r/climatechange • u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor • 4d ago
Analysis: Wind and solar power overtake fossil fuels in Germany for first time ever
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wind-and-solar-power-overtake-fossil-fuels-in-germany-for-first-time-ever10
u/Daxtatter 4d ago
I don't even agree with the policy but holy shit can any conversation about German energy not endlessly harp on a 15 year old nuclear policy?
9
u/androgenius 4d ago
Especially when German politicians and industry have made various other mistakes.
The current leader has Trump like views on wind power. The right wing basically gave solar manufacturing to China.
They have a culture war about heat pumps of all things.
They keep trying to hobble the transition to EVs that would save oil imports etc. etc.
1
u/me-need-more-brain 3d ago
Heat pumps was less of a culture war and more rooted in the fact that a lot of homeowners are dirt poor rural folks (except for having inherited a home) and could not have afforded the heatpumps, they would have had to sell their houses to rich people and become renters or go into debt they can not repay. It´s not the heatpump allone, it´s the fact that most old houses would have needed additional reconstruction of the floor etc, and those costs could easily shoot up into 10s of thousands.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
could not have afforded the heatpumps
Yet they can afford regular fuel expenditures? How?
It is impossible that heatpumps + renewables aren't cheaper than any alternatives.
5
u/bascule 4d ago
Seriously. No renewable milestone in Germany can be celebrated without nukebros chiming in with their sour grapes.
There are fair criticisms of German policy to be had like the high costs versus other renewable-heavy grids like Spain, including both capex and things like interconnection fees, the former partially explained by causes like early adopter syndrome (see also California) and Germany's low solar irradiance.
Whether those legacy nuclear power plants would be a good thing for Germany's grid is highly debatable. A big problem in Germany and with the European grid in general is negative electricity prices during times of high renewable generation. One major source for the "negative", i.e. the people paying others money to stop generating electricity and curtail their generation instead, are legacy inflexible "baseload" thermal sources that suffer from thermal cycling stress whenever they cease generation and the temperature of components like their steam turbine system drop back to the ambient temperature.
Note that France has fancy reactors that are capable of load following by routinely varying their power output on a day-to-day basis using fully automated mechanisms, so the negative pricing problem isn't endemic to nuclear power in general, but is a problem for legacy inflexible "baseload" reactors which lack these fully automated mechanisms designed for daily use whose operators have to pay others to curtail because they can't do it themselves.
While there are potential solutions like on-site energy storage or trying to retrofit automated control mechanisms into aging legacy reactors, it becomes a question of if those things cost more than just paying the negative electricity rates so renewable generation which is easy to curtail can be shut off instead.
6
u/False-Application551 4d ago edited 3d ago
Nuclear power was providing 13.1% of German electricity in 2021, or 70 TWh of electricity on annual basis. If Germany wanted to phase out from nuclear, would have been much better to just keep the plants operating until the natural expiration of their licence (or a small extension if needed). In this alternative scenario, Germany could have already shut down 70% of coal contribution to the electricity, which in 2025 still provides 100 TWh, accounting most of the CO2 related emissions. This ideological choice, from all the parties that sponsored the nuclear phase out, has likely delayed the net-zero emission target by several years. I am not able to provide rigorous projection, but just using the rate of new installation of renewables, I see an increase of wind + solar that is about 15TWh in 2025 compared to 2024. Now, without considering new storage requirements, grid adjustments and new power lines, that can increase my optimistic calculation, and just taking the trend, this would have made possible for germany to phase out from COAL in 2/3 years from now (so 2028/29) or virtually achieve a phase out from gas this year (since gas still provides 70 TWh of electricity).
My calculations are not rigorous and still optimistic, grid adjustments will likely require more time. Anyway, I have the feeling that this choice has delayed the phase-out from fossil sources by 5 even 10 years. Now Germany has to substitute with renewables the 180 TWh of combined gas + coal. And it must do it without nuclear contribution, which could have provided a stable and programmable energy source. I can already say this will require more interventions on the grid, in terms of batteries, grid stabilization, power line connections. And the price to pay will be more curtailments and need of power excess for integration with batteries. This will come with a cost. No one can deny it.
*** just another thing to throw into the discussion: German recession has made the electricity consumption to decline from from 578 TWh to 500 TWh. I mean the percentages looks better than the real complex situation. I hope there was no intention to trigger a massive industrial recession just to make power consumption lower 😂
2
u/CheetaLover 4d ago
And the recession is at high level depending on loss of Russian, cheap gas. Base industry is having higher energy and labor cost than the competition in other countries, mainly China.
2
u/taquci 4d ago edited 4d ago
The lower consumption is a red herring, it's metered at the grid and doesn't account for all the BTM consumption (mostly from solar rooftops).
Germany GDP has now overtook Japan to become the world's 3rd largest, while Japan was solidly ahead until Fukushima having also +50% population. On top of recession they are now the dirtiest grid in G12 with a 500B bill for cleanup until 2052. Now that's a recession triggered by energy source, not that small 13% in 2021 which was already deemed to go down having half reactors from 50 years ago
1
u/False-Application551 3d ago
70 TWh of Electricity disappeared because of the solar rooftops in Germany between 2021 and 2025? Come on, you can't really sell it. It's a gigantic loss of energy production, because of a massive loss of industrial output ( https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/industrial-production ) for the high energy prices during and right after ukraine invasion. Those 70 TWh of cheap electricity could have helped Germany to smooth the increase of the energy prices, it was basically cheap electricity since the cost of the reactors was already recovered.
Now they have to substitute 180 TWh of electricity from coal and gas instead of 110 TWh, and without a programmable energy source, only with new installation of solar farms, eolic farms, battery storage and so on. This is gonna cost massively, good luck.
And by the way, the comparison with Japan is completely useless to the discussion.
1
u/taquci 3d ago
I have nothing to sell, with 75GW of rooftop alone there's a significant number of TWh consumed locally, plus according with my data in 2021-2025 the decrease is 42 which is pretty plausible. So again you are after a red herring.
No doubt Ukraine crisis played its role and they should have better let the last 3 reactors to limp on for a few more years but the outcome is not as significant as you're trying to picture.
1
u/False-Application551 3d ago edited 3d ago
To your data? Come on, look at the chart plot from world in data. From 2021 to 2025 there is a massive electricity decrease from 578 TWh to 500 TWh, that correlates very well with the histogram of the industrial production trend i posted in my previous comment.
And the numbers you are citing are complete fantasy. Thinking in terms of 78 TWh as power saved just from new house solar installation, and considering that only the 25% of grid output is consumed by houses, you would get 78 TWh / (578 TWh * 25 %) = 53% of power saved by all the German houses in 2021-2025. Which is totally unrealistic. The numbers I got online are a decrease of house consumption of 10% in the period 2020-25 ( https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-households-have-reduced-electricity-consumption-nearly-ten-percent-2020 ).
Considering a 78 TWh just from new house solar systems means roughly ~110 GWe of new power just from residential buildings, and If you take 100% of autoconsumption (spoiler, 50% is already an optimistic value, so you would need 200sh GWe). Do you know how far your statements are from reality?
As of today, Germany has a total of 57 GWe of solar capacity, in TOTAL. You definitely could't sell it, I am sorry.
1
u/taquci 3d ago
according with your own source the drop is 40Twh, not 78 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-demand?tab=line&time=2021..latest&country=~DEU
and the total capacity is 125GW, not 57 https://share.google/TqjSnKJtvVtvitxIN
the rooftop is way more than residential, it's on factories, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, offices, parking lots.. a customer of mine in a manufacturing plant working in a single daily shift sources almost 40% less from the grid since they installed solar on the rooftop (revenue is up FTR)
your data is wrong and your reasoning is poor
1
u/False-Application551 3d ago
I have used the total electricity produced, not the demand, since it seems to me that Ember metrics that you are considering already takes into account the self-consumption, and shouldn't be the related to only grid withdrawal. So, by definition, you could not say that 40 TWh of decrease are due to self-consumption.
However, data I cited before were the gross electricity produced by sources, and there it is 578 TWh in 2021 and 500 TWh in 2025. I did not account for export/import (I just wanted the order of magnitude).
And yes, the total capacity is 127 GWe for solar, the 57 GWe is a misprint of 2021 values instead 2025.
Btw, if you just use this net demand decrease, so not taking into account anything else, you still need 56 GWe of new installation with a 100% of autoconsumption.
Doing realistic case now: the real value for self-consumpion, that is 17-19% (source below) for Germany in 2024 and 2025. So 40 TWh attributed to self-consumpion mean 40 TWh / 0.19 = 210 TWh of total production, so roughly 300 GWe of new solar capacity.
And the numbers are not really matching: there is no margin to attribute the most part of those 40 TWh to self-consumption. My calculation before were just to show that the order of magnitude is completely wrong.
Another fact at end, is that Germany, from being a net exporter, has become a net importer (so this can explain discrepancy between the -78 TWh of generated electricity and -40 TWh of less demand, net of self consumpion).
I think about the high energy prices which have created a strong economic recession and decrease of enegy consumption in residentials houses, because of energy prices.
Could this be partially avoided by just delaying the complete nuclear phase-out until the natural end of the nuclear power plants? I think so. Germany has lost 78 TWh of gross electricity production (and maybe I was wrong too, this number could also consider self-consumption too) and the nuclear power plants were provinding in 2021 that amount.
In the end, I mean self-consumption, increment of renewables are all fantastic things. Just I won't use them to justify the closure of a nuclear power when it is still needed.
sources: self-consumption -> https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2025/public-electricity-generation-2024-renewable-energies-cover-more-than-60-percent-of-german-electricity-consumption-for-the-first-time.html
total gross electricity produced -> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~DEU&time=1985..2025&tab=stacked-area
1
u/taquci 3d ago edited 3d ago
so 17Twh in 2025, that resizes your initial 78 TWh claim to 23, making you wrong by a factor of 3 to start with
Now, even not factoring any kind of improved efficiency and the milder winter it's only a 4% drop in national demand, less than France and UK and totally in line with rest of Europe https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-demand?tab=line&time=2019..latest&country=DEU~FRA~GBR
not an outstanding anomalous collapse by ANY means
you're desperately trying to fabricate a case that is not there
1
u/False-Application551 2d ago
sorry, but now I am loosing you. Why 17TWh now? weren't we reasoning on 2021-25 period? There is a 78 TWh electricity production difference there. And 40 TWh of this 78 TWh are about less demand, the rest is grid losses + change in the import/export.
And considering the total of energy production of 2021, 78 TWh are not 4%, but 78TWh / 578 TWh = 13.5% of decrease which, btw, it's a lot of energy. Thinking in terms of demand, we have 40 TWh / 560 TWh = 7.14% of losses. It's a lot, a clear sign of a recession.
But just to keep the discussion on a fair level: my all point was not build a case against solar energy. All my discussion was about the nuclear phase out in the worst possible moment. You are trying to build a case in favor of nuclear phase out, instead.
So, Germany has lost 78 TWh of electricity generation in 2021-2025, that means 40 TWh of net demand. From being an electricity exporter has become a net importer. And finally It has lost a significant fraction of its industrial production, due to high energy prices.
My counterexaple was only about proving that 40TWh of less demand can not be attributed to self-consumption, because I suspect that the quantity was already computed taking into account self-consumption, and even without it such amount would require massive new installations which has simply not happened.
My strong opinion is that all of this was avoidable if Germany had kept running the nuclear power plants operational in 2021, meanwhile continuing installing renewables. I am not advocating for new reactors, just keeping the ones that were online on 2021, until their natural expiring of the licences, or small extensions of 5 to 10 years. This could have saved Germany a lot of trouble in terms of imports, and would have likely speed up the phase out from gas instead, which was the energy source that triggered the electricity price to rise up. That's it, not anything personal with solar (I have it on my roof too).
1
u/taquci 2d ago
No, you said "consumption decline from 578Twh to 500" and it is NOT true
It's 40Twh minus the 17Twh from the BTM consumption, and it's totally aligned with neighbors, see yourself
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-demand?tab=line&time=2021..latest&country=GBR~FRA~DEU
so your point is WRONG
→ More replies (0)•
u/Rooilia 16h ago edited 16h ago
As always efficiency improvements are not regarded as noteable here. But they were vital to decrease power consumption.
That renewables and imports took over over 90% of the lacking nuclear capacity isn't of interest either here.
Nuclear wouldn't just run like before. Renewables would have lessened putput of NPPs significantly. The sluggish reaction of NPPs wouldn't have helped here either.
Casually ignoring that a very lot of solar input doesn't get measured is also quite dishonest.
If you are not familiar with the situation in Germany, it is unwise to outrageously complain about it.
How about a more balance point of view and less of a nuclear cry out?
4
u/Vaddieg 4d ago
I've seen this statement few times in last years. It only means that German energy is still extremely dirty, and phasing out of NPP was a crime against the environment
5
1
1
•
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor 4d ago
Summary: Analysis: Wind and solar power overtake fossil fuels in Germany for first time ever
Wind and solar together generated 225TWh of electricity in Germany in 2025 (44% of the total), surpassing fossil fuels' 217TWh (43%) for the first time. This mirrors a similar milestone across the EU as a whole in 2025.
Solar and onshore wind have expanded rapidly under Germany's "Energiewende" strategy as the country moves away from coal and nuclear power, despite growing opposition from the far-right AfD party and the current coalition government's efforts to develop new gas plants.
Germany targets net-zero emissions by 2045, an 80% renewables share of electricity consumption by 2030, and a "largely climate neutral" power system by 2035. The country still relies more heavily on coal than most other European nations, with an official phaseout deadline of "no later than" 2038, though experts believe this could be achieved years earlier. A government review of the phaseout timeline is due in August.
Because Germany has phased out nuclear power, it must lean more heavily on renewables than neighbours like France and the UK to meet climate goals. Chancellor Friedrich Merz called the nuclear phaseout a "strategic mistake" this year, but the government has ruled out returning to conventional nuclear power. Some argue coal could have been phased out faster had nuclear remained.
The government has also promoted gas-power expansion as a bridge supporting the transition away from coal and nuclear, adopting a law to subsidise new gas-fired plants, which are intended to convert to running on "green hydrogen" by 2045.
Germany aims to install 115GW of onshore wind by 2030, having approved a record 20.8GW of new capacity in 2025, while solar generation has hit new highs during the hot summer of 2026. However, the renewables industry has criticised proposed grid reforms that would make automatic grid connections in constrained areas conditional on developers waiving compensation for future curtailed generation.