Usually, we at Climate.Table often look at the wide world of climate policy with great interest. But today, we are – pardon us – very German. Two weeks before an important federal election, this is perhaps understandable. And so we’re reporting on the homework that the Council of Experts on Climate Changes has for the next German government. Spoiler: The previous government was better than its reputation, but there’s still a lot of room for improvement.
According to the current polls, this is primarily aimed at the CDU/CSU. For this reason, shortly before the election, we asked CDU climate expert Andreas Jung where his party stands on key energy and climate policy issues. And we run the next popular climate policy demand – to bring Germany’s nuclear power plants back online – through our fact check. Plus, as always, news from many areas.
And, we promise, we’ll be back with a much more globalized perspective next week. You can look forward to analyses on international shipping, the UN countries’ climate plans and news from exotic countries such as Switzerland.
The Council of Experts on Climate Change has called on the next German government to step up climate action and secure public funding. It points out that climate action funding is increasingly at odds with rising defense spending and the need for funding education and infrastructure. It urges the next government to quickly provide clarity here. Gasoline cars and fossil heating systems must be replaced more quickly by eco-friendly alternatives, and the industry needs to invest more in electrification. Although climate action has made progress in the past two years, Germany risks missing its 2030 climate targets due to the slow momentum in the transport and building sectors.
The Council of Experts sees the next German government facing major challenges when it comes to public funding for climate action. Various studies suggest an annual funding deficit of between 29 and 84 billion euros. Although there is revenue from carbon pricing, it is not enough to fill this gap. Public budgets are also under pressure: Government spending on defense, infrastructure and education will be high in the coming years. On top of this, the German economy has been in recession for two years. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and an uncertain US trade policy are further clouding the economic outlook.
The experts suggest that in order to avoid cuts in climate policy or other policy areas, the government could raise taxes, take out additional loans or focus on growth. However, if demand from China continues to fall short of expectations and US trade policy continues to put German exporters under pressure, higher growth can hardly be expected. Tax increases and a reform of the debt ceiling are highly controversial, particularly among the CDU/CSU and the FDP. As a result, the climate finance shortfall could increase further in the coming years. Christoph Bals, Political Director at Germanwatch, therefore calls for “a reform of the debt ceiling” and a reallocation of environmentally harmful subsidies. The Climate Alliance and Greenpeace demand higher taxes for “extremely rich people” and an ecological billionaires’ tax.
The next German government must quickly clarify financing and embed climate policy in an overall political strategy in order to resolve the “conflicting objectives in financial policy,” says the Expert Council. One instrument for this could be the reintroduction of a climate cabinet. The Expert Council proposes coordinating climate policy centrally in the German Federal Chancellery.
The Council of Experts gives the previous government coalition a mixed report card. For example, it has “made a noticeable contribution to reducing” greenhouse gas emissions by speeding up approvals for wind and solar power plants. The Building Energy Act (GEG), which is controversial among the CDU/CSU, and the Heat Planning Act are also important building blocks for reducing future emissions. However, in order to reduce emissions more quickly, “additional measures may be necessary” – also to “avoid the purchase of carbon credits from other countries.” Moreover, part of the reduction in emissions is due to the economic slump and other crisis events.
The Expert Council criticizes the fact that “the phase-out of the fossil capital stock” – i.e., gasoline cars, fossil heating systems and industrial fossil production processes – has not been a political focus. Hans-Martin Henning, Chairman of the Expert Council, therefore considers a “careless withdrawal” of the Building Energy Act, as suggested by the CDU/CSU, to be “dangerous,” as he said at the presentation of the report. Although the Expert Council did not explicitly say so, reversing the gasoline car ban would keep the fossil fuel capital stock alive even longer.
However, the Council members warn that subsidy policy alone is insufficient to quickly push gasoline cars or oil and gas heating systems out of the market. In addition, the EV premium (“environmental bonus”) and subsidies for more efficient buildings have mainly benefited higher-income households. It points to a social imbalance in climate policy that the next German government must address. In France, this is made fairer with dedicated programs for lower income groups, such as social EV leasing, says Brigitte Knopf, Co-Chair of the Expert Council.
“Private households must be protected from fossil lock-ins,” says Knopf. The aim should be to prevent too many households from continuing to install oil and gas heating systems and then incurring high costs due to emissions trading (ETS 2). Knopf proposed socially tiered subsidy programs and a regulatory policy with a stronger focus on social concerns. At least the previous government had taken a first step with the “Carbon Dioxide Cost Sharing Act” and the reform of the modernization levy.
