There’s a lot less coal smoke in the air, approaching mid 2021. Analyses from climate think tanks Ember and E3G illustrate a dramatic drop in the US and the European Union. But there are still a few holdouts as some continue digging in their heals. The US state of Wyoming, long the nation’s largest coal producer, is threatening to sue those who turn to cleaner energy sources. And Poland, Europe’s biggest coal dependent, has decided to ignore international law and cause a diplomatic crisis to keep mining. Aren’t these the antics of a dying King? Lead Blogger L. Michael Buchsbaum weighs in on the fray.
The empirical evidence of our widening climate crisis is piling up faster than most of us can absorb the data. Bottom line: We have run out of time to negotiate a new middle ground or erect more “bridges” to an eventual green future. There can be no more delays. Sweeping action must be taken now. That is the shared view of the editorial board of the prestigious magazine, Scientific America, which recently joined the Covering Climate Now coalition and a growing list of other publications in jointly declaring that going forward, to emphasize the exigency of our situation, we will use the term “climate emergency” instead of “crisis,” because we damn well better start treating it like one if our society is to survive. Lead blogger Michael Buchsbaum reviews the situation.
In March’s two state elections, no party lost more ground than Angela Merkel’s ruling CDU. Tarred by deepening scandal, a slow vaccination rollout and lockdown fatigue, its popularity is plummeting. Conversely, big gains in these early contests in the nation’s super-cycle election year — culminating with September’s federal parliament and chancellery vote — show that public opinion is turning decidedly Green. New polling shows that as approval for the CDU and their CSU sister party collapses, the Greens are pulling almost even with them — in some cases, even creeping slightly ahead. As spring comes to Germany, for the first time in both national and party history, a Green chancellorship seems possible. Energy Transition’s lead blogger, Michael Buchsbaum reviews the early stage of the race to succeed Merkel.
(Photo by Arne Bevaart, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Long recognized as an alternative to fossil fuels and once again heralded as an invaluable tool for tackling climate change, hydrogen is a key component within many of the recently announced national net-zero energy plans being rolled out by individual nations as well as the European Union. Hydrogen will likely be given a center role in new President Joe Biden’s climate plan too. To help sort out hope from hype, climate think tank, Carbon Brief recently published a detailed and invaluable hydrogen explainer. With comments from one of the analysts quoted in the explainer, L. Michael Buchsbaum helps untangle hydrogen’s reality.
Few folks are going to look back fondly on 2020, but renewable energy campaigners will mark it as the year when clean electricity finally overtook coal and gas in Europe. New reporting by think tanks Ember and Agora Energiewende detail the progress to reduce fossil generation’s share. Despite this, now that the EU has upped its net emissions reduction goals to at least 55% by 2030, the data also shows how much more work needs to be done. Michael Buchsbaum reviews the good news and troubling data.
In late January, Ember and Agora Energiewende’s published their fifth annual report tracking Europe’s electricity transition. The big reveal was that renewables overtook fossil fuels as the EU’s main source of electricity for the first time in 2020.
The data shows that renewables rose to generate 38% of Europe’s electricity in 2020, up from 34.6% in 2019. Conversely, fossil-fired generation fell to 37%.
“Wind and solar rose to supply a fifth of Europe’s electricity in 2020. And that’s having a major impact in helping to reduce Europe’s coal generation, which has nearly halved in five years,” said Dave Jones, Ember’s Global Program Lead.
Of course Covid-19 impacted generation in all countries. But the data shows that the virus’ impact on the overall trend away from fossil fuels was quite limited. In fact, not only was the rise in renewables “reassuringly robust” despite the pandemic, the drop in dirty electricity would have been greater had it not been for such a bounce-back in electricity demand combined with the worst year on record for nuclear generation. So many plants were simultaneously offline due to maintenance problems – or being taken offline via policy – particularly in France, Sweden and Germany, that nuclear generation fell 10% across the continent. Ironically, said Jones, had this not happened, even more fossil energy would have been knocked-out.
Success is achievable
During a web-based conference detailing the report, Jones clarified that renewables had overtaken fossil-generation only in electricity generation not in overall energy consumption–a misunderstanding that led to several media retractions as global outlets rushed to report on the rare bit of good news.
Citing a statement from the activist group Extinction Rebellion, Jones further qualified the progress made. “This isn’t success. It means success is achievable.” In other words, said Jones, “while we’re on the right pathway, it’s by no means where we need to be.”
Nevertheless, the report documents where Europe is on what is now an existential transition towards clean energy and climate neutrality.
Real Renewable progress
Ember and Agora define renewables as bioenergy (including biomass), hydro-electricity, wind and solar.
Biomass, particularly the burning of wood, has been displacing coal in some nations, particularly the UK—with dubious actual environmental progress being made there. However throughout the EU, with the exception of the Netherlands, it’s share has been flat or declining.
Throughout the EU, hydro-generation has been fluctuating as rain patterns change. But most of the overall renewable growth comes down to wind and solar.
No other nation has as much renewables on the system in terms of overall Terawatt hours (TWh) of service as Germany. However in terms of increasing TWh, in 2020 the Netherlands saw a rapid 40% increase. Sweden’s also grew at 36%, Belgium likewise saw a 28% rise. Germany, where renewables already play an outsize role, increased clean energy terawatt hours by an additional 8%.
Combined wind and solar now make up 20%
But in reviewing the previous decade through 2020, despite the increase in awareness around the necessity to act, let alone the growing costs of inaction, overall renewable growth in the EU did not move any faster in the second half of decade compared to the first. In many nations, including Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria and Italy, the pace of renewables coming online from 2015 through 2020 actually slowed.
However Hungary, France, Finland and Netherlands did see large increases although the Netherlands remains under both 20% and the EU average.
Conversely, Germany is now generating 33% of its electricity from just wind and solar. “Quite an impressive feat and achievement,” said Jones.
Gas is the new coal
As Agora also reported, last year renewables overtook fossil energy in Germany. In Spain too, renewables now generate more than fossil energy. Both achievements reflect coal’s shrinking role throughout the continent. Overall, Jones contextualized, coal generation is now half of what it was back in 2015.
Cleaner generation in the UK, however, had already surpassed coal. Moreover, Ember’s data shows that the UK is the only nation in Europe where wind and solar is displacing more than coal. “As more and more wind comes online, its no longer offsetting coal, but gas,” said Jones.
And therein lies the rub: in order for the EU to achieve its climate goals, gas needs to become the new coal. As more wind, solar and other renewables come online, it’s gas they need to displace. Instead many countries seem to be opting simply to switch fossil fuel dependencies, hoping the “optics” of phasing out coal would be enough to satisfy the clamor of environmentalist pressure. Never mind the science that doesn’t support gas’ climate superiority.
But back in the UK, the question is now how quickly can that country phase out fossil generation all together?
Not fast enough
Though 2020 did see an overall uptick in renewable capacity, it was not a substantial increase and nowhere near where it needs to be.
While definitely progress has been made, the report emphasizes that the transition from coal to clean is “still too slow for reaching minimum 55% greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.”
Getting there, “means that in the next ten years, the EU must reduce emissions as much as we have over the last 30,” said Matthias Buck, Head of European Energy Policy for Agora Energiewende.
Data shows an average increase of renewables of only about 38 TWh per year through the 2010-20 period.
Achieving the more ambitious emissions reductions by 2030 requires a 68% increase in renewable capacity. Not only does this require close to a 100TWh per year increase, “that’s almost three times more than what we did in the last decade. We need to be increasing at three times those levels of build-out to meet our new targets,” Jones said, with virtually no other fossil fuel generation coming on.
“The step-up in renewables going forward needs to set new records. The only question is ‘will it be fast enough to hit targets?’” asked Jones.
To reach these targets, renewables need to constitute some 70% of the EU’s electricity capacity, said Buck. And coal needs to be phased out almost completely by then, making up only 2% of generation by Agora’s estimates.
Achieving the goals of the European Green Deal and striking climate neutrality by 2050 means transforming the entire mobility sector, which currently makes up nearly 30 percent of the bloc’s CO2 emissions. To help steer readers in the right direction, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung’s (hbs) new 2021 European Mobility Atlas provides a host of fact-based recommendations from sector experts. As 2021 is also the European Year of Rail, many of the Atlas’ graphics focus on this key sector, including the impacts of enhanced night-train service and more continent-wide cross-border connections. Franz Timmermans, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for the European Green Deal, dubbed the publication a “fantastic resource,” and underscored that “the more people who know about this, the more successful we’ll be.” A review by L. Michael Buchsbaum.
Though increasingly framed as a key way to slow climate change, for most commercial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) operations, selling the carbon they capture to produce more fossil fuels through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) production is the only way they can ensure profits for investors. According to a count by the Global CCS Institute, of the 28 currently operable CCS complexes worldwide, 22 rely on EOR as their back end “storage” system. CCS advocates hope that under the right public policy regimes, this profit-making motive will help scale up CCS operations while driving costs down. Getting the public onboard means selling CCS as a way to prevent climate change, but who pays when they fail? L. Michael Buchsbaum reviews one of 2020’s biggest CCS disasters as the fourth part of the on-going Seduction series.
As many nations develop net-zero carbon plans both to honor the Paris Climate Agreement and address the climate crisis, many are leaning heavily upon unproven and misunderstood Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technologies. Despite billions of dollars spent in research and development, it’s unclear how much environmental progress is actually achieved by CCS. Not only is there little accurate data around how much carbon has really been buried, but there’s reason to believe CCS will actually increase overall greenhouse gas emissions. In the third part of his “Seduced by CCS” series, L. Michael Buchsbaum reviews CCS’ math and how utilizing it to produce more oil only makes things worse.
Touted as a key component within many emerging national net-zero emissions strategies, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) received a huge credibility boost from several recent IPCC and IEA studies. But CCS’ greatest advantage is that it enables oil majors to have a market in an otherwise decarbonized economy. What it doesn’t do is stop the pollution stream. Framed as a climate solution, in fact most current and planned projects use the CO2 they capture to produce more fossil fuels through various enhanced oil recovery (EOR) schemes. As part of an ongoing series deconstructing CCS, L. Michael Buchsbaum reviews some recent history.
The last few months have seen a rivulet of announcements around proposed carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) plans. Long trumpeted by the fossil fuels industry and given a recent boost by the scientists at the EIA and IPCC, it has become a favored climate change solution by policymakers in the EU, Johnson’s UK and plays a key role in the new Biden Administration energy transition strategies. CCS is also a key component within various envisioned “clean” hydrogen and net-carbon neutral schemes. But many fear that depending on CCS will only anchor fossil energy polluters long into the future. The first of a three-part series, L. Michael Buchsbaum reviews some of the fundamentals and current status of carbon capture projects worldwide.