- Hubert Walas
Energy power game.
For over 20 years, Germany has been implementing an energy transformation plan under the name, “Energiewende.” Is this famous reform really aimed at saving the natural environment, or is there - under green slogans - a geopolitical game for influence and a building up of Germany’s position in Europe?
The Devil is in the Details
The term Energiewende first appeared in German political nomenclature during the 1980s. At that time, German society, stimulated by events such as the creation of the hole in the Ozone layer, the Chernobyl disaster, and the Exxon Valdez oil spill near the coast of Alaska, increasingly accepted the need for the energy policy change that awaited their country. German Reunification in 1990 further accelerated this process, but the energy transformation finally took shape at the beginning of the 21st century. The country, then led by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, adopted and began to implement a long-term strategy to transform Germany's energy sector.
The plan was ambitious and, at first glance, noble. The Energiewende was based on several key assumptions. To move away from the extraction and generation of energy from coal - both lignite and hard coal - as well as away from nuclear energy. The losses in the German energy mix were to be covered by energy from renewable energy sources, i.e. wind, solar, or hydro energy. However, as these are not fully stable sources, any shortages were to be supplemented by energy generated from gas.
The narrative of the German authorities was clear: “Global warming is forcing us to change. Therefore, we are closing the high-emission coal sector and replacing it with clean, renewable energy. We also cannot trust the atom, as was shown first by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, then the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and which was finally sealed by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster of 2011. However, we must have the protection of a ‘hard’ fuel, in the form of gas, and anyway, it is less emissive than coal.” This strategy gained strength even more after Angela Merkel came to power in 2007, as evidenced by her nickname KlimaKanzlerin, a.k.a.. the climate chancellor.
At first glance, everything looks logical, which is why the plan received high support from the German public. In 2017, 88% of the population expressed support for the changes, and in 2019, 65% of Germans said that their country is coping well with the energy transition. Nevertheless, the plan is highly controversial in the region and the world. Why? Well, as always, the devil is in the details.
4 Shades of Energy
Coal Energy
In January 2019, the decarbonization commission of Merkel's government decided that Germany would phase out coal-based energy production by 2038 at the latest. While no one doubts the rationale of such a direction, the plan is very ambitious. Analyzing the current divisions of the energy market, many specialists claim that such an undertaking will have to take much longer. Despite the increase in the share of renewable energy sources in Germany's energy sector, coal consumption is still one of the main sources of energy production in the country. Additionally, Germany is still the largest lignite consumer in the world. Information such as the closure of the last hard coal mine in Germany has gained publicity, but power plants powered by this raw material continue to work… how? By using imported coal, which does not reduce emissions.
Moving away from coal is difficult and painful, but it is a step in the right direction. But can the same be said about Berlin's departure from nuclear energy? There are many more doubts here. All the more so as Germany intends to shut down all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. And that brings us to...
Nuclear Power
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder began a strong departure from nuclear power at the beginning of the 21st century. At that time, the share of nuclear energy in the German energy mix was 30%. Back then, the only rational argument was the tragic events of Chernobyl 15 years previous. However, the strategy was further legitimized by Fukushima in 2011. “Fukushima changed my attitude toward nuclear energy. Radioactive steam still rises into the atmosphere, and an end to this horror is nowhere in sight. We must draw the appropriate lessons from this situation.” Those words were said by Angela Merkel after the failure of the Japanese power plant. Following these events, the German government decided to temporarily shut down 8 out of 17 reactors operating in Germany. It was also then that the decision to completely abandon nuclear energy was made.
After the Fukushima accident, which was caused by earthquakes and tsunamis, were German reactors suddenly also at risk? It is difficult to find logic here. The event itself was treated instrumentally to accelerate the implementation of Berlin's policy on nuclear energy. The truth is that Germany not only plans to extinguish nuclear power at home but also wants to block the creation of similar units in Europe.
An agreement between the CDU / CSU and the SPD was published in March 2018, requesting a ban on the use of EU and state financial support in the construction of nuclear power plants in the European Union.
The coalition agreement is as follows:
“In the EU, we will insist that the objectives of the Euratom Treaty regarding the use of nuclear energy are adapted to the challenges of the future. We do not want any EU funding for new nuclear power plants. We want to consistently implement the termination of the participation of state funds in nuclear power plants abroad (...) placing the Energiewende in the European context opens up an opportunity to reduce costs and the use the effect of synergy. We want additional development and employment opportunities in Germany as well as export opportunities for German companies on international markets.”
