Despite strong opinions to the contrary, Germany has closed its last nuclear power generation plants. It may be that the significance of that lies in the further questions raised by the closings.
For most it was a question of «when», not «if». Opinions vary about the degree and length of time that ghg emissions will increase as a result.
« Greens and left-wingers argue that it is illogical to cling to nuclear power, which is more expensive than wind or solar. The government argues that keeping the three ageing atomic power stations online would need huge investment — funds that should go into renewable energy sources.»
On the other hand:
«Conservative commentators and politicians say the country is in thrall to Green Party dogma, that scraps domestic nuclear power at a time when cutting Russian energy means rising prices. They accuse the government of increasing reliance on fossil fuels instead of using nuclear, which has lower emissions.»
But polls indicate that the division is not quite as strong as is often reported:
«In a YouGov poll from earlier this week, 65% supported keeping the three remaining nuclear power stations running for now. But only 33% wanted Germany to keep nuclear power indefinitely. In other words, pull the plug - but just not quite yet.»
Regardless of where people stand, Germany´s progress in the transition to renewables is considerable. One cannot help, I think, to see positive signs in the present electricity energy mix in Germany, despite the still considerable use of coal and the inevitable, if temporary, increase in the use of all fossil fuels with the nuclear plants shutting down. And renewable electricity generation will have to grow considerably to power the transition to electric transportation, while urgently minimizing and quickly eliminating the use of carbon intensive coal.
«Today, Germany gets almost half of its electricity from renewables - 44% in 2022, according to the Federal Statistical Office - and just 6% from atomic power. Green economy minister Robert Habeck predicts that 80% of Germany's electricity will be renewable by 2030 and has pushed through laws to make it quicker and easier to build solar and wind farms.»
And it is even more remarkable that with the Ukraine war raging:
«Despite predictions of shortages and black-outs, Germany produces more energy than it needs, exporting energy to France over the summer, note Green Party leaders pointedly, where (some) nuclear power stations could not operate because of extreme weather.» (parentheses and word added)
Compare that to the US, another highly industrialized nation. Though it is growing quite rapidly, only 21% (2021) of US electricity is generated with renewables. But far less coal is used than in Germany.
If Robert Habeck is correct, Germany will reach 80% renewable electricity by 2030, while the US will reach 44% by 2050. Being an optimist, I think both countries can and will do better than these predictions suggest.
Of course, both Germany and the US are large emitters of GHG, outside of the generation of electricity and in transportation. But the percentages of emissions coming from electricity generation plus transportation are roughly comparable, about half of all emissions.: US: 53% and Germany: 62.7:
First Germany:
The US:
I would have guessed that Germany´s percentage (14.8%) of industrial emissions would be higher than the US (23%). But it is not, suggesting that electrification of German industry will be an easier lift than the US.
But, I will take a step back, to about six months ago:
In the autumn of 2022, Germany, and all of Europe, was, indeed, confronting a possible worst case scenario of energy scarcity over the winter because of the loss of Russian gas supplies. As a result, the planned shutdown of the nuclear plants was postponed and coal fired plants were recommissioned, resulting in pushing the price of coal and electricity to record levels.
Now, in retrospect: The EU's use of coal-fueled power rose last year as countries faced a shortfall in energy supplies related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But the increase was not a high as many feared, according to a report out Tuesday.
That's partly thanks to a boost in renewable energy production, which generated a record 22 percent of the EU's electricity last year.
As EU countries scrambled to shore up energy supplies after Russia cut off gas flows following its invasion of Ukraine, and the bloc imposed sanctions on Moscow's coal and crude oil, some turned to mothballed coal fired power plants to replace lost supplies.
As it turned out:
"The report points a fall in coal generation in all four of the final months of 2022 mainly due to lower electricity demand. The 26 coal units brought back online across the bloc last year ran at just 18 percent average utilization between October and December, it says, while the EU burned through just one third of the 22 million tons of extra coal it imported as a failsafe.
"Any fears of a coal rebound are now dead," said Ember's head of data insights Dave Jones.
A major boost in wind and solar energy, which overtook coal use again and outpaced natural gas for the first time, helped to keep the coal rebound in check."
There are naysayers, however. HUFFPOST: In a very oddly timed report and, I think, the result of very sloppy journalism, this story appeared on April 15, 2023, with this:
«Europe’s largest economy turned to coal, candlelight and chopping wood to survive last winter’s energy crisis… as fossil fuel emissions reached crisis levels.»
At least the, perhaps, well meaning but misguided, author might have mentioned that the worst case scenario never came close to occurring. Somehow the author managed to misread and misstate both the anticipated future and the facts as they occurred."
The author’s source (Bloomberg) said:
"On Thursday, utility Uniper SE said it would extend commercial operations of two of its coal-fired plants in Germany until March 2024 at the latest, in an effort to conserve natural gas in the coming winters."
And:
«For all the billions of euros Germany spent on renewables, the now six reactors shut down since the end of 2021 produced more zero-carbon electricity than all the country’s solar panels combined and did so without requiring gas- and coal-fired plants to switch on when the sky went dark.
He all too conveniently disregarded the fact that while the 6 month delay in shutting down the ~6% electricity contribution from nuclear, and 18 percent average utilization of recommissioned coal generators between October and December, renewables as a whole contributed 44% of Germany’s energy mix and 22% of Europe as a whole for all of 2022.So, coal generation did increase a bit in 2022, after dramatic declines since about 2008, while oil and gas generation also declined, and renewables were about even.
As a result, total GHG emissions from the energy sector were 4.4% more in 2022 than 2021. It should be noted, however:
"Compared to 1990, greenhouse gas emissions fell by around 40% in 2022"
Despite fears of energy insecurity and huge increases in GHG emissions, both of the feared calamities were averted.
However, overall GHG emissions in 2022 decreased compared to 2021 levels. Nevertheless, the need for further renewables infrastructure is urgently needed to continue the decline in GHG emissions to planned levels by 2030 and net zero for all sectors, including transportation and electricity, by 2045.
But here is the point: Both Germany (and Europe) and the US are still on paths, though different ones, toward transitioning away from fossil fuel use for electricity generation and transportation.
Broadly speaking, Europe uses the «stick» approach, i.e. a carbon tax, while the US favors the «carrot» as described by Nobel laureate in Economics Paul Krugman:
"There’s still a good case for giving people a direct financial incentive to limit emissions, and such a thing may become politically possible as the economy decarbonizes and green energy becomes a more powerful interest group."
For now, however, we’re tackling climate change with carrots, not sticks, with subsidies, not taxes. And that’s OK."
Regardless of how long it takes to reach nearly 100% renewable electricity for the transportation and electric power sectors (with EVs and Renewables), it is certainly possible for both countries in the not too distant future to reach that goal. The really crucial question becomes:
If near total elimination of GHG emissions is needed, i.e. net zero, then, even with the optimistic predictions for renewables for electricity generation and EV adoption, how will the approximately other half of emissions, the non-electricity sector, non-transportation sectors, be abated? How will renewables replace the power and emissions for and from agriculture, commercial and residential buildings and industry?
It is not difficult to imagine that the 10-15% of emissions from commercial and residential buildings can be electrified.
But that still leaves about a third of our GHG emissions that are difficult to eliminate, i.e. agriculture and industry. Some industry, but maybe far from all, can be practically electrified with renewables. For other industrial emissions sources the options include hydro and geothermal for some, but not all, as well as small, modular nuclear, which may yet prove to be cheaper than coal, oil and gas with CCS. A fairly large scale CCS project for industrial CO2 emissions is under way in Europe. It will certainly be interesting to see the cost per ton CO2 captured and sequestered with that project. And, fusion may yet be a possibility.
Of course, emissions abatement is far from enough. Prevention of loss of carbon from storage in peat, permafrost, forest cover and methane trapped in soil is crucial. As the earth warms, those threats become more likely. The only remedy for those massive emissions would be carbon capture from the atmosphere, probably the most expensive means of controlling atmospheric CO2 concentrations within acceptable limits, likely trillions of dollars per year. The large differences between "Min" and "Max" costs for various CCS and other carbon offset techniques suggest, at best, that there is still a great deal to learn about the viability of CCS.
In addition, assistance to developing, not yet electrified countries to install renewables and grids will be necessary.
Finally, however, the last ~10% of emissions, from agriculture, is a much harder nut to crack. Without much cheaper removal of CO2 with atmospheric CCS, or various carbon offsets like reforestation, radical changes to our food production (and consumption) may be necessary, as difficult as that may be to imagine and (excuse me) stomach. I cannot see how to electrify a cow! (Yes, some are trying to capture cow gas.)