German coal use at highest level since 1990

[FBaggins]

Brown coal electricity production in Germany rose last year to its highest level since 1990, despite the country’s campaign to shift to green sources of energy. The increase, revealed in figures published on Tuesday, prompted calls from Green politicians and environmental lobbyists for energy reforms to raise the costs of operating coal-fired power stations – especially those using brown coal, a highly-polluting fuel.

...snip...

The exchanges come as chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition looks to revise Germany’s energy policies – maintaining commitments to green energy while also controlling the costs and protecting economic competitiveness. At the same time, Berlin is also grappling with an EU probe into subsidies paid to some industries to shield them from high energy prices.

...snip...

As a result, Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions, which rose from 917m tonnes in 2011 to 931m tonnes in 2012, are estimated to show an increase of 20m tonnes when figures are tallied for last year.

...snip...

Jens Tartler, spokesman for the German Renewable Energy Federation, an industry group, urged reform of the EU’s carbon market The EU’s decision last year to remove emissions worth 900m tonnes from trading was “not enough” to boost the market. “That emissions are rising again in Germany [with its commitment to green energy] is a very bad signal to other countries.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e6470600-77bf-11e3-807e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pnzml16p

[pscot]

1. Because renewables!

If the Germans can't get it right, that probably tells us something about the prospect of solving our carbon problem.

[FBaggins]

2. Not really.

Renewables were doing a great job of cutting Germany's carbon emissions and coal use...

... then they decided to shut off about 40% of their nuclear power - and what many don't realize is that they still have the other 60% scheduled to shut down over the next several years.

Absent that single decision, Germany's coal consumption and carbon emissions would now be much lower.

[pscot]

3. Slice it any way you like

They're still headed in the wrong direction. Time is of the essence. We lack the proper sense of urgency.

[kristopher]

4. "the companies that own coal plants are the same as those who own nuclear"

"From the left to the right, we see that nuclear power production dropped by 2.5 TWh in 2013, with that amount easily outstripped by the 3.6 TWh increase in renewables (a difference of 1.1 TWh). Power demand also dropped by 10.7 TWh, 0.3 TWh more than the decrease in consumption of natural gas in the power sector."

07.01.201
Energiewende and coal: not the same camp

The news that German coal power production increased again last year has cast the country's energy transition in a bad light, with whom proponents of nuclear in particular hoping to make the switch to renewables synonymous with greater coal power demand. Yet, the companies that own coal plants are the same as those who own nuclear. Proponents of the Energiewende combat both.

“Coal surges sullies Germany’s clean energy image,” ABC news writes. The issue is a 1.5 percentage point increase in the share of coal power in total power supply (which the website incorrectly calls “gross energy”) in 2013.

The news is not surprising (I discussed the trend in July) and can be attributed to mainly to power exports. Nonetheless, the media and proponents of nuclear attribute the rise of coal in 2013 to the nuclear phaseout – even though no nuclear plant has been decommissioned since 2011.

What we have seen in recent years is a rise in power exports. Take a look at the following chart based on the figures published by the AGEB (see my report).


Agora Energiewende

From the left to the right, we see that nuclear power production dropped by 2.5 TWh in 2013, with that amount easily outstripped by the 3.6 TWh increase in renewables (a difference of 1.1 TWh). Power demand also dropped by 10.7 TWh, 0.3 TWh more than the decrease in consumption of natural gas in the power sector. If Germany were an island, demand for coal power would have decreased by 1.1+0.3 = 1.4 TWh. Instead, we have an 8.9 TWh increase, which is only possible because net power exports increased by 9.9 TWh, equivalent to nearly 50 percent greater power imports year-over-year.

Renewables are must-run plants in Germany, meaning that their power has to be purchased even if conventional plants have to ramp down commensurately. Germany’s neighbors who import a lot of power – the main two culprits are the Netherlands and France – are the main driver behind the growth in German coal power production...

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/energiewende-and-coal-not-the-same-camp/150/537/75832/

[FBaggins]

6. What clever spin - think anyone fell for it?

Let's only look at the tiny decline in nuclear power in 2013 over 2012... when the plants were shut down in 2011. Shhh.... I'm sure that nobody will notice.

In reality... the change in TWh from nuclear pre-shutdown to post-shutdown almost exactly matches the increase in coal. Wind and solar combined (I don't have run-of-river for 2011 - but the current total is well below the 2010 level) was a bit less than 9 TWh higher in 2013 than in 2011. Nuclear power last year was down 60 TWH from before the shutdown.

As I told you over a year ago... all of the wind and solar that Germany has installed to date barely compares to the amount of nuclear that they gave up... and there's still another 90+ TWH/yr to replace.

It's simply dishonest to try to leave readers with the impression that wind/solar are making up for the loss of nuclear power. The simple truth is that lower demand from economic weakness (partially caused by higher energy prices) has done far more to "offset" nuclear than renewables have. Almost everything else is coming from coal - and that will be true for years to come.

we see that nuclear power production dropped by 2.5 TWh in 2013, with that amount easily outstripped by the 3.6 TWh increase in renewables (a difference of 1.1 TWh).

Poor math skills there. Renewables gained a tad under 2 TWh as their run-of-river hydro declined.

It's also worth noting that wind generation is still below the 2011 peak - so it hasn't contributed anything at all to replacing nuclear.

[FBaggins]

8. "the main two culprits are the Netherlands and France"

Flat wrong.