We are dealing here with Berlin's geopolitical game aimed at building its own economic power and supporting domestic business, while the decision itself is in opposition to stopping global climate change. Meanwhile, nuclear power, in the common opinion of energy experts, is a safe and necessary technology to combat climate change. According to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), nuclear energy is necessary to implement the scenarios assuming the real and effective counteracting of the increase in global temperatures. Steven Pinker, a professor at Harvard and one of the greatest modern thinkers, called the German nuclear shutdown plan "paranoid," in an interview with Der Spiegel, adding that if humanity wants to stop climate change without slowing economic growth, it will need more nuclear energy, not less.
Gas Power
But why would Germany want to reduce the role of nuclear power in the European energy mix? The answer is simple - to supplement these shortages with gas that the Germans will sell to everyone. This is why Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was the first to initiate the Nord Stream project in 2005. Currently, Schröder is the chairman of the board of Nord Stream and the Russian oil giant Rosneft.
The first line of the gas pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic Sea was followed by a second one and, despite huge resistance in Europe, mainly from the countries east of Germany and from the USA. However, Germany still wants to complete Nord Stream 2. The German plan aims at obtaining the status of the main gas distribution center in Europe. This is due to several factors. Firstly, thanks to historically good relations with Moscow, Berlin buys “blue fuel” at a very good price. Lower, for example, than Poland which is geographically closer to Russia and the gas pipelines that connect Poland with Russia are not deep underwater. Secondly, thanks to very good transmission infrastructure and its geographical location, Germany wants to become a distribution hub. Thirdly, once Germany's neighbors shut down their nuclear power plants in accordance with Berlin's intentions, the wind will stop blowing and clouds will appear in the sky blocking renewable energy, and then there will be no choice, but to buy gas from Germany.
Germany is already importing more gas than it consumes - 30 billion cubic meters of gas are for sale. This is roughly as much as Spain consumes annually.
Renewable Energy
Finally, we come to the final piece of this puzzle, which is renewable energy mainly from wind, sun, and water. Here, as in the case of the decision to abandon coal, it is also difficult to argue with the direction of the changes. However, renewable also fits in well with the calculated Energiewende strategy for two reasons. First of all, the stability of these sources is uncertain, which forces the use of the alternative fuel in Berlin's strategy - gas. Secondly, in recent years, Germany has made intensive investments in the renewable energy sector, thanks to which companies from Germany had the time and capital to specialize in this industry. This means that they are very well prepared for expansion and have technological advantages in relation to the competition from other countries. German politicians always care very much about domestic business, which is to what Berlin owes its international position. However, the expansion of renewable energy sources is starting to irritate the public, which more and more often protests against wind farms that strongly interfere with the environment and are placed close to human habitats.
Coal and nuclear energy accounted for over 35% of Germany's energy mix in 2020. Within 17 years, Berlin wants to replace this gap with unstable, renewable energy sources and gas - making itself, and thus Europe, dependent on the Russian Federation, which continues to wage war on Europe and continues to play for the collapse of NATO and the European Union. Europe has still not found an answer to the gradual decline of its importance in the world. Working out a common front on the Old Continent in the face of the structural threats presented by the present times and the true unification of Europe is the most difficult challenge facing the European Union. Without Germany these are certainly impossible.
With that in mind, is the Energiewende really in the interest of Berlin, whose power depends on European unity?
Sources:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-020-01939-3
[3] https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/germanys-energiewende-20-years-later
[4] https://klubjagiellonski.pl/2019/06/18/niemieckie-energiewende-jest-antyklimatyczne/?fbclid=IwAR2AkkdUQtaZhSi1zytHThBK3qW3ntHyjKe_TLEDHjJIfO09yZa8zGYBCoU
[5] https://f-w-p.eu/2021/02/04/neustart-der-energiepolitik-der-oekologische-realismus/
[6] https://instytutwolnosci.pl/niemcy-energiewende-czyli-klimat-w-sluzbie-niemieckiego-biznesu/
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7532986/#CR5
[8] https://klubjagiellonski.pl/2015/12/10/klimatyczny-biznes-witajcie-w-swiecie-ekonomii-30/
[9] https://www.csis.org/analysis/defense-energiewende
