Link: https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/la-catastrophe-energetiqueallemande-se-poursuit-tandis-que-la-france-rebondit-nucleaire-energiegaz-production-Allemagne-Samuel-Furfari
Please see link above for source text.
24/08/2024
Germany's energy disaster continues as Francebouncesback
Atlantico.fr
Link to original in French
Germany has recently gone from being a net exporter of electricity to a net importer. How do you explain Germany's difficulties with its energy strategy compared with its European neighbours, especially France?
Atlantico: Although Germany is Europe's industrial champion, its energy situation is disastrous and worrying. The carbon footprint per kilowatt of electricity in Germany is much higher than in France, and total electricity production is lower (and will fall further in 2024), despite a much larger population, industry and economy.
Samuel Furfari: This situation is incredible, despairing and deserves a book of its own. Allow me to go back over the reasons why. First of all, it's important to understand that in the energy sector, the consequences of decisions - good or bad - are felt for years, even decades.
Before the First World War, Germany was the world's centre of knowledge. Science, technological know-how, and the chemical industry in particular... Almost everything was in Germany. At the time, scientists published in German, not in English . But with the defeat of 1918, Germany lost everything, including its assets in the oil and gas industry. However, in
order to pay war reparations, Germany had to liquidate all its oil assets. This is where it all begins. Today, even countries like Portugal have an oil company. Spain has Repsol, Italy has ENI. Belgium had Petrofina before it was bought by Total, not to mention the majors. But in Germany, no major oil company has emerged. When the European Community was created, Germany saw the development of nuclear energy as an opportunity and made it its hobby horse. From 1958 onwards, with the creation of Euratom, Germany fully embraced the nuclear option. But pacifism, born of the horrors of the Second World War, ended up sabotaging everything: the pacifist movements, which later gave rise to the ecologists, succeeded in dismantling the German nuclear industry, going so far as to force Siemens, one of the world's leading companies, to abandon the sector. This closure had enormous consequences. They had efficient, amortised and safe power stations, but their sudden closure has had major macroeconomic repercussions on the price of electricity and hence on the whole industry. This has penalised Germany even more, a country whose industry was heavily dependent on low-cost electricity supplied by nuclear power. By wanting to destroy nuclear power, the environmentalists have seriously affected the entire German industrial economy.
The situation is going to get worse because they have wasted money, resources and efficient infrastructure for ideological reasons. In Brussels and Strasbourg, Germany has ended up imposing its vision, which is to abandon nuclear power and focus on renewable energies, as Angela Merkel demanded from 2006 onwards. Unfortunately, this decision is a major mistake for the whole of the European Union, which has blindly followed Germany, even more so since Ms von der Leyen became head of the European Commission.
Not only is Germany's carbon footprint per kilowatt of electricity much higher than in France, its total electricity generation is much smaller (and declining further in 2024) despite having a much larger population, industry, and economy. We cannot all afford to do that.
A new study on EnergieWende claims that ‘if Germany had maintained its 2002 nuclear park, it could have achieved a 73% reduction in GHG emissions on top of the results achieved and simultaneously cut spending by half’. How far has Germany gone to the wall by abandoning nuclear power?
Will we realise the country's big mistake: wanting to be the leader in decarbonisation and at the same time doing away with the best source of carbon-free energy? There is no doubt that Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power has had, and will continue to have, disastrous consequences for its economy and carbon footprint, but it is less well-known that some German environmentalists have been influenced by funding from Russia's Gazprom.
The government of the Länder of Mecklenburg-East Pomerania, where the Nord Stream pipeline runs and German NGOs have received subsidies from Gazprom to support opposition to nuclear power. In the energy sector, the financial stakes are colossal, and there are often hidden interests at stake. Wind turbines have an average load factor of around 23%, which means that on average they only generate 23% of their theoretical capacity over the year. The reasons are simple: the wind doesn't always blow at the right intensity, and sometimes we even have to stop the turbines when it blows too hard. To compensate for this lack of regularity, you need a flexible energy source, and gas is the ideal candidate. That's why Gazprom has pushed the anti-nuclear agenda, allowing demand for gas to increase. If you want wind turbines, you'll need gas-fired power stations. Don't believe those who talk science fiction about batteries and other non-existent and overpriced gadgets, which is why former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder concluded an agreement with Vladimir Putin to create the Nord Stream gas pipeline. As well as supplying the gas needed to compensate for the intermittence and variability of wind turbines, the aim was to turn Germany into a hub, a distribution platform for Russian gas to the EU without passing through Ukraine. This gas pipeline was to guarantee Germany's gas supply while bypassing Ukraine, a country that was known to be unstable, but also to bypass Poland and supply the EU with Russian gas from the German Baltic Sea.
The destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines is an unprecedented slap in the face for Germany, which, instead of becoming a gas hub, is forced to beg Qatar for emergency gas sales and build an LNG terminal, the construction of which environmentalists had blocked for a decade, preferring Russian gas... and Gazprom subsidies. This strategic crime does not benefit Ukraine, but the United States, so much so that Germany has just arrested a Ukrainian pawn.
To sum up, on the one hand there were pacifist and environmentalist ideologues opposed to nuclear power, and on the other, strategists seeking to strengthen Germany's hegemonic position in the EU. Unfortunately for them, both approaches turned out to be failures.
The decline in confidence among industry leaders in Germany is particularly sharp compared with the rest of the eurozone. Is this a bad sign that will have consequences for the energy markets in Germany and Europe?
Their energy decisions, in particular the closure of efficient nuclear power stations, will have an impact for decades to come. Not only has it been costly in macroeconomic terms, but reintroducing nuclear power now would be even more costly, at a time when nuclear power is enjoying a resurgence everywhere else.
In Belgium, for example, the formation of the new federal government is focused on a strong reintroduction of nuclear power in the energy sector. Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Finland are following the same path. Westinghouse has signed contracts to build at least 13 nuclear reactors in Ukraine, including 9 AP1000s and 4 other reactors (probably also AP1000s) at the Khmelnitski power station. If Siemens hadn't demolished its nuclear industry, I think one or more German nuclear power stations would have been built in Ukraine. Similarly, if France hadn't blindly followed Germany, EDF would also have been able to sell one or more plants. Instead, the Americans are coming to the European market. When the word ‘despairing’ was used at the start of the interview, it wasn't an exaggeration. Everywhere in Europe, nuclear power is once again seen as a viable solution, except in Germany. Germany has led us into an energy abyss, but it is they who will pay the heaviest price.
How can Germany get out of this abyss?
To get out of an erroneous ideology, you first have to admit that you were wrong. That's what the USSR did. As long as Germany does not admit that it made a mistake - as it did with Nazism, even if it was not on the same scale or of the same nature - it will continue to sink. And even if it
recognises the error of its ways, it will take 10 to 15 years to rectify the situation, which is why the German industry is suffering at the moment and is increasingly considering de-localising its activities.
Energy is the economy’s engine; if its price is too high, it becomes impossible to be competitive. Germany took two big risks - abandoning nuclear power and focusing on wind power - and lost everything. Fortunately, France has started to get its act together. Admittedly, there have been mistakes on the nuclear front, such as the closure of Fessenheim under Hollande and Macron, but it has been able to put things right in time. When it comes to renewable energies, however, France would do well to abandon the utopia of wind turbines without further delay if it wants to distance itself from Germany.
Samuel Furfari's assertions can be verified in his latest book:
Energy insecurity: The organised destruction of the EU’s competitiveness
https://www.amazon.fr/Energy-insecurity-organised-destructioncompetitiveness/dp/B0C2SFNG3X
