With 64 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity on land and at sea, Germany is the undisputed number one in Europe for wind energy. But the expansion is weakening massively. In 2021 it has shrunk to a quarter of the previous record value from 2017. Wolfram Axthelm blames a new tender model from 2018 for this. “From today’s perspective, it can hardly be explained, but back then people said: It’s all going too fast, we have to slow down,” explains the managing director of the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) in ntv’s “Climate Laboratory”. “That sent the fatal signal to the federal states: Don’t try so hard, we need less speed!” A message that got through: Bavaria only approved three new wind turbines in the first half of 2022 and connected three more to the grid. In Saxony there is even a demolition instead of an addition. Nevertheless, Axthelm is optimistic that wind energy will carry Germany to the energy transition: if the economy continues to put pressure on and the traffic light supplements its bold plans with significantly shorter approval procedures, as promised.
ntv.de: A recent press release from you begins with the following sentence: “It is high time that some federal states, especially Bavaria, finally ended their diversionary maneuvers in energy policy.” That doesn’t sound particularly optimistic.
Wolfram Axthelm: That is a reminder to federal states that, for whatever reason, have so far placed themselves on the fringes of the energy transition task for society as a whole. Who commented on what was happening, but did not become active themselves. The South, in particular, urgently needs to realign itself here, otherwise it will have a massive electricity problem.
So the south still hasn’t understood the urgency of the situation despite the Ukraine war?
I don’t know that. But in any case, the situation was put aside for too long and people thought they could somehow get around the expansion of wind energy. Within the future energy mix, however, it is the bulk carrier that generates kilowatt hours day and night.
In the first half of 2022, three plants were approved in Bavaria and three connected to the grid, although 4.6 percent of the state area could be used for wind energy.
Yes, based on nature conservation and species protection, but also from distances that are of course also known in other federal states, one could build on these areas. So far, this opening for wind energy has been refused, although Bavaria has an enormously high demand for electricity due to its industry. This is our appeal to the Bavarian state government: take a closer look at your own industry and your own interests and ensure that it is also allowed to supply itself with renewable electricity from wind energy.
What reactions do you get to your appeals?
For a long time they somehow got lost in the Bavarian fog, you didn’t hear much. In the meantime, however, we are experiencing, and this began last year before the federal elections in September, that the Bavarian economy is very nervous. She asks: Where is our electricity supposed to come from, dear state government? You cannot answer this question by saying that hydrogen somehow comes from somewhere, that electricity will find its way to Bavaria through lines that have not yet been built or by relying on solar power as the sole remedy. We also need an energy mix for renewables, and wind is a very important part of that, even in the south. Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate show that a lot can happen if the political will is there.
People often talk about Bavaria because the discrepancy is greatest there. But things aren’t going so well in Baden-Württemberg either, are they?
The situation there is critical too, yes. The green-led state government has not managed to clarify the issues of wind energy and species protection in the last 12 to 14 years. That’s the big obstacle there. As a result, there is a de facto standstill in expansion in Baden-Württemberg. After the state elections, however, the impression was created that the new government is approaching the expansion with a different willpower, even if the colors are the same. Unlike in Bavaria, there is no political defensiveness there.
There was a similarly alarming development in Saxony. There they actually refused the energy transition and looked at coal for too long. There is no orderly regional planning, i.e. no areas designated for wind energy. In the meantime, Saxony is even registering negative growth: if an old plant is dismantled, it is not replaced by a new one. This is nonsensical because it is clear that Saxony is now one of the leading locations in many technologies that are important for the energy transition. Of course, these locations must be supplied with renewable energy, otherwise it is not credible.
Why does it fail in this area of ??tension between species protection and nature conservation?
The new federal government has initiated an amendment to the Federal Nature Conservation Act in order to create a uniform standard for the authorities in the 16 federal states. 15 bird species have been defined that must be given special attention in the case of test and taboo distances. This contributes to a standardization of the permits, sheds light on this complex matter and makes the work of the local authorities easier. That’s right and important because we need to redeem conservation from being used as a straw by some opponents of wind energy.
So are we now just redefining what conservation means to be able to build more wind turbines?
It is really not so. The point is always that we want to build on two percent of the state’s area, and we are pleased that the federal government also defined this goal for each state in July. In preliminary investigations, we want to find areas that are not particularly prone to conflict. But there will also be some problematic sites where a red kite or short-eared owl lives. However, this one animal must not be misused by opponents of wind energy. That is why we and the environmental organizations are trying to strengthen the entire population in a region, so that one individual animal, which once in its 10 or 15-year life would have the risk of flying into a wind turbine, is not taken as an opportunity to die to question the entire energy policy.
Just as whole villages had to move for coal mining, maybe a few red kites have to move now?
They don’t have to move. But we have to carefully assess whether there really is a risk of collision with a facility. This is much lower with modern turbines because the rotor rotates outside the flight altitude of these birds. It was more dangerous with the old systems, especially with the red kite. It flies at a height of 40 meters and looks down because it wants to catch mice. Then he does not see what is happening in front of him.
So big wind turbines are better for birds?
For birds, but also for the energy industry, because the rotors deliver more yield at higher altitudes and are also more consistent.
Because there’s a steady wind?
Right.
But the red kite is not the reason why wind turbines are being dismantled in Saxony and not replaced.
No, nature conservation is abused there and used as a reason to keep silent about others that would be incomprehensible to the public. This is an attitude of denial. For a long time, Saxony said: The federal government’s energy policy is wrong, we don’t want to support it. Things are going wonderfully well with nuclear and coal. You have to maneuver your way out of this impasse.
Technologies that demonstrably have no future: How would Saxony like to generate its electricity in the future?
We were pleasantly surprised, and I really mean that honestly, that Saxony wrote in the last coalition agreement: We recognized the dilemma we were in.
Sorry you have to mention that this is no joke.
Yes (laughs). But they have acknowledged that they need to phase out coal and increase renewable generation. By the end of the legislature, they want to produce so and so many terawatt hours of renewable electricity. Whether you want to generate it with wind, sun or bioenergy is secondary. But the government has recognized that it needs to replace coal. That was an important sign. Green participation in government can therefore also be successful in a federal state like Saxony.
Are you confident that this goal will be achieved?
We are confident that the Saxon government will recognize that you have to change. This also has a lot to do with the industry there, which clearly says: We want to produce e-cars, storage systems and solar systems here, in plants that get their electricity from renewable sources.
In recent years, however, the expansion of wind energy has fallen sharply. There was steady growth up until 2017, when 6.6 gigawatts were added in one year. This corresponds to the output of six nuclear power plants. In 2021 it was only 1.72 gigawatts, i.e. only a quarter of that.
We experienced a break in 2018. As you rightly say: from 2014 to 2017 there was an average increase of 4500 megawatts each year. Then the federal government at the time decided that the expansion had to be channeled through tenders. From today’s perspective, you can hardly explain it, but back then people said: It’s all going too fast, we have to slow down. Therefore, a new tendering system was launched, which from 2018 only allowed an annual increase of 2800 megawatts. That sent the fatal signal to the federal states: Don’t try so hard, we need less speed!
Then the area designation suddenly decreased, the approval procedures became longer. 2019 was the most difficult year with an increase of almost 1000 megawatts. Since then, you’ve been slowly working your way up. In the meantime, politicians have recognized that this was the wrong direction, that we need to speed things up. But once you’ve halved an industry, you naturally feel it. You can’t compensate for that overnight.
What was the argument for going too fast?
If the expansion of renewables happens too quickly, what happens next with the coal phase-out? What will happen to nuclear power? What will become of the line construction? These questions have overwhelmed politicians. That’s why you wanted to slow down.
You wanted to save jobs and votes?
However. From our point of view, the problem was actually that the same government that initiated the halving of new construction in 2017 ratified the Paris climate protection agreement shortly afterwards, which actually said the opposite. In this respect, action should have been taken by 2018 or 2019 at the latest. The grand coalition was no longer able to do this due to internal resistance. In this respect, the change of government came just in time from our point of view. Now we have a coalition of three parties that are saying very convincingly and clearly: we have to make progress in expanding renewables, we have to get faster, we have to achieve a lot more expansion. This has given the industry new confidence. By the way, that was before the attack on Ukraine.
You are basically a lobbying association and also from a strong industry. What other associations were so much stronger that they could overrun the wind industry like this?
I don’t even know whether it was due to other lobby groups or really to a very unsettled policy. From 2014 to 2017, we had 4,500 megawatts of new installations every year. During those years, you’ve seen wind turbine shipments on every highway at all times. Something happened everywhere.
And that scared people?
Definitely some. And politicians have sometimes drawn the wrong conclusions from this. Of course, the decentralization of our energy in a renewable system means that production is closer to the citizens. Of course you can see wind turbines. Of course, more people look at one of the 29,000 wind turbines than at the remaining nuclear power plants. This makes you think differently and reflect differently. Then there was, so to speak, a short-circuit by saying: If more wind turbines are built, I might have less success in elections.
It’s always about how you implement your political will and how you explain to the local people what is happening. You can see that this works in the northern German states. Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, but also Saxony-Anhalt have seen a lot of expansion even in the difficult years. There was no glaring break there. This shows that a lot is possible when politicians talk to people and explain things. But when politicians are so frightened that they only start discussing problems, you can talk about a crisis. It will then not be far to the real election results.
You have already twice praised the traffic light for the change of course in the expansion of wind energy. Was this tender model, which slowed everything down, abolished or adjusted?
The new coalition has significantly increased the volume of tenders. Next year it will be 12,840 megawatts for wind energy, and from 2024 it will be 10,000 megawatts annually. This shows that the task is enormous, but this also gives the industry a signal: the federal government is serious about this, we need more. Especially since the laws do not work in four-year steps, but with perspectives up to 2030 and 2040.
The expansion target for 2030 is 100 gigawatts, i.e. 100,000 megawatts …
It is now 115 gigawatts, and the legislature made improvements again in the last phase – also under the impact of the Ukraine war and the gas crisis. Today we have 56 gigawatts of installed capacity on land, so we need more than double the current capacity. But that will not mean that we need twice as many facilities because we are building a modern park. The coalition would like to expand repowering: Where an old plant already stands, a new one should be able to be built via a simple approval process.
Which then has more horsepower?
New systems usually have four times the output. The average wind turbine in today’s park of 29,000 turbines has an output of 1.8 megawatts. What is newly built has an average output of 5.3 megawatts. We already have 6 megawatt systems in the installation. This shows what is possible through the renewal of existing plant technologies.
These systems are probably larger and have longer rotor blades? Can there be problems with the place?
In 2011, in a large study by two Fraunhofer Institutes, we showed that 200 gigawatts of installed capacity would ultimately be possible on two percent of the state, based on further development of the technology. From these 200 gigawatts, 770 terawatt hours of electricity could be supplied. That is significantly more than Germany consumes today. But we all know that consumption in the areas of heat and mobility will increase. In this respect, these two percent are a good basis.
It sounds like you are very happy with the new frame. What has to happen in order for us to achieve these growth targets?
The federal government has announced that after the summer break it will launch another package to remove hurdles and obstacles: a planning acceleration law, because the big problem is the overly long approval procedures. On average, it currently takes five years from the application to the approval of a wind turbine. A clear streamlining is needed here so that we can reach one year. This is possible due to changes in the Federal Emission Protection Act, which define the deadlines specified there. Today, for example, an authority says: Not all of those responsible for public affairs have spoken out. We suspend the deadline and give them another four weeks, and then another four weeks, and then another four weeks. Then the year is suddenly over and you realize: Oh, new facts have arisen under nature conservation law. Please provide a review of what has changed. You can’t get out of this loop of extensions, statements and expert opinions. We have to make a cut, the federal government has announced.
You can’t always get everyone on board?
Right. At some point a decision has to be made.
Does that mean the fear that things might be going too fast that played a role in 2018 is no longer there?
No, because politicians have recognized that things have to go faster and the past few years have damaged Germany with the dent in expansion. If we had continued the expansion from 2014 to 2017 with 4500 megawatts per year, we would have 18 gigawatts more installed capacity today. Then the current challenges would be discussed in a completely different way.
Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann spoke to Wolfram Axthelm. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better understanding.
