sinn103_INA FASSBENDERAFP via Getty Images_germanypowerplant

Economics

Le fiasco énergétique de l'Allemagne

Mar 28, 2022 Hans-Werner Sinn

MUNICH – En ce qui concerne la transition énergétique, l'Allemagne fut longtemps considérée comme un pays en pointe par rapport aux autres pays occidentaux. Ses responsables politiques pensaient que les énergies renouvelables pourraient couvrir la totalité des besoins du pays ; c'est pourquoi ils ont décidé d'abandonner simultanément le charbon et le nucléaire. Les 3 dernières centrales nucléaires parmi les 17 que compte l'Allemagne doivent en principe être mises hors service cette année.

Les Verts allemands espéraient que d'autres pays suivraient l'Allemagne sur cette voie après avoir constaté son efficacité. Mais du fait de la guerre en Ukraine, le monde constate que la stratégie allemande a engendré un désastre politique.

Il fallait amortir l'abandon du charbon et du nucléaire et combler les déficits d'approvisionnement pendant la longue transition vers les énergies renouvelables. C'est ainsi que l'Allemagne a décidé de construire un grand nombre de centrales électriques supplémentaires fonctionnant au gaz. Peu avant l'invasion de l'Ukraine, les dirigeants politiques allemands comptaient sur le gaz russe qui assurait plus de la moitié des besoins de l'Allemagne.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.

Hans-Werner Sinn

Writing for PS since 2002
109 Commentaries

Hans-Werner Sinn, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Munich, is a former president of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research and serves on the German economy ministry’s Advisory Council. He is the author, most recently, of The Euro Trap: On Bursting Bubbles, Budgets, and Beliefs (Oxford University Press, 2014).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 Comments on this article

vic lai Mar 31, 2022

If Russia insists the payment of natural gas in rubles in the near future, Germany or the EU can raise the necessary rubles through a neutral offshore financial centre like Hong Kong or Singapore, by setting up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) and issuing ruble bonds there.
---
Through China as the intermediary, Russia's rubles can be exchanged for China's yuan (renminbi) through the bilateral swap line between Russia and China, and the rubles so gotten by China can be sent to Hong Kong or Singapore to fund the new issuance of EU's ruble bonds in the primary market.
The rubles so gotten by Russia can be used to buy China's manufacturing exports.
Europe can repay those ruble debts in the future by simply canceling an appropriate amount of Euro debts owed now by Russia to Europe, using a mutually-agreed-upon Euro-Ruble exchange rate.
---
In essence, Russia is using her natural gas to repay her debts currently owed to the EU.
---
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matthew McCarthy Mar 29, 2022

There is a description of a conflict between moving toward renewables and continuing with coal and nuclear. That conflict is false. There is no reason for Germany NOT to invest in renewables, and it will contribute to a level of energy independence. The issue is that the green movement descriptions of what renewable can and cannot do are unrealistic to the point of dishonesty.. An example of this is "Committed Greens claim ... would not have been a problem..." when there was no possibility that could have been the case with current technology. The Greens have to stop pretending a miracle would have occurred if we had wished hard enough. Push for renewables was good. Pretending that coal and nuclear were not needed was bad and contributed to the current problems.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Friesen Mar 29, 2022

Any decision can go wrong, but decisions must be made. Often, we are far too hard on those who made the decisions in the past without the benefit of the hindsight which we now possess. This is certainly the case with this article.

Relying on Russian gas was not a bad decision at the time. Russia seemed likely to be a reliable supplier, and, indeed, it could have been. We, in the "west", chose to alienate Russia through many insults and aggressions, large and small, over many years. It did not have to be like this.

If Germany had decided to continue with nuclear, there is always the possibility that we would be discussing what a bad decision that was, because there has been an accident, or because spent fuel has fallen into the hands of terrorists who have detonated a "dirty" bomb with it. If it had continued to burn coal, there is a virtual certainty that we would be sitting around discussing what a bad idea that was in a few years, as the climate degenerates into unpredictable instability. That seems likely to happen anyway, but Germany will be less to blame than many other countries.
- Alistair Newton Apr 1, 2022
  
  Any decision can go wrong and often does as a result of unforeseen circumstances. But Frau Doktor Merkel and her government were being reminded constantly by the UK & US about the dangers of over reliance on the trustworthiness of a totalitarian state like Russia.
  
  Germany should never have given permission for the development of NS2, which would have committed it to complete reliance on gas supply from Russia. As soon as a delay to NS2 was suggested, Russia immediately countered by refusing to sign any new long term gas supply agreements and instead relied more and more on the spot market which gave the total control of the volumes delivered and thereby the price payed.
  
  As a direct result not only has the gas price spiked in Europe but the storage facilities in Germany and Austria are sitting at around 25% capacity, with the majority of that volume owned by Gazprom. Russia thus has Germany and the EU in general over a barrel.
  
  Meanwhile, the Ukraine has been unable to export the majority of last years wheat harvest and its ability to plant this years crop will be severely hampered, added to which the cost of gas now being manipulated by Russia means that the cost of ammonia based fertiliser will greatly reduce next years worldwide yields.
  
  This means inevitably that millions upon millions of people from Pakistan and Afghanistan in the east to Morocco in the west, all of whom rely to some extent on imported wheat for their staple bread are either going to starve at home in the next 12 months or begin a trek north into Europe in order to find sustenance.
  
  God help us, and them!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hans goessl Mar 28, 2022

Hallo Herr Sinn, danke für den aufschlussreichen Artikel.sie sehen den Zeitraum für den Bau von Terminals bei 2-5 Jahren.Angesichts der Bauzeit des Berliner Flughafens wage ich das zu bezweifeln.Es sei denn Die USA bauen diese ,die wären nämlich Motiviert um ihr Gas schneller an Deutschland verkaufen zu können.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/7n2gZvLfr

Le fiasco énergétique de l'Allemagne

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Green Nuclear Power

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Le fiasco énergétique de l'Allemagne

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification