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.
John:
At April 24, 2013 at 12:02 am you ask
John, it seems you have been misinformed.
Except for hydropower, ‘renewables’ are intermittent and their ability to supply is not as people need but is controlled by nature (i.e. supply of wind, sun, tidal flow, etc.).
Hence, renewables do NOT reduce need for thermal (e.g. nuclear or coal) power stations.
1.
When renewables are supplying no electricity then thermal power stations need to provide all the required electricity.
2.
When renewables are supplying some power (i.e. up to ~20% of total demand for electricity) then the thermal power stations ‘turndown’ their output to make room on the grid for the renewable electricity. This INCREASES their fuel usage and emissions because thermal power stations try to operate at optimum efficiency. Reduce their output a little and their efficiency reduces a lot. This is like driving a car at 5 mph in fifth gear: it can be done but uses a lot of fuel.
3.
When renewables are supplying much power (i.e. more than ~20% of total demand for electricity) their problems of intermittency increase grid management problems so much that ADDITIONAL thermal power stations need to be built and operated to enable the renewables to supply to the grid when they can.
So, you ask
“In 2020 how much electricity will be generated from Coal as compared to renewable electricity?”
and the answer is
at least ALL of the electricity from renewables will – in reality – be supplied by Coal and the renewables may require Coal to also supply more than that.
Richard
Let’s also not forget that global warming/climate change is only a sideshow in this circus.
Designed to enrich politicians, second rate “scientists”, profligate govts & banksters through inflated power bills & carbon trading. To the detriment of the working, benefit & middle class.
This is not the whim of the idiot people being put into place, this is democracy subverted by vested interests & maniac marxists dressed as greens.
The main event is & always has been the creation of one world govt, through the UN & it’s unlimited NGOs, for which the EU is seen as the forerunner.
Create a world scare, which needs a world govt.
In the 70s it was global cooling, then came acid rain & in the 80s global warming which slyly morphed into climate change. This is rapidly becoming a busted flush, so expect the next battle cry to emerge. A global war on poverty? That sounds good & might fly. Whatever it is it will come, because the big agenda is still under the table.
Agenda 21 requires:
1) The destruction of the western industrial way of life, which we are seeing.
2) The equalisation of wealth between continents. India, China & the developing countries are making good progress, except where dictators in the UN club of dictators are given foreign aid to hold their people back in pre-industrial poverty.
3) The reduction of world population to “sustainable” levels. 0.5 billion according to the Georgia Greatstones. We are seeing good progress in this with the US & its NATO puppets inc France & the UK destabilizing govts in the Middle East :Libya & Iraq, for example, where they have left behind them sectarian violence & murderous civil wars. Over 5 million deaths in the Congo in the past few years add nicely to the score. Dr Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34700.htm#idc-cover
US cries crocodile tears over Boston, while 70,000 deaths in Syria go unremarked. Hypocrisy much? The US has already funded the AL-QAEDA based opposition with $117 million, & plans a further $ 123 million. The object? To deprive Russia of a warm water port, to leave behind the same murderous chaos as elsewhere in the Middle East & to secure the Lebanon headwaters of the water so vital to Israel.
There’s more, but that’s enough for now.
Google agenda 21 for dummies, as good a place to start as any.
Regards,
Fred.
On the German nuclear plant closure, the decision was made by Angela Merkel, by training a Physicist. Mad woman!
I’m still on the fence with warming – for a little while yet anyway.
Whatever I read on both sides of the debate, common sense tells me that burning millions of tons of anything resulting in dirty emissions when there are alternatives is wrong.
The German decision about nuclear energy is easy to understand. According to Claudia Roth (boss of the greens) and Jürgen Trittin the 16000 people killed in Fukushima died because of the nuclear catastrophy there (while our media pretended it was the tsunami).
common sense tells me that burning millions of tons of anything resulting in dirty emissions when there are alternatives is wrong.
You made a rather deadly mistake. What you call “common sense” is in reality “stupidity”.
– mankind has been burning billions (not millions) tons of anything since it climbed down the trees and discovered fire. The result is that you don’t need to climb back on trees today. But you are of course free to do so.
– anything being transformed results in emissions. Whether they are dirty or not is a matter of opinion. Some are more than others. CO2 definitely is NOT. It is a colourless, tasteless and odourless gaz without which there would be no life on Earth.
– there has always been an alternative to everything. The best alternative to driving a car or wasting energy with a computer is to walk and give the computer away. I suggest you do so for a couple of months. It is a practical lesson that in efficient alternative the word efficient is much more important than the word alternative.
However the stupidity of the quoted statement above leaves little hope that you will understand as long as the government doesn’t give you what you wish for.
Mark:
At April 24, 2013 at 3:39 am you say
At present there are NO alternatives to fossil fuels, hydroelectricity and nuclear power for large scale energy production; none, zilch, nada. See my post at April 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/#comment-1285268
Whatever anybody says in any debate, common sense tells me it is insane to freeze to death in the dark while hoping to use unicorn farts as fuel instead of fossil fuels.
Richard
In the meantime, the UK is shutting coal-fired power stations like there’s no tomorrow..
Come to think of it – energy-wise – there is ‘no tomorrow’…!
Cameron to Ed Davey (UK’s – er – ‘Energy’ minister): ‘Quick Ed – get that extension lead installed across the North Sea..!’
So let me see if I have this right: Germany, a country that is somehow in the throes of “greendom”, spending immense sums on “renewables”, is shutting down their already-built zero-emission Nuclear plants and replacing them with coal. Well good for them.
I take it nobody has informed the “green” types that more radioactivity is emitted by a coal plant than a Nuclear plant. Nobody stopped to think about the required backups for “renewables”, a word that my spell check doesn’t recognize. Nobody actually compared an almost 50 year old reactor shaken by an enormous earthquake and doused by an equally enormous tsunami and yet still miraculously emitting only barely measurable radioactivity, all within the range of “natural” in other parts of the world, to the stable, newer technology being used in Germany.
But that’s ok – we live in an entirely upside down world, where one president (Nixon) resigns before being impeached, and another (Clinton) just ignores actually being impeached. A world where most of an entire city (Boston) is shut down in order to capture a teenager. We have a society that actually believes that “manmade global warming” causes cold weather, that small variations in land temperatures are reason to panic, and that we should separate our garbage so subsidized companies can make doormats and t-shirts with it. Heck, we live in a world where people fly airplanes into office buildings and others try to “understand” them and figure out how to appease them better.
Oh no, it gets better. We are told that Science has all of the answers, to every question, but can’t even deal with a common virus that virtually everyone on the planet is exposed to from time to time. We’ve witnessed violent protest against liberating countries from horrific dictatorships. We’ve watched religions become, not just marginalized, but mocked publicly from all directions by people who claim to be fighting for religious people.
Yeah, it’s a mixed up world, heck the 60s weren’t even CLOSE to the craziest time ever. All we did was normalize crazy. If you were to bring someone here from 100 years ago they would wonder what we did to ourselves. All of these wonderful inventions and labor-saving devices, and we’re busy trying to get rid of most of them.
Nah, compared to the AGW scare and the ozone scare and the rest of what’s been going on for the last few decades, Germany’s decision to abandon Nuclear doesn’t even seem that crazy. It’s just another symptom of a severe lack of critical thinking, which is so common today it rarely even gets noticed.
@TomVonK
Oh I’m so sorry (cap formly in hand) for being SO ‘stupid’ and having an opinion.
There’s really no need to hide behind your keyboard and launch personal attacks on people.
Now would you like to pick up that dummy there?
And by the way as you’re making ‘suggestions’ – I commute 20 miles a day on my my bike to work do you?
Mark says:
April 24, 2013 at 3:39 am
Well, that is a good thing: Since the current warming is natural and has been going on since it began 350 years ago, and since we cannot do anything about either stopping it (in the future) nor starting it (in the past), I can appreciate your ambivalence about it. 8<)
Current emissions are not "dirty"
"Dirty" is condemning millions to an early death through disease, hunger, bad food, and cold weather with poor shelter and no water or living in sewage with no jobs BECAUSE some one in a rich foreign nation decided you should die rather than have access to inexpensive safe energy.
No alternatives exist that are economically or operationally competitive. All "alternatives" are deadly.
Yes I do see your points there for sure.Thank you.
I’ve just found this article on hydrogen fuelled vehicles:
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/ukh2mobility-attract-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-uk
Comments anyone?
Regards,
JD.
Wow, for years the greenies encouraged us to lead the world in green energy, they warned us about the disadvantages of falling behind in the global clean energy revolution.
Now it looks like we are falling behind alright, we’re falling behind in coal power.
Mark ( APR 24 @ur momisugly 5.29) hi.
