Germany’s nuclear phase-out, accelerated after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, culminated in April 2023 with the closure of its last three nuclear plants—Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim—which previously supplied about 10-13% of the nation’s electricity .

The policy was rooted in decades of anti-nuclear sentiment, political consensus, and a commitment to carbon neutrality, with the Green Party and public safety concerns playing pivotal roles .

The immediate consequence has been a marked increase in reliance on coal and natural gas, undermining climate goals and raising carbon emissions .

A 2019 study estimated the social cost of this shift at approximately $12 billion annually, primarily due to increased mortality from air pollution linked to coal combustion .

The energy market has struggled to compensate for the loss of nuclear capacity.

Renewables now account for about 41% of electricity, but coal and gas remain significant at 28% and 15%, respectively, with bureaucratic and local opposition slowing renewable expansion .

Technical challenges include integrating intermittent renewables, ensuring grid stability, and developing adequate energy storage, prompting investments in hydrogen-fired power plants as a future solution .

During peak demand, some coal plants have been reactivated, further complicating decarbonization efforts .

The Russian-Ukrainian war has severely impacted Germany’s energy security.

The loss of Russian gas—a key supply—exposed vulnerabilities created by the nuclear exit, with officials warning of a potential “Lehman Brothers effect” if gas supplies were cut off, risking economic crisis and blackouts .

In response, the government temporarily extended nuclear

Germany’s nuclear phase-out, accelerated after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, culminated in April 2023 with the closure of its last three nuclear plants—Emsland, Isar 2, and Neckarwestheim—which previously supplied about 10-13% of the nation’s electricity .

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

Title:

Content: 22 Apr, 2024 13:24

Fossil fuel era ending – Scholz

Despite ambitious plans to phase out Russian gas, the EU increased purchases in 2023, Reuters reported earlier this month

The predominance of fossil fuels in global energy output is nearing its end, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has claimed, adding that his country aims to produce 80% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

German industry had for decades relied on relatively inexpensive Russian gas, and to a lesser extent oil. However, following the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, energy imports from Moscow fell dramatically, adversely affecting the competitiveness of many German businesses.

In 2020, the European Union unveiled its Green Deal strategy for the bloc to become climate-neutral by the middle of the century.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of the Hanover trade fair on Sunday, Scholz said that the “era of fossil fuels is coming to an end.” German industry will have to reorganize its operations, but not all technological processes allow for swift decarbonization, according to the chancellor.

The German leader stated that “modern, highly-flexible and climate-friendly power plants” were currently being built across the country to replace traditional power sources. Scholz also said that Norway would provide Germany’s industry with “clean energy from wind and hydropower.”

Eighty percent of the nation’s electricity is expected to come from renewables by 2030, including solar power and both onshore and offshore wind, he added.

Scholz said the two years since the start of the Ukraine conflict have been “turnaround years” for Europe, allowing it to “address the necessary changes” to its energy supply.

The EU aims to completely wean itself off Russian fossil fuels by 2027. Last Friday, however, the bloc’s Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators released a report warning against drastic reductions of imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia.

In 2023, Russia emerged as the EU’s second-biggest LNG supplier after the US, accounting for 16% of the bloc’s imports.

Earlier this month, Reuters cited calculations based on the EU’s trade statistics as showing that Brussels increased natural gas purchases from Russia in 2023.

Podcasts
0:00
25:56
0:00
26:28

Title:

Content: A view from Germany on war and the climate crisis

German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock is in SA this week for the two-yearly meeting of the two countries’ Binational Commission. She answered questions from the Sunday Times ahead of her visit

25 June 2023 - 00:00 By ANNALENA BAERBOCK
Award winning Mercedez1 The production line in Mercedes Benz SA's award-winning plant in East London.
Image: Theo Jeptha

South Africa is an international heavyweight and, since the end of apartheid, has been one of the leaders of the continent. Therefore, the most pressing global topics will be high on our agenda, such as our common fight against the climate crisis and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which has painful effects on both Europe and Africa.

