The start of a new year is normally slow news time. There’s precious little of consequence happening anywhere as December ends and January begins. Of course, this is how things used to be. This year, we’ve had plenty happening in the Middle East and North Africa, for which the media world is probably truly grateful. We’ve also had stuff happening in Europe. And by stuff, I mean energy recaps for 2023. It’s recap season and it’s great.
This reminds me of a joke I heard that one way to lose weight is to cut off your leg at the hip. Before anyone quibbles at the consequences of being sans-leg, nobody can deny that, in fact, one would have lost a lot of mass indeed, and nowadays with modern prosthetics who needs both legs anyway. The analogy, I wish, was less apt.
“The Carbon Brief informed us this month that electricity production from hydrocarbons in the UK had fallen to the lowest since 1957.”
Nuclear power stations replaced fossil fuel - notably oil - power stations at the end of the 50s, a large part of energy-intensive, heavy industry closed and fled abroad during the 60s & 70s Socialist era, and all but one coal fired power station were shut down by 2015. But the really genius part is we have less electricity in the UK, and pay twice as much for it.
Meanwhile: I have lowered the cost of my footwear by 50% - I cut off my left foot, and now get around on renewable crutches... a great saving on shoe-leather. It’s so easy to reduce things.
Watch the electricity demand go down further as the destruction of the industrial segment continues. No industry then lower power demands. Hopefully the farmers will be successful and there will be enough food.
“... contrary to media reports, their GDP is shrinking as well...’. GDP is a very unreliable metric. It is nearly always revised retrospectively, usually down. It includes Government fire-hosing money it printed into the economy so as Govt spending increases so does GDP, but actually adds no real wealth. A better metric is GDP per capita, which is often ignored because it often shows GDP per capita falling despite GDP rise.
So UK GDP per capita: 2014... $47 600; 2021... $46 580; 2022... $45 850. (No figures for 2023 yet.) So doing really well - and no allowance for inflation.
Excellent point. In the US, the December jobs report breakdown shows that the largest increase in jobs was government jobs, which very rarely contribute any actual productivity - just more regulations and paper shuffling - but all that government spending does make GDP look good. I like your idea of checking GDP per capita to see what's really happening.
This reminds me of the old joke about the father who intercepted his son's college grades in the mail. Upon confronting the young man he asked, "So, a C- in math, D's in history and biology, and you flunked literature. What do you have to say for yourself?" The son thought for a few seconds and then replied, "I guess I spent too much time on math."
Humanity is funny. We applaud those with a tiny carbon footprint and vilify those folks that stomp around in the energy scene in size 14 boots. But realistically, if one learns how to live with criticism, it is possible to be comfortable. I prefer not to be complimented for my misery.
Wow! What a difference between electricity costs of $0.40 per kWh in Germany and $0.07-.08 in China and Russia. In Oregon, we're paying PGE $0.145 residential, $0.143 for small business - but just was informed there will be an 18% rate increase this year.
Irina! excellent review of a powerful industrial nation that can be destroyed by a group of humans who live thousands of miles away from their borders without firing a bullet. Next thing, we will hear is that the only GHG emissions in Germany come from human beings who are still surviving! I hope regular Germans understand what is happening to them. It is unfortunate that many of their citizens are brainwashed to be angry at their northern neighbors who provided cheap energy for decades so that they can build a secure social support system. This is not the time for wars and global power dynamics.
Most human beings are trying to survive and live a decent life around the world. This global power dynamics sickness need to stop! perhaps it is going to self-destruct soon! what happens in Germany is not going to stay in Germany! it is coming to a screen near you!
So Germany has 39% high carbon electricity in 2023. In actual fact it is 49% high carbon when you admit the truth that biomass IS NOT low carbon. In fact it's worse than coal. EIA puts biomass thermal plants at a carbon intensity 1400 gms CO2 per kwh, vs conventional coal @ 1100, supercritical coal @ 870. Grifters or Liars, which is it? You can burn a tree in a minute in a biomass power plant, same tree takes 60yrs to grow. That's renewable, zero emissions, yep. And I have 3 brand new bridges to sell you, cheap.
So Germany is 49% high carbon electricity generation, vs France is 6.3% high carbon in 2023, so 8X the emissions. With a household electricity price of $0.40/kwh vs France @ $0.26/kwh in 2023. France largely Nuclear power, Germany no Nuclear. What's wrong with this picture?
And Germany cheats on its coal electricity emissions by disconnecting the generator from the grid while the boiler is still operating to maintain steam pressure when the wind is blowing, so they don't claim those emissions.
In 1999 Germany was 31% clean, zero emissions Nuclear electricity, 170TWh/yr. At that time they started their program to replace Nuclear with Wind & Solar, buffered with Russian gas. Now after having spent over $500B on wind and solar since then they are now at 28.8% wind + solar, 165TWh/yr. Zero achievement after $500B down the sewer. If Germany had spent $230B on Nuclear power they would now be 100% clean Nuclear electricity. 3X the results at <1/2 the cost. And now most of Germany's wind & solar will have to be replaced over the next decade. And of course they would now be much more resilient to Putin's natural gas pipeline blackmail.
You claim SmithFS: “Germany cheats on its coal electricity emissions by disconnecting the generator from the grid while the boiler is still operating to maintain steam pressure when the wind is blowing, so they don't claim those emissions.”
This is very similar to what Peter Zeihan, has been saying captured on his podcast 2nd August 2022 - “Electricity in Transition” transcript below:-
“It takes 24 hours to spin up a lignite mine because the stuff is so wet and so calorie not-dense. So when the sun does come out in Germany they unplug the turbines that are generating the coal based power and only allow the solar power into the grid. They then don't count the emissions from coal in that environment. But then as soon as the sun goes down they have to plug it back in and we go back to where we were. So the Germans are just flat out lying about their statistics.”
I’ve commented on a number of occasions via Peter Zeihan’s podcast’s comments, and also via his platform on ‘X’ (fka Twitter) saying: You ( Peter Zeihan) appear to be saying that German coal power stations are still running at full tilt in the background, but because the power isn't being used Germany is then not counting the CO2 emissions from that coal power.
Question:Do you know if this is actually true? again citations please.
To date I continue to ask this question but I’ve yet to receive proof, citation or otherwise from Peter Zeihan or anyone else viewing my request.
And so I ask you SmithFS can you provide proof/citation to back up your claim, or is it just hearsay🤔
It's all hearsay. I've read similar to what Zeihan is saying. Actually it not hard to believe, as every Energy Agency must have some rules for what qualifies as Electricity sector emissions. i.e. Power plant heating?
In Europe many countries use Cogeneration. So you have a steam plant that can produce either/or/both district heating & electricity. So what do you count as electricity emissions? Presumably the proportion going into electricity percent of emissions. So what if the plant is in standby mode? It would be like the amount of emissions your car produces when idling vs driving. It isn't a huge factor, but a significant amount of fuel used if done for a significant period of time. Could be say 10% additional fuel.
You said “ Germany cheats on its coal electricity emissions by disconnecting the generator from the grid while the boiler is still operating to maintain steam pressure when the wind is blowing, so they don't claim those emissions.” Which may well be true but without proof it’s conjecture, citations please🤔
You already gave a citation, Peter Ziehan. Calling it conjecture is nonsense. What do you want, something signed in blood, in front of ten witnesses? If you want something more, well you just go and look for it, and then tell us what you find, you want it so bad, you find it. I have no time.
As I pointed Smith’y Peter Zeihan, or for that matter anyone else who’s seem my posted comments, has been able to verify the claim.
If you Google my comment there’re others who’ve asked same question, but as yet no reply, so I’m afraid like your noted comment it’s conjecture, or perhaps you like making up stories in the hope they’ll get believed🤔
Note how little the lignite line varies - the lignite plants are almost never going offline.
I think the problem is news reports get VERY fast and loose with facts. Renewable energy generation doesn't mean emissions from the electrical sector = zero. The lignite plants can't load follow very well.
Also, there is a lot of controversy over buying and selling electricity - if you export the coal power, is it your emissions or someone else's?
They are cutting down forests not in Germany, but in Latvia. And German cheating is rampant. You have coal fired power plants that are running at 30% power 24/7, but because they are disconnected to the grid, don't "count" as emissions.
As to the rest - yep. And, fair to say, it is possible to build nuclear power plants with zero risk of melt down that are walk away safe. BWRX-300 comes to mind. So, what exactly is the issue? Nuclear waste? Well, 95% of the waste can be recycled - you don't even have to build the plant - France will recycle it for you into MOX. The remaining 5% is radioactive for 300 years, but volumetrically can fit into a couple of large shipping containers.
UK was actually 47% high carbon electricity in 2023, discounting the 9% biomass which is ACTUALLY the highest carbon emission source. vs France @ 6.3%. 7.5X the emissions with an electricity price of $0.44 vs $0.26 for France. With UK net imports (imports @ a high price, exports @ a low price) @ 8.6%. Some success that is. France being the largest net exporter of electricity on Earth.
If UK had skipped the Wind & Solar and just built high efficiency CCGT and nuclear, they would be much lower emissions, far lower imports and a much lower electricity cost. They could reduce gas emissions by 40% by just using CCGT without the Wind & Solar cycling impairing efficiency. Enough to displace 1/2 of their Wind. And the other half by replacing their dirty, eco-destructive biomass with ultra-supercritical coal, at the same emissions and 1/3rd the cost. The pittance of mostly useless solar (4.7%) could easily have been replaced by coal, gas or nuclear. Same emissions at much lower cost. No dependence on imports.
Who in Europe will consume all that renewable hydrogen that will be produced by 2030 if the energy intensive industries have all died or left?
Shocking that policymakers are still going full steam ahead. The same talking points repeated over and over with no connection to reality. I am still hopefull/optimistic that we can pull ourselves out of this industrial and economic suicide...but pessimism sometimes creeps in. Great piece Irina!
How long does the German government really think they can sustain a consumer price of 0.40/kWh with an industrial price for the same thing of 0.05/kWh?
At a certain point it will become cheaper to just buy a battery system and charge it at work during the day to bring home to power the TV at night. This is totally crazy.
:D I think that's the usual case, isn't it? I mean, cheaper for industrials than households. Industrial consumers consume a lot more than households, presumably. But I may well be wrong.
Yes that's pretty typical, commercial rates are less than household and industrial are the lowest, to attract industry. Also industrial is usually 24/7 demand which is lower cost to produce & distribute than highly peaking domestic usage. Typically industrial, but often commercial pay high demand charges as well, unlike households, demand charges for industrial sites might be 1/3rd the power bill.
Happy New Year and thank you for the post!
Happy New Year!
Irina,
This reminds me of a joke I heard that one way to lose weight is to cut off your leg at the hip. Before anyone quibbles at the consequences of being sans-leg, nobody can deny that, in fact, one would have lost a lot of mass indeed, and nowadays with modern prosthetics who needs both legs anyway. The analogy, I wish, was less apt.
You and me both.
Wonderfully written, and so jocular. I laughed even though I shouldn’t.
Hilarity reigns.
“The Carbon Brief informed us this month that electricity production from hydrocarbons in the UK had fallen to the lowest since 1957.”
Nuclear power stations replaced fossil fuel - notably oil - power stations at the end of the 50s, a large part of energy-intensive, heavy industry closed and fled abroad during the 60s & 70s Socialist era, and all but one coal fired power station were shut down by 2015. But the really genius part is we have less electricity in the UK, and pay twice as much for it.
Meanwhile: I have lowered the cost of my footwear by 50% - I cut off my left foot, and now get around on renewable crutches... a great saving on shoe-leather. It’s so easy to reduce things.
Excellent
Watch the electricity demand go down further as the destruction of the industrial segment continues. No industry then lower power demands. Hopefully the farmers will be successful and there will be enough food.
“... contrary to media reports, their GDP is shrinking as well...’. GDP is a very unreliable metric. It is nearly always revised retrospectively, usually down. It includes Government fire-hosing money it printed into the economy so as Govt spending increases so does GDP, but actually adds no real wealth. A better metric is GDP per capita, which is often ignored because it often shows GDP per capita falling despite GDP rise.
So UK GDP per capita: 2014... $47 600; 2021... $46 580; 2022... $45 850. (No figures for 2023 yet.) So doing really well - and no allowance for inflation.
Excellent point. In the US, the December jobs report breakdown shows that the largest increase in jobs was government jobs, which very rarely contribute any actual productivity - just more regulations and paper shuffling - but all that government spending does make GDP look good. I like your idea of checking GDP per capita to see what's really happening.
Just wait until AI/AGI gets going resulting in millions if not billions of irrelevants, Universal Basic Income anyone🤔
This reminds me of the old joke about the father who intercepted his son's college grades in the mail. Upon confronting the young man he asked, "So, a C- in math, D's in history and biology, and you flunked literature. What do you have to say for yourself?" The son thought for a few seconds and then replied, "I guess I spent too much time on math."
The absurd folly continues unabated.
The politicians are all on the take
Thing is when the courts get involved in prosecuting those political individuals they’re accused of interfering in politics, biased and bigoted🤔
Humanity is funny. We applaud those with a tiny carbon footprint and vilify those folks that stomp around in the energy scene in size 14 boots. But realistically, if one learns how to live with criticism, it is possible to be comfortable. I prefer not to be complimented for my misery.
Wow! What a difference between electricity costs of $0.40 per kWh in Germany and $0.07-.08 in China and Russia. In Oregon, we're paying PGE $0.145 residential, $0.143 for small business - but just was informed there will be an 18% rate increase this year.
Irina! excellent review of a powerful industrial nation that can be destroyed by a group of humans who live thousands of miles away from their borders without firing a bullet. Next thing, we will hear is that the only GHG emissions in Germany come from human beings who are still surviving! I hope regular Germans understand what is happening to them. It is unfortunate that many of their citizens are brainwashed to be angry at their northern neighbors who provided cheap energy for decades so that they can build a secure social support system. This is not the time for wars and global power dynamics.
Most human beings are trying to survive and live a decent life around the world. This global power dynamics sickness need to stop! perhaps it is going to self-destruct soon! what happens in Germany is not going to stay in Germany! it is coming to a screen near you!
I share your hope but it's not very strong, to be honest.
All part of the degrowth philosophy that is making nits way through the elites in Davos. they are right on schedule it seems
So Germany has 39% high carbon electricity in 2023. In actual fact it is 49% high carbon when you admit the truth that biomass IS NOT low carbon. In fact it's worse than coal. EIA puts biomass thermal plants at a carbon intensity 1400 gms CO2 per kwh, vs conventional coal @ 1100, supercritical coal @ 870. Grifters or Liars, which is it? You can burn a tree in a minute in a biomass power plant, same tree takes 60yrs to grow. That's renewable, zero emissions, yep. And I have 3 brand new bridges to sell you, cheap.
So Germany is 49% high carbon electricity generation, vs France is 6.3% high carbon in 2023, so 8X the emissions. With a household electricity price of $0.40/kwh vs France @ $0.26/kwh in 2023. France largely Nuclear power, Germany no Nuclear. What's wrong with this picture?
And Germany cheats on its coal electricity emissions by disconnecting the generator from the grid while the boiler is still operating to maintain steam pressure when the wind is blowing, so they don't claim those emissions.
In 1999 Germany was 31% clean, zero emissions Nuclear electricity, 170TWh/yr. At that time they started their program to replace Nuclear with Wind & Solar, buffered with Russian gas. Now after having spent over $500B on wind and solar since then they are now at 28.8% wind + solar, 165TWh/yr. Zero achievement after $500B down the sewer. If Germany had spent $230B on Nuclear power they would now be 100% clean Nuclear electricity. 3X the results at <1/2 the cost. And now most of Germany's wind & solar will have to be replaced over the next decade. And of course they would now be much more resilient to Putin's natural gas pipeline blackmail.
You claim SmithFS: “Germany cheats on its coal electricity emissions by disconnecting the generator from the grid while the boiler is still operating to maintain steam pressure when the wind is blowing, so they don't claim those emissions.”
This is very similar to what Peter Zeihan, has been saying captured on his podcast 2nd August 2022 - “Electricity in Transition” transcript below:-
“It takes 24 hours to spin up a lignite mine because the stuff is so wet and so calorie not-dense. So when the sun does come out in Germany they unplug the turbines that are generating the coal based power and only allow the solar power into the grid. They then don't count the emissions from coal in that environment. But then as soon as the sun goes down they have to plug it back in and we go back to where we were. So the Germans are just flat out lying about their statistics.”
I’ve commented on a number of occasions via Peter Zeihan’s podcast’s comments, and also via his platform on ‘X’ (fka Twitter) saying: You ( Peter Zeihan) appear to be saying that German coal power stations are still running at full tilt in the background, but because the power isn't being used Germany is then not counting the CO2 emissions from that coal power.
Question:Do you know if this is actually true? again citations please.
To date I continue to ask this question but I’ve yet to receive proof, citation or otherwise from Peter Zeihan or anyone else viewing my request.
And so I ask you SmithFS can you provide proof/citation to back up your claim, or is it just hearsay🤔
It's all hearsay. I've read similar to what Zeihan is saying. Actually it not hard to believe, as every Energy Agency must have some rules for what qualifies as Electricity sector emissions. i.e. Power plant heating?
In Europe many countries use Cogeneration. So you have a steam plant that can produce either/or/both district heating & electricity. So what do you count as electricity emissions? Presumably the proportion going into electricity percent of emissions. So what if the plant is in standby mode? It would be like the amount of emissions your car produces when idling vs driving. It isn't a huge factor, but a significant amount of fuel used if done for a significant period of time. Could be say 10% additional fuel.
