The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

9,742 Subscribers

Article Post

Germany to Set End Date for Coal Power in 2019

Germany’s  coalition partners have concluded a treaty that may set a final deadline for coal-fired power production in Germany, Clean Energy Wire reports. A commission will decide the timeline for phasing out coal, under a coalition deal agreed between the social democrats and Angela Merkel’s conservatives.

The agreement, reached after weeks of intensive talks, largely confirms the most important energy and climate policy positions of chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives (CDU/CSU) and the Social Democrats (SPD) that emerged a few days earlier. However, the deal can still be scrapped by the SPD’s members, who will vote on the treaty with the outcome expected in early March.

“We will set an end date for coal-fired power production, both for hard coal and lignite,” SPD energy spokesperson Bernd Westphal told Clean Energy Wire shortly after the agreement was announced.

He said a special commission consisting of representatives of the affected industries, labour unions, the federal states, local authorities and environmental organisations would have to start its work “as soon as possible,” and present its results by the end of this year. He said Germany will “absolutely” come up with an end date for coal in early 2019.

Nearly five months after the September 2017 general elections, Germany made the substantial step towards forming a new government coalition. The coalition deal would allow the two political camps to renew their so-called grand coalition, which has governed Germany since 2013. An updated draft of the treaty largely confirms the most important conclusions on energy and climate policy, which already surfaced a few days earlier.

While a coal exit and a further expansion of renewables were not the crunch points during the prolonged negotiations over the past days, aspects of climate and energy policy are found in almost all chapters of the coalition agreement. They are mentioned under the headings of transport, housing, development, research, and European policy.

Watered-down goals

The most important climate and energy policy stipulations contained in the treaty include a watered-down national 2020 climate goal; the intention to introduce a climate protection law aimed at guaranteeing that the internationally binding 2030 climate goals are met; an accelerated expansion of renewable energies and the establishment of the special commission that will be tasked to prepare an end to coal-fired power production in Germany.

“We have a coalition treaty which is good news for a large number of citizens,” said Peter Altmaier, acting finance minister and chief of the German Federal Chancellery. He said 7 February was “a really good day for our country,” and that “the chances are high that we soon have a new federal government.”

The agreement came more than two days after the initial deadline, which was 4 February. The SPD insisted on thrashing out details on labour and health policy, which it considered especially important. The talks lasted into the small hours of 7 February. “And now we all want to take a shower, because we negotiated long and hard over the past hours,” Altmaier said.

Whether the coalition will actually materialise is still contingent on a vote by the SPD’s approximately 460,000 members. Having reluctantly entered into negotiations on a renewal of the grand coalition under Chancellor Merkel following the collapse of the so-called Jamaica coalition talks, the SPD’s leaders said the party’s members will have the final say on whether to accept the coalition treaty. The procedure will likely take about three weeks. The result is expected in the first week of March.

By  and 

This article was first published on Clean Energy Wire and is republished here under the Creative Commons license.

Original Post

Content Discussion

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on February 8, 2018

It is difficult to see how Germany should be able to cut both nuclear and coal.
Until now the results have not been that promising.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11F

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 8, 2018

Coal supplies ~14%. Though net export was ~7%, reducing coal to zero in 2years won’t be easy. Especially since Dec.2019 will see the closure of another nuclear plant (then 6 remain).

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 9, 2018

So to summarize, there is no decision on a German coal phase out that later governments can ignore. There’s however a non-ratified deal between tentative German coal-ition partners that says they will, in due time, negotiate a timeline of a German coal phase-out that later governments can ignore.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 9, 2018

Lignite is included, so coal supplies ~37% in Germany. Nobody talks about 2 years for this.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 9, 2018

Your assumption is far off the style and ethics of German policy during the past 50 years!

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on February 9, 2018

Unlike the “coalition”, which so far promises nothing but a promise, Gabriel cited a date:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvvg4wsUMAA1Wc6.jpg

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-coal/german-economy-minister-sees-no-brown-coal-exit-before-2040-idUSKCN12Q1IN

“It will on no account be switched off in the next decade – in my opinion not even in the one after that,” Gabriel told an energy conference in Berlin.

Germany appears to have two options which could retire coal: 1) cancel the nuclear phase out, 2) build more gas capacity and import more gas from Russia. On Dec 31, 2017, nuclear plant Gundremmingen B, 1.1 GW was closed as scheduled, a loss of another ~ 8 TWh/yr of low carbon power.

Jarmo Mikkonen's picture
Jarmo Mikkonen on February 11, 2018

The most important climate and energy policy stipulations contained in the treaty include a watered-down national 2020 climate goal; the intention to introduce a climate protection law aimed at guaranteeing that the internationally binding 2030 climate goals are met; an accelerated expansion of renewable energies and the establishment of the special commission that will be tasked to prepare an end to coal-fired power production in Germany.

The Germans still operate under the illusion that renewable energy in the form of solar and wind automatically solves climate policy problems, despite the factual evidence to the contrary: In the last 10 years German emissions have hardly decreased while wind and solar have steadily grown.

Today, Germany needs to cut about 350 million tons of emissions by 2030 to keep its pledges. Just for fun, checked how many million tons of emissions German energy industries, the largest source of emissions in Germany, have managed to cut between 2000-2016? After all, that’s what the whole Energiewende is about.

26 million tons.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 11, 2018

Did you miss that the coal-ition partners agreed that the long-standing 2020-goal of reducing carbon emissions 40% (from 1990 levels including high East German emissions) is now unrealistic and needs to be abandoned. That’s a clear precedent.

Not only that: The German coal-ition has been incumbent since 2013 (Merkel since 2005) and could’ve easily fulfilled the 2020 goal (simply by doing the same things except closing coal preferentially over nuclear). Now they willfully abandon this goal that was on their watch and that they control 100%, and replace that with another goal (coal phaseout) with an end-date that very likely will be many elections away.

So they don’t take responsibility for their own actions, but will instead try to tell successors to act responsibly. How’s that for style and ethics?

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 11, 2018

Delaying the closure of far more dangerous nuclear plants is not possible in Germany, as it implies political suicide.

German people still know:
– the huge health consequences of Chernobyl. Also because some were also felt in Germany despite being ~1000miles away;

– the assurances of experts that such accidents would be impossible with western nuclear plants. Assurances which showed their real value when the impossible did occur in 2011….

Still Germany did reduce its GHG emissions with 27% already, compared to the 1990 reference level (Kyoto target 20% in 2020).
And the German reference level is much lower than that of e.g. California which did not reduce at all!!

Mainly thanks to the penetration of renewable electricity which delivers ~35%.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 11, 2018

The Energiewende is mainly about moving all nuclear out asap and increasing the share of renewable. All against low costs so the population wiil continue to support it.
So about electicity.

And the GHG emissions per KWh continued to decrease fast in past 10 years. From above 600g/KWh towards near 500g/KWh!

Thanks the increasing share of renewable.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 12, 2018

The movement of the goal for 2020 is not aused by the electricity sector – which exceeded it’s planned reductions for CO2 by far, but from the non – reductions in the building sector and the rising emission in traffic.
The gouvernment acnowledges that thel latter two sectors will cause that the target will be missed in 2020. And changing nuclear phaleout will not do anything about it.
Next steps will be additional tenders for wind and solar, along with increasing the corridors – because reducing CO2-emissions in the power sector is now the easy part in germany – and additional regulations for the building sector, where detailes have to be discussed further Good thing is that there seems to be a significant rice of orders for BEV, causing long delivery times of about a year even outside Tesla Model 3.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 12, 2018

As you can see some time has passed since the time Gabriel (not any more minister for economics…) showed this poinion, today priorities are ddifferent. Cost for wind and solar in the tender did drop a lot since that time, thus reducing costs for a coal phaseout. This again changes political opinion about a coal phaseout – especially since today significant part of industry is pressing for a coal phaseout – something new. Also the head of BDI has changed fro a person which strongly supported thermal power generation to one who expects savings for german industry by faster renewable rollout.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 12, 2018

Germany’s RE is widely known for its high cost. They are paying 7-8 cents per kWh extra just for the renewables content, on top of the ordinary price.

