3 ms·

Many countries have plans for coal phase-out, including dates. There could be more, of course, and tighter timelines, but it's there. Considering the much high

by kaybe 5y ago

Many countries have plans for coal phase-out, including dates. There could be more, of course, and tighter timelines, but it's there. Considering the much higher costs of gas and oil in comparison (and compared to renewable) this might just be enough to get out of using fossil energy for most power production. (Except maybe to cover peaks.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase-out PS: For anyone able to read German, the German article has more in-depth information in some points: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohleausstieg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohleausstieg

belorn 5y ago
I would like if it were the case that fossil fuels where being phased out overall. A steady decline that matched the existing phase out of fossil fuels in the transport sector would be excellent. The reason why I don't think that is the case is several. electricitymap.org is one, which goes brown when the wind is calm and green during gales. As much capacity that renewables has, when they don't produce we see the same demand being fulfilled with fossil fueled power. A second reason is subsidize numbers in EU. The amount of tax money being spent on fossil fuels are one of the more depressing aspects of the energy sector, and seemingly counter-productive to the political message. There also seems to be a strategy that when there is an increase in the capacity of renewable energy, the amount of tax money being spent on grid stability get increased. That money then goes directly to keep fossil fueled power plants operational between dips in the availability of renewable energy. That subsidy is also a reason why the higher costs of gas and oil does not result in stations being phased out. If there was a date where new construction of fossil fueled power plants was to be banned, the energy sector would have a finite period to find a solution to the grid stability problem that does not include fossil fuels. The only incentive without it is government interest to pay less subsidies, and companies desire to undercut the current suppliers for grid stability. I doubt however either is very good at creating the change we need at the speed that global warming require.

by kaybe 5y ago

belorn 5y ago

I would like if it were the case that fossil fuels where being phased out overall. A steady decline that matched the existing phase out of fossil fuels in the transport sector would be excellent. The reason why I don't think that is the case is several. electricitymap.org is one, which goes brown when the wind is calm and green during gales. As much capacity that renewables has, when they don't produce we see the same demand being fulfilled with fossil fueled power. A second reason is subsidize numbers in EU. The amount of tax money being spent on fossil fuels are one of the more depressing aspects of the energy sector, and seemingly counter-productive to the political message. There also seems to be a strategy that when there is an increase in the capacity of renewable energy, the amount of tax money being spent on grid stability get increased. That money then goes directly to keep fossil fueled power plants operational between dips in the availability of renewable energy. That subsidy is also a reason why the higher costs of gas and oil does not result in stations being phased out. If there was a date where new construction of fossil fueled power plants was to be banned, the energy sector would have a finite period to find a solution to the grid stability problem that does not include fossil fuels. The only incentive without it is government interest to pay less subsidies, and companies desire to undercut the current suppliers for grid stability. I doubt however either is very good at creating the change we need at the speed that global warming require.