Five proposals for abundant and cheap energy

By
BrusselsReport.eu
-

By Samuel Furfari, formerly a senior official at the Energy Directorate-General of the European Commission (1982-2018), Professor em. at Université libre de Bruxelles and President of the European Society for Engineers and Industrialists

Energy policy has become the victim of ideological bargaining. Citizens risk to pay dearly for energy, while this should have been cheap, and some may even suffer cold this winter, due to Germany’s EnergieWende, a German experimental policy that has been imposed on the whole of the EU. First, it is important to be aware of this. Now, it is time to act, and to stop dreaming of a rapid energy transition.

Germany has been a pioneer in hydraulic fracturing, meant to exploit shale oil and gas resources:

“The [German] national geological surveys continue to constructively support the exploration and industrial production of oil and natural gas in Germany within the “Verbund Kohlenwasserstoffgeologie”. Within the framework of this contractual cooperation, the Regional Soil Research Office of Lower Saxony advises geological surveys and mining authorities on all geoscientific issues related to the exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas as well as to underground storage. […] The gas quantities in the low-permeability red sandstones concentrated in the Söhlingen and Schneverdingen area are still considered to have great potential for the national reserve base.”

This was written in 2001 by the Lower Saxony Regional Soil Survey in its report “Geological Survey of Lower Saxony”.

At the time, ExxonMobil was active in Germany in the field of hydraulic fracturing to exploit gas reserves trapped in sandstone. This is not quite the same type of deposit as shale gas, but it is the same technology used. However, pressure from environmentalists got the better of them, and eventually the whole thing was abandoned.

In no time at all, as if everything was organised, an anti-shale gas tidal wave swept through Germany and just as quickly through the EU. Drieu Godefridi has noted the following:

“In Germany, the leading environmental organizations WWF, BUND and NABU have set up an “environmental” foundation — Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee — with the company Nord Stream AG. (…) The “environmental” foundation Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee was endowed with 10 million euros by Gazprom, as claimed by Nord Stream. These German environmental organizations WWF, BUND, NABU were, moreover, at the same time, fierce opponents of German civil nuclear power and of shale gas exploitation in Europe.”

The German Greens therefore intended to get nuclear power to be shut down in exchange for acceptance of the Nord Stream pipeline, all combined with opposition to LNG terminals. It is unlikely that German industry as a whole was nota ware of this. It therefore bears a heavy responsibility, just like the entire German political class. If it were just them, it would be serious, but since they convinced the European Commission and the EU to follow them in greening energy policy, this constitutes an unprecedented mistake in the history of European cooperation.

Science versus power

Under the Euratom Treaty, which aims to promote the civil use of nuclear energy, Germany, like many EU Member States, had invested in nuclear energy.

In 2000, it produced 170 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity (30% of total production) from 22 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power plants. By 2019 however, it produced only 75 TWh (12% of German production) from 9.5 MW, with the rest of the capacity shut down because the environmentalists of the 1980s came up with the EnergieWende explicitely dedicated to stop nuclear power production. These Grünen convinced a large majority of Germans that the energy they needed would soon be 100% renewable, clean and cheap, even if it meant importing natural gas from Russia for what was supposed to only be a short period. Thereby, Chancellor Angela Merkel went against the science she once mastered, as she obtained a doctorate in physical chemistry when she was younger. She thereby casted aside her knowledge in order to stay in power.

Germany’s logic: to drive more slowly so to heat homes

Only recently, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that the Bavarian Greens, probably in coordination with the party leadership in Berlin, have decided in favour of a six-month extension of the life of the Isar 2 nuclear power plant. It seems that there is a condition to this decision: to submit it to a stress test on whether the Bavarian industry will suffer excessively this winter in case there isn’t enough Russian gas.

Similar decisions will probably be taken for the nuclear power plants in Neckarwestheim 2 (in Baden-Württemberg) and Emsland (in Lower Saxony). It is key to recall that fierce opposition to nuclear power was the basis for the creation of the German environmental movement, and that it is this same party that, faced with the harsh reality of the facts, now needs to agree not to close the last three nuclear power plants.

Then what will the Grünen get in return for this less than honourable surrender? According to the Wall Street Journal, the current discussions are about a grand bargain. The Greens would agree to the extension of the country’s last three nuclear power plants, something unimaginable until recently, to the extent that Olaf Scholz’s government has declared its opposition to the European Commission’s decision on the taxonomy whereby lip service was paid to nuclear power. In exchange, the greens would get the introduction of speed limits on motorways – the abandonment of an equally unimaginable taboo until recently. This means the liberal FDP will need to make a concession that is as big as the one made by the Grünen. This horse trading shows that we are in the realm of ideological politics, far from rationality.

The most important energy by volume is heat

The war in Ukraine has now revealed to both the general public and politicians – including EU policy makers – one of the crucial points of energy policy. The most important energy by volume is heat. In fact, 70% of the EU’s natural gas is used for thermal purposes and not for electricity generation. In Germany it is more, as only 6% of natural gas is burnt in power stations. Of course, in the context of Germany’s catastrophic situation, not using this 6% is necessary, but it will not be enough.

The ongoing energy crisis has now shown that solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear power plants are meaningless if thermal energy is neglected. In the EU, almost half of the final energy used is heat, with electricity accounting for only 22%. Like everyone else, Germans need thermal energy to heat their homes and services in winter and to run industrial operations, a need that has so far been met by burning natural gas. However, natural gas is also a basic material for the German chemical industry, which cannot do without methane.

The logic of German politicians is now that in order to satisfy the thermal needs provided by natural gas, an extension of nuclear power plants which produce electricity is needed, as well as a reduction of the speed on the motorways, in order to use less petrol and diesel which are not being used for heating.

This is a political logic far removed from rationality.

Similar mistakes have been made in France and Belgium

It is this kind of policies that have cost France its place in the geopolitical race for nuclear power. In order to form his government with the ecologists, former French President François Hollande promised to reduce the share of nuclear power to 50% of French electricity consumption, thereby destroying the confidence of potential international buyers who were interested in this French technology, which was based on a long and exceptional experience.

Poland – before 1990, the only of the Soviet satellite countries without nuclear power – – will probably buy American, not French, nuclear power plants. Following the same logic, Emmanuel Macron took the decision to shut down the Fessenheim nuclear plant, even though it was fully operational.

This type of policies are currently in force in Belgium, where in a surreal process, when no alternative solution exists, the political world is dithering on the urgency of extending existing nuclear power plants. The owner of the plants, Engie, is negotiating hard with the Belgian government for the extension of two reactors in exchange for financial support, while there is no reason to close all seven reactors in the country in the first place.

The EU should not expect southern Europe to sacrifice itself for the German ecologists

Meanwhile, the European Commission has proposed that EU Member States should take measures on a voluntary basis, and if not sufficient, on a binding basis, to limit natural gas consumption by 15%. This fuel, so hated only a few months ago, is now so precious that it must be preserved. But Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy (following the letter from Minister Cingolani to Vice-President Frans Timmermans) have made clear that they will not ask their citizens to sacrifice themselves to help the Germans, who bear the primary responsibility for the energy crisis. In the end, the proposal was agreed on 9 August, but with numerous derogations and various loopholes. It is mainly a publicity stunt to reassure a worried population.

The German Grünen, but also Angela Merkel, have neglected to diversify their supplies of Russian gas, but above all, they have refused to build even a single gas terminal in Germany that would be able to receive liquid natural gas (LNG) from international markets, unlike the Southern European countries just mentioned, even if Italy should have built more terminals (also there, the opposition of the Greens prevailed). Spain built the first LNG terminal in Europe in the port of Barcelona in 1969. It now has seven on the peninsula, including one in Gijon (Asturias) which is not even used because the market is so well supplied, and another on the island of Tenerife. The rest of the gas comes from Algeria through two pipelines.

In the past, Spain has followed a diversification strategy based on the energy of the future, something which Germany has consciously ignored. It is regrettable that the current Spanish government, which includes the communists of Podemos, has chosen Germany’s EnergieWende as its model.

In any case, the European Commission should not expect southern Europe to sacrifice itself for the German ecologists, despite Article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty which speaks of solidarity “in particular in the field of energy”.

Nor should it expect solidarity from Hungary, whose foreign minister just visited Moscow on 21 July to negotiate additional deliveries of Russian gas. This visit came a few days after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban declared that the EU had made a mistake with the sanctions. All this will exacerbate relations with Brussels, which has not hesitated to talk about blocking funds to Hungary… as part of a deal.

Let the Germans take responsibility

People facing exorbitant energy bills should remember that this is due to the German ideology called “EnergieWende”, which aims to kill nuclear power and fossil fuels, a strategy followed in whole or in part by the other European governments as well. The crisis in Ukraine has only exacerbated this problem, but it was not Vladimir Putin who invented the crisis that Germany has plunged us into. Energy prices started to rise as early as September 2021, five months before the war started. We are victims of the German EnergieWende policy and its corollary, the import of Russian gas.

Normally, apart from Germany, there should be no rationing in the rest of the EU, given how the energy mix is well diversified. Let the Germans, who imposed the forced march towards renewable energies, now face the downsides and possible blackouts that will result from it.

Let them begin to understand that limiting speed on the motorway will not heat their homes.

Five proposals for abundant and cheap energy

Energy is a serious matter. Unfortunately, demagogic politicians and “horse traders” have taken control in the EU. Let this crisis serve to make them realise that the founders of the EU were right when they said that there would be no future without cheap and abundant energy.

Therefore, here are five proposals to achieve this goal. What we need to do, as part of abandoning the green policies of the past:

  1. The operation of existing nuclear power plants should be continued, especially in Belgium and Germany, that wanted to shut them all down;
  2. The development of nuclear research, as required by the Euratom Treaty, should be relaunced;
  3. The European Commission should update its 2016 Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC), an obligation imposed by Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty;
  4. The European Commission should propose a directive to promote the exploitation of shale oil and gas resources;
  5. The EU should abandon or dismiss its unrealistic and costly decarbonisation targets (Fit 55), in particular the German-inspired policy of promoting hydrogen, which can only be done with more natural gas, as I show in my book “The hydrogen illusion“.

 

Originally published in French by Atlantico.

Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR