Author: Claudia Kemfert
Claudia Kemfert
Reading time: 25 minutes
Synopsis
Kampf um Strom (2013) explains the main connections and reasons behind Germany’s energy transition. It also corrects common biases, myths, and lies about the energy transition.
What you will learn: Understand the energy transition and uncover its myths.
The energy transition is a topic that appears in all political party programs. It often causes debate in the German parliament. The following ‘blinks’ will show you why. Creating a sustainable energy supply with renewable energies is a necessary and important step.
There are two main reasons for the energy transition. These reasons also speak against its opponents. First, fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal will run out. They make up about 58% of Germany’s electricity supply. Globally, they provide about 67% of electricity. These fuels are becoming scarce. At the same time, the world’s energy needs are growing. China and India especially are increasing demand quickly. They need fuel for their growing economies. Finding new sources of these fuels comes with huge risks. Environmental disasters like the burning oil platform Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico sadly show this.
Second, burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is one example. These gases harm our environment for a long time. They lead to global warming. The effects of this change will be much worse than most people currently realize. We will see rising sea levels, dying forests, floods, droughts, and storms. Glaciers in the Himalayas will melt. The Amazon rainforest will die. Coastal cities will be flooded. Diseases will spread. People will go hungry, die, and fight wars over living spaces. This sounds like a horror film. But it will be real in 100 years. This will happen if industrial countries do not cut greenhouse gas emissions sharply.
Renewable energies can solve both these problems. We do not need to worry about losing sun, wind, or tides. Also, they do not release similar amounts of greenhouse gases.
Looking at the facts, the energy transition seems to be the only right solution. Yet, it has opponents who fight it. In Germany, these opponents are mainly the four big energy companies: EnBW, Eon, RWE, and Vattenfall. Through years of lobbying and public relations work, these “Big Four” have managed to give the energy transition a bad name. They have created anti-green energy feelings. They claim that green electricity is too expensive. They say its costs will harm the economy and take money from consumers. This creates doubt and fear about the future. Now, most people are more afraid of the energy transition than of global warming’s effects.
Claudia Kemfert explains in her book why this attitude is wrong. It has no basis in fact. You will find her most important statements and all key facts in the following ‘blinks’.
Blink 1 – Government decisions 30 years ago still affect our energy supply today.
The years 1988 and 1990 were two important moments for energy policy in Germany. In this short time, the black-yellow government, led by Chancellor Helmut Kohl, made two big decisions. These decisions set the course for energy policy for the years that followed.
Let’s look back briefly:
In 1988, a report for the European Economic Community (EEC) found something. It said that electricity in Germany, made from coal, gas, and nuclear power, was sold too cheaply. The reason was that the price did not include the future costs of these ways of making energy.
These future costs include, for example, storing radioactive waste forever. They also include keeping groundwater levels stable in hard coal mines. So, the EEC told Germany to raise electricity prices. This would create funds to pay for these future costs. Otherwise, it said, future generations would have to pay for this energy policy.
However, Kohl’s government did not follow the EEC’s advice. Electricity prices stayed the same. By not acting, the government took the first important step.
Instead, in 1990, the government introduced the Electricity Feed-in Law. This law told power grid operators to buy electricity from renewable sources. These sources included wind, hydro, biomass, and solar power. They had to buy it at fixed prices. The operators could then add these costs to consumers’ electricity bills. This gave green energy providers certainty for planning. They knew their electricity would be bought at a fair price. Because of this law, renewable energies grew very quickly. At that time, these energies were still very new.
In a way, this pleased both sides. Old power producers could still offer cheap electricity. They did not have to add extra costs for future problems. Green energy providers got important help to start. This helped them to become stable and, over time, stand on their own.
Blink 2 – What we invest in green electricity today will pay off tomorrow.
Ten years later, in 2000, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) followed the Electricity Feed-in Law. The main part of this law is the EEG surcharge. This is an extra charge added to the normal electricity price. Every electricity consumer generally has to pay it. This surcharge is currently about 20% of the electricity price. It covers the difference between the fixed payments that green power producers get from grid operators and the actual market price for electricity. This extra money gave renewable energy producers confidence for future plans. It also gave them more funds to continue research and development.
Besides the EEG surcharge, the German government also supports green energy technologies. These include solar power (photovoltaics), wind energy, and biomass. It does this through various programs. Between 2011 and 2014 alone, about 3.5 billion Euros in research money went to expand these technologies.
So, consumers and the government largely pay for developing green electricity. It seems certain that this will not change in the coming years. Research will continue to be strengthened. The green electricity market will still receive support. The goal is for it to become self-financing one day.
We must remember that the money we spend today on developing green electricity is not lost. It is an important investment in the future. Thanks to this financial help, renewable energies already provide about 25% of our total electricity use. In recent years alone, their share increased by 10%.
Also, technologies like solar panels (photovoltaic systems) were once laughed at for their high costs. But today, thanks to steady technical improvements, they are so cheap. For many homes, they are a better and cheaper choice than traditional electricity. These successes show that the high costs of creating and establishing green electricity will pay off more and more.
Blink 3 – We pay for nuclear and coal power with more than just our electricity bill.
The EEG surcharge can easily be called an “extra charge” on normal electricity. This makes it a perfect target for opponents of renewable energy. They also target supporters of traditional power generation. These opponents say green electricity is bad for the economy. They say it’s too expensive and costs too much for businesses and people. They compare it to the “sensible” electricity from traditional providers, which comes from coal and nuclear power.
However, their arguments have flaws when you look closely. Green energy opponents overlook two things:
First, traditional electricity is only cheap because the government still strongly supports it. It provides financial aid and tax breaks. If you look at how much support each energy source gets per amount of electricity produced, you see this. Renewable energies get government funding of 3.74 cents per kilowatt-hour. Hard coal also gets 3.3 cents. Nuclear energy even gets 4 cents.
Second, electricity from nuclear energy and coal can be sold cheaply. This is because providers do not have to include the future costs of their electricity production in the price. The EEC pointed out this problem back in 1988.
But who pays for all the hidden costs of traditional electricity production? For example, who pays for storing radioactive nuclear waste? Who pays for “external costs” like environmental and climate damage from greenhouse gases?
At first, it seems consumers don’t pay these costs because they aren’t on the electricity bill. But in the end, they are the ones who pay. The electricity companies do not pay. Instead, the German government and its taxpayers cover these costs. For example, storing nuclear waste has cost the public billions of Euros over the last decades. And these costs are not just a one-time thing. Finding a final storage site for radioactive waste is hard. Once found, it needs to be maintained for one million years, according to estimates.
Hard coal mining, which will stop completely in 2018, also creates “eternal costs.” These are costs that last for a very long time. They are estimated to be about 13 billion Euros in total. The biggest cost is managing mine water. This stops groundwater levels from rising and land from moving up around the mines. Mining companies were told to save money for these costs. But no one can say for sure if these savings will be enough.
So, it is not surprising that a Greenpeace study found something. An honest price for nuclear and coal electricity, which included all these future costs, would be twice as high as the average green electricity price.
Blink 4 – The energy transition boosts the German economy.
Changing our energy supply to use more green electricity helps Germany’s economy grow. There are huge markets and business areas that many different companies can benefit from. For example, these include building wind and solar farms, and “green” power plants. They also include upgrading power grids, renovating buildings, and electric transport (e-mobility).
Small and medium-sized businesses benefit from this. Parts need to be made and delivered. Lines and poles need to be put up. Buildings and foundations need to be built. The Financial Times Deutschland therefore writes, “Heating engineers, plumbers, and roofers are happy.” It adds, “The German Skilled Trades Association already sees plans for building renovation as a huge boost.”
But the energy transition also offers big chances for large companies. Siemens is an example. 40% of the company’s sales already come from technologies that help protect the climate and produce green energy. These include offshore wind turbines and solar power systems.
This growth comes from the company’s strong focus on sustainability. Siemens made this decision in 2007. Siemens no longer takes part in building nuclear power plants. It has also left the nuclear energy business with Russia. The company aims to make half of its money from green technologies by the end of 2014.
