Germany decided in 2011 to phase out all nuclear power and by 2021 had closed three reactors with plans to close the remaining three by the end of 2022.

Nuclear generation contributed about 25% of German electricity before the 2011 decision and supplied about 12% of electricity in 2021 after those closures.

Lost nuclear output was largely replaced by coal and gas, and a study estimated the social cost of this shift at about $12 billion per year.

Before the Ukraine crisis Germany relied on Russia for about 55% of its gas imports.

Russia’s actions prompted Germany to freeze approval of Nord Stream 2 and coincided with higher oil and gas prices amid concerns that Gazprom had withheld supplies.

Germany is building LNG import capacity, has been receiving LNG via Rotterdam, signed a memorandum with Qatar for long-term gas supplies and a partnership with the UAE, and reported gas storage over 95% full.

Officials and analysts warn that LNG and other alternative supplies are more expensive than Russian pipeline gas and that the shift raises costs for industry and consumers.

Some commentators and opinion pieces have urged reversing the phaseout and restarting reactors to reduce reliance on Russian energy.

The government, however, has rejected treating nuclear as a sustainable investment in the EU taxonomy and says it will use gas as a bridge while expanding renewables toward climate neutrality goals.

In short, Germany’s nuclear phase-out reduced domestic low‑carbon generation and in the short term increased reliance on coal and gas, while the Ukraine war has accelerated moves to diversify gas supplies and revived public debate about reviving reactors.

Germany decided in 2011 to phase out all nuclear power and by 2021 had closed three reactors with plans to close the remaining three by the end of 2022.

Title:

Content: World

Berlin against, Rome is silent, Paris in favor. Nuclear power explodes in the EU

Germany closed three reactors in 2021 and plans to do the same with the other three in 2022. Belgium shares the same idea, “shut down” its seven plants by 2025. Spain, which has some reactors in operation as well, does not consider them “green” at all. Luxembourg dismisses the proposal to include the atom in the green taxonomy as a “provocation”. Austria of the atom does not want to know, with 82% of its primary energy production made from renewables (data 2019), and is studying a legal action against the Commission. France is delighted to see nuclear power (77% of its domestic production) taken into account by Brussels. Italy, which is fond of Minister Cingolani’s idea of increasing its gas extractions, is currently silent and at least hopes for a golden rule to exclude “green” investments from the calculation of the deficit. A few days after the publication of the draft of the European Commission on the green taxonomy, the distances between the 27 instead of narrowing, are widening and if yesterday they seemed divided, today they show themselves to be shattered.

The definition of the green taxonomy is fundamental in orienting investments: with the “green” stamp, industrial and infrastructure projects can be much more attractive for private capital. However, the decision to include nuclear and gas in the EU’s green taxonomy has met with harsh criticism already in recent weeks, when rumors had not yet taken the form of a draft Commission. The technicians from Brussels and the team of experts who collaborated in the drafting of the central document for the definition of the EU energy planning in the context of the Green New Deal tried to circumvent the foreseeable resistance by introducing some conditions for the two sources that are not neutral with respect to the climate and the environment. Nuclear and gas, first of all, will be considered compatible with the green taxonomy only for a defined period of time and “to the extent that they contribute to the transition towards climate neutrality and do not significantly damage the environment”, according to an official of Brussels. “The Commission sees the future energy mix as a predominantly renewable or low-carbon energy system. We really hope that this proposal will help bring about the change we need and channel private funding towards low-emission energy sources ”.

In fact, it means that investments in nuclear power will be “green” only if the projects presented have a well defined plan, funds and site for the disposal of radioactive waste in total safety. Building permits will only be allowed until 2045. It is worth remembering that at the moment there is still talk of third generation or third plus nuclear power. Not the fourth, the (slag-free) fusion that experts believe may have a role on an industrial scale no earlier than the middle of the century. As for gas, investments in power plants will be green only if they contribute to emissions of less than 270 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh and replace more polluting fossil fuel plants. They will need to obtain a building permit before 2030.

On gas, the Commission’s conditions appear much more stringent. It is a non-solid fossil source, certainly less polluting than coal and to which Italy looks with interest, having unused methane deposits. Moreover, in a European context of high prices and constant reduction of supplies from the main supplier, Russia, for reasons of a geopolitical nature. But it is on nuclear power that the clash risks worsening at the community level.

“We believe nuclear technology is dangerous,” government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with the radioactive waste remains unresolved. Hebestreit added that Germany “expressly rejects” the EU assessment on atomic energy and has repeatedly affirmed this position towards the Commission. Germany is now considering the next steps to take. Germany is set to shut down the remaining three nuclear power plants later this year and phase out coal by 2030, while its neighbor France aims to modernize existing reactors and build new ones to meet energy needs. Berlin plans to rely on natural gas until it can be replaced by non-polluting energy sources. The opposite paths taken by two of the EU’s largest economies have led to an embarrassing situation for the Commission. The draft EU executive branch concludes that both nuclear power and natural gas can be considered sustainable under certain conditions for investment purposes.

Hebestreit said the German government’s goal is to use natural gas only as a “bridge technology” and replace it with non-polluting alternatives such as hydrogen produced from renewable energy by 2045, the deadline the country has set for becoming climate neutral. . The spokesman did not say whether Chancellor Olaf Scholz supports the opinion of the Minister of Economy and Climate Robert Habeck that the European Commission’s proposals are a form of “greenwashing”.

Germany has pulled the plug on three of its last six nuclear power plants. The Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C reactors, operated by the E.On and Rwe utilities, were closed on December 31st after 35 years of operation. The last three nuclear power plants – Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim II – will be shut down by the end of 2022. However, closure does not mean decommissioning, which will take much longer and is expected to take place by 2040 in the case of Brokdorf, for example. .

In 2021, the six nuclear power plants contributed about 12% of electricity generation in Germany. The German energy mix consists of 41% renewables, 28% coal and 15% gas. By 2030, Germany aims to meet 80% of energy demand with renewables. This is not the case in France where – given Eurostat 2019 – 77.6% of its energy produced comes from the atom and only 20% from renewable.

Germany is not alone in the firm opposition to the proposal put forward by Brussels: the draft “is a provocation from a procedural point of view” and “in terms of content it hides the risk of greenwashing”, wrote on Twitter the Minister of Energy of the Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, saying he is ready to “examine the proposal in detail and discuss further steps” together with Germany and Austria, equally opposed to including nuclear power among sustainable investments. The proposal was sent to governments on Friday, “in a nocturnal and nebulous action. This says a lot about transparency ”, attacked Turmes.

The same tones used by Vienna: if these are the plans “we will sue”, wrote on Twitter the Austrian Federal Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy, Leonore Gewessler, highlighting that nuclear energy is “dangerous and not it represents a solution in the fight against the climate crisis ”. Austria has no reactors and produces almost all of its energy from renewable sources.

The Spanish government also rejected the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear and natural gas energy in the EU’s “green” taxonomy. According to Madrid, this is “a step backwards” and “a wrong signal” for the financial markets. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge, Teresa Ribera, stressed that “regardless of whether we can continue to invest in one or the other, we believe they are not green or sustainable energies”. Spain – he added – “is a firm supporter of green taxonomy as a key tool to have common references that can be used by investors to achieve the decarbonisation of the economy and climate neutrality by 2050”, but include nuclear and gas “It would be a step backwards,” according to the government official Sanchez. “It makes no sense and sends the wrong signals for the European energy transition as a whole,” he stressed. While admitting that both nuclear power and natural gas have a role to play in the transition, this is “limited in time”. Member States have until 12 January to provide their response to the Commission. Then, once published, it will have to pass the scrutiny of the EU Council and Parliament, where the environmentalist parties are also announcing a battle.

In 2019, France was the country that produced the largest share of energy in the EU (20% of the total), followed by Germany (17%), Poland (9.6%), Italy and Sweden (6%). ). However, the debate on green taxonomy is intertwined with energy security (or sovereignty) in a particular historical phase, marked by risks to the security of supply due to geopolitical and military reasons, as shown by the tensions on the Ukrainian border. Primary energy production in the EU in 2019 was distributed among various energy sources, the most important of which in terms of the size of its contribution were renewables, with over a third (36.5%) of the total. Second place for nuclear power, with 32.0% of total primary energy production, with France in the lead, followed by Belgium (77% of domestic production in 2019) which, however, is about to abound in nuclear power like Germany. However, all European energy production is not enough to meet its needs: more than half of Europe’s energy is imported. The EU energy dependency rate exceeds 50%.

Source link

James Reno

Editor-in-Chief, James loves playing games and loves to write about them more. He knows a lot about entertainment because he has done a drama course. James loves writing, so he is our writer. email: james@d1softballnews.com

Related Articles

Back to top button

Title:

Content: This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: Russia’s move on Ukraine triggers western sanctions

Marc Filippino
Good morning from the Financial Times. Today is Wednesday, February 23rd, and this is your FT News Briefing.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Russia is edging closer to war. President Vladimir Putin is endorsing Russian-backed separatists who claim the entire Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, western powers are pushing back both with sanctions and by suspending the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. But can Germany kick its Russian gas habit?

