Transatlantic Energy

Looking at interesting developments in energy and environmental issues in the US and Germany.

[transatlanticenergy]

When the two biggest climate sinners, the US and China, develop plans to fight climate change together, it's a bit like a grizzly bear and a tiger discussing how the world could be more vegetarian.

A pessimistic take on the big US-China climate agreement from the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. Although the agreement was an unprecedented step from the two states, which are currently the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, it is still non-binding.

China is aiming for its emissions to peak in 2030, and the US is aiming for an almost 30% emissions reduction by then. In contrast, the EU's goal of 40% emissions reduction by 2030 is binding. 

Nonetheless, German environment minister Barbara Hendricks welcomed the agreement, saying "This shows that the two largest emitters want to act decisively" and is a good sign for the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Paris in 2015. 

However, many critics remain unconvinced that this agreement signals real change. With the recent Republican victories in the US Congress, many question whether Obama will be able to make any real progress. Additionally, the new agreement does not lay out exactly how the emissions reductions will happen. And as an expert commented to NPR, "Targets don't reduce emissions. Technology deployment reduces emissions." 

[transatlanticenergy]

Last week, EU leaders set out their climate plan in advance of the next UN summit in Paris in 2015. The new goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030. 

The ambition is widely praised, but there are also concerns about more concrete actions needed to make the goals a reality. For example, Europe still does not have a unified electricity market, which makes it difficult for countries with surplus generation to sell to their neighbors. Additionally, newer EU member countries like Poland and the Czech Republic still burn a lot of coal and are behind on energy efficiency. 

The New York Times also criticized Germany, a leader on renewables, for its choice to simultaneously phase-out nuclear power, which has led to a resurgence of coal-fired generation and more imports of natural gas from Putin. 

Read more from Al Jazeera. 

[transatlanticenergy]

What policies and actions have done the most to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The Economist has taken a stab at quantifying this important question and provided the above chart with their results.

Perhaps surprisingly, the winner is the Montreal protocol, a global treaty passed in 1987 to ban CFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases. This treaty was a major success, mostly because the harmful substitutes were used in limited ways and had substitutes that were ready to replace them.

The Montreal protocol is often held up as an example of how other emissions agreements could be successful, but the hard part is that replacing our energy and transportation infrastructure is much more difficult than replacing a few chemicals used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and aerosols. 

Given the US's lack of leadership in global climate negotiations, it's interesting to see them high up in this impact list with vehicle and fuel standards (beating out the EU's comparable policy by far). 

It's important to consider impact when we discuss policies to combat climate change. How much actual emissions would this displace? How can we get the most "bang for our buck"? Are we choosing policies for political or other reasons, instead of for their effectiveness? 

Read the full article here. 

[transatlanticenergy]

Indeed, the German people are paying significant money. But in Germany, we can afford this — we are a rich country. It’s a gift to the world.

Markus Steigenberger, an analyst at Agora Energiewende, on the costs and benefits of Germany's shift to renewable energy. Quoted in the New York Times. 

[transatlanticenergy]

Sobering statistics: Germany still gets 45% of its electricity from coal. 

Despite continued growth in renewables, wind and solar still provide only 8 and 4.5% of electricity, respectively. Although on especially sunny or windy days, their output can peak at much higher levels, when averaged out, the picture is still pretty daunting. King Coal isn't gone yet. 

Data from German national statistics (here). Read more here.  

[transatlanticenergy]

"New tailwind behind pragmatic climate strategies"

An op-ed (in German) in Zurich's major newspaper today describes the growing momentum behind pragmatic approaches to climate change. Citing the failures of the UN climate negotiations, especially among developing nations, the author explains that our focus should shift from targets and timetables to investing in "all of the above" clean energy technologies. 

He also cites a report written by my colleagues at the Breakthrough Institute, "Our High Energy Planet." The needs of the 1.3 billion people around the world who have no access to electricity must be considered in any discussion of energy and climate change. Rather than framing development and climate goals in opposition, we should embrace the role of development to accelerate energy transitions. 

Is a paradigm shift under way in how Europe will address climate and energy goals? 

[transatlanticenergy]

At a philosophical level, we see the expression of solar and nuclear as polar opposites of the Romantic versus Enlightenment spectrum – solar (and wind) as the return to a simpler way, in touch with nature, and a contemporary expression of the archetypal instinct of sun worship – nuclear representing the pinnacle of science, empiricism, and the harnessing of the unimaginable power of the atom with its attendant risks.