It’s always instructive to compare emissions in real-time between Germany and France:
https://www.electricitymap.org/

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 12, 2018

Germans have already delayed a nuclear exit by many years. The remaining nuclear could’ve easily been closed in e.g. 2015 and all the slack would’ve been picked up by increased coal capacity factor in existing generators, if Germans really believed it to be “far more dangerous” with nuclear. Instead, the nuclear exits are heavy geared towards the end of the 2011-2022 phase-out. So the phaseout has been delayed 7-10 years already, and could be delayed more.

You have never honestly portrayed the safety of nuclear, always peddling junk science under the guise of several nicks.

Germany has had bad reductions in a European perspective. In spite of having low hanging fruit after the reunification, other European countries post better percentages. Btw, Californian population has increased 30%, Germany 4%, since 1990. These things have been pointed out to you before, yet you repeat them.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 12, 2018

The movement of the goal for 2020 is not aused by the electricity sector – which exceeded it’s planned reductions for CO2 by far, but from the non – reductions in the building sector and the rising emission in traffic.

Even if true, Germany could still easily have met targets by keeping nuclear.

The gouvernment acnowledges that thel latter two sectors will cause that the target will be missed in 2020.

Nope, the abandonment was part of a deal among the coal-ition partners. No such details were released afaik.

And changing nuclear phaleout will not do anything about it.

Of course it would.

Next steps will be additional tenders for wind and solar, along with increasing the corridors – because reducing CO2-emissions in the power sector is now the easy part in germany

We’ll see. Have a look at week 4 in Germany. This is with 20% overall wind penetration.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=conventional&year=2018&week=4

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on February 12, 2018

And the GHG emissions per KWh continued to decrease fast in past 10 years. From above 600g/KWh towards near 500g/KWh!

While France and Sweden have emissions well under 100 gCO2/kWh.

Jarmo Mikkonen's picture
Jarmo Mikkonen on February 12, 2018

It’s pathetic.

Electricity consumers doled out 26 billion euros last year in support of Energiewende. For a gain of minus 26 million tons of CO2 in 2000-2016.

Just by closing one lignite power station in Germany, Neurath, which emitted 31 million tons of CO2 in 2016, Germany would achieve more than Energiewende in 17 years.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 13, 2018

No, it would not change anything to stop phasing out nuclar. Before 2020 only Phillipsburg II will close, which will be negible in the whole context.
And the details which sector produces problem was natrally told in many ways. Just that your native language is not german and you don’t live here.
Only in nuclear fantasies does keeping a single nuclear power station running changes something significant in the CO2 emissions.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 13, 2018

Germany would easily get below swedish CO2 emissions with the swedish hydropower share, and the RE expansions of the next years.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 13, 2018

You’re a German, but you sometimes relay very biased info about Germany. Btw, many Swedes have read German as a third language in school… Abandoning the goal was not an acknowledgment made by the government, it was a deal made in a coalition negotiation. Also, I just found these graphs, that shows you’re wildly inaccurate regarding which sectors that have contributed:
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/colorcorrected-81.jpeg

And you’re moving the goalposts. I’ve not said anything about “stop phasing out nuclear”. I was talking about a coal-ition that has been incumbent since 2013 (with Merkel herself in power since 2005), while the first decommissioning licenses relating to the 2011 panic shutdown was granted in 2017, so they could’ve all restarted. That’s more than 12 GW that didn’t need to be shutdown before 2020, equivalent to half of the coal. Again, that would’ve easily fixed it.

Jarmo Mikkonen's picture
Jarmo Mikkonen on February 13, 2018

Helmut, Germany would have easily gotten gelow Swedish CO2 emissions 20 years ago had they followed the example of France.

Instead, Germany is the 4th largest consumer of coal in the world, ahead of Russia, Japan and South Africa.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on February 13, 2018

you sometimes relay very biased info about Germany.

I think you’ve got a terminology issue there.  For information to be biased, it still has to be information.  Cherry-picked facts qualify; they’re true but omit part of the picture.

What we’re dealing with from H. Coal and others is claims that are not true; they are not information, they are mis- or dis-information.  These can range from errors to deliberate falsehoods, with parroting of erroneous dogma/propaganda falling morally somewhere in between.

