EV Battery Pack Automated Production Line Equipped with Orange Robot Arms. Modern Electric Car Smart Factory. Row of Advanced Robotic Arms inside Bright Plant Assemble Batteries for Automotive Industry© EM Imagery stock.adobe.com

Selective outrage works against clean energy

, ,

You can find a lot of posts and articles based on what they at Saturday Night Live once called ‘feel facts’: “They are not technically facts, but they feel true”. The energy transition is particularly affected by feel facts; you read them every day in reader letters and on social media. For those with negative views on renewable energy or electric mobility, statements like “solar panels are the new asbestos” or “electric cars run on coal power in practice” are of course music to their ears. Even if they don’t make sense… Besides these feel facts, the energy transition also suffers from selective outrage. There are so many examples of this that it is hard to choose….

Selective outrage part 1. Electric vehicles (EVs) are often dismissed as unethical because many batteries contain cobalt, and indeed some of it comes from dubious sources, sometimes even associated with slave and child labour. Unethical working conditions are of course out of the question, but what makes this an example of selective outrage? The point is that cobalt is also used in the refining process of petroleum. Crude oil contains between 0.1% and 2.5% sulphur, depending on the source of origin. When burned, the sulphur from this crude oil is converted into sulphur oxides – an air pollutant that can dissolve in rainwater and cause acid rain that is harmful to crops, forests and aquatic animals.Cobalt plays a crucial role as a catalyst in removing sulphur from oil. Cobalt is widely used worldwide as a catalyst in this desulphurisation process. So anyone who wants to dismiss EVs on their cobalt use shows a particular display of selective indignation if that person in question drives a diesel or petrol car….

By the way, the nice thing about those EV batteries is that we are getting better and better at recycling them, try doing that with a tank of burned diesel fuel!

Selective indignation part 2. “All those solar panels will create a new mountain of waste once they inevitably have to be discarded” (you can also often find this example with wind turbine blades as a topic). Of course, you cannot deny that solar and wind energy have an environmental impact and require a lot of resources in their production. This is eagerly exploited. You no doubt know the ever-present picture of discarded wind turbine blades being buried by a bulldozer.

But is it true that by investing massively in renewable energy, we are creating a new and horrifyingly large mountain of waste? No! 

In fact, the most extreme scenario for PV waste in 2050 comes to 0.0035% of the total waste ash from coal-fired power plants . Yes, renewable energy requires a lot of materials. The sector is also increasingly careful about this, as evidenced by the fact that we have already set up recycling systems for solar panels (PV Cycle) and batteries (via BEBAT). So the renewable energy sector is clearly aware of this, and is anticipating developments. The fossil industry, on the other hand, pollutes massively more, and often gets away with it, without having to take responsibility for their pollution. Contrary to what is often claimed, an onshore wind turbine ