‘No longer the worst boy in the class’
“We are very happy with this”, says Urgenda director Marjan Minnesma. “The sooner the coal plants close, the better. It’s time we stopped being the worst kid in the class.”
According to Minnesma, we will fall back on energy from coal-fired power stations – also from abroad – as soon as gas becomes very expensive, as it is now. “That’s why it’s good if they don’t exist anymore.”
Machiel Mulder, energy expert at the University of Groningen, thinks otherwise: “This closure does relatively little for the climate. We have emissions trading in Europe, a trade in greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions committee determines how many of those rights are traded in Europe. As soon as that is not adjusted, there is a waterbed effect. For a real effect, fewer rights will have to be allocated.”
According to Minnesma, that is not so bad. “You have to bet on different tracks.” She gives the example of electric driving. “People say that is polluting, because it can run on energy generated with coal. But in the end we will all drive electric and we will gradually move to sustainable energy. The same goes for our power plants, which go from coal to gas and then to sun and wind.”
Dependent on fossil fuels
According to Mulder, we should not take the closure lightly. According to him, we are still dependent on fossil fuels, especially if demand increases or if there is no wind or sun.
“Yes, we need to get rid of coal, but not too soon,” he says. “That is risky. When determining investments in power stations, the electricity companies have considered how much they produce, how much demand there is and therefore what the optimal capacity is. By seizing the market from outside there is a risk of a shortage of generation capacities. we are now becoming more dependent on gas, and we are now seeing what that means with the gas shortages.”
Minnesma also prefers that we do not depend on gas, but prefers it to coal. “Coal is twice as polluting as gas.”
In any case, the energy bill will not rise due to the closure, Mulder expects. “The energy market is European, so this closure does not have much influence.”
Lawsuits
Last year It became known that the then Minister of Economic Affairs Eric Wiebes had made an offer for the three companies. Riverstone was the only company to respond positively.
For the Americans, the offer was financially more attractive, because they had bought the coal-fired power station ‘second-hand’ from the French energy company Engie. According to insiders, Riverstone would have paid about 200 million euros. So now the company receives more than 212 million euros from the government.
The two German energy companies have not accepted the government’s offer. RWE started with a arbitration case, because it has to close the coal-fired power station in Eemshaven in 2030. The construction of their power station cost 3 billion euros, the bid from the government was 500 million euros. The company now wants to enforce compensation of 1.4 billion euros.
Minnesma: “I also understand that it is annoying for those companies. About ten years ago, our government asked the energy companies if they wanted to build new coal-fired power stations. Now they have to stop again from the same government. This also shows that the government did not take the climate seriously at the time.”
Urgenda objectives
Due to the closure, the Urgenda target of emitting a quarter less greenhouse gases is getting closer. Last year that target may have been achieved, partly due to the closure of the Hemweg coal-fired power station, a relatively mild winter, a low gas price and less traffic.
Minnesma: “Emissions rose by 5 megatons this spring. This closure will reduce it again by 3 megatons. This helps, but the government is not quite on track for their own goal for 2030.”
–
