Europe's energy crisis, triggered by the war in Iran, has exposed the continent's dangerous reliance on oil and gas. However, instead of treating this as a wake-up call, governments across the EU are doubling down on fossil fuels, with plans to build nearly 60 gigawatts of new gas plants. This move could lock Europe into fossil fuel dependence for decades, according to a new analysis by the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels (BFF).
The report, titled 'Merchants of Crisis', finds that these planned gas plants, if built, would burn around 28 billion cubic meters of gas annually, equivalent to about 9% of the EU's projected gas imports or the annual gas consumption of 46.4 million households. This is despite the fact that natural gas prices in Europe have already risen by 60% since the war began, and Europe entered the crisis with much lower gas storage levels than in recent years.
In my opinion, this is a deeply concerning development. Europe's energy security cannot be achieved by doubling down on fossil fuels, which are inherently volatile and subject to price shocks. Instead, the focus should be on diversifying energy sources and investing in renewable energy, storage, grids, and clean flexibility solutions.
Germany, in particular, is on the frontline of this new gas power push. The German government plans to add 12 gigawatts of power plant capacity by 2031, with 10 of those gigawatts earmarked for hydrogen-ready, gas-fired plants. While this is down from the initial plans, it's still a significant addition to the country's existing portfolio. The German government mandates that all newly built gas-fired capacity must decarbonize by 2045, but critics warn that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not a proven or cost-efficient solution.
One thing that immediately stands out is that the German Energy Minister, Katherina Reiche, has a pro-gas industry stance, which is concerning given her background. Her push for gas-fired power plants and advocacy for relaxing net-zero deadlines and cutting solar and grid subsidies suggest a conflict of interest. This raises a deeper question: how can we ensure that energy policy is not influenced by the interests of fossil fuel companies?
The prioritization of gas as a controllable power source is problematic because it draws investment and political focus away from making renewables more flexible through battery storage, demand-side response, and time-of-use tariffs. Germany, for instance, is far behind other European countries in smart meter coverage, which is essential for dynamic electricity tariffs and reducing reliance on gas as a backup.
The TTEP joint venture between TotalEnergies and EPH, set to become one of Europe's largest gas power producers, is another example of how new gas deals are being framed as flexible power solutions. However, campaigners argue that this will effectively create a new fossil gas giant with a structural interest in prolonging Europe's dependence on gas imports.
In my view, the real solution is to establish a strategy to phase out fossil fuels while accelerating progress on renewables, storage, grids, and clean flexibility. European households and businesses need lower bills, greater resilience, and freedom from fossil fuel price shocks. This requires a long-term framework to progressively reduce Europe's structural dependence on fossil fuels, backed by measurable targets and accelerated investment in renewables, storage, and grid infrastructure.
The European Council meeting this week is a crucial opportunity for EU leaders to endorse such a framework. The AccelerateEU package proposed by the European Commission is a step in the right direction, but it falls short of the structural shift needed to prevent Europe from becoming permanently vulnerable to fossil fuel price shocks. It's time for a more comprehensive and ambitious approach to energy policy, one that prioritizes the long-term interests of European citizens over the short-term profits of fossil fuel companies.
