Germany’s nuclear phase-out, finalized with the 2023 shutdown of its last three reactors—Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim—ended over 60 years of nuclear power use and removed a source that had provided 10-13% of the country’s electricity production .

The policy, rooted in a powerful anti-nuclear movement since the 1970s and accelerated after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, was intended to advance carbon neutrality and address safety concerns .

However, the loss of nuclear capacity has forced Germany to increase reliance on coal and natural gas, both more polluting, undermining its climate goals and raising emissions .

This shift has resulted in an estimated $12 billion per year in social costs due to increased mortality from air pollution .

The energy market has also faced higher prices and greater volatility, with one in three manufacturers considering relocating abroad due to energy costs and supply uncertainty .

The Russian-Ukrainian war has dramatically worsened Germany’s energy situation.

Before the conflict, Germany imported about 55% of its natural gas from Russia; since the war, Russian gas supplies have dropped by roughly 60% .

This has led to fears of energy shortages, blackouts, and a potential “Lehman Brothers-type collapse” of the energy market, with the government warning of production halts and layoffs if gas runs out .

To compensate, Germany has increased electricity imports and coal-fired generation, further straining its energy transition and environmental commitments .

Emergency measures have included extending the operation of the last three nuclear plants until April 2023 to mitigate winter shortages .

Public and political opinion is increasingly divided.

A 2022 poll found 65% of Germans support nuclear power as necessary for meeting EU climate targets [9b

Germany’s nuclear phase-out, finalized with the 2023 shutdown of its last three reactors—Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim—ended over 60 years of nuclear power use and removed a source that had provided 10-13% of the country’s electricity production .

Title:

Content: Three nuclear-fired power plants will be taken off the grid in Germany on Friday as part of the country's plan to end atomic power.

"The nuclear phaseout makes our country safer and helps to avoid radioactive waste," said Federal Environment and Nuclear Safety Minister Steffi Lemke.

"It is now essential to ... advance the search for a final repository for high-level radioactive waste as well as permanent solutions for low- and medium-level radioactive waste," the environment ministry said.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel speeded up the phaseout following the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan.

Friday's shutdown affects power plants in Brokdorf in Schleswig-Holstein, Grohnde in Lower Saxony and Gundremmingen C in Bavaria.

Germany's remaining three nuclear plants — Emsland in Lower Saxony, Isar 2 in Bavaria and Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Württemberg — will be closed by the end of 2022 "at the latest," the environment ministry said.

"Since 2011, Germany has been drawing a line under a highly problematic technology in an orderly, reliable process," Lemke said.

Nuclear accounts for about 10 percent of Germany's electricity production. The shutdown has sparked criticism as Germany will have to dramatically ramp up renewable energy and has also increased its reliance on highly polluting coal-fired power.

"Security of supply in Germany continues to be guaranteed," said Robert Habeck, federal climate and economy minister. He added that reliable and "sustainably generated electricity" is a "central requirement for aligning our economy and industry toward climate neutrality."

That stance puts Berlin at loggerheads with France, where nuclear is the largest element of its energy mix (and also helps supply Germany).

EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said in September that existing nuclear plants, which provide low-carbon electricity essential to the green transition, can be kept running "for two, five, 10 years," adding: "Why deprive ourselves of this production capacity?"

France is planning to scale down the share of nuclear in its electricity mix from 75 percent to 50 percent by 2035, but President Emmanuel Macron said in November that France "will restart the construction of nuclear reactors" while "continuing to develop renewable energies."

Macron also said France will invest €1 billion into research and development, notably into small modular reactors.

Belgium recently decided to shut down all its nuclear power plants by 2025, but plans to invest €100 million in new generation nuclear reactors and research.

More from ... Louise Guillot

Title:

Content: 11 Feb, 2024 13:59

German industry ‘moving abroad’ – Bild

A growing number of manufacturers are relocating operations outside the country, an industry lobby warns

One in three German manufacturers is considering moving production to other countries amid economic troubles, double the number recorded in 2022, Bild news outlet reported on Saturday, citing Siegfried Russwurm, the head of the Federation of German Industries (BDI).

According to the report, among the latest firms planning to relocate is household appliance manufacturer Miele, which plans to cut 2,000 jobs in Germany and move 700 positions to its site in Poland. Heating manufacturer Viessmann had already moved 3,000 jobs to Poland.

Volkswagen said last year that it would build a new battery factory in the US, and BASF announced plans to invest €10 billion in a petrochemicals plant in China amid job cuts at its headquarters in Germany. French steel pipe manufacturer Vallourec shut down production in Germany in September last year, while tiremaker Michelin and its US rival Goodyear said they would also close their German plants by the end of 2025.

Russwurm says that a growing number of companies have reported that their “patience with Germany is at an end.” According to him, the slowdown in economic growth and high rates of inflation, especially with regard to energy, have resulted in less investment, and Berlin lacks a strategy to turn the situation around. This in turn leads to a gradual decline in manufacturing, he said, and while existing production lines may continue to operate for a while, “new ones are no longer being built in Germany.”

Many companies point to the high energy prices, which soared after Germany lost access to Russian natural gas in 2022, as one of the major causes of their problems. This was exacerbated by Berlin’s decision to phase out nuclear energy and coal and switch to renewables, which, according to Russwurm, put manufacturers working in Germany at a significant disadvantage compared to other industrialized nations.

“Nobody can say with any certainty today what our energy supply will look like in seven years’ time, and that’s why no one can say how high energy prices will be in Germany then. For companies that have to make investment decisions, that is absolutely toxic,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times earlier this week, adding that the government is making mistakes regarding its energy policy with its ambitious climate agenda, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and switch 80% of power output to wind and solar energy by 2030.

“Companies are saying they are finding it increasingly difficult to do any long-term planning. They have great doubts about continuing to invest in Germany under these conditions. The conditions are better elsewhere. And they’re going abroad,” Russwurm said.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT's business section

Podcasts
0:00
29:42
0:00
28:8

Title:

Content: Germany To Postpone Closure Of Last Three Nuclear Power Plants - WSJ

(@ChaudhryMAli88)

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik - 17th August, 2022) Germany, faced with possible energy shortages in the winter as gas supplies from Russia have dropped, intends to postpone the closure of its last three nuclear power plants (NPPs) in a move marking a departure from a two-decade policy to abandon nuclear energy, The Wall Street Journal reported citing German government officials.

The decision, which has to be formally adopted by the cabinet of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and would possibly require a vote in Parliament, could be weeks off, but already now the German government says two key conditions have been met that allow a temporary extension of the life of the three remaining NPPs, currently expected to close December 31: the possibility of a gas shortage and the confidence that a longer operation of reactors would pose no safety concern, according to the officials.

"The reactors are safe until Dec. 31, and obviously they will remain safe also after Dec. 31," the WSJ quoted a senior official as saying.

Scholz last week said for the first time that it could make sense to keep Germany's last three nuclear reactors online.

However, even if the life of the three German NPPs is extended, this will not be a panacea for Germany's looming energy crisis this winter as the country is mainly missing natural gas, primarily used for heating and manufacturing.

The European Union has been seeking to diversify energy imports and reduce dependence on Russia after Moscow started its special military operation in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has repeatedly said that Russia has never used gas supplies to punish anyone, but sells energy solely in its own interests, to increase the welfare of Russians and on a commercial basis.

The German government has also outlined measures to reduce gas and power consumption in the country over the next two years. The measures in particular include lowering the temperature in public buildings. According to Germany's energy regulator, gas consumption will have to be cut by 20 percent if Germany wants to avoid a gas shortfall during this coming winter and next winter.

The three officials who spoke to the WSJ said the extension of the NPPs' life would only be made for several months.

The power plants in question are Isar 2 in the southern state of Bavaria, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Wurttemberg and Emsland in Lower Saxony. They are operated, respectively, by E.On SE, EnBW AG, and RWE AG.

After the start of Russia's special military operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, the West has stepped up sanctions pressure on Russia, which has led to an increase in prices for energy and food in Europe and the United States.

The policy, rooted in a powerful anti-nuclear movement since the 1970s and accelerated after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, was intended to advance carbon neutrality and address safety concerns .

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.

However, the loss of nuclear capacity has forced Germany to increase reliance on coal and natural gas, both more polluting, undermining its climate goals and raising emissions .

