Yes, Germany still burns coal, or as for the graphic in the previous article from The Conversation, lignite (aka brown coal).
The prior article from the Conversation provides a snap shot of the trends in emissions reduction for 18 nations since 1990. A relatively easy read.
Collectively these 18 have a more successful approach and more strategies towards improving their environment than Australia. Results evident.
Keeping in step with their changes is worth some consideration, if not for mutual benefit, to avoid Australia becoming a dumping ground for obsolete products.
Note:
Thanks for pointing out that there are numerous smoke stacks, each one of which will be discharging large volumes of particulates, invisible to the camera. Condensing water vapour from CT’s is always readily apparent in comparison.
I’m also reminded Germany which once produced up to 25% of its electricity by nuclear power, now only relies on nuclear for approx 12%. Aside from public rejection, something to do with the Rhine river overheating in summer due to the cooling water demands.
That’s only internal generation. They still rely of generation (import) from their neighbours to maintain its network reliability and to meet its own demand. Some of the reduction in German nuclear generation has been filled by the French nuclear and Polish coal. Often Germany’s internal statistics are quoted, but these paint on part of the picture (or a particular picture wanting to be communicated).
Peter, we are well off topic. I’ll email you some alternate facts if you are interested in the bigger picture, and one assessment that considers the overall balance of energy flows for Germany in 2018, which says it is a net exporter.
Whether Germany can increase it’s use of renewables fast enough to meet it’s 2038 targets is a different question. It’s worth noting that Europe functions as one large interconnected energy grid trading energy and sharing capacity for stability and peaks.
Europe’s strength as a market is assisting it work towards reducing all types of emissions, through common standards.
Just to close off this side topic…There are two issues, meeting general demand on the network which historically is called ‘base load’ and meeting peak demand or times when the generation does not meet the demand on the network from users.
During periods of base load demand and when Germany’s generation moved towards capacity, they do export electricity to surrounding countries…however, when Germany experiences periods of peak demand or when their generators are not operating at near capacity, they are a net importer. A similar network environment operates in the eastern States of Australia where generation in one state has the capacity to support elevated demand (demand exceeds supply) and the flow of electricity moves from one state to another. This allows for better management of supply to the consumers and also generating capacity to minimise consumer costs (i.e. reduce generation redundancy which we could all pay for).
Where the network is most likely to fail is in two operational scenarios (excluding natural disasters), then there is too much generation entering the network (overload) and when there is insufficient generation to support the network (commonly known as brownouts). Both scenarios can result in network protections being triggered to protect the network from a mass outage event (or network/user damage). While Germany could meet its demand during times of usual or normal demand, it would have challenges retaining the reliability of the network in peak times or generation deficits without support from its neighbours (not different to Australia).
One can’t say that Germany doesn’t rely on its neighbours for electrical support because it is a net exporter of electricity…this only reports half of the picture and it not support Germany’s quest (do different to other developed (inc. Australia) and developing nations to have reliable supply which meets network demand under all operating scenarios.
As outlined above, Germany often imports excess generation from France and Poland. Often in the local media they are criticised as the Polish and other eastern European electricity generation is not efficient nor clean compared to German standards. In effect as outlined in the local media, they are at this point in time removing some comparably cleaner generators (coal) and those with public resistance (nuclear) and have become more reliant on their neighbours (nuclear and dirtier coal) to maintain the reliability of their network and deficits.
Australia does and it will be meeting its 30% renewable target early…and which incidentally will be ahead of Europe.
Australia is on schedule to achieve 29% renewables by 2020, with Europe still on track to meet its Renewable Energy directive of 20% in 2020.
Unfortunately the Australian media paints a different picture and possibly should be pulled up for spreading misinfomation.
Can Australia do more, Yes, but so can many other nations…
What I find most challenging about this topic is the wide range of sources of particulate emissions that we are exposed to.
In looking at all these sources of emissions and particulate pollution it is surprising that Australia does not have a coordinated approach to management, and regulation. Further Australia is lagging behind best practice, with no excuses, other than political failure.
Australia imports products that are designed to meet the best OS standards for emissions. The best products compete against cheaper imports that are not equal, made in low cost Asian factories.
One such example:
The Liberal lead NSW government has this to say on emissions from Diesel engines that escape current regulations because they are not road registered transport.
There is a significant cause for concern with high levels of emissions and lack of action on more than everyday motor vehicles. Failure on more than one front.
Yes, a great many sources of burning material produce fine particulates.
In cities you have road vehicles everywhere and hot spots near airports, heavily used railways and near parked ships that keep engines running. Then there are a few factories and oil refineries (except we don’t have them anymore in Oz).
Outside cities you have mines that stir up dust, burn lots of diesel and have fumes from burning coal (spontan). As well you have burning crops and pastures and the odd bushfire. You also get burning gas from gas fields. Then there is pollution from coal and gas fired power stations. The plume from a coal station goes for kilometres downwind.
There is a saying in the mining industry “There is no dust at night”. What do you suppose that means?
You know there is continuous air pollution monitoring in the Hunter, do you know what happens when (as often is the case) the levels are above even our weak standards? The mines stop of course.
Er no, they don’t, they just power on. The people are told to go inside. If you work outside you just hold your breath.
How about we stop burning fossil fuel, educate farmers about the perils of pasture burning and enforce decent air standards for industry and dust suppression for non-coal mines. Even while coal mines are on their way out dust suppression could be improved greatly.
If we did all that billions of people around the world will live longer healthier lives. Huge burdens will be removed from health systems. There might even be beneficial side effects not to do with particulates.
Australia lags the rest of the clever world in reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The EU regulations drive manufacturers to deliver lower emissions outcomes averaged across the new vehicle product range.
Current EU targets for 2021 are <95 g/km; Australia <150 g/km.
Future EU targets for 2030 are <50 g/km; Australia <100 g/km.
Is it reasonable to expect Australia’s now fully imported range of vehicles are low emissions as for the EU? The reality is somewhat different.
In the passenger and small SUV category, only 10 brands led by Toyota at 100.2 g/km made the grade against the current Aussie target. None were able to better the EU target. Incidentally Toyota was the only high volume selling manufacturer to list in the best 10. All the other large volume brands including Nissan, Mazda, Hyundai etc were all outside meeting the targets.
There is a full table listing in the article of nearly every recognised brand. The big 4WD brands take most of the spots for the worst of the worst.
Transport contributes 19% (2020) of Australia’s CO2 GHG emissions. Passenger and light vehicles including utes contribute more than 2/3 of the total.
