Augustin’s Research Blog #8 Past energy development in Germany: why the current energy situation differs from France

admin

Past energy development in Germany: why the current energy situation differs from France

France and Germany are two opposite cases of energy transition today. Although neighbours and both affected by the EU energy policies, past transitions have led these countries to very different situations and the need to carry energy transition using different methods. This current situation is related to the events of the 20th century, from the intensification of resource exploitation to the evolution of the political and social status.

From the Middle Ages, Germany was mostly relying on wood to provide energy like France. The use of hydropower with watermills and wind power with windmills was common. There was interest in coal, but real extraction began during the 18th century in Saxony, Saar, Silesia (currently in Poland) and around Aachen to support the industrial revolution. Germany was not a unified country at the time, its different states operated independently but common development led to exchanges and the creation a small single market for gas and coal from 1834 [1]. It was only following the 1871 Franco-Prussian war that Germany unified as a federal state. The end of the 19th century marked the development of electricity thanks to big companies like Siemens and the invention of the diesel engine by a German engineer. Then comes WWI: during that time, Germany faced energy struggles due to a blockade established by the Triple-Entente and needed to rely on Romanian coal and oil factories [1]. In an attempt to secure more oil, Germany tried to establish an alliance with Mexico against the US (Mexico was the second largest oil producer at the time). The message was intercepted by the US and never reached Mexico, propelling the US inside WWI and ending of the war. Germany found itself with limited means after WWI and was afraid of energy self-sufficiency due to the Triple-Entente blockade. Research to find new energy sources led to a coal-based liquid fuel used during WWII [1]. However, the same situation repeated during WWII: Germany found itself unable to find enough supply. Romanian factories were also unreliable because of the damage they were regularly suffering from the Allies, so Germany chose to invade the Middle East and Caucasus to get more supply. The end of the war marked the separation of Germany into 2 states:

  • GDR or East Germany under the control of the USSR: energy factories and facilities were nationalized.
  • FRG or West Germany rebuilding its own electricity network as a separate country. It joined the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) in 1952.

West Germany, weakened by WWII, looked for a local and cheap energy source to recover. Coal was that solution. However in 1958, following an energy crisis due to overabundance of coal in the Saar, many mines were forced to close [2]. This led the FRG to consider nuclear power as an energy source. This decision was immediately unwelcomed by the population, to a much larger extent than in France, leading West Germany to look for other solutions instead. In the meantime, East Germany was struggling to maintain its energy infrastructure and had to develop its energy system more slowly.

Like France, the first oil shock hit Germany. It increased East Germany’s reliance on the USSR and its imports. However, this support was weakening: during the decay of the USSR, East Germany had to implement oil saving measures and to encourage the use of bicycles. In the end, it had to revert back to coal mining and coal machines [1]. West Germany also turned towards the USSR as well as the UK and Norway for oil but reconsidered other ways such as nuclear, biofuels, renewable energies or improving energy efficiency [1]. Oil saving measures such as car-free Sundays were implemented [2]. However, some factors slowed down the development of nuclear and sensibilized the population to protect the environment [2]:

  • In 1975, Herbert Gruhl wrote a book who marked the beginning of green energy politics in Germany. It inspired the creation of many green parties and organizations.
  • Increased frequency of acid rains caused by coal mining led to the first wind farm development in 1983, and further renewable energy development far before other European countries.
  • In 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear incident happened. Nuclear was controversial: the government wanted to keep it, but most citizens didn’t. Security of nuclear plants was heavily reinforced as well as many restrictions, while environmental laws such as EIA were implemented.

In 1989, Germany reunified: East and West energy networks were connected. East Germany could benefit from the Western technology and upgraded its energy system. During the 90s, anti-nuclear and pro renewables movements became more important. This led to renewable energy development, although very little because the government and electricity retailers considered it unprofitable in Germany [3]. Angela Merkel, who contributed a lot to renewable energy development hereafter, initially thought that renewables would never grow bigger than 4% of the energy mix (in 1994). The FiT scheme changed the situation for wind energy, but solar energy mostly kept on being developed by German retailers outside of Germany during that time.

