Tag: dark doldrums

When the lights go out: Why the energy transition has no start button in the event of a blackout

A Germany-wide power outage is not a light switch problem – but the moment when the physical limits of green energy policy become ruthlessly visible

A cartoon depicting characters expressing concern about the need for an electric power supply masterplan, with one character saying, 'WE NEED AN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY MASTERPLAN' and another exclaiming 'GOSH!!' against a dark background.

From The KlimaNachrichten

An illustration depicting a person using a flashlight to illuminate the word 'BLACKOUT,' with the silhouette of a power plug in the background, representing the concept of a power outage.

A Germany-wide power outage is not a light switch problem – but the moment when the physical limits of green energy policy become ruthlessly visible

Who does not remember the promises? The energy transition should not only save the climate but also guarantee security of supply. Wind, sun and batteries – the holy triumvirate of the green future. Decentralized, democratic, digital. What is often concealed is that in the event of a nationwide blackout, this future system will turn into a pile of expensive electronics that do not produce a single volt. Not because the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine – but because the physical foundations are missing to bring the grid back to life in the first place.

The current power outage in Berlin, which paralyzed about 50,000 households for four days, provides a taste of what is in store for Germany when the last conventional power plants are taken off the grid. And no, it’s not about scaremongering – it’s about physics.

The grid is not a power distributor, but a machine

First, let’s look at the technical reality of a blackout. The European power grid runs at a grid frequency of 50 hertz – a precisely synchronized machine in which all generators rotate in unison. After a total collapse, there is: no reference frequency, no voltage, no communication over the network. Everything has to be synchronized from scratch, step by step, like a house of cards that you build in absolute darkness.

This is not a “reboot” as you know it from the computer. It is the laborious reconstruction of a highly complex system, lasting several hours to several days, in which the slightest miscalculation leads to an immediate renewed shutdown.

Black Start: The Underrated Ability

Only a few power plants can start without an external power supply. According to the Federal Network Agency, there are 174 black-start capable turbines with a capacity of at least 10 MW (as of 2020) in Germany – sounds like a lot, but of these, only 26 are actually earmarked by the transmission system operators for grid reconstruction. This is the strategic reserve for an emergency.

The following are primarily:

  • Hydroelectric power plants
  • Some gas turbines (with battery support)
  • Few specially equipped power plants

On the other hand, the following are not eligible for black starts:

  • Nuclear power plants (irony of history: long since shut down)
  • Most coal-fired power plants (in the process of being shut down)
  • Wind and photovoltaic systems (grid-following)
  • Large battery storage systems (without upstream supply)

You read that right: The entire infrastructure of the energy transition is useless in the event of a blackout. Not restricted use. Useless.

Why is the reconstruction taking so long?

A large power plant needs between 5 and 10 percent of its nominal output as its own needs to start up – for pumps, lubrication, cooling, control and control technology. Without mains or black start source: standstill. And even when the first power plants are up and running, the real problem begins: the balance between generation and load must be exactly right. Too much burden? Frequency drop, shutdown. Too little load? Frequency surplus, shutdown.

That’s why consumers are being connected gradually: first critical infrastructure, then household’s region-by-region, industrial companies come to the very end. The net is built up like a fragile house of cards – one wrong move, and everything collapses again.

In addition, there are failed protection relays in substations that have to be reset manually. Cables must be tested for short circuits. Communication is now only via emergency power generators. Typical time frames for Germany-wide reconstruction: 24 to 72 hours – under ideal conditions. With consequential damage, much longer.

The problem of renewables: grid-following instead of grid-forming

Now it gets interesting. Almost all of today’s wind and photovoltaic plants are grid-following. They need an existing voltage and frequency to attach themselves to. After a blackout, the following applies: No grid, no feed-in. Even in bright sunshine and strong winds: 0 megawatts.

At this point, the argument regularly comes: “Then let’s just take battery storage as a buffer.” Nice theory. Practical reality: Batteries do not provide physical inertia. They stabilize the frequency only via control algorithms – highly sensitive to load jumps, highly software-dependent. Who sets the first cycle after a total failure? Who synchronizes thousands of inverters so that they do not regulate against each other? A bug, a communication failure, a misparameterization – and the chaos is perfect.

Grid-Forming Inverters: The Theoretical Solution Without Practical Proof

The answer of the energy transition engineers is: “Grid-forming inverters.” These are intended to digitally replicate the lack of network formation of synchronous generators. Sounds good. However, as of today, it only works in theory and in small pilot projects.

The problems:

  • Hardly tested on a large scale so far
  • No long-term experience for national networks
  • Extremely complex protection and coordination issues
  • Highly software-dependent

This is not a physical anchor like a rotating flywheel, but a digital replacement model. A software update can stabilize the system – or cause it to crash. Although the European grid codes discuss requirements for grid-forming functionalities, Germany is miles away from a comprehensive, tested implementation.

Fraunhofer ISE and other research institutions are diligently developing algorithms and testing prototypes. But there are worlds between a test setup and a nationwide system change – and years, if not decades.

Dark doldrums plus blackout: The worst-case scenario

Now imagine the following scenario: A cold January day, little wind, no sun, the storage facilities are already partially empty (because they had to support the supply in the days before). Then: blackout.

What happens? No feed-in from wind and solar. No inertia in the system. No safe reconstruction path.

In such a system, Germany would de facto be dependent on neighboring countries – French nuclear power plants, Scandinavian hydropower, Polish coal – to “pull” voltage and frequency into the German grid and enable a new start. Energy sovereignty? Not given. Green independence ends where physics begins.

What politicians conceal

The Federal Network Agency classifies the risk of a long-lasting power outage in Germany as “very unlikely”. This may be statistically correct – Germany has one of the most reliable power grids in the world with an average of 11 minutes of outage per year. But this statistic applies to today’s system of conventional baseload power plants that serve as anchors.

What happens when these anchors disappear? When the last coal-fired power plants are taken off the grid and replaced by software-controlled inverters? Will the grid become more stable – or more vulnerable?

Herbert Saurugg, Austrian blackout expert, has been warning for years: “Just because you can start a power plant illegally does not mean that you can also manage grid reconstruction.” And further: The smaller the turbines, the more difficult and lengthy the start-up.

A 100% RE system would have, in the event of a nationwide blackout:

  • No robust black start capability
  • No physical mesh formation
  • High software and coordination risks
  • Extreme dependence on weather and foreign countries
  • Significantly longer reconstruction times than today

In extreme cases, the network could no longer be safely started up independently.

Berlin as a portent?

The current power outage in Berlin – caused by a fire at a cable bridge – is an example of how fragile even well-developed urban grids are. It took four days for all 45,000 households to have electricity again. Four days of cold, four days without functioning heaters, without hot water, without light. According to the network operator, the complete repair will take weeks or months.

And that was only a regionally limited outage with a functioning environment that could help. What would happen in the event of a Germany-wide blackout? Who will help then?

Conclusion: Physics beats ideology

A Germany-wide blackout does not last long because German engineers are incompetent. It takes a long time because the power grid is a high-precision, synchronously running machine – and you can’t start machines cold at the same time.

The energy transition ignores this reality. It replaces rotating masses with algorithms, physical inertia with virtual inertial systems, proven black start capability with theoretical concepts. And hopes that everything will work in an emergency.

This is not energy policy – this is Russian roulette with the security of supply of an industrialized country.

The inconvenient truth is that a power grid needs inertia, synchronicity and startability. These are characteristics of rotating machines, not inverters. As long as this basic truth is not accepted, the energy transition will remain an expensive experiment at the expense of security of supply.

The next blackout is sure to come. The only question is: How long will it take for the light to come back on?

Sources and further information:

[1] Federal Network Agency (2020): Monitoring according to § 35 EnWG – Black-start capable plants in Germany https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/167/1916714.pdf

[2] Wikipedia: Schwarzstart – Technical Basics and Procedures https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzstart

[3] Herbert Saurugg (2025): Schwarzstart & Netzwiederaufbau https://www.saurugg.net/blackout/schwarzstart-netzwiederaufbau

[4] Fraunhofer ISE: VerbundnetzStabil – Netzbildende Wechselrichter in Verbundnetzen https://publica.fraunhofer.de/entities/publication/fef7d252-19b0-462d-ab4d-34b36f7d1a79

[5] Cube Concepts (2025): Grid Forming with Grid-Forming Inverters https://cubeconcepts.de/en/grid-forming-mit-netzbildenden-wechselrichtern/

[6] MDPI (2024): Grid Forming Inverter as an Advanced Smart Inverter for Augmented Ancillary Services https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/6/3/51

[7] Ingenieur.de (January 2026): Four days without electricity – What the Berlin blackout reveals about our grids https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/energie/vier-tage-ohne-strom-was-der-berliner-blackout-ueber-unsere-netze-verraet/

[8] Federal Government: Power outage – a risk analysis https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/stromausfall-blackout-2129818

[9] Federal Agency for Civic Education (2023): Are blackouts likely in Germany? https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/blackout-2024/543954/sind-blackouts-in-deutschland-wahrscheinlich/

[10] Next Power Plants: Black Start – How Does the Restart After a Blackout Work? https://www.next-kraftwerke.de/wissen/schwarzstart

A character from a science fiction series expressing frustration with the quote, "I can't change the laws of physics."

Fritz Vahrenholt: The expansion of renewable energies will fail due to the shortage of critical metals

The new German government is also sticking to the goal of climate neutrality in 2045. To achieve this, it relies on the 100% expansion of renewable energies for energy supply (apart from the planned 20 GW of gas-fired power plants with CO2 capture, which the federal government wants to allow to avert blackouts).
In my newsletters, I have repeatedly pointed out that the German way of energy supply, which is based almost exclusively on solar and wind energy

From KlimaNachrichten

As the chart above shows, the global mean temperature in May fell compared to the previous month. The deviation from the long-term average of satellite measurements is now 0.5 degrees Celsius. The decline in global temperatures is clearly visible, as they continue to decline towards the long-term average.
Today I want to deal with the unsatisfactory metal demand of the energy transition and the accelerated expansion of nuclear energy in the USA and China. Both are highly topical topics.

The expansion of renewable energies will fail due to the shortage of critical metals

The new German government is also sticking to the goal of climate neutrality in 2045. To achieve this, it relies on the 100% expansion of renewable energies for energy supply (apart from the planned 20 GW of gas-fired power plants with CO2 capture, which the federal government wants to allow to avert blackouts).
In my newsletters, I have repeatedly pointed out that the German way of energy supply, which is based almost exclusively on solar and wind energy, will fail for the following reasons:

1. The costs of the energy system due to the extremely expensive storage of the fluctuating electricity supply will multiply and lead to deindustrialization and massive losses of prosperity.
2. The tripling to fivefold increase in solar and wind energy will lead to the destruction of the landscape, the habitats of many animal species and to a change in meteorological conditions that is difficult to estimate.
3. A secured, frequency-stable power supply is not guaranteed. (see Spain blackout April 2025).

Through a publication by Simon Michaux of the Finnish Geological Survey, we have now been made aware of a fourth reason that leads this path of the energy transition ad absurdum:
The specific metals necessary for the installation of solar and wind turbines, cable trays, storage systems (batteries and hydrogen), e-vehicles and heat pumps, such as copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt, vanadium and graphite, are used according to Michaux will not be sufficiently available in the next 20 years. It is well known that the replacement of coal, oil and gas is only possible with a considerable amount of metals: A 6-MW wind turbine consists of 30-50 tons of copper and up to 300 kilograms of rare earths. An electric vehicle needs 10 kilograms of cobalt, 10 kilograms of nickel and 60-80 kilograms of copper, 4-5 times as much copper as a diesel or gasoline engine.
Michaux’s calculation is based on the fact that today only 4% of the world’s energy supply is covered by wind and solar energy, 11.2% by hydropower and nuclear energy and 84.7% by fossil energies. If the world were to follow Germany’s example and replace the 84.7% share of fossil fuels with wind and solar energy, an additional 6000 million tons of copper would be needed. The annual production of copper is 28 million tons. The demand for a 100% renewable energy supply corresponds to 200 times as much.
The following graph (source report, p. 242) puts the gigantic, additional consumption of critical metals in relation to the amount that can be extracted. Michaux assumes that not only the known reserves, but also unknown resources, such as seabed mining, are developed. In addition, Michaux expects the recycling volumes of the metals to increase. The case presented here, calculated by Michaux, requires an energy storage system for 28 days (battery/hydrogen) that can survive dark doldrums of 28 days.
The result: In all cases – from copper to vanadium – the demand for metals exceeds the estimated availability including new sources many times over. (see the following graphic)

One can only be glad that no nation in the world is following the German pioneering path of a 100% solar and wind energy transition, but like the USA and China, for example, wants to base a large part of the future energy supply on nuclear energy and fossil sources and only wants to cover a part of it with renewable energies.

