During a long period of time, energy policies were following economic or strategic considerations : to exploit natural resources the best possible way for those which had them, to guarantee supply security, to support the development of industrial sectors bringing a relative independence accompanied with job creations and exports which resulted from them. This time seems to be over in some countries like Germany and France where “turnarounds” in energy policies have been largely influenced by political considerations.

Angela Merkel CDU is much less strong than it is generally believed. It governs thanks to an alliance with Bavaria CSU but it was not sufficient during the last poll since it had to constitute a great coalition with the SPD. CDU keeps its central position in German political life thanks to the support of former East Germany länder. These territories, when unification occurred, lost their industrial basis, unable to compete with their western rivals. That situation created a massive unemployment. Their last wealth was the production of their huge resources of brown coal.

To hold the support of these areas, Angela Merkel achieved a major turnaround on energy policy, the “Energiewende”, in planning the end of nuclear production and in launching a massive investment program in favor of renewable energies. Industrial impact was minor since German nuclear industry, Siemens in particular, had, at the end, renounced and sold its minority stake to Areva. In return, the company had a strong position in wind turbines and natural gas and coal power generation units.

Renewable energy units are located in zones where there is wind or sun, which are not naturally the zones where electricity needs are the most important. So it is necessary to forward it. Especially, they are intermittent. When there is no wind or no sun, it is still necessary to have power. Nuclear generation being abandoned, it will be the role of natural gas power generation units and above it, coal power generation units which will produce at full capacity. The trick was played. On the world scene, Germany was congratulated for its investments in renewable energies. Its industry was not penalized and East German coalminers will continue to give their votes to the CDU, which got all the conditions to stay in power.

German consumers, but not companies, would pay more for their electricity bills but the government explained to them, with success, that it was their contribution to “saving the planet”. Reality is quite different. Due to the massive utilization of coal and, what is worse, brown coal power generation units, Germany, became Europe bad pupil, without attracting any attention about that evolution. The country emits more than 9 tons of CO2 per habitant when France emits only about 5 tons. Germany will not fulfill European objectives in 2020, despite the choice of a favorable reference year (1990): it was the worst period, regarding pollution, due to the unification with East Germany. Two sectors are responsible for these poor results, transport, and the Volkswagen affair is related to this situation, and above it, power generation which relies on coal and brown coal for 42%. In spite of their rise, wind turbines and solar energy produced only 75 TWh in 2015. As they work when it is not needed, in summer in particular, electricity, which is highly subsidizes, is forwarded on the European network and provokes prices fall. Brussels passiveness, in that case, must be noted both regarding vehicles emission norms and carbon price evolution which should have penalized the utilization of fossil fuels or rules regarding State aids. This passiveness is in contradiction with environmental objectives and competition rules, a subject where the Commission is frequently very fussy, especially when the interests of German industry are threatened.

France was not a laggard regarding the politicization of energy policies. The Socialist Party, before 2012 elections, negotiated an electoral agreement with the Greens very damaging to nuclear industry. This agreement was in line with a recent political trend. Most of the nuclear capacities had been built, without any difficulties, during the two seven years mandate of François Mitterrand. But Lionel Jospin government, between 1997 and 2002, refused to give its green light to the construction of the new generation nuclear reactor, the EPR. That was indirectly at the origin of the terrible Finnish adventure since, in order to maintain a minimum knowledge in the French industry, it was necessary to get an order. The 2015 bill related to “energy transition” is in this ideological continuity in dictating unrealistic objectives of nuclear production in 2025 and has sent a harmful message to our industrial interests, which, by the way, will affect our growth and employment objectives.

Worst of all, the idea that renewable energies were a substitute to nuclear power generation has provoked a massive wasting of financial resources, paid by consumers through successive tax increases on electricity. In 2015, in despite of favorable meteorological conditions, wind turbine and solar panels produced less than 30 TWh, compared to a total electricity production close to 500 TWh. Public announcements regarding renewable energy installations put in operation shouldn’t create illusion. One Gw capacity in a nuclear plant produces, as an average, during a year, 7 TWh. For a wind-turbine, it is 2 TWh and for solar panels, it is only 1 TWh. If we continue in this direction for political reasons, like Germany, we will have to increase massively the production of coal and natural gas power generation units. France emissions will increase. It will be a height of absurdity if we notice that the U.S. and China started to reduce their use of coal, and that was the reason why they supported COP 21 objectives, and contributed to its, at least diplomatic, success. On the opposite, and it is a difference with Germany, this energy “turnaround” will not profit to our industry since investments rely mainly on Chinese, German or Danish products and technologies.

Time has maybe come to assess the consequences of this politicization, in France as in Germany. Regarding CO2 emissions, results are disappointing. Our two countries have a minor role compared to the main sources of pollution. And their choices, except if there is a major technological revolution, which is not in view by now, will not contribute to solve planet warning challenge. We can manipulate parameters or choose smartly comparison basis, but nobody is fooled.

The costs of these politician choices are huge. In Germany, households are affected, but German industry, at least, has benefited from them. In France, it is the opposite. We just have to watch Areva situation. And Alstom, without the support of the French market – it not the only reason but that has had a certain influence- had to sale its businesses in the energy sector to General Electric. The other victim, even if Engie was also affected, was EDF, whose market capitalization has been divided by two since the vote of the energy transition bill. The French State stake is about 84% and the value of it has been reduced by near 20billions euros.

So it is not illegitimate to ask about the well-founded of such politicians intrusions in a strategic activity and to assess their costs which are supported by companies and by families.