Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Now that they have done so, their reasons for obstruction have become a little bit clearer.
Some recent history: On 7 March 2022, the Ministry published a Review of the Continued Operation of Nuclear Power Plants Due to the Ukraine War, which made the case for completing Merkel’s nuclear phase-out and shutting down the plants despite the impending energy crisis. This review concludes with a brief “assessment” of the implications for “energy and climate policy.” If you read carefully, you’ll notice a strange thing: The two paragraphs which follow this heading abound with remarks on energy production, but say basically nothing about climate or emissions.
The documents Habeck’s Ministry have released since the court order reveal why. BILD has seen an earlier draft of this review, and notes that there was a originally a third paragraph at the very end, which Ministry officials deleted before publication.
It was here that they explained the emissions implications of phasing out nuclear power:
With regard to the reduction in CO2 emissions – sometimes used as an argument in this discussion – the approximately 30 TWh of additional nuclear electricity per year from 2024 onwards would result in about 25–30 million tonnes of CO2 reduction in the German electricity supply. Yet there would be no European-wide CO2 savings, as the energy industry is subject to EU emissions trading and the cap in the EU-ETS is set independently of a possible lifetime extension [for nuclear plants] in Germany.
Since the 19th century, the phrase “Made in Germany” has denoted quality and reliability in manufacturing. This reputation, and the exports that have flowed from it, has enabled Germany to build the fourth-largest economy in the world – sometimes described as the enginehouse of the eurozone.
Germans have worked out that relying on the weather for your power has one major problem: “The Weather”. They’ve even coined a term for gloomy, windless weather – ‘dunkelflaute’ – periods of days or weeks when their more than 30,000 wind turbines and millions of solar panels produce next to nothing or nothing at all.
Having foolishly trashed their (once enviable) nuclear power generation capacity, the Germans have been forced to re-embrace coal-fired power, like their lives depend upon it – notwithstanding howls of outrage from their lunatic green fringe.
German power prices are the highest in Europe and large-scale power rationing is now routine.
The result for the German economy is, of course, catastrophic, as Claire Lehmann outline below.
Why Germany’s energy blunders offer us a stark economic warning The Australian Claire Lehmann 21 July 2023
Since the 19th century, the phrase “Made in Germany” has denoted quality and reliability in manufacturing. This reputation, and the exports that have flowed from it, has enabled Germany to build the fourth-largest economy in the world – sometimes described as the enginehouse of the eurozone.
But in recent years some of Germany’s most famous brands have moved their manufacturing offshore, and the head of the German Industry Federation, Siegfried Russwurm, has warned that energy prices are so high the country risks losing many of its companies altogether.
Entering a recession in the first quarter of this year, Germany’s recovery has been slower than expected. The Federation of German Business recently found that 16 per cent of businesses surveyed are already in the process of leaving the country, with another 30 per cent planning on following suit. Tesla has halted plans to build factories near Berlin, and the European Commission predicts Germany will be one of the slowest-growing economies this year.
Of course, the factors contributing to this economic decline are complex, but one key policy decision made in the mid-2000s appears to have played a pivotal role. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that during her tenure as chancellor, Angela Merkel embarked upon a decision that would prove to be one of the greatest policy mistakes ever made.
A decade ago, Germany had 17 nuclear plants in operation and sourced around one-quarter of its energy from nuclear energy. Although the nation has always had a vocal “dark green” environmentalist movement that advocated for “degrowth”, Merkel originally resisted calls from anti-nuclear advocates, describing their policy preferences as “absolutely wrong”.
But that all changed in 2011, in the wake of Fukushima. The New York Times reported at the time that Merkel “reached the momentous decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022 after discussing it one night over red wine with her husband, Joachim Sauer, a physicist and university professor, at their apartment in central Berlin”. It would prove to be a monumental mistake.
Earlier this year Germany shuttered the last three of its remaining nuclear plants, to the celebration of local Greens and anti-nuclear activists. However, environmentalists outside Germany were aghast. And even Greta Thunberg observed it was a mistake. Data from 2022 indicated that the use of coal had increased by 8.4 per cent on the preceding year, and that coal remained Germany’s dominant power source.
Despite the hundreds of billions spent on renewables (that’s billions not millions), Germany’s carbon emissions persist at double the rate of neighbouring France and nearly triple the rate of Sweden. The country also grapples with electricity prices three times the global average.
As Judith Sloan wrote earlier this week, the disappointing situation in Europe provides a stark warning to Australia.
While in Germany recently, Anthony Albanese signed on to the “Climate Club”, a group of nations with lofty decarbonisation ambitions. But Germany should not be offering lessons on how to achieve decarbonisation – on the contrary, its example should be seen as a cautionary tale.
