ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY OCTOBER 31, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Berlin, Germany—For years, environmentalists in America have looked longingly to Germany. There, across the Atlantic, lay a small, cold, gray country whose solar energy production dwarfed big, sunny America’s, a nation that last year pledged to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by mid-century while Americans proved unable to agree on energy legislation even a fraction as ambitious. Yet in bowing to the country’s strong anti-nuclear movement, Germany appears to have suddenly gone off track: Within the last year the country has gone from a net exporter of electricity* to a net importer, and the carbon intensity of the energy it purchases has risen as well. Now, with its energy politics in turmoil, Germany is serving as a very different sort of model for environmentalists: how not to go green.
At the root of Germany’s current energy struggle is its nuclear power politics. Reports tend to cite Japan’s Fukushima disaster as the starting point of the country’s nuclear turmoil, but really the story begins a lot earlier, in Chernobyl, Ukraine. The Chernobyl plant’s 1986 nuclear meltdown in Germany’s backyard galvanized the anti-nuclear movement and led the country’s center-left parties to commit to phasing out nuclear power—a pledge they fulfilled when the Nuclear Exit Law went into effect in 2002 and mandated the end of nuclear power in Germany within 20 years.
When Angela Merkel’s administration changed course last year and moved to extend the operating life of the country’s nuclear plants, tens of thousands of environmental advocates flocked to Berlin from all over the country (and even from abroad) to protest the reversal. With opinion polls showing that Germans opposed the nuclear extension by nearly a two-to-one margin and Merkel’s political rivals promising to overturn her new policy, the German nuclear industry seemed to be hanging on by a thread.
Then came Fukushima. The German government really only needed the slightest excuse to nix its plans for a nuclear future; instead, it was given a tsunami. Four days after the earthquake struck Japan, and before the implications of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown were fully understood, the government shut down eight of the country’s 17 nuclear reactors. Two weeks later, the Merkel administration announced that the remainder of Germany’s nuclear power would be phased out by 2022.
Environmentalists suddenly had a much more resounding victory over nuclear power than they’d thought possible a month earlier. They cheered the news—for a time, at least. But over the next six months, it became increasingly clear that the fidgety administration, worried by declining poll numbers, had failed to think through the consequences of its abrupt U-turn. Last year, Germany was a net exporter of electricity, drawing from a diverse range of energy sources led by coal, but with substantial contributions from low-emissions nuclear (23 percent of the total mix) and renewable energy sources (17 percent). With half of the country’s nuclear plants suddenly yanked from the grid in March, however, Germany became a net importer of electricity almost overnight.
The resulting economic loss from the shift has been disconcerting for a country with near-zero growth. Compounding the problem, electricity prices have risen for consumers, and it could cost the country’s four operators of nuclear plants more than $40 billion simply to shut the nuclear reactors down. To environmentalists, though, the greater concern has been the question of where Germany is getting its new power to make up for the country’s energy shortfall.
Germany’s environmental activists had hoped that shutting down nuclear plants would clear the way for the development of renewable energy sources. The Merkel government has laid out a set of ambitious targets to that effect, but not the proper mix of incentives and infrastructure to ensure that renewables make up for the current energy shortfall. Indeed, Laszlo Varro, the head of the gas, coal, and power markets division at the International Energy Agency, told me the end of nuclear power ultimately won’t have a discernible impact on renewable generation. That’s because the main obstacle to renewable development isn’t competition from nuclear power, but the challenge of transmission—how to bring electricity from offshore wind farms in northern Germany to the factories in the south. The nuclear phaseout, Varro argues, will only exacerbate this challenge by removing nuclear plants from southern Germany and increasing the north-south energy imbalance.
The energy shortage that’s hit Germany since the nuclear shutdowns is indeed taking place mainly in the country’s industry-heavy south, says Konrad Kleinknecht, the former climate commissioner of the German Physical Society, the world’s largest organization of physicists, and it will require more fossil fuel power generation as a result. “Where are we supposed to get the rest of our energy in the next ten years?” Kleinknecht asks. “If nuclear power plants are taken off the grid, we’ll need to build around 30 coal and gas plants, mostly in the south.”
Varro estimates that the nuclear phaseout in Germany has caused a 25-million-ton annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions. The culprit, in large part, is the new coal power that has come online to meet the shortfall. “In the past couple of months,” Varro says, “coal-fired power generation was up in Germany because they shut down the old nuclear power plants from one day to the next, and you can’t build renewable power from one day to the next.”
Meanwhile, the biggest financial winner from Germany’s nuclear moratorium, Varro says, is nuclear power outside Germany. Since March, Germany has imported considerably more electricity from neighboring countries like France that rely on nuclear power sources. It’s also turned to power from coal-fired plants in Poland and the Czech Republic.
