Energiewende


The Energiewende is the ongoing transition by Germany to a low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply. The new system intends to rely heavily on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy demand management. Most if not all existing coal-fired generation are intended to be retired. Legislative support for the Energiewende was passed in late 2010 and included greenhouse gas reductions of 80–95% by 2050 and a renewable energy target of 60% by 2050.
Germany has already made significant progress on its GHG emissions reduction target prior to the introduction of the program, achieving a 27% decrease between 1990 and 2014. However the country would need to maintain an average GHG emissions abatement rate of 3.5% per year to reach its Energiewende goal, equal to the maximum historical value thus far.
A controversial part of the program was the phasing out Germany's fleet of nuclear reactors, to be complete by 2022 with the aim of reaching a 100% renewable energy system and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. While the nuclear plants shutdown was mostly completed, they however were largely replaced by fossil gas and coal and most of the 2020 goals of the program were failed. A study found that if Germany had postponed the nuclear phase out and phased out coal first it could have saved 1,100 lives and $12 billion in social costs per year. Another article claims that Germany could have already phased out fossil fuels if it had chosen to invest in nuclear instead of renewable energy.

The term ''Energiewende''

The term Energiewende is regularly used in English language publications without being translated.
The term Energiewende was first contained in the title of a 1980 publication by the German Öko-Institut, calling for the complete abandonment of nuclear and petroleum energy.
The most groundbreaking claim was that economic growth was possible without increased energy consumption. On 16February 1980, the German Federal Ministry of the Environment also hosted a symposium in Berlin, called Energiewende – Atomausstieg und Klimaschutz. The Institute for Applied Ecology was funded by both environmental and religious organizations, and the importance of religious and conservative figures like Wolf von Fabeck and Peter Ahmels was crucial. In the following decades, the term Energiewende expanded in scope – in its present form it dates back to at least 2002.
Energiewende designated a significant change in energy policy. The term encompassed a reorientation of policy from demand to supply and a shift from centralized to distributed generation, which should replace overproduction and avoidable energy consumption with energy-saving measures and increased efficiency.
In a broader sense, this transition also entailed a democratization of energy.
In the traditional energy industry, a few large companies with large centralized power stations were perceived as dominating the market as an oligopoly and consequently amassing a worrisome level of both economic and political power. Renewable energies, in contrast, can, in theory, be established in a decentralized manner. Public wind farms and solar parks can involve many citizens directly in energy production.
Photovoltaic systems can even be set up by individuals. Municipal utilities can also benefit citizens financially, while the conventional energy industry profits a relatively small number of shareholders. Also significant, the decentralized structure of renewable energies enables creation of value locally and minimizes capital outflows from a region. Renewable energy sources therefore play an increasingly important role in municipal energy policy, and local governments often promote them.

Status

The key policy document outlining the Energiewende was published by the German government in September 2010, some six months before the Fukushima nuclear accident. Legislative support was passed in September 2010. On 6 June 2011, following Fukushima, the government removed the use of nuclear power as a bridging technology as part of their policy. The program was later described as "Germany's vendetta against nuclear" and attributed to growing influence of ideologically anti-nuclear green movements in the mainstream politics.
In 2019 Germany's Federal Court of Auditors accounted the program of costing EUR 160 billion over the last 5 years and criticized the expenses for being "are in extreme disproportion to the results". Federal Court of Auditors described it as "massive failure". Despite widespread initial support, the program is perceived as "expensive, chaotic and unfair" as of 2019.

Initial phase 2013-2016

After the 2013 federal elections, the new CDU/CSU and SPD coalition government continued the Energiewende, with only minor modification of its goals in the coalition agreement. An intermediate target was introduced of a 55–60% share of renewable energy in gross electricity consumption in 2035. These targets were described as "ambitious".The Berlin-based policy institute Agora Energiewende noted that "while the German approach is not unique worldwide, the speed and scope of the Energiewende are exceptional".A particular characteristic of the Energiewende compared to other planned energy transition was the expectation that the transition is driven by citizens and not large energy utilities. Germany's switch to renewables was described as "democratization of the energy supply". The Energiewende also sought a greater transparency in relation to national energy policy formation.
As of 2013, Germany was spending €1.5 billion per year on energy research in an effort to solve the technical and social issues raised by the transition, which are provided by the individual federal states, universities and the government, which provided €400 million per year. The government's contribution was increased to €800 million in 2017.
Important aspects included :
Target20162020203020402050-
Greenhouse gas emissionsGreenhouse gas emissionsGreenhouse gas emissionsGreenhouse gas emissionsGreenhouse gas emissionsGreenhouse gas emissions-
Greenhouse gas emissions −27.3%−40%−55%−70%−80 to −95%-
Renewable energyRenewable energyRenewable energyRenewable energyRenewable energyRenewable energy-
Share of gross final energy consumption14.8%18%30%45%60%-
Share of gross electricity consumption31.6%35%50%65%80%-
Share of heat consumption13.2%14%-
Share in transport sector6.9%10%14%-
Efficiency and consumptionEfficiency and consumptionEfficiency and consumptionEfficiency and consumptionEfficiency and consumptionEfficiency and consumption-
Primary energy consumption −6.5%−20%−50%-
Final energy productivity 1.1% per year
2.1% per year
2.1% per year
2.1% per year
2.1% per year
2.1% per year
Gross electricity consumption −3.6%−10%−25%-
Primary energy consumption in buildings −18.3%−80%-
Heat consumption in buildings −6.3%−20%-
Final energy consumption in transport 4.2%−10%−40%-

In addition, there was be an associated research and development drive. A chart showing German energy legislation in 2016 is available.
These targets went well beyond European Union legislation and the national policies of other European states. The policy objectives have been embraced by the German federal government and has resulted in a huge expansion of renewables, particularly wind power. Germany's share of renewables has increased from around 5% in 1999 to 22.9% in 2012, surpassing the OECD average of 18% usage of renewables.
Producers have been guaranteed a fixed feed-in tariff for 20 years, guaranteeing a fixed income. Energy co-operatives have been created, and efforts were made to decentralize control and profits. However, in some cases poor investment designs have caused bankruptcies and low returns, and unrealistic promises have been shown to be far from reality.
Nuclear power plants were closed, and the existing nine plants were scheduled to close earlier than planned, in 2022.
One factor that has inhibited efficient employment of new renewable energy has been the lack of an accompanying investment in power infrastructure to bring the power to market. It is believed 8,300 km of power lines must be built or upgraded. In 2010 legislation has been passed seeking construction and upgrade of 7'700 km of new grid lines, but only 950 km have been built by 2019 — and in 2017 only 30 km has been built.
The different German States have varying attitudes to the construction of new power lines. Industry has had their rates frozen and so the increased costs of the Energiewende have been passed on to consumers, who have had rising electricity bills. Germans in 2013 had some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. In comparison, its neighbors have some of the lowest costs in the EU.
On 1 August 2014, a revised Renewable Energy Sources Act entered into force. Specific deployment corridors stipulated the extent to which renewable energy is to be expanded in the future and the funding rates will no longer be fixed by the government, but will be determined by auction.
Market redesign was perceived as a key part of the Energiewende. The German electricity market needed to be reworked to suit.
Among other things, wind and PV cannot be principally refinanced under the current marginal cost based market. Carbon pricing is also central to the Energiewende and the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme needs to be reformed to create a genuine scarcity of certificates.
The German federal government is calling for such reform.
Most of the computer scenarios used to analyse the Energiewende rely on a substantial carbon price to drive the transition to low-carbon technologies.
Coal-fired generation needs to be retired as part of the Energiewende. Some argue for an explicit negotiated phase-out of coal plants, along the lines of the well-publicized nuclear phase-out, but as German minister of economy noted, "we cannot shut down both our nuclear and coal-fired power plants". Coal comprised 42% of electricity generation in 2015. If Germany is to limit its contribution to a global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as declared in the 2015 Paris Agreement, a complete phase-out of fossil fuels together with a shift to 100% renewable energy is required by about 2040.
The Energiewende is made up of various technical building blocks and assumptions. Electricity storage, while too expensive at the beginning of the program, was hoped to become a useful technology in the future. As of 2019 however as number of potential storage projects are still in prototype phase with losses up to 40% of the stored energy in the existing small scale installations.
Energy efficiency has a key but currently under-recognised role to play. Improved energy efficiency is one of Germany's official targets. Greater integration with adjoining national electricity networks can offer mutual benefits — indeed, systems with high shares of renewables can use geographical diversity to offset intermittency.
Germany invested €1.5billion in energy research in 2013.
Of that the German federal government spent €820million supporting projects ranging from basic research to applications. The federal government also foresees an export role for German expertise in the area.
The social and political dimensions of the Energiewende have been subject to study. Strunz argues that the underlying technological, political and economic structures will need to change radically — a process he calls regime shift.
Schmid, Knopf, and Pechan analyse the actors and institutions that will be decisive in the Energiewende and how latency in the national electricity infrastructure may restrict progress.
On 3 December 2014, the German federal government released its National Action Plan on Energy Efficiency in order to improve the uptake of energy efficiency.
The areas covered are the energy efficiency of buildings, energy conservation for companies, consumer energy efficiency, and transport energy efficiency. German industry is expected to make a sizeable contribution.
An official federal government report on progress under the Energiewende, updated for 2014, notes that:
A commentary on the progress report expands on many of the issues raised.

Slowdown from 2016

Slow progress on transmission network reinforcement has led to a deferment of new windfarms in northern Germany. The German cabinet earlier approved costly underground cabling in October 2015 in a bid to dispel local resistance against above-ground pylons and to speed up the expansion process.
Analysis by Agora Energiewende in late-2016 suggests that Germany will probably miss several of its key Energiewende targets, despite recent reforms to the Renewable Energy Sources Act and the wholesale electricity market. The goal to cut emissions by 40% by 2020 "will most likely be missed... if no further measures are taken" and the 55–60% share of renewable energy in gross electricity consumption by 2035 is "unachievable" with the current plans for renewables expansion. In November 2016, Agora Energiewende reported on the impact of the new and several other related new laws. It concludes that this new legislation will bring "fundamental changes" for large sections of the energy industry, but have limited effect on the economy and on consumers.
The 2016 Climate Action Plan for Germany, adopted on 14November 2016, introduced sector targets for greenhouse gas emissions. The goal for the energy sector is shown in the [|table]. The plan states that the energy supply must be "almost completely decarbonised" by 2050, with renewables as its main source. For the electricity sector, "in the long-term, electricity generation must be based almost entirely on renewable energies" and "the share of wind and solar power in total electricity production will rise significantly". Notwithstanding, during the transition, "less carbon-intensive natural gas power plants and the existing most modern coal power plants play an important role as interim technologies".
The fifth monitoring report on the Energiewende for 2015 was published in December 2016. The expert commission which wrote the report warns that Germany will probably miss its 2020 climate targets and believes that this could threaten the credibility of the entire endeavor. The commission puts forward a number of measures to address the slowdown, including a flat national price imposed across all sectors, a greater focus on transport, and full market exposure for renewable generation. Regarding the carbon price, the commission thinks that a reformed EUETS would be better, but that achieving agreement across Europe is unlikely.