You said “ Germany cheats on its coal electricity emissions by disconnecting the generator from the grid while the boiler is still operating to maintain steam pressure when the wind is blowing, so they don't claim those emissions.” Which may well be true but without proof it’s conjecture, citations please🤔
You already gave a citation, Peter Ziehan. Calling it conjecture is nonsense. What do you want, something signed in blood, in front of ten witnesses? If you want something more, well you just go and look for it, and then tell us what you find, you want it so bad, you find it. I have no time.
As I pointed Smith’y Peter Zeihan, or for that matter anyone else who’s seem my posted comments, has been able to verify the claim.
If you Google my comment there’re others who’ve asked same question, but as yet no reply, so I’m afraid like your noted comment it’s conjecture, or perhaps you like making up stories in the hope they’ll get believed🤔
You don't know what conjecture means. And you are the expert on making up stories in the hope they'll get believed.
I know that spinning up lignite plants takes hours if not days. So that part is true.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=year
Note how little the lignite line varies - the lignite plants are almost never going offline.
I think the problem is news reports get VERY fast and loose with facts. Renewable energy generation doesn't mean emissions from the electrical sector = zero. The lignite plants can't load follow very well.
Also, there is a lot of controversy over buying and selling electricity - if you export the coal power, is it your emissions or someone else's?
They are cutting down forests not in Germany, but in Latvia. And German cheating is rampant. You have coal fired power plants that are running at 30% power 24/7, but because they are disconnected to the grid, don't "count" as emissions.
As to the rest - yep. And, fair to say, it is possible to build nuclear power plants with zero risk of melt down that are walk away safe. BWRX-300 comes to mind. So, what exactly is the issue? Nuclear waste? Well, 95% of the waste can be recycled - you don't even have to build the plant - France will recycle it for you into MOX. The remaining 5% is radioactive for 300 years, but volumetrically can fit into a couple of large shipping containers.
UK was actually 47% high carbon electricity in 2023, discounting the 9% biomass which is ACTUALLY the highest carbon emission source. vs France @ 6.3%. 7.5X the emissions with an electricity price of $0.44 vs $0.26 for France. With UK net imports (imports @ a high price, exports @ a low price) @ 8.6%. Some success that is. France being the largest net exporter of electricity on Earth.
If UK had skipped the Wind & Solar and just built high efficiency CCGT and nuclear, they would be much lower emissions, far lower imports and a much lower electricity cost. They could reduce gas emissions by 40% by just using CCGT without the Wind & Solar cycling impairing efficiency. Enough to displace 1/2 of their Wind. And the other half by replacing their dirty, eco-destructive biomass with ultra-supercritical coal, at the same emissions and 1/3rd the cost. The pittance of mostly useless solar (4.7%) could easily have been replaced by coal, gas or nuclear. Same emissions at much lower cost. No dependence on imports.
Who in Europe will consume all that renewable hydrogen that will be produced by 2030 if the energy intensive industries have all died or left?
Shocking that policymakers are still going full steam ahead. The same talking points repeated over and over with no connection to reality. I am still hopefull/optimistic that we can pull ourselves out of this industrial and economic suicide...but pessimism sometimes creeps in. Great piece Irina!
Hydrogen is an even bigger scam than wind & solar. Utterly impractical.
UK and Germany are examples of Energy Austerity, not Energy Transformation.
There is a big difference.
Fortunately, there is an alternative:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/there-is-a-better-alternative-to
How long does the German government really think they can sustain a consumer price of 0.40/kWh with an industrial price for the same thing of 0.05/kWh?
At a certain point it will become cheaper to just buy a battery system and charge it at work during the day to bring home to power the TV at night. This is totally crazy.
Industrial price is not 0.05, that's the tax. The price is 26.5 per kWh, per Statista. But it's a good question, nevertheless.
I guess it being closer to a factor of 2 rather than 8 makes everything better 😊
:D I think that's the usual case, isn't it? I mean, cheaper for industrials than households. Industrial consumers consume a lot more than households, presumably. But I may well be wrong.
Yes that's pretty typical, commercial rates are less than household and industrial are the lowest, to attract industry. Also industrial is usually 24/7 demand which is lower cost to produce & distribute than highly peaking domestic usage. Typically industrial, but often commercial pay high demand charges as well, unlike households, demand charges for industrial sites might be 1/3rd the power bill.
Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense.