Neither the German Energiewende nor the EU’s Energy Union can succeed in isolation. We need a European Energiewende, writes Rebecca Bertram, who leads the European Energy Transition work at the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Berlin. Courtesy Energy Transition/Global Energiewende.
The origin of the German Energiewende is purely national. Indeed, when the German federal government decided to embark on the restructuring of Germany’s energy system, it did so without regard for the impact the transition would have on its European neighbors. As a result, the German Energiewende is not always appreciated in Europe to the extent that German policy-makers would like it to be.
Europe provides Energiewende with flexibility
As renewables now make up 32 percent of total electricity generation, the German Energiewende is entering a decisive second phase. In an energy system in which volatile and not always readily available renewable energies comprise the largest share of production, the challenge is increasingly that of efficiently reconciling supply and demand.
In recent years, Germany has benefited significantly from the integrated European power grid. For example, it has fed surplus wind power from northern Germany into the power grids of its neighbors, or has used their grids to transport electricity from northern Germany to industry hubs in the south of Germany. Whenever Germany was at a low point in its own power generation, it was able to obtain conventional electricity from its neighbors.
However, these practices and actions have resulted in considerable unpredictability in the national power grids of the other European countries. Poland, in particular, has objected time and again that this situation is forcing its energy suppliers to adapt their net transmission capacities accordingly.
Such a vision would turn the crisis into a chance for Europe to improve both its negotiating power vis-à-vis Russia, and its status as an international leader in modern and sustainable energy infrastructure
For Germany, this state of affairs was and is convenient for two main reasons. Firstly, it has allowed Germany to export its surplus electricity—at present about 8 percent of its annual electricity consumption—to other European countries. Secondly, it has spared Germany of the costly task of having to build its own flexible electricity infrastructure with large storage capacities and new transmission lines.
Germany’s neighbors, however, unhappy with these parallel and loop flows, have reciprocated by gradually increasing the use of so-called phase-shifters along the borders to Germany to minimize the exploitation of their national power grids. For Germany’s Energiewende, this represents a crucial loss, insofar as the former modus operandi not only allowed for flexibility but also kept the cost of the Energiewende lower than it would otherwise have been without access to the power lines and power markets of its neighbors.
Energiewende will only succeed if adopted across Europe
According to the European Commission’s energy vision for 2030, Europe is to meet 27 percent of its total energy demand with renewable energy, and increase its energy efficiency by 30 percent. In addition, certain capacity mechanisms are to favor the construction of new conventional power plants.
These objectives show above all that the European member states currently are not united in following a greater shared energy vision. Instead, each country continues to pursue purely national energy interests—from coal in Poland to nuclear in France. In light of these differences, it is not surprising that the European Commission does not propose any more ambitious legislation. A change here will only come about if Energiewende pioneers, such as Germany, convince their European neighbors of the economic and security benefits that a restructuring of the energy system entails.
The European Commission has the power to considerably slow down Germany’s Energiewende in the years to come
To be clear, this would be in Germany’s own interest, namely because Germany needs Europe to drive its own Energiewende forward. The European Commission has the power to considerably slow down Germany’s Energiewende in the years to come. For example, the Commission is threatening an end to Germany’s priority access to the grid rule for renewables. A European Energiewende is likewise needed to achieve the climate goals, which Germany and the European Union signed up to as part of the Paris Climate Agreement at the end of 2015. Last but not least, the German Energiewende alone—provided that it finally leads to the much needed GHG emissions reductions—still cannot bring about the necessary turnaround in global climate change.
Europe in crisis needs an energy vision
Europe is currently facing a serious identity crisis. Following Brexit and given the numerous anti-European movements in many EU member states, Europe needs a unifying growth and innovation vision able to attract major investments in an overarching European project.
A European Energiewende could be this vision for Europe. It would not only foster and strengthen a culture of innovation and digitization but also serve to highlight Europe’s role as a global pioneer in sustainable energy policy and increase the international competitiveness of both Germany and Europe.
If Germany is to make a meaningful contribution to the energy policy debate in Europe, Berlin should not limit itself to petty disputes over the priority grid access for renewables or capacity mechanisms
Finally, a European Energiewende would benefit the energy security of Germany and the entire European Union, because locally produced electricity combined with increasing energy efficiency decreases dependency on imports and international price developments. In recent years, the alarming impact of energy insecurity for Europe was distinctly felt with the Russia-Ukraine gas disputes, which served as a painful reminder that the European Union today imports around one third of its natural gas from Russia.
If the European Union is serious about its Energy Union mission, it should directly tie this in with discussions about a European Energiewende. Such a vision would turn the crisis into a chance for Europe to improve both its negotiating power vis-à-vis Russia, and its status as an international leader in modern and sustainable energy infrastructure.
What next?
Therefore, if Germany is to make a meaningful contribution to the energy policy debate in Europe over the next two years, Berlin should not limit itself to petty disputes over the priority grid access for renewables or capacity mechanisms. Rather, Germany should, together with its European neighbors, develop a new narrative about a common European Energiewende – one that addresses the concerns of other European member states as well. This dialogue should focus on Europe’s advantages of economic modernization and international competition. Only then can the Energiewende succeed in both Germany and Europe.
Editor’s Note
Rebecca Bertram leads the European Energy Transition work at the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Headquarters in Berlin. Her work focuses on integrating the various European energy discussions into the German energy decision-making process. This article was first published on the Energy Transition/Global Energiewende blog and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Helmut Frik says
The fairy tale about the polnish problems to transport energy in germany keeps spreading.
In detail things are different.
According to the european grid codes, only booked capacities are payed for, while other power flows threw the grid are not payed for, so the grid operator has to cover the cost of the pweor losses in his grid.
Phase shift and other equipment is usual alt all borders of germany and within germany to control power flows, but due to historc reasons they are missing in the polnish and czech grid.
Which results in uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) power flows in the grids when north – south power flows in germany are high, and accordingly voltage differences in this direction – the electric opwer flow uses the unused capacity in the neighboring grid sections.
Which is a problem for poland and the czech republic, because they do not receivve payments (so far) for this transportation service, because these flows are neither booked nor controllable (they may happen even when there is still enough spare capacity in the german grid)
This will change when germany and poland have installed the phase shift transformers at this border, too, and the polnish grid operators have no problem to transport power when receiving a appropriate payment for this service. This service can be sold when the power flows can be controlled.
Power flow often is (on paper) from north germany to south germany further to Austria and then to hungria. Observed powerflow is then often from north egrmany to poland, to czech republik, slovakia and then to hungary. (anectotical evidence)
Nigel West says
BTW on transmission systems real power flows are determined by phase angle, not voltage differences. Voltage differences occur when excessive amounts of power are transmitted over long AC transmission lines due to reactive power flows.
That’s why phase angle changing quad boosters are needed to regulate power flows between Germany and Poland. Clearly Poland needs these to stop the growing problem of Germany’s surplus subsidised renewables being dumped on Poland. It’s unfair competition which the EU should not permit.
When all Germany’s neighbours are able to control power flows from Germany, Germany’s renewables generation will need to be throttled back at times to prevent system frequency rising too high.
Helmut Frik says
Phase angles cause voltage differences. Voltage diffferences make electrons move. Moving electrons+voltage difference= power flow. Maybe you have to start sometimes with the basics of electric engineering.
It is possible to contronl power flows by inducing voltage differences by inducing phase angles, or where transformers are at hand by switching coils (loops).
But nuclear fanboys often ignore the basics of engineering, as you can see e.g. on the page of euan mearns, who blocks everybody who tries to correct the sever errors in elctric engineering there.
Nigel West says
At transmission voltages your example is too simple. For a long EHV overhead transmission line, it is the phase angle difference between the sending and receiving end that essentially determines ‘real’ power flows. The voltage difference is related to ‘reactive’ power flows. Indeed one can place capacitors on the end of a long transmission line and the voltage could actually be more at the receiving end than the sending end.
EHV transmission cables behave like a big capacitor always generating reactive power so often need reactive compensation to control receiving end voltages.
For long distance high power transmission DC has been adopted to avoid the problems with AC. Only problem is reliable EHV DC switchgear is not available having eluded engineers for a 100 years. Lack of EHV DC switches is a big problem for ‘super grid’ fanatics.
BTW. I am an electrical power engineer, and have modelled transmission EHV power systems for National Grid.
Csaba says
So the HVDC link to Gotland has been a fantasy for more than 60 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Gotland
And this lis tis fairy tales?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
Nigel West says
You need to understand that all EHV DC links are point to point systems with DC to AC converter stations at either end. They are switched at AC, not DC. To form a very high power DC grid around Europe requires a meshed grid with switchable lines at DC. I said EHV DC switches do not exist, not DC links.
Helmut Frik says
Here the nonexistent HVDC-Switch: http://new.abb.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/hybrid-hvdc-breaker—an-innovation-breakthrough-for-reliable-hvdc-gridsnov2012finmc20121210_clean.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Waiting for someone who wants to mesh HVDC-Lines.
Nigel West says
That’s an interesting development. The prototype design will of course need extensive testing in the field before being commercially available.
Helmut Frik says
As far as I understood the big amounts of documentations in “VDI NAchrichten” and other german technical news, testing is finished and it is already available. but planning of new grids takes many years, (political, not technical), so there is no DC grid available yet where tis equipment can be used.
Helmut Frik says
Again, the angle difference causes a voltage difference. But you don’t seem to have a look on things on a millisecon, microsecond or nanosecond sacle, and you seem to think in long time average voltages, which might be constant at both ends,, or not.
AC Power lines, overhead and large currents cause inductive reactive power, with low loads you have capacitive reactive power. With cables you usually get capacitive reactive power. It’s not that easy if you go into details.
Nigel West says
Your argument is petty. As far as AC power transmission theory is concerned, it is as I have stated. Grid engineers look at RMS voltages, not instantaneous. There is no need for a difference in voltage magnitude between the sending and receiving end, just a phase angle difference, for ‘real’ power to be transmitted.
The problem for Germany is with too much wind power located in the north already, and set to grow worse, the German grid is creaking/near collapse due to excessive power flows to the load centres in the south and exports to countries in the south. This demonstrates that trying to shift vast quantities of power around Europe is fraught with problems. Indeed people in southern Germany do not want forests of overhead transmission lines, so the much more expensive underground cables must be used, or DC links built. These significant costs are not covered by wind generators.
Now action is being taken to constrain renewables generation at key times to avoid overloading Germany’s transmission system.
Helmut Frik says
Nigel, the grid is not “creaking”, as far as the grid is concerned, there are no n-1 violations, and the curtaild wind production, being able to ramp up and down from about zero to maximum power (maximum depending on wind) within seconds, and PV-Systems being able to do so within milliseconds are a dream for grid operation.
So problem is not grid stability. Problem is “only” lost generation.
In germany also the transformers sitting between the different voltage levels are used to control power flow. They do not influence the angle, they move the voltage as a whole. Works too.
The angle difference causes a voltage difference which is also a sinus but with lower magintude. This voltage drives the ‘real’ power threw the line. The same happens when there is a transformer at one end and switches by some windings. Or if a generator lifts the local voltage.
Shifting angles is the right method when you stay on the same voltage, and have nothing else available for the wanted effect. Which means it works, but is not the only possibility.
Nigel West says
Those wind turbines can only ramp if the wind is blowing so are unreliable to follow demand and not a dream at all. Only conventional plant can reliably ramp.
Germany’s AC transmission is creaking otherwise generation would not need to be constrained at times and there would not be a need for the proposed DC links running north to south the length of Germany.
At transmission voltages a standard voltage level is best. There would be no point in introducing different system voltage levels and transforming down to a lower voltage other than at grid exit points connected to local distribution systems operating at lower voltages. Except for balancing load on parallel transmission circuits where quad boosters are used.
Germany’s grid mainly operates at 380kV. Older 220kV lines are likely to be historical and not run in parallel with the 380kV transmission lines.
Lower voltage systems cannot transmit as much power as at 380kV.
UK’s grid system operates at 400kV. However there are a few old sections that operate at 275kV. They are interconnected with the 400kV system using 400/275kV interbar transformers which do not have tap changers.
Helmut Frik says
Well, if the grid is “creaking” when ther is a lot of wind, and wind power is curtailed, wind can ramp up and down, like any other power station that is not running with it’s maximum output. Just faster than thermal generation.
Germany has plenty of 220 and 380kV lines running parallel. in many cases 220kV- lines from the 1920 to 1930s existed, and in the 1960-1980s new 400kV lines were added in parallel, leaving the original line as backup / additional capacity.
