By Paul Homewood
RWE’s new lignite power station opened in Neurath in 2012
Germany’s dash for coal continues apace. Following on the opening of two new coal power stations in 2012, six more are due to open this year, with a combined capacity of 5800MW, enough to provide 7% of Germany’s electricity needs.
Including the plants coming on stream this year, there are 12 coal fired stations due to open by 2020. Along with the two opened last year in Neurath and Boxberg, they will be capable of supplying 19% of the country’s power.
In addition, 27 gas fired stations are due on line, which should contribute a further 17% of Germany’s total electricity generation. (Based on 2011 statistics, total generation was 575 TwH).
It is worth noting that none of these coal or gas plants will be built with Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), which is a legal requirement for coal generators in the UK, despite the fact that the technology does not yet exist on a commercial scale.
The UK government is so desperate to get out of the corner it has boxed itself into, that it wants to hand out huge sums to subsidise the cost of developing CCS technology. According to their “Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy” (Page 31), they want to support the cost of four commercial scale CCS projects.
But since the report was written in 2011, nothing much has happened, other than the announcement of two preferred bidders for the £1bn programme. One of these, the White Rose project at Drax, won’t be submitting a planning application until next year, and a final government investment decision won’t be made until 2015.
In the meantime, UK energy policy is allowed to drift. No company would abandon a successful, proven and efficient method of operating, without an alternative, better way having already been thoroughly tried and tested. So why does the UK government think it knows better?
APPENDIX A
German Coal Fired Power Stations Due to Open By 2020
| Operator | Location | MW | Date Due | Status |
| Trianel | Lunen | 750 | 2013 | In Trial |
| EnBW | Karlsruhe | 874 | 2013 | In Construction |
| GDF | Wilhelmshaven | 800 | 2013 | In Construction |
| Steag | Duisberg | 725 | 2013 | In Construction |
| E.ON | Datteln | 1055 | 2013 | In Construction |
| RWE | Hamm | 1600 | 2013 | In Construction |
| Vattenfall | Hamburg | 1640 | 2014 | In Construction |
| GKM | Mannheim | 911 | 2015 | In Construction |
| MIBRAG | Profen | 660 | 2020 | A/W Approval |
| RWE | Niederaussem | 1100 | n/a | A/W Approval |
| GETEC | Buttel | 800 | n/a | A/W Approval |
| Dow | Stade | 840 | n/a | A/W Approval |
As supplied by BDEW, the German Energy Producers Association.
“US would have enough coal to power its economy for a couple of centuries”
Closer to 1000 years.
Barry Sheridan says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:46 am
Readers to this site need to understand, if they don’t already, that British politicians are in general scientifically illiterate.
—
That’s a failing of politicians world wide.
Coal Plants are great..they provide reliable and affordable electricity for the masses…they emit lots of CO2 which is good because carbon dioxide makes green things greener and more productive with a lot less water and fertilizer. With all this talk about how China gets its electricity…it is still about 70% from coal-fired plants and with two new coal plants being built every week on average that % won`t change anytime soon.
Edohiguma says:
April 23, 2013 at 8:16 am
Sadly, I totally agree with that.
richardscourtney says:
April 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
You could have added that given the old nature of the technology it is unlikely that there will be any significant future increase in efficiency.
Essentially, the generator is a tried and tested design that dates back a century and therefore short of using super conductivity or super magnetivity, it is extremely unlikely that improvements in efficiency can be obtained from any redesign of the generator. The same applies to the propellors/blades. These are of tried and tested design dating back to at least the 2nd world war. Once again, it is unlikely that significant increase in efficiency can be achieved through more efficient propellor design. Thus to get more power, the only way that this is achievable is to build big bklades and a bigger generator, not by way of more efficiency being extracted from the integral components.
There can be no future economy of scale. Each turbine by necessity is an individual item with its own concrete base and stand. It is not possible to reduce the spacing between turbines due to wind shaddow (something familiar to those who enjoy yachting). So this is not a situation like the integrated circuit where thousands (even millions) of transistors could be placed upon one small circuit board thereby revolutionising amplfier/radio design.
Thus the bottom line is that this is not a fledgling industry where significant improvements can be acchieved with time and investment. In every day use, wind farms return around 22 to 28% of their nameplate capacity. We will never achieve significantly better returns than that. Indeed, it is likely that future returns will be less since probably the best situatedi sites have already been used, and there is some evidence that windfarms are stripping some of the energy from the wind, such that with ever increasing numbers of wind turbines, the strength of the wind will slightly lessen.
Of course, the biggest kioller is that it is now becoming apparent that the life expectancy of these turbines is far less than was presumed. It appears that their lefe expectancy is in the region of 12 to 15 years. Off-shore, the life expectancy will be far less and maintenance costs far higher. Having been involved in shipping for approximately 30 years, I have my doubts as to whether off-shore turbines will ever be economically repaired. I foresee substantial problems in the cost effective maintenance and repairs of these.
There is no economic case for wind, There is no energy generation design case for wind (indeed it apppears that they are at their least efficient when demand is at its peak – consider winter blocking highs when it is cold and dark and when there is all but no wind)). There is no AGW case for wind since they require almost 100% backup by conventional powered generators such that there is no saving of CO2 emissions (not one single conventional power generation station has been closed down any where in the world because it was made reduntant and replaced by wind).
The sooner the governments stop all subsidies (without compensation) for wind the better. Industry (and the consumer) is going to pay a very heavy price for this folly.
Mycroft:
At April 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm you ask
It derives from the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD). I explain as follows.
The LCPD was established as a response to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. It constrains emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power stations. The bureaucracy established to operate the LCPD still exists, and the bureaucrats who operate it justify their jobs by continuing to tighten the constraints.
The emissions constraints can be met by fitting flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). But an FGD plant requires space for it to be installed and an existing power station may not have the space. Importantly, FGD is very expensive.
FGD adds ~20% to the capital cost and ~10% to the operating cost of a power station. These costs are spread over the operating life of a power station.
The Germans are building new coal-fired power stations. The additional costs of FGD will be spread over the entire life of each new power station. These high costs reduce but do not negate the ability of the new power stations to make profits.
Simply, the new German power stations fitted with FGD can operate to make profits over their scheduled lives.
The British have old power stations which have already operated for half their scheduled lives. Fitting FGD to them would require the additional 20% capital cost of FGD to be recovered during the remainder of their lives. And that is not possible when FGD increases the operating cost by about 10%.
Simply, the old British power stations can close and make no profits or fit FGD then operate at a loss. No profits is preferable to a loss so they are being closed.
I hope that brief explanation is sufficient and clear.
Richard
richard verney:
re your post at April 23, 2013 at 1:20 pm.
Thanks for your addition.
Yes, I agree all of that, and there is more I could have added, too. But I thought my post was already long enough.
I think we agree that a technology which has had continuing development for 3,500 years has been developed to near its optimum performance.
Richard
there is nothing wrong with germany using these new coal plants. THe co2 really isnt going to make a major impact on anything and nuclear power is still dangerous esp with terror threats etc. i think it is a good plan for them.
richardscourtney says:
April 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Don’t forget oars, which were really the prime ocean transport power during classical Persian/Greek/Roman times. Oar-powered galleys continued to be employed in the Mediterranean up to the Battle of Lepanto (1571) when an alliance of Italian city states defeated a Turkish fleet. Note this was just 17 years before the Spanish Armada sailed into ignominy in 1588.
Richard you make some excellent points. Another thing to consider is the impact iron production had on hull construction. The absolute limit for a wooden keeled vessel is about 100 meters, and that’s for a flat-bottom hull for river/lake use. For a deep ocean-going vessel, there were very few successful all wood ships over 70 meters; 60 meters was much more typical. See here .
The use of coal to produce coke to smelt iron (instead of charcoal) caused iron production in England to explode starting around 1700. Greater availability and lower cost allowed first iron keels and later completely iron hulls. We think of iron as heavy, but for its strength it is lighter than wood. Iron hulls quickly blew past the old limits on hull length. The three ships of Isambard Brunel illustrate this:
Great Western (1838) — wood with iron diagonals: 72 meters
Great Britain (1843) — all iron: 98 meters
Great Eastern (1859) — all iron, double hull: 210 meters
The interior space of a hull increases with the square of the length, so in a span of 21 years hull capacity increased over ninefold. Such large hulls simply could not be powered by sail; they required steam engines. Similar rapid technological advances produced increasingly efficient engines, fueled by coal (approximately double the energy density of hardwood).
Iron, coal and steam powered the industrial age. They developed together and enabled each other.
richard verney says at April 23, 2013 at 1:20 pm
“It appears that their life expectancy is in the region of 12 to 15 years.” It being, of course, onshore wind turbines.
Very good point. Especially when the AGW effect is imperceptible over 15 years. The current warming pause makes that clear.
How can anyone justify factoring in a subsidy to cover the remediated-externalities when the turbine can’t have any measurable effect on the feared externality during its planned lifetime?
Why not leave such remediation until the development of a technology that can show an improvement over its lifecycle?
Walking away lowers the risk of wasting resources.
vukcevic says:
April 23, 2013 at 8:17 am
////////////////////////////////////////
If one thought that on shore wind was a folly, off-shore wind is an order of magnitude worse.
There is evidence now emerging that in real world conditions the ilife expectancy of on shore wind turbines is in the region of 12 to 15 years. One can expect that off-shore, this will be halved.
The costs of maintenance off-shore will become prohibitive in view of the safety issues. There have already been may fatalities on-shore, but the dangers off-shore are far worse. Waiting for a favourable good weather window which will permit maintenance will be expensive since there will inevitably be considerable standby charges (supply vessels, personnel, possibly helicopters) whilst awaiting for the weather window to open up.
It would not surprise me if real world experience leads to the conclusion that it is uneconomic to repair broken/faulty operating wind turbines, as and when they break down, and that maintenance and repairs be effected only on an annual or bi-annual or tri-annual basis. For long periods of time, many turbines will fall out of commission.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7:
Thankyou for your interesting and informative post at April 23, 2013 at 1:38 pm.
Yes, you raise several important issues. Allow me to put another take on them.
All energy sources are free.
Coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, uranium, and etc. are free: they exist in nature.
But collecting a source and converting its potential into useful energy has costs in effort and money.
The much higher energy intensity in fossil fuels than in wind means the same amount of energy costs less to obtain from fossil fuels than from wind.
Fossil fuels could provide heat but not work prior to the steam engine. The steam engine enabled fossil fuels to provide their energy for conduct of useful work. Access to the high energy intensity in fossil fuels then provided such cheap energy to do work that it displaced windpower and muscle power (from animals and slaves).
Ignorance of reality is displayed by the idea that an industrial society can return to windpower, solar power and muscle power. There is no possibility that collecting energy from these sources can be as cheap – in effort and in money – as collecting energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power. Indeed, using windpower and solar to collect sufficient energy to operate an industrial society would be so expensive that the society could not sustain it so would collapse.
Richard
dillweed7 may well be persona non grata here for previous comments, but to my mind his two comments on this thread have been OK. One was an opinion expressed in reasonable terms – people have seen fit to disagree with it but such is open discourse. The second was a very reasonable request for a link to information.
Perhaps Europeans should pass laws which require new mandated “energy efficient” appliances to display warning labels, alerting the buyer to the fact that they can be remotely turned on and off when used in concert with a Smartmeter. The renewables are just a back-breaker to the existing coal and gas plants, so that smartmeters are required to manage the volatility of demand, supply, and price – new grids supposedly protecting the poor, who were deeply harmed in the first place by ideologues supporting worthless wind turbines.
The ignorance of renewables supporters regarding the necessity of these smartmeters and new grids (in order to repair the damage done by renewables to supply and price) is either willful, or it is deeply deceptive. Why should Europeans or Americans be forced to add on renewables, then add on smartmeters, then add new smart grids, when it is already known that the renewables are disruptive and expensive?
Does the resulting central control by government of electrical use by the consumer and industry, afforded by smart grids and smart meters, have something to do with it? If you see anyone telling you you have to buy all new grids, or ignorantly supporting policies that force “people to fork out thousands of pounds on new TVs, fridge freezers and washing machines,” or to buy all new power meters, you are dealing with someone who is unable to observe the destructive results of their previous experiments on people’s lives. And so this is irrational, because it disregards the observations and expects it will all magickally work out.
No problems. All they have to do is spend a few cents on the carbon credits market and these new coal stations will be covered.
Zeke says:
April 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm
“If you see anyone telling you you have to buy all new grids, or ignorantly supporting policies that force “people to fork out thousands of pounds on new TVs, fridge freezers and washing machines,” or to buy all new power meters, you are dealing with someone who is unable to observe the destructive results of their previous experiments on people’s lives.”
Forcing you to do something is the job description of a politician, after he is done forcing you to not do something..
Not feeling compassionate today… I say “Give the people what they want”… If they can’t understand science, engineering and economics on the most rudimentary basis, then they should learn their lessons by freezing in the dark for a few years. Or working all day to live in meager poverty.
The mighty German and Japanese nations need to be pilloried before the entire global community as object lessons in self- laceration and destruction. Seems to be the only way the world learns good ideas from bad ones.
Mr. Hales, you may find soon that the miracle of fossil fuels is neither fossil nor miracle. It will not surprise me that we have an abundance of hydrocarbons just as Thomas Gold said.
DirkH says, “Forcing you to do something is the job description of a politician, after he is done forcing you to not do something.”
