Germany Looks to Phase Out Coal. But Does It Matter?
I copied the title above from this article in GreenTechMedia as a preamble to a few remarks.
Some people may say that anything Germany does is a “drop in the bucket” of the world’s overall coal consumption, and thus it’s an irrelevant gesture. I’ve heard this argument before. In fact, I’ve actually made this argument before. But on balance, I think it’s wrong. Here’s why:
Doing the right thing is always better than doing the wrong thing. The slaveholder in the antebellum South who freed his one and only slave did the right thing, even though he didn’t made a dent in the institution of slavery. At a much smaller level, my abandoning my lifelong habit of 25 MPG BMWs in favor of my 52.7 MPG Prius isn’t changing the world in any significant way, but it’s the right thing to do nonetheless.
Setting a good example is an important vehicle to making significant improvements in the world. This, btw, is the principal reason that the U.S.’s taking its retrogressive position on climate change and fossil fuels is such a despicable act. The wealthiest country on Earth sets a powerful example in whatever it does, and here, it really couldn’t be much worse.
As the Chinese philosopher Laozi remarked, “A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.” Taking the first step in the right direction can hardly be called irrelevant. The migration from fossil fuels to renewable energy will require economies of scale in solar, wind, etc., and it all has to start somewhere.
The migration to clean energy will also benefit greatly from new and better technologies. The R&D that’s happening in Germany is easily exported to the rest of the world. This, of course, is the other tragedy associated with the U.S. energy policy under the current administration: America is a hotbed of innovation, and the good ideas developed here quickly spread around the globe. The fact that our efforts are going into things like oil pipelines and “clean coal” is appalling.
As I’ve mentioned, the German government sent an emissary over here a few years ago to interview some renewable energy “experts.” (How they wound up with me is anyone’s guess.) In any case, I told the guy at the end of the interview, “Two things: a) Germany is doing a great job by anyone’s standards, and b) I recommend that you take your attention off your country and focus it at the global scene; any solution that doesn’t contemplate the carbon footprint of India and China may be a good first step, but will ultimately prove to be of limited value.”
Craig,
This may come as a dreadful shock to you, (and please put down your pitchfork) but Germany’s Coal consumption is increasing, not decreasing !
Worse, the German’s are staring to burn lignite, a far dirtier grade of Coal. Germany’s emissions are increasing, not decreasing.
I’m delighted to see you finally purchased a hybrid automobile, again well done. The humble Prius is an excellent vehicle although I’m surprised you didn’t by a GM Bolt, American made Leaf, or even a Tesla. (what’s a few extra dollars when it comes to the price of your convictions eh?).
It will be long time time (many decades) before the world ceases to use coal for energy production. It seems to me that in the interim we can sit around being morally superior railing against coal (but achieving nothing practical)or encourage the development of technology to mitigate the more harmful effect of coal (clean coal) .
The same with pipelines for gas and oil. You have a choice, safer and more environmentally efficient pipelines or dangerous and polluting road/rail transport. Moralizing about symbolically encouraging the use of oil and gas is neither practical or realistic.
That’s one of the reasons why Joe Public has wearied of some environmental advocates, careful observation proves such advocacy to be as effective as the ‘the committee meeting’ scene in the Monty Python film “The life of Brian”.
Me ? I always prefer action, no matter how imperfect than morally superior whining.
I would disagree with Marco Polo in regards future coal use. Why? Part of the answer lies with renewables, but a major component in the short to medium term will be due to replacement of coal with gas – which ramps faster, and is more cost effective in combination with renewables. (Coal has high capital costs making it a bad option for low capacity factor operation.) Gas meanwhile with relatively low cost turbines and a fast ramp rate can be a good swing producer.
I had to laugh when I read: “I would disagree with Marco Polo…” The only people who *don’t* disagree with MP are those who, for whatever reason, are on the same mission: prolonging the use of fossil fuels and ridiculing people who have some level of passion about saving our civilization from catastrophe. Fortunately for our society, almost everyone disagrees with MP.
Glen,
You are partly correct, Natural Gas is a far preferable substitute for Coal. Currently, Natural Gas as the result of Hydraulic Fracturing techniques is relatively cheap and has production dramatically increased.
