Germany is not an electricity beggar, explains Bruno Burger from Energy Charts in the “Climate Laboratory”

The nuclear power plants are shut down and Germany has to beg its neighbors for electricity. This representation has persisted since the nuclear phase-out in the spring. But that’s wrong. “There are no electricity beggars,” says Bruno Burger. The energy expert from the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) and operator of Energy chartwhy: There is now so much renewable energy available on the European electricity market that green imports are significantly cheaper than fossil fuel production: “Cheap power sources are used, expensive ones are not,” says Burger. Nevertheless, according to him, there is a risk that coal-fired power will spoil the German CO2 balance in winter. But that would presumably be because we have to help out the nuclear nation France: “The heating there is electric, but unfortunately not with heat pumps, but with resistance heating. As a result, electricity consumption in winter is about 50 percent higher than in summer.”

ntv.de: We switched off our nuclear power plants and became “electricity beggars” – this claim is found more often. They make the effort every time and explain, why this is not so. What are people misunderstanding?

Bruno Burger: There are no electricity beggars. We have a European electricity market where electricity from different countries and sources is offered. Countries with cheap power sources are getting a chance, expensive ones are not. Renewable energies are always the cheapest, but we haven’t had enough of them yet. So if our renewables are not enough, we buy additional electricity from our neighboring countries. This is cheaper than generating electricity from fossil fuels yourself.

So two things are right at the same time: In Germany we actually import electricity from other countries, but that is cheap renewable electricity and not coal-fired electricity from Germany like last year?

Exactly. But last year was special anyway. Many French nuclear power plants could not produce electricity because they had to be maintained, had technical problems or not enough cooling water. That is why Germany has produced a lot of fossil electricity for export.

Jens Spahn has tweeted: “Expensive electricity prices, Germany under pressure, more dependencies, more CO2 emissions than necessary. That’s the energy balance of the traffic light. Thanks for nothing.” Have German CO2 emissions increased as a result of the nuclear power plant shutdown?

CO2 emissions depend on the weather. When European electricity prices rise in winter, it pays off to produce fossil-based electricity for export. That was the case from January to March. As a result, emissions have increased. In April we had a balanced import-export balance. Since May, European electricity prices have been so low due to renewables that it is not profitable to produce electricity from fossil fuels. We imported, so our CO2 emissions have dropped significantly. Especially in June and July there was less fossil fuel production and thus less CO2 emissions from power generation than ever before.

Even though Germany has to “beg” for electricity abroad?

Germany is not an electricity beggar. Germany imports electricity because the imported electricity is cheaper than the self-generated fossil electricity.

Was it still right to switch off our nuclear power plants?

Until April 15, we still had three nuclear power plants connected to the grid, which were running at reduced capacity and only contributed two or three percent to electricity generation. I find this discussion pointless. We decided to phase out nuclear power for the first time in 2000. Then in 2010 there was a brief extension of the service life, which was withdrawn a year later after the accident in Fukushima. We must close this chapter. The German nuclear power plants are off. Now we should look ahead and consider: How do we expand renewables?

But one hears again and again: In a situation in which our energy supply is under pressure, the nuclear power plants should not have been switched off. They would have saved CO2 emissions. Would it have made a difference if it had continued?

The question is whether the imported electricity would have caused more CO2 emissions than nuclear energy – I doubt that. If the electricity prices are so low that it is not profitable to generate electricity from fossil fuels in Germany, it is also not profitable in our neighboring countries. Because the costs for CO2 certificates, gas and hard coal are similar. The imported electricity is therefore mainly renewable electricity from different sources: depending on the month and availability, it can be hydroelectric power from Switzerland and Austria, hydroelectric power from Norway or wind power from Denmark. In this respect, I don’t think it makes a difference whether we import renewable electricity or keep three nuclear power plants running.

So the climate movement was also wrong when it claimed: it’s better to keep the nuclear power plants running than to produce electricity from coal.

Yes. We will see a significant reduction in CO2 emissions from electricity generation this year because we had very few emissions, especially in the summer. How it looks in October, November and December remains to be seen. That depends on the temperatures, the wind speeds and, above all, France: If French nuclear production is not sufficient, we would have to generate electricity for France from fossil fuels. That would of course ruin our carbon footprint, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we don’t have enough renewable electricity ourselves, but that we’re helping other countries out.

You are not worried that there might be too little electricity?

In Germany we have a power consumption or load of about 65 to 85 gigawatts. This is offset by a secured generation of 90 gigawatts from power plants, a further 10 gigawatts from pumped storage power plants plus the renewables. We definitely have enough power. Other countries rather less. Switzerland or Austria rely a lot on hydropower. They produce more in spring, when the snow melts, than in winter. There are different European conditions every month. But the most important player is always France, because heating is done electrically there, but unfortunately not with heat pumps, but with resistance heating. As a result, power consumption in winter is about 50 percent higher than in summer.

When it gets very cold, does France automatically consume a lot more electricity because everyone heats electrically?

Exactly. France needs 2.5 gigawatts more electricity for every degree that it gets colder around zero degrees. The French nuclear power plant blocks deliver an average of 900 megawatts. With every degree less, they need two to three more nuclear power plant units. However, only 61 gigawatts are installed. When it gets really cold, France has to rely on imports – or parts of the grid have to be switched off to save electricity.

So the most likely scenario for the winter is that we have to ramp up our coal plants because a nuclear nation needs electricity?

It can happen. But as I said, this not only affects France, but also countries like Switzerland and Austria. They import electricity from Germany every winter.

Is this debate going on there as well? Are they all “electricity beggars” too?

In Germany that’s extreme. Historically, we have always exported a lot of electricity and made good money from it. Now we have to import electricity and many think that the world is ending and also that every kilowatt hour is French nuclear power. Neither is the case. We have a European electricity market that brings advantages to all countries: You can save power plant capacity by buying cheap electricity from neighboring countries or by selling surplus electricity. For Germany this means: We export at high prices in winter and import at low prices in summer. A good business.

Is this “begging” argument also wrong because we always import electricity when other countries produce so much renewable energy that it is “thrown after” us?

Yes. We ourselves produce a lot of cheap electricity around midday and sell some of it to our neighbors. They sell their cheap electricity for dinner in the evening or for breakfast in the morning. In this respect it is a win-win situation. Our neighboring countries act like an electricity storage facility.

An intelligent one even.

Exactly. There are two options: we can build battery capacity to save our midday peaks in solar power into the evening, or we use electricity abroad to store electricity, sell cheap electricity at midday and buy it back in the evening. At the moment, trading with our neighbors is more profitable than the large-scale expansion of energy storage.

So Germany is behaving very cleverly in economic terms, outsourcing the nuclear risks and even exploiting its neighbors. Is that perceived abroad as lacking in solidarity?

There are different points of view. Before Corona and the Ukraine war, we produced an enormous amount of electricity for export and flooded our neighbors with it. They didn’t like that either, because their own power plants then stood still and couldn’t sell any electricity.

Because our electricity was so cheap thanks to Russian gas?

Because of the Russian gas and because we produced cheap electricity from coal. At that time, CO2 certificates were very cheap and some were even given away. Now you pay around 85 euros to emit a ton of CO2. If you calculate this for the various energy sources, the production costs for natural gas and lignite are 100 euros per megawatt hour. That’s 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Our neighbors, but we too, can generate renewable electricity more cheaply. This lowers the cost of power generation. It is always portrayed as if there was only an energy transition in Germany, as if we were wrong-way drivers. This is utter nonsense. The energy transition is taking place in all countries around the world.

Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann spoke to Bruno Burger. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better understanding.