From The GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
Dirty Coal Revived As Europe Speeds Green Retreat
With Greenpeace successfully forcing the shutdown of nuclear power, and keeping out fracking for gas, what’s left? A boom in coal. In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal. Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up new mines, practically every month. It might sound odd that a boom in German coal is the result of Greenpeace’s political success. –Ezra Levant, Toronto Sun, 7 January 2014
Germany’s wind and solar power production came to an almost complete standstill in early December. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still. One million photovoltaic systems stopped work nearly completely. For a whole week coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply. –Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt, 24 December 2013
Europe’s appetite for cheaper electricity is reviving mines that produce the dirtiest type of coal. Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. Alarmed at power prices about double U.S. levels, policy makers are allowing the expansion of coal mines that were scaled back in the past two decades. Lignite demand worldwide is forecast to rise as much as 5.4 percent by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. –Stefan Nicola and Ladka Bauerova, Bloomberg, 6 January 2014
Germany’s energy transition has also been a transition to coal: Despite multi-billion subsidies for renewable energy sources, power generation from brown coal (lignite) has climbed to its highest level in Germany since 1990. It is especially coal-fired power plants that are replacing the eight nuclear power plants that were shut down, while less CO2-intensive, but more expensive gas-fired power plants are currently barely competitive. Energy expert Patrick Graichen speaks of Germany’s “energy transition paradox”: the development of solar and wind farms, yet rising carbon dioxide-emissions. —Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 January 2014
Question: What happens when you forcibly implement an overly ambitious plan to overhaul your entire energy infrastructure by ridding yourself of both nuclear power and coal, instituting on outright ban on hydraulic fracturing and hence natural-gas exploration, and relentlessly subsidize politically preferred forms of so-called “green” energy that investors and consumers aren’t choosing to use of their own volition? Answer: Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. This is what happens when you let big-government delusions of “green” grandeur commandeer policy. –Erika Johnson, Hot Air, 7 January 2014
Coal remains the biggest source of fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. and coal exports are growing fast. Demand is being stoked by the rise of power-hungry middle classes in emerging economies, led by China and India. By the end of this decade, coal is expected to surpass oil as the world’s dominant fuel source, according to a recent study by consultant Wood Mackenzie. –John W Miller and Rebecca Smith, The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2014
The Energy Information Administration estimates that hydrates contain more carbon than every fossil fuel available on Earth combined. EIA also reports that these ice-like structures could hold anywhere from 10,000 trillion to more than 100,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. By way of comparison, the administration, which acts as the independent statistical arm of the Energy Department, said in 2013 that there are just over 7,000 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas deposits throughout the world. –Clare Foran, National Journal, 24 December 2013
Fire up the coals!
Germany is such a strange country…..they destroy their beautiful rural areas with wind turbines, and then fire up more coal, which is what they are supposed to be eliminating. Why not just get rid of the useless turbines, and spend the money on modern filters, scrubbers, and co-generating systems, which would allow them to burn coal, without the negative effects on the environment. Jus sayin!!!
Good news too for W. Virginia, Germany is a major client for coal mining here.
@1957chev-It is mandatory to install those plats with scrubbers and filters to modern standard, that is factored already into the decision to build the ~30 plants plotted on the map. The lignite plants I think will be near-field (Braunkohlegebieten) belt-fed plants like those in the Chumotov-Most region in N. CZ, so there is an economy of delivery here. Those Bk fields on the CZ side will be exhausted in ~30/40y so the switch in CZ is in the opposing direction to that of Germany (i.e., Thermo-nuclear). Given proximity factors (CZ and the F system also), it seems hardly sensible to close the German T-n plants ahead of their time.
I’m in the UK and I want one 🙁 I’m fed up seeing these motionless windmills dotted around the countryside.
How long will it take to burn up the US Georgia swamp forests now the EU has made it mandatory to burn coal 1/3 together with wood pallets 2/3 ?
2 billion CO2 certificates stashed in the banks ready to compensate the CO2 emissions but they will be used when the CO2 trading prices are much higher.
Burning wood together with coal allows the industry to deliver relative cheap electricity for years to come.
I think the massive burning of wood in coal plants (4 times the volume of coal) is together with the bio fuel mandate one of the most criminal decisions made by the EU.
Spain lost it’s oak forests when Philips II during the 80 years war build his “Armada”.
A single coal plant burns 20 Armada’s in a week.
We’re talking about every coal plant in Europe here.
Where are the freaking environmentalists when you need them?
Typo? 5.4% doesn’t sound like much.
so new videos of bucket wheel excavators will be forthcoming?
cool.
spent a few years in germany, 87 to 89, and could see the tensions then between older land owners and younger activists regarding respectful land use. older ones respected and used it, younger ones worshiped it. could tell the populace was swinging towards the younger point of view but I never expected them to go as far as they did though.
the older people treated us army soldiers a hell of a lot better than young people did. maybe that was because tracked vehicles can really do a number on a field…
1957chev says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:04 am
Germany is such a strange country…..they destroy their beautiful rural areas with wind turbines, and then fire up more coal, which is what they are supposed to be eliminating. Why not just get rid of the useless turbines, and spend the money on modern filters, scrubbers, and co-generating systems, which would allow them to burn coal, without the negative effects on the environment. Jus sayin!!!
Modern coal plants ARE clean.
The crazy policies come from the environmentalists who pushed for the bird schredders and renewable energy like palm oil, bio fuels and now wood, masses of wood while at the same time collecting money to plant trees. It;s these people tat are completely bunkers and now pose a bigger threat to the biosphere than anything from the past.
The average German has had no say in this.
This is what happens if a country is run by a bunch of freaking Commies.
Germany = DDR 2.0
Is this the new black economy?
Sorry.
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
Unintended consequence strikes again.
Well done Greenpeace. You have pushed to stifle valid energy alternatives, such as fracking and nuclear, so much that everything has backfired. This makes me very happy 🙂
So how “dirty” is dirty coal? If the smoke stacks are equipped with modern scrubbers, is the effluvia still dirty? Or are scrubbers just there for show? Or do the coal haters hate just because they hate?
R.deHaan…..steady on there! Environmentalists have largely disappeared in Europe…I know, because I am one of the last ones standing! I belong to a society of conservationists that has stood out against turbines and biofuels. We don’t like nuclear, either. I also made a strong plea against wood-chips. These are ‘green’ policies….they have not had environmental impact assessment, instead they are based upon dogma and ‘collusion’ of interests….renewable energy companies like Siemens, bankers and brokers, and yes, modern day campaigners in the green NGOs – but these people are NOT environmentalists – they are professional political lobbyists, just like many climate modellers are….where the policies they promote guarantee them a role for life. If you want a serious analysis – read my book ‘Chill’…half the book deals with why the ‘greens’ have colluded in a false consensus on climate science. These people are not ‘commies’….(my wife is Czech and lived under their occupation for the first half of her life – so we have some idea), but ‘greens’ DO have something in common with communist regimes, and that is the belief in a command and control economy – as long as they happen to have a hand on the control levers. It is a syndrome not confined to any particular culture – its ugly head can arise anywhere.
There are many old-school environmentalists who believe passionately in freedom, local decision making, appropriately scaled technologies, a decent lifestyle that does not compromise the ability of others to live well, as well as clean air, pure water and unpolluted oceans, and abundant biodiversity – the latter for which you ought to thank the early environmentalists. Many of us have opposed the madness of turbines as well as the risks of nuclear power and do not support biofuels. The problem is that ‘green’ is some modern weird imperative that cannot examine its own assumptions – because it is the only pitch that many have for the levers of power and influence. These people are the ones in ‘denial’ of their own self interest – what someone called ‘willful blindness’.
rabbit says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:59 am
Question: In total, have Greenpeace’s efforts through the years harmed or benefitted the environment?
—-l
A question worthy of a research grant 🙂
negrum says January 7, 2014 at 12:10 pm “A question worthy of a research grant :)”
Great.
What do you want the answer to be?
Am I the only one who reads this and immediately thinks “insider futures trading”? How much money did the Greenpeace higher ups invest in coal during the downturn they helped cause before shoring it back up? So much of junk science centers around practices that just coincidentally have massive and sudden impacts on the price of various commodities. One well placed “preliminary finding” can send pork belly prices plummeting and a month later “New research” just happens to pop up causing a swing in the other direction. The average low-information voter will distrust a person because they work directly for one group or the other but lacks the basic understanding of how third parties can make billions by first trashing and then resurrecting a market.
Modern coal plants are basically clean of the old type pollutants such as sulfer and soot – why do you think the push for CO2 as a pollutant? Its the only real thing the enviros can use to pretend that coal/fossil fuels will be the end of us all.
This is an interesting development. In the UK the coal plants are being closed down due to an EU directive (or so we are told ) but Germany apparently does not have to comply with the same rules ! What are our politicians up to ? Oh I know – there is not a single Chartered Engineer in the house of commons, so none of them understand the difference between a kW and an MW, so what chance do we have of getting things right. Looking forward (not) to power cuts due to their lack of engineering competence and hence dithering for more than a decade now.
Peter Taylor says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“There are many old-school environmentalists who believe passionately in freedom, ”
Sure. In Germany, they got purged out of the Green party ca. 1980 by the maoists like Joschka Fischer and Kretschmann who recognized their ticket to power and quickly entered the young party. That was also when I voted the first and last time for the Greens.
John says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm
“This is an interesting development. In the UK the coal plants are being closed down due to an EU directive (or so we are told ) but Germany apparently does not have to comply with the same rules !”
Wrong. EU allows new coal power plants given they have flue gas scrubbers of a certain quality; doesn’t come cheap. If UK would spend as much money as Germany they could have for instance modernized Drax accordingly. UK decided not to do that due to the age of Drax.
I don’t know your tariffs but I guess we pay twice as much as you for a kWh. 26 Eurocents ATM.
@ur momisugly Peter Taylor. Whilst the early technology of Fusion Reactors leaves something to be desired ultimately the mass production of Electricity lies with Fusion, even now the successor to ITER, DEMO is being planned and costed, powered by Hydrogen Isotopes they produce practically no ( in that the radioactivity is caused by the Neutron bombardment of the reactor chamber walls ) radioactive waste as compared to the current Uranium fueled reactors, whose technological development via Thorium was curtailed by political expediency under the Nixon administration and latterly by France possibly in an attempt to protect it’s very large and profitable Nuclear industry. The 2 countries that are the most likely to be the first to have Fusion on line, Japan & France both utilize Nuclear heavily, of the two France is the greatest to the extent that 85% + of their electricity production is by conventional Nuclear power, even though Germany is involved with the ITER project, how long do you think it will be before the average conservationist realizes that the scaremongering of Nuclear does not apply to Fusion and votes for it when it comes on line sooner than expected ( the latest forecasts predict around 2035 ).
Germany always gets a free pass with the global warming brigade.
In “Any Questions” a few months ago, Jonathan Porritt of Friends of the Earth was forced to deal with this inconvenient truth as it was mentioned by Lord Lawson. Porritt swatted it away quite casually, with yes, yes, it is true that Germany has taken to coal generation, but only as a TEMPORARY measure, which they HAD to do because they CORRECTLY removed themselves from nuclear generation following the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.
Yet if the UK mentions cutting subsidies for renewables, you can be sure the likes of Porritt will breathe hell fire and brimstone upon all concerned.
This is not “EUROPE” Germany is not europe even though it pretty much funds it. The french have refused the right to drill, the spaniards have none, neither do the italians. The germans are doing their utmost to protect their thriving economy and have no choice but to build coal fired generators.
Though there are more problems ahead. The EU commisariate has demanded a reduction down to 130gco²/km by 2015 and to 98 grco²/km by 2020. The germans have one a delay of about a year but my gut feeling is that may change. That is why BMW have introduce the all electric car and daimler have introduced the hybrid and soon the EV. The crunch won’t come in my lifetime but it will come. Without germany the eu is bankrupt.
They are if you build them that way, which I’m sure the Germans will do. But it’s not a completely unreasonable assumption that true air pollution could result. Look at the Chinese, they chose NOT to include the filters and scrubbers necessary.