5 ms·

The jobs at risk are not only those in the coal industry but also the jobs powered by the coal. You can't run a business without electricity. So if coal makes u

The jobs at risk are not only those in the coal industry but also the jobs powered by the coal. You can't run a business without electricity. So if coal makes up about a third of the power then about a third of the jobs in Germany could be lost. Of course coal can and should be replaced by something better but thats gonna take a while and Germany has chosen to phase out nuclear before coal so this is a consequence of that decision.

Nimelrian 7y ago
The jobs at risk are not only those in the coal industry but also the jobs powered by the coal. You can't run a business without electricity. So if coal makes up about a third of the power then about a third of the jobs in Germany could be lost. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Why do you think people mine coal? To upset environmentalists? It is mined because it enables people to do things. It creates material wealth. It is completely reasonable to say that there are ramifications to shutting down coal. Germany has not increased their access to electricity through the Energiewende [0]. Apparently that is intentional, which shows remarkable political will; I can't see it flying in most countries. Wouldn't want to be poor in Germany. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany
chokma 7y ago
Last year Germany exported about 9% of its electricity. So the country could reduce their use of lignite (~ 24% of total energy produced) by at least this amount. And I think the math is off there - if Germany cuts 24% of its energy production over a couple of years, energy may become more expensive, driving away the factories using extreme amounts of electricity[1]. It would not result in losing a lot of jobs, and may even force some industries to become much more efficient (thus generating an advantage over competitors). [1] eg, Aurubis in Hamburg using 1 billion kw/h per year with less than 7000 employees to refine copper
- roenxi 7y ago
  That logic doesn't apply neatly because 40% of their electricity comes from renewables which aren't necessarily dispatchable. They might be exporting, eg, solar surplus at noon and have exactly what is needed at night. I recall some of their neighbors were annoyed a year or two ago because Germany was dumping surplus and destabilising their grids.
- cipher_system 7y ago
  Sure but then power lines needs to be built from where the power is produced to where it is used. This is also part of Energiewende but it is not that easy to just put up high voltage lines through a densely populated democracy. It could take years or even decades to build a new grid. Their competitors are also becoming more efficient over time and if you have no capacity at all in a region no new factories can be built there. High paying jobs could be replaced by low paying jobs. Not saying it shouldn't be done but I understand it's a political balancing act. Ideally a global carbon tax, making it the same for everyone, would help but i've given up hope on that.
adrianN 7y ago
Germany could close some of its coal plants immediately if it ran the mostly idle gas plants at capacity.
- avian 7y ago
  Don’t know specific situation in Germany, but gas turbine plants in my country are “mostly idle” because they are there to keep the grid stable (they spin up fast to cover peak demand). They can’t be run at capacity.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Irsching Power Station in Germany has a mixture of 770 MW peaking capacity (not suitable for routine use) and 1429 MW of idled high efficiency combined cycle gas turbine capacity. The latter type of unit is suitable for directly replacing coal fired plants. CCGT units have enabled the United States to rapidly replace coal fired power with gas fired power over the past decade. Replacing coal with gas isn't enough to reach climate goals, of course, but it certainly is better than continued coal use. Also, even CCGT installations not intended for peaking can respond faster to changing net demand than coal plants can, which makes them a better complementary source for renewables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irsching_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irsching_Power_Station There are another 1200+ megawatts of mostly-idle CCGT capacity at the Knapsack and Herdecke sites: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/merkel-s-natural-gas-bridge-looks-like-a-dead-end-to-executives https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/merkel-s-...

Nimelrian 7y ago

The jobs at risk are not only those in the coal industry but also the jobs powered by the coal. You can't run a business without electricity. So if coal makes up about a third of the power then about a third of the jobs in Germany could be lost. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.

roenxi 7y ago
Why do you think people mine coal? To upset environmentalists? It is mined because it enables people to do things. It creates material wealth. It is completely reasonable to say that there are ramifications to shutting down coal. Germany has not increased their access to electricity through the Energiewende [0]. Apparently that is intentional, which shows remarkable political will; I can't see it flying in most countries. Wouldn't want to be poor in Germany. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany

chokma 7y ago

Last year Germany exported about 9% of its electricity. So the country could reduce their use of lignite (~ 24% of total energy produced) by at least this amount. And I think the math is off there - if Germany cuts 24% of its energy production over a couple of years, energy may become more expensive, driving away the factories using extreme amounts of electricity[1]. It would not result in losing a lot of jobs, and may even force some industries to become much more efficient (thus generating an advantage over competitors). [1] eg, Aurubis in Hamburg using 1 billion kw/h per year with less than 7000 employees to refine copper

roenxi 7y ago
That logic doesn't apply neatly because 40% of their electricity comes from renewables which aren't necessarily dispatchable. They might be exporting, eg, solar surplus at noon and have exactly what is needed at night. I recall some of their neighbors were annoyed a year or two ago because Germany was dumping surplus and destabilising their grids.
cipher_system 7y ago
Sure but then power lines needs to be built from where the power is produced to where it is used. This is also part of Energiewende but it is not that easy to just put up high voltage lines through a densely populated democracy. It could take years or even decades to build a new grid. Their competitors are also becoming more efficient over time and if you have no capacity at all in a region no new factories can be built there. High paying jobs could be replaced by low paying jobs. Not saying it shouldn't be done but I understand it's a political balancing act. Ideally a global carbon tax, making it the same for everyone, would help but i've given up hope on that.

adrianN 7y ago

Germany could close some of its coal plants immediately if it ran the mostly idle gas plants at capacity.

avian 7y ago
Don’t know specific situation in Germany, but gas turbine plants in my country are “mostly idle” because they are there to keep the grid stable (they spin up fast to cover peak demand). They can’t be run at capacity.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Irsching Power Station in Germany has a mixture of 770 MW peaking capacity (not suitable for routine use) and 1429 MW of idled high efficiency combined cycle gas turbine capacity. The latter type of unit is suitable for directly replacing coal fired plants. CCGT units have enabled the United States to rapidly replace coal fired power with gas fired power over the past decade. Replacing coal with gas isn't enough to reach climate goals, of course, but it certainly is better than continued coal use. Also, even CCGT installations not intended for peaking can respond faster to changing net demand than coal plants can, which makes them a better complementary source for renewables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irsching_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irsching_Power_Station There are another 1200+ megawatts of mostly-idle CCGT capacity at the Knapsack and Herdecke sites: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/merkel-s-natural-gas-bridge-looks-like-a-dead-end-to-executives https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/merkel-s-...