The CDU/CSU, FDP and AfD disagree with the end of the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity in Germany – even though the German parliament unanimously decided to phase out nuclear power in 2011 under the leadership of Angela Merkel’s CDU/SPD government, including with the votes of the FDP. Therefore, they call for a nuclear renaissance in their election manifestos:
To restart nuclear power plants, the German Atomic Energy Act would first have to be amended. It stipulates the “orderly end to the use of nuclear energy for the commercial electricity generation.” This would be possible with a simple parliamentary majority. After that, privately owned operators such as electricity companies would have to be found to operate the plants economically. However, all power companies in Germany that have operated nuclear power plants to date reject this. They shy away from the costs, almost certain lawsuits, the political conflict with the environmental movement – and they see their business elsewhere.
Germany’s more than 20 nuclear power plants have now been shut down. The operating licenses for the remaining three reactors, Emsland, Neckarwestheim 2 and Isar 2, expired on April 15, 2023. Restarting them would create unprecedented technical and regulatory problems: Never before have decommissioned nuclear power plants that have been disconnected from the grid and – in some cases partly dismantled – been put back into operation.
For example, it is unclear whether the nuclear power plants would need a completely new operating license for their second life – and whether this would be practically tantamount to a new license for a new plant, given the current state of technology. In any case, the reactors would need a new “periodic safety review,” which was already due at the Isar 2 nuclear power plant in 2019. As the technical and legal uncertainties are enormous, this would probably entail extensive legal opinions, long and controversial approval processes and lawsuits, which would take up much time and money.
The main reasons preventing a renaissance of nuclear power in liberalized electricity markets with private companies are the high costs and long construction times. The third reactor of the Flamanville nuclear power plant in pro-nuclear France is four times as expensive as planned at almost 13 billion euros and its construction took twelve years longer than anticipated. According to EDF plans, the new Hinkley Point C reactor in the UK will also be delayed by at least twelve years, with costs rising from 20 billion euros to 38 billion euros.
Such nuclear plans would come far too late given Germany’s electricity demand over the next few years, for which gas-fired power plants are currently being planned. Moreover, no private company would be willing to insure new nuclear power plants; the state would have to bear the costs. And the expensive and highly complex search for a German nuclear waste storage facility, which is likely to be delayed until after 2100 anyway, would have to be completely re-planned if new atomic waste from new nuclear power plants were to be added.
There is currently barely any sign of a “fourth or fifth generation” of nuclear power plants. In February 2024, a research report by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management examined these so-called “new reactor concepts,” which are designed to be smaller and more efficient and produce less waste. The conclusion: “Despite years of development in some cases, the concepts are either not yet technologically mature or have not become established for commercial or safety reasons.”
Since all major manufacturers have abandoned such projects, it is also unclear who would build small reactors (SMRs). Lastly, nuclear fusion is still at the basic research stage – it is not expected to generate electricity economically in the coming years. A Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report also shows that CO2 avoidance through renewables is significantly more efficient and cheaper than nuclear power.
The SPD and the Greens, both potential coalition partners of a possible CDU/CSU federal government, reject a return to nuclear technology. At present, there is no political majority for this. However, the CDU/CSU intends to push through a “technical review” to clarify the issue.
The call to restart Germany’s nuclear power plants is a sham debate. Even if parliament were to create the legal basis for this (which is unrealistic with all the coalition options currently being discussed), no private companies would be willing to operate nuclear power plants. Other forms, such as new technologies, small reactors, or nuclear fusion are so far from being commercially viable that they will not play a role in Germany’s energy policy in the coming years and possibly decades.
On Friday last week, the Bundestag held a vote in the morning on energy policy legislation that you negotiated with colleagues from the Greens and the SPD. This was followed in the afternoon by the controversial debate on the joint vote by the CDU/CSU and far-right AfD on migration policy. Has the CDU/CSU undermined trust between the democratic parliamentary groups to such an extent that compromises on climate and energy policy will become more difficult in the future?
The agreement on the energy laws is an example of the capabilities of the political center. We also aimed for majorities in the center to strengthen security and to better manage and limit migration. Last week, an absolutely exceptional situation arose in the Bundestag because members of the AfD announced that they would be requesting a vote on a bill proposed by my parliamentary group. That led to a real dilemma. But one thing is clear: This is not a precedent. Such a situation will not be repeated. No cooperation, no coalition, no minority government with the AfD.
