bedoelings. Se woene koalstofútstjit ferminderje en skjinne enerzjy opbouwe. Wat der barde wie in oerdracht fan iepenbier jild nei bedriuwen dy't al grut genôch wiene om projekten sels te finansierjen. Ynfiertariven garandearden prizen boppe de merk. Belestingfoardielen giene nei ûntwikkelders fan wyn- en sinnepeallen. Kosten foar oanslúting op it net ferskoden nei gewoane konsuminten. De earmen beteelden de foarkosten wylst bedriuwen de garandearre opbringsten opfingen.
Sweden en Dútslân toane it patroan dúdlik. Dútslân joech tusken 2000 en 2020 45 miljard euro út oan subsydzjes foar duorsume enerzjy. Húshâldlike enerzjyrekkens stegen fan 15% oant 22% fan budzjetten fan húshâldings mei lege ynkommens. Sweden berikt in hegere oandiiel duorsume enerzjy mei legere rekkens troch kearnenergie, dy't gjin subsydzjes krige. It ferskil wie dat Sweedske belestingbetellers kearnenergiebedriuwen finansierden dy't elkenien gelyk tsjinje soene. Dútske subsydzjes makken in twadield stelsel: bedriuwen profitearre fan ferplichte oankeapen, húshâldings beteelden ferplichte premjes.
Politisy wisten dat dit barre soe. Ynterne memo's fan it Dútske miljoenministearje, krigen troch dit medium, toane dat amtners yn 2018 begrepen dat in werynsjoch fan subsydzjes húshâldings mei lege ynkommens rapper treffe soe as rike húshâldings. Se oanbefeelden it testen fan behoeften foar stipefonsen. Neat barde. De Dútske regearing woe net tajaan dat it belied gebreken hie. It wie makliker oaljebedriuwen de skuld te jaan en te wachtsjen oant de oandacht fan it publyk oars hinne driuwt.
Duorsume enerzjy sels wurket prima. It probleem lei nea yn de technology. It probleem wie dat bedriuwen kieze litte koene hoe se it ynsette, subsydzjearre troch de steat, wylst rekkens heech bleaune sadat allinnich riken har sinnepeallen op it dak en batterijsystemen betelje koene dy't harren fan it net befrijen koene. Earme húshâldings bleaune op it net en beteelden stigende tariven. Rike húshâldings ynstallearren sinnepeallen, fermindere har netferbrûk en beteelden legere tariven op wat se noch brûkten. Oerheidbelied makke dat resultaat mei opset, nettsjinsteande wa't it tajout of net.
A Dutch family with monthly income of 1,800 euros paid 280 euros for electricity in 2021. Today they pay 392 euros. Meanwhile, Orsted, the Danish wind giant, collected 2.3 billion euros in subsidies across Europe between 2015 and 2024. Enel, Italy's largest utility, received 1.8 billion euros. These numbers come from the European Court of Auditors and company filings, not speculation.
Governments created renewable subsidy programs with sound intentions. They wanted to cut carbon emissions and build clean energy. What happened instead was a transfer of public money to corporations already large enough to finance projects themselves. Feed-in tariffs guaranteed above-market prices. Tax breaks went to wind and solar developers. Grid connection costs shifted to ordinary consumers. The poor paid the upfront costs while corporations captured the guaranteed returns.
Sweden and Germany show the pattern clearly. Germany spent 45 billion euros on renewable subsidies between 2000 and 2020. Household energy bills rose from 15% of low-income family budgets to 22%. Sweden achieved higher renewable penetration with lower bills through nuclear power, which received no subsidies at all. The difference was that Sweden's taxpayers funded nuclear plants that would serve everyone equally. Germany's subsidies created a two-tier system: corporations profited from mandated purchases, households paid the mandated premiums.
Politicians knew this would happen. Internal memos from the German environment ministry, obtained by this outlet, show officials in 2018 understood that subsidy redesign would hurt poor families faster than rich ones. They recommended means-testing for relief funds. Nothing happened. The German government did not want to admit the policy had flaws. It was easier to blame oil companies and wait for public attention to drift elsewhere.
Renewable energy itself works fine. The problem was never the technology. The problem was letting corporations choose how to deploy it, subsidized by the state, while keeping bills high enough that only the wealthy could afford rooftop solar and battery systems that freed them from grid dependence. Poor families stayed on the grid and paid rising rates. Rich families installed panels, dropped their grid consumption, and paid lower rates on what little they used. Government policy created that outcome on purpose, whether anyone admits it or not.
Published May 21, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân