A fundamental disagreement over energy policy has emerged between Environment Minister Carsten Schneider (SPD) and his cabinet colleague, Katherina Reiche (CDU). While Reiche points out that renewable energy sources currently account for only 20 percent of total energy consumption in Germany, Schneider, who is responsible for climate protection, contests this figure in an op-ed piece for the FAZ. He argues that the calculation is misleading because it focuses solely on primary energy supply.
In arguing against this narrow scope, Schneider reminds Reiche that primary energy demand includes significant losses during conversion and transport, losses that mainly occur because the country relies on inefficient fossil fuels like coal and oil. He highlights the technological inefficiencies, pointing out that a combustion engine converts only 25 to 40 percent of the energy input into movement, whereas electric drives achieve 80 to 90 percent efficiency on the road.
Schneider’s critique is consistent with data previously presented by Reiche, who noted that renewable sources now supply more than half of Germany’s electricity needs, though only one-fifth of the overall national energy consumption, including heat and transport. In fact, expert bodies like the International Energy Agency (IEA), the EU, and the World Bank measure gross final energy consumption (GFEC) or final consumption (TFEC), metrics which are even more comprehensive and exclude the conversion losses associated with fossil generation. Even adhering to these broader measures, recent data still show that renewables account for a maximum of 22.5 percent.
However, Schneider’s implicit opposition extends to Reiche’s recent policy proposals, which he accuses of slowing the energy transition. These measures include a planned reform of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG)-which cuts private subsidies for solar power; a power plant strategy designed to build new gas facilities to serve as a buffer during periods of low demand; and a grid package that financially rewards solar, wind, and storage facilities based on where their power can be efficiently transported.
Though he avoids direct criticism, Schneider’s stance is decidedly skeptical of her plans. He describes any deceleration of the energy transition at this moment as “absurd”. He stresses that the current price crisis powerfully illustrates Germany’s dangerous reliance on imported oil and gas, positioning wind and solar as “safety energies”. According to Schneider, moving towards an electrified mobility and heating sector drives investment in domestic technology and value creation, ultimately reducing overall consumption and easing financial burdens.
Reiche’s concerns, conversely, are focused on the practical difficulties of the transition. She argues that the excessive focus on renewables jeopardizes both affordability and supply security. As she wrote in the FAZ, the journey away from fossil fuels while building up renewables is “not that simple”. She criticizes the focus on “pretty numbers” such as the goal of climate neutrality by 2045, arguing that in the meantime, electricity prices have skyrocketed, causing “our industry [to] bleed out, deindustrialization is accelerating”. This stands in sharp contrast to Schneider’s upbeat outlook, who maintains that the “green economy is a growth market” and that sticking to climate goals remains economically necessary, despite the challenges.
