We can win the battle against energy scarcity
The tide is turning against policies that lead to deindustrialisation
Should we worry about blackouts?
During the 2021-22 energy crisis, much of Europe worried about and prepared for blackouts. In Germany, the economy ministry issued recommendations for citizens, including reducing air conditioning and home heating use. German news site Der Spiegel reported that a draft regulation on restrictions to avoid blackouts might include limiting the use of electric vehicles. A city official in Hamburg warned that “warm water could only be made available at certain times of the day in an emergency,” and residents in Saxony were told that they could only use hot water for showers between specific hours of the day. City councils nationwide were also asked to switch off traffic lights at night, stop illuminating historic buildings, and reduce the use of air conditioners, among other energy-saving measures.
Some writers have pointed out the similarities between this crisis and 1970s-style energy rationing in Germany when an oil embargo resulted in government mandates to use dimmer lights and avoid driving on Sundays.
Although the blackout risk for Germany has passed, the legacy of energy scarcity is visible across Europe in other ways. In Germany, high energy prices have resulted in the closure of manufacturing companies, including major car makers like Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz. Germany was once an economic powerhouse, but high energy prices are not compatible with energy-intensive industries, and now the country’s purchasing managers' index (PMI) - which measures the prevailing direction of economic trends in manufacturing - shows that the German construction sector has been declining since early 2022, and manufacturing has been in decline since mid-2023.
Germany - and Europe generally - are now facing deindustrialisation due to the end of cheap Russian piped gas and the shutting of reliable nuclear power stations.
A tale of two transitions
In the 1990s, over a third of electricity in the newly reunited Germany came from 17 nuclear reactors. In 2010, Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy as part of its Energiewende approach to rely only on ‘renewable’ energy.
Energiewende proponents argue that some of the highs and lows of the energy transition were necessary, and Germany’s expansion of renewable energy is a good thing overall. They ignore the fact that maintaining grid stability in Germany in 2021 cost the country €1.4 billion in 2020 and €2.3 billion in 2021 due to transmission congestion, which is when conventional power stations are paid to reduce output.
They also ignore the increase in cost for consumers - families and businesses - for whom electricity prices have risen sharply as Energiewende has expanded. Between 2005 and 2014, residential electricity prices in Germany increased by more than the average total residential cost in the US. In early 2020, electricity prices for household consumers in Germany were the highest in Europe. Other writers have observed that those emissions “virtually cancel out the 335 Mt saving across the entire European Union that were intended to be brought about by the 2011 Energy Efficiency Directive from the European Commission”.
Still, ‘renewables’ proponents argue that increased CO2 and dependence on lignite coal were necessary for the energy transition to succeed. When they say this, they are ignoring the case study of France, which shows a provable path of success that took place in roughly a decade, while Germany’s equally long energy transition has yet to achieve its goal of relying on only wind and solar power.
Energy crises are not new - the oil crisis of 1973-74 caused the worst recession in Western societies since World War II. France and Germany were heavily impacted at the time, but the countries took different approaches. German support for nuclear energy was very strong in the 1970s following the oil price shock of 1974, but the government would later turn against nuclear energy. In France, there was a saying - “we don't have oil, but we have ideas,” - and the country responded to the crisis with the Messmer plan for France to go “all nuclear, all electric”. In roughly a decade, the country had achieved energy security with the extensive use of nuclear energy - close to 80% of French electrical consumption at its peak came from nuclear energy - and France maintains a primarily clean and reliable energy grid today.
Glorifying energy scarcity
We take energy for granted. This comes from the old environmentalist idea that we once lived in simpler and, therefore, better times when we had fewer creature comforts and limited technology. Reducing personal energy use has also become synonymous with anti-human rhetoric despite the fact that increased economic growth and energy consumption have historically led to better environmental standards and outcomes.
A recent example of a Washington Post journalist arguing that we should bathe in cold water demonstrates the ongoing glorification of energy scarcity by people who are the most energy-rich individuals in the world. The writer argues that heating water harms the planet as it "gobbles energy". The article neglects to cover the fact that being alive also “gobbles energy”. There is no way around that, discounting the most ardent Malthusian who believes in population reduction by force. The technologies we have access to in energy-rich nations, such as hot water and soap, which kill germs, and home heating, are not superfluous to our needs but essential for basic hygiene and healthy lifestyles.