Guy Chazan
Its industry has really become addicted to relatively cheap Russian gas so it’s in a bit of a bind, really.

Marc Filippino
Plus, how are Russian markets holding up through all this? Unsurprisingly, not so great. We’ll tell you more. I’m Marc Filippino, and here’s the news you need to start your day.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Very late on Monday night, Russian president Vladimir Putin decided to send what he called peacekeeping troops into eastern Ukraine. They’ll support two Russian-backed separatist states that he’s recognised as independent. This crossed a line for western powers, and they retaliated with a salvo of sanctions against Moscow on Tuesday. The US is targeting two of Russia’s largest financial institutions, as well as Russian elites and their family members. The FT’s Henry Foy has more on Europe’s sanctions towards Russia.

Henry Foy
So the European Union has decided to sanction a lot of individuals and entities. They’ve gone after 351 members of the Russian parliament. These are elected MPs, elected representatives who voted for the independence of these statelets, these separatists to be recognised for troops to be sent in, and also 27 individuals and entities who are linked to actions that have undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty. The key thing here, though, is the EU, just like the US and the UK who also announced their own sanction packages, are saying this is not it. This is just the first wave. And if you continue aggression against Ukraine and if there is a full invasion of the rest of Ukraine not held by these pro-Russian separatists, then there will be more — much, much more. This first wave is targeted. It’s not particularly economically damaging, but it’s a sign that there is unity across the west in standing up to this.

Marc Filippino
Henry, is all this enough to push Russia from further escalation?

Henry Foy
Well Marc, officials I speak to here in Brussels, in the EU, inside of Nato, tell me basically, no. That effectively, Putin has made a decision that he is going to go the whole way and invade Ukraine. That’s a decision that he’s built up over years. It’s an emotional decision. It’s an irrational one. And there’s really little that the west can do about it, given that Putin has thrown away and torn up all the diplomatic efforts. And he will take these sanctions and the sanctions will slow him down. They will affect the Russian economy. They will make an invasion more painful than perhaps it would have been before. However, they’re not going to stop him if that is what he intends to do, and most people, the Nato intelligence community, the defence community, believes that that is his decision.

Marc Filippino
Now, how is Nato’s approaching all this? You know, a crucial issue for Russia is that it wants to keep Ukraine and other former Soviet countries out of Nato. What’s its role right now?

Henry Foy
So Nato’s role, they’ve been very clear about this, is to protect itself, to protect alliance members, to protect Nato members in Europe. So what they’ve done in recent months and weeks is to deploy more troops in eastern European countries that border Ukraine and Russia effectively as deterrents to Russia to say, look, if you are going to invade Ukraine, you’re not going to come anywhere near us because we are going to defend our own, our own members, but also to help with any cross-border fallout from an invasion of Ukraine, which is likely to be in the form of refugees, potentially spillover events such as terrorism.

Marc Filippino
Henry Foy is the FT’s European diplomatic correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

The news of Russia sending troops to Ukraine sent the price of oil up to nearly 100 bucks a barrel yesterday, and there was other energy news too. Germany has frozen the approval process on the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Chancellor Olaf Scholz says Berlin would not approve the Kremlin-backed project. The pipeline is owned by the Russian-backed company Gazprom and would have increased a Russian gas supplies to Germany and the rest of Europe. The pipeline project has been in the works for years, and there has been a lot of pressure on Germany to stop it. But now that it’s been stopped, what’s next for Germany’s energy sector? Our Berlin bureau chief Guy Chazan joins me now to talk about this. Welcome to the show, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Hi.

Marc Filippino
So Guy, one of our Lex columnists wrote that Germany has been like a junkie in its addiction to Russian gas. How dependent is Germany on Russian energy?

Guy Chazan
Well, it relies on Russia for 55 per cent of its gas imports, and that’s more than many other countries in Europe. It’s a sort of, it’s an indictment in a way of the country’s kind of energy policies over the past few years because in 2011 it took this rather controversial decision to phase out all its nuclear power stations by 2022, and it’s now also phasing out its coal-fired power stations by 2030. So it has all these very ambitious goals to change its energy mix, but that has made it relatively more reliant on gas. And when you’re more reliant on gas, you’re more reliant on Gazprom because that’s Europe’s major supplier.

Marc Filippino
Yeah, and Russia, in response to Germany’s move, said, OK, well, you know, this is going to have an impact on already high energy prices. How hard will higher prices hit Germany’s economy?

Guy Chazan
Well, we’ve already been getting a taste of it because over the past few months, energy experts have said that Gazprom seems to be deliberately withholding supplies to the spot market in Europe, and that has driven up prices. But it’s basically destroyed the reputation of Gazprom as a reliable supplier in Germany. The green minister of the economy yesterday said that explicitly, and that’s really a big change because in the past, whenever you sort of ask German officials, you know, what about this relationship with Russia? They always say, well, you know, even in the worst times during the cold war, Russia was a reliable supplier. Those flows of gas were never affected. But that seems to have changed in recent months, and the perception of Gazprom has accordingly changed as well in Germany.

Marc Filippino
So given that this perception of Gazprom has changed, what alternatives does Germany have when it comes to energy sources?

Guy Chazan
Well, none at the moment. That’s the problem. It basically is building a terminal for the import of LNG, liquefied natural gas. But that is very expensive, much more expensive than Gazprom’s gas. So it’s in a bit of a bind, really. But the big difference, I suppose, really from the Merkel era, the governments of Angela Merkel, is that we now have this government with the Greens, and they are determined for Germany to go carbon neutral in the next 25 years. And if that ambition is achieved, then there will be much, much more renewables, much more wind and solar, and much less reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas.

Marc Filippino
Less of a question on the economics of this whole thing and more about the safety of German people. I mean, it’s the middle of February. If people aren’t able to heat their homes, is there a potential issue with people being safe and warm in Germany?

Guy Chazan
Well, I don’t think so, because the consensus is that Gazprom and Russia would not do anything as suicidal as withhold gas supplies to Germany. I mean that literally would be destroying an energy relationship, which is mutually, very, very beneficial. It’s not just Germany that benefits from this. It’s Russia, too, which relies very, very heavily on the flow of foreign currency into its exchequer. I think actually, if it were to come to that, Germany is actually quite well placed at the moment because the winter is drawing to an end and it’s getting sort of LNG shipments via Rotterdam. So it has been able to diversify. And apparently ministers have been saying the energy security situation is OK at the moment.

Marc Filippino
Guy Chazan is the FT’s Berlin bureau chief. Thank you, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Thanks.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Marc Filippino
Moscow’s main stock benchmark has collapsed by a third since October. Markets have been responding to the escalating crisis in Ukraine. Investors are mostly worried about two things — one, a full-blown invasion by Russia into Ukraine, and two, how sanctions, which you know, we talked about earlier, will affect assets. Our capital markets correspondent Tommy Stubbington has been following this and says there’s one area in particular investors are watching.

Tommy Stubbington
Possibly the most extreme form of sanctions in terms of their impact on the Russian stock market would be an outright ban on trading Russian stocks or Russian bonds on the secondary market, which would make it effectively impossible for western investors to hold those assets. Now we’re not there yet, but I mean, obviously any outside risks that investors see will lead to investors effectively dumping the Russian assets that they hold, and they do hold those assets largely because they are included in the indices, the investment benchmarks, the billions and billions of dollars of investments follow.

Marc Filippino
Now how insulated is the market overall? And is it likely that the Kremlin would react?

Tommy Stubbington
Share price declines, on their own, are probably something that I imagine the Kremlin wouldn’t be too worried about. They’d be more worried about the sanctions hurting at the level of the whole economy. And on that basis, the Russian economy is fairly well insulated from sanctions by the high level of dollar reserves that their central bank holds, which, you know, should be able to protect the rouble from any kind of run from overseas investors. And so the answer is the, you know, the Russian economy is certainly more sanctions-proof than possibly it was in the past.

Marc Filippino
Tommy Stubbington is the FT’s capital markets correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

You can read more on all of these stories at FT.com. This has been your daily FT News Briefing. Make sure you check back tomorrow for the latest business news.

This transcript has been automatically generated. If by any chance there is an error please send the details for a correction to: typo@ft.com. We will do our best to make the amendment as soon as possible.

Get alerts on Transcript when a new story is published

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2022. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Nuclear generation contributed about 25% of German electricity before the 2011 decision and supplied about 12% of electricity in 2021 after those closures.