The CDU/CSU wants to make carbon emissions trading (ETS) a “key instrument” in climate action and return the proceeds to consumers and the economy. Who gets what back and how?
The CO2 pricing for buildings and transport will generate revenue of around 15 billion euros in 2025. We will return this by reducing the electricity tax to the European minimum. We will also cap grid fees. Combined, this will result in a reduction of at least five cents per kilowatt-hour for everyone. The electricity price must not become even more of a social issue and a competitive disadvantage for the economy. Affordable electricity benefits green technologies.
The coming years will reveal whether emissions trading will become too expensive too quickly. The control instrument is the issuance of carbon credits. If the economy is dissatisfied with rising energy prices caused by emissions trading, will your party decide to throw more credits onto the market? Or help the economy with subsidy programs?
We firmly believe emissions trading does not unilaterally lead to higher energy prices, but to market-based climate action. This instrument thrives on its credibility. We combine our clear commitment to the climate targets with the conviction that we must retain a strong industry. The European system will be in place in 2027. The carbon prices must develop gradually, without leaps and bounds, and without declines: no overburdening, with a clear price signal for green technologies.
If the carbon price then rises, the burden must be lowered. We are also open to other ways of giving back. However, reliable support for climate technologies must be efficient and pragmatic. The current overregulation of the previous government makes it expensive. Instead of giving individual companies more and more support for certain companies, the focus must return to proper framework conditions for everyone.
The CDU/CSU also promises lower costs and technological openness. However, different technologies also require multiple infrastructures. The state is pre-financing the hydrogen core network. Heating networks must also be built. Your party also calls for a CO2 grid. You want to retrofit the existing natural gas network to be able to use alternatives. This many grids drive up costs.
Gas grids are precious resources. So the first question must be: How can we use these grids for a carbon-neutral future? Since we need a circular CO2 economy, we need an appropriate grid. Such investments can be funded while maintaining sound budgetary management. We believe the path taken with the amortization account for the hydrogen core network is reasonable.
Cutting costs, prioritizing and enabling all technologies simultaneously is not a contradiction?
The only practical way to talk about this is to be specific. Take heating, for example. There is no universal solution for every region, municipality or house. The conditions vary, so a range of solutions are needed. Heat pumps are a good option, as are heat networks fed by geothermal energy or biomethane, for example. But this is not possible everywhere. Sustainable wood pellets are also an option, without the need for any infrastructure.
Friedrich Merz recently said that he does not believe hydrogen will become cheap enough to produce green steel any time soon. Yet you don’t rule out the use of hydrogen in heating systems. Will it ever be cheap enough to use hydrogen in heating systems?
This has to be decided from an economic perspective. If the assumption is correct that it would be too expensive to use in heating systems and transportation, then it won’t happen. But then there will be no need to ban or regulate it. Friedrich Merz rightly pointed out that the current focus on green hydrogen in steel is too late, too little and too expensive.
However, municipal companies, which would have to convert their gas grid to hydrogen to flow into the heating systems, do not know how much it will cost.
Hydrogen can be a local solution in places that already have a hydrogen grid. We don’t want to ban that, but it won’t be the general solution.
What advice would you give a gas station owner who invests in EV charging points? Should he also have a hydrogen pump and one for biofuels?
It is not the job of politicians to give gas station owners advice. We have to create the proper framework conditions. Even if only electric cars are bought, we will still have an enormous fleet of gasoline cars, which must also become greener. There are also areas where we cannot do without CO2-neutral fuels. That’s why we’re also looking at how to make fuel eco-friendly. Not by limiting ourselves to one technology. There are different ways to decide this in market competition, flanked by research and development. We will provide targeted subsidies there. But we won’t throw a cornucopia at it.
Andreas Jung has been representing the Constance constituency in the German parliament since 2005. Since December 2021, the lawyer has been the climate and energy policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German parliament and a member of the corresponding committee.
Germany currently has around 100 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity installed, which is set to more than double to 215 GW over the next five years according to the expansion targets of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). In 2024, the expansion of solar energy was well above the expansion path, so the target seems feasible.
Nevertheless, the PV Think Tank calls for decisive action from the next government in order to achieve this goal. It is a loose association of experts from industry, research, associations and companies working on the future of photovoltaics in Germany. They have drawn up 55 demands for future governments. Among them:
The think tank also calls for a stronger qualitative focus when expanding PV. Specifically, this means fitting most systems with storage, making them flexibly controllable, strengthening market integration, and enabling more people to participate in solar systems while reducing costs. kul
Usually, we at Climate.Table often look at the wide world of climate policy with great interest. But today, we are – pardon us – very German. Two weeks before an important federal election, this is perhaps understandable. And so we’re reporting on the homework that the Council of Experts on Climate Changes has for the next German government. Spoiler: The previous government was better than its reputation, but there’s still a lot of room for improvement.
According to the current polls, this is primarily aimed at the CDU/CSU. For this reason, shortly before the election, we asked CDU climate expert Andreas Jung where his party stands on key energy and climate policy issues. And we run the next popular climate policy demand – to bring Germany’s nuclear power plants back online – through our fact check. Plus, as always, news from many areas.
And, we promise, we’ll be back with a much more globalized perspective next week. You can look forward to analyses on international shipping, the UN countries’ climate plans and news from exotic countries such as Switzerland.
The Council of Experts on Climate Change has called on the next German government to step up climate action and secure public funding. It points out that climate action funding is increasingly at odds with rising defense spending and the need for funding education and infrastructure. It urges the next government to quickly provide clarity here. Gasoline cars and fossil heating systems must be replaced more quickly by eco-friendly alternatives, and the industry needs to invest more in electrification. Although climate action has made progress in the past two years, Germany risks missing its 2030 climate targets due to the slow momentum in the transport and building sectors.
The Council of Experts sees the next German government facing major challenges when it comes to public funding for climate action. Various studies suggest an annual funding deficit of between 29 and 84 billion euros. Although there is revenue from carbon pricing, it is not enough to fill this gap. Public budgets are also under pressure: Government spending on defense, infrastructure and education will be high in the coming years. On top of this, the German economy has been in recession for two years. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and an uncertain US trade policy are further clouding the economic outlook.
The experts suggest that in order to avoid cuts in climate policy or other policy areas, the government could raise taxes, take out additional loans or focus on growth. However, if demand from China continues to fall short of expectations and US trade policy continues to put German exporters under pressure, higher growth can hardly be expected. Tax increases and a reform of the debt ceiling are highly controversial, particularly among the CDU/CSU and the FDP. As a result, the climate finance shortfall could increase further in the coming years. Christoph Bals, Political Director at Germanwatch, therefore calls for “a reform of the debt ceiling” and a reallocation of environmentally harmful subsidies. The Climate Alliance and Greenpeace demand higher taxes for “extremely rich people” and an ecological billionaires’ tax.
The next German government must quickly clarify financing and embed climate policy in an overall political strategy in order to resolve the “conflicting objectives in financial policy,” says the Expert Council. One instrument for this could be the reintroduction of a climate cabinet. The Expert Council proposes coordinating climate policy centrally in the German Federal Chancellery.
The Council of Experts gives the previous government coalition a mixed report card. For example, it has “made a noticeable contribution to reducing” greenhouse gas emissions by speeding up approvals for wind and solar power plants. The Building Energy Act (GEG), which is controversial among the CDU/CSU, and the Heat Planning Act are also important building blocks for reducing future emissions. However, in order to reduce emissions more quickly, “additional measures may be necessary” – also to “avoid the purchase of carbon credits from other countries.” Moreover, part of the reduction in emissions is due to the economic slump and other crisis events.
The Expert Council criticizes the fact that “the phase-out of the fossil capital stock” – i.e., gasoline cars, fossil heating systems and industrial fossil production processes – has not been a political focus. Hans-Martin Henning, Chairman of the Expert Council, therefore considers a “careless withdrawal” of the Building Energy Act, as suggested by the CDU/CSU, to be “dangerous,” as he said at the presentation of the report. Although the Expert Council did not explicitly say so, reversing the gasoline car ban would keep the fossil fuel capital stock alive even longer.
However, the Council members warn that subsidy policy alone is insufficient to quickly push gasoline cars or oil and gas heating systems out of the market. In addition, the EV premium (“environmental bonus”) and subsidies for more efficient buildings have mainly benefited higher-income households. It points to a social imbalance in climate policy that the next German government must address. In France, this is made fairer with dedicated programs for lower income groups, such as social EV leasing, says Brigitte Knopf, Co-Chair of the Expert Council.
“Private households must be protected from fossil lock-ins,” says Knopf. The aim should be to prevent too many households from continuing to install oil and gas heating systems and then incurring high costs due to emissions trading (ETS 2). Knopf proposed socially tiered subsidy programs and a regulatory policy with a stronger focus on social concerns. At least the previous government had taken a first step with the “Carbon Dioxide Cost Sharing Act” and the reform of the modernization levy.