None of this means that Germany has necessarily fallen off course in meeting its ambitious renewable energy targets (the 2050 goal involves many factors, and it’s too soon to judge the ongoing progress with any certainty). But the country’s chances of meeting its emissions goals will almost certainly suffer. That’s because replacing low-emissions nuclear power with wind or solar doesn’t actually reduce emissions—and replacing it with coal and gas only worsens the situation. “Reaching the carbon dioxide emissions target will be more difficult and more expensive after the moratorium,” Varro predicts.
This is no doubt a source of dismay among the very environmental activists who pushed for, and succeeded in bringing about, the nuclear phaseout. But it’s not the only reason for disappointment. Indeed, anti-nuclear activists employed another main argument for the end of nuclear power in Germany: safety concerns in the event of a meltdown or attack. On that count, however, the phaseout has also proved problematic.
It’s true that the risk of a meltdown within Germany is diminished as the country’s nuclear plants are decommissioned. But now German electricity consumers are suddenly providing more business to nuclear power plants in neighboring countries that are, in some cases, not as well regulated as their German counterparts. Instead of producing nuclear power itself, for instance, Germany is importing power from plants like the accident-prone one in the Czech city of Temelin, just over 60 miles from the German border.
To be sure, as a laboratory for an energy experiment of this magnitude, Germany does have some advantages. It’s a highly industrialized country with a substantial investment in renewable energy sources and a history of beating expectations. And to some environmentalists who believe strongly in the need to eliminate nuclear power, the experiment has been a worthwhile, if perhaps a bit hasty, effort toward a necessary end. But many energy experts are more skeptical. In a survey this month of experts in 21 countries by the London-based World Energy Council, none of the respondents said they expected Germany to meet all of its stated energy goals, and more than three-quarters predicted a weakening of the Germany economy over the coming decade as a result of the nuclear phaseout. “It’s really a catastrophe,” Kleinknecht told me.
Earlier this month in Bonn, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen heaped praises on the German energy project. The country’s energy policy, he said, “could serve as an interesting example to other countries.” Röttgen is right that the world’s environmentalists have their eyes on Germany. It’s just that the example the country is setting might not be the one he intended.
Aaron Wiener is a journalist living in Berlin and a special correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.
*CORRECTION: This article originally stated that Germany has become a net importer of energy. Instead, it has become a net importer of electricity. We regret the error.
13 comments
There are various reasons it didn't make sense for Germany to shut down its nuclear reactors soon after the Fukushima accident. Here's one the essay doesn't really address: Germany borders France. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear. This suggests that if the next nuclear accident were to happen, it might be likelier in France. Unilaterally shutting down German nuclear does nothing to change this, which is an order of magnitude more significant.
- chaitless
October 31, 2011 at 12:38am
Nobody who claims to be an environmentalist and opposes nuclear power should be taken seriously. The "Greens" of the world aren't serious environmentalists. They are a neo-primitivist, irrationalist cult who are making a fool of what should be a serious cause, protections of biodiversity all over the earth. "Environmentalists", by opposing the spread of modern farming methods, and by preventing the use of DDT to control malaria, have made themselves complicit in the deaths of millions in the Third World. Standard issue "environmentalism" is as pitiless and anti-human as Communism.
- bulbman1066
October 31, 2011 at 12:52am
It's also a bit of a puzzle to me what Fukishima has to do with anything here. I'm pretty sure that Germany is able to produce power plants capable of withstanding earthquakes, which, like tsunamis, and not exactly a regular feature of their geology.
- Robert Powell
October 31, 2011 at 5:28am
Of course bulbman reduces environmentalists to a caricature. Because they truly desire the death of poor people more than the environmental good of having the earth sustain as many people as can live comfortably and sustainably. Of course. By the same token, Americans, based on their agricultural subsidies and charitable dumping of excess crops into poor economies, have made themselves complicit in the deaths and growth-stunting of millions in the Third World, either because the aid is late, insufficient, or represses emergent, mostly agricultural economies in developing countries. I'm part of the anti-troll cult, by the way.
- chaitless
October 31, 2011 at 8:23am
On one hand, it's interesting that even such an excellent engineering nation as Germany, can make such a suicidally bad choice against nuclear power, on such irrelevant conditions as "how the Japanese did it badly". Because the Germans have an entirely different culture when it comes to engineering and maintenance and safety. I assume in the future the disasterous consequences of this decision will be reversed -- they may be panicky, but they're not in the end completely stupid. On the other hand, the only large-scale energy producer that will last for centuries IS nuclear power. Therefore it's critically important that countries like Germany remain involved in safety and engineering for this technology. And yes, it is supremely ironic that the act of shutting off their nuclear generation in-country requires purchasing MORE nuclear-produced and coal-produced energy out-of-country.
- AllanL5
October 31, 2011 at 10:16am
Chaitless writes: "Because they truly desire the death of poor people more than the environmental good of having the earth sustain as many people as can live comfortably and sustainably. Of course." But alas, we've seen dire prediction after dire prediction NOT come true from the enviro crowd. And when you look at the long history of enviro warnings, their true motive becomes clear: A world government that is very totalitarian in that is has the power to implement draconian measures upon the population. All in the name of anti-growth. And let's not forget the reason Fukishima failed: Backup diesel generators were destroyed by the flood. Had the generators been able to remain on-line, the meltdown and contamination would not have occurred. The concrete structures in fact survived the earthquake and storm surge. Modern reactor designs don't require back up generators at all.
