Europe’s energy paradox: Fossil fuel reliance despite green push

Amid all the ambitious talk of climate neutrality and energy independence, the irony is palpable: Europe, with Germany at the helm, still finds itself more dependent on fossil fuel imports than ever before. Despite a substantial 41 per cent of energy coming from renewables and 31 per cent from nuclear in 2021, the EU’s overall energy import dependency surged to 62.5 per cent in 2022 — the highest since 1990.

Berlin has agreed to spend €16 billion on building four major natural gas plants to meet electricity demand. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, French energy giant Engie received approval to build a 500-megawatt gas plant near Nijmegen, despite significant local opposition, with 2,000 residents signing a petition against it. These developments highlight the contradiction between the push for greener energy and the continued reliance on fossil fuels to power Europe’s energy grid.

Germany’s own dependency hit an even starker 68.6 per cent. This irony deepens when considering that Germany, one of the most vocal advocates for reducing fossil fuel reliance, has simultaneously phased out nuclear energy — a decision that has effectively removed one of the most reliable and low-emission sources of domestic power from its energy mix.

Germany’s exit from nuclear club

As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calls for the EU to be “more self-sufficient in energy production” with “more renewables, more nuclear, more efficiency,” Germany’s exit from nuclear energy stands in stark contrast, highlighting the paradox of striving for energy independence while simultaneously limiting the very options that could help achieve it. The rhetoric about reducing dependency thus seems increasingly hollow, as Europe remains ensnared in the same old cycle — just with fewer tools at its disposal.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy estimates that Germany’s ambitious energy transition policy, ‘Die Energiewende,’ aimed at replacing nuclear and fossil power with renewables, reduced climate gas emissions by 25% between 2002 and 2022, at a cost of EUR 696 billion.

The study argues that had Germany retained and expanded its nuclear power capacity instead, it could have achieved a 73% reduction in emissions while cutting expenditures by half. This suggests that Germany’s shift away from nuclear energy may have been less cost-effective and impactful than maintaining and enhancing its nuclear capabilities.

The inherent intermittency of solar and wind energy presents a significant challenge in the quest for stable and reliable renewable power. While these sources are essential for a greener future, their dependence on weather conditions — solar panels only generate power when the sun shines, and wind turbines require sufficient wind — makes it difficult to ensure a consistent energy supply.

This unpredictability can create significant gaps during periods of low sunlight or calm weather, leading to instability in the energy grid. In contrast, nuclear energy provides a stable, reliable source of power with zero or minimal emissions. It can continuously generate electricity regardless of weather conditions, making it a crucial component of a balanced and resilient energy mix.

Impractical and absurd

However, in the wake of the nuclear phase-out, particularly in countries like Germany, some proposed solutions to manage this intermittency are not only impractical but also absurd. For example, Germany’s recent proposal to charge consumers more for using electricity on cloudy days as part of its push towards renewable energy has been widely criticised. Businesses have rightly labelled this idea as “crazy,” highlighting the unpredictability it introduces into their operations.

The concept of varying electricity charges based on weather conditions underscores the limitations of a system overly reliant on intermittent renewable sources. It is both amusing and concerning that such a “weather roulette” approach is being seriously considered, especially when reliable alternatives like nuclear energy could provide a more consistent and sustainable solution.

Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy appears to be a shortsighted and misguided move driven more by public fear than by rational policy-making. Triggered by the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the government, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, hastily committed to shutting down nuclear plants, despite their role as a reliable and low-carbon energy source.

While the intention was to pivot towards renewables, the decision disregarded the significant challenges of ensuring energy security and the economic burdens associated with such a rapid transition. In prioritising popular sentiment over pragmatic energy strategy, Germany compromised its ability to meet climate goals efficiently.

The fear surrounding nuclear energy is deeply rooted in the catastrophic events of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The fact remains that nuclear energy results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal and significantly fewer deaths than other fossil fuels.

Even when compared to renewable sources like solar and wind, which have low but non-zero death rates due to accidents in supply chains, nuclear energy remains comparably safe. The fear of nuclear energy, despite its safety record, can largely be attributed to the availability heuristic, where people’s perceptions are disproportionately influenced by a few highly publicised events rather than the overall statistical evidence.

This is exactly why Germany decided to phase out its nuclear reactors — because who needs logic when you can be driven by fear? The rest of Europe has seen only limited expansions, bowing to the same irrational concerns. But here’s the kicker: when we talk about energy transitions, phasing out nuclear energy is like throwing the baby out with the radioactive bathwater. Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest options we have, and it’s high time we embrace it, not run from it.

Aditya Sinha (X: @adityasinha004) is OSD, Research, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India. Views Personal.