Germany's Nuclear Fumble

Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy,” Donald Trump warned at a UN conference in 2018, “if it does not immediately change course.” He was challenging Germany’s plan to phase out its nuclear power plants and replace them with wind and solar energy. NowThisNews, a popular social-media news outlet, captioned its clip of the German delegation’s withering laughter with: “Germany’s reaction to Trump’s inaccurate claims is priceless.”

At that time, it was widely understood that Germany’s “Energiewende” initiative—meaning “energy turnaround”—was an incredible green-energy success story. Launched in 2011, the program had achieved a dramatic 40.8 percent drop in carbon emissions compared to 1990, and in any event, Germany was only importing a fraction of its energy from Russia. CNBC labeled Trump’s claims as “misleading.”

But events would vindicate Trump. Last fall, a combination of a post-Covid demand, overinvestment in unreliable renewables, divestment from fossil fuels, wind droughts, and depleted fossil-fuel storage produced an energy crisis; then Russia invaded Ukraine.

“The real reason Germany is staying the course is that the green movement is more interested in reducing energy consumption than in reducing emissions.”

Acting in concert with other Western powers, Germany rolled out a series of sanctions in response. Conspicuously, none of those sanctions hit Russia’s energy sector. In fact, Germany is one of the main obstacles to a European embargo of Russian oil and gas, and for good reason: Such a ban, especially on gas, would spell disaster for the German economy. A joint statement from Germany’s trade-union and employers’ federations put it bluntly: “A rapid gas embargo would lead to loss of production, shutdowns, a further de-industrialization, and the long-term loss of work positions in Germany.” Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck warned that “an immediate gas embargo would endanger social peace in Germany.” Martin Brudermüller, chief executive of BASF chemical group, stated that an abrupt severance of Russian oil supplies would create “the worst [economic] crisis since World War II.” It turns out that “fraction” of Russian imports amounted to “up to 55 percent of gas and 34 percent of oil supplies.”

With so much on the line, why is Germany moving ahead with plans to shutter its remaining nuclear power plants? That’s the question asked by German MP Marc Bernhard. “If we reactivate the three plants that were switched off last December they could, together with the three that are still operating, replace all the coal we import from Russia or 30 percent of the Russian gas,” he said. Chancellor Olaf Scholz laughed off Bernhard’s question, much as the German delegation laughed off Trump’s warning.

It’s true that Germany’s remaining nuclear plants supply electricity, not industrial heat, and only about 5 percent of the country’s electricity at that. The last few operational nuclear plants have a total capacity of 4.3 Gigawatts of electricity, and according to officials, there are already plans in the works for individual wind farms that have an even greater production capacity. However, last year Germany’s entire wind fleet worked only 36 percent of the time, while its nuclear plants ran for over 80 percent of that same period. Even if nuclear power doesn’t provide Germany with heat, the country still gets 12 percent of its electricity from gas, so the focus on heat is a misdirection.

Other arguments against nuclear have been floated, especially the claim that it is difficult to import fuel rods for reactors due to the fact that Russia exports most of the world’s nuclear fuel. But KernD, a German nuclear advisory group, has debunked these arguments. Germany manufactures its own nuclear fuel or could otherwise easily order it from Westinghouse. The rest of the excuses amount to hand-wringing over how difficult it is to stop bureaucratic momentum—a bizarre stance, given that more than half the German public would like to see the plants running.

The real reason Germany is staying the course is that the green movement is more interested in reducing energy consumption than it is in reducing emissions. Germany’s green Energiewende owes its intellectual origins to American energy theorist Amory Lovins. Lovins broke onto the scene during the 1970s energy crisis by arguing that states should focus on building decentralized, largely renewable generators. This “soft” approach, focusing on efficiency and conservation, would ease environmental strain and cut human energy consumption. The problem with nuclear energy, Lovins argued, was that it created too much energy too cheaply. Energy abundance was considered a liability that could wreck the environment. In 2016, Germany awarded Lovins an Order of Merit for his ideas.

If the Energiewende’s true purpose is to reduce emissions, it has been a failure. Why? Because it locks in dirty coal. When the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, natural gas usually steps in as a supplement because it can easily be ramped up. But when gas prices are too high, coal fills in the gap. This has been happening in Germany since at least 2013 and is especially the case now.

Elsewhere, America has already achieved comparable carbon reduction using mostly natural gas at far less cost. France and Ontario continue to boast the most successful decarbonization efforts in human history, owing to their muscular nuclear build-outs. In fact, if Germany had spent its projected $580 billion for renewables and storage on nuclear energy instead, it would have largely decarbonized by now.

Germany’s green policies are little more than class war by another name. They have succeeded in transferring wealth from poorer renters to already prosperous homeowners, doubling the cost of electricity for households since 2000 and ending the nation’s energy sovereignty. It has also benefited members of the ruling class. A few weeks before Russia launched its invasion, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was nominated to join the board of Gazprom, the Russian state energy company behind the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Shröder was instrumental in getting it built—securing more Russian gas was supposed to aid the expansion of wind and solar energy. Meanwhile, Germany braces for the impact of potential energy rationing as more homes are being bulldozed to make way for lignite mining, the dirtiest form of coal.

Still, Scholz said earlier this month, “We decided for reasons that I think are very good and right that we want to phase [nuclear out].” A recent piece by Amory Lovins pointed to Germany as a shining example of green energy policy. “Nuclear phaseouts work,” he wrote.

Those of us outside of Germany should be grateful for its grim example. When elites argue for green degrowth policy like the Green New Deal or parts of Build Back Better, Germany is what they envision and what they will achieve, much to our detriment.

from Hacker News https://ift.tt/tj0QJVF