Germany begins dismantling wind farm for coal
Germany begins dismantling wind farm for coal
German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the Western region of North Rhine Westphalia.
German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the western region of North Rhine Westphalia.
I thought renewables were cheaper than coal. How is this possible?
You're viewing a single thread.
I live next to this coal mine and the wind farm is on my monthly Autobahn trip right next to me. Maybe to shed some light on the "why":
The coal mine was scheduled to be mined until 2038. The plan was to extend the mine to the west, the wind farm is to the east of the coal mine. RWE of course has big investments into mining this lignite until the very last possible day. There are problems with extending to the west though: old towns still exist there and the residents would of course love to stay in their homes the family had for generations. To the east, where the wind farm is, there is nothing but fields and some wind turbines. There are about 150 turbines in the wind farm and ~15 of them are standing where the mine is extending to now. Those 15 also were the first to be built for the wind farm and they are nearly at the end of their lifespan, some of them are even deemed structurally unsafe.
Of course it would be better to stop mining the lignite but decades ago the contracts with RWE were made and just forcing a company out of a contract that is worth billions of Euros is extremely bad precedent and would hinder future investions. Buying out the contract to cease mining faster also was not possible, because RWE was unwilling to settle for a reasonable sum of money.
What a beautiful society where companies have more powers than an state...
Ofc theses companies have our futurs in mind, right ?
Capitalism.
They don't have more power - the government was just stupid to give them contracts this longlasting
Thinking of that one us city that sold its parking rights for a century for just millions
Also the many private-partnered public infrastructure projects built in Turkey with billing rights given to the companies that will let Erdoğans friends leech off the public for decades even if he loses political power
They don't have more power than the state. The state could easily legislate any demands they want. Do so though and you end up rapidly like Venezuela. Contacts matter. Unless you think the state should be able to take your house with little to no compensation as well? That is not capitalism. Don't be obtuse.
It's really bad for $$ to do the responsible thing, so we're going to proceed with existential environmental degradation. Because $.
To be completely honest (and I am a huge anti-coal-mining dude), currently I'm happy that we still have the coalmines running. It would not have been possible to build solar and wind power fast enough to compensate for the coalmines, the only feasible alternative would have been gas and that comes from russia
Or to have kept your nuclear running and not freaked out after the fukushima disaster...
Just saying
Correct. You can add the vastly underestimated methane emissions of natural gas to that. (They are hard to measure but nobody seems toooo interested)
Maybe nuclear could've been better than coal?
There are a lot of things which in hindsight were better than coal. But when the decision was made to dig where the wind farm is, there wouldn't have been any time to build a nuclear power plant anymore
Nuclear was already better than coal 50 years ago... the whole anti-nuclear movement was predicated on the Chernobyl disaster, making "natural gas" and renewables better than nuclear, with a supposed phase-out of natural gas. Coal was always the worst option, both in emissions, and in the impact of open pit mining, when it was already known that deep shaft black coals mines had been getting depleted for decades.
It was highly irresponsible to not renew the nuclear plants before there was at least enough renewables to replace them, and instead increase reliance on natural gas... from Russia from all places. Particularly after Crimea, there should have been a reassessment and a push to fast-track nuclear.
It takes only 5 years to build a nuclear power plant, Crimea was 9 years ago; Germany had plenty of time to prepare itself, instead of investing in increasing NordStream capacity.
It takes only 5 years to build a nuclear power plant, (...)
I agree with most of the comment, but this is just an oversimplification. I'm sure that you can build a nuclear power plant in 5 years, if you have the requisite infrastructure, engineers and knowledge. Germany did not have any of those in sufficient amount to build anywhere near enough nuclear reactors between the decision to switch to coal & gas in around 2011 and the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Even France wouldn't be capable of that in such a short amount of time.
Had they made that decision 30 years ago, sure, but in such short time? No way.
infrastructure, engineers and knowledge. Germany did not have any of those in sufficient amount
Germany had 17 nuclear power plants in 2011, when they decided to close half of them after Fukushima. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Last nuclear power plant closed in April 2023. I find it hard to believe that there was not enough expertise to build some new ones in all this time.
the decision to switch to coal & gas
This is what really rubs me the wrong way: coal should have been phased out before nuclear, not used to replace nuclear.
It all seems like a grift and a knee jerk reaction under the guise of "look how green we are", while actually doing all the opposite.
The issue being that of those 17 nuclear plants, the youngest was completed over 30 years before Fukushima. Germany had stopped construction of new nuclear plants way before 2011.
I agree they shouldn't have closed ones already built of course. That was indeed a knee jerk reaction.
Germany is still going to use the same amount of coal whether this runs or not, they'd just import it from another country or have another mine go faster if there's one that still can
The way to reduce coal is to increase low carbon sources of energy and to reduce consumption
Nope. Dont import and scarsity will drive prices up and people use less. It's pretty simple really.
We need to keep all fossil fuels in the ground. The way we do this is reduce energy usage.
Do you really think it's more responsible to force the families out of their homes and demolish several villages/towns over some old wind turbines? Or did you mean the responsible thing being investing in renewables? I really can't tell, sorry 😅
Obviously the latter
It's more responsible to stop mining fossil fuels.
Why was the plan to ever extent to the wist if there is a town?
A lot of towns have been dug away for the lignite. The town now not digged away is just one of the few surviving ones. Also a lot of towns have been drowned for water storage lakes and Hydropower. Europe is populated way too densely to do any large infrastructure project without destroying towns in some ways. The residents are compensated with huge amounts of money, but for some they would still rather stay in the homes they have lived in for 50-80 years.
In this case the original plan was to move westwards because that's where the coal lies in the ground. The lignite in the west is enough to keep the power plants running until 2050, the lignite in the east only until 2030. Because the date is now pushed forwards, it's feasible to dig to the east. Also advanced technology plays a role: the original plans destroying the westwards towns were made when there was no technology to efficiently burn the lignite on the east, which is way less dense.
Thanks for your insight.