Nigel West says
The fact wind power might be able to ramp faster than thermal generation is of little benefit when its capacity factor in Germany is only around 20%.
The problem with curtailing any generation due to transmission constraints is the generators seek compensation for lost profits. That cost is passed to consumers in their bills. The over capacity should not have been allowed to be built. A fault of the ‘free for all’ caused by feed in tariffs.
380kV and 220kV circuits may run along the same route, but are unlikely to be running in parallel electrically as they would not load share very well.
UK’s 400kV grid was superimposed over the original 132kV grid. Remaining 132kV circuits are normally run radially now.
Helmut Frik says
@nigel West, the 220kV and 400kV lines share loads in germany for decades.
And about Wind power and ramping – your said the german grid would be “creaking” and be shurt before blackouts when there is a lot of wind.
Well it is not, and load factors of wind power stations are not relevant in this situation.
Either the grid is reaching its transport capacity limits, and wind is curtailed. Then naturally the fast ramping capabilities of wind are available to keep the grid more stable than with thermal generation.
That’s why I said from the beginning that it’s “only” curtailment happening. Which is why the additional capacity for the grid should be built as fast as possible. But this is not a concern as far as grid stability is concerned.
S. Herb says
In Germany Energiewende has a bottom up history and connotation; the approach here seems German or Euro -centric and top down. I would like to see some comments from the neighboring countries on the possibilities that they see, growing out of the local situations.
Joris van Dorp, MSc says
This interesting article paints a rather benign picture of Berlin’s stance in the European energy discussion. In practice, Germany has been trying to use bully tactics and propaganda to force neighbour countries to destroy their clean zero-carbon civilian nuclear power sectors.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/belgium-rejects-german-call-for-nuclear-plants-closure
I would expect the EU Commission to continue to protect smaller EU countries like Belgium – that have already achieved very low-carbon electricity systems – from the coercion of dirty, highly co2-intensive lignite coal burning Germany.
Increasing solar and wind power in Europe is a lofty goal, and the world has Germany to thank for turning solar and wind power into increasingly viable, serious energy technologies. But Germany needs to clearly renounce its antinuclear ideology before the EU should adopt an Energiewende-like vision for the rest of Europe.
The EU (And Germany too, arguably) needs nuclear power to achieve its most ambitious co2 reduction goals, never mind the unscientific, populist antinuclear ideology of some member states.
Hans says
Can’t find any bullying in the Guardian article. Germany calls for closure of the creaking Belgian power plant. Belgium ignores it.
Diarmuid Foley says
Germany’s Energiewende should not be foistered on other European countries who should be free to choose their own pathway to decarbonisation. We already have the 2020 directive which mandates renewables targets but does not include zero-carbon nuclear and which is largely a GER construct.
Why should we be forced to use only ‘renewables’ which largely lock in existing NG plants as back-up ? Why not a low or zero-carbon technology neutral policy that recognises the value of all low-carbon technology ?
This is like saying – ” we should go to sea in a kayak, we can cross the ocean in a kayak ” . Yes, it’s possible , but it’s also impractical when we have other and better means to achieve the goals we require ( decarbonisation & clean , minimally-polluting energy )
Helmut Frik says
Well, there is no lock in with gas plants in a european grid. And why should neighbouring states carry the risks for the states which use nuclear? Benefits for one state, mayor part of the costs for the neighbours which are not asked for their opinions?
By the way germany is by far not the only state not going the nuclear path, and due to costs most others will follow anyway. Nuclear is the most expensive option today.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Helmut, you forget that Germany simply uses all the existing conventional plants in Germany and abroad as backup today. If you add all the real costs to maintain a stable grid to where they belong, then the renewables (except hydro) are by far the most expensive option.
As stated before: for conventional plants you need about 10% of peak load as backup + 10% in/out connections for in case of urgency if one conventional plant shuts down, while another is in maintenance. For solar and especially for wind, you need 100% conventional backup as capacity or 100% storage in capacity and total energy load over days to weeks (as was the case in January for 90% of Europe).
Add to that the costs for new HV lines within a country, the undersea lines for off-shore wind, the necessary increase of local distribution capacity if the density of urban solar increases, while people is at work elsewhere during the day (or the cost of private storage). Add to that the hidden cost of the subsidy for a fixed feed-in tariff when there is much wind and grid prices are near (or below) zero. Add to that the costs of fast ramping up (or “hot standby”) of low yield gas turbines to maintain grid stability, when wind goes rapidly down and wind- and solar suppliers have not the slightest obligation to do any effort…
It seems to me that the real price of wind and solar power per MWh is a multiple of what a new nuclear plant delivers over its 40-60 years technical life with an average 90% nameplate capacity yield, 24/24, 7/7.
Multiple that with a factor if you expand that in whole Europe, including interconnections that can transport 90% of momentary load in whole Europe from Scandinavia to Portugal and reverse or from Ireland to Bulgaria and reverse…
Helmut Frik says
Germany always had about 30% reservers of conventional plants because not all modes of generation fits for all tasks, and sometimes many of them are in maintenance.
You don’t need 100% conventinal backup, since wind smoothes out in big grids, and during the day the sun usually shows up for work. If you once experience a day where the sun does not shine, so it remains night all day (and it’snot at the poles) tell me, then we might need more reserves.
Beside this, as reserve any ould and retired power plant does the trick. Ususlly they stay unmanned. Also Diesel generators used as backup generators does the trick. We usually install such systems in our projects, costs are about 150€/kWp, and they have on site-storage for more than a week of operation. The costs of these generators are covered by the location they back up for the case of grid failure, so the 20GW of installed diesel backup capacity in germany costs just the trigger to start the engine and the transaction costs to pay for the generated power. For generation once in 5 or 50 years, this kind of generationw orks fine, also when CO2 emissions or other emissions are in consideration.
Also Biomass is increasing capacity, while keeping energy output constant. They have a incentive to expand capacity and add gas storage in the recent EEG-Law, and as I have heard many/most now increase generator capacity to 2-5x fermenter capacity. I do not have any final data from this source.
But you can close down most of conventiolnal capacity in germany without anything happening.
This is germany. Behind the official power generation capacity comes the line of reserve generation capacity, and behind this come further lines of further backup capacities, which are avialable but not counted for simulations for grid stability, which are based on worst case scenarios where only power expoerts happen, but never power imports.
Nigel West says
Facilities needing highly secure power supplies usually have standby diesel generators. In the UK, National Grid pays the owners to provide reserve.
But recently dedicated diesel farms have been installed only to provide reserve. Some run on diesel others on gas. They are unabated so can’t run for long.
It doesn’t make sense to have too much of this instead of large flexible CCGTs which are cleaner and more efficient.
Anyway, most certainly Germany cannot close much of it’s lignite fleet as that backs up renewables. Germany’s TSO is keeping old lignite capacity in reserve, rather than it being decommissioned.
Helmut Frik says
Well Politics in UK will remain a everlasting riddle for me in several points.
Installing diesel Generators without backing up some facility (although this back up does not fully pay for the diesel) is below economic optimum. It’s better to let the diesel serve both puropses.
How much storage is connected to it, and if there are supply contracts to a huger storage is a seperate topic.
The closed down lignite plants are placed in the third row of backup capacity, so it’s highly unlikely that they will ever be fired up till their final decomissioning.
And a cold power plant does not emit significant amounts of CO2.
It was mainly a political game to declare them as reserve. There is no problem to close down a lot more GW in germany. There are 15-20GW of CCGT plants sitting completely idle. They could be put back to work sometimes.
Mike Parr says
Mr West you are hair splitting – around 2.7GW of old lig was put in “reserve” & by 2019 will be out permanently i.e. decomissioned the East German lig stations will follow real soon – leaving a few (4? 5?) fast ramping lig stations from the 2000s.
& going back to the ding-dong with Mr Frik – it struck me that you were “winging it” with respect to HVDC – […]; Frick made a good point about all the transmission systems running in parallel – which raises the question – why not HVDC them? cheaper & quicker than u/ging new HVDC – but that would spoil the story (all that North German wind with no where to go & look how expensive it will be to get it down south) wouldn’t it? […]
Nigel West says
PtG specialists are unlikely to understand power system operation so your views are of little value here. Rather misinformed ones – like the political jibes in your posts.
Germany has an ambition to close lignite but that can’t be done without a reliable from of generation to replace it to back-up renewables. Sounds like it may be currently idle CCGTs running on gas.