Title:

Content: 'Sustainability challenges' What Big Oil, green movement conceal from us

The US funds its military aid to Ukraine with tax dollars and some of America’s allies fund Putin’s military with purchases of his oil and gas exports. And that’s the absurdity that has come to define the Russian invasion
Representative image

NEW YORK: It has long been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that definition, we’re the ones detached from reality if we keep accepting what the oil industry and the green movement keep telling us over and over again and expecting a different result. The greens keep saying that because the price of wind and solar is now as cheap as, or cheaper than, fossil fuels, they’ve won the energy war. Game, set, match — welcome to the green planet.

The oil companies say — as they have in each previous energy crisis since 1973 — that the only answer to this energy crisis is the one they’ve offered for the past 49 years: drill, baby, drill. Welcome to reality. Well, they’re both wrong, and accepting the repetition of either of these tired shibboleths is hurting us economically, environmentally and geopolitically — especially, of late, geopolitically.

Because our continued addiction to fossil fuels is bolstering Vladimir Putin’s petrodictatorship and creating a situation where we in the West are — yes, say it with me now — funding both sides of the war. We fund our military aid to Ukraine with our tax dollars and some of America’s allies fund Putin’s military with purchases of his oil and gas exports.

And if that’s not the definition of insanity, then I don’t know what is. Have no illusion — these sins of the green movement and the oil industry are not equal. The greens are trying to fix a real, planet-threatening problem, even if their ambition exceeds their grasp. The oil and coal companies know that what they are doing is incompatible with a stable, healthy environment. Yes, they are right that without them there would be no global economy today. But unless they use their immense engineering talents to become energy companies, not just fossil fuel companies, there will be no livable economy tomorrow.

Let’s look at both. For too long, too many in the green movement have treated the necessary and urgent shift we need to make from fossil fuels to renewable energy as though it were like flipping a switch — just get off oil, get off gasoline, get off coal and get off nuclear — and do it NOW, without having put in place the kind of transition mechanisms, clean energy sources and market incentives required to make such a massive shift in our energy system.

It’s Germany in 2011, suddenly deciding after the Fukushima accident to phase out its 17 relatively clean and reliable nuclear reactors, which provided some 25 percent of the country’s electricity. This, even though Germany had nowhere near enough solar, wind, geothermal or hydro to replace that nuclear power. So now it’s burning more coal and gas.

A 2019 working paper for the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research found that in Germany “the lost nuclear electricity production due to the phaseout was replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports. The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately $12 billion per year. Over 70 percent of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels.”

Today, the European Union is drawing up a plan to break its addiction to Russian oil and gas by 2027, but, in the meantime, Putin is laughing all the way to the bank. As CNN reported in April, citing a report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air: “Russian revenues from fossil fuel exports to the European Union soared during the first two months of the Ukraine invasion” — to $46.3 billion. That was more than double the value of Russian energy imported by the E.U. during the same two-month period a year earlier.

That was not because the E.U.’s volume of imports doubled. Higher oil and gas prices accounted for most of that increase. In other words, Putin starts a war that creates instability, which drives up oil prices, so he makes twice as much money exporting roughly the same amount of oil.

While Germany jumped off nuclear before it had a safety net of sufficient clean alternatives, at least it has been on a serious, path-defining quest to get them. Indeed, the whole world owes Germany a huge debt for driving down the price of solar panels and wind turbines through the subsidies and tax incentives it created. In Germany, wind turbines, solar panels and other renewables covered 54 percent of power consumption this past January and February — which is AMAZING. In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for only about 12 percent of total U.S. energy that was consumed.

Still, the most important delusion of the green movement today — of which I am a proud, if grouchy, member — is telling itself that because the price of wind and solar technology has fallen so low now that it can beat coal and natural gas in most markets, often even without subsidies, it’s “game over” for fossil fuels. I wish. Price is only half the story.

If you can’t install the transmission lines — to get that sun and wind power from the vast open spaces where it is generated to the big urban areas where it is needed — and if you cannot set aside more land to install the scale of solar and wind farms you need to replace coal, gas or nuclear, it doesn’t matter that your renewables are cheaper on a per-kilowatt-hour basis.

And today transmission is a huge problem in the U.S. and Europe, where many people don’t want wind farms, solar fields, electricity lines — or natural gas pipelines — in their backyard. I wish this were not the case, but there is no immaculate pathway from brown energy to green energy. The road is paved with cruel trade-offs. Pick your poison — but grow up. Meanwhile, ever since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the big oil companies have basically said in each successive crisis: Sure, we need more clean energy, but you have to understand — it doesn’t scale. Right now, we’re in an emergency, so we just need to drill more. You hear the same refrain today, which is why we’re in danger of wasting yet another oil crisis and never breaking our fossil fuel addiction.

For those oil companies sitting on large natural gas deposits — which are needed in this transition because gas is cleaner than coal — it means tapping those deposits but doing so with zero methane leakage; otherwise gas becomes as bad as coal. But it also means thinking much more seriously about how fossil fuel companies truly make the transition to become “energy companies,” not just oil companies, so they can leverage their amazing pools of engineering talent to provide more energy solutions that save the planet, not warm it.

Friedman is an Opinion Columnist with NYT©2022

The New York Times

Related Stories

No stories found.

Lost nuclear output was largely replaced by coal and gas, and a study estimated the social cost of this shift at about $12 billion per year.

Before the Ukraine crisis Germany relied on Russia for about 55% of its gas imports.

Russia’s actions prompted Germany to freeze approval of Nord Stream 2 and coincided with higher oil and gas prices amid concerns that Gazprom had withheld supplies.

Germany is building LNG import capacity, has been receiving LNG via Rotterdam, signed a memorandum with Qatar for long-term gas supplies and a partnership with the UAE, and reported gas storage over 95% full.

Title:

Content: Arabic & International
Send Save Print PDF
Denis Comitat to Al-Nahar: The presence of a German spokesperson in the Middle East is proof of our interest in spreading in the Arab world
Dr. Denis Komett, spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry in the Middle East and North Africa region and director of the German Media Center, told Al-Nahar that Russia ’ s war of aggression against Ukraine is a war against international law and must end it immediately, noting that this terrible war affects different regions and has caused explosion in food prices and food insecurity.
He stressed that Germany will not suffer from a shortage of gas supplies, noting that German gas storage facilities are currently more than 95% full.
He stressed the German government ’ s support for people facing financial challenges due to high energy bills, noting that a memorandum of understanding has been signed with Qatar that will allow gas supplies to Germany for 15 years.
as well as an energy partnership with the United Arab Emirates.
He also stressed that Germany is committed to its international obligations in the field of reception of refugees and that those allowed to stay have good opportunities to integrate into Germany.
To the text of the dialogue:
♪
How the Federal Government of Germany monitors the Russo-Ukrainian War
Its current and future causes and consequences?
What is Germany doing to end this war?
♪
We have said from the beginning that this war of Russian aggression against Ukraine is a war against international law, and Russia must end it immediately.
This terrible war affects very different regions: first of all, of course, it affects the people of Ukraine, destroying their livelihoods, and the infrastructure of their country.
But of course it also affects Europe, because of the influx of many people seeking protection, and we have already taken them in.
At the political level, through Russia ’ s brutal violation of the most basic norms of international law.
Globally, the impact of war has been demonstrated by exploding food prices and food insecurity.
As you can see, there are many effects, all of which are bad.
Germany wants the war to end immediately.
All the Russian president has to do is give the order to withdraw.
Alternative Energy
♪
How Germany will cope with what can be described as a severe winter crisis without Russian gas
Is Gulf gas among Germany ’ s alternative energy sources?
♪
I have to correct the idea that Germany will suffer a severe energy crisis next winter.
The war quickly turned our backs on Russian gas imports, leading to higher energy prices — a price we are politically willing to pay.
Therefore, the German government also supports people who face financial challenges due to high energy bills.
But we are also well prepared for the winter: German gas storage facilities are currently over 95% full.
In addition, we signed a memorandum of understanding with Qatar just last week, which would allow gas supplies to Germany for 15 years.
There is also an energy partnership with the United Arab Emirates.
Other important gas suppliers to Germany also come from Europe, for example from Norway.
At the same time, we are expanding our capabilities in the field of renewable energies.
Each installed solar panel makes us less dependent on Russian gas, and improves the results of our climate action.
A source of strength.
♪
The Russian-Ukrainian war and earlier conflicts in the Middle East (Libya, Iraq-Yemen, Tunisia, Syria) have caused a steady increase in the number of migrants to Europe in general and Germany in particular.
How to deal with the issue of migrants and refugees in Germany
To what extent are they a burden on infrastructure in Germany?
♪
The reasons for people moving to Europe have always been diverse: some are under severe political persecution, others are looking for a better economic life.
Germany is committed to its international obligations in the reception of refugees.
We want people who are allowed to stay here to have good opportunities to integrate into Germany.
Just last week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took part in an event on “Germany as an immigration state. ”
The modern immigration state views diversity as a source of strength.
The modern immigration state recognizes individual life paths and promotes participation and inclusion from the outset.
It is important for us to create the framework conditions for how this can best work.
Furthermore, we support legal migration routes to Germany, as well as a large number of projects in so-called refugee-receiving countries (such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey as well as North Africa) in order to give refugees and migrants in these countries better prospects for the future.
Responsibilities of Germany
♪
Climate policy requires the whole world to join hands and industrially developed countries have a greater role to play. What assistance will Germany provide to the Middle East countries to overcome the consequences of this crisis?
♪
It is right that we must work together to contain the tragic effects of the climate crisis, which we are beginning to feel clearly today.
All countries must do more, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so that we can achieve the Paris climate goals.
As a large industrialized country, Germany has a special responsibility here.
This is why we support many climate protection projects across the region.
Significant progress was also made at the COP27 Conference of the Parties, held in Sharm el-Sheikh.
There will be a fund that will support the countries most particularly affected in the event of climate damage.
Many countries have fought for it for decades, and Germany and the European Union have actively campaigned for it before and during the COP.
♪
Germany has set itself the goal of being climate-neutral by 2045.
Tell us about the package of actions associated with achieving this goal!
♪
In Germany this year, we released the most ambitious legislative package in decades to expand renewable energies.
By 2030, 80 percent of our electricity must come from renewable sources.
We have also created targets for different sectors, such as transportation, consumption, electricity, house construction or renovation and many other areas, which we will then implement one by one to achieve the big picture.
We are firmly focused on the goal of climate neutrality by 2045, as the German chancellor reiterated during his speech at COP27.
Spreading
♪
I mentioned before that the presence of a German speaker in the Middle East is a sign of the rapprochement between Germany and the Arab world.
Can we talk about the points of contact and rapprochement from the point of view of Germany?
And what are the political issues that clearly show this convergence?
♪
Germany and the Arab world are getting closer and closer together, and interest in Germany in the Arab world is very high, so many people have a lot of questions about Germany, its society and its politics.
The task of the regional speaker is to shed light on these specific issues, to show what Germany stands for politically and economically, to point out the particular priorities of our policies – examples this year are above all our support for Ukraine, Germany ’ s climate-related foreign policy, and feminist foreign policy – and also to explain a little about our society.
Of course, this works best in this region in Arabic, because we can reach many people by choosing the language, which is very important to me.
This way I connect with many different people from all over the region, which I consider very special.
Add a new comment
The comment received from the participant or reader is an expression of his own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Nahar
View comments

Officials and analysts warn that LNG and other alternative supplies are more expensive than Russian pipeline gas and that the shift raises costs for industry and consumers.

Title:

Content: Pelosi in Kiev.
Turkey is called the “Istanbul Trail ”.
Is Germany Drifting to ‘ Burn Bridges ’ with Russia?
T + T - normal size
The course of the war in Ukraine is deepening, and talk about the possibility of making progress or holding hopes on the diplomatic track and a negotiated solution, to the extent that Turkey returned yesterday to remind the world of something called the “Istanbul track ” in the negotiations, and that the longer the war, the more complicated the circumstances. Others.
This American support increases pressure on less impulsive and more war-affected allies, such as Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been busy responding to critics who accuse him of being too slow to support Ukraine, but the continuation of the war is gradually eroding middle or less impulsive positions.
On Sunday, Schulz appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop the war, telling him: “Silence the weapons and withdraw your troops. ”
The German chancellor defended his policy in dealing with the Ukrainian crisis, amid accusations that he was acting with hesitation and fear in the face of Russia.
The leader of the opposition Christian Democratic Party, Friedrich Merz, recently accused the German chancellor of being too timid given German arms supplies to Kiev.
Ukraine ’ s ambassador to Germany, Andrei Melnik, described Schulz ’ s policy as slow, telling German newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “Olav Schulz takes almost the same approach as Angela Merkel: first he waits, watches, then makes a decision later at some point, or doesn ’ t take either, what he lacks is imagination and courage. ”
On Tuesday, the German government approved the supply of German-made Gibbard anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine.
These are the first heavy weapons to be supplied directly from Germany to Ukraine.
During a visit to Japan on Thursday, the German chancellor declined to respond to a question about whether the federal government would authorize further deliveries of weapons requested by Ukraine, such as Leopard tanks and Marder armored personnel carriers.
Energy Dependency
The pressure of allies and adversaries on Germany seems to be bearing fruit, and its ability to take a stand distinct from those of Washington and London is limited in light of the major media campaign within the weapons of war.
In this context, the German government announced that it had made progress in reducing its energy dependence on Russia since the beginning of the war in Ukraine.
According to a report by the German Ministry of Economy and Climate Protection, “there have been advances in oil and coal in particular in recent weeks. ”
“Germany is in the process of reducing its energy dependence on Russia very quickly and is in the process of establishing a wider energy supply base. ”
According to the report, the dependence on Russian oil fell from 35% last year to 12% now, and the dependence on Russian gas fell from 55% last year to about 35% now, and the dependence on Russia in coal fell from 50% at the beginning of this year to about 8% now.
German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said: “All these steps we are taking require a huge joint effort from all actors, and they mean costs that will be felt by the economic community, as well as consumers, but they are necessary if we are not to be blackmailed by Russia later. ”
Print Email

Some commentators and opinion pieces have urged reversing the phaseout and restarting reactors to reduce reliance on Russian energy.

Title:

Content: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an intolerable horror from the start. It has escalated into a genocide in what amounts to a terror campaign to subdue a people.

President Joe Biden was correct to call Russian atrocities a genocide, and even if the declaration is not yet official policy, it raises the moral urgency for all free governments to engage in meaningful and even painful steps to defeat a nihilistic and murderous dictator.

The U.S. is again leading the world in confronting a European crisis that threatens to become a global war. U.S. security aid to Ukraine during the Biden administration is now greater than $2 billion. Total European funds to the Ukrainian military forces now total about $1.6 billion.

It’s important that our European allies deepen their commitment to providing direct military aid. But the reality is that Europe’s greatest lever against Russian aggression has yet to be pulled, and that is dramatically reducing the German purchase of Russian energy.

There is no question that this would amount to a great sacrifice for the German people. Cutting off all Russian gas supply would send the German economy into recession. There would also be an impact on the way of life for Germans who rely on Russian gas to heat their homes and power their places of work.

But the corresponding effect on the Russian economy and the Russian war machine would likely be far more impactful.

Alina Polyakova, chief executive of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told us during a recent visit to Dallas that a German decision to stop purchasing Russian energy would alter the course of history.

“It would end the war,” she said. “They would just run out of money.”

The Russian war machine relies on direct payments for energy. Cut off the payments, and you cut off the money.

It’s simple in theory and excruciating in practice because of its real and immediate impact on people’s lives and nations’ economies.

Nevertheless, Germany has a moral imperative to take clear, positive steps toward sharply reducing its purchase of Russian energy, such as reversing a decision to shut off nuclear plants by year’s end. We are talking about ending a genocide, and, as Germany has recognized in its own laws and culture, the nation has an enhanced responsibility in this regard.

Ukrainians have fought bravely and have shown the world that they can defend their nation. But they cannot hold on forever.

Free nations everywhere will have to make sacrifices. We urge Europe to act now to support Ukraine, to help end the war and to benefit all of humanity.

— Tribune News Service

Trending Food Videos

The government, however, has rejected treating nuclear as a sustainable investment in the EU taxonomy and says it will use gas as a bridge while expanding renewables toward climate neutrality goals.

In short, Germany’s nuclear phase-out reduced domestic low‑carbon generation and in the short term increased reliance on coal and gas, while the Ukraine war has accelerated moves to diversify gas supplies and revived public debate about reviving reactors.


Germany decided in 2011 to phase out its nuclear power plants and planned to complete the phase-out by 2022.

In 2021 Germany closed three reactors and planned to shut the remaining three by the end of 2022.

Sources in the context report that nuclear provided about 25% of Germany’s electricity around the time of the 2011 decision and that the six reactors still operating in 2021 produced roughly 12% of Germany’s electricity.

Analysts and reporting in the context link the nuclear phase-out to increased reliance on gas and say this made Germany relatively more dependent on Russian gas.

The context states that Germany relied on Russia for about 55% of its gas imports.

Following the February 2022 escalation, Germany froze approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project.

Reports in the context say Gazprom appeared to withhold supplies to the European spot market, which helped drive up gas prices and damaged perceptions of Gazprom as a reliable supplier in Germany.

German officials reported that domestic gas storage facilities were over 95% full and that Germany signed a memorandum with Qatar to enable gas supplies for 15 years, alongside energy partnerships with the United Arab Emirates.

Germany has been building LNG import capacity and has received LNG shipments via Rotterdam, while commentators note LNG imports are significantly more expensive than Russian pipeline gas.

Research cited in the context found that lost nuclear production was replaced primarily by coal-fired generation and net electricity imports, and that the shift imposed a substantial social cost linked to increased air pollution.

Germany is pursuing a parallel policy of expanding renewables, aiming for 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2045, and it plans to phase out coal by 2030.

One report cited in the context said that wind and solar covered about 54% of power consumption in a recent January–February period, reflecting rapid renewable growth in those months.

Context documents show that Germany and some commentators have taken steps to reduce dependence on Russian energy and that official reporting indicated reductions in Russian fuel reliance (for example, reported falls in Russian oil, gas and coal shares), while noting these steps entail economic costs.

Some opinion pieces and commentators cited in the context explicitly urged reversing the nuclear shutdown to cut payments to Russia and to strengthen energy security in response to the invasion.

Germany has publicly opposed classifying nuclear as green in the EU taxonomy, with government spokespeople citing unresolved radioactive‑waste issues and rejecting the Commission’s assessment.

Overall, the contextual reporting shows the nuclear phase-out reduced a low‑carbon source, increased near‑term reliance on gas and coal and left Germany more exposed to Russian supply risks, while the war has accelerated efforts to diversify supplies and expand renewables and prompted public and expert debate about whether to revisit nuclear policy.

In summary, removing nuclear power has increased short‑term reliance on fossil imports and exposure to Russian gas risks, raised prices and prompted calls to reconsider some plant closures even as Germany accelerates renewables and seeks alternative gas supplies.

Germany decided in 2011 to phase out its nuclear power plants and planned to complete the phase-out by 2022.

Title:

Content: World

Berlin against, Rome is silent, Paris in favor. Nuclear power explodes in the EU

Germany closed three reactors in 2021 and plans to do the same with the other three in 2022. Belgium shares the same idea, “shut down” its seven plants by 2025. Spain, which has some reactors in operation as well, does not consider them “green” at all. Luxembourg dismisses the proposal to include the atom in the green taxonomy as a “provocation”. Austria of the atom does not want to know, with 82% of its primary energy production made from renewables (data 2019), and is studying a legal action against the Commission. France is delighted to see nuclear power (77% of its domestic production) taken into account by Brussels. Italy, which is fond of Minister Cingolani’s idea of increasing its gas extractions, is currently silent and at least hopes for a golden rule to exclude “green” investments from the calculation of the deficit. A few days after the publication of the draft of the European Commission on the green taxonomy, the distances between the 27 instead of narrowing, are widening and if yesterday they seemed divided, today they show themselves to be shattered.

The definition of the green taxonomy is fundamental in orienting investments: with the “green” stamp, industrial and infrastructure projects can be much more attractive for private capital. However, the decision to include nuclear and gas in the EU’s green taxonomy has met with harsh criticism already in recent weeks, when rumors had not yet taken the form of a draft Commission. The technicians from Brussels and the team of experts who collaborated in the drafting of the central document for the definition of the EU energy planning in the context of the Green New Deal tried to circumvent the foreseeable resistance by introducing some conditions for the two sources that are not neutral with respect to the climate and the environment. Nuclear and gas, first of all, will be considered compatible with the green taxonomy only for a defined period of time and “to the extent that they contribute to the transition towards climate neutrality and do not significantly damage the environment”, according to an official of Brussels. “The Commission sees the future energy mix as a predominantly renewable or low-carbon energy system. We really hope that this proposal will help bring about the change we need and channel private funding towards low-emission energy sources ”.

In fact, it means that investments in nuclear power will be “green” only if the projects presented have a well defined plan, funds and site for the disposal of radioactive waste in total safety. Building permits will only be allowed until 2045. It is worth remembering that at the moment there is still talk of third generation or third plus nuclear power. Not the fourth, the (slag-free) fusion that experts believe may have a role on an industrial scale no earlier than the middle of the century. As for gas, investments in power plants will be green only if they contribute to emissions of less than 270 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh and replace more polluting fossil fuel plants. They will need to obtain a building permit before 2030.

On gas, the Commission’s conditions appear much more stringent. It is a non-solid fossil source, certainly less polluting than coal and to which Italy looks with interest, having unused methane deposits. Moreover, in a European context of high prices and constant reduction of supplies from the main supplier, Russia, for reasons of a geopolitical nature. But it is on nuclear power that the clash risks worsening at the community level.

“We believe nuclear technology is dangerous,” government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with the radioactive waste remains unresolved. Hebestreit added that Germany “expressly rejects” the EU assessment on atomic energy and has repeatedly affirmed this position towards the Commission. Germany is now considering the next steps to take. Germany is set to shut down the remaining three nuclear power plants later this year and phase out coal by 2030, while its neighbor France aims to modernize existing reactors and build new ones to meet energy needs. Berlin plans to rely on natural gas until it can be replaced by non-polluting energy sources. The opposite paths taken by two of the EU’s largest economies have led to an embarrassing situation for the Commission. The draft EU executive branch concludes that both nuclear power and natural gas can be considered sustainable under certain conditions for investment purposes.

Hebestreit said the German government’s goal is to use natural gas only as a “bridge technology” and replace it with non-polluting alternatives such as hydrogen produced from renewable energy by 2045, the deadline the country has set for becoming climate neutral. . The spokesman did not say whether Chancellor Olaf Scholz supports the opinion of the Minister of Economy and Climate Robert Habeck that the European Commission’s proposals are a form of “greenwashing”.

Germany has pulled the plug on three of its last six nuclear power plants. The Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C reactors, operated by the E.On and Rwe utilities, were closed on December 31st after 35 years of operation. The last three nuclear power plants – Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim II – will be shut down by the end of 2022. However, closure does not mean decommissioning, which will take much longer and is expected to take place by 2040 in the case of Brokdorf, for example. .

In 2021, the six nuclear power plants contributed about 12% of electricity generation in Germany. The German energy mix consists of 41% renewables, 28% coal and 15% gas. By 2030, Germany aims to meet 80% of energy demand with renewables. This is not the case in France where – given Eurostat 2019 – 77.6% of its energy produced comes from the atom and only 20% from renewable.

Germany is not alone in the firm opposition to the proposal put forward by Brussels: the draft “is a provocation from a procedural point of view” and “in terms of content it hides the risk of greenwashing”, wrote on Twitter the Minister of Energy of the Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, saying he is ready to “examine the proposal in detail and discuss further steps” together with Germany and Austria, equally opposed to including nuclear power among sustainable investments. The proposal was sent to governments on Friday, “in a nocturnal and nebulous action. This says a lot about transparency ”, attacked Turmes.

The same tones used by Vienna: if these are the plans “we will sue”, wrote on Twitter the Austrian Federal Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy, Leonore Gewessler, highlighting that nuclear energy is “dangerous and not it represents a solution in the fight against the climate crisis ”. Austria has no reactors and produces almost all of its energy from renewable sources.

The Spanish government also rejected the European Commission’s proposal to include nuclear and natural gas energy in the EU’s “green” taxonomy. According to Madrid, this is “a step backwards” and “a wrong signal” for the financial markets. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge, Teresa Ribera, stressed that “regardless of whether we can continue to invest in one or the other, we believe they are not green or sustainable energies”. Spain – he added – “is a firm supporter of green taxonomy as a key tool to have common references that can be used by investors to achieve the decarbonisation of the economy and climate neutrality by 2050”, but include nuclear and gas “It would be a step backwards,” according to the government official Sanchez. “It makes no sense and sends the wrong signals for the European energy transition as a whole,” he stressed. While admitting that both nuclear power and natural gas have a role to play in the transition, this is “limited in time”. Member States have until 12 January to provide their response to the Commission. Then, once published, it will have to pass the scrutiny of the EU Council and Parliament, where the environmentalist parties are also announcing a battle.

In 2019, France was the country that produced the largest share of energy in the EU (20% of the total), followed by Germany (17%), Poland (9.6%), Italy and Sweden (6%). ). However, the debate on green taxonomy is intertwined with energy security (or sovereignty) in a particular historical phase, marked by risks to the security of supply due to geopolitical and military reasons, as shown by the tensions on the Ukrainian border. Primary energy production in the EU in 2019 was distributed among various energy sources, the most important of which in terms of the size of its contribution were renewables, with over a third (36.5%) of the total. Second place for nuclear power, with 32.0% of total primary energy production, with France in the lead, followed by Belgium (77% of domestic production in 2019) which, however, is about to abound in nuclear power like Germany. However, all European energy production is not enough to meet its needs: more than half of Europe’s energy is imported. The EU energy dependency rate exceeds 50%.

Source link

James Reno

Editor-in-Chief, James loves playing games and loves to write about them more. He knows a lot about entertainment because he has done a drama course. James loves writing, so he is our writer. email: james@d1softballnews.com

Related Articles

Back to top button

Title:

Content: This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: Russia’s move on Ukraine triggers western sanctions

Marc Filippino
Good morning from the Financial Times. Today is Wednesday, February 23rd, and this is your FT News Briefing.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Russia is edging closer to war. President Vladimir Putin is endorsing Russian-backed separatists who claim the entire Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, western powers are pushing back both with sanctions and by suspending the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. But can Germany kick its Russian gas habit?

Guy Chazan
Its industry has really become addicted to relatively cheap Russian gas so it’s in a bit of a bind, really.

Marc Filippino
Plus, how are Russian markets holding up through all this? Unsurprisingly, not so great. We’ll tell you more. I’m Marc Filippino, and here’s the news you need to start your day.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Very late on Monday night, Russian president Vladimir Putin decided to send what he called peacekeeping troops into eastern Ukraine. They’ll support two Russian-backed separatist states that he’s recognised as independent. This crossed a line for western powers, and they retaliated with a salvo of sanctions against Moscow on Tuesday. The US is targeting two of Russia’s largest financial institutions, as well as Russian elites and their family members. The FT’s Henry Foy has more on Europe’s sanctions towards Russia.

Henry Foy
So the European Union has decided to sanction a lot of individuals and entities. They’ve gone after 351 members of the Russian parliament. These are elected MPs, elected representatives who voted for the independence of these statelets, these separatists to be recognised for troops to be sent in, and also 27 individuals and entities who are linked to actions that have undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty. The key thing here, though, is the EU, just like the US and the UK who also announced their own sanction packages, are saying this is not it. This is just the first wave. And if you continue aggression against Ukraine and if there is a full invasion of the rest of Ukraine not held by these pro-Russian separatists, then there will be more — much, much more. This first wave is targeted. It’s not particularly economically damaging, but it’s a sign that there is unity across the west in standing up to this.

Marc Filippino
Henry, is all this enough to push Russia from further escalation?

Henry Foy
Well Marc, officials I speak to here in Brussels, in the EU, inside of Nato, tell me basically, no. That effectively, Putin has made a decision that he is going to go the whole way and invade Ukraine. That’s a decision that he’s built up over years. It’s an emotional decision. It’s an irrational one. And there’s really little that the west can do about it, given that Putin has thrown away and torn up all the diplomatic efforts. And he will take these sanctions and the sanctions will slow him down. They will affect the Russian economy. They will make an invasion more painful than perhaps it would have been before. However, they’re not going to stop him if that is what he intends to do, and most people, the Nato intelligence community, the defence community, believes that that is his decision.

Marc Filippino
Now, how is Nato’s approaching all this? You know, a crucial issue for Russia is that it wants to keep Ukraine and other former Soviet countries out of Nato. What’s its role right now?

Henry Foy
So Nato’s role, they’ve been very clear about this, is to protect itself, to protect alliance members, to protect Nato members in Europe. So what they’ve done in recent months and weeks is to deploy more troops in eastern European countries that border Ukraine and Russia effectively as deterrents to Russia to say, look, if you are going to invade Ukraine, you’re not going to come anywhere near us because we are going to defend our own, our own members, but also to help with any cross-border fallout from an invasion of Ukraine, which is likely to be in the form of refugees, potentially spillover events such as terrorism.

Marc Filippino
Henry Foy is the FT’s European diplomatic correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

The news of Russia sending troops to Ukraine sent the price of oil up to nearly 100 bucks a barrel yesterday, and there was other energy news too. Germany has frozen the approval process on the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Chancellor Olaf Scholz says Berlin would not approve the Kremlin-backed project. The pipeline is owned by the Russian-backed company Gazprom and would have increased a Russian gas supplies to Germany and the rest of Europe. The pipeline project has been in the works for years, and there has been a lot of pressure on Germany to stop it. But now that it’s been stopped, what’s next for Germany’s energy sector? Our Berlin bureau chief Guy Chazan joins me now to talk about this. Welcome to the show, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Hi.

Marc Filippino
So Guy, one of our Lex columnists wrote that Germany has been like a junkie in its addiction to Russian gas. How dependent is Germany on Russian energy?

Guy Chazan
Well, it relies on Russia for 55 per cent of its gas imports, and that’s more than many other countries in Europe. It’s a sort of, it’s an indictment in a way of the country’s kind of energy policies over the past few years because in 2011 it took this rather controversial decision to phase out all its nuclear power stations by 2022, and it’s now also phasing out its coal-fired power stations by 2030. So it has all these very ambitious goals to change its energy mix, but that has made it relatively more reliant on gas. And when you’re more reliant on gas, you’re more reliant on Gazprom because that’s Europe’s major supplier.

Marc Filippino
Yeah, and Russia, in response to Germany’s move, said, OK, well, you know, this is going to have an impact on already high energy prices. How hard will higher prices hit Germany’s economy?

Guy Chazan
Well, we’ve already been getting a taste of it because over the past few months, energy experts have said that Gazprom seems to be deliberately withholding supplies to the spot market in Europe, and that has driven up prices. But it’s basically destroyed the reputation of Gazprom as a reliable supplier in Germany. The green minister of the economy yesterday said that explicitly, and that’s really a big change because in the past, whenever you sort of ask German officials, you know, what about this relationship with Russia? They always say, well, you know, even in the worst times during the cold war, Russia was a reliable supplier. Those flows of gas were never affected. But that seems to have changed in recent months, and the perception of Gazprom has accordingly changed as well in Germany.

Marc Filippino
So given that this perception of Gazprom has changed, what alternatives does Germany have when it comes to energy sources?

Guy Chazan
Well, none at the moment. That’s the problem. It basically is building a terminal for the import of LNG, liquefied natural gas. But that is very expensive, much more expensive than Gazprom’s gas. So it’s in a bit of a bind, really. But the big difference, I suppose, really from the Merkel era, the governments of Angela Merkel, is that we now have this government with the Greens, and they are determined for Germany to go carbon neutral in the next 25 years. And if that ambition is achieved, then there will be much, much more renewables, much more wind and solar, and much less reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas.

Marc Filippino
Less of a question on the economics of this whole thing and more about the safety of German people. I mean, it’s the middle of February. If people aren’t able to heat their homes, is there a potential issue with people being safe and warm in Germany?

Guy Chazan
Well, I don’t think so, because the consensus is that Gazprom and Russia would not do anything as suicidal as withhold gas supplies to Germany. I mean that literally would be destroying an energy relationship, which is mutually, very, very beneficial. It’s not just Germany that benefits from this. It’s Russia, too, which relies very, very heavily on the flow of foreign currency into its exchequer. I think actually, if it were to come to that, Germany is actually quite well placed at the moment because the winter is drawing to an end and it’s getting sort of LNG shipments via Rotterdam. So it has been able to diversify. And apparently ministers have been saying the energy security situation is OK at the moment.

Marc Filippino
Guy Chazan is the FT’s Berlin bureau chief. Thank you, Guy.

Guy Chazan
Thanks.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Marc Filippino
Moscow’s main stock benchmark has collapsed by a third since October. Markets have been responding to the escalating crisis in Ukraine. Investors are mostly worried about two things — one, a full-blown invasion by Russia into Ukraine, and two, how sanctions, which you know, we talked about earlier, will affect assets. Our capital markets correspondent Tommy Stubbington has been following this and says there’s one area in particular investors are watching.

Tommy Stubbington
Possibly the most extreme form of sanctions in terms of their impact on the Russian stock market would be an outright ban on trading Russian stocks or Russian bonds on the secondary market, which would make it effectively impossible for western investors to hold those assets. Now we’re not there yet, but I mean, obviously any outside risks that investors see will lead to investors effectively dumping the Russian assets that they hold, and they do hold those assets largely because they are included in the indices, the investment benchmarks, the billions and billions of dollars of investments follow.

Marc Filippino
Now how insulated is the market overall? And is it likely that the Kremlin would react?

Tommy Stubbington
Share price declines, on their own, are probably something that I imagine the Kremlin wouldn’t be too worried about. They’d be more worried about the sanctions hurting at the level of the whole economy. And on that basis, the Russian economy is fairly well insulated from sanctions by the high level of dollar reserves that their central bank holds, which, you know, should be able to protect the rouble from any kind of run from overseas investors. And so the answer is the, you know, the Russian economy is certainly more sanctions-proof than possibly it was in the past.

Marc Filippino
Tommy Stubbington is the FT’s capital markets correspondent.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

You can read more on all of these stories at FT.com. This has been your daily FT News Briefing. Make sure you check back tomorrow for the latest business news.

This transcript has been automatically generated. If by any chance there is an error please send the details for a correction to: typo@ft.com. We will do our best to make the amendment as soon as possible.

Get alerts on Transcript when a new story is published

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2022. All rights reserved.
Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

In 2021 Germany closed three reactors and planned to shut the remaining three by the end of 2022.

Sources in the context report that nuclear provided about 25% of Germany’s electricity around the time of the 2011 decision and that the six reactors still operating in 2021 produced roughly 12% of Germany’s electricity.

