Energiewende: The German energy transformation explained | RenewEconomy

Energiewende: The German energy transformation explained

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

First in a three-part series on Germany’s plan to increase renewables and cut demand and emissions, cost-effectively – and without nuclear. Can it be done?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Carbon Brief

Germany is considered one of the most environmentally conscious countries in the world – but it wants to do more. Decarbonising one of the world’s biggest industrial economies is no small task, and as Germany’s government pushes ahead with sweeping policy reforms, the world is watching to see whether the Germans can pull it off.

The Energiewende – or ‘energy transformation’ – seeks to cut emissions, ramp up renewable electricity, and halve energy consumption, all while keeping the economy afloat. The repercussions will be felt beyond Germany, with English-speaking media already using the Energiewende to illustrate both the benefits and pitfalls of government-directed decarbonisation.

But there is some confusion over what the the transformation entails. And debate about the Energiewende is far from settled in Germany itself, with commentators continuing to argue over the potential costs and benefits of the far-reaching reforms.

Transforming an energy system

Germany’s government laid out its energy reform plans in 2010, looking 40 years ahead. The plan requires a radical overhaul of Germany’s electricity generation, heating systems, and energy efficiency standards.

The economics and environment ministries declared the Energiewende would make Germany”one of the most energy-efficient and greenest economies in the world while enjoying competitive energy prices and a high level of prosperity.”

The heady rhetoric was accompanied by a set of the kind of high-level targets beloved of policymakers the world over. The Energiewende sets an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The government also aims for renewable sources to provide for 80 per cent of electricity consumption, and seeks to reduce the amount of energy Germany consumes by 50 per cent, by 2050 compared to 2008.

Source: Agora, 12 insights on Germany’s Energiewende

The task of moving away from fossil fuels was made more complex shortly after setting the goals when the government ruled out nuclear power as a low carbon energy option.

Chancellor Schröder’s government had committed to phasing out nuclear by 2022 at the start of the millenium. In 2010, Angela Merkel’s government decided to keep the reactors open, but in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster it changed course again, deciding not to restart eight nuclear reactors that had been shut for servicing, and again committing to phasing out Germany’s remaining nine reactors by 2022.

The decision has proved popular with a German public which remains largely hostile to nuclear power. But it does mean Germany is aiming for more renewable electricity, less demand, and lower emissions – all in a cost effective manner and without the aid of nuclear power. Ambitious, indeed.

In practice

Targets are one thing, but putting them into action is another.

The Energiewende touches on a wide range of sectors – from electricity generation, to construction and transport – and seeks to overhaul energy supply and demand management.

At the moment, generators get paid a fixed rate to supply renewably-sourced electricity to the grid. This extra cost is covered by a surcharge on household energy bills. In Germany, these tariffs are guaranteed for 20 years, similar to the UK.

Renewables support is popular with some sections of the public, partially because a large proportion of renewables projects are owned by them. 40 per cent of Germany’s installed renewables capacity was owned by community cooperatives in 2010.

But the media and some politicians have blamed the subsidy for rising energy bills. Germany’s Environment Minister, Peter Altmaier, has called for the end for a particular part of the subsidy – which rises as more renewables come online – to be frozen at current levels. He says the associated cost threatens public confidence in the Energiewende. But Altmaier’s proposal was rejected at an energy summit between the federal government and state representatives earlier this year.

Some subsidy reforms have already been carried out. In 2012, for example, the government agreed to end new solar subsidies once solar capacity reaches 52 gigawatt – almost six times the UK’s current installed capacity. Germany’s environment ministry says this could happen as early as 2014.

Energy consumption

Ramping up renewables is only part of the Energiewende plan. Reducing energy consumption will mean making houses and appliances more efficient, too.

In summer 2011, the government pledged €1.5 billion of funding per year for a Building Rehabilitation Programme. The government has also imposed strict standards on electrical appliances by declaring the most efficient products the ‘standard’, and banning any less efficient new appliances from the market.

Reducing demand will also be necessary to balance a grid increasingly reliant on renewable power. A power consumption market opened earlier this month allowing companies to bid to reduce demand at peak times. This could be cheaper and less emitting than switching on fossil fuel plants to back up renewables – most likely powered by gas. The market is still in its early stages, with only around 500 megawatts of demand reduction bids, but the scheme could be rolled out on a larger scale in a year’s time.

So the Energiewende is deploying a wide-range of policies to try and create a low carbon economy in the most cost effective way.


As in the UK, the cost of supposedly ‘green’ policies is a political flashpoint. Unsurprisingly, the estimated cost of the Energiewende changes dramatically, depending on who you ask.

Altmaier caused controversy in February when he claimed the Energiewende could cost Germany €1 trillion over the next 20 years. But Altmaier’s own department previously calculated the cost as closer to €203 billion.

The MIT Technology review says the cost of the Energiewende has been estimated as anywhere between €100 and €200 billion up to 2020, while Businessweek says the it could cost around about €200 billion – equivalent to about 8 per cent of Germany’s GDP.

The figures change depending on whether or not the benefits of the policies are included. Miranda Schreurs of Berlin Free University says Germany’s green technologies alone could be worth around €9.5 billion. Environmental NGO, Green Budget Germany, says benefits such as avoided environmental damage and the cost of fossil fuel imports also need to be included in the calculations to give the full picture.

As is often the case, estimates change depending on technology and fuel prices, and how much benefit is expected to come from the policies. All of those are uncertain, making it hard to produce a precise estimate. But whatever the precise cost ends up being, it’s clear the Energiewende is a long term, multi-billion euro project.

