Germany

Energiewende

Germany relied on Russia for half of its energy needs in March of 2022 after spending 20 years closing their nuclear power plants while squandering $500 billion (USD 2021) promoting unreliable wind and solar energy as a viable alternative.  This was the cornerstone of their Energiewende energy policy. 

Energiewende promised a transition to a low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply, but produced the most expensive electricity, with one of the highest carbon footprints in Western Europe, and environmental destruction exported to the developing world.  To shore up support from the Green Party, which captured more than 8% of the vote in their federal elections, the parties in power agreed to close all nuclear power plants.  Politicians and citizens seemed to seriously believe that unreliable renewables, wind and solar, would magically match their power needs, allowing for the retirement of coal, natural gas, and nuclear-powered plants. Calculations of the potential wind and solar power generation over time, using one week of weather data for any location across the country, would have clearly shown the vast variation in power production relative to needs.

Too Green for Nuclear: Not Too Green for US Gas

The week that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz asked US president Joe Biden to send US natural gas, which means liquifying and shipping it (dramatically increasing the carbon footprint), Germany's countrywide wind and solar electricity production ranged from 79% to 2% of their electricity load.  Apparently, Germans are too "Green," to generate nuclear power, which produces virtually no Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) once a plant is built, but not too Green to burn as much natural gas (and coal) as necessary to keep their lights, furnaces,  and appliances running. 

A key element of the EU countries' Green policy is to demonize fossil fuel production among their member states while importing this critical product (private jets to fly to climate conferences require an awful lot of fuel) from countries like Russia.   Worked like a charm until you know what happened.

Since all but a tiny few politicians will ever admit a mistake, Germany's Chancellor continued with their plans to close their remaining nuclear power plants. blaming safety concerns.  Even though coal has killed more than 1000 times as many people as nuclear relative to the power produced.  

Perhaps the biggest gift of Energiewende is energy poverty for those living on the edge of society.    

So how did Germany reach this energy crisis?   Like many crises occurring in today's modern world, it begins with idiot or immoral actions.  It takes idiot thinking to expect energy from the Sun in any place on Earth, let alone Germany, to replace reliable Nuclear energy.    

Since this is a Facts and Data website, time to show some data on solar.

Increasing Greenhouse Gases for Solar

Because Germany has some of the cloudiest skies in the world, their solar installations produce about 6 times the lifecycle equivalent CO2 compared to a nuclear plant during their operational life.  Of course, since solar is so unreliable, producing virtually no power all winter when the need is greatest and erratic power in the summer, it requires 100% reliable backup power, which involves a combination of coal, natural gas, and imports.   Consequently, the minuscule 6 g CO2/kW-hr-equiv life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission of an operating nuclear power plant, is replaced by power occasionally produced by solar generating at best 24 g  CO2/kW-hr-equiv  GHG, but mostly by gas or coal generating between 405 and 1095 g CO2/kW-hr-equiv life cycle GHG emissions.  Imports of nuclear-generated electricity from France or hydroelectricity from Norway or Sweden change this atrocious situation when available. 

Wind + Solar 

Another quickly disproven claim regarding the success of the German energy policy of focusing on installing unreliable renewables (wind and solar) rather than reducing greenhouse gases, is that adding wind power addresses the deficiencies of solar.  Once again the data shows how unreliable wind + solar are when combined.

Solar and wind produces power spikes followed by a collapse during both the winter and summer.  The winter and summer solstice are the shortest and longest days in the year, making them logical dates for assessing minimum and maximum solar power generation. 

Since power produced must match the power need (load) spikes in power produced from clear noon skies in July, or unusually high winds, stress the European power grid, which must pick up the excess electricity.  At times Germany must pay neighboring countries to accept their excess power.   Conversely, when solar and wind power production collapses, as it does daily,  imports of reliable power from its neighbors. keeps the lights on and the economy running, in addition to Germany's coal and natural gas power plants.

Costs 

Germans continue to pay a steep cost for the decision to abandon nuclear power plants producing inexpensive electricity and install expensive unreliable wind and solar.  As of November 2022, German citizens paid approximately $0.43 USD/kWh, about 4 times the average US rate.  Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and COVID-19-related impacts, the price for residential electricity was closer to 3 times the average US rate.  The only other  Western European country to pay as much is Denmark which has a similar fetish for unreliable renewable energy.  Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, German electricity costs skyrocketed 

Carbon Intensity 

German citizens paid the highest prices for electricity that generates more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) than all but a few Western Europe countries.  But it gets worse because this data excludes the CO2 German wood-burning power plants produce.  In one of the most sickening examples of Greenwashing, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change allows European nations to take credit for producing no CO2 for electricity generated by burning wood, even though it generates more CO2 than burning coal.  

This is a prime example of the destructive nature of virtue signaling, with money squandered on actions that make a problem worse is seen as a sign of virtue due to a lack of critical oversight.