But analysts like Zachmann argue that any new reliance on coal is simply a short-lived way to leverage existing infrastructure until renewables can pick up the slack. “The benefit of [burning more coal] is we have existing coal-fired power plants that can do that, that do not require new investments, and therefore we do not lock in new dependencies,” he adds.
Václav Bartuška, ambassador at large for energy security in Czechia, echoes that idea. “There is a temporary role for coal, which we had hoped would be out of the energy mix by the end of this decade. But it will stay longer,” he told news websitelast week. “We will need it until we find alternative sources. Until that time, even the greenest government will not phase out coal.”
The idea of even a short-term spike in coal use does not sit well with everyone. “We can't afford it, not even as a temporary solution,” says Chiara Martinelli, director of Climate Action Network Europe, adding that the dependency on fossil fuels needs to stop. “I think what we need to look into more in terms of short-term measures is reducing energy demands.”
How about nuclear?