Try putting Matt Ridley in the search box on this site, & find the talk he gave, to the Royal Society I think, in which he argues that extra CO2 in the atmosphere ( being plant food) & thus the industrial way of life which produces this CO2, is actually good for the planet.
CO2 certainly hasn’t caused any warming for ~16 years, though CO2 production is up by ~44% 1990 to 2010. Plant growth is improved by ~12% to 27%.
Then put Allan Savory in the search box & see how he has learned, since 1985, to roll back deserts over 15 million hectares, on 5 continents. Fact not theory.
As always on WUWT, the comments are as good as the articles, & among the comments is a BBC film which shows that the Amazon is a largely man made forest. Yes an anthropogenic forest. 🙂
We have been brainwashed into thinking that Carbon is a pollutant, while it is in fact the basic building block of all life on Earth. Neither is CO2 a pollutant, it’s plant food.
We have also been brainwashed into thinking that man himself is the ultimate polluter, in danger of ruining the planet through overpopulation & resource ( oil & food etc) depletion.
This is also false. Google peak child, research peak land & world population. Matt Ridley is good, & speaks in laymans language. rationaloptimist.com
Enjoy.
Regards,
JD.
Thanks for the info 🙂
Steven Hales said:
Not really. Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry, and that’s what he’s doing. NG prices will not stay low and in fact are rising not dropping. http://tinyurl.com/bbdzb2d
Also, the manufacturing sector saw its largest drop in March in 13 months. The Sandy bump is gone. Manufacturing ISM Tumbles
Sorry to spoil the party, but there is no recovery. There is a total disconnect between S&P 500 and real economic data. The whole thing is propped up by QE monopoly money.
jdseanjd:
At April 24, 2013 at 6:43 am you say
I could address the myths of overpopulation and resource depletion (both are nonsense) but choose to address the idea of “man himself is the ultimate polluter”. And I address it by citing one of several examples.
There is a fish called the Parrot Fish. It is quite pretty in appearance. It eats coral, digests the polyps, then excretes the remainder of the coral as calcia sand.
The excretion of Parrot Fishes coats the floor of the Pacific Ocean (i.e. about half the planet) and the floors of other oceans. When enjoying a beach on a tropical island then you are lazing on Parrot Fish crap.
No emission from human activities forms a solid layer over half the planet. But nobody complains about Parrot Fish crap. Why not?
Richard
Stephen Hales,
The NY Times is behind the times on natural gas fired power replacing coal fired power generation in the US. US natural gas prices reached their near-term nadir in April 2012; coal and natural gas fired generation had equal market share – 32%. But by November 2012, natural gas prices had increased by 58% while coal prices decreased slightly; coal market share = 42% & natural gas market = 26%. Preliminary EIA data indicated that coal consumption by US power sector in March 2013 was 25% higher than in March 2012, indicating the coal market share in March 2013 was ~42%. EIA Weekly Natural Gas updates show natural gas consumption for power generation in April 2013 down 20+% compared to April 2012.
richardscourtney says:
April 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm
We are in total agreement here. In addition to doing without probably 95% of the electricity generated in the world today, without fossil fuels we would have to give up the modern metallurgy necessary to build those wind turbines the greens are so fond of, not to mention large hydroelectric dams, and the silicon fabrication factories which supply modern electronics, including solar panels.
Try building 1.5 MW wind turbines out of wood and whalebone, or smelting aluminium with solar power (or even smelting aluminum if you’re on this side of the pond).
Without fossil fuels we could not maintain the manufacturing technology to generate electricity from wind, even assuming the energy density made it worthwhile.
Jim Hansen calls coal trains “death trains”, which is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact coal first, then oil and natural gas are responsible for the greatest improvement in the general human welfare in the history of this planet. It’s not perfect, but nothing ever is, except in the deluded fantasies of people like those who dominate the green movement today.
jdseanjd says:
April 24, 2013 at 6:01 am
“I’ve just found this article on hydrogen fuelled vehicles:
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/ukh2mobility-attract-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-uk
Comments anyone?”
I haven’t heard of breakthroughs, the existing problems are:
a) H2 makes steel brittle and diffuses slowly through all materials. You shouldn’t park a H2 car in a closed space to avoid explosive air-H2 mixes. The Fukushima explosions that blew off the rooftops were H2 explosions. It is a byproduct of fission and forms explosive concentrations under roofs.
Also make sure to replace any tank or pipe before it becomes too brittle and ruptures.
H2 tends to explode while natural gas tends to burn away (even though given the right mix you can create a Natgas explosion as well).
b) “Wet” Fuel cell membranes need to stay moist. They’re unsuitable for the temperature range cars must withstand. I know of no solution.
c) Electrolysis of H20 to H2 and O is expensive.
That bbeing said, as long as London does not get a hard winter fuel cells might be useable in that climate. Oh wait…
richardscourtney says:
April 23, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Mycroft:
At April 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm you ask
Stunned at this news,why then in the UK are we having to shut down coal fire power stations under E.U directives whilst Germany is allowed to build new ones?????
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
Thanks Richard. Here you have the EU in a nutshell. Clever use of the small print by the Germans and French to shaft us Brits. But what is our alternative – Nigel Farrage?! King Arthur and Merlin, come back and help us!
In the US, FGD and SCR NOx controls have been retrofitted to many coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) that are 25+ years old. It is becoming apparent that US coal-fired EGUs can operate dependably, with proper O&M, for 60+ years. Not sure about EGUs built by CEGB. The UK units I have seen that were built in the 70’s had not imcorporated lessons learned in the US in the 50’s & 60’s in terms of improving long-term operations and maintenance. Seemed like CEGB was operating in its own little world, oblivious to developments outside the UK.
Well Germany’s media is so dominated by greens anti nuclear that this was the only logical solution. Green is the state religion and curiously green religion means being anti-nuclear. So no hope for Thorium here. Not in the next 10-15 years.
Like in the medieval times huge amount of money were payed to the green religion (energiewende) with exponential increasing amounts of money, so the little sins to open some coal power plants can be pardoned.
Rhoda R says:
April 23, 2013 at 11:19 am
The trouble with wind power is that it is 14th century technology – however gussied up and prettyfied it is today. And 14th century technology is going to give you a 14th century standard of living.
No, no, that is the army of giants prepared to fight future Don Quixote, or maybe trying to inspire another Cervantes. We seem to need that.
Mark says:
April 24, 2013 at 3:39 am
I’m still on the fence with warming – for a little while yet anyway.
Whatever I read on both sides of the debate, common sense tells me that burning millions of tons of anything resulting in dirty emissions when there are alternatives is wrong.
CO2 is not a pollutant. The greening of the planet is visible and measured by satellites.
Wind-turbines, solar panels need to be judged as a whole: generate energy when it is needed – so including a backup, whatever that is, production costs, pollution costs, maintenance and life expectancy, space occupied, replacement and waste treatment.
The same as with CFL light-bulbs against incandescent bulbs. Not thought to the end.
Not a great new to hear on Earth day I believe Germany ranks on second number on clean energy resources. What prompts them to open more coal power stations and contribute to global warming?
fanta81 says April 26, 2013 at 12:00 am:
Q “What prompts them to open more coal power stations and contribute to global warming?”
A — Perhaps Germany realized that global warming essentially flatlined 17-25 years ago, depending on whose database you are using..Perhaps Germany realized someone has been deliberately pulling our leg, covering up the reality about CO2 and covering up the falsification of the AGW hypothesis for a long, long time. Perhaps Germany realized the IPCC is not a scientific body, but is instead a political body with a preconceived agenda that has nothing to do with sound science.
SLEcoman:
re your post at April 25, 2013 at 8:59 am .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/#comment-1287293
The CEGB has not existed since 1991. All British coal-fired power stations have been completely owned by private companies since 1995 when UK Government sold its 40% share in them which it had retained since 1991. And the owners of the British power stations own power stations in France and Germany.
The remainder of your post displays similar misunderstanding. Although – as I said – there are details which my simple explanation omits, the basic facts and reasons for the enforced closure of British coal-fired power stations are as I said in my post. They have nothing to do with the CEGB (which has not existed for decades) or the generating companies not knowing their business.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/#comment-1285214
Richard
I think you misunderstood my post. I was trying to say, perhaps not in the best way, that the coal-fired power plants in the UK built in the 70’s & 80’s by the CEGB should have 20+ years of life remaining in them, not 10 years, based on US experience. This longer remaining life would make it easier to justify retrofitting SO2 scrubbers.
However, it is possible you are correct that the UK coal-fired power plants only have 10 years of life remaining as it may be that the coal-fired power plants the CEGB built won’t have as much life as US plants built in the same time frame. I could believe you are correct that the plants built by CEGB won’t last as long as US plants built because my observations of some these plants built by CEGB indicated to me that the CEGB did not incorporate some of the lessons learned from the weak designs seen in the US in the 1960’s.