By James B.
Meigs
Monday, March
28, 2022
On February 26, 2022, as Russian tanks
rolled somewhat haltingly toward Kiev, Germany was fighting a battle of its
own. It was trying to keep the lights on. Since 2000, Germany has spent 500
billion euros on its Energiewende program, a campaign to
replace fossil fuels and nuclear power mostly with wind and solar energy. That
Saturday was a typical winter day in northern Europe, with temperatures in the
thirties and forties and light winds. But as the sun settled toward the west,
Germany’s vast phalanxes of wind turbines and solar panels performed exactly as
they so often have in the past: poorly. By 5:15 p.m., wind and solar combined
were producing less than 7 percent of the electricity the country needed. Coal
and natural gas made up most of the balance.
The lion’s share of that coal and gas came
from Russia. Which was, to put it politely, a geopolitical inconvenience for
the richest, and supposedly most powerful, country in Western Europe.
Energy has always been a motivation for
war. During World War II, energy hunger was one of the reasons Japan occupied
the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) and why Germany tried, and failed, to
take Russia’s oil-producing Caucasus region. But energy can also be a motivation
for war when one nation has a surplus and its neighbors don’t have enough. An
energy-rich country can act with impunity, while countries dependent on imports
need to tread delicately. Vladimir Putin knows this. But Germany and the rest
of Europe seem to have forgotten.
When Germany launched its Energiewende program,
it hoped to become the world leader in developing a zero-carbon economy—a green
beacon unto the nations. For years, Germany basked in the praise of climate
activists and environmental NGOs. As recently as this past month, the New
Yorker asked, “Can Germany
show us how to leave coal behind?” (Hint: When a publication puts a question mark at the end of a
headline, the answer is almost always “no.”) The country didn’t just build wind
and solar farms, it also shut down most of its perfectly good, perfectly safe
nuclear reactors.
If you look at a globe, you will see that
Germany is closer to the latitude of Anchorage than to that of New York. Winter
days are short and gloomy. As for the wind? Let’s just say it comes and goes.
So whenever Germany’s renewable sources fall short—which is
often—the country turns to reliable sources: coal and gas. And
it seems the more “renewable” Germany’s grid becomes, the more it needs those
fossil fuels for backup.
Germany is not alone. Most of Europe is in
the same leaky boat. (France, which went on a nuclear-plant-building spree in
the 1980s, is happily immune to these problems.) In a post on Bari Weiss’s
Common Sense Substack, renewable-energy skeptic Michael Shellenberger lays out
the numbers: “In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the
European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent …
and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.” It still wasn’t enough. That’s
why Germany was desperate to see the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
designed to bring in even more Russian gas. (Trump tried to stop the pipeline
with sanctions; Biden lifted the sanctions early in his administration.)
Putin wasn’t just aware of this trend; he
engineered it. Today, Russia is one of the world’s top producers of fossil
fuels. But it uses less than half of what it takes out of the ground. The rest
it exports. Meanwhile, as Shellenberger documents, Europe consumes 15 million
barrels of oil a day, but produces less than four. It consumes 560 billion
cubic meters of natural gas per year but produces only 230 billion.
While Europe was buying solar panels,
banning fracking, and shuttering nuclear plants, Russia was drilling wells
and building nuclear plants. It’s a funny thing: In the West,
the smart set will tell you that nuclear-power plants are too expensive and
take too long to build. They also claim that wind and solar have made nuclear
obsolete. And yet in Russia—a country awash in dirt-cheap gas, oil, and
coal—Putin found it worth his while to double the country’s nuclear capacity in
just a couple of decades. Having more nuclear power at home meant he could send
more fossil fuels to his increasingly needy European customers. He didn’t do
that out of generosity.
It’s not like Germany wasn’t warned. In
2013, Holman Jenkins wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled,
“Germany
Reinvents the Energy Crisis.” That
piece was one of many pointing out the engineering and economic pitfalls in
trying to create a mostly renewable power grid. President Trump ruffled
European sensibilities when he repeatedly cautioned that Germany was becoming
“a hostage of Russia.”
But Germany is a nation with a lingering
reverence for a romantic notion of nature, and a strong anti-capitalist
tradition. And, of course, the country had been literally on the front lines of
the Cold War. One can understand how a fear of nuclear annihilation could
evolve into a revulsion toward nuclear energy. As far back as the 1970s, a
popular meme in German youth culture was a pin depicting a smiling sun with the
words Atomkraft? Nein, Danke!—“Nuclear Power? No, Thanks!” The
country’s influential Green Party grew out of that movement. Even nominally
conservative leaders such as former chancellor Angela Merkel have proved
powerless to challenge this ingrained bias. Wind and solar became the only
energy option that one could discuss in polite company.
By late 2021, it was obvious Energiewende was
faltering. Renewable energy production dropped that year while coal use climbed
18 percent. Prices were spiking and the cold weather was coming on. Putin was
limbering up his military. Still, the green juggernaut rolled on: On January 1,
2022, Germany closed three of its last six nuclear power plants, promising to shutter
the rest by year’s end. In geopolitical terms, it was the equivalent of a dog
rolling over to expose its belly.
Putin surely drew a lesson from Germany’s
self-defeating energy policies—and those of Europe as a whole: No matter what
values Europe says it believes in, he must have thought, it will compromise
them for energy. Germany wasn’t going to allow its lights to go out on behalf
of Ukraine. And it might have worked, too.
If Ukraine had crumbled overnight as Putin
expected, Germany and other European nations might have huffed, issued a few
token sanctions, and then gone back to business. But Putin didn’t count on the
stunning bravery of the Ukrainians and their inspiring president. It turns out
that the Europeans still have the capacity to feel shame—and empathy. Almost
overnight, Germany announced it was halting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,
increasing its military spending, and even sending weapons to Ukraine. The
whole of Europe quickly agreed on a deep and painful array of sanctions.
There are limits, of course. Concerning
banking sanctions, German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock warned, “We buy 50
percent of our coal from Russia. If we exclude Russia from SWIFT, the lights in
Germany will go out.” In the end, carve-outs were arranged to let Europe keep
buying Russian fuel. So Putin will keep earning his billions (which will come
in handy now that his invasion has turned into a grinding slog rather than a
quick decapitation). The U.S. might have responded to the crisis by lifting
Biden’s restrictions on natural-gas drilling, approving the Keystone Pipeline,
and restoring energy independence. Instead, in his State of the Union address,
the president promised to “double America’s clean energy production in solar,
wind, and so much more.” The German model, in other words.
You’d think the Ukraine crisis would spur
a more sensible approach to energy. Germany did briefly consider a plan to keep
its remaining nuclear plants open. But Green Party officials quickly shot down
that proposal. Here at home, the Biden administration keeps responding to
surging fuel prices by touting the benefits of electric cars.
Meanwhile, France has announced a plan to
build more than a dozen new nuclear reactors. So while Germany and the U.S.
cling to unattainable renewable fantasies, French citizens get energy that is
both clean and bon marché. Who would have guessed that France—France!—would
emerge as the West’s leader in hard-headed energy pragmatism? But here we
are.
No comments:
Post a Comment