
Germany lays out a path to quit coal by 2038 - cmarschner
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/world/europe/germany-quit-coal-2038.html
======
kayoone
I am german myself and I am frustrated about this countries hate for nuclear
power. In the wake of Fukushima, they shut down 12 perfectly modern nuclear
power plants to rely on coal until green power can take over. We are quite
behind on that too. 2038 to end coal also seems to be a quite conservative
goal, but until now the government was great at missing even the most
conservative goals on basically anything.

~~~
oska
Quote from "The myth of the dark side of Germany’s Energiewende" [1] :

The narrative of Germany’s dirty Energiewende rests on the idea that
renewables could not live up to their promise to fill the gap of retiring
nuclear reactors. Consequently, that gap needed to be closed by power
generation from coal.

But if we look at the figures we get quite a different picture. The yellow
line in Figure 2 above depicts how the amount of electricity from nuclear
declined from 2000 to 2014. Due to the decommissioning of old plants, nuclear
power had been declining steadily. When the German government decided on the
phase-out, in 2011, some nuclear power stations were shut down immediately and
the output went down more quickly. Afterwards, the steady decline continued
once more.

The green line shows the steady rise of renewable energy in the same period.
In 2011, more electric energy was provided from renewable sources than from
all nuclear facilities. In 2014, renewables achieved a share of approximately
29% in total electricity generation. So renewables have substituted the
falling nuclear production in terms of total annual power generation and are
very likely to continue doing so until 2022 when the last nuclear plant will
be shut down.

[1] [https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-myth-of-the-dark-side-of-
ger...](https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-myth-of-the-dark-side-of-germanys-
energiewende-94542/)

(I would encourage you to read the whole thing).

~~~
zeroname
This is highly misleading information from the usual suspects. The _total
output_ in kWh of heavily subsidized solar/wind energy is not the issue.

The problem of the "Energiewende" is that the highly volatile wind/solar
output can not supply the base load without massive buffer storage. The
technology for that storage does not exist. Only nuclear, coal or the more
expensive natural gas can supply the base load.

What actually makes the whole charade work is that Germany dumps surplus
electricity (at a loss) during peak times and then imports what's missing
during down times from other countries (for example the highly nuclearized
France). If all the neighboring countries did what Germany does, it couldn't
work.

~~~
filmor
Solar is not very volatile, it's basically a cos^2 around mid-day + local
cloud cover changes. The biggest issue is actually a bad forecast for the peak
output (essentially the "mist" forecast), as the differences spread over the
whole day.

~~~
zeroname
> Solar is not very volatile

Only if you disregard the fact that that _the sun doesn 't shine at night_.

~~~
filmor
Volatility in the energy sector means how "forecastable" the source is. Solar
at night is perfectly forecastable.

------
tzs
Not long ago there was an interesting article on research that showed that if
we simply replaced fossil fuel infrastructure with clean alternatives as the
former reaches end of life, that would be enough to hold warming to under 1.5
C.

No need to force early retirement of fossil fuel infrastructure. If you've
already got a coal plant, a gasoline car, etc., it's OK to keep using it, as
long as we can commit to your and everyone else's future plants, future cars,
etc., being clean.

That's assuming we start this immediately. If we don't get this going until
2030 the "replace at end of life" approach, applied everywhere, should keep us
to 2 C warming.

Here's the article, which includes a link to the research paper which is open
access [1].

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/how-much-will-
curren...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/how-much-will-current-
fossil-fuel-tech-emit-before-retirement/)

~~~
etrautmann
Does that included replacing all end of life vehicles with electrical
alternatives? If that's the case, this seems difficult to achieve without a
war-time-like mobilization to build electric vehicles and charging
infrastructure (which actually sounds like a pretty good plan, though
politically tough)

~~~
trumped
The war on pollution.... good idea.

------
bparsons
This isn't very ambitious. Ontario, which was pretty dependent on coal,
managed to end it in less than a decade.

[https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal](https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal)

~~~
drpgq
At a pretty ridiculous cost all things considered.

~~~
bparsons
Every year you wait, the more expensive it becomes to do stuff like this.
Solving hard problems is usually unpopular.

~~~
microcolonel
> _Every year you wait, the more expensive it becomes to do stuff like this._

It seems like the opposite is true: Every year you wait, the upfront and
recurring costs drop.

Unless you have a serious near-term problem arising from the status quo (e.g.
stagnant air filled with coal exhaust), and that problem can be solved
altogether at a tolerable cost, there is no advantage to moving first or
early.

~~~
onli
Not necessarily, if during the time you wait the energy companies build more
coal power stations. Which they planned to do, despite it being obvious how
bad at an idea that was.

Happened over the last years often in cooperation with cities, which now have
the problem of being stuck with polluting coal power stations that are not
even profitable anymore. Contracts are often laid out in a manner that the
cities have to shoulder the load. My sympathy is limited, they could have
listened to the advocates of green energy who predicted that.

Anyway, deconstructing those new coal power stations and trying to help the
affected cities and regions would raise the price of moving to green energy
later. I'm not sure that would be completely offset by the lower prices and
technological improvements one can expect to see each year.

------
alexandercrohde
For those who are looking for a reason to care, this stuff does matter. For
example, the reason it's unsafe to have sushi twice a week is from mercury,
which comes from coal-burning.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish#Origins_of_mer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish#Origins_of_mercury_pollution)

~~~
benj111
This is something I wasn't aware of. I would question whether this in and of
itself would change any bodies mind, considering all the other well publicised
reasons to care.

~~~
mariopt
Coal is a relative small contaminant. Check the documentary Salmon
Confidencial and you’ll find that farmed Salmon is contaminated by the food
provided: contamined eels from the Baltic Sea. Even the cod has started to
suffer genetic mutations. The Baltic borders 4 countries, the water takes 30
year to fully renew and it was contaminated by Chernobyl disaster. Not to
mention the amount of antibiotic that can produce new resistance bacteria’s
that might kill you. We’re reaching the point where aquaculture will the safe
method to consume fish.

~~~
toxik
The Baltic sea is polluted due to factories on the coasts. Well-known fact.

~~~
llukas
And chemical weapons dumps after WWII

------
Pxtl
It's absurd that such an economic powerhouse still relies on coal so much. If
Germany, with all its wealth, is still dragging coal power out to 2038, how
are we supposed to expect timely movement from poorer countries?

~~~
xxgreg
What I find even more absurd is the United States, despite producing a huge
amount of natural gas, consumes more coal per-capita than Germany.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/604946/per-capita-
coal-c...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/604946/per-capita-coal-
consumption-in-selected-countries/)

Edit: sorry that link got pay walled. Try this one.

[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per-
capi...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per-capita)

This is 2015 data - and the US has narrowed the gap since.

~~~
danielvf
Coal [electricity] in the US is down to 60% of what it was ten years ago.
Since the second half of 2015, the US has been generating more electricity
with natural gas than with coal. The current difference between them is larger
than the entirety of US solar production.

[https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01)

~~~
xxgreg
Coal isn't just used for electricity generation.

If you look at the 2017 BP energy report numbers the US is still about 20%
above Germany in coal consumption per capita. (Not sure when 2018 numbers come
out.)

I'm glad to see the US is reducing emissions. However ideally it wouldn't be
due to swapping one fossil fuel for another. Makes you wonder what will happen
if the prices of coal/gas flip again.

~~~
danielvf
The US is adding a lot of solar generation - in just the last two years our
solar electricity generation increased by more than the total solar output of
Germany.

------
IfOnlyYouKnew
The specific end date isn’t really a meaningful measure, except for symbolic
purposes. It’s area-under-curve that matters, or, inversely, how much is being
left in the ground.

~~~
xxgreg
Getting the big power plant and mine operators to agree to a 2038 deadline is
meaningful. They were involved in the process for coming up with the phase-out
path.

I can't imagine Peabody or Koch signing off on a 2038 deadline in the US.

~~~
adventured
They don't need to sign off on a deadline in the US, it has been and will go
away regardless. That's obviously due to the US having enormous reserves of
cheap natural gas. You effectively have one big energy segment happy to
squeeze another to death. Coal use will get more and more expensive in the US
as its decline reaches a cost inflection point in the near future, if we're
not already there now. Every aspect of coal electricity generation gets more
expensive as it loses economies of scale. By 2038 natural gas + wind + solar
will push coal to well below 10% in the US, without any additional government
intervention. If the Feds apply pressure, it'll go that much faster / lower.

~~~
StavrosK
Doesn't burning natural gas produce just as much CO2 as coal?

~~~
Robotbeat
No. It can be about half as much CO2 for the same power output due to natural
gas plants also being more efficient.

...this is somewhat counter-acted by accidental leakage of methane (itself a
potent greenhouse gas), but not entirely.

~~~
StavrosK
Oh, that's good to know, thanks.

------
cmarschner
>It would come at a heavy price to taxpayers, who would provide the 40 billion
euros earmarked for investment in regions hardest hit by job losses over the
next two decades, along with other costs that include compensation in amounts
yet to be determined for power companies taking coal plants offline early.

2 billion a year seems extremely cheap for a measure of these proportions,
especially since part of that money goes into creating new jobs in the
affected regions.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
The number is really what this costs politically, I. e. to buy acceptance from
the relevant regions with large lignite industries. In economic terms, it’s
extremely hard to come up with any number, or even to agree on what should be
included in the calculation.

Since wind power will be playing a large part in the transition, and that’s
investment that mostly stays in the country, one could reasonably say the
whole project is net positive anyway. It obviously is if you factor in climate
change and particle emissions, because otherwise it wouldn’t be done.

The 2 billion / year perfectly align with existing efforts to reduce regional
inequality, considering we’re mostly talking about rural areas in the east
here. To the degree that they reduce other federal transfer programs, such as
unemployment benefits or health care, the net difference is liable to be
smaller anyway.

------
patall
Some personal notes: I am working right next to the ministry of economics in
Berlin and watched the different protesters that held their rallies yesterday.

First between around 8 and 10 am maybe 100 mostly men between 30 and 60 years
with labeling from the union of mining, chemistry and energy industries
protested for a sensible transition that helps the affected regions and
especially people living their. They seemed to be good and hard working men
that have to care for their families and all, all freezing in the cold (and
coming into our hospital building to warm up). Note that this is a very
important issue from a political view as well since this year there are
regional elections in Brandenburg and Saxony and right wing (pro coal) forces
are set to get more than 30% of votes, even more with a hardly acceptable plan
for these regions.

Than around 11 the situation changed when the school students appeared
(picture 2 in the article). It was absolutely fascinating as I would guess
around 2 to 3k children between 12 and 18 came (sure they hadn't to go/weren't
to school but again it was cold and these kids held out for 4 hours+ in
freezing temperatures) with barely any adults, chanting here and there but
mostly just holding up their, in a way very obviously self-made, signs and
waiting (they later marched to the chancellors palace, though). Not one of
these rallies were various known parties hold up their sign to somehow also
promote their agenda, just kids fighting for a better planet/future. It
somehow was very impressive.

------
etaty
Does that mean goods produced by coal on the other side of the border are
still okay to be imported? (pointing finger at Poland, or even China)

~~~
patall
From my point of view, this is only about the general electricity generation.
I mean, a lot of people are still using lignite to warm their house in the
winter and knowing the lifetime of personal homes in Europe, we cannot really
expect that to end in the next 50 years (though not for newly build ones
though).

~~~
lispm
Less than 1% of German homes are using coal for heating.

[https://www.deutsche-handwerks-zeitung.de/so-heizt-
deutschla...](https://www.deutsche-handwerks-zeitung.de/so-heizt-
deutschland/150/3095/260499)

~~~
patall
For the primary source of general heating yes. As a secondary to heat the
living room oven, I highly doubt that, too many relatives that I just bought
lignite with last autumn. Could be more prominent in eastern Germany though.

~~~
lispm
There isn't much coal used - you will have a hard time finding a coal supply
in many cities. Some regions in eastern Germany and in the Rhine/Ruhr
region...

Since coal mines are being closed, the miners will not get any more coal (as
part of their salary) and thus they are looking for alternatives:

[https://www.gelsenwasser.de/unternehmen/presse/pressearchiv/...](https://www.gelsenwasser.de/unternehmen/presse/pressearchiv/archiv-
einzelansicht/news/letzte-schicht-fuer-die-
kohleheizung/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bday%5D=10&tx_news_pi1%5Bmonth%5D=9&tx_news_pi1%5Byear%5D=2018&cHash=35670b8c3622f7b58eb7bcb1bf900aea)

------
dvh
What will they do with Bagger 288?

~~~
Pxtl
Yes! It's powered by pure hatred, what will they do with their surplus pure
hatred?

------
gok
So coal will outlast nuclear by ~15 years...