Virtue signalling about reducing one’s own carbon footprint may make people like this journalist feel good, but the impact of lifestyle choices like bathing in cold water is frankly infinitesimal given the scale of the problem. In order to live well, humans use a lot of energy. Overall, the hyperfocus on individual footprints distracts us from the effective large-scale solutions that need to be implemented to improve life on this planet.
At a crossroads: Vietnam
There is good news: the tide is turning in some parts of the world, as people are beginning to realise that they need to aim for energy abundance over scarcity. Vietnam is one of these countries.
Vietnam set a net zero carbon target for 2050 and hoped to reduce the proportion of coal in the primary energy mix to 30% by 2030, to be replaced by natural gas, wind, and solar power. A decade ago, the country made a gamble similar to Germany’s by opting to abandon nuclear power, citing safety and cost as reasons. Now, Vietnam needs help with its energy supply, which its government has realised is essential for the country to maintain adequate industrial growth.
Aiming to rely on only wind and solar power in Vietnam has been unsuccessful, and it has hit industry hard. As the Financial Times reports, “The country has dramatically increased coal imports, defying its own renewable energy targets, as well as posing a potential problem for companies under pressure to decarbonise supply chains.”
Despite being more reliable than wind and solar power, even hydropower has limits: “Vietnam is now exiting the dry season, when dwindling hydropower perennially threatens blackouts, which disrupted factories such as Samsung’s in 2023.”
Unlike Germany, Vietnam cannot afford to take a hit on its economy. To compete on a level playing field for industry and the development that comes with it, Vietnam now plans to secure sufficient energy supplies to enable chip and other technology companies to flourish at home. As international competition grows and electricity shortages become a top business worry, chip manufacturers are looking overseas to set up camp. Vietnam is prioritising growth, now working with 36 universities to train at least 50,000 engineers in anticipation of attracting industry at home.
Energy is life. Without it, the cogs of human civilisation cease to turn. Vietnam has realised that deindustrialisation and energy security are the real costs of gambling with energy policy and is now aiming to fix this. Had the country opted for an energy policy including nuclear energy from the outset, it could have met its net zero goals as well as attracting industry and enabling growth.
At a crossroads: Switzerland
Switzerland is on a roll. The country just won the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest, and it has had a successful clean energy grid for many years, with hydropower acting as a baseload supply. The country’s energy mix comprises roughly 60% hydropower at its peak, 30-40% nuclear power, and the remainder comes from thermal power plants and renewable energy facilities. Switzerland has four operational nuclear power stations that generate roughly a third of the nation’s energy needs, but it is also a net importer of energy, as although it produces large quantities of energy in summer, in winter Switzerland has to contend with increased energy usage and reduced hydropower output.
‘Clean energy’ does not always mean ‘reliable energy’. Despite its clean grid, Switzerland was not safe from energy scarcity during the most recent energy crisis - in 2021, the crisis-management organisation Ostral advised around 30,000 Swiss companies that were each consuming more than 100,000 kilowatt hours per year that they might have to reduce energy usage by 10% to 30% in the event of an energy shortage.
In 2022, the Swiss government announced that residents should “prepare for blackouts” by stockpiling candles, firewood, food and gas cookers amid fears of rolling four-hour regional blackouts in the winter if efforts to conserve energy did not meet certain thresholds. The Swiss government has also presented proposals to block websites during power outages, including measures that would restrict the transmission of large data files on the mobile phone network. Although this is an emergency measure, it demonstrates the lack of security in the energy landscape. Swiss citizens are increasingly worried about this.
A recent example of energy scarcity hitting Switzerland is the impact on traditional Swiss bakeries. Last year, the bakery chain Chrigubeck declared bankruptcy, and this year, the Flury bakery followed suit. With seven branches in total, this company was one of the largest in the bakery sector and had been successful for 32 years. Two production sites and five sales outlets had to be closed, and 90 employees lost their jobs. This is sad news for a country that prides itself on its bread.
Instead of remedying energy instability by adding more reliable energy to the grid, Switzerland is taking lessons from Germany. In 2017, Swiss citizens voted to decommission existing nuclear power plants, ban the construction of new ones, and adopt Energy Strategy 2050, a reform that promotes ‘renewables’.
There are currently four nuclear power stations in operation in Switzerland: Beznau 1 and 2, Goesgen, and Leibstadt. In 2022, they were responsible for approximately 36% of total Swiss electricity generation. Under current legislation, they will be phased out in favour of ‘renewables’.
