A dispute over energy policy has emerged between Environment Minister Carsten Schneider (SPD) and his cabinet colleague, Katherina Reiche (CDU). While the former acknowledges that renewable energies supplied only 20 percent of Germany’s total consumed energy so far, the minister responsible for climate protection argues that Reiche’s calculation is misleading because it focuses solely on primary energy demand.
Schneider points out that primary energy demand encompasses massive conversion and transport losses, which “only occur because we use inefficient energy carriers like coal and oil”. He argues that a combustion engine converts only 25 to 40 percent of the energy used for motion, whereas electric drives achieve an efficiency of 80 to 90 percent when moving vehicles.
This technical challenge follows previous statements by Reiche in the FAZ, where she highlighted that renewable sources had covered more than half of the electricity demand. However, she also noted that their share of total German energy consumption-including sectors like transport and heating-is only one-fifth. Indeed, even when considering different international benchmarks, the data remains modest. Organizations like the International Energy Agency (IEA), the EU, and the World Bank measure total final energy consumption (TFEC) or gross final energy consumption (GFEC), accounting for the conversion losses of fossil generation. Even with this broader view, recent data shows that renewables account for a maximum of 22.5 percent.
Reiche has been criticized for allegedly attempting to slow down the energy transition through a recent “hattrick” of three draft laws. These include a reform of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) that contains adjustments to private solar subsidies; a plant strategy favoring new gas facilities to act as a supply buffer during periods of low renewable output; and a grid package aimed at encouraging solar and wind farms to settle where their electricity can actually be transmitted.
Although Schneider does not directly address her plans, his article conveys clear skepticism. He asserts that it would be “absurd to slow down the energy transition of all”. He stresses that the current price crisis has exposed Germany’s vulnerability to foreign oil and gas, branding wind and solar power as “security energies”. Furthermore, he argues that electrifying mobility and heating will stimulate investment in domestic technologies, raising added value while “lowering consumption and easing the burden on the wallet”.
Reiche, conversely, expresses concern that an excessive focus on renewables risks compromising both affordability and supply security. She countered the idea that exiting fossil fuels and expanding renewables can be easily achieved, writing that the electricity prices have skyrocketed while Germany clings to “nice numbers” such as climate neutrality by 2045. She lamented that, “our industry is bleeding, and deindustrialization is accelerating”. This view stands in stark contrast to Schneider’s optimism regarding cost savings, where he concludes that “the green economy is a growth market, and we maintain our climate goals for these economic reasons”.