Germany: Coal tops wind as primary electricity source

[NickB79]

https://amp-dw-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105

In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018. Officials say the weather is partly to blame.
Despite efforts to boost renewable energy sources, coal unseated wind power as the biggest energy contributor to the German network in the first six months of 2021, according to official statistics released on Monday.

The data comes as Germany looks to speed up its exit from coal-powered plants after years of mounting pressure from climate experts and activists over the country's dependence on coal and its detrimental impact in fueling the climate crisis.

Well, that sucks

[PoliticAverse]

1. Not surprising since they are phasing out their nuclear plants.

The wind cannot be counted on so there needs to be backup generation capability somewhere.

[NNadir]

2. What is rather surprising is why anyone would have expected otherwise.

The fact is that without access to dangerous fossil fuels, the so called "renewable energy" industry cannot survive.

In any case all the steel in all those wind turbines depended on coal for its manufacture. Diesel powered trucks and cranes set them up, and unless they're allowed to rot in place when their 25 year life time is over, they will need diesel powered trucks to tow them away.

It should be said however that German diesel contains a fair proportion of biodiesel obtained from "renewable" palm plantations that were planted by ripping up or burning virgin Malaysian and Indonesian rain forests.

Don't worry, be happy though. Palm oil fronds are green.

[StevieM]

3. Good to see you back on E&E.

It is sad how countries like Germany, Japan, and the United States have abandoned the best hope of saving civilization from the perils of climate change.

[NNadir]

4. Only one of those countries listed has abandoned the best option for saving what's left to save.

In particular, the US Energy Secretary, Janet Granholm has declared that nuclear energy is essential to addressing climate change, and the Biden administration is quietly - in the face of the type of appalling ignorance of anti-nukes that one can often see here and elsewhere - working both to extend the life of nuclear plants and to hire outstanding scientists for reactor development.

I remarked on one of these scientists over in the Science forum here:

Viewpoint: Kathryn Huff, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the US DOE.

While Dr. Huff's title is amusing, the fact is that she is an outstanding scientist/engineer; far brighter than the morons who whine about Fukushima while 18,000-19,000 people - more than have died from Covid on Covid's worst day - each day from air pollution because so called "renewable energy" did not do anything to address climate change, is not doing anything to address climate change, and will not do anything to address climate change.

That's a fact. Facts matter.

Since the Germans announced the nuclear phase out was finalized in 2011, the rate of additions of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increased from a decadal rate of 2.04 ppm/year to 2.44 ppm/year, in just 10 years. (These figures are taken from the ten year rates of increase published weekly at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory.) For the week beginning Jan 2, 2011, the concentration of this dangerous fossil fuel waste rose from 391.83 ppm to 415.15 ppm measured in the week beginning Jan 3, 2021.

It should have been obvious that making energy supplies dependent on the weather while destroying totally the stability of weather patterns wasn't a particularly good idea, but I confess that even I once believed this tripe, but subsequently educated myself.

I'm not sure that this registers among the people who worship the German program, here and elsewhere, a program which has no serious approach to eliminating its dependence or Russian gas and German and imported coal for electricity and other forms of consumer energy.

As for the cost of these schemes: It is the poor who suffer; the rich couldn't care less. The rich would rather discuss their Tesla cars.

The world is waking up to that reality, albeit too late. Much of what might have been saved has been lost irretrievably because of these popular appeals to fear and ignorance, and more will be irretrievably lost.

If I recall my active tenure here in this forum, the response has been giggles and slogans.

[StevieM]

5. In referencing the U.S. I was thinking about California and New York.

They have both closed down nuclear power plants recently.

I agree that we have seen positive signs from the Biden Administration.

[NNadir]

6. I have recently built a spreadsheet comparing the energy output of all of California's...

...wind turbines with the output of the two reactors at Diablo Canyon for 8 days in September, and for the day of the autumn equinox.

I have toyed with writing a post in the science forum on the results of this illustrative exercise, focusing on the difference in land use between the two energy forms. For long stretches of September, in two small buildings set on a physical footprint of 12 acres on a 700 acre plot of largely undisturbed chaparral produced more electricity than was produced in hundreds of square miles of soon to rot wind turbines, spread all over once virgin land, serviced by tons of unnecessary and often dead and other times sparking powerlines in a desiccated State.

Diablo Canyon has not closed yet. The crime against humanity the closure will represent is scheduled for 2025. California has already approved 5 new dangerous natural gas plants, which in a classic lie they call "temporary" to address the result.

Years ago, here at E&E, people used to cheer for all these power lines, thinking them "green." We don't hear much about them now. Now it's all PSE&G's fault, and the people who used to cheer for powerlines have changed the subject.

It's obscene.

The good thing is that both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre retain large amounts of used nuclear fuel. I have calculated that the 4000 tons of used nuclear fuel at San Onofre alone contains enough energy to power every energy application in the United States, now at 107 exajoules per year, for about 3 years, if utilized in Breed and Burn reactors. That's the energy content of just one small plant's used nuclear fuel. Indeed, it is possible that these kinds of reactors can obtain very high efficiency in heat networks, thus allowing for desalination, should desalination be done carefully by managing brines appropriately.

I have not looked into the equivalent resources at Indian Point.

I have been discussing these results with my son who is applying to graduate schools for a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering, pointing to the value of these used nuclear fuels.

In Europe the dependence on gas, generated by "green" so called "renewable energy" is now being obviated. Poor people are going to suffer the most, but German industry is also going to pay a price for being so "green." The rest of humanity is also going to suffer the consequences in climate change.

Climate change is the issue in the environment, but it requires a bit more than repeating 50 year old cant on how so called "renewable energy" is the answer. It hasn't worked; it isn't working; and it won't work. The effort to embrace a fantasy has resulted in a tragic reality. I feel no schadenfreude, since all of humanity is paying for the reality. I after all, when I was young and stupid actually agreed that so called "renewable energy" is great.

Serious people are coming to their senses, even if unserious people continue to giggle.

I am too old to engage these types any more, and was a fool for doing so when I did in this forum. This has been become clear in the era of Covid where we see the anti-vax movement. The anti-vax movement, the anti-GMO movement and the anti-nuclear movement are all equivalent in my view.