Title:

Content:

by Ralph Schoellhammer
Thursday, 3
November 2022
Reaction
13:00

The energy debate is ripping Germany’s coalition apart

All parties are pursuing their own ideological agenda
by Ralph Schoellhammer
A banner depicting Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Finance Minister Christian Lindner and Climate minister Robert Habeck

The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter once wrote that “the first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” No sentence is a better embodiment of the ongoing farce around the continuation of Germany’s remaining three nuclear power plants.

Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine there has been a debate as to whether Berlin should postpone the 2011 plan to exit nuclear energy, a power source that in 2021 was still providing around 13% of Germany’s electricity. Even the Green Party, with its general suspicion towards everything that is not wind or solar powered, felt it necessary to at least commission a study regarding the feasibility of keeping nuclear power online.

Or so it seemed. New documents uncovered by a German newspaper have revealed that in early March Vice-Chancellor and Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck apparently issued an examination of the country’s nuclear power plants without even talking to its operators.

As some have suspected from the beginning, there never was a real interest in an objective assessment, but rather a desire to preemptively end the debate. After continued warnings of a worsening energy crunch, including the possibility of rolling blackouts, an agreement was reached to extend the lifetime of two nuclear power plants until April 2023. Nonetheless, the Green fibbing on the issue is deepening a rift in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government.

The smallest member of Germany’s three-party coalition is increasingly worried that being part of a government with strong Left-leaning tendencies could be electoral suicide. In the state elections of Lower Saxony on 9th October, the FDP fell short of the 5% electoral threshold and will no longer be represented in the regional parliament, an ominous sign for a party represented in the federal government. In the 2013 general election they were ousted from the Bundestag, having been in a coalition government with Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats since 2009.

Understandably, many in the party fear a repeat of history, forcing leader Christian Lindner to sharpen its profile and make the FDP a louder voice in the public discourse. In a move that caught both the Greens and the Social Democrats by surprise, Lindner announced his support for an immediate beginning of fracking on German soil, a topic that has been a perennial taboo across the political divide.

While it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon, it has become clear that Germany is increasingly governed by a coalition in name only, where every party is pushing its own ideological agenda. Even Chancellor Scholz has no problem ignoring his partners on significant matters. Just a few days ago he rammed through the sale of 25% of one of Hamburg harbour’s port terminals to the Chinese state-owned COSCO shipping conglomerate. This went against the advice of his own ministries and the European Commission

As happens with most increasingly dysfunctional coalitions, the only common ground can be found in an expansion of public spending. In Germany’s case this would be the massive promise to pump up to 5% of its GDP, or €200bn, into the economy in order to soften the fallout from rising energy prices. This doesn’t bode well for German stability, seeing as recent polls show that the government has already lost its majority.

Officially, new federal elections are not supposed to take place before the autumn of 2025. Given growing tensions within the government and the worsening economic outlook for 2023, though, one should prepare for the possibility of a new election much sooner.

Title:

Content: EU chaos! Macron and Scholz in furious bust-up over EU energy plans: ‘Risky and expensive'

FRENCH President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are locked in a furious bust-up over EU energy policy plans as disagreements have sparked division in the bloc.

Link copied

Macron wields 'tools to set EU agenda'

While France has been pushing for nuclear to be included in the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy, Germany is in the process of completely phasing out the energy source in the country. The EU’s taxonomy is intended to hand a green badge to companies and activities — or to withhold it — to “help shift investments where they are most needed". This is part of the bloc’s aim to direct funding towards energy sources with a low or zero carbon footprint.

But this has sparked fury as Germany does not view nuclear power as a form of clean energy.

Mr Macron wants gas and nuclear to be labelled as a “transitional” source under the taxonomy as he claims they are needed for the clean energy transition.

He says that this is because renewables are “intermittent, and thus not totally substitutable, even with our interconnections [in Europe], for non-intermittent sources of electricity production” like gas or nuclear power.

And these calls do not come as much of a surprise, given that 70 percent of French electricity is generated by nuclear power.

Mr Macron has pointed to the verdict from experts on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to back up his calls.

Macron and Scholz are in a furious energy bust-up (Image: Getty )

Emmanuel Macron is pushing for nuclear power to be included in the EU taxonomy (Image: Getty )

They claim that “nuclear power is one of the solutions to decarbonise our economies”.

And this seems to have convinced Brussels, as the EU Commission drew up a draft proposal, circulated on 31 December, for this to come into effect.

Subject to a consultation period until Friday (21 January), It gave EU members and others just three weeks to analyse the proposal and provide their own comments.

Germany is strongly opposed to the nuclear plans and has been phasing out nuclear power for over two decades.

It also plans to shut down its three remaining plants at the end of the year.

READ MORE: World holds breath as Ukraine to fire rocket amid Russia tension

Olaf Scholz's Government is opposed to the EU's proposal (Image: Getty )

But it is not Berlin who disapproves of the proposal.

The EU Platform on Sustainable Finance, a European Commission advisory body, has torn the proposal apart.

In an opinion piece, it argued that nuclear power is not an entirely clean energy source, and that fossil gas is “far from green”.

Under the EU’s draft proposal, gas-fired power plants would get a “transitional” investment label if they meet a certain criteria.

That is if they use “at least 30 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2026, and at least 55 percent of renewable or low-carbon gases as of 1 January 2030”.

DON'T MISS
Boris on brink: Red Wall poll signal end of the road for PM [REPORT]
EU Galileo blow as UK’s OneWeb network signs major deals [REVEAL]
EU helpless over Russia thanks to Merkel as Biden poised to step in [INSIGHT]

Germany argued nuclear is not a clean energy source (Image: Getty )

And as of January 1, 2036, the Commission said all gas-fired power plants would have to “switch to renewable or low-carbon gases” to qualify for the EU’s green investment label.

But under EU rules, no technology can be considered green if it causes “significant harm” to any of the taxonomy’s six environmental objectives.

Those are climate change mitigation and adaptation, water protection, the transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention, and biodiversity protection.

Germany has been kicking up a fuss over the proposals, calling them “risky and expensive” in a letter sent to Brussels.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in a joint statement with Environment Minister Steffi Lemke: “As the federal government, we have once again clearly expressed our rejection of the inclusion of nuclear energy. It is risky and expensive."

Germany has also claimed that there is a lack of safety requirements in the nuclear field.

Robert Habeck sent a letter to Brussels slamming the proposal (Image: Getty )

And it argued that the lengthy construction of new reactors "does not offer a short-term opportunity" to phase out carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal.

But while it has poured cold water over nuclear plans, Germany does not seem so opposed to the inclusion of gas.

In the letter sent to Brussels, it reads that gas used in "ultra-modern and efficient gas-fired power plants forms a bridge for a limited transitional period".

But the German Government did mention that the proposed fuel switch targets to low-carbon and renewable gases laid out by the taxonomy proposal are not realistic.

And Mr Macron is travelling to Berlin today to meet with Mr Scholz.

While the leaders’ meeting will focus on the Russia’s mounting pressure on Ukraine, the energy plans will no doubt be a topic of conversation too.

This shift has resulted in an estimated $12 billion per year in social costs due to increased mortality from air pollution .

The energy market has also faced higher prices and greater volatility, with one in three manufacturers considering relocating abroad due to energy costs and supply uncertainty .

Title:

Content:   1. Skip to content
  2. Skip to main menu
  3. Skip to more DW sites
The upper house of Germany's parliament signed off on a number of major legislative packages on Friday aimed at helping address inflation and soaring energy costsImage: Wolfgang Kumm/dpa/picture alliance
PoliticsGermany

Germany approves welfare reform, extends nuclear power

2 hours ago

Germany's upper house of parliament approved measures aimed at helping people hit hard by high energy prices and the high cost of living. The country's nuclear power extension will also take effect immediately.

https://p.dw.com/p/4K5HV

The upper house of Germany's parliament, the Bundesrat, approved extending the use of three nuclear power plants, overhauling unemployment benefits and other major legislation on Friday after heated debate among lawmakers.

After receiving approval from the Bundesrat, the measures will soon enter into law. DW breaks down what's set to change in 2023.

Nuclear power extension

The Bundesrat signed off on the extension of three nuclear power plants after the lower house, the Bundestag, approved the move earlier this month.

The nuclear plants — Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2 and Emsland — will remain operational until April 2023 to provide enough power through the winter. The facilities had been slated to close at the end of this year under Germany's nuclear phaseout plans.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz decided to extend the life of the nuclear plants after Germany found itself facing a severe energy shortage. Russia turned off supplies of gas in response to the backlash over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.

The extension was bitterly debated among Scholz's center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the environmentalist Greens and the pro-free market Free Democrats (FDP).

With Friday's approval from the upper house, the nuclear power plant extension will take effect immediately.

Germany set to keep nuclear plants running

Unemployment reform

Germany is set for a major welfare overhaul after the Bundesrat signed off on a compromise to reform unemployment benefits.

The changes will go into effect as of January 1, 2023, replacing the current and frequently criticized "Harz IV" unemployment benefits system that has been in place since 2005.

Under the new "Bürgergeld" system (which means "citizen's money"), those who are unemployed will get higher benefits and better vocational skills training.

The initial proposal by Scholz's government was rejected by conservative lawmakers in the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) bloc. Under the compromise, benefits could be cut during a six-month "trust period" if an unemployed person is deemed to not be looking hard enough for work.

According to the plans, those receiving benefits will also get more support in job training programs to prepare for permanent employment. The change also is an attempt to mitigate the shortage of skilled workers Germany is currently experiencing.

"This reform is a milestone of social policy in Germany," Scholz told the magazine Focus on Friday after the votes. "This reform put assistance for untrained people who belong to the long-term jobless front and center."

The measure must still be signed by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, although nearly all measures approved by the Bundesrat are signed-off by the president.

More money for Germany's unemployed?

Tax relief, higher child benefits

With inflation hitting consumers hard, lawmakers approved measures aimed at softening the blow.

The upper house approved legislation that would help people who receive pay raises that adjust for inflation. The new measures would prevent people having to pay more taxes due to pay raises.

Starting in January 2023, child benefit payments will also be raised. Families will now receive €250 ($260) per month for each child in the household.

The change is a big jump from the current system, which saw parents receive €219 per month for their first and second child, €225 per month for a third child, and €250 for each additional child.

More support for renters

The upper house of parliament also greenlit a law that seeks to help renters deal with skyrocketing heating costs.

Starting from January 1, renters will no longer have to shoulder the costs of heating with oil and natural gas — landlords and property owners will have to chip-in as well.

For buildings that are not energy efficient and produce a high proportion of CO2 emissions, landlords will need to pay more — and not the renters.

In addition, more people in low-income households will receive a housing allowance from the government. The expansion to the law means 1.4 million households are eligible for the payments, as opposed to the current 600,000 households that qualify.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

rs/ar (dpa, KNA, epd)

Climate, energy woes dim views of holiday lighting

Skip next section Related topics
Skip next section DW's Top Story

DW's Top Story

Ukraine updates: Power returns to nuclear plants

Skip next section More stories from DW
Go to homepage

The Russian-Ukrainian war has dramatically worsened Germany’s energy situation.

Before the conflict, Germany imported about 55% of its natural gas from Russia; since the war, Russian gas supplies have dropped by roughly 60% .

Title:

Content: The European Union is positioning itself to be completely cut off from all Russian energy. And if that happens, Germany and other heavily import-reliant countries in Europe will suffer a Lehman Brothers-type collapse of its energy market.

Economic Minister and Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck issued a stark warning about how Europe’s largest economy faces total economic destruction should gas supplies run thin this winter, which they are expected to do.

“Companies would have to stop production, lay off their workers, supply chains would collapse, people would go into debt to pay their heating bills, that people would become poorer,” he is quoted as saying.

The Green Party politician actually described what is soon to come as “a king of Lehman Brothers effect in the energy market,” which would quickly spread like a contagion or virus throughout municipal utilities and both the industrial and commercial sectors of the economy.

“And then you have a domino effect that would lead to a severe recession,” he added.

Lehman Brothers, as you may recall, was the lynchpin of the 2008 global financial crisis, which sent Wall Street tumbling until the government decided that taxpayers needed to bail out the culprits whose greed and corruption caused the crisis in the first place.

“The impact of Lehman’s collapse was particularly widespread due to the interconnectedness of its balance sheets with other banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and other financial institutions,” explains Breitbart News.

“Many believe that the U.S. government made a critical mistake in allowing Lehman to fail and that the failure worsened the crisis and subsequent economic calamity.”

The West is committing economic suicide while blaming Putin for it

Germany already faces a 60 percent reduction in natural gas from Russia, all because it refuses to pay for the energy in rubles demanded by Russia.

Had Germany and other Western powerhouses not imposed crippling economic sanctions against Russia over its “special operation” in Ukraine, Russia never would have changed the requirement that the West pays for gas in rubles – so the West only has itself to blame for what is now unfolding.

Instead of fixing the problem that they helped create, politicians in Germany are calling on the German people to pay for it by drastically reducing their energy consumption.

Germans are now expected to live within a model of extreme scarcity to cover for the failed economic policies of their elected leaders.

“Everyone in industry and in their home life can contribute to this – and yes, this also includes jumpers, shower heads, turning the heating down a bit, all of this helps,” Habeck says.

If Germans refuse to do this, then they will simply have to pay double or triple the cost of energy in the coming months, which will be absolutely devastating once winter arrives.

Should Russian energy stop flowing completely, then Germany will have less than three months of fuel left before a total collapse, warned Klaus Müller, head of the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) energy regulator.

“If the storage facilities in Germany were mathematically 100 percent full … we could do without Russian gas completely … for just about two-and-a-half months and then the storage tanks will be empty,” he is quoted as saying.

Germany was repeatedly warned in the past that its over-reliance on Russian energy could cause problems. Those problems are now emerging at a rapid pace and they threaten to destroy Europe’s largest economy in a matter of months.

Germany also could have avoided going “green,” which would have allowed it to become more energy independent. Instead, it opted to close its nuclear power plants, phase out coal, and hope for the best with just wind turbines and solar panels.

The latest news about the energy crisis and what is soon to come as a result of it can be found at Collapse.news.

Ethan Huff

Sources include:

Breitbart.com

NaturalNews.com

Related Posts

Title:

Content: Comment

End cheap holidays and voters will react with fury

If foreign travel becomes unaffordable support for sustainable policies will wither

The net zero crusade is in danger of unravelling.

Every time fresh evidence emerges of its true impact, the case for barrelling towards the Government’s self-imposed deadline suffers another damaging blow.

For a better example of the effect that it is having both on people’s lives and electoral politics, you’d be hard pushed to beat the ultra-low emissions zone that Sadiq Khan has imposed on London’s motorists.

The scheme has caused apoplexy among drivers, and with the Mayor accused of ignoring the needs of ordinary people, it represents the most serious threat to his bid to remain in office.

Still, if the capital’s voters think a decision to expand the £12.50-a-day Ulez charge to outer London boroughs is bad, imagine the fury if people wake up one day to discover they can no longer afford to go on holidays abroad.

Decarbonising air travel was always going to come with massive costs.

The chief question is who will foot the bill for such an enormous undertaking. In keeping with all things net zero, it is no surprise to learn that it increasingly looks as if the financial burden is likely to be at least partially shouldered by the consumer.

That such a warning has come from a collective of some of the world’s biggest airlines is no surprise.

The sector talks a good game when it comes to cleaning up its act, espousing the “opportunities” that could come from going green yet it seems reluctant to make the massive investment needed.

In highlighting the costs of switching to more expensive sustainable aviation fuel, the major airlines hope to cajole the Government into partly subsidising the transition.

It is also plainly in the interests of the airline industry to indulge in a little scaremongering.

Stirring discontent and unease throws sand in the wheels of the green revolution, giving big business longer to adapt, and what better way to do that than pointing out that the shift will also partly be paid for out of the pockets of holidaymakers?

Still, at least the impact of net zero has so far remained largely hypothetical

For all the anger about green levies, household energy bills have been driven higher by fossil fuels and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not the cost of building more wind and solar farms.

Even the Government’s short-sighted petrol and diesel car ban is still years away, albeit looming increasingly large in the rear-view mirror.

A de facto tax on greener flights would be one of the first, real tangible costs that has a big impact on people’s lives.

Prices could jump as much as 20pc, according to the Sustainable Aviation Group.

Yet at the same as highlighting the likelihood of a “green premium”, it can’t quite make its mind up as to how damaging such a development would be.

Though some will be put off, most people will “still want to fly” despite what it calls “slightly higher costs”.

In fact, annual passenger numbers are still expected to “grow significantly” – by nearly 250m by 2050 – because most travellers are “happy to pay a bit more to travel”, it predicts.

It would be easy for the Government to be dismissive, too.

Sitting in Westminster, there will be a temptation to be snobbish about the idea of a week’s all-inclusive in Benidorm – but for many people, getting away every year ranks top of their priorities, and the advent of the budget airline industry means that overseas travel is often cheaper than holidaying in Britain.

