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 are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
96 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

It’s really bad for $$ to do the responsible thing, so we’re going to proceed with existential environmental degradation. Because $.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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 😅

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s more responsible to stop mining fossil fuels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Obviously the latter

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe nuclear could’ve been better than coal?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Or to have kept your nuclear running and not freaked out after the fukushima disaster…

Just saying

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Correct. You can add the vastly underestimated methane emissions of natural gas to that. (They are hard to measure but nobody seems toooo interested)

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Thanks for your insight.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Why was the plan to ever extent to the wist if there is a town?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points
*

What a beautiful society where companies have more powers than an state…

Ofc theses companies have our futurs in mind, right ?

Capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

They don’t have more power - the government was just stupid to give them contracts this longlasting

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 5.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 123K

    Comments