People’s Climate March, New York 2014 (photo Joe Brusky)
There are a number of factors that make it systematically difficult to reduce CO2 emissions, writes Jilles van den Beukel, a geophysicist and former geoscientist for Shell. He argues that we should not approach the climate problem dogmatically but keep all options on the table, including drastic changes in lifestyle and geoengineering solutions.
I can see a number of reasons why it’s turning out so difficult to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions.
Firstly, lower than expected demand for a commodity results in lower prices making a further reduction in demand more difficult. Coal is a clear example. Coal producers have for a long time overestimated demand resulting in a decade of overinvestment. Resulting low coal prices led to increasing demand (be it not as high as initially expected) and an increase in the market share of coal in the global primary energy mix. This is a global phenomenon except for the U.S. where abundant low cost shale gas has taken away market share from coal.
Secondly, the benefits of CO2 emission reductions are global and long term; the associated costs are local and are incurred now. This implies that there is always a strong incentive to cheat.
Many people in the oil and gas industry look at the Energiewende as a total failure
Thirdly, oil and gas producing countries have a strong interest in the continued use of fossil fuels and they will continue promoting and subsidising them. Energy-intensive industries are migrating to low-cost energy countries. A significant and growing part of Saudi Arabia’s oil production is used for local industries (petrochemicals, metal processing), generating a second income stream in addition to oil production. To some extent this also applies to the U.S. where a rapid increase in low-cost shale gas production has resulted in a long term reduction of electricity prices; a significant competitive advantage for any U.S. energy-intensive industry.
Fourthly, the benefits of economic progress (with an associated energy consumption increase) for undeveloped countries are real. Global warming concerns people in undeveloped countries as well but when asked to rank issues it comes out last (way below security, food, education, health and energy and transport related issues). In fact it comes out near the bottom of the list in most countries except for the most highly developed ones.
What should we do?
Let’s be realistic. In all likelihood the emission reductions needed to limit CO2 levels to those in line with the COP21 targets will not be met. It is easier to promise than to deliver – especially if deliverance is scheduled far ahead in the future. In spite of all earlier efforts the shares of fossil fuels and renewables (hydro, wind, solar) in the global primary energy mix have remained virtually unchanged over the last 20 years (at approximately 80% and 3% respectively).
Let’s be realistic. In all likelihood the emission reductions needed to limit CO2 levels to those in line with the COP21 targets will not be met
So what can we do? Global warming is too important to put all our eggs in one basket. At this early stage it is not clear which technologies will be the most successful in coping with it. There are limits to the extent to which renewables can easily replace fossil fuels. So let us subsidise technologies without being dogmatic. Whether it is solar, wind, CCS, “new” nuclear, electric or hydrogen vehicles, energy storage, ways of increasing efficiencies of conventional technologies, etc. Learning and economies of scale will reduce cost, as they have most successfully done for solar.
Let us also find the best compromise between reducing emissions, security of supply and affordability. Just aiming at reducing emissions, without any consideration of the ability of our industries to compete on a global basis, may result in a lack of public support for necessary measures (doing more harm than good in the long term).
Many people in the oil and gas industry look at the Energiewende as a total failure, given that it did not make electricity generation in Germany any cleaner or more affordable (and did not make its supply any safer). The continued operation of lignite mines and the closing down of nuclear reactors that generated clean, safe and cheap (reactors being paid for a long time ago) electricity is indeed difficult to defend. It can only be understood as a necessary measure to obtain support for the Energiewende, given the German political landscape and lack of public support for nuclear power.
But the Energiewende did result in a staggering demand growth for solar panels, greatly contributing to a reduction in cost (long term cost reduction for every doubling of solar capacity has been an impressive 19% vs. 7% for wind). This is a real and substantial long term achievement. Unsubsidised utility scale solar and wind generation of electricity is now becoming cost-competitive under many conditions. There is no stronger incentive than having a clean(er) alternative that is actually cheaper.
We may well have to face the fact that the recent Paris agreements will only reach their objectives if citizens accept that this will involve a drastic change of lifestyle
Having said this, at this early stage, where the combined share of renewables of the global primary energy supply is still minimal, it is not about cranking it up as quickly as possible by a few percent; it is rather about developing and perfecting techniques that can bring it up to much higher levels in a cost-efficient way in the long term.
We may also have to take more drastic measures. Note that whilst emissions in many developed countries have started to decline, this has more to do with a shift of industries towards undeveloped countries than an actual decline of emissions on a global basis. From 1990 to 2005 Britain’s CO2 emissions went down by 15%, the CO2 emitted by producing all the products consumed in Britain increased by 19% however. The increasing divergence between “produced “and “consumed” CO2 is a European-wide phenomenon (be it that for the EU 27 as a whole it is less pronounced than for Britain). Given the unlikelihood of global carbon taxes we may have to resort to border carbon taxation (taxing goods imported from countries without carbon taxes). It is of no benefit to the climate if CO2 emissions in developed countries are reduced because industry is being moved to undeveloped countries.
In fact, we may well have to face the fact that the recent Paris agreements will only reach their objectives if citizens accept that this will involve a drastic change of lifestyle. Reducing CO2 emissions in electricity generation is relatively easy (up to a certain level at least, pending advances in energy storage). For road transport it is already more difficult. Electric vehicles will take off but for mass-scale usage we may well run into restrictions on the availability of certain commodities. Flying and a substantial part of industry usage offers even less scope for CO2 emission reductions. This is not about putting a few solar panels on the roof. This is about not eating meat, not flying and driving substantially less. Governments should be clear about that.
Geoengineering
So let us do all we can without being dogmatic. This includes looking at geoengineering solutions, controversial though they may be.
Out of many geoengineering options albedo enhancement by creating a sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere seems by far the most technically and financially feasible. The limited costs imply that it will be well within reach of many countries. The seminal 2006 paper by Noble prize winner Paul Crutzen presents the case for albedo enhancement while explicitly advocating more research. I feel Crutzen’s implicit message was to warn people that this is the future if we do not start to reduce emissions drastically (and stir governments into action on reducing emissions – by far his preferred road ahead). An overview of geoengineering options and recent developments is given in a book by Oliver Morton (one of the Guardian’s best science books of 2015).
The recent acceleration of global warming is likely to be related to the reduction of aerosol pollution on a global basis
We are actually already doing this: the cooling effect of human aerosol pollution is real, its magnitude much more uncertain than the warming due to the CO2 greenhouse effect, but our best estimate is that it currently cancels close to half of it (it is a much more short term effect though due to the much shorter atmospheric residence times of these aerosols compared to CO2). The recent acceleration of global warming is likely to be related to the reduction of aerosol pollution on a global basis (whereas the near constant global average temperature in the 1940-1970 period seems related to the rapid increase of aerosol pollution). Past major volcano eruptions have been an intermittent, natural, cause for stratospheric aerosols and associated cooling over 1-2 year periods. The adverse health effects of stratospheric sulphate aerosol needed to counteract (a fraction of) greenhouse gas induced warming are minimal compared to those caused by the ongoing human-created sulphate aerosols residing at much lower altitude.
The longer we see rising CO2 emissions, people in developed countries not really changing lifestyle, people in developing countries moving to the lifestyle of people in developed countries and limited progress on CCS or nuclear power, the more likely that we will need to resort to geoengineering. If only to buy us more time for fundamental solutions.
Editor’s Note
Jilles van den Beukel worked as geologist, geophysicist and project manager and lastly as a Principal Geoscientist for Shell in many parts of the world. In March 2015, he resigned to become a freelance traveller and author. This article was first published on his blog Jilles on Energy and is republished here with permission from the author.
The graph below shows emissions vs. vulnerability by nation. It was produced by George Washington University. Source: https://mha.gwu.edu/climate-change-emissions-data/
CO2 Emissions v. Vulnerability to Climate Change, by Nation Graphic courtesy of MHA@GW, the online master of health administration from GWU
That’s a useful reality check.
I think the author might have emphasized a bit more clearly though that the ‘radical lifestyle change’ he describes is politically anathema and has no chance of happening. Rather, Perelman’s Law applies:
Any solution that depends on ignoring or transforming human nature is not a solution.
He is right that geoengineering deserves attention, but that also provokes political conflicts, especially where albedo is involved. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is less controversial but technically more challenging so far.
The most notable gap in the article is the lack of any mention of improving resilience to potential climate shifts as well as other hazards.
Any solution that depends on ignoring or transforming human nature is not a solution.
This statement is not a law. It is merely the observation that any solution to our problems that requires a major social transformation will of be painful and wrenching nature that you do not enjoy contemplating. I appreciate your desire to pass the remainder of your life in a comfortable and peaceful manner, but unfortunately the evidence that human and natural history moves forward strictly in accordance to the desires of favored groups for comfortable continuity in their style of living is a trifle weak.
The article made some good points but also contained some contradictions: for example – given the very low price for oil why would oil & gas producing countries need to subsidise fossil fuels? In the case of the US & shale gas yes there has been a move to gas-fired elec generation but PV & to a lesser extent wind has followed gas down the cost curve. With the extension of the PTC for 5 years in the USA my guess is that wind & Pv will emerge from this at or below parity with gas-fired generation. The link between low elec’ prices and competitive advantage for energy-intensive industry – well maybe – but why then have not the aluminium producers in Germany departed the country. & anyway – energy intensive tend not to employ that many people – metal bashing and manufacturing on the other hand does & energy inputs (gas and elec) only make up a very small part (2.5% by EC estimates) of total inputs.
Developing countries & economic progress: people in these places (e.g. Tanzania – 80% of the pop have no access to elec power) want, for example clean elec light (not light from kerosene) & the quickest & cheapest way: PV, LEDS and small batteries. Zero carbon – all in one go & no subsidies either. Same comments could apply to fridges. So no I disagree – we can meet the 1.5C limit – it all depends on a mix of citizens and governments.
The comments with respect to Germany, the Energiewende and fossil companies fall into they Mandy-Rice Davie category (“well he would say that wouldn’t he”). Germany is in an energy transition – no point in passing judgement until the transition is approaching completion & even then it is oh so easy to use hindsight.
Where I did agree was on the grotesque hypocrisy of the current Tory gov’ and indeed the UK has exported its emissions & should be (but isn’t) ashamed of itself. Ditto border carbon taxes – they would focus minds but ain’t going to happen (in the EU) due to the EU ETS junkies currently in DG Sec Gen and DG Clima. Transport emissions? see an article I have already written for Energy Post – trivial to get the EU (& indeed the global) to carbon neutrality using power to gas I even wrote to Shell on Developing countries & economic progress: people in these places (e.g. Tanzania – 80% of the pop have no access to elec power) want, for example clean elec light (not light from kerosene) & the quickest & cheapest way: PV, LEDS and small batteries. Zero carbon – all in one go & no subsidies either. Same comments could apply to fridges. So no I disagree – we can meet the 1.5C limit – it all depends on a mix of citizens and governments.
The comments with respect to Germany, the Energiewende and fossil companies fall into they Mandy-Rice Davie category (“well he would say that wouldn’t he”). Germany is in an energy transition – no point in passing judgement until the transition is approaching completion & even then it is oh so easy to use hindsight.
Where I did agree was on the grotesque hypocrisy of the current Tory gov’ and indeed the UK has exported its emissions & should be (but isn’t) ashamed of itself. Ditto border carbon taxes – they would focus minds but ain’t going to happen (in the EU) due to the EU ETS junkies currently in DG Sec Gen and DG Clima. Transport emissions? see an article I have already written for Energy Post – trivial to get the EU (& indeed the global) to carbon neutrality using power to gas I even wrote to Shell on it – they were not interested. Lastly – geo-engineering as a solution? it addresses symptoms – not causes.
“But the Energiewende did result in a staggering demand growth for solar panels, greatly contributing to a reduction in cost (long term cost reduction for every doubling of solar capacity has been an impressive 19% vs. 7% for wind). ”
So what? Why is this even important? Look at the Agora data sets and we can clearly see that solar has been far, far more expensive to deploy than wind or biomass. And all the while, CO2 emissions have hardly budged.
We should not care about impressive market growth. we should be looking for CO2 reductions.
Germany has closed down nine nuclear power plants in less than five years time, all their output has been replaced by wind and solar power. This shows what renewables can do.
Furthermore, the cost reduction in photovoltaics caused by the German renewable energy law has effectively been a gift to the world. Everybody can now enjoy cheap PV thanks to the Germans.
Hans
If that we true, then why are CO2 emissions from the German grid largely unchanged since 1999 and in recent times increasing except for warm winters? (Sources: Agora and Fraunhofer institute).
“Furthermore, the cost reduction in photovoltaics caused by the German renewable energy law has effectively been a gift to the world.”
What rubbish. What about the other countries that were installing lots of PV? What about those who were actually making the panels? I guess they had nothing to do with the cost reduction.
The comment above states “Germany has closed down nine nuclear power plants in less than five years time, all their output has been replaced by wind and solar power. This shows what renewables can do.”
Why would you not expect no change in CO2 emissions when you replace one CO2 free source with another. Nuclear is CO2 free.
On another note, I disagree with the Hans assertion that the electricity from the nine closed nuclear plants were replaced with renewables. It is my understanding that Germany is in the process of building many new coal fired plants to replace the nuclear ones because that have learned that renewables are too expensive and their industry has threatened to leave if they didn’t lower the cost of electricity.
The point is that solar and wind power were able to do this replacement. I think that is an hell of an achievement for two emerging technologies.
Your last point is one of those talking points that are echoed around in right wing media. The reality is that Germany is closing down old coal power plants faster than it builds new coal power plants. Many coal power plants that were planned even before the Energiewende will never be build.
@ Michael
I did not expect a change when changing one low CO2 source to another. But the energiewende did.
I would say it is quite an achievement to have economic growth, to shut down nine nuclear reactors, to increase power exports and to keep CO2 emissions flat.
Other countries contributed to the development of PV as well, but Germany has been the kick-starter. It was the first with a large scale feed-in-tariff and has until recently been the largest PV market in the world. Where at many countries the support has been erratic, and with short term goals, the support in Germany has been very consistent and with the long term goal of brining costs down. This gave the industry the certainty and confidence they needed to invest in research, factories and deployment.
Of course universities, research institutes, module and inverter manufacturers, and not to forget machine manufacturers all over the world brought in and created knowledge that helped to bring cost down. But they could only do this because there was a big market for PV that they could count on. Without a market research results land in a vacuum and will not do anything.
Perelman’s Law was cited (“Any solution that depends on ignoring or transforming human nature is not a solution”). The fact that the author even considered mentioning lifestyle changes as an option demonstrates a lack of insight and oversight. His (non-)appreciation of the German Energiewende is another example —if there is one reason to believe that the case of CO2 may be resolved faster than previously anticipated it is exactly the tremendous success of the Energiewende. The author’s point, that there is an inventive to promise but not deliver, even cheat on CO2-emissions reductions, is correct but a triviality. Here is therefore my own proposed law: Never ask a Geologist, when it is about CO2. Whether countries will deliver on CO2 reductions depends on the pressure they will be exposed to. If a group of willing powerful nations takes it on and exerts power over others, a temperature rise below 2C is still within reach, otherwise it is not. The Paris agreement might not be helpful at all to drive the development in this direction as it explicitly allocates the responsibility —if not outright freedom to defect— to individual countries.
Peter, re If a group of willing powerful nations takes it on and exerts power over others, a temperature rise below 2C is still within reach, “…
As an old saying goes, if pigs had wings they could fly. But they don’t. (Actually, from a biomechanical viewpoint, even if they did they still couldn’t fly — for the same reason ostriches can’t.)
Do you see any groups of willing powerful nations successfully exerting power over others to solve any critical global problem? I’m not aware of any such examples. In fact, Moises Naim explains in his book “The End of Power” why the capacity for centralized control is already weakened and steadily declining. There is a reason why the COP21 agreement is toothless, and why James Hansen called it a fraud.
Meanwhile the failures of the energiewende have been widely documented by others, including Dr. Kurt Gehlert, Der Spiegel, and The Economist.
Among the people I know, Jim Hansen, who you refer to, is exactly a prominent one, who believes that powerful nations must stick together to keep global warming in check — and I guess he assumes it could happen, or he would hardly talk about it. Power blocks have plenty of interest, to address the problem, too. China, the US and to a lesser extent the EU are all prospected to loose soon and significantly in a warmer climate. They should all be interested to go forward and play their mussels. Hansen believes that two out of the three blocks are needed. But three might eventually be willing and one alone, if determined, might be good enough. (Actually, Germany has gone almost alone towards the solution, driving the energy alternatives to near competitiveness.)
While it might be true that there is no dominance of power by the US as it used to be, this problem should not be overestimated, or rather, it is more advantage than problem. The US is after all still not the most likely leader on climate change solutions. And there is at least one rather recent case of power politics that (somewhat) solved a very big problem, or at least prevented the worst from happening, when it seemed that pigs could never fly: The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
About the appreciation of the German Energiewende: If you should not ask a Geologist about global warming and CO2 (you shouldn’t), you should certainly not ask the Economist oder Spiegel about the Energiewende. Hans has (just above) summarized the correct appreciation of the Energiewende very well. Nothing to add.
Regarding Germany the author forgets an important detail:
The Energiewende has two goals: 1) the phase out of nuclear 2) the phase out of fossil fuels. Since 2011 Germany closed down nine nuclear power plants. The output of these plants has been more than compensated by new new wind and solar power installations. So renewables have been very successful in supporting the first goal of the Energiewende.
Not everybody will agree that the accelerated phase out of nuclear was a good idea, personally I find the phase out of lignite more urgent. Nevertheless, the process in Germany shows that wind and solar can grow fast and start to contribute significantly to the power pool in a very short time. To call the Energiewende a failure seems to be wishful thinking of the fossil fuel sector who want to keep on going with business as usual.
Currently, solar and wind produce more power than the closed down nuclear power plants did before, so theoretically the Germans could start closing down lignite plants. In reality these plants are kept running and now produce for export. These choices seem to be motivated by the desire to conserve jobs in lignite open pit mining and to protect the value of the stocks of RWE, EoN and EnBWS, which are largely owned by different levels of government. But this remains guess work because of the layered and diffuse power structures in Germany.
Solar and wind, being unreliable intermittent sources, are not a substitute for dispatchable baseload power from fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear plants.
As this chart shows, Germany lags behind several other European nations — including Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, and France — in the share of its electricity from low-carbon sources. Its abandonment of nuclear power is only making matters worse.
As the article notes Energiewende’s alleged ‘success’ depends on using Scandinavia as a giant backup battery, which is not a scalable or sustainable solution to its basic failures.
Chart referred to is here: http://j.mp/1nU87Os
The graph you link to does not say from which year it is. However, looking at the numbers it can be seen that it is quite outdated. In 2015 at least 30%* of the power in Germany was produced by renewables. That is quite a bit more than the less than 20% in your graph. This just shows how fast renewables can grow.
*It is a bit early in the year for the official numbers but the first estimates circulating online are in the range of 30 to 32%.