But we also have ambitious plans to intensify relations between our two countries: my visit marks the meeting of our Binational Commission, created by Nelson Mandela during his time in office in the spirit of shaping our common future together. In the margins of this year’s meeting, we will sign agreements on co-operation in vocational training as well as green hydrogen. When we talk about deepening German-South African relations, we mean business.

ON RUSSIA'S WAR AGAINST UKRAINE

I do not believe in Cold War thinking. We live in a multipolar world, which is held together by a set of rules ensuring our peaceful coexistence, called the UN Charter, to which our countries are committed.

Russia broke those rules. It invaded its smaller neighbour Ukraine with the aim of erasing it as an independent state. Every day it is bombing schools, hospitals, power stations. It has killed thousands of innocent civilians and willingly caused a global energy and food crisis.

I understand that in a country about 9,000km away some may ask: why do you expect us to get involved? Similarly, not everyone in my country follows current affairs in Mozambique or the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). But I encourage everyone to ask themselves: what reaction would I expect from the international community if this war took place in my neighbourhood? Each country must decide how to respond to this breach — do we uphold the rules that protect us all? Or do we allow such behaviour to become the new norm? I don’t see how that would be in any country's interest.

The African peace initiative can be a good opportunity to bring South Africa’s weight to bear. South Africa's voice matters on the international stage: when the country of Mandela and Desmond Tutu speaks out against injustice, the world listens.

ON OUR ECONOMIC RELATIONS

Your country is Germany’s most important trade and investment partner on the African continent. More than 500 German companies are invested in South Africa, among them BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen. Together they create more than 100,000 jobs and account for about 10% of South Africa's exports in manufactured goods.

The reason for that is not just South Africa's well-skilled workforce. South Africa is living proof that democracy, a free and outspoken media and an independent judiciary are the best guarantees for investors. When democracies work together, everyone stands to benefit, not just politically but economically.

It is no secret that high crime, social injustice and corruption are worries for prospective investors in any country. Many businesses in South Africa have also been affected by the energy crisis, and this is holding back investment in new production sites. That is why our two countries put so much emphasis on co-operation in developing green energy projects.

Annalena Baerbock, federal minister for foreign affairs of Germany.
Image: Henry Nicholls/ WPA Pool via Getty Images

ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS

For many years my country wasted precious time by failing to tackle the phase-out of coal in parallel with the expansion of renewable energies. This neglect is now costing us dearly as we are forced to move ahead at twice the speed. But even Russia's war has not pushed us off track: yes, we had to temporarily reactivate a handful of coal plants we had held in reserve, to keep families warm in the freezing winter.

But Germany is moving full steam ahead with its green energy transition. We are making a substantial investment in in renewables, and are sticking to our target of exiting coal- and gas-based power generation by 2030. Last month, 66% of our electricity came from renewables, a new record.

We know from experience that the transition is not always easy. Coal mining was an important employer in my home state, and it took years to build a consensus on a phase-out plan that protects workers' livelihoods, creates new business opportunities and allows us to meet our climate goals.

But the climate crisis does not wait for us. And the injustice is that many of the poorest countries, including in Africa, are hit hard by its effects even though they have contributed little to it. Nonetheless, saving our planet requires us all to phase out fossil fuels and switch to renewables as soon as possible.

That is why Germany and other international partners are supporting South Africa with a “just energy transition partnership”. The good news is: renewables are not only the best way to save our planet, they are also the cheapest and quickest way to generate additional energy and end the energy crisis in South Africa.

ON GREEN HYDROGEN

From my perspective, South Africa is in a unique position to benefit from the green hydrogen boom. There are few countries with better climate conditions and comparable home-grown expertise and technology. As the world is transitioning towards green energy, it thirsts for green hydrogen — and is willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Germany and other European countries are diversifying their energy supplies at record speed because Russia decided to use its oil and gas as an economic weapon against us. The South African economy stands to gain a profitable new export sector and to create thousands of jobs. Last year, President Cyril Ramaphosa and Chancellor Olaf Scholz launched a landmark project on green hydrogen-based aviation fuels, and we are working to make sure that is only the beginning.

