It will take $45 Billion Investment, but Germany has come up with a Plan to Shut Down the Country’s 84 Coal-Fired Power Plants by 2038.

In Order for Germany to meet its International Commitments, a Government Commission made up of Government Officials, Experts, Scientists, and Industry Leaders, agreed on a Plan to make Germany a Greener place.

“It’s a big moment for climate policy in Germany that could make the country a leader once again in fighting climate change,” said Claudia Kemfert, Professor for Energy Economics at the DIW Berlin, the German Institute for Economic Research. “It’s also an important signal for the world that Germany is again getting serious about climate change: a very big industrial nation that depends so much on coal is switching it off.”

Germany is one of the World’s Largest Coal Consumers. Coal accounts for 40% of the Country’s Electricity Production.

A big part of Germany’s Coal Problem comes not only from its Dependence on it, but from the Fact that it Burns Lignite, the Dirtiest form of Coal.

Of course, while some News Outlets have called the $45 Billion a “cost” or “spending,” the fact of the matter is that, according to Studies, Germany Spends Billions on Public-Health Costs related to Coal every year.

Investing in a Healthier Populace and Cleaner Energy isn’t a Waste of Money.

This is a big moment for the Earth, as Germany is not only One of the Worst Global CO2 Polluters, but it has been an example for some Cynics as to why it will be too hard to ween Germans off of Coal in an Expedited way.

One of the Obstacles Germany faced was the Closing Down and Phasing-Out of its Nuclear Power-producing Plants, the Result of Green Protests and the Disaster in Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

Many argued that without the Cleaner Nuclear Option to use as a “bridge” between Coal and Greener Energy Technologies, the Costs would be too Steep.

It would be nice if they Calculated the Costs to Germany and to the World of Not Acting.

It also requires the determination of which Energy Storage Technologies to use, Computing how much Storage would be Required, and How much it would Cost?

Some Comments:

The real question is how much of the coal will be replaced by natural gas? There's a dirty myth that phasing out coal will help co2 emissions. If its replaced by natural gas then emissions don't drop. Studies that look at co2 emissions from burning natural gas as well as the methane emissions from drilling operations show that phasing out coal does no good if natural gas replaces it. There have been plenty of these coal shutdown headlines in the past five years and co2 emissions just keep going up. Singling out coal hasn't worked as an emissions reduction strategy. Keeping all fossil fuels in the ground is the only way to reduce emissions.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. The problem comes from replacing coal with fracked natural gas. A study published last March in the journal Climate Policy explores the issue, which was reported by in The Conversation by Joachim Schleich, professor of Energy Economics, Grenoble École de Management (GEM): The results of the model simulations suggest that in the long run (up to the year 2050), global greenhouse gas emissions would increase by about 0.8 percent if shale gas was available everywhere compared to a scenario where shale gas was exploited only in the United States. But the results also suggest differences across countries: some countries like Japan and India would experience a small decrease in emissions, while others, such as Argentina, Canada, Mexico or the Russian Federation, would face an increase in emissions of up to 3 percent in the case of Argentina.

These developments also have repercussions on the costs of meeting the 2°C target. On the one hand, a higher shale gas availability tends to lower the costs of mitigating CO2 emissions per ton. On the other hand, a higher shale gas availability may also increase emissions and thus require stronger mitigation efforts to meet the given climate targets.

One big problem is the building of natural gas infrastructure with a 50- to 60-year lifespan. It’s a guarantee of creating more fossil fuel stranded assets. Since companies obviously hate stranded assets, they will try their darnedest to keep those assets in operation.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker