Energy mix 2030 – New energy for the future?

"Resources" dialogue forum on 21 April 2009

The fifth and final resources dialogue forum considered ways of meeting future energy demand. German Bundestag member and EUROSOLAR President Dr. Hermann Scheer, and Greenpeace Germany Campaign Manager Karsten Smid outlined their energetic visions for the future.

In Karsten Smid’s view, the future energy mix would have to meet various criteria: it would have to be economical on resources, environment- and climate-friendly, and ensure a secure supply and minimal technical risks. In addition, it would have to be economically viable and competitive. Smid, an expert on climate protection, traffic and energy issues, was in no doubt that the transformation in our energy system would have to come soon. “The reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 currently being discussed is neither realistic nor sufficient to stabilise the climate.”

Even to maintain global warming at the more-or-less acceptable level of 2°C meant no increase in emissions from 2015 onwards, and the industrial nations alone having to achieve a reduction of 40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Smid pointed out: “We can’t alter the findings. We have to formulate our climate policy to address them.”

Capturing power station emissions and storing them underground was not a workable proposition either because “it will be not be available until 2030 at the earliest, and that will be too late for the industrial nations”. One solution would be to boost efficiency and use renewable forms of energy, wind and solar power having the greatest potential. Geothermal energy and hydroelectric power would also play a part in energy transformation. Summing up the position of Greenpeace, Smid advised: “We are opposed to schemes that involve building huge dams.” Smid also had doubts about using regenerative resources because of the adverse effect this had on food production. However, he believed it would be possible to obtain 70% of our energy requirements from renewable sources by 2030 and almost 90% by 2050.

The main obstacle here was opposition on the part of the utility companies. “The four major players, E.ON, Vattenfall, RWE and EnBW, account for just 1% of renewable energies, if existing hydroelectric power stations are excluded.” They also lagged behind on investment. We therefore needed to break free of our dependency on raw material imports and the interests of the major players.

Sustainability and globalisation

Referring to the billions being spent to solve the banking crisis, Smid commented: “Whilst it is true that banks are systemically relevant, nothing is more systemically relevant than the climate.” A green New Deal, under which huge amounts were invested in green energy, would address both problems. “The IPCC has set out the main issues. It is time to take action.”

Herrmann Scheer believed part of the problem was the so-called energy experts. Thus, in the late 1980s, leading scientists had vastly underestimated the potential of wind power and, even as late as 2006, the International Energy Agency had continued to assume the average oil price would remain at around US$ 35 per barrel right through to 2030. The Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy found it “astonishing that they are still considered to be energy experts”.

We had to respect two premises in our search for the energy mix of the future: firstly, it was not enough to treat energy policy as if it were only a climate issue. “Even if there were no climate change, all would not be well with the global energy system.” Oil coal, gas and uranium were in finite supply but demand was constantly rising. Scheer, who was awarded the alternative Nobel Prize in 1999, continued: “If China and India had embarked on the catching-up process 50 years ago, reserves would long since have run out.”

More and more developing countries were no longer able to afford the high prices because of the fall in their purchasing power. “More than 40 countries have to spend more on energy imports than they earn on exports.” Prices continued to rise as resources grew more scarce, and there was growing conflict over those sources that remained. Scheer noted that “this is a major global issue”. Consequently, the transformation in the energy system had to come about in the next three decades.

His second premise was that it would be possible for change to come about sooner than current scientific scenarios would suggest. He asked the audience: “Who can predict future energy price hikes or what policy changes will take place in the wake of elections?” Who could say how technical developments would unfold? Accordingly, we were not really in a position to predict the future energy mix at the present time.

Instead, Scheer suggested a plausibility analysis: “We have all underestimated the rapid pace of development in the renewables field.” If the current trend persisted, all our energy would come from renewable sources in 35 years’ time. “The potential is already there; we just have to tap into it using technical means.” Major obstacles to this were strong interest groups and mental blocks. Scheer warned of the dangers of procrastination: “Failure to act now could cost us dear in the future”. If we waited too long to make the necessary changes, we would fall into a series of energy traps. Information technology showed just how quickly change could take place. Thus, forecasts made in the late nineties about the distribution of mobile phones fell far short of the actual course of events.