One economic analysis of Germany’s nuclear phase-out estimates that the nuclear phase-out has cost the country at least $12bn, and has contributed to thousands of preventable deaths from the air pollution generated from the burning of coal. Germany’s spot on the Yale Environmental Performance Index has slid backwards, and analysts note its electricity grid is the third-most carbon-intensive in all of Europe.
Since embarking on the Energiewende, Germany has experienced escalating electricity costs tied to feed-in tariffs and instability during periods of low wind and solar energy generation. Integrating fluctuating renewable energy sources into the power grid has plunged it into uncertainty, creating a volatile mix of surplus and shortfall.
On the other hand, nations boasting the lowest carbon emissions in Europe have not staked their fortunes on wind and solar power alone. Sweden, for instance, charted a course toward nuclear energy in the 1970s, and now emits a mere 3.42 tonnes of carbon per capita compared to Germany’s 8.09 tonnes. Over the past two decades, Sweden’s economy has thrived, boasting a growth rate twice that of Germany’s.
Given the energy intensity of an industry such as manufacturing, it is not entirely surprising that energy policy blunders have precipitated the German economic malaise.
While Australia does not rely on manufacturing like Germany does, we do share a significant parallel – a lack of economic complexity. Our nation’s backbone lies in mines and farms, akin to the centrality of factories to Germany’s economy. And like manufacturing, both mining and agriculture rely on cheap and abundant energy to thrive.
Australia only ranks 25th in the world in the Global Innovation Index, with output in scientific and technical articles identified as one of our core weaknesses. Other weaknesses identified by the index include a lack of hi-tech manufacturing, lack of export complexity and a lack of intellectual property receipts. The industries that provide a buffer against rising energy costs simply do not yet exist.
Rather than transforming the country into a renewable energy superpower, Germany’s Energiewende has created a rust belt. And rather than learn from Germany’s mistakes, Australia appears intent on replicating them. The Australian
ESSENBACH, GERMANY – AUGUST 04: The Isar nuclear power plant is pictured on August 4, 2022 in Essenbach, Germany. The leader of the German Christian Democrats (CDU), Friedrich Merz, and Bavarian Premier Markus Soeder are arguing for extending the operational life of the Isar 2 reactor beyond its scheduled closing at the end of this year in order to help Germany mitigate the effects of the current reduction of natural gas supplies by Russia. Russia, likely in response to Germany’s support of Ukraine, has dropped the supply of gas flowing through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline to 20%. The German government is seeking to avoid expected energy shortfalls, especially this coming winter, and Chancellor Scholz yesterday said he is considering allowing Germany’s three remaining nuclear reactors to run longer than currently scheduled. (Photo by Lennart Preiss/Getty Images)
Germany’s last three nuclear power reactors were shut down this weekend. Supporters of the anti-nuclear movement cheered. Many others – including some in the media and voters who worry about the environment – fear that the decision will only worsen Germany’s energy crisis.
Sabine Beppler-Spahl argues in Spiked that it is ordinary Germans who will suffer.
A culture of fear has driven Germany’s anti-nuclear movement since its inception in the mid-1970s. In its early days, it was a radical opposition movement, largely at the fringes of society. Its demonstrations were often met with massive police force. At one demo in 1986, in the German village of Wackersdorf, several protesters, and one police officer, were killed.
The public mood started to change after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, also in 1986. But the German government continued to back nuclear power in the years following the accident. Then Chancellor Helmut Kohl argued that a highly industrialised country like Germany couldn’t survive without it. …
By the time [then Chancellor Angela] Merkel announced the phaseout, the anti-nuclear movement had become mainstream.
No party opposed her move (the populist and pro-nuclear AfD had not yet been founded).
Her decision was applauded by the media elites, too.
Even the former boss of Siemens, Peter Löscher, toed the line, welcoming Merkel’s plan to replace nuclear power with renewables.
So strong was the groupthink in Germany that sceptics of Merkel’s plan were often isolated and ridiculed. Nuclear engineers saw no future in Germany, university departments for nuclear sciences began to close down, and many of Germany’s best engineers went to Canada or the US. …
The key question of course is why?
Why is the Government abandoning a cheap, clean and reliable source of energy?
And why is it instead betting on unreliable renewable energy, which will make Germany dependent on favourable weather conditions and will raise energy prices even further?
The answer lies in the power of Germany’s green movement, which gave birth to the Green Party, currently the junior coalition partner in Olaf Scholz’s Government.
The decades-long fight against nuclear power is driven largely by its anti-growth ideology – an ideology that has spread to the establishment more broadly.
For his part, Scholz has only one interest – keeping his weak coalition together. He has sacrificed a once formidable industry to green ideology and party politics.
The price of this fiasco will inevitably be paid by the German people. A backlash to the green dogma that brought us here is long overdue.
You must be logged in to post a comment.