The most important reforms happened between 1998 and 2002 following the EU electricity market liberalization laws [4]. This period saw the establishment of ambitious objectives concerning reduction of CO2 emissions, renewable energy development (mostly onshore wind), and reduction of energy consumption, all pushed forward by the growing anti-nuclear and pro-ecology movements. The government also decided to begin nuclear phase-out. At this point, there were already many differences between France and Germany. France was a very centralised state, and energy development was always initiated by the public entities first: this is what happened during the phase out of coal and the development of nuclear and hydropower [4]. Germany was a federal state, the balance of power was historically less centralized and the government more transparent on its energy reforms [4]. Information could reach citizens more easily, so German people felt more concerned by energy development and formed movements that impacted the development process. French citizens were also able to be heard under trade unions and associations but didn’t influence the government energy program which still approximately followed the same road. Another difference was the electricity suppliers before liberalization. In Germany, 4 main private suppliers shared the network: E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall. In France, there was only one public entity: EDF [4]. Liberalization of the electricity market accelerated the differences: due to its decentralized status, competition in the electricity market became very intense in Germany, forcing local utilities previously working under the 4 suppliers to find new activities or regroup together [3]. Because the electricity market was centralized around the public entity EDF, liberalization was slower in France. Today, there are 800 electricity suppliers in Germany compared to 160 in France, although the historical suppliers still supply 80% of Germany and 75% of France [1]. The public opinion also explains a lot the differences between Germany and France today: in Germany, nuclear was very unpopular but in France, because of disasters caused by fossil fuels like black tides, nuclear was perceived as a better option [4]. The Christian values, out of politics in France but not in Germany, could explain a difference of point of view on energy transition too [2].

In Germany, despite the nuclear controversy and pressure from the green-socialist opposition party union, the federal government was still considering using nuclear for energy transition in 2010: in the Energiekonzept, it was decided to keep nuclear plants longer with bigger ambitions for the development of renewables and reduction of Greenhouse gases emissions [4]. However, this plan didn’t last long: in 2011, following the Fukushima disaster, the press was very quick to react and qualified nuclear as “not manageable and dangerous” [2]. In France, there were reactions but the ever presence of nuclear made any decision to get rid of it unreasonable. On the other hand, Germany switched its focus back on coal and instantly closed its 7 oldest nuclear plants [2]. Initially supposed to be phased out in 2018 in favour of nuclear [3], coal phase-out was postponed to 2025 (2038 as of today), while nuclear phase-out was ultimately planned for 2022 [4]. The consequence of this was also the acceleration of energy transition in Germany and the increase of electricity prices to enable it in a shorter time [2]. This decision implied a heavier toll on the German citizens: 24 billion euros per year to enable the plan. Today, Germany invests 10 times more than France in renewables and is the 2nd investor after China [1]. Industries and trade unions are worried by this competition and argue that phasing out coal too soon could endanger Germany’s international competitiveness because of increased electricity prices [5]. Both France and Germany are indeed home to many powerful industries, important companies and attract many people thanks to dynamic economic conditions. These industries and attractive economic conditions remain relatively untouched for now, but maintaining them during transition will be a tough challenge.

France and Germany are pursuing the same objectives: reduce greenhouse gases emissions, develop renewables, and ultimately phase out nuclear energy too [4]. But they follow opposite ways to reach them, which leads to a lot of criticism from both sides: French people feel like the German approach is paradoxical because it plans on increasing fossil fuels to enable a transition out of fossil fuels [1]. The 2038 deadline for coal phase out is heavily criticized as many people estimate it would be too late. This opinion is shared by many German citizens, in and out of coal regions, who feel like they would prefer a quicker transition to phase out coal earlier even if it means adding more cost on society [6]. On the other side, German people feel the French approach on nuclear is too slow: as long as it is centralized on the public sector, it may never be able to create enough motion to get out of nuclear and promote renewables, also that better organization on national, regional and local scale is needed. Germany was able to make its energy shift faster than France mostly because of its federal status [4]. Instead of conducting a large, complex, and national energy shift, the central government split up the work between federal states’ government, who could work on this separately. In France, regions don’t have that much independence and need to rely on the central government more often; decisions often come from the national government to regions. The French government recognizes this is a challenge. Efforts towards reducing centralization have increased recently, for example by giving more sense of action to local entities and debating more with citizens [4]. Finally, despite following different ways to achieve the same goal, Franco-German conferences are regularly held with both countries’ experts to learn from each other’s approach and benefit from the each other’s point of view.

Sources:

  • [1] Planet Energies (2015, April 29th). History of energy in Germany. 

https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/saga-energies/history-energy-germany

  • [2] Dr. Christian Hübner (2014, December). History of environmental policy in Germany.

https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=57153b6c-1ac9-6dd4-4048-b7e8732ba709&groupId=252038

  • [3] Frank W.G., Florian K., Gerhard F., Nele H., Gregor K., Josephine M., Mario N., Sandra W. (2016, February 11th). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316300087?via%3Dihub

  • [4] Solène H. (2015, April 13th). Les politiques énergétiques françaises et allemandes des années 1970 à la transition énergétique.

https://ciera.hypotheses.org/788