Place the idea of Germany ending coal use by 2030 on the list of energy things that has little chance of happening.
Here is an article from November 2, 2022 that serves as a nice background starting point for today’s discussion.
Reuters reports Germany’s Cabinet Approves Accelerated Coal Exit by 2030 in Western State
At first glance that headline sounds impressive. But note it is not Germany-wide, just one state.
Then read the article for the details.
Germany’s cabinet on Wednesday approved a draft law to phase out coal-fired power plants in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia by 2030 instead of a previous date of 2038, part of Berlin’s efforts to speed up the cutting of greenhouse emissions.
At the same time, the cabinet approved extending the lifespan of two coal-fired plants in the same state as a way of shoring up the country’s energy security as it copes with dwindling Russian gas and oil supplies since the war in Ukraine.
Germany agreed to speed something up that is seven years away at the expense of keeping two coal-fired plants operating that were supposed to shut down this year.
What Does “Ideally” Mean?
It was not clear whether the 2038 phase-out date for coal plants in eastern Germany will still apply. Berlin’s coalition government had agreed to “ideally” bring forward the overall coal exit in the country to 2030.
Ideally, nearly all of us should make a living wage soon. That sure sounds good, whatever it means.
Someone needs to adopt that as a campaign slogan. It contains five fuzzy ideas in one sentence, “Ideally”, “nearly all of us”, “should”, “living wage”, and “soon”.
Bear in mind we are somehow discussing a 2038 phase-out date when the commitment is to end all coal usage by 2030, ideally of course.
Energy Monitor September 2023
The Energy Monitor reports The “Current Pace” is Not Sufficient to Meet 2030 Targets.
Germany is set to generate more than half of its power from renewable sources this year, according to Robert Habeck, Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action and co-leader of the Green Party.
National targets state that, by 2030, the share of renewables in power consumption in Germany must reach at least 80%; however, Habeck warned that: “We won’t get there at the current pace.”
German Finance Minister Casts Doubt on 2030 Coal Exit
Next, please consider German Finance Minister Casts Doubt on 2030 Coal Exit, published November 1, 2023.
German Finance Minister Christian Lindner on Wednesday called into question the government’s aim to end coal use in Europe’s largest economy by 2030.
“Until it is clear that energy is available and affordable, we should end dreams of phasing out electricity from coal in 2030,” Lindner said in an interview with the German daily Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger.
“Now is not the time to shut down power plants,” he added.
Lindner’s comments threaten to deepen division within the ruling coalition between Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats, the Greens and the FDP, where ministers have clashed over how to respond to higher energy prices while reducing fossil fuel usage.
The coal exit date is a plank in Germany’s project to produce 80 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and the coalition aims “ideally” to close all coal-fired plants within the same timeframe.
Germany Will Flunk 2030 Coal Exit
Today, Eurointelligence announced in its headline story: Germany Will Flunk 2030 Coal Exit.
That’s a paywalled article that I have not read. But here we are, over one year later, still discussing the meaning of “ideally”.
New Green Goals Would Force You to Be Vegan and Eliminate Cows
Meanwhile, in the US, New Green Goals Would Force You to Be Vegan and Eliminate Cows
A huge backlash against climate change goals is underway. A cow burp tax decided the election in New Zealand. People are upset with similar Green stupidity in California as well.
Click on above link for discussion.
I agree that a phase out of coal will happen, and it should happen. I do not at all like coal. It will be phased out, but unfortunately much slower than expected.
I suspect PapaDave would agree with all of that.
However, Germany was beyond stupid getting rid of nuclear. The German government is on the verge of collapse over this. And near-term they have increased reliance on coal. How stupid is that?
In the US, I support phasing out coal and I even support no new coal plants. I draw the line at shutting down workable plants at taxpayer expense.
Biden would have done better on that score than on ridiculous wind projects that now need a bailout. Wind seems far more reliable in Europe than here.
“A cow burp tax decided the election in New Zealand.”
What I’d like to know is how is it even possible, in 2023, for anyone to still believe that election results can be deciphered in any way. A guy whose main claim to fame was owning a number of casinos (and failing dismally at making money while being in the casino business, somehow) won the election in the USA in 2016. A climate change denier has recently got the most votes in Holland, the country most likely to get flooded when storms get bigger. I won’t even attempt to describe what has been Israeli policy by the man who has been elected there for decades. In Italy people appear to have been choosing their representatives on the grounds of entertainment value for as long as anyone can remember.
What else needs to happen to convince everyone that election results are purely meaningless and cannot be deciphered in any way?
I remember a lot of years back they bought a Formula I race to downtown Denver and everybody was there. A young lady made a comment that they shouldn’t have this race when we were having an energy crisis due to some Arab embargo. Everyone looked at her and laughed. Formula I cars don’t burn fossil fuels.
After reading your post I was curious as to what the fuel was. This is what I found on Wikipedia:
The fuel used in F1 cars is fairly similar to ordinary (premium) petrol, albeit with a far more tightly controlled mix. Formula One fuel would fall under high octane premium road fuel with octane thresholds of 95 to 102. Since the 1992 season onwards all Formula One cars must mandatorily utilize unleaded racing gasoline fuel.
Fusion is maybe in sight, but the costs of commercial scale incalculable.
The promise of clean fusion is also false. It generates flow of neutrons which cause cascading nuclear reactions. Potentially less than fission, but still.
There was an article on the WEF forum a while ago where Germany said they would be off fossil fuels by 2025. Even the WEF author said it was a “herculean task”. Hercules is fiction.
link to sej.org
This caught my eye from a report by the Washington Post of the first plane fueled flight using an alternative fuel source.
Q: What Does “Ideally” Mean?
A: Virtue Signalling
This german government will end 2025. But that could be too late, because the present government tries to destroy the country as quick as possible.
And very successfully at that without anyone stopping them, alas.
WEF minions executing the plan to maximize chaos and poverty of the German population via uncontrolled immigration and sky-high energy prices as a consequence of their own dumb and totally failed “Energiewende” initiated by Angela Merkel (also a WEF puppet), Germany now burning more coal than in the 1970ies, an overwhelming success of the totalitarian green nitwits.Many thanks also to the US in master minding the terrorist act of blowing up Nordstream I, massively damaging Germany and Europe in general.
Without anyone being really concerned, similar to the CV19 toxic bioweapon gene injection of half of the world population.
The only silver lining is that the destruction of the German economy it will be up to France and Italy to pick up the tab for the communist EU Brussels nannycrat bureaucracy. Good luck with that!
First and foremost, these questions need to be answered Honestly, by Every Country in the Entire World.
Q1: Will Your Country Survive without Coal?
Q2: Will Your Country Survive without Fossil Fuels?
A1: NO! By nearly ALL of them!
A2: NO! By nearly ALL of them!
So once we have the Honest Answer of NO! by nearly all countries and nearly all People, why not STOP THIS BS NOW!!!
Does the Government of the United States of America & ALL Governments in ALL Countries know the following FACT:
Over 1/3 of the Worlds Population Live, Eats, and Survives on Coal and Fossil Fuels to Survive. Hell, it only takes 3 Countries to reach 1/3 of the Worlds Population or pretty damn close. That would be China, India & Indonesia and I purposefully left America out of the numbers, as they are irrelevant. So are the U.S. Leaders Pushing This Nonsense!!!
Of course we still hear Absolutely Ludicrous Statements Like This One from Germany of all places…
– National targets state that, by 2030, the share of renewables in power consumption in Germany must reach at least 80%.
> What a Joke! The only reason I can think of, to make such a ridiculous statement, is if you have no choice in the matter. Germany has no Natural Gas, Very little Coal and Fossil Fuels and already know that Wind & Solar Can’t & Won’t Cut It!!!