After 2017

Since 2017, it had become clear that the Energiewende was not progressing at the anticipated speed, with the country's climate policy regarded as "lackluster" and the energy transition "stalling." High electricity prices, growing resistance against the use of wind turbines over their environmental and potential health impacts, and regulatory hurdles, have been identified as causes for this. As of 2017 Germany imported more than half of its energy.
A 2018 European Commission case study report on Energiewende noted 27% decrease in CO2 emissions against the 1990 levels with a slight increase over the few preceding years and concluded achieving of the intended 40% reduction target by 2020 in unfeasible, primarily due to the "simultaneous nuclear phase-out and increased energy consumption". Also 50% increase of electricity prices was observed. Germany's energy sector remains the largest single source of CO2 emissions, contributing over 40%.
In March 2019, Chancellor Merkel formed a so-called climate cabinet to find a consensus on new emissions reduction measures to meet 2030 targets. The result was the Climate Action Program'me 2030, which Berlin adopted on 9 October 2019. The Programme contains plans for a carbon pricing system for the heating and transportation sectors, which are not covered by the EU ETS. It also includes tax- and other incentives to encourage energy-efficient building renovations, higher EV subsidies and more public transport investments. The IEA report concludes that "The package represents a clear step in the right direction towards Germany meeting its 2030 targets."
As result of phasing out nuclear power and, in long term, coal, Germany declared increased reliance on fossil gas.
In 2020 a number of previously shut down fossil gas plants were restarted quoting "heavy fluctuations of level of power generated from the wind and sun". The 2020 climate goals were successful in the following areas:
The following climate goals however failed:
The Energiewende has been criticized for the high costs, the early nuclear phase-out which increased carbon emissions, continuation or even increase in use of fossil fuels, risks to power supply stability and the environmental damage of biomass.
German association of local utilities VKU said the strategy creates significant risks to the stability of power supply in case of "lengthy periods" of weather unsuitable for wind and solar generation since energy storage in Germany is "largely non-existent". In 2020 power production from fossil gas reached all-time high in Germany.
After introduction of the original Renewable Energy Act in 2000, there was a focus on long term costs, while in later years this has shifted to a focus on short term costs and the "financial burden" of the Energiewende while ignoring environmental externalities of fossil fuels.
Electricity prices for household customers in Germany have been generally increasing in the last decade.
The renewable energy levy to finance green power investment is added to Germans' electricity unit price. The surcharge pays the state-guaranteed price for renewable energy to producers and is 6.35 cents per kWh in 2016.
A comprehensive study, published in Energy Policy in 2013, reported that Germany's nuclear power phase-out, to be complete by 2022, is contradictory to the goal of the climate portion of the program. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognizes nuclear as one of the lowest lifecycle emissions energy sources available, lower than even solar, and only bested by wind. The US National Renewable Energy Lab also cites nuclear as a very low lifecycle emissions source. In June 2019, an open letter to "the leadership and people of Germany", written by almost 100 Polish environmentalists and scientist, urged Germany to "reconsider the decision on the final decommissioning of fully functional nuclear power plants" for the benefit of the fight against global warming.
German Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel admitted "For a country like Germany with a strong industrial base, exiting nuclear and coal-fired power generation at the same time would not be possible." Germany's emissions were escalating in 2012 and 2013 and it is planned to reopen some of the dirtiest brown coal mines that had previously been closed. Coal generated electricity increased to 45% in 2013, the highest level since 2007. Nonetheless, in 2014 carbon emissions had declined again. More renewable energy had been generated and a greater energy efficiency had been achieved. From 1999 to 2014 renewable energy production rose from 29 TWh to 161 TWh, while nuclear power fell from 180 to 97 TWh and coal power production fell from 291 to 265 TWh.
As nuclear and coal power plants are being phased out, the government has begun to promote the use of natural gas in order to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and low-carbon energy sources. This move has been criticised by interntional observers, who argue that fossil fuel gas is "essentially methane, which constitutes at least one-third of global warming and is leaking into the atmosphere all across the gas production and delivery chain." It is also a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon-dioxide. It is also feared that the European Union, but particularly Germany, is making itself overly dependent on Russia for gas supplies via Nord Stream 2, thereby undermining its energy security.
Germany's electricity transmission network is currently inadequately developed, therefore lacking the capability of delivering offshore wind energy produced on the Northern coast to industrial regions in the country's South. The transmission system operators are planning to build 4000 additional kilometers of transmission lines until 2030.
Energy grid expert Manfred Haferburg criticized the program for "throwing away the world's best nuclear power plants like garbage" and, in the wake of COVID-19 pandemics, likened the program to a hypothetical takeover of German healthcare sector by "homeopaths and naturethreapists", at the same time warning about blackouts impacting hospital operations during the epidemics.
Slow reduction of CO2 emissions in Germany, especially in the energy sector, has been contrasted with France's successful decarbonization of energy sector under Messmer plan and United Kingdom's carbon tax which saw drastic reduction of coal-powered energy from 88% in 1973 to below 1% in 2019.

