'Green' Germany Prepares To Fire Up the Coal Furnaces
Strongly held wishes and pixie dust won’t deliver a green utopia.

Somehow, Germany, a country where the government is firmly committed to "green" energy, is preparing to fire up coal-burning power plants. The move is even more remarkable given that officials stubbornly refuse to restart mothballed nuclear facilities, or even reconsider the timeline for retiring those that remain online. It's an astonishing situation for a country that very recently boasted that it would soon satisfy all its energy needs with sunshine and cool summer breezes.
"A bill providing the legal basis to burn more coal for power generation is now making its way through parliament, aiming to boost the output of so-called reserve power plants that are irregularly used for grid stabilization and were scheduled to go offline over the next few years," Deutsche Welle noted this week. "German Economy Minister Robert Habeck recently described his current energy policy as 'a sort of an arm wrestling match' with Russian President Vladimir Putin" the story added in reference to Russia reducing natural gas flows to countries that imposed sanctions after the invasion of Ukraine.
No doubt, Putin's retaliation against Western Europe hiked the price of energy and raised worries about dark months to come followed by a cold winter. But, like American gas price woes, Germany's problems predate the war in Ukraine and are closely linked to the goals the country's political class made about their energy future in the absence of a realistic plan for getting there. In 2011, after an earthquake and tsunami triggered a disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the German government recommitted itself to closing all of its nuclear plants and getting its electricity from solar and wind. The decision was motivated by public fears of nuclear power, but also by loud insistence that the energy source had no place in a sustainable future.
"Germany is going to be ahead of the game on that and it is going to make a lot of money, so the message to Germany's industrial competitors is that you can base your energy policy not on nuclear, not on coal, but on renewables," Greenpeace's Shaun Burnie told the BBC at the time.
But "nuclear power is very close to the same shade of green as that of most renewables" when you compare mining and manufacturing inputs to each approach, energy expert Gail H. Marcus wrote for Physics World in 2017. And nuclear is reliable—the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, which means electricity produced by those sources ebbs and flows. That's a big problem for electrical grids that require steady supplies of energy.
"Large amounts of intermittent electricity create huge swings in supply which the grid has to be able to cope with," Bloomberg reported in January 2021. "The issue isn't confined to Europe. Australia has had teething problems in the transition to a cleaner network. Wind power was blamed for a blackout in 2016 that cut supply to 850,000 homes. The nation is looking to storage as a solution and was the first country to install a 100 megawatt megabattery in 2017."
Months later, the challenge for renewable energy grew even worse when Europe suffered a "wind drought" that left turbines idled.
"Through summer and early autumn 2021, Europe experienced a long period of dry conditions and low wind speeds," Hannah Bloomfield, a climate researcher at the University of Bristol, wrote in October 2021. "The beautifully bright and still weather may have been a welcome reason to hold off reaching for our winter coats, but the lack of wind can be a serious issue when we consider where our electricity might be coming from." Bloomfield emphasized that a reliable flow of energy required "other renewable resources such as solar, hydropower and the ability to smartly manage our electricity demand."
Of course, until you have sufficient diverse sources of renewable and reliable energy on which to draw, you're going to keep the lights on through now-disfavored but reliable means such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas. But if you're Germany and in a revived cold war with Russia, which is the major source of your natural gas, your options are limited when that country closes the valves on the pipelines.
"Europe's biggest economy is now officially running short of natural gas and is escalating a crisis plan to preserve supplies as Russia turns off the taps," CNN noted June 23. "Germany on Thursday activated the second phase of its three-stage gas emergency program, taking it one step closer to rationing supplies to industry — a step that would deliver a huge blow to the manufacturing heart of its economy."
You're in even more of a bind if you've just closed half of your nuclear power plants and insist on closing the rest within months even as your energy problems escalate.
"Currently, only three nuclear power plants are still connected to the grid in Germany," Deutsche Welle reports. "As things stand, they will be shut down by the end of 2022 as part of the country's complete withdrawal from the controversial energy source."
The classical-liberal FDP, the smallest party in the coalition government, disagrees with this policy along with much else its partners do. But its officials have largely been reduced to a Cassandra role—ignored even as their prophecies come true. And that is how a country long committed to 100 percent renewable energy is getting ready to fire up the coal furnaces. Oh, and also for power rationing, colder homes, and less production.
"Whatever path Germany takes, the [German Institute for Economic Research], the scientific research center Forschungszentrum Jülich and the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) all agree that a loss of Russian natural gas cannot be entirely replaced by other energy sources," Deutsche Welle adds. "They say less energy must be consumed overall."
Germany's plight is disturbing testimony of where you can end up if you commit yourself to a vision of a "green" future that has no place in it for the most reliable source of clean-ish electricity. By contrast, neighboring France plans to build as many as 14 new nuclear reactors because of, not despite, its environmental goals. That attitude reflects energy analyst Marcus's assessment and is shared by the inter-governmental International Energy Agency (IEA). "Long-term operation of the existing nuclear fleet and a near-doubling of the annual rate of capacity additions are required" to meet clean-energy goals by 2050, the organization specifies.
Visons of a cleaner future based on technologies that are more efficient and less polluting are praiseworthy and shared by just about everybody. But to get from here to there requires planning and realistic decisions. Unfortunately for the German people, most of their political leaders relied on strongly held wishes and pixie dust to bring a green utopia and are instead delivering literal lumps of coal.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link..>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Lucky they have those coal reserves to help with the Russian war. Who could have foreseen this? I know our President will react to this. Maybe we can go to war with Germany also as they are threatening our existence with this environmental disaster.
I have also heard that we want to distribute natural gas to Europe. Umm, no pipelines and shipping doesn't seem practical. I could be wrong but a high volume natural gas tanker would be big and dangerous.
Large LNG carriers exist, but who knows how much capacity we have floating right now. The bigger question is where are we getting all this magical natural gas from? We have our own self-induced shortage to deal with.
Whatever sanctions EU nations have on Russia will be gone before the winter sets in.
The free market would eventually take care of it. Except wait Joey By is suppressing supply of the very fuel we need.
Ironically he still every once in awhile slips up and says how good thsi is because it makes fossil fuels expensive and will force us to go green.
Someone is yelling in his ear piece, stop repeating campaign promises, change the narrative! Bad oil companies!
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
.
More information. >> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
By that point it might be Russia cutting off the EU.
FAFO
Who could have foreseen this?
Pewtin, of course. It's why he's been funding greentards all over the world.
-jcr
Power needs to be supplied on demand and be stable. And you can't control the weather which is not stable. Thus don't rely on the weather for power.
What these extreme New Green Dealers depend on is for others to not be insane. Thus like CA in the US as long as AZ, UT and NV are not insane CA can remain insane to an extent.
Never stick your deck, or your electrical grid, in crazy.
Isn't that the case with all leftist ideas, as long as there are some sensible non-leftists stopping them from self harm, they can talk as crazy as they like and get the virtue points they crave. Then the assholes get to scold those who saved them from themselves for their lack of virtue.
Lol. So true.
Nothing is forever. Consume resources as needed, conserve as practical, know that everything is finite and spend accordingly until a breakthrough in energy resource is discovered. If not, then so be it.
He who dies with the most toys still dies.
"Strongly held wishes and pixie dust won’t deliver a green utopia."
Yes, this! Also this:
"Strongly held wishes and pixie dust won’t deliver an abortion-free utopia."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh “Do restrictive abortion laws actually reduce abortion? A global map offers insights” Answer: No, tighter laws do NOT reduce the number of abortions… They just make them harder to get, and more dangerous!
It’s funny how tighter laws do not reduce the number of abortions, but they do reduce gun deaths. It’s almost like it’s all bullshit.
As Britain has shown us, after the gun control... Knife control is needed next!!! (Cooks and butchers need special permits?)
They do not need special permits but you need a "good reason" to carry a knife over 3 inches.
Just like the argument that government will now want to be in bedrooms to save zygote lives, the government rarely does less they always do more and frequently take rule of law to absurd heights. I bet the Brits laughed at future knife regulation when gun regulation was first suggested.
Pixie dust won’t deliver but enriched uranium will. These are the same pants-wetters who have been shutting down perfectly good nuke plants for the last ten years.
"Loss of Life in Nuclear Accidents
With the caveat that no loss of human life should be considered acceptable, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that 31 people died in the three months following the Chernobyl accident. Two of these deaths were due to the initial explosion, while the remaining 29 were first responders who succumbed to acute radiation sickness (ARS)."
https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources
Now, how many people died mining coal? Mining Lithium, Cobalt, and Cadmium for "renewable" energy?
However I'm not sure the crazy politicians trying to make technical decisions about power and the grid realize that they are eroding the reliability of the grid. It's not a 100 degree day that is a threat. Grids have been designed to handle that by having enough reliable generation on hand.
But if you start calling wind/solar "reliable", they aren't they are weather dependent, your high demand days also have to be sunny and windy.
The laws of physics will be obeyed.
Storage technology is making rapid advancements. Billions, maybe trillions are going into storage R&D. You can hang a TV size battery in your home for storage now.
There is no grid storage size
You can stack up batteries to reach any capacity you need - if the materials are available in such huge quantities, and eventually they will be if there's a market for them. But the backup batteries will cost about the same as the wind or solar they back up, several times as much as a fossil fuel plant of the same capacity. And batteries on a daily deep discharge/recharge cycle will have to be replaced every 3 to 5 years, so the electricity will continue to be _much_ more expensive.
You know who else fired up the furnaces?
The Titanic captain?
Saruman the White?
Me, every winter?
Hank Reardon?
I can't believe Reason used that in their headlines.
Georgia ballot counters?
Jack Torrance?
I say that the people who want "Green" energy should have it now. No electricity for them generated by fossil fuel or nuclear, no goods transported by ships, trains, or trucks that burn fuel, no water not pumped by green electricity, no trash pickup by fuel burning trucks, no food grown by agriculture using fossil fuels, no products manufactured by factories using fossil fuels, etc.
I mean, they want to save the planet, so these little sacrifices should be accepted with good grace.
The people that scream about this stuff NEVER are willing to sacrifice for it, they always want the govt to force it on someone else.
Guarantee the Pelosi's, AOC's, Newsom's of the world will still be flying on jets, guzzling fossil fuel at their leisure while the peasants would have energy quotas.
These people aren't to be taken seriously until they show us they aren't just trying to put the burden on everyone but themselves
Little known fact: we're having our way of life destroyed to maybe, hopefully, best-case-scenario... have some indefinite impact on .01% of the atmosphere.
Nothing justifies moral transgressions like the need for money and power. And nothing challenges ideology like reality.
The biggest F U, is the hand waving when it comes to energy storage. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, it isn't scalable. So wind and solar as baseload is more than a pipedream. It's criminal to even consider it.
Worse yet, you can't even complement wind and solar with nuclear because nuclear can't spin up fast enough.
If you're going to build a huge wind/solar energy infrastructure, you need to build massive natural gas powered generation capacity along with it.
^THIS^
Nuclear power is BASELOAD power. You still need SWING capacity to deal with changes in power needs. Renewables are NEGATIVE swing capacity and mean you need even MORE swing capacity. Natural gas is the only real choice for that.
It's worse than anything the Bourbons ever did to the French people
"...But, like American gas price woes, Germany's problems predate the war in Ukraine and are closely linked to the goals the country's political class made about their energy future in the absence of a realistic plan for getting there..."
In CA, Moonbeam pulled some number out if his ass and claimed CA was going to have that amount of 'sustainable' power by some date equally well considered.
PG&E is spending money shutting down NG-powered plants, sticking bird-blenders and UV-panels everywhere they can, and we have brown-outs (most appropriately named).
Oh, and you are encouraged to get rid of your gas-powered vehicles and get electric ones!
and all new houses are only allowed electric appliances
Kicked the value of mine through the roof; gas range, gas heat, gas water heater and wood fire-place.