But hans
All that renewables have left CO2 emissions from the grid in 2015 similar to those in 1999.
I’m guessing from other sources it may have been 2014. Without more recent comparable data from other countries, one must assume Germany still lags. The consequences of abandoning nuclear power remain. Whatever Germany has done about renewables, its GHG emissions increased 1.3% in 2015.
@Donough and Lewis: We already discussed this. It has been Germany’s political choice to start with the nuclear exit before the lignite/coal exit. I am not a nuclear fanboy, but I think the climate problem is the most urgent and they got the order wrong.
You seem (notice the “seem”) to conclude: renewables make no sense because CO2 emmissions in Germany did not change. Renewable energy and the German policies have been a failure that should not be repeated by other countries.
I conclude:
The German policies have brought down the cost of renewables, especially PV. Other countries can now start to invest much more cheaply.
Germany has a relatively poor wind, solar and hydro resource, started to invest when costs were still very high and still managed 30% of renewable power in just 15 years. This means other countries can do it quicker and cheaper.
Imagine where Germany would be if they had changed the order around and had started with closing the lignite plants.
Fair enough Hans but your stance has no basis in reality. The goal is to fight CO2 emissions and many aspects in the energiewende have achieved reductions at little cost (and at rates no better or worse than other countries for these aspects).
However most of the energiewende funding is and will go towards the grid work and this is achieving nothing. Again you falsely claim that Germany is the driver behind cheaper solar. It is not. It was one country that took advantage of the cheaper manufacturing processes used in China. But once again I see your points seems to be that manufacturers have nothing to do with the cost. But even if your narrative were true, it is a very smart part of the pie.
Germany has had levels of CO2 emission from its grid in 1997-1999 as it does now. This policy needs to be highlighted for the failure that it is so others who are starting to repeat it, stop.
As I believe I noted earlier, Germany’s carbon emissions have increased, not stayed constant.
It also should be remembered that Germany’s mercantilist economy exports the poverty it creates to other countries, notably elsewhere in Europe. As Der Spiegel reported, the high energy costs Energiewende created fell most heavily on the poor.
baseload and dispatchable are a contradiction in terms
Complementary, not a contradiction. But I did not make that clear.
Germany has very little power exchange with Scandinavia, is laying plans for new pumped hydro on ice and even has closed down some existing pumped hydro plants. So with your Scandinavia remark you are probably confused with Denmark which has 40% windpower and a lively power exchange with Sweden and Norway. More general, the need for power storage is mostly wildly exaggerated. Even the conservative IEA finds that most grids can easily deal with 45% of wind and sun, using just existing technology.
Germany has a fairly poor wind, solar and hydro resource, and they started to invest in wind, solar and biomass when these were still very expensive. Despite these handicaps they managed to get from 4% of renewables in 2000 to 30% of renewables in 2015. I would say if Germany can do that under these conditions, countries with better resources and profiting from the current low costs of wind and solar, other countries can do it quicker, cheaper and better.
Renewable energy provides only about 4% of Germany’s total energy consumption.
“In reality these plants are kept running and now produce for export.”
Hans
The larges power export market for Germany is Austria and the second is the Netherlands according to Agora. There are not many coal plants near Austria but a lot of renewables. Further the coal plants near the Netherlands are supporting much heavy industry. granted they may be exporting but with few near Austria, it is not likely that Austrian export is coal based.
You don’t seem to have an idea how power markets work. Power is sold all over Europe without much regard for locations. Germany exports power to Great Britain and French nuclear power flows through Germany to Eastern Europe. Physically a lot of trades cancel out, but that is not the point. The point is that Germany could shut down quite a number of lignite plants without becoming a net importer of electricity.
But soon markets will take care of it. Vattenfall wants to pull out of its lignite business in Germany, but has problems finding a buyer. If finally there will be a proper price on carbon the other lignite plants will be broke before you can say atomendlagergesetz.