However, the era of super cheap gas is already beginning to wane. Demand from Asia is insatiable and already beginning to out strip supply. Prices for Natural Gas are rising reducing it’s competitive advantage over a rapidly automating coal industry.
Ultimately, (in my estimation)all fossil fuels will be replaced by advanced nuclear energy.
In Germany, part of the reason Coal use has increased is the low cost of reopening old coal generating facilities and government disincentives preventing investment for new gas generation construction.
Craig,
“almost everyone disagrees with MP”
Well, I suppose in one way you must be right because although for the last 7 years I’ve been driving an Electric Vehicle, and spent twenty years building, servicing and selling specialist EV’s, less than 0.04% of the general public has shown sufficient interest (including you) to actually buy an EV.
Just expressing hopes and wishes something will come true, isn’t really the same thing as doing anything practical to ‘make it so’. Hoping your fairy godmother (government) will wave a magic wand (taxpayer funding) to bring about utopia, won’t make it a reality !
Gary’s belief Natural Gas extracted without employing fracking technology or pipelines will prove a cost effective and abundant substitute for Coal, is a fantasy. Just as ecotopian dreams of “renewable energy” being adequate over the next 10 years to replace 40% of the world energy requirements, is equally barmy.
You wrote a piece claiming Germany is using less coal. I replied citing reliable sources pointing out the facts don’t support your claim, in fact Germany is not only using more Coal, but far more pollutant coal.
This is an easily verifiable fact.
You reply, not with a correction, or admission of error, but the snide remark “prolonging the use of fossil fuels and ridiculing people who have some level of passion about saving our civilization from catastrophe “.
That’s why it’s so hard to win the trust of the general public to environmental causes. The loudest eco-activists avoid reality and shout invective as a substitute for fact.
Look around you, forget the platitudes and vague wish lists, the overwhelming majority of the population not only agrees with me, but votes with their wallets as evidence !
Eventually, the world must develop sufficient alternate energy technology. It won’t happen tomorrow, and certainly not as the result of some exciting apocalyptic ecotopian revolution !
A slow combination of reducing emissions by employing better and more efficient technology, increasing efficiency of new technology including ESD’s , and deploying superior advanced nuclear power, will see Coal and all fossil fuels replaced eventually. The process will be faster in the developed world but with gathering speed in the developing world as when new project commence capital investment requirement with demand the deployment of technology with the longest lifetime.
New technologies are not only possible, but occurring as part of an evolutionary process.
Wild claims, unsubstantiated information, impossible expectations, advocacy confusing leftist ideology with environmental science, all these factors just make adoption more difficult by reducing public support and acceptance.
Regarding German coal use remaining high, there are two major reasons for this.
1. The phasing out a few years ago of nuclear power plant following Fukushima. This resulted in coal making up for a proportion of the lost capacity.
2.German politics – a reluctance to close the mines with the associated job losses. There is over production of electricity in Germany, with a large proportion of coal generated electricity exported to surrounding countries.
Non hydro renewables are now at around 8% of electricity globally with a doubling time of around 5 years. This being the case, I would expect non hydro renewables to reach around a third of electricity soon after 2028. Assuming hydro continues to produce around 16% of electricity, nuclear about 10%, and that the gas share increases from around 27% to 33%,that would only leave around 8% open for coal fueled power generation.
It should be noted that only 18% of total energy is consumed as electricity, with the rest being used for transport, heat, and chemicals industry.
Could you clarify the last paragraph, please? You can’t mean that 82% of all the energy in German is not electricity.
Craig,
Ah yes, “your assumptions” , how remiss of me ! I hadn’t factored in “your assumptions” that makes all the difference.
Unfortunately, back here in the real world, Craig’s claim German coal use is being phased out in the immediate future and replaced by renewable remains inaccurate. Coal use has actually increased as gas usage is more difficult in Germany and renewable are not meeting the unrealistic expectations of pandering to anti-nuclear advocates.
82% of energy used worldwide according to the article I read is in forms other than electricity. Space heating and cooking as well as process heat including making enough cement for billions of tons of concrete, and hundreds of million tons of steel and other metals, also huge quantities of artificial fertilizer and other chemicals. The vast majority of transportation.
To bring emissions under control, it is not enough to generate all electricity sustainably, it is essential also to take CO2 out of heating, transportation, metal production, and all aspects of the chemicals industry.