- seattleeng
October 31, 2011 at 1:13pm
bulbman1066 should do a little homework of his own and not just parrot the latest GOP/know-nothing talking points. Modern farming methods and widespread use of DDT are exactly tied to biodeversity destruction, and it is the failings of DDT versus rapid evolutionary change amongst the biological populations it targeted, coupled with widespread impacts on the ecosystems in which it is used that led to its disuse, regulations notwithstanding. Note specifically that DDT use for disease vector control is NOT banned. The canard that ""Environmentalists", by opposing the spread of modern farming methods, and by preventing the use of DDT to control malaria, have made themselves complicit in the deaths of millions in the Third World. Standard issue "environmentalism" is as pitiless and anti-human as Communism." is a cheap, mendacious, bullshit argument that is emblematic of the cheap, mendacious, bullshit thinking that dominates the right-wing these days.
- bonsaibush
October 31, 2011 at 3:31pm
bonsaibush beat me to it. Somehow it has become a given on the right that the left/environmentalists hate poor people etc. as they "banned" using DDT to deal with malarial mosquitoes. Of course the little fact that there is a malarial vector exception in the DDT ban doesn't bother them. Or the fact that 3rd world countries don't have much problem getting hold of (sometimes involuntarily) all sorts of nasty toxins whose use or disposal are banned or controlled in the first world, from the first world. That DDT isn't used to control malaria in many parts of the world is often a combination of infrastructure and or DDT immunity within the mosquito population. One curious correlation I have noticed over the years in people who make the above claim is an active disbelief in evolution (although I assume they have no problems using newer TB drugs for example). And thus the possibility that we're no longer using DDT as it doesn't work anymore can't even be entertained. Other than that, the Germans are freaking nuts here. One thing the critics always tend to gloss over is that while Nuclear power generation is unbelievably safe (even taking into account all of the accidents), dealing with the waste is a pretty serious problem. However everything else being equal I'd much rather live near a German nuclear power station than one over the east border. However everyone in Germany lives "near" eastern Europe, so stressing those systems doesn't make a great deal of sense.
- Nari224
October 31, 2011 at 4:45pm
It seems as if we have been talking about nuclear fusion power -- supposedly far safer than nuclear fission power -- for decades. Are we getting any closer to achieving such a breakthrough? If so, what would be the catch? [There's always a catch--no free lunch, etc.]
- skahn
October 31, 2011 at 10:33pm
Greenpeace (!!), the World Wildlife Federation, and New York Times liberal columnist Nicolas Kristof have all endorsed the use of DDT to control malaria. So has the World Health Organization. None of those has ties to the Republican Party. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/04/01/greenpeace-wwf-repudiate-anti-ddt-agenda Prior to the recent change in policy the use of DDT to control malaria was effectively banned in that aid agencies wouldn't pay for it. That is why the change in policy received such extensive coverage in the media. Like any pesticide, DDT is subject to Darwinian counterattack. Medicine, like crop protection, is an arms race. It DDT ceases to be effective then nobody will use it. If your doctor prescribes an antibiotic you don't refuse to take on the grounds that the organisms it is designed to control will eventually evolve around it.
- bulbman1066
October 31, 2011 at 11:08pm
>However everyone in Germany lives "near" eastern Europe, so stressing those >systems doesn't make a great deal of sense. Nari224, could you please explain that sentence?
- bulbman1066
October 31, 2011 at 11:14pm
The idea that "organic" farming is good for biodiversity is misconceived. Organic farming requires more acreage per unit of yield, so that less land is available for wildlife. Nobel Prize winning biologist E.O. Wilson, who is considered by many to be the greatest living biologist, and who is a tireless fighter for the preservation of biodiversity, has made this point repeatedly. This is not a liberal versus conservative issue. It's a matter of realism versus neoprimitivist fantasy. This does *not* mean that standard modern agriculture is all well and good. It needs constant improvement and constant attention to environmental problems. One reform is what is called “Integrated Pest Management”. Instead of spraying pesticides on a regular schedule, you use non-toxic methods of pest control as much as possible, and use pesticides in a targeted manner when they are really needed. Another science-based reform is “no tillage agriculture”. The crop residue is mowed and the residue left as a mulch. The seeds are planted through the mulch. Sure, herbicides are needed to control weeds, but the environmental impact is small compared to that of plowing, which causes loss of topsoil and siltation of waterways.
- bulbman1066
October 31, 2011 at 11:24pm
skahn--the quip about fusion: Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be! Try as they might, it just doesn't seem possible for scientists to come up with a way to make it work, although I understand there has been some progress made in the last couple of year--in Germany!
- Robert Powell
November 1, 2011 at 11:42am