Greenpeace representative Smid believed Germany would have much to do in order to maintain its technology lead. He criticised the fact that “the Chinese and Americans are leaving us behind on wind technology”, adding that “We were also world beaters in photovoltaics 10–15 years ago.” The major players had failed to keep abreast of developments, and in the meantime Q-Cells, Solarworld and other newcomers had arrived on the scene. Now the Japanese and Chinese had made progress as well.

Energy forms under scrutiny

Smid saw opportunities in solar thermal energy, an area where German technology led the field, primarily in southern regions such as the Sahara and Spain. However, the breakthrough had not yet been achieved. Geothermal power, and generation in particular, were of limited application where Germany was concerned. It took a massive effort to exploit suitable geothermal fields and there was a risk that drilling would trigger ground tremors, as had indeed happened in Switzerland.

According to Scheer, geothermal and photovoltaic energy offered distinct advantages with regard to converting buildings to renewable energies. “We already have prefabricated houses that generate more energy than their occupants consume.” However, based on a new-building rate of 3% per year, it would take more than 30 years to convert our building stock.

The President of EUROSOLAR rejected the objection that renewable energies were more expensive than conventional ones. He urged: “We have to put it in the right perspective.” If you included external costs such as the damage to health and the environment, traditional fuels were by no means cheaper. In addition, the utilities industry compared the costs of depreciated plants with new technology. Coal subsidies further distorted the picture. “If market price is to be the deciding factor, we must have market equality.”

Dr. Patrick Illinger, chairing the discussion, wondered whether Greenpeace faced a nuclear energy dilemma because of climate change. Smid responded that “we shouldn’t have to choose between a rock and a hard place”. Nuclear energy was a high-risk technology that was not insurable and thus not a responsible choice. Another unresolved issue was the permanent storage of atomic waste. “The true costs of nuclear energy are far higher.”

Which countries were setting future energy policy standards? Scheer noted that “even the USA considers Germany to be a global role model in the field of renewable energies.” The phasing out of nuclear energy was also exemplary. However, Denmark had chosen a better route where fossil fuels were concerned. As long ago as 1992, it had rejected proposals to build new condensing power stations, which did not utilise the heat produced. Instead, Denmark had chosen to make greater use of combined heat and power generation. In Scheer’s opinion, opting for more nuclear energy, as was the case in the UK, was out of the question, as was using CCS technology to store greenhouse gases underground.

Might it one day be possible to obtain energy from the Sahara on a major scale? After all, an area of just 300 x 300 km would be enough to meet the energy needs of the whole world. Scheer noted that “this only works on paper”. He warned of the monopoly that would result if the world were dependent on a single provider. Increasing the number of offshore wind farms was not the answer either. Spiralling investment and maintenance costs outweighed the advantage offered by the more constant offshore winds, so that in the end the energy was more expensive than that generated by onshore installations. Greenpeace expert Smid was less categorical, decentralised supply and large-scale central projects going hand-in-hand in his view.

As the discussion progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the 2030 energy mix primarily concerned electricity. Noting its dominant position, Scheer commented: “It is the most attractive of the secondary fuels and the most versatile.” Also, the share of electricity in aggregate energy consumption would increase, not least as a result of electric vehicles. “If all German cars run on electricity, we will need 15% more electric power.” However, Greenpeace representative Smid warned against being euphoric. Current electric cars produced more CO2 emissions than petrol-driven vehicles because the providers still relied mainly on coal.

Hydrogen was not an acceptable alternative either, because converting it to fuel involved too many processes and storage was technically a difficult feat to perform. This resulted in efficiency losses and high costs. Scheer noted: “Ultimately all that remains is 50% of the original energy input”. He added: “Why not go straight there if you can avoid taking the diversion?” He believed there were opportunities to be exploited in waste, which in future would include a substantially larger organic component than at present. If this were used it could play a key part in renewable energies since, he calculated, 20 billion cubic metres of organic waste produced 100 billion kw/h of electricity.

Making the choices now

After more than two hours of discussion, it was clear to the audience that the lights in Germany would not go out, even in 20 years’ time. However, by then far more electricity will be obtained from solar and wind power. We have to make the right choices now to ensure a smooth transition.

21 April 2009