Germany may in fact, become more dependent for survival on Wind, Solar and the like, because they may have no choice in the matter. Germany, much like other Countries and their Citizens will not Stand for being starved to death OR frozen to death, and will retaliate in kind!
Real People throughout the World, don’t care about the Earths Temperature RISING BY 1 Degree over the next 100 Years, MAYBE!
Real People throughout the World, don’t give a sh&# about climate change. It doesn’t have anything to do with their existence now or in the near future in the least. They would rather live now, eat now, stay warm now, be able to cook, have transportation now, lights etc. In other words: “They Wish To Live”
If we ever allow these zealots to even gain a fraction of the traction they are looking to achieve, strictly for there very own financial gains, but on the backs of the remaining society as a whole, we will have massive deaths for all sorts of undeniably unnecessary reasons at this extent.
Just STOP!!!
If we had wise leaders, they would be funding research and making plans to transition from fossil fuels. Not because of CO2 hysteria, but because fossil fuels are limited. This would include energy efficiency technology to increase the useful life of fossil fuels. Here is a link to the 1st episode of an 8 part series discussing the new energy technology.
link to youtu.be
That is an excellent series. I saw it a few weeks ago. Townsend keeps it simple enough for most people. Basically, it’s what I have been saying here for the last 3+ years on energy.
Dave, Why do you think scientists that speak up against climate hysteria are “on the take” from big oil, but the multitude of lesser scientists feeding at the trough of the Federal grant system are straight shooters? Clearly it is better for the the career of a climate scientist to agree with the party line. They also don’t have the gravitas to go against the “consensus” which will hurt their carrers. Why does this obvious point escape you?
I’ll trot out another well respected Climate scientist who doesn’t believe in the climate hysteria: Edward Lorenz, the founder of Chaos theory. In nonlinear system, you can’t predict the future because it’s very sensitive to tiny changes in the initial conditions. The Lorenz equations are simplified
models of convective flow in the atmosphere. Lorenz was a colleague of Richard Lindzen at MIT. He also thought it was ridiculous to sugest you could predict the Earth’s temperature in 50 years. Too many unknown variables driving a nonlinear system. It’s most likely that the temperature will be warmer, but that’s because the earth is in a long range warming period driven by the Milankovitch cycle. It’s impossible to parse out what percentage of the change is due to CO2 levels. Furthermore, the science model of how the Earth’s black body emissions change due to the atmosphere suggests a negligible change in the green house effect with a doubling of CO2.
Get politics and science out of science, if you want true science. Politicians with their thumb on the scale produces bad outcomes.
“ Dave, Why do you think scientists that speak up against climate hysteria are “on the take” from big oil, but the multitude of lesser scientists feeding at the trough of the Federal grant system are straight shooters? Clearly it is better for the the career of a climate scientist to agree with the party line. They also don’t have the gravitas to go against the “consensus” which will hurt their carrers. Why does this obvious point escape you?”
Alex. I am just as incredulous about your point of view. How can you possibly believe that tens of thousands of scientists are “on the take” and lying about global warming, while the handful of scientists that you reference are correct. It is a repeat of the smoking debate, where a handful of scientists claimed that smoking was good for you. You are just like all the smokers who wanted to believe that handful of “scientists” and the garbage they promoted about smoking.
You just promoted Eric Townsend’s YouTube series. He completely agrees with the science of global warming, though he downplays it as much as possible to get people like yourself to keep watching. I suggest you watch it all again and pay attention to what he says about global warming and why we need to phase out fossil fuels. His number one reason is to stop global warming. His number two reason is to create an age of cheap and clean energy for future humans.
“ It’s most likely that the temperature will be warmer, but that’s because the earth is in a long range warming period driven by the Milankovitch cycle.”
There you go, getting it completely backwards again. You so badly want to believe that global warming is natural, you just make stuff up. Every single Milankovitch cycle has been in a cooling phase for thousands of years now and will remain in those cooling phases for many thousands more years. Look it up.