Interesting historical and sociological take on Germany's Energiewende from Greg Palmer. Link

[transatlanticenergy]

"Time bomb: CO2 Storage" 

There has been growing local protests in Germany surrounding the topic of carbon capture and storage (CCS). Last September, Swedish energy giant Vattenfall opened a new coal-fired power plant in the German town of Spremberg that would capture, transport, and bury the emitted CO2 underground, offering reliable energy production without the climate-altering emissions. 

However, local protesters objected to storing carbon dioxide underground. The photo above shows Greenpeace protesters outside a CCS information center calling carbon storage a "time bomb," fearing the carbon could be accidentally released and put communities at risk. 

These NUMBY (Not Under My Backyard) protests meant Vattenfall couldn't get permits to transport and store the CO2 captured from the coal plant. So what was happening? The CO2 was being released into the atmosphere, like with any other coal plant. 

Objections against CCS make it even harder for Germany to meet its emissions-reductions goals. Coal provides a much-needed cheap and flexible back-up power source for intermittent renewables like wind and solar, but it is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. Is Germany's fear of stored CO2 greater than its fear of climate change? 

Read more here (in German) or here (in English). 

[transatlanticenergy]

BERLIN, April 8 (Reuters) - The German government will give its blessing on Tuesday to a sweeping reform of renewable energy laws designed to slow cost increases as Europe's largest economy moves to nearly double its green power share to 45 percent by 2025.

[transatlanticenergy]

The whole world has had their eyes on the Crimean crisis between Russia and Ukraine in the past weeks, as Putin moved to annex the pro-Russian region of Ukraine. But underlying all the political drama is the tough calculus of energy security in Europe. 

The EU relies on Russia for a third of its natural gas imports, and most of it reaches western Europe via pipelines across Ukraine. With Russia increasingly hostile towards the Ukraine, politicians in Kiev and the EU are very nervous about the threat to their energy security. The interim Ukrainian Prime Minister told EU politicians at a meeting last week that energy needs to start "flowing in the opposite direction" - that is, from Europe to Ukraine.

European leaders like Angela Merkel have a complex relationship to Russian gas: while they depend on it, Russia is also dependent on the money from those exports. It's a two-way street, but it gives the EU less bargaining power against Russia than it would like when faced with a situation like the Crimea crisis.  

The need for Europe to gain energy independence from Russian seems more urgent than ever. This has led some to call for Europe to revisit fracking, which would open up new indigenous sources of natural gas and lessen the EU's reliance on imports from Russia (or anywhere else). We will see whether Europeans are willing to accept what Kate Galbraith calls fracking's "known unknowns" or not. 

[transatlanticenergy]

More bad news for Germany's Energiewende this week. Angela Merkel received the annual report from her government's Commission for Research and Innovation, and its conclusion was stark: "the Renewable Energy Law promotes neither climate protection nor innovation." 

The report states that although Germany's share of electricity from renewable sources has risen from 7% when the law was passed in 2000 to 23% in 2013, it has come at too high a cost. Remunerations paid by consumers to subsidize the cost of renewables rose to 23 billion Euros in 2013 and makes up one-fifth of the cost consumers pay on their electricity bills. 

Furthermore, the Commission rejects climate protection as a valid justification of the Renewable Energy Law. It explains that because industrial CO2 emissions are already capped in the EU's emissions trading scheme, Germany's build-out of renewables just moves emissions to other sectors or other European countries. 

But does the law promote innovation into new renewable technologies? No again. The law guarantees a set price to renewable electricity suppliers to help them compete against fossil fuels, but this also means there is no incentive to innovate beyond the existing technologies. An innovator would earn the same amount as an existing supplier, but would have to bear all the related risk as well. 

The authors of the report dramatically conclude that "a continuation of the Renewable Energy Law cannot be justified." The questions remains how Angela Merkel and her government will respond to these findings. Her government has invested not only money, but political capital in the Energiewende and she is unlikely to abandon it. But momentum is building to dramatically reform the law to improve on these major shortcomings. 

Read the full report (in German), or a summary in English. 

[transatlanticenergy]

We have seen an increase of the demand for lignite [brown coal] since Germany decided to scale down its nuclear energy, because you need another source of energy to fill in this gap.

Thoralf Schirmer, a spokesman for Vattenfall, one of Germany's largest energy providers, talking about how Germany's renewable energy push has been an unexpected boom for the coal industry. 