But even if Germany goes it alone without nuclear energy and without fossil fuels, it will pose problems for the world: If you break down Michaux’s global figures to Germany, which has about 1.74% of the world’s primary energy consumption, 1.74% of 6000 million tons of copper will have to be used in Germany until the goal of climate neutrality in 2045 is achieved. That is then 104 million tons of copper in 20 years. This corresponds to 15% of world copper production over the next 20 years (about 700 million tons by 2040, see page 254). This amount would have to be reserved for Germany, which today consumes only about 4% of world production (about 1 million tons per year). It is certain that such an increase in demand will cause prices for the energy transition to rise additionally.
In addition, if the energy transition continues as before, we will have to knock very politely on the door of the Chinese, who have now secured almost 50% of the world’s copper production.

China dominates the world in 19 out of 20 critical raw materials

The International Energy Agency IEA’s Global Critical Minerals outlook 2025, published in May, revealed that China is the world’s dominant producer of critical metals and products, be it copper (45%), cobalt (80%), lithium (70%), graphite (95%) or rare earths (90%). (Source: IEA, 2025)

And China is making strong use of its monopoly position: the export restrictions are a tried and tested means in world trade and in the geopolitical debate. China has banned the export of the metals gallium, germanium and antimony to the USA in December 2024. A general export restriction for all countries was decreed in February 2025 for rare earths, graphite, tungsten, bismuth, indium, tellurium and molybdenum.

The last 5 years show that China is expanding its monopoly position (see next chart source IEA 2025). In copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite and rare earths, China has massively increased its world market share since 2020. This applies to wind turbines, solar systems, batteries, e-cars, electric motors and generators.

China will replace the US as the world’s largest nuclear power operator

On May 24, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to accelerate nuclear power expansion in the United States. Electricity generation from nuclear energy is expected to quadruple from just under 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts by 2050. The U.S. has 95 operating nuclear power plants. In the last 40 years, only two nuclear power plants have been built. The last nuclear power plant Vogtle in Georgia had a licensing period of 15 years because the nuclear energy licensing authority NRC kept developing new requirements to prevent the expansion process. Therefore, the president has determined that the approval periods should only last 18 months. He has severely curtailed the rights of the NRC. Even 4th generation experimental power plants must be approved within 30 months. Interior Minister Dough Burgum said that if you want to win the race with China for artificial intelligence AI, you have to have enough reliable energy available. “What we do in terms of energy in the next 5 years will decide the next 50 years.”
But China has used the last 20 years to develop its own competitive power plants (Hualong – Chinese dragon) from imported nuclear power plants (e.g. from Westinghouse or Framatome). China has now built nuclear power plants with a capacity of 58 gigawatts and will have completed another 10 nuclear power plants in 2026. (a Chinese nuclear power plant has 1.1 gigawatts)
With 2.8 billion dollars for a nuclear power plant, China is building power plants that cost seven times as much in Europe or the USA. China’s plan is to produce more nuclear energy than the US as early as 2030. It is impossible that the West will be able to catch up with China’s lead in reactor construction, which is about 5-10 years.

In the shadow of the race between the US and China, all countries in Europe – except Germany and Austria – are now ready to build or consider new nuclear power plants in Europe, as even Denmark recently did. Former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described an exclusion of nuclear power as “ridiculous”. “Wind and sun are good as long as you have wind and sun. But you need a non-fossil base load, and it is ridiculous to exclude nuclear power from the outset.”

Only the new German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider (SPD) has spoken out against supporting nuclear power plants at the European level as a sustainable solution to reduce CO2 emissions. There will be no classification as sustainable power plants with the SPD, Schneider said. In Germany, people like to import nuclear energy electricity in dark doldrums, but at the same time they dupe their neighbours because they think they know better. What did Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen say? “Ridiculous”. Can you contradict him on that?