Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

A new Prognos study published on October 12, 2026, estimates that Germany will need around 5.7 to 6.4 trillion euros between 2025 and 2045 to restructure its energy system and economy—amounting to approximately 270 to 300 billion euros annually.

These costs cover the transition of transport, heating, and power supply to a 100% renewable energy mix. A significant portion of this is required to build and operate long-distance grids transporting wind power from the north to the south, and solar power from the south to the north.

Skyrocketing grid costs

Because wind and solar are fully available only a fraction of the year (wind about 30%, sun about 10%), investing heavily in underutilized grids is not particularly economical. However, one thing is certain: investments of 600 to 700 billion euros in the high-voltage grid and another 200 to 300 billion euros for urban low-voltage grids will cause grid costs to skyrocket.

Annual interest and principal repayments for this grid transformation—shifting from central power plants to decentralized wind and solar systems—will reach 40 billion euros. This drives grid fees up from today’s levels to 13.5 ct/kWh for industry and 27 ct/kWh for households (EWI Study 2024). This is unaffordable for citizens, but worse still, such grid costs threaten the survival of German industry.

Even today, parts of industry can only remain in the country because the federal budget subsidizes grid fees down from 6.5 ct/kWh to 2.86 ct/kWh. The federal government is spending 6.5 billion euros on this in 2026. However, due to tight budgets, Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil has cut the 2027 subsidy by 1 billion euros, causing industrial grid fees to rise by 24% to 3.54 ct/kWh next year. It is already clear that future suffocating grid costs cannot be absorbed by the federal budget.

Industry threatened

Furthermore, additional pressure is looming from the EU. The EU is currently revising the Internal Electricity Market Regulation. Most EU states view Germany’s extremely expensive grid costs—stemming from its nuclear phase-out and total reliance on solar and wind—and the subsequent state subsidization for German industry very critically. Germany stands almost alone in Europe regarding these grid fee reliefs. Other EU member states are expected to penalize Germany’s go-it-alone approach during the upcoming revision, which could force industry to shoulder full grid fees—spelling the end for many businesses.

“Madness”

How well off Germany would be without the green energy transition! If the country still had 17 nuclear power plants ready to step in across the north and south when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, this “madness” of power grid restructuring would be unnecessary.

Even if all nuclear power plants were brought back at their existing sites, the worst-case cost would be around 80 billion euros. This equals just two years of additional energy transition grid costs that will burden future generations—while providing 60 to 80 years of cheap electricity at generation costs of about 5 ct/kWh and saving 600 to 700 billion euros on the high-voltage grid.

5 15 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
ntesdorf
October 30, 2026 10:35 pm

Germany would get just as much value from setting fire to a pile of 6 trillion Euros as it would from this so-called Green Energy Transition. Officials could recoup money by charging entry fees to attend the burning ceremony on National TV. The Green Energy transition is sucking the lifeblood and money out of German citizens.

1saveenergy
Reply to  ntesdorf
October 31, 2026 12:32 am

[“The Green Energy transition is sucking the lifeblood and money out of German citizens”]

But that’s the plan … & remember, Putin is only 6 hrs away

SxyxS
Reply to  1saveenergy
October 31, 2026 3:09 am

Just as with Ukraine the Green Energy transition is a scheme to transfer billions of dollars to the beneficiaries who run the scam.

And the real robbery only starts after the transition/war when the beneficiaries rush in to buy everything for pennies on the dollar
as those blessed by being free from tyranny/fossil fuels will have no other choice.
And most of the money used for the “help” is the money that is currently being stolen via Ukraine and going green.

claysanborn
Reply to  ntesdorf
October 31, 2026 10:02 am

Germany could just switch to California’s plan from March, 2001, Scott Adams’ Dilbert entry on the topic: https://fridayfun.net/dilimg/200103293378.webp where it appears there is indeed an endless supply of the climate and energy ignorant.

October 31, 2026 12:57 am

Two things.

One, what the voters should demand is a statement of how much effect this project and this expense will have on global emissions and global temperatures. As with the UK there are lots of demands for cutting emissions ‘because climate’, but never any account of what the cuts will do. Because, of course, they will do absolutely nothing.

Two, what’s happening is a sort of financial perpetual motion machine. They are taking money from general taxation and using it to subsidize the prices of electricity. But where do these funds come from? In the end, from profits of business activity. But these profits only exist because of the payments which lower the price of electricity….

The underlying situation is that German (and British) companies have higher costs for inputs than their international competitors. Whatever ingenious ways a government uses to overcome this at the level of pricing, in the end what happens is that, if they want the firms to keep operating with these levels of cost, any action which does that will raise the cost of living for the citizens, and this lower the standard of living.

Wind and solar, when all the costs are taken into account, are way more expensive than conventional generation. Any serious national attempt to move to those technologies will just result in a fall in the standard of living for any country that does it.

If they can even make it work at all! The worst case outcome is not just
that you end up making the electricity more expensive, its that you end
up with all the expense and no reliable supply as well.
This applies to any input. Suppose for instance that you’ve regulated agriculture in such a way that wheat in a given country is double the price everywhere else. So you ban imports. Then you discover that bread has become very expensive. So you pay the bakers a subsidy on their flour purchases, and now bread costs the same as it does everywhere else.

Yes, and where does the money to pay them come from?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  michel
October 31, 2026 3:45 am

From the money tree, silly.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
October 31, 2026 8:32 am

Where does the money come from indeed?

Here in Britain the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) say £70bn is needed between April 2025 and the end of March 2031 to upgrade and maintain the grid whilst the National Energy System Operator (NESO) have recommended a total of £89bn further investment beyond 2031.

Of course these amounts will only grow as time goes on and by 2050 will probably be significantly higher.

October 31, 2026 1:37 am

STORY TIP

The questions preoccupying the informed in the UK at present are: what will the winter be like and will they get through it without power outages?

As to the severity of the winter, it seems to be unknown.

As to the electricity supply, the UK Government is advising preparation and advises to lay in 3 days food and a wind-up radio (!). Think about what kind of scenario you would have to be considering to advise wind-up radios! Are they really thinking its likely that power will be out long enough for the batteries in battery powered radios to run flat, and there’s nowhere to buy more batteries?

One possible answer to this question is given by Paul Homewood’s summary of NESO’s latest. You don’t have to be an alarmist to see that if there is the combination of the usual winter dead calm in December or January, if interconnect is also unable to supply to the levels forecast, and if one or more CCGT plants go offline, then some form of blackouts is inevitable – either regional or national.

How likely? Who knows? If this were aircraft design or a new medical treatment or a bridge you would not risk it. But this is climate…

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/10/30/neso-winter-outlook/#more-93941

Think also about what blackouts mean. Not just sitting in the cold and dark. No, eating cold food out of cans, and supermarkets and hospitals closing down. Really, really dire.

John Hultquist
Reply to  michel
October 31, 2026 9:13 am

Wind-up radios appear to be, mostly, made in China. Eton is a well-known brand in the USA, listed as a Palo Alto, California company, having purchased a couple of other electronic firms.
Question: Who in the UK government will benefit if wind-up radios become in great demand?

October 31, 2026 2:43 am

When will the German “scientists” come forth and explain to the people and the politicians that carbon dioxide does not cause warming of the air as alleged by corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists because there is very little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii the concentration of carbon dioxide in dry air is currently 426 ppm. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.84 grams of carbon dioxide at STP. In 1988, the year the IPCC was formed, the concentration of carbon dioxide in dry air was 352 ppm One cubic meter of that air contained 0.69 grams of carbon dioxide at STP.

The late John L. Daly showed over 25 years ago at his website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” (http://www.john-daly.com) that temperature data from over 200 weather stations showed there was no warming up to 2002. From home page go to end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “Australia”. There is displayed a list of stations. Click on “Adelaide”.

There shown a plot of the annual mean temperature data from 1857 to 1999. In 1858 the mean annual temperature was 17.4° C, and by 1999 it had declined to 16.7°C. In 1858 concentration of carbon dioxide in dry air was ca. 280 ppm, and by 1999 it had increased to 368 ppm, but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this port city. Instead there was a slight cooling that begin in ca. 1940. Brisbane also had a slight cooling.

For a recent Adelaide temperature check I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-tempertature-by-year The Thi and Tlo data from 1887 are displayed in a table. The computed Tav for 2025 was 17.4° C. After 167 years there has been no warming of the air in Adelaide.

Would this empirical temperature data and John Daly’s many temperature charts convince the German politicians to abandon their draconian and disastrous climate agenda?

PS: If you have the chart for Adelaide on screen, click on the back arrow for redisplay of the list of stations. Click on the back arrow again for display of the “World Map”.

Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2026 3:33 am

Wait. I thought that under the Green Reich, any type of energy plants you hate that you are supposed to destroy them so that they can’t come back. Oops!

George Thompson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2026 4:19 am

The Green Reich. That’s a new one to me, and I like it. Consider it-um-appropriated. Stolen is such a loaded word.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  George Thompson
October 31, 2026 5:24 am

Darn, I meant to type Green Reich™.

George Thompson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2026 5:35 am

Details, details…they’ll get you every time! Tough titty said the kitty, but the milk tastes fine! Have a real good day wherever you’re at.

Denis
October 31, 2026 4:54 am

“This drives grid fees up from today’s levels to 13.5 ct/kWh for industry and 27 ct/kWh for households (EWI Study 2024).”

If ct means euro cents, the price for households is much less than today’s 39 cents US. Perhaps “to” is supposed to be “”by?”

October 31, 2026 5:57 am

“This drives grid fees up from today’s levels to 13.5 ct/kWh for industry and 27 ct/kWh for households (EWI Study 2024)”.

Should this read “increases grid fees by 13.5 ct/kwh for industry and 27 ct/kwh for households”?

cgh
October 31, 2026 7:50 am

Angela Merkel could not have done more damage to Germany even if she had been a paid agent of the KGB. A predecessor of hers, Helmut Schmidt, was a paid agent of Russia. Germany is now reaping the “rewards” of having its national Green Party being a creation financed in large part by the Soviet Union and the KGB under Yuri Andropov.

But in the end, Germans chose this misery out of their own free will. They deserve to enjoy the outcome.