Biomass

Biomass made up 7.0% of Germany's power generation mix in 2017.
Biomass has the potential to be a carbon-neutral fuel because growing biomass absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and a portion of the carbon absorbed remains in the ground after harvest. However, using biomass as a fuel produces air pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, NOx, VOCs, particulates and other pollutants, although biomass produces less sulfur dioxide than coal.
Between 2004 and 2011 policies lead on to around 7000 km² new maize-fields for biomass-energy by ploughing-up of at least 2700 km² of permanent grassland. This released large amounts of climate active gases, loss of biodiversity and potential of groundwater recharge.

Citizen support and participation

, citizen support for the Energiewende remained high, with surveys indicating that about 80–90% of the public are in favor.
One reason for the high acceptance was the substantial participation of German citizens in the Energiewende, as private households, land owners, or members of energy cooperatives.
A 2016 survey showed that roughly one in two Germans would consider investing in community renewable energy projects.
Manfred Fischedick, Director of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy has commented that "if people participate with their own money, for example in a wind or solar power plant in their area, they will also support ."
A 2010 study shows the benefits to municipalities of community ownership of renewable generation in their locality.
]Estimates for 2012 suggested that almost half the renewable energy capacity in Germany was owned by citizens through energy cooperatives and private initiatives. More specifically, citizens accounted for nearly half of all installed biogas and solar capacity and half of the installed onshore wind capacity.
According to a 2014 survey conducted by TNS Emnid for the German Renewable Energies Agency among 1015 respondents, 94 per cent of the Germans supported the enforced expansion of Renewable Energies. More than two-thirds of the interviewees agreed to renewable power plants close to their homes.
The share of total final energy from renewables was 11% in 2014.
However, changes in energy policy, starting with the Renewable Energy Sources Act in 2014, have jeopardized the efforts of citizens to participate. The share of citizen-owned renewable energy has since dropped to 42.5% as of 2016.
The Renewable Energy Sources Act provides compensation to wind turbine operators for every kilowatt-hour of electricity not produced if wind power surpasses peak grid capacity, while grid operators must splice electricity from renewable sources into the grid even in times of low or no demand for it. This can lead to a negative price of electricity, which grid operators have begun to pass on to customers, estimated to be costing them an extra €4 billion in 2020. This has resulted in greater resistance to certain Energiewende policies, specifically wind power.
By 2019 Germany also saws a significant increase of organized opposition against on-shore wind farms, especially in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg.

Computer studies

Much of the policy development for the Energiewende is underpinned by computer models, run mostly by universities and research institutes. The models are usually based on scenario analysis and are used to investigate different assumptions regarding the stability, sustainability, cost, efficiency, and public acceptability of various sets of technologies. Some models cover the entire energy sector, while others are confined to electricity generation and consumption. A 2016 book investigates the usefulness and limitations of energy scenarios and energy models within the context of the Energiewende.
A number of computer studies confirm the feasibility of the German electricity system being 100% renewable in 2050. Some investigate the prospect of the entire energy system being fully renewable too.

2009 WWF study

In 2009 WWF Germany published a quantitative study prepared by the Öko-Institut, Prognos, and Hans-Joachim Ziesing.
The study presumes a 95% reduction in greenhouse gases by the year 2050 and covers all sectors. The study shows that the transformation from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy is possible and affordable. It notes that by committing to this transformation path, Germany could become a model for other countries.