Transmission systems don’t all run in parallel. They run as a meshed grid. There is no story to spoil, Tennet has put forward a plan for DC links which they no doubt believe is the best solution taking account of feasibility, cost and time scales. Regulated grid operators have to make cost efficient decisions on investment.
Math Geurts says
This is also Germany: “Auditors slam Gabriel’s ministry on clean energy costs”
http://www.dw.com/en/auditors-slam-gabriels-ministry-on-clean-energy-costs/a-37109415
Math Geurts says
“And not just any fossil fuels: Germany has been ratcheting up its consumption of domestically produced lignite, a particularly dirty variety of coal. That’s how Berlin managed to simultaneously raise its power prices while also raise its greenhouse gas emissions in the process. It’s hard to argue that Germany is any better off for having implemented the energiewende”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/03/17/green-germanys-emissions-keep-rising/
Helmut Frik says
Lignite consumtion is dropping , CO2 emissions from power production as well in germany.
CO2 emissions in the transport swector have been rising.
But some people in the U.S. seem to like alternative facts.
Math Geurts says
Indeed: wrong priorities.
German facts: “A target evaporates
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/rising-emissions-threaten-climate-goals-less-interest-e-cars/target-evaporates
Nigel West says
Diarmuid – agreed, there should be a carbon neutral policy. Rather than picking winners.
Karl-Friedrich Lenz says
Bad idea. Doesn’t mention Article 194, which leaves the basic design decisions on energy matters in the hand of the Member States. Also doesn’t mention that all EU Commission influence on German policy has been a disaster, as well as an illegal power grab incompatible with basic values of democracy.
R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says
Germany is to be congratulated as the world’s leader in green energy and the abandonment of nuclear power. The US has a few timid efforts following Germany’s lead and will provide more information to form judgments. However both nations, and others, have clearly identified that the conversion from carbon and uranium fuels to the alternate energies demands a reordering of the national grid, from mine to house meter and the overarching barrier is “all-in” cost. In any multi corporate or multi national process, there is the same struggle to shift costs from one to another, e.g. not pay for phase angle corrections or controlled voltage across a national boundary or tariffs which favor one technology over another. If peace is to be maintained, some one must pay for all costs.
Today, the German power system has a back bone based on carbon combustion and uranium fission yet has one of the highest cost electricity in Europe. The efforts to rein in these costs in the green sector have not yet proven successful. Moreover there are economic and technical issues with interuptable distributed power schemes, e.g. roof top generators which must be equitably priced. It is a great deal for some, a bad deal for others.
This epic effort is based on one principle, burning carbon is very bad. But the US just elected a President who disagrees and Asia dominates the world in this combustion. The US will drop the Paris agreement which does not bind China to do anything for many years. While Germans have and will pay massive fortunes to accomplish nothing, on a global scale, on this issue.
Climate change and society’s response to it will define the rise and fall of nations, industries and many people. I wish them all well.
Math Geurts says
Germany’s doubts?
“The Economics Ministry has thus far not fulfilled its role of an overall coordinator,” the report complains. “Elementary questions like ‘What will the energy transition cost the state’ and ‘What should it cost’ are not being asked and remain unanswered”
http://www.dw.com/en/auditors-slam-gabriels-ministry-on-clean-energy-costs/a-37109415
Bas Gresnigt says
The idea behind, an EU Energy Union, will cost EU citizens money and will bring hardly any benefits. More advanced countries such as Germany, Denmark, NL, etc won’t benefit at all.
Political it implies a shift of decision power away from chosen national parliaments to some bureaucratic EU organization.
Hence will contribute to the anti-EU sentiments in the population.
An EU Energy Union for electricity doesn’t bring economic benefits. It will:
– create rigidity as it implies extra rules, etc. incl. a superfluous supervising organization. It takes the flexibility of present bi-/tr-national interconnection agreements away.
– hamper the culture of innovation which created great progress, such the Energiewende. As also visible in USA in regions where they have such organizations.
– create a lot of extra costs. Starting with the EU Energy Union organization…
Some of the other nonsense statements in the post:
– “European Energiewende would benefit the energy security of Germany..”
Reliability of the German grid is extreme high, top of the world!
– “European Energiewende could be this vision for Europe.”
So it’s purpose is to increase the EU identity. Another organization just to help EU bureaucrats…
Note that major improvements such as the Nordstream gas pipelines, got installed fast without the delays which EU involvement would have implied.