The Failure of Germany’s Energy Transition
Over the course of our history, as industrial production and consumption of energy rapidly increased, so did the emission of greenhouse gases. Only within the last few decades however, as more and more problems associated with this became known, did awareness and with it the necessity to move towards a clean-energy-future develop. In this push, Germany has established itself as a global leader, aiming to receive 80% of its power from renewables by 2050. Given Germany’s rich industrial heritage and vast coal reserves, one cannot help but be surprised that they are spearheading the global energy transition from fossile fuels to renewable energy.
The goal of the German Energiewende (German for energy transition) is a noble one. As we suffer more and more from the effects of climate change, we can all agree that something needs to be done. Not only as one single country, but as the human race as a whole we need to find solutions to prevent or at least slow down global warming, lest we want to find ourselves in a world inhospitable to humans.
As such, Germany’s efforts must be applauded. In their planning and execution however, the Energiewende is deeply flawed.
Renewables sound great on paper. Free energy. No carbon emissions. Forever. Truth be told, however, for most of the world, building an electrical grid on renewable energies is impossible, due to a problem called intermittency. As we all know, solar can only produce electricity when the sun is shining, and wind turbines only when the wind is blowing. Unfortunately, neither of the two is guaranteed, and neither can be controlled.
To outbalance the unpredictability of renewables, other power sources must be used and timed perfectly. Baseload, the demand that is always there, is usually satisfied with nuclear or coal power plants, as those take long to turn on and off, and are best used for a steady stream of electricity. To satisfy the peaks of demand, gas and hydroelectric energy sources are used. These can be turned on quickly and are easily controllable for output.
In this energy equation, solar and wind are allowed to roam freely. This, however, is also virtually the only way of using those two renewables. Base the grid on them, and every night and on rainy days there will be blackouts. Try using them to satisfy peak demand and you will see frequent blackouts when electricity is needed most. Neither can work. The Energiewende‘s plan is to use renewables for both.
Luckily, solar and wind are not the only renewable energy sources available. Apart from fringe energy sources such as tidal or geothermal energy, the most promising renewable energy source is hydroelectricity. After all, the biggest energy producing facility in the world is the Three Gorges Dam in China. Furthermore, all it takes for hydroelectric dams to produce electricity is to open the floodgates.
Unfortunately, hydroelectricity is a privilige of a few dozen countries globally, blessed by geography. As an ideal example, hydroelectricity provides 80% of Brazil’s power supply. Mountaineous European countries such as Austria and Norway can also heavily rely on hydroelecticity. Germany, however, cannot. At around 5% of total energy supply, their hydroelectric potential is already maxed out. Germany has to look elsewhere.
All this makes a successful Energiewende a distant, unattainable goal. Only one thing could save these ambitious plans now, and that would be scientific breakthrough in energy storage and energy transport technology. Unless magically some new form of battery, or supraconductivity technology enters the market, the lights are going out for the Energiewende.
While the future is looking bleak, the past doesn’t look much better. Despite Germans paying an estimated 15 to 40 billion Euros per year through surcharges on their electricity bills and tax-funded Government subsidies, their CO2 emissions per capita decreased by only 9 percent between 2000 and 2015. As if those disappointing results weren’t enough, their carbon emissions have actually been rising again since 2009, reaching 9.64 tons of CO2 per capita emitted in 2015. This puts among the top CO2 emittors in Europe, and 2.7 tons above the EU average.
Germany, the self declared savior of the world from global warming, should not be looked up to as a role model when it comes to energy. Instead, when looking at the data, one of Germany’s neighbors impresses especially. At almost half of every German’s carbon footprint, the French only produce 5.09 tons of CO2 on average. And whereas in Germany one kWh of electricity costs 30 cents, the French only pay 16 cents per kWh. Comparable in many aspects to Germany, from industry to geography, looking at how France’s energy production is achieved serves as a much better example as to how energy can be produced while maintaining a low carbon footprint while keeping electricity costs bearable.
The reason for the French superiority in the energy market is quite simple: nuclear energy. Demonized in Germany, the French are quite content with receiving up to 75% of their energy from the country’s 58 nuclear reactors. They can even afford to export over 3 billion Euros worth of electricity per year, making them the world’s largest energy exporter. So what is stopping the world from following the French model instead of the German?
The truth is, nuclear energy is still highly controversial. Chernobyl and Fukushima are still on everybody’s minds. So too are the devastating impacts of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The perceived dangers of nuclear energy are massive, and especially after Fukushima, many concluded it was time to rid the world of nuclear energy.
So too did the German government. A plan to shut down all of the nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022 was agreed upon, resulting in an increase in carbon emissions, as they were not replaced by renewables, but by lignite power plants, the dirtiest power source available.
But is this the right direction? Is replacing nuclear energy with fossile fuels really the way to go? Given that Germany cannot run on hydroelectricity due to geographical restraints and the nature of wind and solar making it impossible to base the grid on them, Germany chose lignite power plants, the most polluting choice there was over a carbon-neutral one, despite their goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions massively.
Not only is this a foolish choice by the German government, but also a dangerous one. While the nuclear disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl claimed an estimated 2000 and 30.000 to 60.000 lives respectively by the highest estimates, they are nothing compared to the annual death toll caused by our consumption of fossile fuels.
Around 8 million people die anually from air pollution. A further 150.000 die each year due to global warming related causes, such as famine, droughts, and diseases. Both of these numbers are set to increase drastically over the coming years. Part of this increase will be due to new German lignite power plants.
Germany has a choice. Continue fighting nuclear energy, and the Energiewende will not even come close to a success. Embrace nuclear as the best, albeit not ideal option to base the grid on, and a successful Energiewende will become much more realistic.
The optimism and ambition is already there. Now, all Germany needs is a large dose of realism, in order to transform the Energiewende from a wishful fantasy to a possible future. And a lot of nuclear energy.
