We would emerge from the crisis faster by using cheap fossil fuels

Green transition. While some dispute anything with a ‘green’ label, emphasizing that behind it all is just strong marketing, not science, and consequently do not believe in climate change (it’s hot in summer, cold in winter, big deal!), others swear that this transition, a paradigm shift in how we all think about energy sources, how we create them, how we use them, and how they affect the environment, is the only paradigm that will save us from climate change.

And while some boast their theories mainly on social media, quoting obscure sources and citing Donald Trump as an example of a responsible politician who resisted the pressures of that ‘green gang’, others are ready for a reasoned debate, as long as it remains at a high level. However, whatever one thinks about this whole story, both sides do not question one other thing – that we would more easily emerge from the existing crisis if we returned to cheap fossil fuels.

And they are not wrong, neither those who find it easy to say so publicly and out loud, nor those who would not officially sign such statements. However, not everything is black and white, because if it were, the green transition in Europe would now be closing nuclear plants, not building new ones, and it definitely would not allow tons and tons of coal to be imported into the Old Continent. And these two energy sources are suddenly okay and, let’s put it this way, not too green, but they are no longer too dirty either, at least not compared to oil and gas from Russia. Suddenly, nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants are important for the energy stability of the EU and are part of that green transition, even if the coal is shipped from who knows where in the world with a huge carbon footprint, but we ignore that because it does not fit into our math…

And all of this would be somewhat bearable if those nuclear and coal-fired power plants could produce enough electricity for everyone in Europe, but they cannot, and the entire continent has found itself in limbo where we do not know whether we will have enough electricity to turn on the washing machine or whether we will wash clothes by hand in cold water.

Robert Fabek, an expert in energy and climate planning at the Hrvoje Požar Energy Institute, returns to the beginning of this story and reminds us that the scientific consensus on the existence of climate change has been achieved at the international level. He also states that the effects of climate change are already being felt through the rise in average global temperatures, through increasingly frequent and intense heatwaves, and through rising sea levels, changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation, and extreme weather events such as hurricane-force winds in many parts of the world.

And the answer to all this is the transition to so-called green energy, that is, the replacement of fossil fuels with energy that has no emissions or very low greenhouse gas emissions. He does not believe that this transition caused the crisis and cites something entirely different as the reasons.

– The causes of this energy crisis are related to the relatively sudden increase in energy demand at the end of the Covid-19 pandemic and now due to the war in Ukraine following the reduction of natural gas supply, as well as coal and oil from Russia. The green transition has stimulated the development of renewable energy technologies and enabled a faster reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. Of course, such things cannot be solved overnight, and this winter will be the first real test that will show how vulnerable we actually are, and at the same time how prepared we are for such challenges – emphasized Fabek.

He also reminds us that nuclear energy received the status of a ‘green’ energy source with the acceptance of the European Commission’s proposal to expand the sustainable taxonomy by the European Parliament in early July this year. In his opinion, the use of nuclear energy in electricity production certainly has a positive impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the EU, about a quarter of electricity is produced in nuclear power plants.

– Of course, it is not equally represented in all countries and does not have the same status. The negative image of nuclear energy has been contributed to by accidents in nuclear power plants, the last of which in 2011 in Fukushima influenced the gradual abandonment of electricity production in nuclear power plants in Germany. On the other hand, some countries like France, the United Kingdom, and China are increasingly relying on nuclear energy.

The energy crisis resulting from the reduction of oil and gas supply from Russia has also resulted in greater engagement of nuclear and coal-fired power plants. Increased use of coal is a temporary measure aimed at ensuring a stable energy supply to the market. The use of coal, as well as other fossil fuels, can have a place in the energy transition towards completely renewable energy, but only with the use of carbon capture and geological storage technology. This is a technology applicable to large industrial and energy facilities during the period leading to complete decarbonization – emphasized Fabek.

Not only is the energy transition not responsible for the crisis, but the crisis of energy sources was caused by insufficient commitment of EU countries to the energy transition, believes Igor Dekanić, a professor at the Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum. According to him, a paradox occurred immediately after the Paris Agreement in 2015, when the agenda for the global green transition was agreed upon.

– At that time, there was a decrease in the price of fossil primary energy sources, which slowed down the adoption of implementation mechanisms, from a global network for measuring greenhouse gas emissions to the establishment of a global investment fund, as announced in Paris, of 100 billion US dollars annually for investments in the development of sustainable energy systems in less developed countries, which has started to lag behind.

The decrease in oil prices, especially natural gas, led to greater imports and the dependence of European countries on oil and natural gas imports from the Russian Federation. This fact, along with the increase in geopolitical tensions between Russia and Ukraine and Russia’s armed attack on Ukraine in February of this year, all resulted in the outbreak of the latest energy crisis in 2022 – believes Dekanić, who also states that, like the crisis of 1973, this one will accelerate the energy transition towards a renewed focus on energy savings and more rational use of natural resources, greater use of renewable energy sources along with the overall development of more sustainable energy systems, especially in Europe.

In response to Lider’s question about what would happen if we ignored and completely disregarded climate change and continued to use easily accessible and cheap energy sources from fossil fuels, Dekanić replies that this would accelerate the exit from recession, stagflation, or some similar economic disturbance that follows in the short term, but it would also have long-term unpredictable global consequences.

What do other experts in the industry think about all this and is the price of the green transition in crisis, despite the climate, too high, read in the printed and digital edition of the Lider weekly.