Eight German nuclear reactors have been shut down since 2011 as part of the Energiewende, or energy shift. Though wind and solar renewables have been increasing rapidly in the same time frame, it has not been fast enough to make up for the lost baseload nuclear power. Coal, the fossil fuel with the highest carbon emissions, has been filling the gap.

This is not good for Germany's emissions reduction goals, nor for the public perception of the Energiewende. It is hard to justify shutting down nuclear power plants, which provide zero-carbon energy, and replace them with coal. 

Read more at the New York Times about conflicts with local German residents displaced by new coal mining projects. 

[transatlanticenergy]

In a speech yesterday, Germany's new "super-minister" for the Energiewende (energy shift) called for major reforms to the country's renewable energy program.

Citing rising energy costs for consumers and concerns about economic competitiveness, he has announced that the subsidy for wind, solar, and biomass energy will be reduced from 17 to 12 Euro cents per kWh by 2015. Other reforms include reducing the rate of build-out of wind and solar parks, and eliminating some industry exemptions from renewable energy costs. 

This speech came shortly before the EU announced its new energy and climate goals for 2030, which many said were less ambitious than previous plans. EU representatives, sounding similar to Mr. Gabriel, said the plans were in response to rising energy costs and the difficulty of coordinating energy policies between 27 countries. 

Green groups are decrying these reforms, worried that they will not do enough to slow greenhouse gas emissions and keep the EU on track to meet its 2050 renewable energy goals. But many economic and industry groups are glad to see politicians addressing the rising costs of the  renewable energy push. 

Can Europe be a green leader and an economic powerhouse? Read more here. 

[transatlanticenergy]

The Germans in the unusual role of impractical dreamers

Germany has a lot of work ahead to completely decarbonize their economy by 2050. In this grand project, they are rejecting not only fossil fuels, but also nuclear power, biomass, and CCS (carbon capture and sequestration), relying instead on renewable energy from wind and solar (and some hydropower). 

Perhaps most interestingly, Germany wants to go 100% renewable not only for electricity (which wind and solar directly produce), but for all energy. To use wind and solar to provide heating and fuel cars would require converting electrical power into gas or liquid fuel using electrolysis or methanation (see the graphic below). Germany will have to invest heavily in these new technologies to get them up to commercial scale. 

The Energiewende, the term for Germany's nationwide energy shift, is a huge undertaking. I agree with the author of this article that though it may sound crazy, if anyone can do it, it is Germany - a rich, technologically advanced country with a determined populace. And while it may not be a model that the rest of the world could or should follow, it is certainly an interesting experiment to watch unfold. 

[transatlanticenergy]

More than half of energy consumption in Germany is used for heating. Renewables only provide 10% of this - and that value has been stagnating for years.

Roger Corradini, speaking with a German energy blog about his dissertation.

He goes on to say: 

In the electricity sector we are already at a 25% renewables share, which has been showing continuous annual improvements. Currently [Germany's] energy shift has been limited to an electricity shift - a "heating shift" is only slightly visible. 

Corradini is calling attention to the lag in the shift to renewables in the heating sector compared to the media and political attention paid to renewable electricity. He says promoting renewable heating (especially solar thermal) and discussing the need for a "heating shift" must play a larger role in discussions of Germany's Energiewende, or energy shift. 

Interview (in German) at ecoquent positions

[transatlanticenergy]

"Energy Transformation Index" gives Sweden top ranking

Germany's Fraunhofer Institute recently developed a new index to rank countries on how far along they are in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. The two main elements in the index are energy efficiency (how much energy is needed to produce a unit of GDP) and share of zero-carbon energy. 

Sweden takes first place, followed by Brazil and Italy. Germany ranks only sixth, meaning it is not yet winning at the Energiewende game. The US, China, and South Korea were at the bottom of the 17-country listing.

Why is Sweden #1? Thanks to its combination of zero-carbon hydro and nuclear power, which combined provide 85% of Sweden's electricity. Brazil also benefits from enormous natural hydropower resources, which helped it place second on this ranking. Germany has made huge strides in promoting wind, solar, and energy efficiency, but by closing nuclear power plants they are removing zero-carbon electricity from their mix. 

Link for more about the index (in German.) 

[transatlanticenergy]

One of the first big projects of the new federal government will be an amendment to the Renewable Energy Law.

Angela Merkel 

During coalition negotiations between the CDU and SPD to form a new German federal government, cutting the costs of the Energiewende has become one of the top priorities.