cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/52096709

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.

  • Mihies@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 天前

    Replacing it mostly with gas, which still produces global warming? Gas is better, but still problematic from environment, price and dependency point of view 🤷

        • Mavytan@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 天前

          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.

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 天前

            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?

            • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 天前

              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.

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 天前

                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.

                • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 天前

                  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.

                  • Mihies@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 天前

                    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.

            • Jako302@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 天前

              no nuclear, where will energy come from during windless nights/cloudy days

              Nuclear can’t be used for that either way. Nuclear power plants are notoriously expensive, so they need to run at a constant 100% output to be remotely economically viable. That means you can’t just dial them up to fill a gap in renewables since they already are at max output.

              Even if we ignore economic concerns, the old reactors we had weren’t build to operate in load following mode, meaning you couldn’t just ramp their output up/down if you wanted to. New reactors are often build with that capability in mind, but that would’ve required pretty much a full rebuild of the reactor chamber and the control system. With the already required maintenance it would’ve been easier to just build a new reactor at that point.

              If the two options are a new nuclear reactor or investment in renewables, than the latter option is faster, more reliable and cheaper. The gaps in renewables could easily be solved with more water reservoirs and battery stations as power storage. The main problem is that germany, like always, introduced so many diplomatic hurdles in the process that no one wants to do it. You can thank our totally not corrupt politicians for that.

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 天前

                Yep, Nuclear is all you listed above. But OTOH they are reliable and predicatable 24/7.

                If the two options are a new nuclear reactor or investment in renewables, than the latter option is faster, more reliable and cheaper.

                You sure? Nuclear is reliable, renewables aren’t because they depend on weather.

                The gaps in renewables could easily be solved with more water reservoirs and battery stations as power storage.

                “Easily”. Besides corruption, the sheer amount of energy storage required is enormous, there are nowhere enough batteries available nor pumped storage hydropower. Perhaps in the future where sodium and other batteries appear in mass production, but not today.

                Edit: also you can’t look at average consumption but at peak daily consumption which might be quite higher during winter than summer.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 天前

              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).

              • Mihies@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 天前

                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.

                • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 天前

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

                  • Mihies@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 天前

                    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…