Where next?

Germany’s strong green political tradition, combined with public support for nuclear decommissioning, may have laid the foundations for public acceptance of the sweeping reforms – but it won’t guarantee that they can be enacted.

Manufacturing sector profits and benefits for communities who invest in the renewables transition have helped maintain support for the Energiewende. But there has been a backlash in both the German and English-speaking media as critics question whether or not the policies are being rolled out in the most cost-effective way.

The Energiewende is still in its early stages and is being adjusted as it develops. Merkel’s government still appears to be committed to the transformation, though with September’s elections looming, the expense is making some politicians nervous.

The Energiewende’s ambition is undoubtable. But despite Germany’s clear commitment to long-term environmental policy, there are still plenty of obstacles to overcome.

This article was originally published on The Carbon Brief. Reproduced with permission

Next in the series: what the Energiewende means for Germany’s energy sector; and how it might affect energy prices.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Coaltopia 7 years ago

    It still baffles me why you’d “phase-out” nuclear when you’re still mining and burning lignite. Nuclear power should run until the end of it’s safe life. Closing it unnecessarily early is counter-intuitive.

    • Bob_Wallace 7 years ago

      Perhaps if you had a reactor melt down close to you and had radioactive pigs running around your neighborhood you’d understand.

      • Coaltopia 7 years ago

        Given how many lives coal takes early and the overwhelming threat of climate change, nuclear has to play part regardless if we like it or not. The key is safety and avoiding new nuclear construction if renewables can provide a suitable alternative.

        Bottom-line Germany has to phase-out lignite first.

        • deedl 7 years ago

          Germany does not have to do anything. If the majority of the German people considers the nuclear risks to be higher then the risk of coal, then the democratic decision is to phase out nuclear first. That is the bottom line. And while the nuclear phaseout is in progress and the coal phaseout is planned, in most other countries of the world neither is done.

          Besides the climate discussion, energy has also a strategic element. Nuclear energy is not a reliable source of energy for Germany, because Germany has to import the nuclear fuels, while lignite is a home resource. So from the standpoint of the security of energy supply both lignite and renewables are forms of energy that reduce dependency on foreign suppliers.

          So Germany did not just jump into its energiewende, it did a very careful decision balancing climate, pollution, nuclear risks and dependency on imported resources. This decision was debated for decades in public and made via democratic elections, with the nuclear phaseout being a major issue in every election in the last decades.

          And the key is, that Germany now has an energystrategy, that actually tackles the real problem with a longterm solution and also is supported by the majority of the people. While the US and China are pointing fingers at each other, Germany is succesfully acting and implementing. Short term reliance on lignite is not a problem, because the lignite phaseout is already planned and the will and the technology for it to be done is there.

          • Coaltopia 7 years ago

            It may be popular to close nuclear, it doesn’t make it right. 2050 is not a suitable date for lignite phase-out.

          • deedl 7 years ago

            So where does you electricity come from? What fuel do you use to satisfy you mobility needs? How do you heat/cool your home? Where does the manufacturer of you computer get his energy from? How where the buidling materials of your home produced? How much fossil energy is in your food?

            It is easy to fingerpoint at others for trying but not trying hard enough. So show me that you solved all these problems in a carbon free way, and then we have something we can talk about. Decarbonising an entire industrial economy is a task not to be done in a few years. So what is the point of arguing that Germany is not quick enough in doing this. Show me a country of equal size and indsutry production that found a way to do it quicker.

            Instead of blaming the ones who work on decarbonization for not working hard enough, you should spend your energy on the ones who do not even try. And there are plenty of those.

          • Coaltopia 7 years ago

            Like Part 2 of this article, your argument seems to continue to “apologise” for lignite or attempt to distract with “look here instead”. The stuff is poison, it must end now. To elevate nuclear closure above it is madness.

          • deedl 7 years ago

            I dont want to apologize for anything. There are situations that have not perfect solution. Burning lignite is desastrous, just search for pictures with the keyword “braunkohletagebau” then you will find entire landscapes dug away (it is the german word for “open pit lignite mine”). Entire towns and villages were destroyed for lignite mining (find here a list of dug away towns/villages: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_abgebaggerter_Ortschaften). There is no excuse or apology for that, and it has to stop as soon as possible. But also does nuclear power.

            I think the importance is not in which order nuclear and fossil fuels are shut down, the importance is that you begin as soon as possible to shut them down in any order you want.

            And while you are talking about australia, watch this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnW0N_gJiTA about the impact of german nuclear power on australian landscape. Nuclear is neither safe nor clean nor as it a small footprint.

            So waking up in the 21st century with energysystem based on coal and nukes is a situation that has no solution that is clean at instant. No matter which one you shut of first, you will be critizied by shutting of the other bad technology second.

        • Bob_Wallace 7 years ago

          I can see the argument that we should keep using the reactors we have, build no more, and get coal off our grids first. That makes climate change sense.

          But I don’t live close to a reactor and that may make existing reactors a bit more acceptable to me.

          About 30 years ago I lived downwind of one of the worst maintained nuclear reactors in the US. It was a steaming pile of junk from day one. I lived out in the country, but with an “air raid” siren not far away. We were told that if the siren went off we should be twenty miles further away in twenty minutes.

          I now live downwind of where a reactor was built on an active earthquake fault. That reactor had a record of radioactive leaks and has now been closed.

          I can think back to the danger in which I lived and the danger I could now be in and I think I understand the German decision a bit better.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.