The climate crisis is the biggest driver of conflict and the greatest security threat to the world. That is why we all, and especially industrialised countries, have a responsibility to do everything in our power to contain and mitigate it while there is still time

ON EQUAL RIGHTS

Racism, xenophobia and far-right extremism are poison for all democracies. Wherever they rear their heads, it is the responsibility of free societies to push back with determination. Especially when societies come under pressure from war, inflation or economic uncertainty, extremists and autocrats find fertile ground for their divisive slogans.

That is why it is important for those who believe in peace, equal rights and tolerance to work together. I am convinced that, in the 21st century, a modern foreign policy must include standing up for equal rights, not just for men and women, but for all people regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, as well as addressing the legacy of colonialism. That is at the centre of our concept of feminist foreign policy, and my South African colleague Naledi Pandor and I see eye to eye on these topics.

ON SECURITY IN AFRICA

Africa and Europe are neighbours, therefore Africa’s security is also Europe’s security. When conflicts rage on the African continent, we feel the effects in Europe, just as African countries feel the effects of Russia starting a war of aggression in Europe. Thus, the fighting in Sudan, the deteriorating security situation in the Sahel region and the repeated cycles of violence in eastern DRC — to name a few — worry me and my European colleagues.

At the same time, the AU and other regional organisations have shown success in finding African solutions for African problems and have developed unique expertise and experience in mediation and conflict resolution, which we try to support where we can. That is why there was never a question in my mind that Germany should support the AU’s long-standing request for membership in the G20.

Naturally, military action is only one piece of the sustainable stability puzzle. We know that the climate crisis is the biggest driver of conflict and the greatest security threat to the world. That is why we all, and especially industrialised countries, have a responsibility to do everything in our power to contain and mitigate it while there is still time.

The policy was rooted in decades of anti-nuclear sentiment, political consensus, and a commitment to carbon neutrality, with the Green Party and public safety concerns playing pivotal roles .

The immediate consequence has been a marked increase in reliance on coal and natural gas, undermining climate goals and raising carbon emissions .

A 2019 study estimated the social cost of this shift at approximately $12 billion annually, primarily due to increased mortality from air pollution linked to coal combustion .

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.

The energy market has struggled to compensate for the loss of nuclear capacity.

Renewables now account for about 41% of electricity, but coal and gas remain significant at 28% and 15%, respectively, with bureaucratic and local opposition slowing renewable expansion .

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: 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

Title:

Content: There were 1,584 press releases posted in the last 24 hours and 428,843 in the last 365 days.

Four questions for Germany’s big hydrogen power plan

The German government is proposing to invest billions of euros to support the roll-out of a wave of hydrogen-fired power plants. This is part of a move to phase-out coal plants and to deploy large volumes of wind and solar generation.

Details of the hydrogen plan – the Kraftwerksstrategie or KWS – became available on 5 February through a press release from Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action 1 , which confirmed government agreement on the scheme. The plan is now subject to the approval of the European Commission and negotiations with the German parliament.

The planned hydrogen subsidies would have a transformative impact on both the German and European electricity markets. But discussions on the plans during 2023 were the privilege only of those inside ministries. Given the importance of these plans, the lack of public debate or transparency so far, especially at European level, is concerning.

In this context, and to inform the debate that will now start, we pose four questions: Why hydrogen? What are the ramifications for the European market? Where in Germany? By when should coal be phased out?

An unprecedented transformation of the German electricity system

Germany wants 80 percent of domestic electricity generation to be renewable by 2030, up from 44 percent in 2022 2 . Specifically, this involves reaching an installed generation capacity of 215 gigawatts solar, 110 GW onshore wind and 30 GW offshore wind by 2030, more than doubling existing capacities in the next six year 3 .

Germany’s governing coalition must also decide whether to bring forward the legally-specified coal phase-out date from 2038 to 2030. Bringing it forward would imply replacement of an additional 17 GW of lignite and coal plants by 2030 4 , on top of 13 GW of plants already scheduled for shut down.