The CDU/CSU, FDP and AfD disagree with the end of the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity in Germany – even though the German parliament unanimously decided to phase out nuclear power in 2011 under the leadership of Angela Merkel’s CDU/SPD government, including with the votes of the FDP. Therefore, they call for a nuclear renaissance in their election manifestos:
To restart nuclear power plants, the German Atomic Energy Act would first have to be amended. It stipulates the “orderly end to the use of nuclear energy for the commercial electricity generation.” This would be possible with a simple parliamentary majority. After that, privately owned operators such as electricity companies would have to be found to operate the plants economically. However, all power companies in Germany that have operated nuclear power plants to date reject this. They shy away from the costs, almost certain lawsuits, the political conflict with the environmental movement – and they see their business elsewhere.
Germany’s more than 20 nuclear power plants have now been shut down. The operating licenses for the remaining three reactors, Emsland, Neckarwestheim 2 and Isar 2, expired on April 15, 2023. Restarting them would create unprecedented technical and regulatory problems: Never before have decommissioned nuclear power plants that have been disconnected from the grid and – in some cases partly dismantled – been put back into operation.
For example, it is unclear whether the nuclear power plants would need a completely new operating license for their second life – and whether this would be practically tantamount to a new license for a new plant, given the current state of technology. In any case, the reactors would need a new “periodic safety review,” which was already due at the Isar 2 nuclear power plant in 2019. As the technical and legal uncertainties are enormous, this would probably entail extensive legal opinions, long and controversial approval processes and lawsuits, which would take up much time and money.
The main reasons preventing a renaissance of nuclear power in liberalized electricity markets with private companies are the high costs and long construction times. The third reactor of the Flamanville nuclear power plant in pro-nuclear France is four times as expensive as planned at almost 13 billion euros and its construction took twelve years longer than anticipated. According to EDF plans, the new Hinkley Point C reactor in the UK will also be delayed by at least twelve years, with costs rising from 20 billion euros to 38 billion euros.
Such nuclear plans would come far too late given Germany’s electricity demand over the next few years, for which gas-fired power plants are currently being planned. Moreover, no private company would be willing to insure new nuclear power plants; the state would have to bear the costs. And the expensive and highly complex search for a German nuclear waste storage facility, which is likely to be delayed until after 2100 anyway, would have to be completely re-planned if new atomic waste from new nuclear power plants were to be added.
There is currently barely any sign of a “fourth or fifth generation” of nuclear power plants. In February 2024, a research report by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management examined these so-called “new reactor concepts,” which are designed to be smaller and more efficient and produce less waste. The conclusion: “Despite years of development in some cases, the concepts are either not yet technologically mature or have not become established for commercial or safety reasons.”
Since all major manufacturers have abandoned such projects, it is also unclear who would build small reactors (SMRs). Lastly, nuclear fusion is still at the basic research stage – it is not expected to generate electricity economically in the coming years. A Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report also shows that CO2 avoidance through renewables is significantly more efficient and cheaper than nuclear power.
The SPD and the Greens, both potential coalition partners of a possible CDU/CSU federal government, reject a return to nuclear technology. At present, there is no political majority for this. However, the CDU/CSU intends to push through a “technical review” to clarify the issue.
The call to restart Germany’s nuclear power plants is a sham debate. Even if parliament were to create the legal basis for this (which is unrealistic with all the coalition options currently being discussed), no private companies would be willing to operate nuclear power plants. Other forms, such as new technologies, small reactors, or nuclear fusion are so far from being commercially viable that they will not play a role in Germany’s energy policy in the coming years and possibly decades.
On Friday last week, the Bundestag held a vote in the morning on energy policy legislation that you negotiated with colleagues from the Greens and the SPD. This was followed in the afternoon by the controversial debate on the joint vote by the CDU/CSU and far-right AfD on migration policy. Has the CDU/CSU undermined trust between the democratic parliamentary groups to such an extent that compromises on climate and energy policy will become more difficult in the future?
The agreement on the energy laws is an example of the capabilities of the political center. We also aimed for majorities in the center to strengthen security and to better manage and limit migration. Last week, an absolutely exceptional situation arose in the Bundestag because members of the AfD announced that they would be requesting a vote on a bill proposed by my parliamentary group. That led to a real dilemma. But one thing is clear: This is not a precedent. Such a situation will not be repeated. No cooperation, no coalition, no minority government with the AfD.
