Let's say fossil gas power plants replace 10%, 50% or all existing coal power plants in the EU before 2030.
Taking into account the taxonomy limits projects to 115% of the capacity of the coal power plant they replace, added fossil gas capacity would be between 15 and 146 GW.
Depending on how many hours the new fossil gas power plants run (CF=capacity factor), and assuming 55% efficiency, the gas consumption of the new power plants could add between 2 and 200 bcm to the EU's gas demand. Increasing 0.5% to 41% the EU's 2019 gas consumption (482 bcm).
But switching coal for gas will lower emissions, right?
First, low-carbon generation should replace coal power plants, not fossil gas power plants.
Second, CO2 emissions savings depends on how many hours how many gas plants run and are not as substantial as some (I) may think.*
The EU taxonomy sets a 550 kgCO2/kW annual limit for fossil gas power plants replacing coal plants.
If enforced, the limit will ensure at least 80% direct CO2 emission reductions BUT require plants to run at around 16% capacity factors.
Are any plants profitable at 16% CF?
The 550 kg CO2/kW limit, however, extends over a period of 20 years.
So, in my view, it is far more likely that fossil gas power plants will run at CF of around 40%, limiting emissions savings to between 47% and 95% depending on how much coal power fossil gas plants replace.
Overall, if a large share of coal power plants is replaced with fossil gas power plants, the EU will have to make a much greater effort to achieve climate neutrality.
Sadly, having fossil gas in the taxonomy of sustainable investments makes this scenario more likely./fin
*400 gCO2/kWh is the median carbon intensity for fossil gas combined cycle power plants according to the IPCC 2018. But lifecycle emissions are about 25% higher, and every week we have new research showing that methane emissions are a worse problem than we thought.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ John Gray escribe hoy en @el_pais una tribuna en la que se arropa en la bandera del pensamiento realista para intentar desprestigiar un supuesto pensamiento mágico que aboga por dar batalla para mitigar el cambio climático. John Gray se equivoca profundamente. HILO
2/La crisis climática es un hecho tangible: ya está aquí y ya padecemos sus efectos. Los humanos la han provocado y aunque eliminásemos todas las emisiones de GEI mañana, el proceso seguiría en marcha. Estamos de acuerdo. Pero John Gray olvida que hay malo y hay peor.
3/Hace unos meses, el informe del panel internacional para el cambio climático nos recordaba que un calentamiento de +1.5°C es mucho menos malo que un calentamiento de +2°C. John Gray puede consultar cómo El País informaba sobre ello. Hay malo y hay peor. elpais.com/sociedad/2018/…
The overall target of France's strategy for #energy and #climate is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 through cutting GHG emissions down significantly and also increasing carbon sinks
France wants to cut #CO2 emissions down to 227 Mt in 10 years by cutting final #energy consumption 14% and primary #energy from #fossilfuels by 35%. Also, increasing #renewable heating and doubling the #electricity from renewables. Note: transport emissions vanish by 2050.