All this means restructuring the electricity system at unprecedented speed. To accompany variable renewables, the deployment of clean-generation capacity that can smooth fluctuations in renewable output – both intra-day and across seasons – is necessary. However, exactly how much new capacity is required, and from which technology, is not clear.

What does Germany aim to do? Principles and compromises

The main thrust of the power plant strategy is to provide subsidies for hydrogen-fired power plants. The German government sees these plants as replacements for coal-fired plants that will shut down, and as complements to variable renewable generation, most likely by helping to balance longer-term fluctuations in renewable output. This is consistent with the German government’s grander ambitions for hydrogen. Plans are being drawn up for a hydrogen pipeline network that will cover 10,000 km by 2032 5 , and up to €20 billion will be spent developing the hydrogen industry between 2024 and 2027 6 .

The government originally wanted to support three types of plant: 1) hydrogen sprinters, 2) hydrogen hybrid, and 3) hydrogen-ready. Sprinters are purpose-built turbines that would run on hydrogen from day one. Hybrids involve the co-location of hydrogen capabilities alongside solar PV or onshore wind, which could even out the electricity sent to the power grid 7 . Hydrogen-ready plants would be plants with gas-fired turbines, and a requirement to provide a detailed roadmap showing how they will switch to hydrogen no later than 2040.

In August 2023, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action said it had completed negotiations with the European Commission over provision of state aid to these three types of plant 8 . Plans were drawn up to subsidise 4.4 GW of sprinters, 4.4 GW of hybrid plants, and up to 15 GW of hydrogen-ready plants. A first tender was intended for December 2023.

However, like so much of Germany’s planned climate expenditure, this agreement was thrown into question by a November 2023 constitutional court ruling that COVID-19 debt allowances could not be rolled over into Germany’s Climate and Transformation Fund (Klima- und Transformationsfonds, KTF), on the basis that the rollover would breach government spending rules 9 . The KTF would have been the source of the originally-planned subsidies for three types of hydrogen plant.

Therefore, a compromise was worked out, culminating in the government’s 5 February announcement 10 . The government now plans to subsidise a lower volume of 10 GW hydrogen-ready turbines and has scrapped plans for the 8.8 GW combined sprinters and hybrids. A tender process will offer state support for the construction and operation of four natural gas-fired power plants. Bidders should draw up plans for transitioning to hydrogen between 2035 and 2040. The estimated cost is €16 billion 11 .

This would create a demand for hydrogen of 20 TWh annually once all plants are converted, assuming 1,000 running hours per year 12 . Demand of 20 TWh is significant but not disproportionate in the context of wider plans. Total German hydrogen demand today is 55 TWh, of which almost none is supplied as clean hydrogen produced using renewable electricity 13 . The German national hydrogen strategy sets a target for between 40 TWh and 75 TWh total clean hydrogen demand in 2030 (BMWK, 2023).

Until plants are converted to hydrogen, they will consume natural gas, again estimated at a 20 TWh annual consumption. This compares to typical annual German gas demand of 800 TWh, which will be substantially lower by 2030.

Read the full analysis at the original link.

About the authors

Ben McWilliams is working for Bruegel as an Affiliate fellow in the field of Energy and Climate Policy. His work involves data-driven analysis to critique and inform European public policy, specifically in the area of the energy sector and its decarbonisation.

Georg Zachmann is a Senior Fellow at Bruegel, where he has worked since 2009 on energy and climate policy. His work focuses on regional and distributional impacts of decarbonisation, the analysis and design of carbon, gas and electricity markets, and EU energy and climate policies.

Technical challenges include integrating intermittent renewables, ensuring grid stability, and developing adequate energy storage, prompting investments in hydrogen-fired power plants as a future solution .

Title:

Content: Industry Voice: Energy independence drive could impact renewables adoption

• 6 min read

The devastating war in Ukraine has dramatically increased the need for energy independence in the European Union, which today announced a plan to reduce its reliance on Russian gas. This will require more use of fossil fuels in the short term, but long-term should accelerate the switch to renewables.