Our political overlords overlook the importance of foreign getaways to the public consciousness at their peril.

Any suggestion that overseas holidays, like electric cars, have become the preserve of the rich, would trigger widespread discontent that would make the Ulez backlash look like a storm in a teacup.

Net zero and the fight against climate change is enough of a confused mess as it is without denying hard-working families a well-earned summer break.

Everywhere our political overlords turn, they run into another humiliating dilemma caused by the blind pursuit of decarbonisation.

On Monday, Germany, bullied into a u-turn by the country’s catastrophising eco-fascists, pulled the plug on its last three nuclear power plants.

The move was a massive victory for the anti-nuclear movement, whose opposition had grown louder following the Fukushima disaster of 2011, but as an act of self-harm there aren’t many greater.

The move is a massive setback for energy security, and German emissions, with much of the lost output having been replaced by coal-fired power plants.

Elsewhere, a crunch weekend meeting of G7 energy ministers ended without an agreement on a deadline to halt new coal investments as the reality of the ongoing energy crunch continues to bite; Joe Biden’s climate presidency has been eviscerated by his approval of another Alaskan gas mega-project in the space of just a few short weeks; and our own Government’s heat pump programme has been a disaster, undermined by prohibitive costs and ineffective technology.

There are worrying parallels with the state response to lockdown with ministers once again enthralled by the science without any real thought afforded to the consequences for a typical household.

That’s not to say the science is wrong – but experts and technocrats don’t live in the real world, nor do they understand what it takes to get elected.

If net zero goes too far, too quickly, there is a risk that the pendulum swings back the other way, setting legitimate efforts to tackle climate change back decades.

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

This has led to fears of energy shortages, blackouts, and a potential “Lehman Brothers-type collapse” of the energy market, with the government warning of production halts and layoffs if gas runs out .

To compensate, Germany has increased electricity imports and coal-fired generation, further straining its energy transition and environmental commitments .

Emergency measures have included extending the operation of the last three nuclear plants until April 2023 to mitigate winter shortages .

Title:

Content: Home / News / World /  Germany quits nuclear power; shuts final 3 plants
Back

Germany has shut its final three nuclear plants, marking the end of the country's end of nuclear era that has spanned more than 60 years.

Nuclear power has long been contentious in Germany.

The move has come as Germany's eyes achieve its green goal. Steffi Lemke, Germany’s Federal Minister for the Environment and Consumer Protection and a Green Party member, "The position of the German government is clear: nuclear power is not green. Nor is it sustainable".

Closure of three nuclear plant's history:

Germany shut three plants-- Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim, representing the culmination of a plan set in motion more than 20 years ago.

During the 1970s, a strong anti-nuclear movement emerged in Germany. The movement gave birth to the green party, which is now part of governing coalition.

However, it was in the 2000s the German government pledged to phase out nuclear power and start shutting down plants.

But in 2009, a new government came to power and it seemed brief as if nuclear would get a reprieve as a bridging technology to help the country move to renewable energy.

Then Fukushima happened. In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant to melt down.

Three days later then-Chancellor Angela Merkel who was previously pro-nuclear, announced Germany would accelerate a nuclear phase-out, with older plants shuttered immediately.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided another plot twist.

Germany isn’t the only country committed to walking away from nuclear — Italy gave up the technology in 1990, and Lithuania recently struck a deal to dismantle its Soviet-era reactors, which have sat idle for over a decade. But in many advanced economies, nuclear is experiencing a resurgence.

On Sunday, Finland will start regular power production at Europe’s newest and biggest reactor. The 1,600-megawatt Olkiluoto-3 unit that faced years of delays had been planned to enter commercial production on Monday. France is planning to build at least six new reactors by 2050 as well as experiment with smaller, modular ones. The UK has similar ambitions. And even in Japan, after a decade of paralysis following the nuclear accident in Fukushima, the public is warming up to the use of nuclear power. The Japanese government wants to restart reactors that have sat idle since the disaster and to extend the lifespan of existing units.

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More Less
Recommended For You
×
Get alerts on WhatsApp
Set Preferences My Reads Watchlist Feedback Redeem a Gift Card Logout

Public and political opinion is increasingly divided.

A 2022 poll found 65% of Germans support nuclear power as necessary for meeting EU climate targets [9b