On April 19, 2026, the German news magazine Spiegel published a column warning that the terms “Primärenergie” and “Systemkosten” are being used to mislead the public about the true costs and feasibility of the energy transition.
Why the term Primärenergie is misleading in energy debates
The column argues that invoking “Primärenergie” suggests fossil fuel dependence will continue indefinitely, implying that internal combustion engines and gas heating will remain viable forever. This framing, the author states, is economically unsound and climatically suicidal, as it ignores the rapid decline in renewable energy costs and the urgency of decarbonization.
How Systemkosten is misapplied to distort renewable energy economics
The term “Systemkosten” is deployed to claim that ignoring grid integration and storage expenses will ruin countries pursuing renewables, despite evidence that renewable electricity is already the cheapest form of power globally. The author contends this argument is used selectively to stall the energy transition, even as solar and wind power expand due to their low operational costs.
What the column warns about the political employ of these terms
The piece concludes that both “Primärenergie” and “Systemkosten” function as rhetorical tools—termed “Nebelkerzen” or smoke screens—designed to create confusion and delay policy action. By emphasizing these concepts, critics of the energy shift aim to undermine public support for renewables, despite their proven affordability and scalability.
What does Primärenergie mean in this context?
Primärenergie refers to energy in its natural state before conversion, such as crude oil or wind, and is used here to imply that fossil-based systems must remain dominant.
Why are Systemkosten considered a misleading argument?
Systemkosten refers to grid and integration costs, but the column argues it is exaggerated to falsely suggest renewables are economically unviable, despite their status as the cheapest electricity source worldwide.