Energy transition Cost driver LobbyingWhat would an energy transition look like where financially powerful interest groups lobby to increase costs in their own interests? Germany has the answer!
My talk was additionally announced by an article in the Salzburger Nachrichten. 36 people came, which is quite good for a community with 1799 inhabitants. There will be a video of it soon. Here to the information about the lecture
What would an energy transition look like where financially strong interest groups lobby to increase costs in their own interests? Germany has the answer! For decades I have been trying to propagate a cost-optimized energy transition, for decades I have been appalled again and again by "studies" and implementation. Let's take a look at this statement: For example, we can combine hydropower in Scandinavia and the Alpine countries with wind power and photovoltaics in Germany. In this way, we reduce the costs of the energy turnaround. Then let's take a look at a snapshot of it on a windy Sunday afternoon:
On December 22, 2019, I criticized a study with grotesquely low storage expansion. Everything follows a uniform pattern of lobbying: Germany can build power lines, but not batteries. For example, to sell surplus electricity abroad at dumping prices or even negative prices.
Regardless of whether the electricity is traded on the EEX at 8 cents or MINUS 20 cents, the EEG remuneration is always the same. No approach to motivate the photovoltaic plant operator to a demand-oriented grid feed-in. Why only? Because this provides further arguments for grid expansion. Then expensive lines can be built to sell the electricity abroad at dumping prices at noon.
I've been calling for it for years, now VW boss Herbert Diess is calling for it too: more CO2 tax to boost German economy. Then, when electricity is trading at 2 cents at noon and 12 cents in the early evening hours, we will see the necessary storage expansion.
The difference between energy generation and energy consumption should be as high as possible. This must replace the old idea "We must save energy, whatever the cost". The passive house is the perfect expression of the old philosophy "We must save energy, whatever the cost".
All the scenarios where it is sufficient to reduce emissions to zero are becoming more and more implausible. Thawing permafrost and outgassing methane hydrate pose an enormous potential threat to climate development. A little reduction will not be enough. Even 100% less CO2 emission might still be too little. 200% less, i.e. no further human CO2 emission plus active reduction by filtering and cracking, should be sufficient. But this filtering of CO2 from the atmosphere and cracking in C and O is an enormous effort, which only a wealthy mankind with an industrial base completely based on renewable energy can manage. Therefore saving restricting renouncing is life-threatening for mankind.
|