BMW is another company that sees the energy transition as a chance for growth. The car maker wants to make its cars more sustainable. It has a big goal: to cut CO2 emissions for its entire car fleet by 25% by 2020. Electric cars like the i3, launched in 2013, are planned to be the city cars of the future. Car-sharing services like DriveNow aim to help protect the environment. Electric scooters are set to change the light motorcycle market. Because of its success in efficiency, the non-profit organization Carbon Disclosure Project named BMW the most sustainable car maker in the world in 2012.
Blink 5 – Ending nuclear power is not the complete energy transition.
The energy transition was officially approved by the German parliament in June 2011. Its goal is to completely change our energy supply. It aims to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The goal is to move towards renewable energies. By 2050, 80% of energy should come from renewable sources.
The steps towards this goal might seem surprising at first. Increasing the share to at least 35% by 2020, then to 50% by 2030, and to 65% by 2040 sounds ambitious. However, looking at growth rates in recent years, these goals are quite realistic. For example, between 2007 and 2012 alone, the share of green electricity grew from 15% to 25%.
Still, critics of the energy transition say the timeline is too tight. They believe it cannot be finished by 2022. They also present the energy transition as a quick reaction by the government to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011. But why is 2022 suddenly mentioned?
As mentioned before, the energy transition should be completed by 2050, not 2022. However, the 2022 goal is not random. The government set it as the deadline for ending nuclear power. This shows that the first criticism is wrong. The energy transition has enough time to reach its 85% goal by 2050.
Now, to the second point: Neither the energy transition nor the nuclear phase-out was quickly decided after Fukushima. They were already widely discussed in 2000 by the red-green government under Chancellor Schröder. The goal of ending nuclear power is to replace the almost 20% of electricity currently supplied by nuclear power plants with green electricity by 2022. If green electricity keeps growing at the rates of recent years, this goal will be met easily.
However, the mention of the Fukushima disaster’s role is not wrong. We need to look back a few more years. At that time, in a very short period, there were two big changes in nuclear policy. In 2010, Chancellor Merkel’s government first reversed the planned nuclear phase-out. It extended the operating times of all nuclear power plants. Then, just one year later, reacting to the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the protests that followed, the government cancelled the extension. It went back to the original plan of the red-green government from 2000. So, first there was an end to the phase-out, and then one year later, another end to that end.
Blink 6 – Those who seize the chance in the next few years will secure the decades to come.
Imagine that it takes about six to eight years for the average driver to sell their old car and buy a new one. From the moment they start looking for a new car, a car dealer has a window of opportunity. They can sell them something and make them a loyal customer of their brand. But once the driver buys a car, that window closes. A small part of the market becomes full again for some years. So, these time windows are very important chances that dealers want to use.
In energy policy, we are also at the start of such an important time window. The answer to who “sells the car” in the next ten years will greatly affect Germany’s electricity supply for the next 40 to 60 years. But why is this opportunity happening?
First, many coal power plants will close in the next 10 years because they are old. Second, all nuclear power plants will be finally shut down by 2022. This means that 40% of the total electricity needed, which currently comes from these sources, must be covered by other sources. This is a huge opening in a market that has been full for a long time.
The four big energy suppliers (EnBW, Eon, RWE, and Vattenfall) are now pushing politicians. They want to build new coal power plants. These plants would replace the old ones and cover the missing 40% of electricity. So far, they have succeeded. Many new coal power plants started working in 2013.
The problem is: New coal power plants are not just used for a short time. They are used for 40 to 60 years. This is how long a coal power plant normally runs.
So, if the four big energy companies keep building more new coal power plants in the coming years, this will happen. Most of Germany’s electricity needs would be met by coal power until about 2070. The market would be full. The opportunity window would close for decades. Green energy providers would miss out.
Blink 7 – In the middle of the energy transition, we are building one coal power plant after another.
Germany is in a difficult situation. On one hand, the share of renewable energies is growing steadily. The whole country is moving away from nuclear energy. On the other hand, we are not yet able to switch completely to green electricity. So, we currently rely on a mix of renewable and traditional power generation. Nuclear energy, a type of traditional power, is being phased out. Hard coal will also be stopped soon. This leaves lignite (brown coal) and gas for electricity production.
