The last coal pits around Bexbach closed a decade ago, leaving the power plant puffing plumes of pollutants as a relic of a dying regional industry.
But now plant equipment is being repaired, contractors have come out of retirement, and manager Michael Lux is faced with a novel prospect: expanding the head count. [bold, links added]
“It’s a good feeling to be hiring,” he said, as he sat down to discuss plans to transition Bexbach, in the southwestern German state of Saarland, from “reserve” status back to full capacity.
By winter, Lux expects to be burning a minimum of 100,000 metric tons of coal a month, in what some in the industry have dubbed a “spring” for Germany’s coal-fired power plants.
It’s part of a pan-European dash to ditch Russian natural gas and escape President Vladimir Putin’s energy chokehold.
While the war in Ukraine has simultaneously turbocharged the European Union’s race to renewables, fossil fuels still provide the quickest fix.
France, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands have all announced plans to reactivate old coal power plants.
But nowhere are the plans as extensive as in Germany, which is allowing 21 coal plants to restart or work past planned closing dates for the next two winters.
That means a scramble for an industry that has been in its death throes in Germany. The country will have to import more coal from producers such as Australia and South Africa, even as those countries face pressure to cut back on coal-burning at home.
And some experts warn the coal revival may make it harder for Germany to meet its climate goals.
Horst Haefner gestured toward the stacks of coal in Bexbach’s storage yard: “Everyone wants to get rid of it, but they can’t do without it.”
Haefner, 70, agreed to come out of retirement to work at Bexbach, checking plant machinery he last inspected back in 2004. It beats puttering around in the garden, he said, as other workers took a break in the shade.
With temperatures hitting 91 degrees Fahrenheit, the day was so unusually hot for the region that the local beer garden had closed early for a “heat day.”
It was a reminder of why countries have pledged to cut their carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels such as coal — and what’s at stake if they don’t.
More coal, more emissions
As Putin puts a squeeze on natural gas flows to Europe — in what E.U. officials claim is retaliation for their support of Ukraine — Germany is trying to conserve energy.
It is also urgently seeking replacement sources of power. And it has few options.
Russia’s Gazprom to slash gas to Germany, as Putin fosters uncertainty in Europe
Ramping up renewables takes time. New liquid natural gas terminals are not yet finished.
The government is considering keeping the last three nuclear power plants online beyond their planned end-of-year close date, but those account for a relatively small portion of the country’s power generation.
The German government, which includes Greens as part of its coalition, has described the coal revival as a painful but necessary move — and assures it will be temporary.
Germany has simultaneously committed to a new target of 80 percent of power from renewable sources by 2030 — double the current contribution.
It has begun to ease the permitting process for windmills and to invigorate a renewables rollout that many analysts say stagnated under former chancellor Angela Merkel.
This push, the government maintains, will help the country stick to its climate goals and end the use of coal by 2030.
“If it was happening in a vacuum and we didn’t have all this other legislation paired, then I’d be worried,” said Ysanne Choksey, a policy adviser for fossil fuel transition at E3G, a climate think tank.
But some experts voice concern about the short-term increase in emissions for Germany — and about whether it will be harder for the country to meet that 2030 target: cutting emissions by at least 65 percent of 1990 levels.
To get there, emissions in the power sector need to be reduced “substantially and as soon as possible,” said Simon Müller, Germany director of Agora Energiewende, a climate-focused nonprofit.
Yet Agora estimates that the fossil fuel plants that have been revived or allowed to stay open will add between 20 million and 30 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, equivalent to about four percent of Germany’s total emissions.
Read rest at Washington Post
Which just proves Germany should not have abandoned nuclear and should also have increased wind and solar power.
No, what it actually proves is when you increase the amount of industrial scale wind & solar without sufficient battery storage you increasingly destabilize your electricity grid. Wind & solar are intermittent, which does not provide reliable base load power like nuclear, coal or combined cycle natural gas. Electricity on a stable grid must be dispatchable to meet on time demand. Any qualified electrical engineer will confirm these basic facts. In addition, you need reliable thermal generation to “back-up” wind & solar for the 70% of the time it does not generate electricity. If you doubt that capacity number, just look it up on the EIA website. Couple this with retiring too many dispatchable generation sources (i.e. nuclear & coal) and VOILA…you have rolling blackouts. California & Texas provide domestic examples. So, you are correct on nuclear but I’d submit your renewables assumption is just not supported by facts on the ground. Welcome to the world of energy imperatives, my friend…
In addition, let me further qualify a couple things. When I reference both California & Texas, those are “premature” retirements of thermal generation sources (primarily coal & some natural gas) I was referring to. In essence, what has happened is the “reserve capacity” in these cases has dropped to dangerously low percentages. For example, ERCOT (in Texas) last week reported on several days there reserve capacity was down to 2.5%. A few years back, ERCOT had reserve capacity around 30%. Texas has the largest wind power generation in the U.S. Problem is, on most hot afternoons & many nights, the wind drops off. So, without sufficient thermal “back up” generation, you come up “short.” My point is simple. There is no “EASY Button” in the energy arena. Until we can have an intelligent, fully informed & non-ideological discussion about energy, this is only going to get worse…
Will Greenpeace go over there in their Fossil Fueled Ships a nd try and stop this? I would like to see t hem get hauled off to jail
Wonder if Germany wishes they hadn’t shut down the non-polluting (and I’m not talking about CO2 which is NOT a pollutant) and reliable base-load plants. If they were actually serious about cutting their CO2 emissions then nuclear is just the ticket. Instead they are still plowing ahead with the (non)renewable energy.What utter idiocy.
Even before the Ukraine war the fact that Germany had to import more and more energy from Russia shows that their energiewende was failing. Renewables just don’t have the energy density to run a modern society.
Good, dependable coal.