~~~
patall
So? Neither the US, nor China have plans of ending any of them.

~~~
adventured
The US, unlike Germany and China (which is still aggressively expanding its
coal use), hasn't needed such a plan to end coal.

With existing environmental restrictions and costs on coal, we've already seen
a massive reduction in coal use in the US over the last ~11 years. That
persistent decline continues under a supposedly coal-friendly administration.
What does it mean? Nobody can stop what's happening as things are now (it
would take a law requiring coal to be a minimum share of the generation base).
The natural gas industry is thrilled to kill off coal and take their business.
The natural gas business is far stronger than coal is now and that imbalance
will get a lot worse over the next decade (especially as it's a rider on the
shale oil boom).

~~~
gok
Yeah I don't fully buy that either. The US move to natural gas is mostly due
to luck in the discovery of cheap gas. The negative externalities on coal are
still not nearly being taxed hard enough. I just find it absurd that Germany
outlawed its primary source of carbon-neutral electricity quickly but is
dawdling on coal.

------
burtonator
We needed to quit coal in 2008... not 2038.. we're doomed.

Time to start buying up as much water as possible.

Bet on human stupidity.. you'll never go broke!

------
ForHackernews
Too little, too late, sadly.

------
jopsen
> ...compensation in amounts yet to be determined for power companies taking
> coal plants offline early.

This line struck me.. Germany have been build coal plants in the past decade
as they were phasing out nuclear. And now they are planning to take them
offline by 2038.

Respect!

~~~
xxgreg
"Germany have been build coal plants in the past decade as they were phasing
out nuclear."

Note that no coal plants have started construction since the events at
Fukushima. (But perhaps you're referring to the original phase-out agreement
from 2000.)

> After 2011, when Germany decided once and for all to phase out nuclear
> power, a total of 6.7 GW came into service while coal plants with a capacity
> of some 3.8 GW were retired. Since planning and construction of a coal-fired
> power station takes at least three years, capacity added after 2011 had been
> planned before the accident in Fukushima, Japan – the event that led to
> Germany’s final nuclear phase-out policy.

> As of 2017, no new lignite-powered stations are planned, according to the
> Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur). The possibly last new hard coal
> unit ever built in Germany is envisaged to come online in 2018: Uniper’s
> Datteln 4, with a capacity of 1,055 MW, after years of legal struggle with
> local environmental organisations.

[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-
germany](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany)

------
dwighttk
I thought we only had 12 years

------
expathacker
2038? Does this have to do with Epoch time ending somehow?

~~~
philwelch
Yeah, coal-powered computers can only handle 32-bit integers ;)

~~~
cozzyd
In 2038, the coal company clocks roll back to 1901, when all was good in the
world for them.

~~~
kbutler
...to 1970...

~~~
jcranmer
No, it rolls over to 1901. time_t is a signed value, and 2038 is when it rolls
over from 2³¹ - 1 to -2³¹. That would be 2 billion seconds before 1970, or
1901.

------
lixtra
I wonder if Germany will have any industry left in 50 years.

The German Green Party (projected to get 20% in the next election) leader
recently told in an interview that excessive electric energy can be stored in
the networks[1].

[1] [https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kandidatin-fuer-den-
parteivor...](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kandidatin-fuer-den-
parteivorsitz-der-gruenen-ich-bin.868.de.html?dram:article_id=408793)

Edit: Concerning the interpretation of storing in the network as averaging
over a huge area. I read this as: in case of need we can import nuclear power
from France or coal generated electricity from Poland. On a local level the
Green Party is a big player in avoiding the necessary building of network
capacity.

Edit 2: Concerning de-industrialization. Do my downvoters really think that
energy heavy industries can be run on wind and solar with current
technologies?

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
You’re obviously trolling, but to explain it to those possibly baffled by your
professed ignorance: a large grid is indeed a commonly-accepted mechanism to
store local maxima of wind or solar production. As you connect more regions,
father apart, simple statistics lead to averaging out of individual spikes.

~~~
lenticular
On this same topic, of course the big issue with wind and solar is that they
don't generate if it is not sunny or windy. This means we still need base
power generation with fossil fuels or fission. However, wind is stochastic
enough that on a large grid, around 1/6 of its maximum capacity can be counted
as base power.

~~~
Retric
Nope, you need peaking not base load power.

Base load refers to lowest cost per kWh sources that fail to meet the demand
curve. That actually describes wind and solar very well.

PS: Wind + coal don’t work well together. You end up turning off the coal
plant fairly frequently which is bad for the systems and eases cost per kWh.

~~~
xxgreg
Hard coal plants do a lot of load following in Germany, especially when it's
windy.

For example the black in these charts is hard coal and the green is wind.

[https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=all-
sources...](https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=all-
sources&year=2019&week=3)

