From KlimaNachrichten

Educational failure in the media or guided by interests and ideology?

By Dr.-Ing. Ernst-Jürgen Niemann

As an engineer who has also worked on meteorological topics in research and practice and then worked in the energy sector for 30 years, including more than 10 years in the planning, tendering, awarding, construction and operation supervision of large wind farms, I am shocked by the low level of reporting, at which climate change or energy transition is very often reported unqualified or one-sidedly in the media and in politics. The consequences of climate change are fearmongering exaggerated (e.g. further spread of the apocalyptic RCP 8.5 scenario, although classified as extremely unlikely by IPCC 2021 and COP 28) or even unsubstantiated claimed. Negative aspects of the energy transition are omitted. It almost seems as if the citizen is to be kept happy by concerted indoctrination on these issues. Some typical examples are listed below:

“Hurricanes (cyclones) and floods are becoming more frequent and stronger due to climate change”: 

At every such event, journalists, “experts”, meteorologists or politicians ignite a frightening storm with such reports, for which, however, there is no evidence whatsoever. Even the IPCC (“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”), which estimates climate risks rather high and on whose predictions the CO_{2 –}currently sees no indication or probability of an increase in storms and floods (IPCC Assessment Report AR6, Table12.12). This is almost regularly ignored. The portrayal of the Ahr Valley flood in 2021 as a result of climate change is also such an example of such “fake news” (e.g. programme “mehr/wert”, BR, 20.11.2025). The Ahr Valley flood statistics are more of a proof of the independence of such floods from climate change: In the catchment area of the Ahr, which is prone to extreme flooding, there have always been comparable or larger flood events on the basis of flood marks, such as the Magdalen flood in 1342, in 1910 or the great flood in 1804. At about 1100 m³/s, the latter was about 25% significantly higher than the Ahr Valley flood in 2021!

“Wind/solar park covers electricity needs of xx households”: When wind or solar farms are expanded or opened, there are always such or similar reports that suggest to the public that this will ensure the power supply of other households. Unfortunately not! In the case of a wind farm, even in good wind conditions such as in northern Germany, these households would sit completely in the dark for more than 10% of the time and receive too little electricity more than 50% of the time. In the case of solar parks, this would be even more fatal, as electricity availability is completely lacking at night and is hardly available even during the day in winter.

“Sun and electricity do not send an invoice”: If politicians, climate activists or interest groups repeatedly spread such statements via the media and claim unrivalled cheapness, but at the same time put forward their demand for further state funding, then something is wrong. Logically, it should then be possible to implement the immediate abolition of subsidies! A typical example of misleading marketing with a shortened logic for the expansion of renewables, which conceals the true costs and ignores the complementary costs caused.

“With the expansion of renewables, the price of electricity is becoming cheaper and cheaper”: 

These repetitive statements from interested parties or the press (e.g. FOCUS 25.11.2025) are formally correct if one only refers to the market value on the stock exchange. For example, the market value for solar on the stock exchange is constantly falling in the relevant summer months with high generation capacity due to further expansion (in 2023 approx. 5 ct/kWh, in 2024 approx. 4 ct/kWh and in 2025 almost just over 3 ct/kWh).
The economic marginal benefit of further expansion is therefore currently striving for ZERO! Responsible politicians or journalists should address this and warn against the associated increases in guaranteed price subsidies, which lead to an ever-higher burden on the state budget (EEG subsidy approx. 20 billion €/year) and consumers via grid fees! It is also a fact that the household electricity price has risen steadily with the expansion of renewables due to the high complementary costs.

“Batteries have become so cheap that battery storage should be used instead of gas-fired power plants”: 

The costs for large-scale battery storage systems have fallen to such an extent that they pay off with one charging cycle per day and a price difference of about 10 ct/kWh. The electricity exchange yo-yo that takes place in the summer half-year due to solar radiation, with price differences of up to about 20 ct/kWh during the course of the day, offers a good economic basis for this (see example below 27 May – 6 June 2025, SMARD, Wholesale Price Germany/Luxembourg). Accordingly, there is currently a veritable gold rush for approvals for such large-scale storage facilities.

In addition to the restriction that battery storage systems must be operated in a grid-friendly manner, there is a risk that too much expansion can become economically problematic. Due to the high proportion of large-scale battery storage systems, the daily cycle of electricity supply would be smoothed out more and more, which would also lead to a smoothing of wholesale prices. The large-scale battery storage systems would then cannibalize their profitability themselves due to a lack of price differences. The battery storage systems, which will then be systemically relevant with such a large expansion, will then have to be subsidized. Since they cannot bridge dark doldrums lasting several days, they do not replace controllable power plants, such as gas-fired power plants. So not only would the costs of maintaining quickly controllable gas-fired power plants be incurred, but also the costs of subsidizing battery storage systems, which would have to be absorbed by the electricity price or government subsidies.

“Network charges are the costs for the expansion and maintenance of the network”: 

Behind this widely used abbreviated definition of grid charges is a complex, non-transparent cost structure. The costs for expansion and maintenance of the network are only one part. A significant share of the costs of the grid fees for households, which have risen to approx. 11 ct/kWh, are running costs for necessary grid stabilisation measures due to the expansion of solar and wind. A good 4 cents/kWh alone are incurred for redispatch measures (compensation for necessary shutdowns in the event of too much electricity in the grid), i.e. converted to the proportion of non-controllable renewables that cause the electricity, which is about 6 cents/kWh. In addition, there are costs for the provision of balancing energy or reserve power plants. If you add the state subsidies to producers through price guarantees (former EEG levy), then there are further approx. 9 ct/kWh costs for solar, wind and biogas electricity, which are borne by the taxpayer. Taking into account the prices paid on the stock exchange, the system generation costs attributable to renewables are therefore already likely to be around 20 cents/kWh today! With the further expansion of the grid (the high amortization and maintenance costs for the HVDC lines will hardly be able to be compensated for by lower redispatch costs) and the addition of balancing energy (gas-fired power plants), grid fees/costs will rise even further. Well-founded reporting on the energy transition also includes such critical aspects.

“In 2024, 60% of electricity generation in Germany consisted of renewable energies”: 

Again and again, generation figures are cited as proof of progress in CO₂ savings (recently also mentioned in Belem by the Federal Minister for the Environment), although it is not generation but consumption that is decisive for this. Renewables will only account for 54% of electricity consumption in Germany in 2024 (according to the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics at the Federal Environment Agency). The difference to generation results from the high import of electricity from controllable power plants at times of low wind and solar power and the non-controllable electricity at times of high wind and solar power, which has to be sold abroad at dumping prices or even against payment. The import surplus currently amounts to about 5.7% on balance.

“China is leading the way in the expansion of renewables”: 

Just in time for the UN climate summit in Belem, such a report came onto the market and was mostly spread uncritically via the media. The message: Even China does more than we do!. This is a completely misleading half-truth! China as a role model? China now has a higher per capita CO₂ (8.35 t/a) than Germany (7.2 t/a). The expansion of the electricity supply there is carried out completely differently than in Germany according to economic and supply independence criteria. With 60% of the electricity supply currently being supplied by coal, this will be further expanded in China (94.5 GW of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2024 alone!!) and by 2040, the number of nuclear power plants will be doubled by 44 plants! Such power plants are built for at least 50 years! The load requirement is covered by controllable power plants. The parallel expansion of wind and solar serves, as originally in Germany, for “fuel saving”. The fact that this economically based concept, i.e. partial utilization of coal-fired and nuclear power plants when renewables are available, also leads to limited savings in CO₂ emission is logical. In China, research and testing in the hydrogen sector serve more to prepare for the world market in the event that global demand actually arises in the hydrogen sector. Anyone who sees China as a role model should logically support the approach of “coal + nuclear + complementary renewables” in our country as well!

The fact that interest groups such as associations, parties, certain NGOs or even individual research institutions, …. spreading such half-truths or misinformation out of self-interest is understandable. It would be all the more important that the media, starting with the ÖR, always question such information critically and competently. Ideally, there should be specialist journalists with knowledge of physics in order to distinguish between power supply (load) and energy, for example, and to know the basics of grid stability and grid control requirements, or to understand something about theoretical meteorology (atmospheric physics) in climate topics in order to be able to deal with the complexity of their topics to some extent. Quality control in the media as well as in industry would be appropriate.