Title:

Content: 'Sustainability challenges' What Big Oil, green movement conceal from us

The US funds its military aid to Ukraine with tax dollars and some of America’s allies fund Putin’s military with purchases of his oil and gas exports. And that’s the absurdity that has come to define the Russian invasion
Representative image

NEW YORK: It has long been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that definition, we’re the ones detached from reality if we keep accepting what the oil industry and the green movement keep telling us over and over again and expecting a different result. The greens keep saying that because the price of wind and solar is now as cheap as, or cheaper than, fossil fuels, they’ve won the energy war. Game, set, match — welcome to the green planet.

The oil companies say — as they have in each previous energy crisis since 1973 — that the only answer to this energy crisis is the one they’ve offered for the past 49 years: drill, baby, drill. Welcome to reality. Well, they’re both wrong, and accepting the repetition of either of these tired shibboleths is hurting us economically, environmentally and geopolitically — especially, of late, geopolitically.

Because our continued addiction to fossil fuels is bolstering Vladimir Putin’s petrodictatorship and creating a situation where we in the West are — yes, say it with me now — funding both sides of the war. We fund our military aid to Ukraine with our tax dollars and some of America’s allies fund Putin’s military with purchases of his oil and gas exports.

And if that’s not the definition of insanity, then I don’t know what is. Have no illusion — these sins of the green movement and the oil industry are not equal. The greens are trying to fix a real, planet-threatening problem, even if their ambition exceeds their grasp. The oil and coal companies know that what they are doing is incompatible with a stable, healthy environment. Yes, they are right that without them there would be no global economy today. But unless they use their immense engineering talents to become energy companies, not just fossil fuel companies, there will be no livable economy tomorrow.

Let’s look at both. For too long, too many in the green movement have treated the necessary and urgent shift we need to make from fossil fuels to renewable energy as though it were like flipping a switch — just get off oil, get off gasoline, get off coal and get off nuclear — and do it NOW, without having put in place the kind of transition mechanisms, clean energy sources and market incentives required to make such a massive shift in our energy system.

It’s Germany in 2011, suddenly deciding after the Fukushima accident to phase out its 17 relatively clean and reliable nuclear reactors, which provided some 25 percent of the country’s electricity. This, even though Germany had nowhere near enough solar, wind, geothermal or hydro to replace that nuclear power. So now it’s burning more coal and gas.

A 2019 working paper for the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research found that in Germany “the lost nuclear electricity production due to the phaseout was replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports. The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately $12 billion per year. Over 70 percent of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels.”

Today, the European Union is drawing up a plan to break its addiction to Russian oil and gas by 2027, but, in the meantime, Putin is laughing all the way to the bank. As CNN reported in April, citing a report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air: “Russian revenues from fossil fuel exports to the European Union soared during the first two months of the Ukraine invasion” — to $46.3 billion. That was more than double the value of Russian energy imported by the E.U. during the same two-month period a year earlier.

That was not because the E.U.’s volume of imports doubled. Higher oil and gas prices accounted for most of that increase. In other words, Putin starts a war that creates instability, which drives up oil prices, so he makes twice as much money exporting roughly the same amount of oil.

While Germany jumped off nuclear before it had a safety net of sufficient clean alternatives, at least it has been on a serious, path-defining quest to get them. Indeed, the whole world owes Germany a huge debt for driving down the price of solar panels and wind turbines through the subsidies and tax incentives it created. In Germany, wind turbines, solar panels and other renewables covered 54 percent of power consumption this past January and February — which is AMAZING. In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for only about 12 percent of total U.S. energy that was consumed.

Still, the most important delusion of the green movement today — of which I am a proud, if grouchy, member — is telling itself that because the price of wind and solar technology has fallen so low now that it can beat coal and natural gas in most markets, often even without subsidies, it’s “game over” for fossil fuels. I wish. Price is only half the story.

If you can’t install the transmission lines — to get that sun and wind power from the vast open spaces where it is generated to the big urban areas where it is needed — and if you cannot set aside more land to install the scale of solar and wind farms you need to replace coal, gas or nuclear, it doesn’t matter that your renewables are cheaper on a per-kilowatt-hour basis.

And today transmission is a huge problem in the U.S. and Europe, where many people don’t want wind farms, solar fields, electricity lines — or natural gas pipelines — in their backyard. I wish this were not the case, but there is no immaculate pathway from brown energy to green energy. The road is paved with cruel trade-offs. Pick your poison — but grow up. Meanwhile, ever since the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the big oil companies have basically said in each successive crisis: Sure, we need more clean energy, but you have to understand — it doesn’t scale. Right now, we’re in an emergency, so we just need to drill more. You hear the same refrain today, which is why we’re in danger of wasting yet another oil crisis and never breaking our fossil fuel addiction.

For those oil companies sitting on large natural gas deposits — which are needed in this transition because gas is cleaner than coal — it means tapping those deposits but doing so with zero methane leakage; otherwise gas becomes as bad as coal. But it also means thinking much more seriously about how fossil fuel companies truly make the transition to become “energy companies,” not just oil companies, so they can leverage their amazing pools of engineering talent to provide more energy solutions that save the planet, not warm it.

Friedman is an Opinion Columnist with NYT©2022

The New York Times

Related Stories

No stories found.

Analysts and reporting in the context link the nuclear phase-out to increased reliance on gas and say this made Germany relatively more dependent on Russian gas.

The context states that Germany relied on Russia for about 55% of its gas imports.

Following the February 2022 escalation, Germany froze approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project.

Reports in the context say Gazprom appeared to withhold supplies to the European spot market, which helped drive up gas prices and damaged perceptions of Gazprom as a reliable supplier in Germany.

German officials reported that domestic gas storage facilities were over 95% full and that Germany signed a memorandum with Qatar to enable gas supplies for 15 years, alongside energy partnerships with the United Arab Emirates.

Title:

Content: Arabic & International
Send Save Print PDF
Denis Comitat to Al-Nahar: The presence of a German spokesperson in the Middle East is proof of our interest in spreading in the Arab world
Dr. Denis Komett, spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry in the Middle East and North Africa region and director of the German Media Center, told Al-Nahar that Russia ’ s war of aggression against Ukraine is a war against international law and must end it immediately, noting that this terrible war affects different regions and has caused explosion in food prices and food insecurity.
He stressed that Germany will not suffer from a shortage of gas supplies, noting that German gas storage facilities are currently more than 95% full.
He stressed the German government ’ s support for people facing financial challenges due to high energy bills, noting that a memorandum of understanding has been signed with Qatar that will allow gas supplies to Germany for 15 years.
as well as an energy partnership with the United Arab Emirates.
He also stressed that Germany is committed to its international obligations in the field of reception of refugees and that those allowed to stay have good opportunities to integrate into Germany.
To the text of the dialogue:
♪
How the Federal Government of Germany monitors the Russo-Ukrainian War
Its current and future causes and consequences?
What is Germany doing to end this war?
♪
We have said from the beginning that this war of Russian aggression against Ukraine is a war against international law, and Russia must end it immediately.
This terrible war affects very different regions: first of all, of course, it affects the people of Ukraine, destroying their livelihoods, and the infrastructure of their country.
But of course it also affects Europe, because of the influx of many people seeking protection, and we have already taken them in.
At the political level, through Russia ’ s brutal violation of the most basic norms of international law.
Globally, the impact of war has been demonstrated by exploding food prices and food insecurity.
As you can see, there are many effects, all of which are bad.
Germany wants the war to end immediately.
All the Russian president has to do is give the order to withdraw.
Alternative Energy
♪
How Germany will cope with what can be described as a severe winter crisis without Russian gas
Is Gulf gas among Germany ’ s alternative energy sources?
♪
I have to correct the idea that Germany will suffer a severe energy crisis next winter.
The war quickly turned our backs on Russian gas imports, leading to higher energy prices — a price we are politically willing to pay.
Therefore, the German government also supports people who face financial challenges due to high energy bills.
But we are also well prepared for the winter: German gas storage facilities are currently over 95% full.
In addition, we signed a memorandum of understanding with Qatar just last week, which would allow gas supplies to Germany for 15 years.
There is also an energy partnership with the United Arab Emirates.
Other important gas suppliers to Germany also come from Europe, for example from Norway.
At the same time, we are expanding our capabilities in the field of renewable energies.
Each installed solar panel makes us less dependent on Russian gas, and improves the results of our climate action.
A source of strength.
♪
The Russian-Ukrainian war and earlier conflicts in the Middle East (Libya, Iraq-Yemen, Tunisia, Syria) have caused a steady increase in the number of migrants to Europe in general and Germany in particular.
How to deal with the issue of migrants and refugees in Germany
To what extent are they a burden on infrastructure in Germany?
♪
The reasons for people moving to Europe have always been diverse: some are under severe political persecution, others are looking for a better economic life.
Germany is committed to its international obligations in the reception of refugees.
We want people who are allowed to stay here to have good opportunities to integrate into Germany.
Just last week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took part in an event on “Germany as an immigration state. ”
The modern immigration state views diversity as a source of strength.
The modern immigration state recognizes individual life paths and promotes participation and inclusion from the outset.
It is important for us to create the framework conditions for how this can best work.
Furthermore, we support legal migration routes to Germany, as well as a large number of projects in so-called refugee-receiving countries (such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey as well as North Africa) in order to give refugees and migrants in these countries better prospects for the future.
Responsibilities of Germany
♪
Climate policy requires the whole world to join hands and industrially developed countries have a greater role to play. What assistance will Germany provide to the Middle East countries to overcome the consequences of this crisis?
♪
It is right that we must work together to contain the tragic effects of the climate crisis, which we are beginning to feel clearly today.
All countries must do more, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so that we can achieve the Paris climate goals.
As a large industrialized country, Germany has a special responsibility here.
This is why we support many climate protection projects across the region.
Significant progress was also made at the COP27 Conference of the Parties, held in Sharm el-Sheikh.
There will be a fund that will support the countries most particularly affected in the event of climate damage.
Many countries have fought for it for decades, and Germany and the European Union have actively campaigned for it before and during the COP.
♪
Germany has set itself the goal of being climate-neutral by 2045.
Tell us about the package of actions associated with achieving this goal!
♪
In Germany this year, we released the most ambitious legislative package in decades to expand renewable energies.
By 2030, 80 percent of our electricity must come from renewable sources.
We have also created targets for different sectors, such as transportation, consumption, electricity, house construction or renovation and many other areas, which we will then implement one by one to achieve the big picture.
We are firmly focused on the goal of climate neutrality by 2045, as the German chancellor reiterated during his speech at COP27.
Spreading
♪
I mentioned before that the presence of a German speaker in the Middle East is a sign of the rapprochement between Germany and the Arab world.
Can we talk about the points of contact and rapprochement from the point of view of Germany?
And what are the political issues that clearly show this convergence?
♪
Germany and the Arab world are getting closer and closer together, and interest in Germany in the Arab world is very high, so many people have a lot of questions about Germany, its society and its politics.
The task of the regional speaker is to shed light on these specific issues, to show what Germany stands for politically and economically, to point out the particular priorities of our policies – examples this year are above all our support for Ukraine, Germany ’ s climate-related foreign policy, and feminist foreign policy – and also to explain a little about our society.
Of course, this works best in this region in Arabic, because we can reach many people by choosing the language, which is very important to me.
This way I connect with many different people from all over the region, which I consider very special.
Add a new comment
The comment received from the participant or reader is an expression of his own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Nahar
View comments