Hans
I suggest before you start mouthing off about what people know and don’t know, you should think about things simply and have some more courtesy.
If a country is exporting to another country (as per Agora and Fraunhofer) and the power plants nearest or even remotely near the border of that country, then it is most probable that the electricity is made from those plants. Afer all electricity is used closest to its source so electricity from wind turbines in the north will not be the power source exported to Austria. Simple right.
This is irrespective of whether power is bought all over Europe or not.
@Donough. The word “seems” implies that it is a guess, that you can correct. However, if I have offended you I am sorry about that.
Nevertheless, I still disagree with you. Import, export means trading across borders. Various German media report that the power from the lignite plants is directly sold to other countries. I would say this is the decisive point.
Some Links (they are in German, but you could use google translate)
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energiewende-stromproduktion-aus-braunkohle-erreicht-rekordwert-a-942129.html
http://www.iwr.de/news.php?id=30209
http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/energie/erneuerbare-energien-loesen-braunkohle-als-wichtigste-stromquelle-ab-a-978861.html
Spot on, Hans! Those, yours, are exactly the points the adversaries of the Energiewende fail to acknowledge. But I’m afraid they don’t want to acknowledge the tremendous success of the German approach. I would agree to some extent with critics that a fee on CO2 or a tightening of the ETS would have worked more efficiently. But Germany did what was in reach for Germany: Drive the cost of wind and solar power down. In retrospect, I think that was the right choice. Prioritizing nukes exit was not the right priority, but again, they did what was politically within reach.
Peter
Germany did not drive down the cost of wind. Perhaps you can quote some monetary values per GW to show this? Because if you look at the latest data from the Fraunhofer, wind installation investments are stagnant on that basis over the last 7-8 years.
But you are showing the same mistake as Hans. Solar cells used to be far more expensive in Germany. But somehow Germany closing down its manufacturing industry made them cheaper. I Guess the real manufacturers of solar had nothing to do with it.
Simple fact; grid emissions are now at similar levels to those in 1999. This is because of coal. Are you pro coal? Because inherently, your stance shows it even if you do not realize it.
Hans
Please spare us the links that do not support your argument. Perhaps you should read them.
Again import and export of electricity is simple. Electricity used used close to point of source. Sop if Germany is exporting to Austria and there are few coal plants near the border, then the electricity will not be coal based. That is undeniable common sense. Perhaps what you will tell me now is that the hydro plants on the Austrian border only send their electricity into Germany. Perhaps you know how to follow electrons like no other.
But you seem to be saying that German exports of lignite electricity is a good thing. Have you any interest at all in reducing CO2 emissions? You are now inherently support coal.
Donough Shanahan
Of course Germany drove the cost of PV down. It created a market, which augmented production, which drove down prices — like experts had always predicted that it would happen if only there were significant market for PV. Germany deserves great credit for reliably providing the incentives for that market and shouldering the cost almost alone —for years, during the early Energiewende and it committed itself to shoulder more for many more years to come.
I cannot provide proof, of course, that Germany did it, but it is almost first grade first lesson economics —economy of scale, learning curve.
That China did most of the panel manufacturing is a result of trade globalization, cheap labor exploitation and perhaps of a dumping (price war) strategy by Chinese manufacturers and plan economists.
Denmark did most of the early cost shouldering which lead to wind power cost reduction and also deserves credit. Nobody please claim that single countries cannot contribute a lot — at bearable cost.
In a conference an IPCC lead author (Anthony Patt) was asked why he stated in his presentation that there is much more hope in the climate science community that CO2 emissions could be reduced faster (than previously anticipated) in the preparations of the AR5 (the most recent assessment report) than in the preparation of previous IPCC reports: His concise answer: Germany happened! Please appreciate its contribution.
And: Re. exports: It does not really matter where the excess electricity Germany now produces goes. These exports reduce power production elsewhere which helps to reduce emissions not counted in the German CO2-emissions inventory. Germany shut down many of its nukes without increasing CO2 emissions — bottom line, period.