In addition, the Milankovitch cycles work on time scales of 26,000, 41,000, 100,000 and 400,000 years. It takes tens of thousands of years for these cycles to change CO2 levels (and thus temperatures) by 120 ppm in either direction. Mankind has increased CO2 levels by 140 ppm in 200 years through our use of fossil fuels. That is not natural. It is man. And the isotopes of Carbon in the CO2 prove its man.
And don’t give me that crap about even more CO2 being good for us. That’s just like saying that smoking is good for us. There is an ideal range of CO2 levels that are best for mankind and that range is from 280 to 350 ppm. We are currently at 420 ppm and going up by 2.5 ppm per year. The plants will also be fine in that range because they always have been.
“ Get politics and science out of science, if you want true science. Politicians with their thumb on the scale produces bad outcomes.”
I follow true science. You do not. You follow anyone who will tell you what you want to hear.
You just watched an excellent series on the energy transition, and I’m not sure if you actually learned anything from it. Because you are still promoting a handful of scientific shills, and getting the Milankovitch cycles completely wrong.
I suggest that you watch it all again. Though I don’t know if you will ever be able to understand it. Maybe you will surprise me.
Watch it again.
Papa, as usual your points are on target , and I agree, as you know, with most of what you say in regards to it.
It has to be addressed for certain, but it is the speed and intelligence on how to address it, that has me trying to slow this train down before it hits a brick wall.
Putting money now, into windmills and solar, was both silly, as they are a supplement and not a source, and foolish, as that money could have went into Infrastructure Investments.
I don’t see more than a handful of those in Power or Seeking it, viewing it in this manner, and that for me is a real big problem for Our Country. JS…
Thanks Stu. I am not advocating for anything, other than common sense and reality. As I always say, I cannot change what is happening in the world, but I can profit from it.
Global warming is real, and we are the cause. The worldwide response has been to attempt to build out renewables and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But we are failing badly at this.
There are a lot of calls to stop investing in fossil fuels, and oil companies are doing just that. They have been reducing their E&P budgets for several years now. The result will be less oil in the future.
But we are still demanding MORE oil every year. If we keep raising demand while reducing supply, the outcome will be upward pressure on oil prices.
That is the situation I am investing in. Oil companies spending less on future production and making scads of money from higher prices on what they are still producing. That’s a recipe for shareholders receiving a gusher of cash flow. I expect this scenario to play out for the rest of this decade.
I do not invest in Energy, and stick mostly to hard assets . I moved a good chunk into untouchable but guaranteed if you will, investment routes (3 Yr).
I think of housing (not rent) as the new investment for the generation following the BB’s. A lot is being handed down, and much is debt free assets, so I am going with the cause of that, more people staying put, and certainly more out of the cities. This will cause shortages in desired housing in good neighborhoods. My Energy if you will. I am looking to sell all those assets in the 15-20 year range.
Good Luck Papa!!!
There are a lot of things to invest in. Good luck Stu!
Hi Papa, seems like the narrative may be changing… “Some have argued that the oil industry is underinvesting, but this view is simply not backed up by the data.”
link to finance.yahoo.com
Hi radar. Spending on E&P is still far less today than in the past. Though it has ticked up a bit in the last two years in response to the high prices last year.
Much of the additional production in the last few years has come from the US. From 11.2 mbpd in 2021 to 13.2 mbpd today.
That big bump is almost over now. We might add another 0.3 mbpd this year. After that, the growth is likely over.
In addition, we took 200 mb out of the SPR and the rest of the world also drew down both on-land and on-water storage.
US rig counts are down by 150 to around 500 in 2023. That doesn’t sound like a lot of new investment.
I think the real money is to be made in BS “solutions” like carbon credits. Most people realize something needs to change, and nearly all of them are utterly convinced somebody else needs to do the changing. If you can spin it up into some kind of cult, it will rain money upon you.
If you can assuage Karen McMommies guilt at idling in front of the school in the Canyonero for an hour a day, sandwiching 4 trips to Costco, she’ll happily pay.
