Remix.run Logo
marcosdumay 4 hours ago

What is not on the title:

For an entire year, that year being 2025.

Also, yes, absolute generation from fossil fuels is declining quickly. The total generation is changing way more slowly than that share.

novaRom 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But so is German industry - every day in the news either insolvency or workforce reduction and moving production to Eastern Europe - main reason often stated "expensive Energy". I wonder what are the stats for industrial production in 2025 or total energy consumption in Germany?

freehorse 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Discussion about nuclear reactors aside, energy in germany became expensive when they cut off russian gas and they had no good alternative. There was no other source of cheap fossil fuels for electricity production. If anything, renewables are promoted as a solution to that energy problem.

The discussion about fossil fuels vs renewables is a bit different within countries which produce fossil fuels than within those that don't.

Abimelex an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Gas became expensive, energy for private houeholds became expensive, despite that electric energy for industries is currently on the same level as 2020. Even though there was a short spike in 2022. See: https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic-article/5892/216044/indus...

troupo 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Discussion about nuclear reactors aside, energy in germany became expensive when they cut off russian gas and they had no good alternative.

Why aside? Germany had to burn gas and coal to compensate for the nuclear reactors they shut down, (and to import electricity from France which didn't shut down the reactors). Germany could've weathered the transition much better, and suffered without Russian gas much less had they not shut down their reactors.

RandomLensman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Germany cut off Russian gas? Gazprom suspended supply indefinitely via NS1 before it was destroyed.

goobatrooba an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Markets are now committed than a single pipeline. Germany was importing most gas through other channels - pipelines through Eastern and Southern Europe and shipping - as well as of course plenty of oil. While the NortStream cut had a significant short term impact it took much more effort to wean the country off all the other routes.

RandomLensman an hour ago | parent [-]

NS1 had like 30% of German gas imports (Russia in total around 50%).

1239176 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is a half truth. A turbine was broken, repaired in Canada, which required a lot of bureaucracy. Then the turbine was shipped to Germany. Then the Russians started their own bureaucracy and came up with excuses why the turbine could not be installed.

During that time Nord Stream was blown up.

The point is moot, since Putin has offered multiple times to open the remaining intact pipe:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/putin-urges-germany-...

And the broken pipes can be repaired, as was determined in the LLoyds lawsuit recently.

I'm not saying that reopening would be reliable, but it would be one diversification away from US and Qatar dependencies. The US just cut the EU off from Qatar gas.

freehorse 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When we are talking about countries, what matters is the political decisions, not the technical details imo.

RandomLensman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What German political decision back then do you mean that cut off supply via NS1?

freehorse 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Political decisions that lead to that point and geopolitical situation. The russians cut the gas on their terms because it would have happened anyway and they were not stupid. Then somebody else blew the pipe up and the whole discussion conveniently ended. The divestment from russian economy and blocking imports was already established, but germany and others could not phase out the gas that fast.

RandomLensman 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Still, when did Germany cut off Russian gas back then? I don't think there is particular complexity in the sequence of events back then. Germany back then was not seeking an end to supplies then and there, if I recall correctly.

uecker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But it did exactly this. The pipeline was not the only way to import Russian gas.

RandomLensman an hour ago | parent [-]

What exactly did Germany do when? You mean after a huge supply cut by Russia, Germany moved to reduce/end use of Russian gas?

uecker 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

Russia did not completely cut gas exports to Europa, but reduced in substantially, but this was a reaction to sanctions and the decision in Europa to reduce imports from Russia (but more slowly). In fact, Russia still exports to countries in Europa (to be ended in 2027), but Germany stopped gas imports from Russia in September 2022.

bluGill 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The German political decision to not join with Russia and invade Ukraine (via Poland?).

Just because it was the right decision doesn't mean there are not downsides.

RandomLensman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Accepting potential consequences is not the same as oneself cutting things off. Germany did not seek to end supplies then and there.

Edit: there was never any chance of Germany invading Ukraine then/joining Russia on any invasion.

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't matter what they wanted to do. What matters is what happened. As a result of their actions they got cut off. If Germany had invaded Ukraine (via Poland?) the gas might still be on. Of course we don't know that because other countries would likely take offense to that action and I'm not willing to predict how the world would change if they had. (I can't even imagine change would cause them to be willing to invade in the first place, much less how everyone else would respond.)

Politics often are about the unintended consequences. Often they are also unforeseen.

RandomLensman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Germany joining the Russian invasion was never anything even remotely in the option space at all - utterly inconceivable in 2022. (Not aware of Russia seeking any such support there either.)

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it is clear to everybody that wasn't an possible option.

There are consequences for it that though.

RandomLensman an hour ago | parent [-]

Sorry, but I think it is absurd to say there was a Russian reaction because Germany did not join their invasion of Ukraine,

bluGill an hour ago | parent [-]

The absurdity is intentional.

However it is still correct. If Germany had joined Russia (and got away with it!), there is every reason to think the pipeline would still be flowing.

emsign 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ukraine would have blown up the pipeline anyway. And the land pipelines would have been cut off to Germany by the Eastern Europeans. So no, the gas would not still be flowing with a high probability. That's so absurd.

inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Probably not directly invading, but there was a strong possibility of Germany supporting the Russian invasion, just as they're doing with the invasion of Iran.

emsign 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That was never considered by anyone in German politics. It's the first time I'm hearing about this here in these posts.

RandomLensman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There was absolutely no possibility for Germany supporting the Russian invasion.

inigyou 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well I mean they already did support the invasion for a while by buying their gas.

igl 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

A strong possibility? Where do you get your news from?

netsharc 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think what grandparent is very very fucking poorly trying to say is, Germany/EU could've accepted the "annexation" of Ukraine like it did Crimea in 2014. "Bad Putin! But what can we do."

pydry 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Canada sanctioned the repaired gas turbines needed to operate NS1. They flip flopped on their decision some time later though.

This was spun as a Russian decision, but western countries were clearly trying to force Germany's hand.

Paradigma11 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If you take a look at ng prices you will see that the prices went up more than half a year before Russias invasion of Ukraine: https://www.macrotrends.net/3235/eu-natural-gas-prices The reason for this was because Gazprom stopped supplying the spot market and also bought storage capacity and kept it empty. All of that only made sense after the invasion to better blackmail Europe. It was their bad luck that China allowed them to attack only after the Olympics which took most of the force out of that blow. Anyway there was no sane way to continue this business relationship.

stefan_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And then Russia refused to install the turbine, proving it was a ploy all along. Like the maintenance in the first place. Which is why they acquired gas storage in Germany, then ran it low timed with their illegal war of aggression. This is a theme of course; Russia invented another gas crisis every few years with Ukraine. It should have been a warning sign when they settled them by taking payment in the form of Soviet-era cruise missiles.

The gas was never cheap, either; apart from the money spent now to restrain the military buildup and invasion it financed, even at the height of supplies it was much higher price than China is paying, a price sustained by Russia using military force and more to restrain other (Asian) countries from supplying to Europe.

(This was obvious to everyone, right? A single majority supplier nation state charging a cheap price out of the kindness of their heart? No, of course not; neither cheap nor kind. It was a monopoly, built on blood.)

pydry an hour ago | parent [-]

They installed it and then they took the pipeline down for planned maintenance.

it's a little rich to accuse them of playing games with gas after the stunt Canada pulled and most especially after a western partner subsequently blew up the pipeline and blamed it on Russia.

Clearly certain western allies decided that Germany couldnt be trusted to make its own decisions about where Germany gets its energy.

RandomLensman an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They reopened the pipeline after the planned maintenance. Then they said there was another issue and suspended supply indefinitely, and then the pipeline got destroyed.

stefan_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Prices going up 1000%? Time for maintenance!

If you want to see their approach to maintenance while prices and needs are high, watch them put oil refineries back in operation days after drone hits.

pydry 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

"Our allies pushed our gas prices up 1000% how dare you not cancel your pre-scheduled maintenance!"

RandomLensman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think the turbine that was serviced in Canada was causal there. The turbine thing was earlier, as far as I recall it. Gazprom announced its decision in early Sep 2022, btw.

tuatoru 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Germany had no good alternative because its politicians deliberately put it in the position of having no good alternative.

Something is wrong with Germany. Go to Our World InData's Electricity Production per Capita page and have a look at Germany, Vietnam, and say Israel.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-electricity-ge...

Helmut10001 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You make it sound like there is a causality here. I would be careful. German GDP is declining for other reasons, not for their commitment to renwables. Also, by all measures, living in Germany still means you get one of the most comfortable, secure and free lives on earth. I wouldn't give up on Germany so fast. They still know how to work and often work, even if there is no reason to work (i.e looking at their current regulations, which rather motivate you to _not_ work).

VorpalWay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Arguably Sweden (and possibly the other Nordic countries too) are even better places to live (or at least equally good). Well, as long as you can stand the climate and the lack of sun in the winter.

We have right to roam in nature here, which is quite rare across the world (and even compared to the few other countries that have something similar, the Swedish variant is stronger). I wouldn't trade that for anything.

puchatek 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't think the comment above meant to say there's nothing better than Germany. Instead the claim was that 1) Germany's decline is not due to renewables and 2) despite the decline it's still a pretty good place to live.

WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>They still know how to work and often work, even if there is no reason to work (i.e looking at their current regulations, which rather motivate you to _not_ work).

Ummm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a...

At least according to the list, Americans work ten weeks more a year than their German counterpart.

I would bet everything that life, at least right now, is comfy. But I don't see it as remotely sustainable.

jltsiren 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ten weeks more, if you average over workers. You get a smaller difference if you average over working-age people. Germans are more likely to choose a part-time job voluntarily, while Americans are more likely to be completely outside the workforce.

marcosdumay 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Looks stable:

https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/industrial-production-m...

Of course, stable is probably bad here. But it's not declining.

Abimelex 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

also the raised energy prices are fake news regarding indutrial prices, which are differently taxed in Germany than consumer prices. https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic-article/5892/216044/indus...

martin_a 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More often that not I think this is a cheap excuse. When you look at struggling companies (take the car industry for example), I think the issue is more about missing innovation and building things that people don't want or can't afford anymore in Germany.

hdgvhicv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

U.K. energy is expensive because it’s all based on the cost of gas.

Onshore wind and solar is about £40-50

Offshore wind about £60

Gas about £120

That’s generation cost, before subsidies and levees

But we still haven’t put in an emergency legislation to make it easier to build cheaper energy.

tialaramex 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It also takes time. You've doubtless seen headlines about the Contracts for Difference Allocation Rounds 7 and 7a, or perhaps even Round 8 taking place now.

But those headlines are about the step where you find out who won these auctions because that's when that magic price number is known, wind power for £68.35 per MWh or whatever.

Going from the fun headline to actual contract signing in which there's a legal promise to actually try to make electricity and get paid, takes several months. After they've signed they begin the actual work, which still includes planning not just the mechanical aspects.

Just building a solar farm might take 12 months, and wind farms are often slower.

AR6 took place in 2024, you'd have read headlines back then about some excellent solar farms, getting paid about £50 per MWh. First, those are 2012 prices, for comparison reasons they choose a base year and then calculate inflation adjusted pricing in reality but I bet that £50 figure was what you saw in a headline, of course the solar farm didn't exist in 2012, so £50 per MWh was never the real price.

More importantly though, those solar farms weren't built in 2024. The plan when the bids went in, said 2026/27 for some and 2027/28 for the majority. A few of those AR6 solar farms (by no means the majority) were live in time for the July sunshine, in 2026. But you've already read headlines about AR7, and like I said maybe even AR8.

A big boost in practice is home install. A big business can take six years to do contract paperwork, get something signed off, build it and then commission it. A home owner is angry after six weeks without work done. Where are my fucking panels? You were going to install solar panels, make it happen! So lots of individuals and small businesses which own a building with a roof installed a few panels, they might add up to only 5kW each but if a million people do that it's 5GW of nameplate electricity generation, a sizeable fraction of UK usage for several hours per day.

Tade0 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hailing from Germany's eastern neighbor, where part of the industry went to and where energy is even more expensive, I call BS.

The main reason Germany was so hooked on gas wasn't because Hans Müller needed to run his Bosch washer-dryer and heat his home to a comfortable 24°C.

It was because natural gas is an great source of hydrogen, which in turn serves as feedstock for the production of all kinds of chemicals used in industry.

That was the engine of Germany's industry, not just energy. Energy has a whole spectrum of solutions - not the case with hydrogen.

tialaramex an hour ago | parent [-]

> Energy has a whole spectrum of solutions - not the case with hydrogen.

Oh my, where ever else will we be able to find hydrogen, the (checks notes) tenth most common element on our planet ?

No, there's actually plenty of hydrogen, what people who say they "need" methane to make hydrogen actually mean is that they don't want to pay what this really costs.

bjourne an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you know of any major German industry for which energy costs amounts to even 10% of the labor costs? It's a rhetorical question intended to engage the common sense pathways of your cognitive system.

moooo99 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Realistically, without running the numbers, only few industries come to mind that may come close. Chemical manufacturing, steel production and maybe glass production as well.

For the remainder, the wage costs - more specifically - the overhead costs are the true killer. If you want to pay someone 80k a year in Germany, the actual costs are closer to 100k a year in purely salary overhead costs, not to mention the other bureaucratic overhead in Germany

Abimelex 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

it's less more around 94k - IMHO the overhead is the bureaucracy that basically forces you to employ a large amount of non-productive workforce in larger companies just for compliance topics.

WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Considering Germany wiffed on the tech boom, and still relies on the same industry as 50 years ago, I'm not sure if you are gesturing that 10% is way too small or way to large. Their three largest exports are all very energy intensive (cars, machinery, chemicals).

_visgean 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i am pretty sure its not energy that domaines the move. eg skoda is now way more profitable than rest of VW. The cost of employment is way higher in DE..

plastic-enjoyer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But so is German industry - every day in the news either insolvency or workforce reduction and moving production to Eastern Europe - main reason often stated "expensive Energy". I wonder what are the stats for industrial production in 2025 or total energy consumption in Germany?

Every First World country seems to be following the path from industrialisation, through deindustrialisation (which, when I was at school, was still called ‘structural change’), to a service-based society. It seems to be the price we pay for economic prosperity and cheap goods - and it is not the first time in Germany this happens.

marcosdumay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People don't like factory work. Given options, they will choose to do some less physically wearing work that pays more, and pay somebody else to do it.

Robots are the answer to reindustrialize the developed world, but that necessarily keeps industry smaller than services.

themaninthedark 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't think you have set foot in a factory recently.

Factory work isn't generally physically demanding, more tedious & repetitive than anything.

It's air conditioned, generally pays a lot more than minimum wage and has benefits.

inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Producing nothing only works as long as there's someone else to produce things for you who wants to produce things for you. It's been China, but only by accident. China is not far away from deindustrializing and then we all suffer.

It's a political choice by our own politicians.

plastic-enjoyer an hour ago | parent [-]

> China is not far away from deindustrializing and then we all suffer.

How? China is actively moving up the value chain, into EVs, batteries, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, etc. China is not abandoning industry.

> It's a political choice by our own politicians.

No, it's mostly how our economic system, how capitalism works. Production goes where production is cheap. You’ll never be able to produce goods in Germany at such low costs as in China or other third-world countries without eroding workers’ rights and thereby creating a new lower class.

themaninthedark 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Or you know, you could demand that the goods being imported are made to the same quality, environmental, health & safety standards as your home country.

But that would turn off the spigot of cheap goods.....

inigyou 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Economic system choice is a political choice...

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Every First World country seems to be following the path from industrialisation, through deindustrialisation

Are you sure? Jobs are no longer in industrial companies, and that isn't where the growth is. However when I look at the numbers I see heavy industry output is still growing.

gregorygoc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s nothing wrong with creative destruction

asdefghyk an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

RE "...... yes, absolute generation from fossil fuels is declining quickly...."

The challenge is to nake renewables reliable accross several days .

This is the most expensive part for needed storage and transmission lines ....