Yet by 2050, experts estimate that Switzerland will need around 50% more electricity than it does today, especially due to the huge increase in electric cars and heat pumps as the country embraced electrification. A 2023 report by the Swiss federal technology institute, the Energy Science Centre (ESC), found that:
“Energy security can therefore be further improved by expanding technologies that can provide or save electricity in winter, e.g. wind, alpine PV, seasonal heat storage or nuclear power.”
And: “nuclear reactors provide electricity also in hours with low solar irradiation, making it especially useful for reducing required winter imports.”
The Swiss government has stated that “The aim is to produce more energy in Switzerland” and has committed to investing in clean energy technologies. This seems ironic considering the country’s current stance on nuclear energy.
Due to ideology trumping reason, nuclear energy is often excluded from the debate: as I covered in this journal article in 2022, nuclear energy is even absent from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The simplest way to avoid blackouts and energy scarcity is to build more reliable power plants. Due to having set net zero goals, most nations don’t want to rely on fossil fuels, so instead of coal and gas, this means building clean and reliable power plants, ie nuclear. Unfortunately, net zero goals across Europe have somehow become synonymous with ‘renewables’, meaning that they exclude nuclear energy for nonsensical reasons. The latest example of this illogic is hitting France, which is being fined 500 million euros under the EU’s 2022 renewable energy targets for not meeting its renewables targets, despite having one of the cleanest electricity grids in Europe.
With concerns of energy scarcity growing and logic on their side, some Swiss citizens are fighting back.
A changing climate
A Swiss initiative is fighting back against policies that risk energy scarcity. It’s unlikely that you’ve heard of them, as ‘pro-nuclear’ groups rarely obtain worldwide coverage and airtime the way that anti-nuclear groups do, even though they are just as passionate and arguably more logical than the opposition. The mainstream media has a clear bias in favour of anti-nuclear activists, and as soon as a ‘pro-nuclear’ voice comments on energy policy, journalists and activists alike are quick to label them as ‘lobbyists’, ‘shills’ and other ad hominem attacks designed to dilute the balancing voice in the room.
So let me tell you about the Swiss initiative Stop au Blackout (Stop Blackouts).
Launched by Club Energie Suisse (the Swiss Energy Club) in 2023, Stop au Blackout aims to overturn the ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants in Switzerland and amend the Swiss constitution so that “all forms of climate-friendly electricity production are permitted”. The group argues that it should be stipulated in the Federal Constitution that “the electricity supply in Switzerland, which is important for society and the economy, must be guaranteed at all times and that all environmentally and climate-friendly forms of electricity generation are permitted, including nuclear energy. At the same time, the responsibilities for a secure electricity supply in our country must be defined."
To achieve its aim, Stop Blackouts aimed to collect and submit a minimum of 100,000 signatures to reopen the debate about the role of nuclear energy in Switzerland. Although the energy law reform was endorsed by 58% of voters in 2017, the tide may have turned since people have lived through an energy crisis. A survey published in 2023 found that over half of all Swiss citizens believe nuclear power plants are important for preventing electricity shortages, 64% of respondents are opposed to the closure of Swiss nuclear plants by 2037, and 56% are “for or rather in favour” of the rapid construction of new nuclear plants to secure the country’s electricity supply.
Stop au Blackout is making a sensible demand: that electricity must be available for Swiss citizens at all times, and the country’s energy policy should include all forms of clean energy generation.
A changing climate #2
Climate change was one of the issues at the top of the list for discussion during the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, a town in the Swiss Alps. 2023 was the hottest year on record with high temperatures, and within Europe, Switzerland is particularly vulnerable to climate change.
Switzerland has set a net zero target aiming to emit no more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than can be captured and stored in natural and technological sinks by 2050. To achieve this, the government anticipates that a substantial reduction in emissions from the building sector, transport and industry will be required.
Hence Swiss citizens have backed a new climate law that promotes a shift to renewable energy. The law will financially incentivise replacing oil and gas with renewable energy, with the government pledging 2 billion francs (around €2 billion) for the transition.
Despite making ample promises, the Swiss government has yet to show its citizens how it will achieve its net zero goals. In April of this year, the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz (Climate Seniors’ Association), a group of 2,000 older Swiss women, successfully sued the government in an international court, arguing that Switzerland had failed to protect them from climate change. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the Swiss Government’s climate policies have violated human rights.
The ultimate Swiss nuclear family
A number of people are involved in Stop Blackouts: committee members include the President of The Friborg Center, the President and the Director of the Swiss Energy Club, various political party members, and the Former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Bruno Pellaud.
But let’s take a moment to appreciate the passion behind the movement from one particular family: the Aegeters.
In a nutshell, and without covering their entire expansive careers, Irene Aegeter was once the only female nuclear physics student in Switzerland, and later, she became Head of Communications at the Association of Swiss Electricity Companies (VSE). Irene met her husband, Simon Aegeter, while studying nuclear physics. Simon, once a carpenter, became the chief physicist for the army’s protection troops and Director of the Swiss science centre, Technorama. He finished his doctorate under the Swiss climatologist Hans Oeschger.
They have two sons: Christof Aegeter, a physics professor at the University of Zurich who also sits on the board of the Swiss Physical Society, and Daniel Aegeter, who bucked the family trend by studying banking instead of physics. By engaging with communications, Daniel has provided some much-needed balance for the scientific community, where facts alone do not win hearts and minds. Data is important, but it will only go so far if you don’t have people communicating it effectively. My own work with Emergency Reactor has only been possible due to Daniel’s input and financial backing.
Seldom has a physics-loving family been so influential and important for the world of science. It is often said that democracy dies in darkness, but this is also true of science, where the inverse is true: without scientific reasoning informing political decision-making, we risk inviting both metaphorical darkness in the absence of logic and literal darkness when the lights go out.
Because the Aegeters are a wealthy family, people like to suspect insincere motives and call them ‘lobbyists’. In reality, Irene and Simon, who are in their 80s, could easily enjoy retirement since they have everything they need to enjoy comfortable lives. Instead, a simple search will find Simon answering people’s questions about climate and energy in online forums. They can also afford their own generators, which means they are not directly at risk from blackouts like many Swiss citizens are. They once published a book celebrating nuclear energy, as they believed that this technology would improve the world. For early nuclear physicists, it must have been disheartening to see the public turn against this life-saving technology and watch world leaders commit to continued dependence on fossil fuels instead.
These physicists are passionate about building a better world. They are involved in Stop Blackouts because they can envision a world that is free of energy poverty and scarcity, where science trumps ideology, and where their grandchildren will flourish in a stable climate. Their message is simple: those who prefer to bathe in cold water and live in energy poverty are welcome to do so. But others should not have energy poverty forced upon them. A sensible, evidence-based way forward must prevail.
Their hand has been dealt, as almost 130,000 signatures have now been submitted to the Federal Chancellery for consideration. What happens next remains to be seen. But there is hope for Switzerland, and for developing countries like Vietnam if they can buck the trend of energy scarcity and deindustrialisation. The question that remains is: what will the world’s most developed, industrialised countries choose to do? Will they choose energy abundance or scarcity? As the popular saying goes - Which way, Western man?
"...residents in Saxony were told that they could only use hot water for showers between specific hours of the day. "
This is oddly reminiscent of the chaos in Rumania at the end of the Ceaucescu regime in 1989. Because the country could not afford to buy the needed quantity of bunker oil from the Gulf States, Rumania had to cut back electricity supplies to all householders. They were limited to about 8 hours a day of power. The emergency only ended with the overthrow and execution of the Ceaucescus. (The lesson here is that politicians who allow their citizens to be indefinitely shorted of electricity will meet an unpleasant and final termination.)
Rumania's response was to redouble its efforts to complete and start up its two nuclear power reactors at Cernavoda which had been unreasonably delayed by the Ceaucescu regime. Thanks to this, today, Rumania produces about 17-18 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, whereas in 1990 it was producing zero.
So Zion is right that deindustrialization is not inevitable. It can be overcome by the determination of its citizens. Rumania did despite truly dreadful circumstances. But for those who refuse to learn the lessons of history, the future is one of industrial shutdowns, mass migration of both businesses and populations, economic collapse, and, in the case of truly stubborn, ideologues in power, overthrow by ballots or bullets.
So, Greens of Germany, you have a choice. Continue down the road to your political extinction or reform yourselves and your idiotic antinuclear policies. And a word of advice: Yuri Andropov has been dead for 40 years. You have no good reason to still be doing what he wanted.
Great, in-depth, and thoughtful article. I always learn something new reading your posts. I appreciate the insight into what’s going on in Vietnam and Switzerland.