Amidst the horrifying war in Ukraine and the likely escalation of sanctions, European governments are rushing to find ways to reduce their dependence on Russian gas, through reopening or delaying closure of coal plants in Europe, and finding other sources of gas. Near-term, emissions and costs will rise as a result.

Simultaneously, countries and companies are looking for ways to mitigate their exposure to higher oil and gas prices through greater efficiency, more use of lower-cost alternatives such as renewables and investment in nuclear.

‘The wind and sun belong to no one' German economy minister and Green Party member Robert Habeck noted recently.

The International Energy Agency last week launched a 10-point plan on how to reduce reliance on Russian gas, advocating measures such as rerouting to other gas suppliers, increasing gas storage, accelerating wind and solar development, maximising existing generation from bioenergy and nuclear power, and speeding up the rollout of heat pumps to replace gas boilers. And today, the EU announced a plan for achieving energy independence "well before 2030" through greater use of LNG and energy storage, and swifter adoption of renewables.

In the long term, therefore, we expect the increased emphasis on energy independence, in addition to the structural move towards ‘net zero', to accelerate the energy transition.

Emissions likely to rise in the near term

In the short term, the push for independence will generate higher emissions given the EU's current energy mix (see chart 1). The EU relies on Russia for 40 per cent of its gas (90 per cent of all its gas is imported). The supply gap cannot be entirely filled by switching to alternative gas providers, and it takes time to build wind and solar plants. So it will have to consider other fossil fuels.

Germany, for example, has announced that it could delay the planned closure of some coal-fired plants and even consider extending the life of nuclear plants, though legal and technical impediments may make this impossible. Germany decided to phase out its nuclear capacity in 2011, following the Fukushima disaster - a decision that made the country more reliant on Russian gas.

In Italy, meanwhile, Prime Minister Mario Draghi has said the country would consider re-opening coal plants, and is seeking to increase domestic gas production, which had fallen in recent years. Enel, Italy's biggest utility, has been closing coal-fired plants in line with its targets for a complete exit from coal by 2027, and has so far not revealed any plans to re-open coal. We engaged with the company last week and it remains committed to its long-term goals for decarbonisation while acknowledging the near-term uncertainty. It has also announced that it will change plans to convert two coal-fired plants to gas, and will instead explore the possibility of re-purposing them into renewable energy storage infrastructure.

European utilities generally are likely to increase energy storage for both gas and renewables as well as sourcing more gas from North Africa and the Middle East.

Accelerating renewables to achieve independence and net zero

As well as seeking alternative sources of fossil fuels, European countries have signalled long-term plans to accelerate the move towards net zero.

Germany, which previously had a net zero target of 2040, has now brought this forward to 2035, and believes it can achieve 80 per cent of its target by 2030. German climate minister Oliver Krischer tweeted about the change as a way to stand with Ukraine. Other European countries have indicated similar intentions, though so far, no others have re-stated their net zero target.

At the time of writing, there has been little actual disruption of oil and gas supply to Europe. However, countries are positioning themselves for that eventuality and prices have risen significantly as a result. This provides further incentive to switch to lower-cost power.

Over recent years, the building and operational cost of renewable technology has fallen significantly, making an acceleration of net zero targets financially feasible. The cost of solar energy, for example, has fallen by around 80 per cent in the last 10 years. An increase in investment and the application of engineering expertise in highly skilled economies like Germany could drive costs down further. Planning approval processes could also be expedited to reflect the urgency of the geopolitical and environmental need.

Obstacles remain

That said, the prices of mainstream commodities needed for the transition (such as steel and aluminium) were already rising prior to the invasion of Ukraine on the back of high demand post Covid-19, and have risen even further in the last few weeks.

Rare metals needed for electric motors, photovoltaic cells and batteries could be particularly sensitive to price squeezes as production is concentrated within two countries - Russia and China. Retaining access to these key supply chains will be critical to a successful transition to renewables.

Intermittency, meanwhile, remains an issue. The irregular output of wind and solar assets means significant advances in storage technologies will be necessary to drive universal adoption.

Following the Ukraine invasion, markets are beginning to reflect this increased need. For example, recent moves in share prices of hydrogen electrolysis stocks suggest some investors now believe this technology, as yet unproven at scale, will one day provide part of the answer.

As the war continues to unfold in Ukraine, the benefits of moving away from an energy system dependent on imported fossil fuels have become even clearer. While there are still challenges ahead for the transition, we can hope that in the not-too-distant future, Europe's energy grid will be both cleaner and more self-sufficient.

This post is funded by Fidelity International

Important information

This information is for investment professionals only and should not be relied upon by private investors. The value of investments and the income from them can go down as well as up and you may not get back the amount invested.  Investors should note that the views expressed may no longer be current and may have already been acted upon. Changes in currency exchange rates may affect the value of investments in overseas markets. Investments in emerging markets can be more volatile than other more developed markets. A focus on securities of companies which maintain strong environmental, social and governance ("ESG") credentials may result in a return that at times compares unfavourably to similar products without such focus. Reference to specific securities should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell these securities and is included for illustration purposes only. Issued by FIL Pensions Management, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Financial Administration Services Limited, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Fidelity International, the Fidelity International logo and F symbol are trademarks of FIL Limited. UKM0322/370541/SSO/NA

More on Investment

Investment Week digital edition - 14 March 2022

Latest edition of magazine now available online

14 March 2022 • 1 min read

Industry Voice: Evaluating labelled bonds - a robust framework is key

In this rapidly evolving market, we believe investors need a thoughtful approach to assessing issues’ suitability and combatting greenwashing, in order to generate real impact.

Campe Goodman CFA, Portfolio Manager and Paul Skinner, Investment Director at Wellington Management
14 March 2022 • 7 min read

Industry Voice: Energy Transition - A Jarring Path to Green

Higher energy prices may prompt more investment in energy transition technologies, but we expect periods of volatility and vulnerability along the path to a greener future.

PIMCO
14 March 2022 • 1 min read
Trustpilot

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

During peak demand, some coal plants have been reactivated, further complicating decarbonization efforts .

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.

The Russian-Ukrainian war has severely impacted Germany’s energy security.

The loss of Russian gas—a key supply—exposed vulnerabilities created by the nuclear exit, with officials warning of a potential “Lehman Brothers effect” if gas supplies were cut off, risking economic crisis and blackouts .

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: 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: In a stark revelation, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) has outlined the severe challenges faced by the global nuclear power sector in recent years. The report, covering developments up to mid-2023, highlights a significant decline in nuclear production, with its share dropping to the lowest point in four decades. This decline is attributed to a combination of factors including national policy shifts, economic pressures and the rapid growth of renewable energy alternatives.

Global nuclear production and generation reaches new low

The WNISR points out that global nuclear power generation experienced a notable 4% decline, reaching a level not seen since the mid-1990s. Outside of China, the decrease was even more pronounced, at 5%, taking the global nuclear energy share of commercial gross electricity generation in 2022 down to 9.2%. This marks the most substantial drop since the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2012 and a record low in the past four decades. It is noteworthy that this share is now little more than half of its peak of 17.5% in 1996.

Several major nuclear-producing nations faced significant challenges in 2022 and mid-2023, contributing to the overall hit on the global nuclear landscape.

The US saw its nuclear share of commercial electricity generation drop to 18.2%, the lowest level in 25 years. France experienced a drop in nuclear generation below its 1990 level, turning into a net importer of electricity for the first time since 1980. However, the country seems motivated to rectify the situation, recently leading a group of 20 countries in declaring to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050” at COP28 in Dubai.

Belgium witnessed the closure of two reactors, in September 2022 and January 2023, with three more slated for closure by 2025. Germany saw the closure of its last three operating reactors on 15 April 2023, completing the phase-out policy initiated in 2011.

The report notes that the number of closed power reactors reached 212 units as of mid-2023, with 22 fully decommissioned and 11 released from regulatory control. With this, the report indicates that 407 reactors with a total capacity of 365GW were operational worldwide – a decrease of four reactors compared with the previous year and 31 units below the peak observed in 2002.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData

Economic challenges and renewable competition

Nuclear power faces increasing economic challenges, with Lazard modelling indicating that, at discount rates over 5.4%, it becomes the most expensive generator in terms of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE).

National developments of major nuclear-producing countries reflect this reality. The report highlights massive subsidies in the US, with state-level taxpayer-funded subsidies estimated to exceed $15bn by 2030. The UK, now operating only nine nuclear units, has seen cost estimates for the two Hinkley Point C reactors soar to $44bn (£34.98bn) and grid connection delayed until June 2027. South Korea’s state-owned utility, KEPCO, recently faced a record loss of $25bn (33.01trn won), with a 32% rise in net debt to an unprecedented $149bn.

The report also underscores the underestimated hidden costs associated with nuclear power, including decommissioning expenses and liabilities for accidents. Decommissioning costs in Germany, Italy and Lithuania, all nuclear phase-out countries, were estimated to be orders of magnitude higher than international estimates. Meanwhile, the Japanese Government estimated the cost of the 2011 Fukushima accidents at an astonishing $223bn (Y32.62trn) – the largest in the world.

Nuclear finances are even more alarming when compared with renewable alternatives. Renewable energy continues to outpace nuclear power, with total investment in non-hydro renewable electricity capacity reaching a record $495bn in 2022, 14-times the investment in nuclear power plant construction. Wind and solar facilities alone generated 28% more electricity than their nuclear counterparts, accounting for 11.7% of global electricity generation, compared with nuclear’s 9.2%.

In terms of LCOE, the report highlights that nuclear power can be nearly four-times the LCOE of onshore wind at a discount rate of 10%. In the US, unsubsidised solar and wind, with rapidly declining firming costs, have a combined cost of $45–140 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in comparison with new nuclear at a mean $180/MWh.

Uncertain future for global nuclear industry

The global nuclear industry confronts an uncertain future, paired with concerning new developments in the sector.

In the report, one country stood out for going against the current as it continues to dominate the global nuclear market – Russia.

While China leads in the domestic number of reactors under construction with 23 ongoing, Russia dominates the international market with 24 units under construction, including 19 in seven other countries. Russia has also brought on new technology, notably developing the first and only floating nuclear power plant in the world.

However, according to the report, construction delays plague many Russian projects, with 93% of ongoing constructions taking place in Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) or by NWS-controlled companies abroad.

In addition, both China and Russia have been tied to recent revelations about cyberattacks on Sellafield, a nuclear site located on the Cumbrian coast in the UK, by groups with close ties to the two countries. The investigation raised eyebrows about the state of cybersecurity for nuclear sites.

The report also notes that Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have not seen significant progress in the past year, with no units under construction in the western world. The most advanced project, based in the US and involving NuScale, terminated in November 2023 due to a 75% increase in the cost estimate. Canada, nevertheless, plans to build four SMRs in Ontario, arguing that they will contribute C$15.3bn ($11.25bn) to Canada’s gross domestic product.

In conclusion, the WNISR paints a sobering picture for the global nuclear power industry as it grapples with economic challenges, national policy shifts and the dominance of renewable energy alternatives. As the world transitions towards cleaner and more economically viable energy sources, nuclear power finds itself at a crossroads.

Despite all this, recent announcements at the COP28 summit demonstrate the industry’s efforts to turn things around. While the US, Canada, France, Japan and UK backed the global nuclear supply chain, planning investments to improve uranium enrichment and conversion capacity, US Special Climate Envoy John Kerry launched an international engagement plan to advance nuclear fusion, saying the technology will become vital in the energy transition.

There have also been new developments in international cooperation with the UK and US signing a partnership to develop nuclear fusion technology and the UK and South Korea agreeing to strengthen their cooperation on civil nuclear power including large-scale, small-scale and advanced reactors, decommissioning and waste management, and supply chains.

In response, the government temporarily extended nuclear