2011 German Advisory Council on the Environment study

A 2011 report from the :de:Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen|German Advisory Council on the Environment concludes that Germany can attain 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. The German Aerospace Center REMix high-resolution energy model was used for the analysis. A range of scenarios were investigated and a cost-competitive transition with good security of supply is possible.
The authors presume that the transmission network will continue to be reinforced and that cooperation with Norway and Sweden would allow their hydro generation to be used for storage. The transition does not require Germany's nuclear phase-out to be extended nor the construction of coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage. Conventional generation assets need not be stranded and an orderly transition should prevail. Stringent energy efficiency and energy saving programs can bring down the future costs of electricity.

2015 Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project study

The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project aims to demonstrate how countries can transform their energy systems by 2050 in order to achieve a low-carbon economy.
The 2015 German country report, produced in association with the Wuppertal Institute, examines the official target of reducing domestic GHG emissions by 80% to 95% by 2050. Decarbonization pathways for Germany are illustrated by means of three ambitious scenarios with energy-related emission reductions between 1990 and 2050 varying between 80% and more than 90%. Three strategies strongly contribute to GHG emission reduction:
In addition, some scenarios use controversially:
Potential co-benefits for Germany include increased energy security, higher competitiveness of and global business opportunities for companies, job creation, stronger GDP growth, smaller energy bills for households, and less air pollution.

2015 Fraunhofer ISE study

Using the model REMod-D, this 2015 Fraunhofer ISE study investigates several system transformation scenarios and their related costs. The guiding question of the study is: how can a cost-optimised transformation of the German energy system — with consideration of all energy carriers and consumer sectors — be achieved while meeting the declared climate protection targets and ensuring a secure energy supply at all times. Carbon capture and storage is explicitly excluded from the scenarios. A future energy scenario emitting 85% less CO2 emissions than 1990 levels is compared with a reference scenario, which assumes that the German energy system operates in 2050 the same way as it does today. Under this comparison, primary energy supply drops 42%. The total cumulative costs depend on the future prices for carbon and oil. If the penalty for CO2 emissions increases to €100/tonne by 2030 and thereafter remains constant and fossil fuel prices increase annually by 2%, then the total cumulative costs of today's energy system are 8% higher than the costs required for the minus 85% scenario up to 2050. The report also notes:

2015 DIW study

A 2015 study uses DIETER or Dispatch and Investment Evaluation Tool with Endogenous Renewables, developed by the German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, Germany. The study examines the power storage requirements for renewables uptake ranging from 60% to 100%. Under the baseline scenario of 80%, grid storage requirements remain moderate and other options on both the supply side and demand side offer flexibility at low cost. Nonetheless storage plays an important role in the provision of reserves. Storage becomes more pronounced under higher shares of renewables, but strongly depends on the costs and availability of other flexibility options, particularly on biomass availability. The model is fully described in the study report.

2016 acatech study

A 2016 acatech-lead study focused on so-called flexibility technologies used to balance the fluctuations inherent in power generation from wind and photovoltaics. Set in 2050, several scenarios use gas power plants to stabilise the backbone of energy system, ensuring supply security during several weeks of low wind and solar radiation. Other scenarios investigate a 100% renewable system and show these to be possible but more costly. Flexible consumption and storage control in households and the industrial sector is the most cost-efficient means of balancing short-term power fluctuations. Long-term storage systems, based on power-to-X, are only viable if carbon emissions are to be reduced by more than 80%. On the question of costs, the study notes:

2016 Stanford University study

The Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University has developed roadmaps for 139 countries to achieve energy systems powered only by wind, water, and sunlight by 2050. In the case of Germany, total end-use energy drops from 375.8 GW for business-as-usual to 260.9 GW under a fully renewable transition. Load shares in 2050 would be: on-shore wind 35%, off-shore wind 17%, wave 0.08%, geothermal 0.01%, hydro-electric 0.87%, tidal 0%, residential PV 6.75%, commercial PV 6.48%, utility PV 33.8%, and concentrating solar power 0%. The study also assess avoided air pollution, eliminated global climate change costs, and net job creation. These co-benefits are substantial.