Making policy based on disinformation is disastrous; just look at Soviet agriculture under Lysenkoism.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 13, 2018

Hmm some self compiled graphs as reference. Nice. CO2 emissions of the power sector were 292 Mio t in 2017. And renewable share above 35%, which was the target for 2020, so the power sector is ahead of schedule. The traffic and building sector are beihnd their schedule. Development in the building sector is just half as fast as it should be, while traffic is not going forward at all. The shtdown in 2011 was just a tiny acceleration to the previous schedule for closures, and the plants have already been run down, so they would have needed major repairs and enhancements to keep running as you imagine it. But before we were talking about reaching the 2020 targets from now on, and not about ractivating long since closed nuclear capacity.

Jarmo Mikkonen's picture
Jarmo Mikkonen on February 13, 2018

Helmut, I quote you here:

The movement of the goal for 2020 is not aused by the electricity sector – which exceeded it’s planned reductions for CO2 by far

As far as I know, Germany has not defined any emissions target for the power sector at all. Not as a percentage or millions of tons. Then again, not being a native German speaker, my information may be insufficient.

As for exceeding “planned reductions of CO2”, German power sector emissions in 2000 were 358 million tons. In 2016 they were 332 million tons. That’s a reduction of 7%.

If 7 % cut in 16 years exceeded the target, how low was the target?

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 13, 2018

And renewable share above 35%, which was the target for 2020, so the power sector is ahead of schedule.

No, because the rush to nuclear phase-out wasn’t on the books when the 2020 target was created. Obviously, the power sector emissions are the highest by far and would need to contribute close to its 40% if the overall target was to be met. But it was a cunning move of Merkel to push a lot of nuclear decommissioning to 2021-2022. That improved the odds to meet the 2020 target.

The traffic and building sector are beihnd their schedule. Development in the building sector is just half as fast as it should be, while traffic is not going forward at all.

So you’re saying buildings should be down not 40% but rather 80%? Why would anybody in their right mind assume such a huge drop? And traffic, why would anybody assume traffic emissions would drop anything much? There was nothing much of that in the cards, and little work towards that end. It wasn’t until last year Germany started with electric car subsidies similar to what we’ve had in Sweden since 2012 or so, for instance.

the plants have already been run down, so they would have needed major repairs and enhancements to keep running as you imagine it.

You anti-nukes always say that, don’t you?

But before we were talking about reaching the 2020 targets from now on

No, we were not.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 13, 2018

The emissions of France are well above 100 gCO2/kWh according to the official French figures (~140 gCO2/kWh), despite France having far more hydro.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 13, 2018

The map towards you link, seems to be produced by pro-nuclear as it states:
– lower emissions for French electricity than the official figure (88 vs 138 official);
– higher emissions for German electricity than the official figure (it uses the 2012 figure of 538 while the 2016 figures indicates 527).

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 13, 2018

The delay of the nuclear exit is about one year compared to the original implementation plan agreed in 2003 with the utilities.

The delay is due to the postponement Merkel agreed in autumn 2010 under pressure of the FDP.
The postponement did cost her a lot of popularity. So she tried to undo as much as possible in spring 2011 after Fukushima, declaring herself Energiewende champion, without inflicting major additional costs to German population.
FDP suffered an historic defeat in next elections in 2013 and disappeared out of the Bundestag…..

donough shanahan's picture
donough shanahan on February 14, 2018

@ Helmut

The movement of the goal for 2020 is not aused by the electricity sector – which exceeded it’s planned reductions for CO2 by far, but from the non – reductions in the building sector and the rising emission in traffic.

Germany had no specific targets with respect to the electricity industry and CO2. And while one can say that other sectors have not pulled their weight, the energiewende was about reducing emissions overall, as set out in 2007 and 2014.

The gouvernment acnowledges that thel latter two sectors will cause that the target will be missed in 2020. And changing nuclear phaleout will not do anything about it.

