Expensive German energy and nuclear power

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

“It was a serious strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy … we simply don’t have enough energy generation capacity,” Merz said.

Germany’s energy system now relies on state intervention to keep prices at acceptable levels. “To have acceptable market prices for energy production again, we would have to permanently subsidise energy prices from the federal budget,” Merz said, adding: “We can’t do this in the long run.”…

He added that the nuclear exit had contributed to high costs and complexity in Germany’s energy transition. “So we are now undertaking the most expensive energy transition in the entire world,” he said. “I know of no other country that makes things so expensive and difficult as Germany.”

DB2

5 Likes
2

Germany planned to rely on Russian natural gas while they built green energy capacity. Then a black swan arrived. Now they struggle to recover.

2 Likes
3

That was somewhat foolish. Why do that when you already have domestic nuclear up and running? Rely on that instead, while you transition.

This is potentially recoverable. They could start up some of the nuclear plants again, if they wanted to. They should keep some on-line anyway. The plants are already built, so nuclear for them is zero-carbon.

1 Like
4

Germany has a strong anti-nuclear position. That follows from the realization in the Cold War that they were ground zero when it was thought nukes could counter an attack from the Soviets. The nuke option was thought cheaper than boots on the ground.

The ban the bomb movement was strong there and the Greens are gaining in elections.

Re-activation of nuclear power plants will be difficult. They prefer wind and solar.

5

IIRC, they can’t do that. They blew up the cooling towers just to make sure.

DB2

6

Yeah, that would be a problem. And uncharacteristically unwise of the Germans.

7

The decision of the German Bundestag on 30 June 2011 to phase out nuclear energy has paved the way for an orderly withdrawal from this high-risk technology in Germany. At the same time, the phase-out allowed a recommencement of the search for a final repository for high-level radioactive waste.

The nuclear disaster in Fukushima on 11 March 2011 was the cause for the vote in the German Bundestag – and the subsequent decision to phase out nuclear power.

The events in Japan triggered a socio-political debate on the continued use of nuclear energy. Following the catastrophic accident in March 2011, the German government immediately initiated the so-called “nuclear moratorium”: The safety of German nuclear power plants was to be re-evaluated within a fixed period of three months. Knowledge gained from the Fukushima accident equence was used to consider various scenarios.

Safety issues as drivers for nuclear phase-out

Safety was a paramount concern in the decision to phase out nuclear power: the use of nuclear energy causes highly dangerous radioactive radiation for humans and the environment, and leaves behind highly toxic waste. High safety precautions must be taken throughout the entire life cycle - from the extraction of the raw material uranium to the production of the fuel, the operation of nuclear power plants and final disposal. This is the only way to reduce risks to humans and the environment, and to prevent misuse.

Yet, in the past, there have been several serious accidents that had catastrophic consequences for society and the environment affected. This is why the German society concluded that the risks of this technology exceeded the benefits, and subsequently decided to phase-out the use of nuclear energy.

The question of final storage of high-level radioactive waste, which remains unresolved worldwide to this day, was a second important reason for phasing out the use of nuclear energy in Germany. For final storage encompasses more than just the end of reactor operations, it also covers the safe storage of the highly dangerous waste. So, what is going to happen to the high-level radioactive waste? The law stipulates that a site for a final repository is to be found within Germany in an open-ended, transparent procedure that involves the public.

8

Sure. I don’t happen to agree with their decision, but I was referring more to the planning of it all. If they are taking a power source (any source) offline, they should have the replacement sources up and running first. Seems like a bad idea to say “shut that down, and by the way, when are we going to get the new stuff online?”.

Obviously, the can shut them down if they like. It just seems like bad planning to put themselves in this position.

4 Likes
9

Let’s look at Germany’s electricity mix for 2024 and 2025. The following numbers come from the Fraunhofer Institute’s electricity data base.

Germany electricity generation, Terawatt-hours and percent of total
Year 2024
Solar 72.0 TWh (14.5%)
Wind 136.3 (27.4%)
Biomass 41.4 (8.3%)
Hydro 22.3 (4.5%)
Natural Gas 78.9 (15.9%)
Coal 97.0 (19.5%)
Oil 3.8 (0.8%)
Other 19.5 (3.9%)
Imports 26.3 (5.3%)
Total 497.5 (100%)

2024 Total Fossil Fuels = 179.7 TWh (36.1% of total)

Data from here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Year 2025
Solar 87.5 TWh (17.4%)
Wind 132.0 (26.3%)
Biomass 41.1 (8.2%)
Hydro 17.8 (3.5%)
Natural Gas 82.6 (16.5%)
Coal 95.6 (19.1%)
Oil 3.3 (0.7%)
Other 20.5 (4.1%)
Imports 21.2 (4.2%)
Total 501.6 (100%)
2025 Total Fossil Fuels = 181.5 TWh (36.2% of total)

Data from here.

Solar power generation was up, but wind was down slightly. Total fossil fuel use was up a small amount.

From the link here, the carbon intensity of Germany’s electricity was 338 grams of CO2 per kwh in 2024. Since fossil fuel use in the power sector was about the same, Germany’s carbon intensity in 2025 was probably about the same as the prior year.

Compare Germany’s 338 grams/kwh to France at 41 grams/kwh. France, of course, gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, and only uses a small amount of fossil fuels in the power sector. Therefore, France’s carbon intensity is only about 12% that of Germany. Nuclear power is obviously the way to go if you want to decarbonize a country’s electricity system. (BTW, France is a net exporter of electricity, while Germany is now a net importer.)

_ Pete

8 Likes
10

This appears to be just short term data, but it does exemplify that the sun doesn’t shine much in the northern hemisphere in January.

From the link:

The cold snap, soaring demand, and faltering renewable output, especially solar in the winter, have resulted in coal and gas plants meeting almost half of Germany’s electricity demand this week, per data from Fraunhofer ISE cited by Bloomberg.

Germany looks to phase out coal-fired power capacity by 2030, but it continues to rely on coal power plants when demand is high and renewable output low in the winter.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From the Fraunhofer data, so far this month, I figure Germany’s solar power is running at a capacity factor of 2.5%. That’s pretty horrible, even for solar power.

_ Pete

11

Cloud cover is worst east of water due to prevailing westerly winds. Cleveland is worst in the US. Minneapolis is famous for its sunny days. You expect northern Germany to be cloudy.

1 Like
12

Driving force at the time was then-chancellor Merkel who was worried about losing in upcoming elections, even though the Fukushima chain of event could not have happend in Germany. Ironically, Merz and her are in the same party.

13

Nuclear accidents can be caused by torrential rains and broken dams flooding a nuclear reactor. There are many modes of nuclear accidents, including human error. Climate change will make this even worse with sea level rise and rains staying in place for weeks.

14

In case you did not know, the sun does not shine much in the German winter months. this is normal.

How much solar power did North Carolina or New Jersey get In January 2026?

15

Looking at the globe, a better comparison would be Newfoundland. And the answer is: not much, which makes both Germany and Newfoundland poor choices for solar.

DB2

16

But it’s not in winter that so much power is needed. As the charge below shows, it’s summer when the demand for electricity explodes.

image
image1360×1004 74.9 KB

This article explains why some utilities are offering discounted electric rates for people with heat pumps during the winter , because their use during the summer is so much more efficient both for production of electricity but also for the maintenance of the grid which must be sized for the highest peaks, not just the average use.

Why Some Cold States Are Making It Cheaper to Run a Heat Pump

New discounts can make heat pumps go from a bad investment to a good idea.

For many Americans, installing a heat pump to heat and cool a home can [lower household bills](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/07/16/upshot/heat-pumps.html) in addition to reducing emissions. But in some places, that financial advantage has a big weak spot: winter. High electricity costs and cold temperatures can make heating through the cold season with a heat pump more expensive than using a gas furnace.

Now some states are trying to change that, by lowering winter rates specifically for people with heat pumps. And they’re doing it by taking advantage of the fact that most of the U.S. grid is built for the summer.

Essentially, utilities decide how much customers will have to payfor electricity based on how much peak demand the grid will have to handle. And often peak demand occurs on a hot afternoon in summer, when households all blast their air-conditioning at once.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/29/upshot/heat-pumps-cheaper-winter.html

As it turns out, people with heat pumps are taking advantage of slack in the system. In winter, they’re buying more electrons without forcing the utility to spend extra dollars on grid upgrades. But they’re paying effectively the same price in winter — when there’s plenty of wiggle room — as they are in summer, when every extra unit of electricity adds stress to the grid.

Massachusetts and Minnesota are already doing it, Colorado looks poised to be the next. The discount ranges from 4¢ to 7¢ per kWh, with the average home using about 1,000 kWh per month.

National Grid, one Massachusetts utility notes this won’t work for everyone. Some people’s electric rates would still rise more than the cost of their gas bill would decrease, so it’s a house-by-house decision. Still, it’s a step towards getting more efficient heating & cooling into a larger segment of housing, and that can only be a good thing.

1 Like
17

One of the future issues to be watched with the push for electrification is that there will then be two peak seasons – summer for AC and winter for heating.

DB2

18

This is already happening!

19

The economics shows that solar is just fine in northern latitudes when everyone knows that sun does not shine much in winter months.

20

Solar is fine in most locations. The more sun, the better…obviously. But you can get some decent generation in northern latitudes as long as you can keep the snow off the panels. If you have clouds most of the time, you’ll probably still get generation, but it may not be cost effective.

Something people don’t think about is that most panels are more efficient in colder temperatures. Here in Phoenix, we actually lose some efficiency in summer because it is so bloody hot.

And, regardless, you do have to have some means of energy delivery that is dependable regardless of conditions (e.g. nuclear). Relying on solar during a 3-day blizzard probably isn’t ideal.

1 Like