The CDU/CSU wants to make carbon emissions trading (ETS) a “key instrument” in climate action and return the proceeds to consumers and the economy. Who gets what back and how?
The CO2 pricing for buildings and transport will generate revenue of around 15 billion euros in 2025. We will return this by reducing the electricity tax to the European minimum. We will also cap grid fees. Combined, this will result in a reduction of at least five cents per kilowatt-hour for everyone. The electricity price must not become even more of a social issue and a competitive disadvantage for the economy. Affordable electricity benefits green technologies.
The coming years will reveal whether emissions trading will become too expensive too quickly. The control instrument is the issuance of carbon credits. If the economy is dissatisfied with rising energy prices caused by emissions trading, will your party decide to throw more credits onto the market? Or help the economy with subsidy programs?
We firmly believe emissions trading does not unilaterally lead to higher energy prices, but to market-based climate action. This instrument thrives on its credibility. We combine our clear commitment to the climate targets with the conviction that we must retain a strong industry. The European system will be in place in 2027. The carbon prices must develop gradually, without leaps and bounds, and without declines: no overburdening, with a clear price signal for green technologies.
If the carbon price then rises, the burden must be lowered. We are also open to other ways of giving back. However, reliable support for climate technologies must be efficient and pragmatic. The current overregulation of the previous government makes it expensive. Instead of giving individual companies more and more support for certain companies, the focus must return to proper framework conditions for everyone.
The CDU/CSU also promises lower costs and technological openness. However, different technologies also require multiple infrastructures. The state is pre-financing the hydrogen core network. Heating networks must also be built. Your party also calls for a CO2 grid. You want to retrofit the existing natural gas network to be able to use alternatives. This many grids drive up costs.
Gas grids are precious resources. So the first question must be: How can we use these grids for a carbon-neutral future? Since we need a circular CO2 economy, we need an appropriate grid. Such investments can be funded while maintaining sound budgetary management. We believe the path taken with the amortization account for the hydrogen core network is reasonable.
Cutting costs, prioritizing and enabling all technologies simultaneously is not a contradiction?
The only practical way to talk about this is to be specific. Take heating, for example. There is no universal solution for every region, municipality or house. The conditions vary, so a range of solutions are needed. Heat pumps are a good option, as are heat networks fed by geothermal energy or biomethane, for example. But this is not possible everywhere. Sustainable wood pellets are also an option, without the need for any infrastructure.
Friedrich Merz recently said that he does not believe hydrogen will become cheap enough to produce green steel any time soon. Yet you don’t rule out the use of hydrogen in heating systems. Will it ever be cheap enough to use hydrogen in heating systems?
This has to be decided from an economic perspective. If the assumption is correct that it would be too expensive to use in heating systems and transportation, then it won’t happen. But then there will be no need to ban or regulate it. Friedrich Merz rightly pointed out that the current focus on green hydrogen in steel is too late, too little and too expensive.
However, municipal companies, which would have to convert their gas grid to hydrogen to flow into the heating systems, do not know how much it will cost.
Hydrogen can be a local solution in places that already have a hydrogen grid. We don’t want to ban that, but it won’t be the general solution.
What advice would you give a gas station owner who invests in EV charging points? Should he also have a hydrogen pump and one for biofuels?
It is not the job of politicians to give gas station owners advice. We have to create the proper framework conditions. Even if only electric cars are bought, we will still have an enormous fleet of gasoline cars, which must also become greener. There are also areas where we cannot do without CO2-neutral fuels. That’s why we’re also looking at how to make fuel eco-friendly. Not by limiting ourselves to one technology. There are different ways to decide this in market competition, flanked by research and development. We will provide targeted subsidies there. But we won’t throw a cornucopia at it.
Andreas Jung has been representing the Constance constituency in the German parliament since 2005. Since December 2021, the lawyer has been the climate and energy policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German parliament and a member of the corresponding committee.
Germany currently has around 100 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity installed, which is set to more than double to 215 GW over the next five years according to the expansion targets of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). In 2024, the expansion of solar energy was well above the expansion path, so the target seems feasible.
Nevertheless, the PV Think Tank calls for decisive action from the next government in order to achieve this goal. It is a loose association of experts from industry, research, associations and companies working on the future of photovoltaics in Germany. They have drawn up 55 demands for future governments. Among them:
The think tank also calls for a stronger qualitative focus when expanding PV. Specifically, this means fitting most systems with storage, making them flexibly controllable, strengthening market integration, and enabling more people to participate in solar systems while reducing costs. kul