If nuclear had not been phased out, Germany would have met its targets as defined by the energiewende. Even if nuclear had been phased out to a less degree, Germany would have met its targets as defined by the energiewende. So supporting the current policy and accepting the miss on 2020 is supporting higher emissions.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 14, 2018

If the low hangig fruits in traffic and building sector would have been picked, the CO2 targets also would have been reached, in parallel with phasing out nuclear. But this did not happen so far, because politics did not want to meke things move in these sectors so far.
This might change now, and by picking the low hanging fruits some faster success might be reached the next years without having to add nuclear.
But as ist seems burning gas and oil to heat buildings or run crs is perfectly OK for some as long as nuclear keeps running.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on February 14, 2018

Nuclear phaseout was a target since 2003, it was just postponed a bit in 2010 and this was reversed again in 2011, with a accelerated closure of some older nuclear power stations.
The traffic sector promised a significant reduction of CO2 emissions by more efficient engines till 2020 which was a part of a target of 40% CO2 emission reduction which did not materialise, instead a increase of emissions happened.
The building sector should have a quote of 2-3% fully insulated buildings per year to stay in the wanted limits, but achieved rate is below 1%, resulting in almost constant emissions in the last years.
Naturally you are free to assume your own saving rates for the different german sectors, but this has nothing to do then with the things which were planned for germany till 2020 by the german gouvernent.
What was not planned in the electricity sector were the power exports of nearly 10% of power consmption today, commig from slight power imports, which allow the neighboring countries to show lower CO2 emissions, and which raise german CO2 emissions significantly.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 14, 2018

The map is jacked into official real-time statistics, so what you’re seeing is not yearly averages, but real-time values. When I look now, it has Germany at uncharacteristically low 300 g/CO2. If you re-read my previous comment, you’ll see that I mentioned the real-time aspect.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 14, 2018

Jesper,
So show me the official real-time statistics of Germany, Netherlands, France, etc. regarding the emissions per KWh produced.
As those don’t exist the site you link uses fantasized numbers, probably to help nuclear…

The responsible German institute, UBA, still didn’t publish (per 12feb2018) the emissions per KWh in 2017…
And they are one of the most advanced ….

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 15, 2018

You’re wrong. This is official real-time statistics. You can find the data sources.

For Germany and several other European markets, it’s based on the ENTSO-E Transparency Platform, required by EU regulations:

Oftentimes, I find your fact-resistance very annoying. This time, it’s kindof amusing.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 15, 2018

I merely observe that buildings and industry has lowered their emissions in line with the overall goal, whereas electricity and transport has not moved much.

You have more efficient engines, but that doesn’t help in a normal economy, since such efficiency is merely used to increase the number of driven miles and to increase the size of vehicles.

power exports of nearly 10% of power consmption today, commig from slight power imports, which allow the neighboring countries to show lower CO2 emissions, and which raise german CO2 emissions significantly.

That’s the one thing we can agree on, dear Helmut; that Germany is not curtailing lignite when solar and wind produce well, instead opting to dump the excess lignite generation on neighbors. Germany remain a rogue state.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 15, 2018

Show your sources, Bas. AFAIK, French generation averages well under 100 gCO2/kWh, just as EngineerPoet claims. I remember they had fleet issues last year, so perhaps that was worse, and then I rely on you to pretend that is typical.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 15, 2018

So the CO2 values are neither real time, neither come from official sources!
The “ENTSOE-E Transparency Platform” link doesnot show the real-time CO2 intensity of electricity…
Your “data sources” show that those CO2 values are average estimates as I already stated…

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 15, 2018

It’s funny how I prove to you that it is real-time official data and then you flat-out deny it with a “so”, but without a shred of evidence. You can read about the member companies. For Germany, the member companies are TransnetBW GmbH, TenneT TSO GmbH, Amprion GmbH, 50Hertz Transmission GmbH and they and others supply data that ENTSOE aggregates.

Every time you go into electricitymap and check, you have to notice that the values are different. That should give you a clue. The reason a number of countries are grey is the simple fact that they don’t (yet) provide official real-time production data. But feel free to keep on denying it.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 15, 2018

Agree that French generation averages ~80 gCO2/kWh.

The 130-140 numbers I read last year were probably due to their nuclear fleet problems and may be a mix-up with heat.
Sorry.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 16, 2018

What you call “proof” are two links which show amounts of electricity without the associated amounts of CO2….

