More about those 50 fewer coal plants...a German Renewables Redux

"The rapid expansion of renewable energy in Germany means there is no need to renege on the government's agreement to phase out nuclear power," reports Reuters today.

This is how things always happen for me. I was getting ready for class, and doing some searches to show the students how to use databases for their research. In doing so, I came upon a report from Reuters, put out just today, about the very subject just discussed in a post yesterday about wind energy in Germany.

At Factiva, one can find the article "Germany says renewables growth faster than planned." (I can't find it at itself. So here it is as a pdf file.)

Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said "Renewable energy had risen almost 13 percent last year to account for 11.8 percent of the country's total electricity supply."

Since Germany is the "Europe's biggest economy, it is also Europe's biggest polluter." And such is the problem.

Notes Reuters:

As concern grows about global warming, several European countries are having second thoughts about previously unpopular nuclear power as -- unlike coal or gas fired power stations -- it is virtually free of
climate-changing emissions.

Gabriel said the annual increase in renewable energy in the power sector was equivalent to a year's
production at a nuclear plant.

As EU president, Germany has made a priority of tackling climate change but the country is reliant on
pollution-heavy coal power plants.

Thus, they continue to pursue a nuclear phase-out in the coming decades. To be sure, building new coal plants is a problem; nobody can deny that. Friend of The World's Fair Andrew Dodds helpfully provided this link to a pdf file about utilities in Europe.

In fact, check out their plan for the Development of the German Power Plant Portfolio from 2000 to 2030 (from the file just linked to):

i-4105bb6424dd12b6a0c1c3199e3a63bd-German Utilities Plan.jpg

But what the Reuters article points to is the possibility of addressing emissions issues without the nuclear option. It also provides an example of attacking the coal-fired problem by trying to render it unnecessary. What it doesn't point to or problematize is my ever-present concern: the assumption that we should be working on replacing energy production capacity and not energy consumption patterns.

More like this

Frederic Curtiss, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, told Reuters Health that data attached to documents by Word has allowed him to discover undisclosed contributors. In one case, for instance, a revised manuscript arrived at his office with four named authors, but when he…
A committee of the North Carolina House has come up with the state's first renewable-energy bill at long last, one that would require electrical utilities to produce 12.5% of their product from renewable sources. Which is a good thing, if a bit on the weak side. In a bizarre twist, however,…
One nice new feature we've got here on scienceblogs is the Editor's Picks feature, found on the front page. While browsing it this weekend, I was drawn to this provocative article. In it, Benjamin Cohen writes of his interview with Rebecca Solnit, who says the following when asked about nuclear…
Energy policy is one of those nerdy things that no one pays attention to until it starts to go wrong. And that's where we stand today. Electricity demand continues to rise, as documented by this report by the Energy Information Administration. And most of that electricity is generated by coal…