Juliane Borchert

Wide view of the later stages of the demolition of St Lambertus, with a high-reach excavator beginning the levelling of the west block. 9 January 2018 Photo/Map: Arne Müseler / arne-mueseler.com / CC-BY-SA-3.0

Demolition jaw of high-reach excavator destroying the NW tower of St Lambertus. 9 January 2018 10:11:20.51. Notice the wall core is stock brick rather than masonry rubble. © Superbass / CC-BY-SA-4.0 (via Wikimedia Commons)

Aerial photo of Erkelenz-Immerath in Dec 2010, with the church at the centre of the settlement

Same view, most recent aerial photo from Aug 2024, of the Garzweiler surface mine strip-pits over the former site of the village

I first learnt about Germany's hunger for horribly inefficent and polluting lignite in 2018 was when the church of St Lambertus, Erkelenz-Immerath (medieval site, but Neo-Romanesque build of 1888-91) was demolished, along with the entire village to make way for expansion of Garzweiler open pit mine.

Wow! Thanks for pointing me in that direction. He is still going and Kathryn is having way too much fun with how easily he is lead into traps.

The environmental cost of wind and solar is way, way, way, way, way smaller then that of coal, oil, and gas. It is not a difficult choice. We have to fully switch to renewables. Preferably yesterday.

We all want electricity. This comes with an environmental cost. The environmental cost of our old ways to generate electricity is too high (CO2 emissions, heavy metal pollution, acid rain, oil spills in oceans, landscapes dug up for coal mines....).

Why are we arguing about a few trees cut for a wind turbine installation or the hypothetical emissions from solar panels, when at the same time coal plants are emitting thousands of tons of heavy metals, and entire regions with dozens of villages and huge forests are dug up for open pit coal mines?

Again and again I encounter heated criticism of the minor environmental impact renewable energies like wind and solar have. And at the same time people seem to forget the enormous impacts we (used to) accept from fossil fuel plants.

I have written long threads about two coal power plants in Germany. Jänschwalde (in the East) and Neurath (in the West). Why did I do that? To highlight the impacts fossil fuel power plants have.
#1 bsky.app/profile/pv-p...
#2 bsky.app/profile/pv-p...

Panoramic photo of a huge open pit coal mine.

Neurath coal power plant gets its lignite coal from the close by open pit coal mine Garzweiler. Over 20 villages were depopulated, destroyed, and permanently removed to make way for this mine. Churches, houses, historic buildings, forests, fields, meadows were destroyed.

Neurath coal power plant also emits a variety of heavy metals into the air which are then deposited in the surrounding area. To name a few: 220kg of mercury, 80 kg of nickel, 500kg of lead, 27 kg of arsenic.

Neurath coal power plant emits huge amounts of CO2 and also many other harmful gases. For example 10000 tons of nitrogen dioxide (known to give kids asthma), 2000 tons of sulphur dioxide (causes acid rain), and 40 tons of highly corrosive hydrogen chloride.

Neurath Power Plant uses lignite coal. The lowest quality of coal. Lignite coal is wet, has a low energy density and is the most harmful coal to human health.

Neurath Power Station - Wikipedia

Let's think about fossil fuel power plants for a moment. For example Neurath power plant in the west of Germany. In 2019 it was the second biggest single emitter of CO2 in the whole European Union as well as the 102nd one world wide.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurath...

But there is no point trying to appease every opponent of renewables.

People who are against renewable energy come up with all kinds of bizarre "arguments". For wind it is "But birds", "But infrasound", "But soil dried out". Half are made up, the other half blown out of proportion.
We should of course make renewable energies as safe as possible.

Coal and Air Pollution Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global warming, and other severe environmental and public health im...

Deploying perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells would probably decrease lead emission overall as it would reduce the amount of electricity produced from burning coal. Coal fired plants emit tons of lead (and mercury, and cadmium, and arsenic) into the environment. www.ucs.org/resources/co...

There is also research into how best to recycle these.

Why?
Would you let kids use your car as a backstop?

There is also research into additional lead trapping layers that could be integrated into the solar panels.

Here is an example of a paper that studied this: pubs.rsc.org/en/content/a...

There is some research on this. While not everything is clear yet, the emerging trend is:
1. These new solar cells only contain a very thin layer of the lead containing compound, therefore there is not much lead per panel.
2. Even if the panel is damaged only a small amount of lead comes out.

In real utility it would be laminated into a sturdy solar panel.

For regular use any solar cell would be combined with others into a solar panel with a frame and cover glass. These are then very sturdy.

Loose silicon wafers are fairly brittle when bent. So I would wear gloves when handling them. To avoid cuts if the wafer breaks.

[39c3] Recharge your batteries with us - an empowering journey through the energy transition A committed energy activist and an award-winning solar cell researcher take you on a lively, motivating and sometimes funny journey: - to electricity rebels from the Black Forest, - to heat pumps tha...

fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/202...

Two hands writing on a big sheet of paper with coloured pencils

Plotting for #39C3 with @simoneherpich.bsky.social tonight.
In Hamburg we'll talk about the energy transition.
Come recharge your batteries with us!

I've seen several very cautious posts about this name change by NREL employees and I understand that they do not want to draw more heat. I don't have to be so diplomatic as I am not in the US.
I will continue to call this phenomenal lab by it's proper name: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

NREL has been a coveted destination for researchers from around the world. Its NREL chart (of best research solar cell efficiencies) is ever present at solar cell conferences. Its patent portfolio, publication list, and positiv effect on the economy and the clean energy transition are unparalleled.

'A Collective WTF': National Renewable Energy Laboratory Gets a Trumpian Name Change NREL employees, many of whom joined the lab specifically to work toward its clean energy mission, are not happy about the oil-soaked leadership's moves.

The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been the bright star of renewable energy and especially solar energy research for decades.
In a symbolic move it was yesterday renamed to National Laboratory of the Rockies. www.gravityisgone.com/a-collective...

Maybe no US American will think that. I actually work with more South Americans than US Americans, so I find it useful to be specific.

I am fascinated how intensely some US Americans are reacting to these threads. I frequently talk about US Americans to make clear I mean citizens of the USA and not for example Columbians. Not all Americans are US Americans. It's fine to express that. Not sure what is so upsetting.

2025 wurden bisher 3,8 GW Wind Onshore in Deutschland installiert. Das Zubauziel für 2025 liegt bei 7,5 GW.
energy-charts.info/charts/insta...