The TSO’s you state don’t run generating facilities and have no insight in the CO2 amounts.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on February 16, 2018

That’s correct insofar that the TSOs are reporting real-time electricity generation by type, not fuel amounts. The electricity generation is then multiplied with established life cycle estimates of CO2 emissions for each specific type. Of course, that’s fake news to you, who have your very own ideas of life cycle emissions. But for the rest of us, I think it’s good enough.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on February 16, 2018

“As you can see some time has passed since the time Gabriel (not any more minister for economics…) showed this poinion, today priorities are ddifferent. “

That statement from Gabriel was 15 months ago, not years, so doubtful.

Meanwhile, change in TWh 2014 to 2017
Hardcoal: +5 (7%)
Lignite: +7 (+6%)
Natural gas: +11 (122%)

(Fraunhofer provides annual data beginning 2014)

The capacity awarded FiTs in the German solar tenders is tiny, amounting to ~400 MW/yr. Unsurprising. With an average FiT surcharge bill for the existing solar PV (43 GW) of 10 billion euros per year, guaranteed for twenty years, who can afford to buy more?

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on February 16, 2018

Those E Map sources provide live electricity generation by source. Then, E Map uses the median gCO2/kWh figures given by the IPCC 2014 per source to calculate total live emissions carbon intensity. Per the IPCC, coal is 820g, nuclear 12g, etc.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on February 16, 2018

Germany at 492 gCO2/kWh tonight, despite 0.6 GW nuclear coming in from France. Wind is producing at 5 GW out of 50 GW installed, solar zero, gas low and too expensive, leaving coal running 25 GW out of 55 GW.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on February 16, 2018

Wow, 4.3 GW lignite plant. Imagine the trains that must feed it. IIRC, its 100 cars per GW per day.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on February 17, 2018

In September 2017, think tank Agora Energiewende* published a study saying Germany is likely to miss its 2020 emissions reduction target by nearly 120 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent – a far greater margin than previously thought. The country should quickly implement an ambitious set of measures to avoid “probably irreparable damage” to its international reputation as a climate protection frontrunner, the organisation added. “The next government immediately has to step up its efforts to at least get the country somewhere near its target,” said Agora Energiewende head Patrick Graichen.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets

120 million tons CO2e?!

Bas, the Energiewende is a miserable failure. And the longer Germans permit irrational fear and their lignite lobby to guide policy, the more distant are hopes of ever bringing Germany’s contribution to climate change under control.

Germany has no reputation to protect as a “climate frontrunner,” because it never had one.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 19, 2018

France missed its 2016 carbon emissions target (emissions increased) and is revising its emission targets.

Germany reached already a reduction of ~27% and will probably reach 30% in 2020, which is better than France, and far better than USA who reduced nothing compared to the Kyoto reference level while emitting far more per person.

The Energiewende is mainly about electricity. German emissions (reductions) per KWh generated in g/KWh;
1990 761
1995 712 (-6%)
2000 640 (-16%)
2010 558 (-27%)
2014 564 (-26%)
2015 534 (-30%)
2016 527 (-31%)
Far better than USA and near all other countries
(figures from UBA).

So even regarding this adjacent target, the Energiewende is a success.
Even France is now preparing to follow Germany installing more wind & solar and not preparing to construct more NPP’s.

Though you will declare the Energiewende always to be a failure…

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 19, 2018

Thanks. It confirms may statement that E-Map gives nuclear an unrealistic low emission level!

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on February 19, 2018

France missed its 2016 carbon emissions target

France’s per-capita emissions are about half of Germany’s.  Germany emitted 906 million tons CO2 in 2016.

and is revising its emission targets.

Germany has thrown out its 2020 emissions targets because they can’t be met under the constraints of the Energiewende.

Germany currently has 8336 megawatts of perfectly functional nuclear plants in politically-driven shutdown.  At 90% capacity factor and 900 gCO2/kWh displaced, that’s about 59 million tons CO2 which would have been avoided and a possible emissions cut of about 6%.  It would still leave Germany far behind France, but at least it would be progress.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on February 19, 2018

Removing the most dangerous first is sound policy.
So Merkel first closed the 8 oldest NPP’s in 2011.
Thereafter the remaining NPP’s are gradually closed (still 7 to close).

Pages