Guilt money has sustained churches for millennia. Its a proven business.
You could be right. But not so far. Carbon credits may eventually be profitable. The future is difficult to predict.
Absolutely! We have GV’s that now get 50+ MPG (someone else recently pointed that out), so more science and patience and maybe we can get to 100 MPG by 2030?
GV’s and Hybrids are the way to go IMO short term, but spend the time and whatever resources available (not stealing from others) to continue to look at ALL Alternatives. Wind and Solar are not ever going to get it done alone obviously, as we don’t control either one of them.
The climate agenda here in the U.S. as displayed, is far from serious. We have clearly put the cart way before the horse. We are not anywhere close to being able to become dependent on wind and solar, and probably never will be able to be. We have practically zero infrastructure in place for society as a whole, for EV’s. We don’t even have the ability to manufacture batteries for them. They are many years away from being a far reaching solution for America, but most importantly even much, much further from even being considered a solution for the Majority of the World, and that is simply a fact!
I suspect they’re paid pretty well to do nothing of the sort.
If the US hadn’t blown up the Nordstream pipeline, Germany would have stood a much better chance to get rid of coal by 2030. They are also shutting down nuclear power. Thus, they are dependent on LNG and windmills and PVs. These are high cost energy and the green part of it is intermittent. Maybe a nice cold winter will jar them out of their delusions.
Coal smoke is more toxic, but I don’t think natgas emits any less carbon.
Mish, your on an “interesting” backward technology path lately. Market analysis gives a different picture: Electricity from Coal is very expensive (throughout Europe). That’s why imports of cheap renewable energy from Scandinavia increases, pushing coal out of the market.
There are open issues with power lines and wind power ramp up. So, maybe the exit won’t happen in full, but surely mostly.
I agree that it will happen, and I do not at all like coal. I think it should be phased out and it will, but much slower than expected. I suspect PapaDave would agree with all of that.
But Germany was beyond stupid getting rid of nuclear. The German government is on the verge of collapse over this.
In the US, I support phasing out coal and I even support no new coal plants. Biden would have done better on that score than on ridiculous wind projects that now need a bailout. Wind seems far more reliable in Europe than here.
I do agree Mish. Coal is the first fossil fuel we should phase out. But not till we are ready.
And it was very short sighted to try to phase out nuclear. We need nuclear to replace coal as a base load power supply for the next 100 years or so.
I am fully supportive of renewable energy sources in the long run, but we are almost out of water based hydro locations, geothermal is too expensive and complicated to expand rapidly, and after 20 years of building out wind and solar they only supply 2% of total energy use so far.
The energy transition, while necessary, is going to take far longer than what we would like. I can’t change that fact, but I try to profit from it.
Lord make me chaste, but not just yet. Germany will stop using coal, but not just yet (or for a very long time).
Yay yay yay! Pollution now, pollution tomorrow,pollution forever. Love it.
Coal power stations don’t pollute at all if they are using scrubbers, as they do in Germany.
Verbal pollution from hot air, yes.
Converting nature into poison and garbage is the purpose of the human race.
A very simple question.
Will the people like to be freezing to death in the dark with no power to cook food?
The greenies are so delusional that they cannot comprehend the slightest bit of reality.
The Poor Demented Fool we have as POTUS who screeched to a campaign rally that he was going to eliminate carbon fuels must have to believe that the Air Force one 747 jet plane can run on windmills and solar panes,not jet fuel.
I’m beginning to suspect that Germans invented the shell game. Germany promised a million 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine. One year later Germany has let not the first thirty year contract to purchase the ammunition. A manufacturer can take contract to the bank and borrow the money to build the factory to manufacture the ammunition. So Germany says the manufacturers cannot supply ammunition because they have no factories. !!! *&%#@!
Makes about as much sense as the Ukraine war.
It’s not just Germany. The entire world is having a very difficult time trying to reduce fossil fuel use. It doesn’t matter what policies are passed, what deadlines are posted, and what words are spoken.
After spending $5 trillion on renewables so far, we have managed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels from 81% to 80% as a percentage of overall energy use. And since overall energy use keeps increasing, we are actually using MORE fossil fuels every year.
When it comes down to it, countries will burn the dirtiest fuels available in order to keep the lights on.
Got oil?
There are other hydrocarbons, then there is not only carbon, but hydrogen itself.
“Got Hydrogen?” Isn’t as catchy though.
Not catchy.
And Hydrogen companies have been terrible investments in spite of all the government incentives and subsidies.
We have a well established infrastructure for fossil fuels and we are rapidly expanding the infrastructure for renewables.
It appears to be too large a hill to climb to add a third infrastructure for H2.
So very true! China and India and other Countries have Increased their usage of Coal! As their economies grow as well as their populations, they will continue to increase their usage! Do the U.S. Leaders really believe for a split second, that China gives a rats #&@ what we think and want, when it comes to coal? The majority of The World lives because of coal!!!
Yep. We will wean ourselves off of coal eventually. But not for many decades.
Peak Oil was November 2018. The only thing hiding it was the USA permian basin.
Now that has peaked with 50% annualised decline rates.
Rig counts are dropping in the Permian. The lie that u can produce more oil with less rigs will be exposed in QTR 1 2024.
The Germans aint giving up coal.
link to oilystuff.com
If you think about it, coal is renewable… Made out of trees, same as oil, made out of dead animals, it’s just that it takes longer
Yep. After we use up the readily accessible coal and oil, it will only take a few billion years for that “renewable” resource to form again.
It’s not billions of years.
“70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic age (252 to 66 million years ago), 20% were formed in the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago), and only 10% were formed in the Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago).”
the Carboniferous Era was 300 million years ago.
Waiting for the sun to come out so your EV can recharge is slightly faster. 😉 Where I live we get about a half day of sunlight every week this time of year.
Excellent detail in your post. Thanks.
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic.
You have the long term trend correct. But US oil production is not going to drop off a cliff as you imply. Production will probably peak in the next few years and then stabilize for the rest of this decade.
Production is still rising. Expectations for 2024 are for production to be between 13k and 14k mbpd on average. If production does drop a bit, it will be in response to lower prices, not because oil is rapidly running out.
link to eia.gov
The Germans will be liquifying their coal (CTL) when they won’t be able import oil anymore. Just like Hitler did in WWII.
50% decline rates (empirically proven) takes A LOT of effort to offset.
Tier 1 & Tier 2 locations (according Mr. Shellman the other Tiers suck!) in the Permian are running out.
There is a 6 month lag in the data, so when rigs start dropping you don’t see the effects for awhile.
I am not an oil guy.
Mike Shellman has been running a successful oil company for 50 years and talks to the people that are out there. He is friends with the CEO of Novi
If this topic interests you ( and it should)
link to oilystuff.com
thanks!
I already follow Mike Shellman on twitter. Thanks.
He knows far more than I ever will. But he is not the only expert I follow. There are a wide range of opinions on this topic.
He has an opinion that shale production will decline rapidly. I disagree. Shale production will decline slowly.
Time will tell.
Combined with the admitted failure of mass-immigration and the massive cost to German society, it seems Germany either has a deathwish or there’s something entirely different going on behind the scenes.
Why else would you willingly allow your industry to go abroad for production, why else would you go along with the complete annihilation of your leadership position within the EU?
If they’re not going to be the industrial powerhouse of Europe, what else are they going to bring to the table?
Bertolt Brecht plays in every townsquare while holding hands?
It sure doesn’t make sense other than being a Gotterdammarung scene of a Wagnerian opera played out in real life.
Before WWI, Germany was the place to go to advance ones carrier in practically any field of science and humanities.
How far the gods have fallen.
Germany didn’t really exist until 1848, unless you’re including the Holy Roman Empire, and Roman Germania.
Germany has a tendency towards buying into irrational self-destructive cults, as the 20th century evidences. The backlash as begun already.