Germany's coal phase-out is on track to happen through market forces well before the legal 2038 deadline, regardless of current energy market turbulence, says Hauke Hermann, a researcher at the Institute of Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut). Carbon price trends make an exit as early as 2031 or 2032 likely, Hermann told Clean Energy Wire. Refiring old coal plants in response to the Iran war's energy market shock to cut power costs would distort investment signals and is unlikely to happen in practice, he added.

Soaring energy prices have triggered calls for slowing Germany’s coal exit. The country’s coal exit law, agreed in 2020, provides for the step-by-step decommissioning of coal power plants. It also stipulates that coal-fired power generation must cease by 2038 at the very latest. Germany's western coal region aims for an earlier phase-out by 2030, but delays in building new gas-fired power plants as a backup for renewables make meeting this earlier deadline increasingly unlikely.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 5 months ago (16 children)

My read of those graphs is that coal (and lignite) have both been going down and will likely continue to do so. Natural gas has been constant, it does not appear to replace the reduction in coal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Usage of both can go down only to some extent. Then what? Germany has no nuclear, where will energy come from during windless nights/cloudy days? France?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Last year there were 78GW of battery grid connections approved in Germany. That is with 720GW pending for approval. So safe to say that segment is growing quickly. Add to that trade with other countries. Europe is large enough, that the weather is very different across the continent.

    Oh and also, there always is some wind at least. The worse week last year was at 12.8% of electricity consumption from wind and average is 28%. That week also had pretty good solar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Shouldn't that be GWh? Anyway, that's peanuts if you want to rely purely on renewables. You also can't look at average wind, you have to cover energy demand all the time. If there is no wind for minutes in such case, you have big problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Shouldn’t that be GWh?

    No, grid connections are measured in GW.

    Anyway, that’s peanuts if you want to rely purely on renewables.

    These batteries usually are planned to have two hours of storage. Some more some less. So 158GWh would be enough to power Germany through sunny, but windless days. 1440GWh are more then a days worth of electricity consumption of Germany. Again there are no days with absolutely no wind and solar and Germany needs more of them to even charge those batteries up anyway. So it is on the lower end of what is needed to run a country like Germany without fossil fuels.

    At that point you can talk about some weird forms of storage like hydrogen or use a bit of biomass or something like that. You might even get away with carbon capture and storage, because the amount of fossil fuels needed for that grid are so low.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    I think you need more than one day of energy's worth, plus there is a problem with short and cloudy winter days where you'd struggle to generate enough energy let alone store it. I'd be really curious if there are some actual studies that observe past years and calculate all this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Other parts of Europe that have wind and battery storage. That isn't rocket science and improving the grid makes way more sense and is cheaper than building white elephant nuclear reactors (that will not be online before way into the 2040ties anyways).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    Germany is very much opposed to nuclear, but when it needs it, it has no problems with importing it? That's a bit hypocritical and not really self sufficient, isn't it. Besides it might happen there is draought plus/or huge energy demand and France won't be able to export energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    A bit hypocritical to think nuclear could prevent that when it takes 15 years under optimal conditions to build a reactor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Nuclear could prevent that, but Germany closed even their functional NPPs, let alone planned new ones when it should. How come France emissions are incredibly low and state is self sufficient, even exports a lot...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Germany closed half a century old plants that were over or close to their maximum design lifespan.

    France is still having Russia of all places process a large part of the needed uranium 🙄 And the nuclear power plants are causing huge debts for the operators.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Germany npps roughly started operating from 1970-85, in Slovenia we have one NPP that began in 1983, still works perfectly fine and we are extending its life at least until 2043 if not beyond. So, tell me again about maximum design lifespan...

    France is still having Russia of all places process a large part of the needed uranium 🙄 And the nuclear power plants are causing huge debts for the operators.

    What's the price tag on avoiding global warming? Also uranium can be found and processed elsewhere and it sucks that they use Russia (both imports and processing). But I guess this is just typical EU hypocrisy when it comes to Ukraine war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Yes, that is half a century, and no, explanding their life time is irresponsible from a safety standpoint as any operator will tell you. At most you can add new reactor blocks and decomission the old ones. Furthermore it is also uneconomic to operate vintage npps as necessary repairs become much more expensive.

    And no, investing into white elephants that don't produce any electricity for at least 15 years does not help with climate change. It is actively harmful, as during that time the fossile fuel plants continue to operate, while necassary investments into the grid and renewables can't be done because all the money is stuck with building prohibitively expensive npps.

  • source
  • parent