"Oh, and you are encouraged to get rid of your gas-powered vehicles and get electric ones!"
Always been my concern.
Our grid is fairly old and has had the occasional problem handling demand in certain locales.
What do they think will happen should we add MILLIONS of electric cars demanding the same energy we don't have much excess capacity for?
Oh, they are planning to use the batteries in your electric car as their online storage. So if you get up in the morning to a dead battery it means that the wind failed to blow last night.
They could be benefiting from nuclear energy right now, with the added benefit of sticking it to Putin, but no…
But there was an earthquake in Japan!
This funny. Germany is restarting their coal plants because of the Russians. The US has had it's internal energy production reduced and it's reliance on foreign energy forced upon it by the Russians (well the Soviet Union).
The Russians haven't forced the US or Germany to do anything.
The US and Germany have chosen to deny themselves energy imports from Russia and both countries are now suffering the consequences.
Furthermore, the sanctions against Russia have been ineffective and arguably harmful to Western interests.
Harm to western peoples is the intent
The Russians haven't forced the US or Germany to do anything.
They don't have the power to force it, so they've put all of their efforts into fraud. Every commie shitstain west of Moscow pretends to be an environmentalist now.
-jcr
I seem to recall our previous president warning Germany about this very thing at a UN function, and the representatives from Germany all laughing at him.
Funny.
Having an energy that is more based on idealism than technological capabilities that leads you to be dependent on a morally reprehensible regime whose actions you decide to get indignant about does not lead you to a sustainable place for one ideal, or the other.
The solution for solar energy is to mandate everyone turn off their lights at night.
With fixed solar panels, the capacity is down about 29% at 3PM. So it's much worse than just the lights - you can't cook or use your air conditioning when you get home from work. You can't charge your electric car overnight, and I doubt that many employers will have chargers at every space in their employee parking lot, so take the bus and leave your car in the garage when the sun shines.
Ahh... The Germans! With the 800 pound gorilla on their back. Telling the the world and doing what is reich, again....
I do miss the old Germany and in the words of Walter Sobchak, "I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
Love 'em or hate 'em, they are Germans!
There will be a sort of cosmic justice if the Germans end up paying billions of Euros to the French to build and operate nuclear powerplants on their behalf because the Germans still can't figure out how after all these years.
This!
And not just the Germans, but the US too. I've been reading the same basic point (loss of know-how regarding building and operation of nuclear plants) for a while now.
It's good to be green, so they say. Yeah, right....
Under Biden, the National Academy of Science's first priority is saving the world from climate change. Under Carter, it was saving America from an Energy Crisis precipitated by Arabs rather than Russians.
The cure for the Oil Shock, the Academy concluded in its magisterial CONAES report was to burn America's monumental coal reserves instead of foreign oil and gas.
Plus ca change…
The UN shall praise Russia for eliminating some CO2 by shutting down the NG pipeline while ignoring the Carbon footprint of the Ukrainian invasion. It’s transitory.
Dear J.D.T.: "Strongly held wishes and pixie dust won't deliver..." the common good or national security or prosperity or peace.
"The Most Dangerous Superstition" (Larken Rose) is the belief that a coercive government, a group of people given permission to rule by the initiation of force, threats, fraud, is a necessary evil, the only way to live. History has proven it's no way to live at all, as all empires have failed. Violence social interaction, ON PRINCIPLE, is unstable, inhuman, irrational, and immoral.
A non-violent, voluntary, self-governing populace is a free society. Nothing less will work. Don't compromise on your rights.
So glad it can't happen here, given all of the gas an oil that we're sitting on!
/sarc
a 100 megawatt megabattery is green? LOL
This is what happens when fantasy meets reality. Until someone builds a better battery and superconducting transmission wires you will always need a dependable backup for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Even then you will still need that dependable backup for emergencies. Just look at what happened in Texas.
I can only assume we will be deeply embroiled in debates involving how we can make reparations work, should we allow kids furry-affirming care, and do we really need age of consent laws for kids?
Just remember the corollary to "one man, one vote"
is "one less man, one less vote".