cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/52096709

Germany's coal phase-out is on track to happen through market forces well before the legal 2038 deadline, regardless of current energy market turbulence, says Hauke Hermann, a researcher at the Institute of Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut). Carbon price trends make an exit as early as 2031 or 2032 likely, Hermann told Clean Energy Wire. Refiring old coal plants in response to the Iran war's energy market shock to cut power costs would distort investment signals and is unlikely to happen in practice, he added.

Soaring energy prices have triggered calls for slowing Germany’s coal exit. The country’s coal exit law, agreed in 2020, provides for the step-by-step decommissioning of coal power plants. It also stipulates that coal-fired power generation must cease by 2038 at the very latest. Germany's western coal region aims for an earlier phase-out by 2030, but delays in building new gas-fired power plants as a backup for renewables make meeting this earlier deadline increasingly unlikely.

...

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 5 months ago (22 children)

Fucking hell that is slow. Germany, wtf?

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Only like a decade after they said they would. That's pretty good still going to cause untold ecological damage but less than say openai or the invasiam of Ukraine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The invasion of Ukraine forced Europe to lower fossil fuel consumption and now Ukraine is also destroying a lot of fossil fuel infrastructure in Russia. Even the destruction of the Kakhovka dam seems to turn out rather wild ecosystem. The Baltic countries are also recreating massive wetlands on the border to Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago

    LOL we're getting wildly expensive environmentally disastrous fracking gas from the USSA, shipped in diesel tankers.
    And why? because these terrorists blew up Nordstream causing a huge environmental disater by itself.
    Quit your BS

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    they were quick to exit NUCLEAR power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Not really. It took about fourty years of discussion, strife, protests, civil desobedience, and no less than five widely reported major nuclear accidents - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the three plants at Fukushima - to get there. And renewable energy is a child of the quest to get better energy sources, thst stsrted in mid-seventies, and started to become mature with megawatt wind power plants in the early naughties. We would not have these without the antinuclear movement. I know all that well because I studied applied physics and renewable energy in Germany since 1988.

    The decades old logo of the antinuclear movement

    .... shows a fiery sun for a reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    "but someone else will do worse" is not a valid defence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Not really a defense, just saying that they are nullifying our efforts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    "Our efforts" lol, lmao even. The west - Germany and the US in particular - are not even trying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    So are their renewable installations...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    That's like saying a chain smoker is turning healthy by starting to brush their teeth, while increasing their cigarette intake..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    60% of China's power capacity at this point are renewables, and even if they're building coal, they're building renewables much faster.. Long term, it's clear they're still phasing out coal.. The power plants are there, but they probably won't be running much in 10-20 years time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 15 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    As an addition: In its report, The Global Coal Exit List 2025: Troubling Trends Towards Chemicals and Captive Power, the NGO Urgewald identifies India, China, and the U.S. as the main obstacles for a coal phase-out.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    China is a surprise to me, didn't know they use that much coal for non energy production. At least they are scaling down when it comes to energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    According to the Chinese Communist Party's recently released 15th five-year plan: compared to the 14th five-year plan, China’s goals for non-fossil energy additions would see China’s annual green energy additions fall by more than half in the next five years, while at the same time, fossil fuel energy consumption would increase by 8-10%,

    China is not on track to meet its 2060 carbon neutrality goal, according to climate think tank, Carbon Action Tracker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    They will burn the question is whether that fire comes before or after there's any benefit to be had from any of it Americans are already turning off power to people without shutting down the plants or making anything what's the actual down side of burning it all down

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago

    So they want get rid of coal and gas peakers? While critically depending on imports from neighbors when the renewables don't deliver?

  • source