Merkel’s Green Shift (sic) Backfires as German Pollution Jumps

[FBaggins]

Germany’s air pollution is set to worsen for a second year, the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal.

The nation, which is seeking to lead European climate-protection efforts, probably will produce higher greenhouse-gas emissions in 2013 on top of a 1.5 percent gain last year, according to the DIW economic institute, which acts as an adviser to the government.

Utilities led by RWE AG (RWE) and EON SE boosted hard coal imports 25 percent in the first quarter to 10 million metric tons, the nation’s Coal Importers Association said. With elections due in September, the move is a blow to Merkel, a former environment minister who helped negotiate the 1997 Kyoto accord curbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. “The trend of rising German CO2 emissions is alarming,” said Claudia Kemfert, who heads the energy unit at the Berlin-based DIW. “Climate protection is a key target of the government and greenhouse gases should fall, not climb.”

Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel and is blamed by scientists for contributing to global warming. Merkel opted to shut nuclear power plants after an earthquake in Japan two years ago resulted in meltdowns at reactors owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-28/merkel-s-green-shift-backfires-as-german-pollution-jumps.html

[wtmusic]

1. .

[bananas]

2. German emissions down 25.5% since 1990, US emisions up 5%

But anti-science pro-nukes don't care about facts, they are too busy spinning faux outrage about German's pro-science anti-nuclear policies.

The article in the OP points out that Germany is doing even better than it promised under Kyoto:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-28/merkel-s-green-shift-backfires-as-german-pollution-jumps.html

<snip>

Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas output 25.5 percent since 1990, exceeding its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

<snip>

The US never ratified Kyoto and increased emissions since 1990:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-at-eighteenyear-low

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Eighteen-Year Low

By Bill Sweet
Posted 7 Feb 2013 | 21:07 GMT

<snip>

At the end of last month, a comprehensive survey of U.S. energy trends by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest in nearly 20 years, as reported in Britain's The Guardian newspaper and in the online publication EnergyMic, among other places. At about 5300 megatons CO2 equivalent in 2012, they are almost 13 percent lower than at their peak when the global financial crisis erupted four years ago, and barely more than 5 percent higher than in 1990--the baseline for cuts in the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States repudiated.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance explains the drop in U.S. emissions as follows: "The reductions in coal generation, ascendancy of gas, influx of renewables, expansion of CHP (combined heat and power) and other distributed power forms, adoption of demand-side efficiency technologies, rise of dispatchable demand response, and deployment of advanced vehicles are all contributing to the decline in carbon emissions from the energy sector (including transport), which peaked in 2007 at 6.02Gt …"

<snip>

[mbperrin]

3. Thank you.

I do tire of people touting the filthiest, most dangerous and most expensive way to boil water ever invented as some kind of green.

[NickB79]

4. Really, bananas?

That's the same type of argument used by deniers to claim that global warming stopped in 1998, by cherry-picking two data points and drawing a straight line from A to B. We all know it's far more complex than that.

You know this. Don't stoop to that level.

Your post does nothing to address the apparent reversal in Germany's CO2 emissions. Just because they have made major advances in comparison to the US does not negate the fact that their absolute carbon emissions are now RISING when they were falling for many, many years. And absolute carbon emissions are what matter in the end.

[kristopher]

5. Are you SERIOUSLY making the claim

That German Energy Policy is not moving them down a path of major carbon reductions?

If anyone is using dishonest science it would be those who look at a minor fluctuation in a long term trend and claim that proves the long term trend isn't real.

The nuclear industry and the right have been going nuts trying to discredit the German Energy Transition because it is turning control of energy over to the 99%. It is wonderful of you to provide them such strong support.

[NickB79]

6. Are you seriously going to dismiss two years of back-to-back carbon increases?

Yes, the German Energy Policy WAS moving them down a path of major carbon emissions. They made very impressive cuts to their carbon emissions.

Then they decided to burn a shitload more coal in the past few years, and their CO2 emissions reversed direction, at precisely the time the climate can't afford this sort of thing (melting Arctic, methane bomb, megafires destroying forests, etc). You try to downplay this by calling it a "short-term trend"; time will tell. But like I said, what matters in the end are absolute carbon numbers, and this doesn't appear to be helping on that front.

The fact they did so well for so long is why it's so shocking to see their CO2 emissions rise two years running now. It's like seeing your star athlete, who's been breaking records all season, suddenly start making stupid mistakes and playing like a minor leaguer. It makes you sit up and say "WTF!"

[kristopher]

7. You bet your sweet ass I am.

They are right on track with their infrastructure buildout.

Your words amount to a claim that, in the amazingly complex task of rebuilding a nations entire energy infrastructure that country must be judged only by the year on year carbon reductions they post. And that a predictable short term blip is cause for the histrionics led by - not coincidentally - THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (and its minions) that stands to lose everything with the change?

Yes, I am perfectly willing to see two years where they have a minor increase in carbon because I have the knowledge and good sense to understand that nothing has changed in their long term plan EXCEPT the nuclear industry's level of angst.

[FBaggins]

8. Then you've gone round the bend.

You need to take a look at the predictions for their solar/wind growth over the next decade and compare it to the amount they've already built... then compare the generation from everything they have so far... then compare that to the amount of generation from the nuclear plants that they have yet to shut down.

There's no way that they reduce their carbon emissions from 2011 for many years to come.

Yes, I am perfectly willing to see two years where they have a minor increase in carbon

It won't be for just two years... and it's far from minor.

On edit - just to help out with that required research... Germany produced 44.3 TWh from wind/solar in the first half of this year (down several percent from the same period last year... and a two-year decline for wind despite all the new capacity). Nuclear power (after the shutdowns) produced 46 TWh.

So over the next eight years or so... they need to duplicate all of their wind/solar success to date (even ignoring any demand growth) just to break even.

[kristopher]

10. You haven't been right about a single thing since this started.

You make these half-assed dire predictions about anything related to any shut down nuclear plant. You don't care about accuracy or obtaining a clear picture of the actual state of events. Remember how many coal plants you told us they were going to build? What was it, 28 or 40 or something like that?
That isn't happening.

Remember how they were going to be net importers of electricity?
That didn't happen.

Remember how they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on and how everyone would freeze during the winter unless they imported nuclear power?
That didn't happen.

You are a fearmonger for the nuclear industry. You post presents no legitimate arguments based on real analysis of data - it is pure FUD.

We're done.

[NickB79]

15. Oh my, oh my

Remember how many coal plants you told us they were going to build? What was it, 28 or 40 or something like that?
That isn't happening.

Thankfully, it's only 6 or so new plants: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/germany-to-add-most-coal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html

But then again, it appears they're forcing older, uneconomical plants to stay open even when the operators WANT to close them down, as Yo Mama pointed out in post #13.

Remember how they were going to be net importers of electricity?
That didn't happen.

Because they've been busy burning millions of extra tons of coal.

Remember how they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on and how everyone would freeze during the winter unless they imported nuclear power?
That didn't happen.

Because they've been busy burning millions of extra tons of coal.

Now, do YOU remember this claim?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x313730: "EU mandates on climate change preclude major investments in new coal unless it is CCS. Since CCS doesn't exist in reality that means there is not going to be an expansion of coal. They will intensify their consumption in the short term, but the concurrent expansion of distributed renewables builds the systemic momentum to shut down centralized coal altogether. "

Unfortunately, there HAS been an expansion of coal, and not even CCS coal either. Two years running of increased coal consumption and raises in CO2 emissions, with no imminent end in sight. Just how short-term is your definition of "short-term", anyway?

[kristopher]

16. So let me get this straight

You are claiming the coal plants that were under construction BEFORE the nuclear shutdown are the fault OF the nuclear shutdown?

Is that right?

And you are scoffing at the statement: "the concurrent expansion of distributed renewables builds the systemic momentum to shut down centralized coal altogether."

Is that also right?

In their presentation to the UK government (PDF), researchers at Pöyry say there are three main reasons for the "apparent surge" in new coal plant construction, which is "due to highly unusual historic reasons": a favorable market environment in 2007/2008; excess carbon allowances; and an "inability or reluctance of developers to cancel projects" when circumstances changed.

... the researchers say "there will be no major new unabated coal or date night projects in Germany for the foreseeable future beyond those currently under construction."

...running "thermal plants has become increasingly difficult" in Germany because renewable power is "reducing output of all thermal plants and depressing wholesale electricity prices." In other words, Germany's GW of coal power will increasingly translate into fewer GWh; the plants may be built, but they will be running less and less. The experts speak of "net increase of 8.9 GW" by 2015, but it remains to be seen whether Germany will increase its consumption of coal power in the process ...

Starting in 2009, the experts find that "developers' appetites" for new coal projects has died down significantly so that there will be no further investment in coal plants "in this decade." By 2035 (see chart above), installed coal power generating capacity will have fallen from around 42 GW to around 15 GW – and again, that installed capacity is likely to be running at lower utilization levels.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/no-additional-coal-plants-in-germany/150/537/62691/




So please explain how the plants in the construction pipeline were a response to the nuclear shutdown and not, as I have asserted elsewhere a part of the plan by the conservative government to both build MORE coal plants alongside of EXTENDING the use Nuclear?

Merkel has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into changing business as usual. But the public is firmly committed to the move away from centralized generation and she is only holding onto power by the skin of her teeth.

Germany has set a goal of 40% carbon reductions over 1990 levels by 2020, 55% by 2030 and 70% by 2040. They are on track with their infrastructure to meet those goals.

If you want to criticize, I'd suggest you look for the mote in thine own eye and focus your efforts on pushing the US to emulate German energy policy. I say that because the policy you are criticizing - keeping nuclear plants running - crowds out the type of generation that actually FORCES fundamental change onto the system.


The Poryr study is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194335/Poyry_Report_-_Coal_fired_power_generation_in_Germany.pdf

[FBaggins]

22. It remains to be seen?

it remains to be seen whether Germany will increase its consumption of coal power in the process ...

It's exactly what has been happening (despite protestations to the contrary). What "remains to be seen" is whether or not they can stem the bleeding any time soon.

You can play games with strawmen about whether individual plants were a response to one thing or another... but coal plants really aren't a problem... it's the coal they burn.

And there's no way to dodge that (just as predicted - despite your strawmen to the contrary) their consumption of coal is up dramatically as a direct result of the nuclear shutdown.

They are on track with their infrastructure to meet those goals.

Nice (and so artfully crafted) spin. They were well ahead of "on track" until their 2011 error. They've only gone backwards since then.

edited wrong post

[FBaggins]

24. You mean that your strawman has been wrong all along?

Isn't that the role they're supposed to play?

Remember how many coal plants you told us they were going to build? What was it, 28 or 40 or something like that?

No... I don't. It's odd that you do... since it never happened. What I did say (over and over) is "less nuclear = more coal" - and I was dead right.

Remember how they were going to be net importers of electricity?

Nope. I said that they would rely more and more on imported electricity (often from nuclear sources)... and that's exactly what happened. Interestingly enough... they also rely on those neighbors to take the solar surplus off their hands. In both directions it's Germany relying on their neighbors. Why don't you post the average price they pay per imported kwh compared to the average price that's paid to them per exported kwh?

Remember how they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on and how everyone would freeze during the winter unless they imported nuclear power?

Not quite... but that's what happened. They get very little wind/solar during the cold winter nights and it's their peak demand season. They have been able to get by with a combination of delaying retirements (even returning retired plants to service) and deals with their neighbors to provide backup capacity. They have, in fact, struggled to "keep the lights on".


On edit - Oh... and let's not pretend that we don't all know why you would like the conversation to be "done". The actual amount of power that wind/solar produces for them is roughly equal to the amount of nuclear power that they have left to retire in the next few years. Their penultimate plan was to retain their nuclear plants and replace older coal plants with ones that would be "cleaner" and efficient at lower capacity factors. Combined with a very agressive renewables rollout, this would have had a far more substantial impact on their carbon emissions in the next decade.

Instead they now have to duplicate all of the world-record-setting wind/solar efforts to date just to replace the nuclear that's left. They they have to build even more just to get back to where they were in March 2011.

Your attempt to divert from that... is transparent.

[Yo_Mama]

13. The German Greens are seriously making that claim because it is true

Here's an article which appeared in Spiegel not that long ago.
The original:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/kohle-meiler-treiben-deutschen-co2-ausstoss-a-912724.html
Google Translate:
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwirtschaft%2Funternehmen%2Fkohle-meiler-treiben-deutschen-co2-ausstoss-a-912724.html

y.
Berlin - Despite the German energy transition increases greenhouse gas emissions. Reason, the coal-fired power plants that are in full swing, as shown by data from the Federal Association of German Energy (BDEW). In the first half of lignite and hard coal power plants would have produced 12.4 percent more power, according to documents available to the Reuters news agency.

The German regulatory bodies are forcing some coal plants to remain open, and this is to balance out swings. But the plants are running along, and when the output from wind/solar is high, the very cheap output is being exported. When the output from solar/wind drops, the energy is used domestically.

The Germans are increasing their carbon footprint.

The problem is not really that the German output of renewable energy isn't climbing. It is. But it is climbing in an exceedingly unbalanced manner, and this increases the need for stabilizing power while making conventional power plants often too expensive to run. So what is happening is that some of the worst offenders are able to run very cheaply, whereas the new, more efficient and less polluting plants are probably not going to be built.

The upshot is increased net CO2 emissions (as well as of other pollutants, because some of this is brown coal),

The situation has gotten so bad that utilities are applying for permission to shut conventional power plants down, and many of them are going to be denied under the new law. But under the new scheme, they will have to be paid to keep them open. A lot of this is explained here:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=13691

This is a somewhat bizarre situation, but it was predictable. It remains to be seen what the eventual outcome will be.

Here is more about the law which has been passed to allow the Feds to force utilities to keep power plants up and running:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=10571

The best near-term way to get out of this is a somewhat speculative proposal to establish an auction-delivered reserve supply market (Versorgungssicherheitsmarkt):
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=9178

Until they try this, they don't know how it will work. If you do a market-based approach like this, the cheaper coal plants that are increasingly being used now will still win out.

It's very possible that nuclear power plants will be shut down early by their operators, and if so, it appears that fossil-based energy outputs in Germany will continue to rise over the next 10 years.

Over the long run, the theory is that energy storage of peaks from wind supply, especially, should come online to help with the ever-growing grid stabilization problem. There are major cost issues, however, because of siting problems, transmission problems and cost problems. It is not clear that most of these units will be able to compete in such an auction-based system.

[NickB79]

14. "this increases the need for stabilizing power"

You mean, baseload?

I've been assured baseload power is completely meaningless in the 21st century.......

[Yo_Mama]

21. Baseload, reactive, etc

I read the various reports, and apparently they are using a lot more reactive power to handle the grid even when output of renewables is high.

Obviously DU is not a German-language site, which limits the utility of all those reports for us.

The techniques used to handle grids are pretty uniform across most modern nations, so the UK's national grid documents give us something more understandable to look at in terms of concepts:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Balancing/Summary/

Large traditional power producers always had frequency response agreements, so those were used to modulate grid inputs. The problem is totally different when you have a lot of smaller variable sources that are supposed to get first priority in. In times of high generation, some of those may have to be locally dumped in order not to overload local grids, but aside from that these inputs must be taken, so you have to get your reactive power from another contracted source.

And reactive power is a localized demand, so the more traditional power plants have to be ready to provide it:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Balancing/services/balanceserv/reactive/

Another way to think about Germany's current predicament is to consider smaller systems like Denmark or the BPA in the Pacific Northwest. Both of these grid systems balanced higher wind inputs by becoming higher exporters. They used the wind when it was available, but maintained other sources and basically exported the excess power, in some cases reimporting it (pumped storage in Norway, for example). Now Germany is doing the same thing.

It's very easy for Bonneville, because it has huge hydro and it can modulate that down and up quickly, plus there is a big export demand. So it doesn't have much problems handling its wind for the most part:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx


And:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg3.aspx

But Germany doesn't have that, so it is using more thermal power. And nuclear power may be great for baseload, but it is generally not suited well for balancing, plus that's going away anyway, and maybe more quickly than scheduled.

[kristopher]

17. It is always worth looking at what you leave out

Your links very seldom actually support the arguments you use them for,

Utilities Plan to Shut Down Many Unprofitable Conventional Power Plants
Published on July 16, 2013 i


Due to the renewable energy regime in Germany, several German utilities are considering to close dozens of conventional power plants, citing a lack of profitability, Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) writes. Even nuclear power plants could be shut down prematurely, the paper says.

Officially the regulator, the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA), had received 15 applicants for closures of conventional power plants up until the middle of July, but this was likely only the beginning, Süddeutsche Zeitung says. The paper quotes the CEO of an unnamed utility according to whom 20% of the roughly 90,000 MW of conventional capacity in Germany were under review. (For information on power plant capacity in Germany published by BNetzA in March, please see here).

The companies blame the growing amount of renewable energy fed into the German grids that sends down electricity prices at the electricity exchange so that the production costs of conventional power plants cannot be recovered, SZ says. Pursuant to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) renewable energy has to be purchased and transmitted with priority by the grid operators, who sell the electricity via the European Energy Exchange EEX (with the exception of directly marketed renewable energy). In June the four transmission system operators only averaged 27.63 EUR/MWh for the sale of renewable energy, as prices for electricity had fallen to that point. This has rendered the operation of many conventional power plants economically unattractive. At the same time they are much needed to balance the grids. Hence a discussion about a new “market design” providing incentives for conventional power plants has been going on in Germany for some time.