Renewables are must-run plants in Germany, meaning that their power has to be purchased even if conventional plants have to ramp down commensurately. Germany’s neighbors who import a lot of power – the main two culprits are the Netherlands and France – are the main driver behind the growth in German coal power production...

Policy doesn't change reality. If a coal plant is chugging along at a constant rate of production and the wind stops blowing... that power needs to be dealt with. Enacting a policy that calls something "must run" doesn't change that. The power that's getting dumped is clearly the wind power... not the coal that policy says should be shut off. If anything, the blame is with coal being so much cheaper than gas... since expected wind generation should be balanced by gas, not coal (which can't just shut down for 15 minutes and then start back up again)... so they export it (but it's the wind power that's causing the need to export... not coal).

Then we come to the claim that France and the Netherlands are the "culprits" - as if they need to import power.

France certainly doesn't... they were almost exclusively the exporting party when we're talking about Germany. Germany likely couldn't keep the lights on without that French (nuclear) power covering for their transmission weaknesses.

The Netherlands did import lots of German power... but not because of their own demand. They were sucking up the wind power that Germany had to dump (cheap) and then selling it (to other countries) when prices were higher. Again - Germany is the needy party in that exchange.

Both France and the Netherlands are taking advantage of Germany's errors. They aren't driving demand for coal.

[kristopher]

5. "then they decided to shut off about 40% of their nuclear power"???

They decided to shut down nuclear in 2000; it wasn't sudden.

The coal/nuclear loving Conservative government headed by Merkel had tried to reverse the plan established in 2000, and then reaction to Fukushima made her reverse her reversal. The shut down wasn't sudden or unplanned.

"... 11.3 GW of coal capacity to be added and 18.5 GW closed by 2020—a net decrease of at least 7.2 GW...."

AUG 15, 2013
Amory B. Lovins
Chief Scientist
Separating Fact from Fiction In Accounts of Germany’s Renewables Revolution


I recently wrote about—and debunked—the renewables “disinformation campaign” that spreads misinformed and falsely negative stories about the growth of renewable energy. A special focus of such disinformation has been reportage on Germany’s efficiency-and-renewables revolution. The impressive success so far of the German Energiewende (energy turnaround) is an important existence proof for the world, because Germany is cloudy, high-latitude, heavily industrialized, highly competitive (it rivals America’s merchandise exports with one-fourth its population), and the world’s fourth-biggest economy.

Perhaps because German success would therefore belie the supposed necessity of fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, some media regularly report the Energiewende’s failure or supposed impossibility. As I highlighted, Germany’s renewables revolution is in fact highly successful and strong as ever, but that hasn’t stopped three myths from gaining traction in the media: 1) Germany’s supposed turn back to coal, 2) how renewables undermine grid reliability, and 3) how renewables subsidies are cratering the German economy. None of those are true, and here’s why.

MYTH #1: GERMANY’S TURN BACK TO COAL
An efficient new German coal plant begun in 2006, with fast ramp rates to complement variable renewables, was widely but wrongly heralded on its commissioning in 2012 (Europe’s only new coal plant that year) as signaling Germany’s post-Fukushima turn back to coal—not mentioning that it replaced a larger amount of dirtier and far less efficient coal capacity that was shut down. Moreover, replacing old 35-to-38-percent-efficient coal units with modern 46-percent-efficient ones, like some of the 5.3 GW likely to come online this year, would save a fifth of their coal even if net capacity didn’t change. And though capacity may fluctuate for a few years, the German Energy Agency expects 11.3 GW of coal capacity to be added and 18.5 GW closed by 2020—a net decrease of at least 7.2 GW.

<snip>

MYTH #2: RENEWABLES UNDERMINE GRID RELIABILITY
Another common misreportage theme is that renewables are degrading the reliability of Germany’s power supply, driving industry abroad. The president of Germany’s network agency has confirmed this is not true. Hearsay anecdotes alleging renewable-caused power glitches are often traceable to Der Spiegel, a frequent source of anti-renewable stories, but evaporate on scrutiny. Charles Mann in The Atlantic cites five references to bolster such claims, but his sources (cited in my response) don’t support his case. One, from a Koch-allied anti-renewable front group (whose political arm, the American Energy Alliance, lobbies for fossil fuels and against renewables), claims renewables are “causing havoc” in the German grid, the other four sources don’t, and none of the five offers any evidence this is happening, because it’s not—as I confirmed with German experts in May 2013, when I was co-keynoting the Chancellor’s electromobility conference in Berlin.

<snip>

MYTH #3: RENEWABLES SUBSIDIES ARE CRATERING THE GERMANY ECONOMY

More at http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution

[FBaggins]

7. Why does that matter?

Why care how "sudden" the decision was?

Nothing changes the fact that ALL of the progress that Germany has made toward renewables (clearly one of the most substantial moves globally) doesn't come close to replacing their nuclear plants.

Which is why they're near the top in renewables growth rates... but on the wrong end of the carbon emissions end as well (all while paying higher prices than almost anyone).

Had they left the nuclear plants alone - either in 2001 or a decade later - all of those renewables would be knocking king coal down to size.

A policy that (I point out yet again) you supported until just a couple years ago.

On edit -

Also... when looking at the extent (if any) to which renewables are replacing nuclear... wouldn't you need to compare the planned growth of renewables pre/post the 2011 nuclear decision? After all... if we can't "count" new coal plants that were already planned prior to 2011... why would we count renewables that were planned prior to that point?