And you get to pay for it coming and going. Which in the case of energy policy leaves you paying to shut down nuclear and coal, then paying for worthless wind turbines, then paying higher rates, then paying for national industry loss, then paying for going after those nasty tax evaders, then finally, paying for more coal plants to be built.
Let me guess, they have some new cars you have to buy and some new ways to grow crops without any chemical fertilizers or water. What could go wrong.
Is it fair to say in the future there will be a new medical declaration of death. ‘Green death.’
I am glad I don’t reside in the UK, they are looking down the barrel of years of trouble which cannot be resolved in a few months! But will the green brigade put their hands up to take responsibility?
Oh well.. Even mighty Germany can only take so much political stupidity before there is no other choice but to turn the ship around.. Scary economic stuff with so much invested in wind / solar and nuclear.. Now its back up coal plants that are not really back up plants because they will always be running to meet demand.. What a staggering cost on the German public.. What a fine example of true democracy, where the whims of the idiot population get put into practice..
Am I being to harsh?.. Lets add it up the best we can. German nuclear RND and the building of the plants, this includes wages and benefits.. Then lets add the 200 odd billion dollars Germany has invested in Wind and Solar to delay fake global warming by 45 minutes.. Then lets add the cost of the new and improved expensive coal fired plants, plus the carbon tax they will have to pay..
I think its a number nobody wants to add up..
The insanity of it all never ceases to amaze. But the exhortation of Greenpeace to invest massively in offshore windpower seems very clear. By degrading your enemies treasure over time he becomes weakened to the point of conquest. If anyone doubts this think only of the Battle of the Atlantic. This was entirely a struggle of materiel. Today that materiel is the economy dressed up as the ‘environment’.
We shouldn’t forget that the original boondoggle was nuclear.. it was a cold war bragging stump where everything about it was exaggerated.. Scientists and engineers hand in had with the democratic cold war propagandists.. Huge sums of money where shared on projections that proved to be no better than climate science today..
Then the truth came out that long before the initial investment payed off the plant had to be retro fitted to more modern safety standards..
Has there ever been a nuclear power plant thats earned a dime in profit?
In reply to LamontT
LamontT says:
April 23, 2013 at 7:53 am
Thats a major step backwards from the nuclear plants they used to have.
William:
There are a few bugs that need to be worked out for nuclear power. The nuclear power promoters do not quote realistic costs for construction or for operation. The cost of nuclear power is 2 to 3 times the cost of coal over the complete life cycle of the nuclear plant. Nuclear power plants can and do have complex expensive problems in their life cycle.
The thorium reactor is interesting. The Breeder reactor is interesting as it consumes all fissionable material. Hansen’s estimate (which I do not trust) is there is sufficient fissionable material (he assumes uranium can be removed from sea water which I have heard of but do not know if that is practical) to fuel breeder reactors to power all countries for a billion years.
The technical and commercial issues are not trivial. For the very long term say the next 40 years we need to fund prototypes and production prototype to develop a standard design for nuclear reactors that has been tested and proven.
Jay says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm
We shouldn’t forget that the original boondoggle was nuclear.. it was a cold war bragging stump where everything about it was exaggerated.. Scientists and engineers hand in had with the democratic cold war propagandists.. Huge sums of money where shared on projections that proved to be no better than climate science today..
Then the truth came out that long before the initial investment payed off the plant had to be retro fitted to more modern safety standards..
Has there ever been a nuclear power plant thats earned a dime in profit? (William: I am not aware of one in the US.)
In reply to Jay.
The reaction to nuclear safety issues was to throw regulations at the problem. At the rate of three new regulations per day so there are now around 200,000 regulations. The cost of the reactors has doubled to meet the regulations. (One of the companies I worked for provided critical valves for nuclear applications.)
In the very long term nuclear is likely the answer. The technical problems are solvable. The question is how to solve them at a reasonable cost. Likely nuclear reactors should be constructed far from population centers.
Part of the problem is commercial companies cannot fund long term nuclear research. Commercial companies hence are forced to stay with a design that is approved for construction. There appears to be no other choice but to have government funding. The question is then when to fund the reactor research.
‘Fossil’ fuel plants can and have be optimized so that a modern coal plant produces very low emissions. ‘Natural’ gas is better if one has a source of natural gas. What we need to do in the US is as appropriately build either new modern coal plants or natural gas plants and let source of gas, location to major population centers, and total cost, drive the choice.
Unfortunately the EPA has created regulations to stop coal consumption as opposed to ‘protect’ the ‘environment’. The EPA appears to be staffed by fanatics.
I think this article is incomplete, how many old coal powered station will close down as new more efficient ones are built? In 2020 how much electricity will be generated from Coal as compared to renewable electricity?