What this means is that the amount of energy these fossil plants can sell in order to meet expenses is declining below the point where they can remain available during the renewable buildout.

The policy being considered will not change the priority given renewables, it will instead subsidize the steadily declining kilowatts from conventional sources. To put it simply the theory is "the fewer units conventional fuels sell, the more each unit is worth".

Your interpretation fails to capture either the nature of the problem or the simple and necessary solution.

We will have to consider a similar policy here as we put coal out of business.

[Yo_Mama]

25. Except, Kristopher, that Germany passed a law preventing these shutdowns when necessary

They are now looking at having to subsidize these conventional power plants in order to maintain grid stability. In particular, they want to subsidize the planned gas plants, which will all be unprofitable but which are essential to cut emissions.

And coal generation in Germany is rising, which is why the Greens are so unhappy. But they don't currently have a way out.

Yes, the utilities want to shut these down. They can't make money off of them. But the grid will not be able to be stable without many of these plants, so now Germany has passed a law and will subsidize some of these plants to keep them open.

The paradox of the Energiewende is that so far renewable capacity and generation has expanded more quickly than planned, which allows nice figures to be put out showing an ever-increasing share of renewables as a power source. But this has only been accomplished by increasing fossil fuel emissions! One can show nice graphs showing cleaner power in the official energy mix, but it is not so nice when this has been accomplished by increasing the share of total production by coal and by increasing fossil fuel emissions on net.

Btw, this does not seem like it would be different if the nuclear plants were still all up - these older coal plants are easier to convert to modulate up and down. Some of them have installed coal grinding and dust blower units, so they blow in the amount they need to handle the fluctuating power demands.

There isn't much work going ahead on any other balancing projects right now, in part due to regulatory uncertainty. The very expensive battery campaign for solar is really a German jobs program, and it's not clear that it is going to help the grid balancing problem much.

The worst of it all is that the proposal to set up the power reserve is probably going to be dominated by these coal plants!

[FBaggins]

27. Close... but not quite

Yes, the utilities want to shut these down.

No they don't. It's bluster to force the decision that they know the government must make. They're just as happy getting paid to not produce power (but be available). Like the practitioners of the world's oldest profession... they're just haggling over price.

[FBaggins]

26. It's amazing how short-sighted you can be

What do you think the end-game is for those plants (not specific plants... just those types of plants)?

Think about the setup of the grid you imagine for 20-30 years from now. Take that nonsense "study" you keep spamming and look at the role that the fossil plants play.

Describe for me what you think that market looks like. What a consumer pays for... how the smart grid operates... how producers large and small (clean and dirty) get compensated... etc.

With the exception of nuclear power, it's the same grid I'm looking for... but it seems like you never look over the horizon to what it means. You keep acting as if there's something magical in renewables that causes the fossil plants to shut down... when that simply isn't the case. It's a policy decision... and it's one that can't persist in the new world (yours or mine).

What you're seeing is a game being played... and I'm not sure you understand the rules.

[FBaggins]

9. Since 1990?

Yeah... they built up lots of progress while they combined nuclear power with a rapid deployment of other clean generation sources.

We're talking about what happened since they changed course and decided to eliminate nuclear power.

[kristopher]

11. They decided to eliminate nuclear power in 2000

...and have been planning for it since then.

You are full of FUD.

[FBaggins]

12. And changed it after that

You can't ignore that.

[kristopher]

18. I haven't ignored it

The same conservatives that change the law to extend the life of nuclear plants also planned on building all those coal plants you are (rightfully) bitching about. The only problem with the bitching is how you and the other AtomAnts assign blame to the wrong agents of change.

[FBaggins]

19. What you keep forgetting...

... is that your position on this has changed in the last three years.

Did you think we forgot?

[kristopher]

20. Not at all

After all, it was witnessing the imperviousness of your own (along with others) disinformation campaign that made me examine more closely to assumptions I'd made about existing nuclear plants. Once scrutinized closely it became clear that those assumptions were based on false premises provided by the nuclear industry's propaganda campaign.

[FBaggins]

23. Lol!

Thanks for the belly laugh.

You were seduced by the dark side but saw the light, eh?