It is correct and important to observe, though, that subsidies and similar support to renewables was not a cost efficient strategy to reduce CO2-emissions. No surprise there. If you are looking for something to call it a failure, I suggest you look a the ETS. There are better ways to get the CO2-price right. I favor a fee with dividend, the full redistribution of the revenues.
And, oh, no, I am not pro-coal. Trust me, I could deliver ample proof of that —like hardly any other. And, also: I am not German.
@ Peter
Perhaps you could read my comment. I asked you about wind.
Further you offer no justification to show that Chinese cells used in Germany and putting solar manufacturers out of business is not reliant on the Chinese cells in the first place.
“Germany deserves great credit for reliably providing the incentives for that market and shouldering the cost almost alone”
Huh. By shutting down many of its solar manufacturers and importing cells from China? How is that a German success? Clearly that is a Chinese success.
“Nobody please claim that single countries cannot contribute a lot”
I am not. I am trying to attribute the success correctly rather than to blinkered idealism.
“His concise answer: Germany happened! ”
Utter rubbish. If that is a true quote, that person should get the sack. Germany since 2005 has performed on average no better or worse than the rest of its European peers. In fact, it is at the lower end of CO2 reductions from its entire economy. Talk about ignoring maths to push an agenda.
” If you are looking for something to call it a failure”
So you are saying that stagnant emissions from the German grid since 1999 era is not a failure. That inherently is a pro coal position. It cannot be any other way.
Hans,
For good measure: I do not think that the Energiewende has been a failure.
I think it is disappointing that so much money has resulted in so small a reduction of CO2 emissions. I also think it is encouraging that the Energiewende has resulted in so much renewable power generation and, most of all, has contributed so much to the reduction of the cost of renewable energy (in particular solar panels) by creating such a large demand. That, to me, tips the balance towards the positive side.
I find it hard to be enthusiastic about the closing of nuclear plants in Germany. The absence of CO2 emissions to me far outweighs the disadvantages. But you are completely right: the Energiewende was quite successfull in closing them.
Now, let us close down those lignite plants!
For reasons I just noted above, the ‘success’ of Energiewende is on a par with that of VW’s clean diesel technology.
Jilles van den Beukel is absolutely right, I think, including his bottom line: “Now, let us close down those lignite plants!”. The question is how to do it. The answer is: A price on CO2 emissions and not any other approach, please.
Exactly! Followed by hard coal and natural gas.
To LewisJPerelman:
You wrote: “As I believe I noted earlier, Germany’s carbon emissions have increased, not stayed constant.”
Since the crisis year 2008 they have gone up a bit, if exports are not accounted for and are falling again to the (exceptionally low) 2008 level, but with the extra exports sustained. (Graphs up to 2014 are here: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/38893/umfrage/co2-emissionen-durch-stromerzeugung-in-deutschland-seit-1990/ or here: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/376/publikationen/climate_change_09_2015_entwicklung_der_spezifischen_kohlendioxid-emissionen.pdf on p. 13. The temporary rise following 2008 was due to less power from natural gas, more from coal, the switching was caused by unfavorable pricing conditions (CO2 and fuel).
“It also should be remembered that Germany’s mercantilist economy exports the poverty it creates to other countries, notably elsewhere in Europe. As Der Spiegel reported, the high energy costs Energiewende created fell most heavily on the poor.”
While the Der Spiegel is right, your claim is definitely pushing too far —to be kind. Power prices for industry have plunged, not only in Germany, but in all of Europe, as a result of the Energiewende, most of all. The Energiewende exports wealth, not poverty, if anything. Inexpensive energy for industry creates wealth (I agree, but depending on the ideology or economic school one adheres to, one might disagree), but true, it makes the poor among the Germans a bit poorer, at least in the short term. The cost of the German Energiewende is financed by the private power consumers in Germany alone. Those around Germany are profiteers.