According to the IEA‘s global electricity mix, non-renewable, unsustainable and highly polluting fossil fuels still make up 57% of electricity production with the much talked about oil – Strait of Hormuz, etc. – being just 2%. Oil is used to make petrol for cars still running on combustion engines, but it is not much used to make electricity.

By contrast, renewables come in at an ever-increasing percentage with wind and solar are 17% and hydropower 14%. Not to be forgotten: the atomic power of Chernobyl and Fukushima, at 9%.

In Germany, solar makes up 33%, coal 27%, natural gas 13%, wind 11%, biomass 9% and others 7%. According to Germany’s “windmesse.de”, Germany runs on 62% renewable energy for electricity generation. Sadly, natural gas still made up 13.4%.

Worldwide, the share of natural gas in global electricity generation fell from 23.9% in 2020 to 21.8% in 2025. Still, gas remains the world’s second-largest source of electricity generation with a 22% share of total output, behind only coal at 33%. Gas makes up a much bigger slice in places like the US (40%) than in, for example, India (2%) or China (3%).

Despite all this, Germany is at a critical point in its energy transition towards renewables. While Germany’s conservative government fancies building new gas-fired power plants, this raises a fundamental question: is Germany building a bridge to a carbon-neutral age?

A recent study by the highly respected Wuppertal Institute (WI) debunks the conservative government’s fairytale of gas-fired power plants as an alternative energy source. The study proves that Germany does not need fossil-fuel power plants. The results are clear: there is a strong mandate for sustainable energy generation.

Before Germany invests billions in new gas-fired power plants, it needs energy efficiency and the systematic reduction of non-sustainable energy sources. In other words, each megawatt Germany does not have to produce is the cheapest and cleanest contribution to security of supply and to sustainability.

New capacities may only come in as a subordinate option. The conservative government’s “business as usual” reliance on fossils like gas is, as a general rule, neither necessary nor useful. Climate protection occurs where power is essentially solar, wind, biomass and green hydrogen.

In addition, any construction of new power plants must follow strict decarbonisation pathways. Whether and how many new power plants are needed depends on many mutually influencing factors and cannot be answered definitively.

It is clear that Germany needs far fewer new power plants than Katherina Reiche plans. Reiche is Germany’s staunchly conservative minister for energy, at the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE).

Evil heretics might be tempted to say she is Merz‘s pretty face of neoliberal fundamentalism, versed in repeating the central lines of Hayek’s catechism. Given current trends, the plans of the ultra-neoliberal Reiche are not necessary. Vast sums can be saved by not constructing new fossil-fuel power stations.

If, for example, load-reducing efficiency measures in German industry move forward, Germany avoids costs while reducing CO2.

Meanwhile, the corporate-media-engineered “debate” about the security of energy supply is, more often than not, illogical and based on fear rather than reality. It follows the logic of fear, not the logic of a sustainable energy mix.

In particular, Minister Reiche suggests that without massive construction of new gas-fired power plants in Germany, the lights will literally go out. This is first-class fearmongering of the kind that, during the 1970s, gave Germany plenty of expensive but rather unnecessary atomic power stations, whose radioactive waste is still looking for a place to be dumped.

By contrast, a modern, digital and renewable energy system, the WI argues, is highly flexible and capable of mastering virtually all future challenges. Still, bottlenecks may occur once every couple of years.

Germany still has so-called “cold dark doldrums” [Dunkelflauten], when there are many days with neither wind nor sun. For these rare cases, a cascade of flexibility options (efficiency measures, load reductions without restricting production, and green backup power plants) can be used to cover Germany’s energy needs.

Recently, the environmental NGO Greenpeace introduced a new and as yet hardly discussed proposal into the German debate: the “derating of loads” in Germany’s industry. It argues that:

• during those rare occasions of particularly long-lasting phases without renewable electricity generation, some energy-intensive industrial processes should be temporarily and voluntarily shut down, in exchange for compensation.

The result of the WI study is clear: there is a way out of fossil-fuel dependency. First, Germany can lower loads. It can use AI-driven rather than profit-driven flexibility. In an emergency, it can rely on climate-neutral backup systems to generate energy. According to Greenpeace, the short-term shutdown of energy-intensive industries should be considered – perhaps for our common survival given global warming or, at least for the thousands of deaths because of heat.

A deeper look at the important results leads to the following conclusions on alternatives and flexibility options:

• A more targeted approach to energy efficiency is needed.
• Demand-guided response on the “demand” side should be fostered for industry.
• This includes the use of batteries: wholesale batteries, home storage and vehicle storage.
• Flexible electrolysis and controllable heat pumps need to be introduced.
• More “power-to-heat” plants should be fostered.
• The development of biogas plants and geothermal power plants needs to increase.

All of this should be underwritten by a future energy system with a high share of fluctuating renewable energies and more flexibility options in the interaction of all systems. This should include frequency control and better regulation of existing reserves.

Since the summer of 2025, Germany’s government has changed its plan for power plant construction significantly. The BMWE is seeking to construct power plants of up to 20 GW by 2030.

Yet it is highly uncertain whether new capacity at this level will be required at all. However, given Germany’s present course towards a greenhouse-gas-neutral energy system (by 2045), an increase in power demand is probable.

But because the great potential of alternative (read: renewable) and more flexible energy options can cover Germany’s base load, energy security can, on balance, be achieved at lower cost and with lower environmental impact if the measures outlined above are taken, compared with Reiche‘s simplistic but profitable plan to just build more natural gas power stations.

This plan comes despite the fact that an unfaltering “free market” ideologue like Minister Reiche is pushing state-subsidised gas power stations. Never mind the contradiction between “reality” and “ideological convictions”.

Yet all this boils down to a decision between the ingenuity of using sustainable energy in a smart way, as advocated by the WI. OR: the highly profitable construction of environmentally damaging natural gas power stations, as pushed by Reiche.

---