Germany has been building LNG import capacity and has received LNG shipments via Rotterdam, while commentators note LNG imports are significantly more expensive than Russian pipeline gas.

Research cited in the context found that lost nuclear production was replaced primarily by coal-fired generation and net electricity imports, and that the shift imposed a substantial social cost linked to increased air pollution.

Germany is pursuing a parallel policy of expanding renewables, aiming for 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2045, and it plans to phase out coal by 2030.

One report cited in the context said that wind and solar covered about 54% of power consumption in a recent January–February period, reflecting rapid renewable growth in those months.

Context documents show that Germany and some commentators have taken steps to reduce dependence on Russian energy and that official reporting indicated reductions in Russian fuel reliance (for example, reported falls in Russian oil, gas and coal shares), while noting these steps entail economic costs.

Title:

Content: Pelosi in Kiev.
Turkey is called the “Istanbul Trail ”.
Is Germany Drifting to ‘ Burn Bridges ’ with Russia?
T + T - normal size
The course of the war in Ukraine is deepening, and talk about the possibility of making progress or holding hopes on the diplomatic track and a negotiated solution, to the extent that Turkey returned yesterday to remind the world of something called the “Istanbul track ” in the negotiations, and that the longer the war, the more complicated the circumstances. Others.
This American support increases pressure on less impulsive and more war-affected allies, such as Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been busy responding to critics who accuse him of being too slow to support Ukraine, but the continuation of the war is gradually eroding middle or less impulsive positions.
On Sunday, Schulz appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop the war, telling him: “Silence the weapons and withdraw your troops. ”
The German chancellor defended his policy in dealing with the Ukrainian crisis, amid accusations that he was acting with hesitation and fear in the face of Russia.
The leader of the opposition Christian Democratic Party, Friedrich Merz, recently accused the German chancellor of being too timid given German arms supplies to Kiev.
Ukraine ’ s ambassador to Germany, Andrei Melnik, described Schulz ’ s policy as slow, telling German newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “Olav Schulz takes almost the same approach as Angela Merkel: first he waits, watches, then makes a decision later at some point, or doesn ’ t take either, what he lacks is imagination and courage. ”
On Tuesday, the German government approved the supply of German-made Gibbard anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine.
These are the first heavy weapons to be supplied directly from Germany to Ukraine.
During a visit to Japan on Thursday, the German chancellor declined to respond to a question about whether the federal government would authorize further deliveries of weapons requested by Ukraine, such as Leopard tanks and Marder armored personnel carriers.
Energy Dependency
The pressure of allies and adversaries on Germany seems to be bearing fruit, and its ability to take a stand distinct from those of Washington and London is limited in light of the major media campaign within the weapons of war.
In this context, the German government announced that it had made progress in reducing its energy dependence on Russia since the beginning of the war in Ukraine.
According to a report by the German Ministry of Economy and Climate Protection, “there have been advances in oil and coal in particular in recent weeks. ”
“Germany is in the process of reducing its energy dependence on Russia very quickly and is in the process of establishing a wider energy supply base. ”
According to the report, the dependence on Russian oil fell from 35% last year to 12% now, and the dependence on Russian gas fell from 55% last year to about 35% now, and the dependence on Russia in coal fell from 50% at the beginning of this year to about 8% now.
German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said: “All these steps we are taking require a huge joint effort from all actors, and they mean costs that will be felt by the economic community, as well as consumers, but they are necessary if we are not to be blackmailed by Russia later. ”
Print Email

Some opinion pieces and commentators cited in the context explicitly urged reversing the nuclear shutdown to cut payments to Russia and to strengthen energy security in response to the invasion.

Title:

Content: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an intolerable horror from the start. It has escalated into a genocide in what amounts to a terror campaign to subdue a people.

President Joe Biden was correct to call Russian atrocities a genocide, and even if the declaration is not yet official policy, it raises the moral urgency for all free governments to engage in meaningful and even painful steps to defeat a nihilistic and murderous dictator.

The U.S. is again leading the world in confronting a European crisis that threatens to become a global war. U.S. security aid to Ukraine during the Biden administration is now greater than $2 billion. Total European funds to the Ukrainian military forces now total about $1.6 billion.

It’s important that our European allies deepen their commitment to providing direct military aid. But the reality is that Europe’s greatest lever against Russian aggression has yet to be pulled, and that is dramatically reducing the German purchase of Russian energy.

There is no question that this would amount to a great sacrifice for the German people. Cutting off all Russian gas supply would send the German economy into recession. There would also be an impact on the way of life for Germans who rely on Russian gas to heat their homes and power their places of work.

But the corresponding effect on the Russian economy and the Russian war machine would likely be far more impactful.

Alina Polyakova, chief executive of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told us during a recent visit to Dallas that a German decision to stop purchasing Russian energy would alter the course of history.

“It would end the war,” she said. “They would just run out of money.”

The Russian war machine relies on direct payments for energy. Cut off the payments, and you cut off the money.

It’s simple in theory and excruciating in practice because of its real and immediate impact on people’s lives and nations’ economies.

Nevertheless, Germany has a moral imperative to take clear, positive steps toward sharply reducing its purchase of Russian energy, such as reversing a decision to shut off nuclear plants by year’s end. We are talking about ending a genocide, and, as Germany has recognized in its own laws and culture, the nation has an enhanced responsibility in this regard.

Ukrainians have fought bravely and have shown the world that they can defend their nation. But they cannot hold on forever.

Free nations everywhere will have to make sacrifices. We urge Europe to act now to support Ukraine, to help end the war and to benefit all of humanity.

— Tribune News Service

Trending Food Videos

Germany has publicly opposed classifying nuclear as green in the EU taxonomy, with government spokespeople citing unresolved radioactive‑waste issues and rejecting the Commission’s assessment.

Overall, the contextual reporting shows the nuclear phase-out reduced a low‑carbon source, increased near‑term reliance on gas and coal and left Germany more exposed to Russian supply risks, while the war has accelerated efforts to diversify supplies and expand renewables and prompted public and expert debate about whether to revisit nuclear policy.

In summary, removing nuclear power has increased short‑term reliance on fossil imports and exposure to Russian gas risks, raised prices and prompted calls to reconsider some plant closures even as Germany accelerates renewables and seeks alternative gas supplies.