Brown coal is cheaper than gas power. It also promises bigger profits in the short term. So, the four big energy companies mainly focus on it. Coal is cheap. And the companies do not pay enough for the huge CO2 pollution caused by burning it. Many new power plants are already built, and many more are planned. Electricity production from brown coal had been decreasing in recent decades. But now, it has reached the same level as at the time of Germany’s reunification. So, in the middle of the energy transition, brown coal is experiencing a real boom. This is a strange development.
The energy companies avoid cleaner gas power. This is because it is more expensive than coal power. So, it is not profitable for them. The few gas power plants in Germany are losing money.
The main reason for this is that the government has set the order for feeding electricity into the grid. First comes electricity from renewable energies. Then, in order of their cost, comes electricity from other sources. These are nuclear energy, brown coal, and finally, gas power. The first three sources produce enough electricity to power the country. So, gas power plants are left as the sad fourth. They usually only serve as backup plants. They often sit unused and idle. This, of course, makes them unprofitable.
The problem is this: The longer brown coal electricity stays cheap, the less gas electricity will be used. And the worse gas power plants will be doing financially.
For gas power to replace brown coal, the price of brown coal would need to increase with an extra charge. Coal would become more expensive. The now cheaper gas would then be fed into the power grid faster. It is a sign of weakness for our country that this has not happened yet. Brown coal power, which causes the most climate damage, is currently winning the energy transition.
Blink 8 – Germany’s power grid badly needs maintenance and expansion.
On November 4, 2006, the Norwegian Pearl, a 300-meter long cruise ship, left Papenburg in Lower Saxony for the North Sea. Shortly after, lights went out for up to two hours in many European countries. These included parts of Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Austria, and Spain. The reason was this: A high-voltage power line, under which the ship was supposed to pass, was switched off for safety reasons. This caused the northwest German power grid to fail. Because Western European grids are closely connected, the power supply also failed in several neighboring countries. At 10 PM, millions of people in Europe were in the dark.
A more modern power grid with better high-voltage lines could have handled the extra load. But this is exactly Germany’s problem. Our power grids, especially the high and extra-high voltage lines, are old. Their capacity is limited. Most were built shortly after World War II. Since then, they have only been poorly maintained.
For years, experts have called for renewing and expanding the grids. This is urgently needed, even without the energy transition. It doesn’t matter how electricity is made – by wind turbines, nuclear energy, or coal. There must be lines that transport it safely.
However, the four big energy companies and former grid operators saw the government as responsible. They had to sell their grids due to competition laws. They themselves invested too little in renewing the grids. They simply failed to plan and carry out the expansion and renovation.
If the necessary improvements to the power grids do not happen, then power outages like the one described above will become common, not rare. A study by the German Parliament describes the severe consequences of a power outage for our society in strong words. It says: “Almost all parts of life and work use electrical devices. So, a long and widespread power outage would cause severe damage. All critical systems would be affected. It would be hard to stop a complete collapse of society.”
Summary
The main message of these ‘blinks’ is:
The myths about the energy transition are wrong. People say it is too expensive, not profitable, and too short-term. These claims also damage its reputation. A closer look at renewable energies shows the energy transition is not only necessary. It has also already had some successes.
What you can do:
Don’t believe everything you hear about the energy transition.
The energy transition is a unique, huge, and revolutionary project. It is normal for there to be disagreements and different opinions about how to carry it out. But the main idea, that it is objectively right and has no good alternatives, cannot be denied if you know the facts.
Do you have feedback?
We are keen to hear what you think of our ‘blinks’! Just send an email to [email protected]. Use the title of this book as the subject. Share your thoughts with us.
For further reading: Die Energiewende-Wende by Lutz Wicke & Markus C. Schulte von Drach
Germany’s energy transition is seen as an example worldwide. It has achieved a lot. But sadly, the German model also has some serious flaws. This book looks at what these flaws are. It also explores what we can do to still create an energy transition that is good for society and the economy.
Source: https://www.blinkist.com/https://www.blinkist.com/de/books/kampf-um-strom-de