Germany To Double Gas Power Capacity
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
The German grid regulator and Green-led ministry of economy and climate action aim to construct up to 21 GW worth of additional gas power plants to guarantee a stable and reliable grid, according to internal documents.
By 2030, the German government wants the country to run on 80% renewable electricity and fully phase out coal. Gas power plants are expected to cover the remaining 20% and account for low wind and low sun periods.
“Investments in gas-fired power plants […] continue to make sense provided that corresponding LNG [liquified natural gas] capacities are created and prices normalise,” reads a ministry document.
In total, while German gas consumption is expected to go down due to the electrification of heating, gas power plants are expected to almost double in capacity. In November 2022, gas power capacity amounted to 27.5 Gigawatts (GW).
Going forward, the regulators note that 17 to 21 GW of extra capacity will be built, as part of their bi-annual grid stability report for the period of 2025 until 2031. This would be the most cost-effective approach, the regulator adds.
The government took ownership of this suggestion, the documents confirm, confirming that Germany’s path has hardly diverged, despite the fact that its largest gas supplier, Russia, turned off the tap.
In October 2021, Markus Krebber, CEO of energy company RWE, predicted similar figures. “We need about 20 to 30 gigawatts of new gas-fired power plants in Germany,” he told WirtschaftsWoche.
To ensure that enough gas is available, the government is strongly committing to LNG. “The import capacities of LNG are to be further increased in Germany,” the document adds.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germany-to-almost-double-gas-firing-capacity/
Germany needs at least 60GW of power at peak periods. This plan will take gas power up close to 50GW, which is a startling admission that there will be times when wind and solar’s contribution will be minimal.
Coal power capacity, including lignite, is currently 36GW, so the closure of this will be mainly offset by new gas capacity.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Makes sense to me
No doubt inertia will reign here.
Now we’ll all be competing for LNG.
Greta is very angry.
As usual, the fundamental contradiction is ignored (magicked away!). For the gas (turbine) generators to prvide that amount of “back up” they have to be PROFITABLE. Nobody, neither private nor state, will invest in these expensive facilities to be used “now and again” when the wind ain’t blowing. Nonsense.
Exactly.
‘By 2030, the German government wants the country to run on 80% renewable electricity and fully phase out coal. Gas power plants are expected to cover the remaining 20% and account for low wind and low sun periods.’
Fuzzy maths. 20% PLUS covering the 80%. So 100% capacity. Which, by the way, they can only run 20% the time. Gross waste of capital.
So the idea is to run two parallel generation systems where the stochastic one that is weather and daylight dependent is primary and the reliable one that can produce electricity 24/7/365 is run in an inefficient mode that reduces its reliability and longevity is secondary.
I see…
Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet…
Catweazle666,
it is broadly what we have in the U.K.. Indeed any system that has X amount of renewable capacity requires an equal amount of alternative and readily available reliable capacity as well. Some of this capacity will be essential to balance supply against demand (Renewables canot do this). The grid would fail otherwise.
The Gridwatch Templar website’s graphics show this very clearly, wind and gas generation see saw in output level all the time.
It’s a fantasy that we can run only on renewables.
Not to mention the necessity for a certain amount of rotational inertia to stabilise the grid frequency too, Iain.
This is what happens when you get sociologists, politicians and other financially motivated pig ignorant trough snouters like Gummer and his ilk interfering with matters that really shouldn’t concern them.
It will end in tears.
Matching renewable *capacity* isn’t necessary, only matching renewable peak output which is always a lot less. But what will happen is that demand will be choked off one way or another when the going gets tough, i.e. whenever the available supply looks like falling short.
“But what will happen is that demand will be choked off one way or another when the going gets tough”
Euphemism for the supply being choked off.
Since the German government wants people to use electricity for heating etc. and powering vehicles, overall demand will increase considerably. Then the capacity of gas backup needed will also increase considerably. So the result will be an increase in gas usage.
To explain 20% of 100 becomes 20% of 160(?) = 32, or 20% of 240 = 48. And if using gas as ‘peaking plants’ which are less efficient (and less reliable) CO2 emissions would increase not decrease.
OCGT’s are more expensive to run and emit almost as much CO2 as the latest coal fired technology. Coal is available in Germany (and the EU) whereas the gas has to be imported from???
” OCGT’s are more expensive to run and emit almost as much CO2 as the latest coal fired technology ”
As prevously posted, modern coal-fired can apparently match CCGT for emissions (combined cycle rather than open cycle) . CCGT typically generates lower emissions than OCGT.
https://www.powermag.com/who-has-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-power-plant-fleet/
” Unit 2 at J-POWER’s Isogo Thermal Power Station, a 600-MW ultrasupercritical unit in Yokohama, Japan, ranks as the cleanest coal-fired power plant in the world in terms of emission intensity, with levels comparable to those from a natural gas–fired combined cycle plant. ” From 2017
https://www.powermag.com/who-has-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-power-plant-fleet/
They will be, as they must be.
The public will be paying the costs, either through their electricity bills or via taxation.
The same applies to any form of generation, demand in summer, is less than demand in winter, so generation equipment will be idle, indeed even in winter, they’ll be peaks & troughs & the chances of a breakdown taking a generator out of service, so back up is needed.
We have STOR in the UK, containers of diesel engines, gas turbines & pumped hydro. Their operators are paid to keep them ready to use.
Whatever became of NutZero ?
Replacing coal with the same amount of gas means no growth in energy use. I suspect that the coal will stay.
Price of Newcastle coal is 8 times what it was a few years ago and its not falling as gas prices decline. The best insurance is a big stockpile of coal that’s instantly accessible. Australian Coal companies PE ratios are less than 5 and they are paying dividends up to 20%. China is once again seeking to purchase Australian coal.
Despite a 67% decline in the share price of TESLA its PE ratio is still 90. Obviously a misallocation of capital on the grandest scale.
Gas consumption might be reduced as a heating fuel but then more gas will be needed to generate the extra electricity that will be used instead, so far more capacity will be required than they are planning. And gas will have to be used to keep the plants warm so that when the wind suddenly drops the grid doesn’t collapse, and who knows, a blackout might cascade across many countries. And you can also throw in that there is absolutely NO chance of them achieving the 80% target in just 7 years, especially given the poor take up of recent windmill auctions and an ageing fleet of windmills.
You may be looking at it from the wrong side. WEF has a modest proposal for them to cut demand by 80%.
Wind Europe say 38GW of Europe’s onshore wind capacity will reach the end of its normal operational life by 2025. A large proportion of that is going to be in Germany. Meanwhile all of Europe’s turbine manufacturers are operating at a loss and are unable to invest to meet the growing demand for wind energy. They are pleading for more subsidies and desperately trying to keep Chinese competitors out.
One wonders if the German Government has thought this through properly.
Setting aside for a moment the double cost, remember a GWPF study (Constable?) pointing out that upgrading existing Combined Gas Turbine generation to best in class modern plant would generate enough efficiency gains to offset any amount of so-called emissions from to-be-hoped-for growth in GDP.
Also setting aside the fact that we need what little co2 we contribute – to help global greening – perhaps some sensible Germans are setting up for a medium term bait and switch. Don’t actually need to replace windmills – got gas.
Converting ICE vehicles from petrol and diesel to CNG would reduce CO2 emissions, lower NOx and particulates. If only we had a ready supply of methane.
JF
Gas power plants are expected to cover the remaining 20% and account for low wind and low sun periods.
After dark or in low light their ‘electrification of heating’ will end up being mainly provided by gas power plants, and/or by imports, whenever the wind drops below a critical level.
“despite the fact that its largest gas supplier, Russia, turned off the tap” How, by having their pipeline sabotaged? Denmark and Sweden apparently know who did it, but state that “it’s too sensitive to disclose”. Can’t have been Russia, then.
Three cheers for the red white and blue – hint
No. Gazprom turned off the taps weeks before the sabotage happened. Chart by Kathryn Porter at Watt-Logic of Russian pipeline flows into Europe:
The sabotage was reported September 26th, about 4 weeks after the line was shut.
“about 4 weeks after the line was shut.”
And yet huge quantities of gas could be observed bubbling up from the fractured pipeline(s) for sometime after the damage was reported…
No you muppet, by turning the taps off.
https://www.trtworld.com/europe/russia-completely-stops-nord-stream-gas-supplies-to-germany-60320
If less (net-Zero) CO2 is thought to be essential, only nuclear will work.
The officials are just “whistling past the graveyard”.
How are these for claims?
“The company said that with low operating costs and no capital expenditure to the customer, it projects an electricity price point below GBP40 (USD48) per MWh. “This price is very competitive and will create a new affordable energy source that can drive the energy transition for the world,” it said.”
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Copenhagen-Atomics-puts-forward-SMR-design-for-UK
These guys are claiming to ultimately turn out a nuclear reactor on a DAILY basis, burn up existing waste and run on thorium.
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com
“Clean, reliable and cheap energy” does not conform to the project to destroy Capitalist Western civilisation and will not be allowed.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
A prototype reactor has already been constructed at a new facility in Copenhagen which “will be tested to support the goal-oriented approval process”.
The first commercial reactor is scheduled to begin operating in 2028.
Note “will be tested” means to me that it has not been tested.
A couple of years ago someone commented numerous times and places about this technology.
I proposed a 1/10/100 procedure. That is, get 1 running and connected to the grid, 10 fully financed and under construction, and 100 planned with sites chosen, plans approved, and financing promised. Then the technology can be evaluated.
The 2028 date (2028 – 2023 = 5 years) is questionable.
Copenhagenatomics appears to be a marketing company. Their website is glossy, popular science bull$#|+.
Did you read Pauls blog post : ” Nature controls Co2 not man John
?
I’m happy with nature controlling CO2.
Germany needs to figure out how to provide citizens with electrons. Gas will work. Nuclear will, but not in my remaining lifetime.
“…nature controlling CO2…”
And she will be busy sucking it back into the deeper ocean – in 2050; so, no immediate use in knowing it.
So they want to remain under the thumb of different foreign producers, then?
I very much doubt they’re capable of thinking that far ahead.
Too busy “saving the planet”, you see (while filling their snouts at the trough, of course).
“Germany needs at least 60GW of power at peak periods. This plan will take gas power up close to 50GW, which is a startling admission that there will be times when wind and solar’s contribution will be minimal.”
There are times when wind and solar’s contribution to Germany’s electricity grid(s) are minimal.
Thanks to Grafana, 2022’s (wind + solar) vs demand at 6-hr averages:
C5 just did another weather event program, the big snow of ’82, and like all their previous similar notable weather event programs they have done in the series, it ended with the climate change sucker punch.
A grey John Ketly told us although we could still get snow it would be nothing like this, and only last 36 hrs! They mentioned the 2018 beast from the east as nothing compared to ’82.
They memory holed December 2010 and March 2013!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80%9311_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
Meanwhile, here in the UK, energy-intensive industry is on suicide watch:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/06/cracks-widen-britains-pottery-industry-energy-costs-surge/
Entropy. China will be made in . . . China (!).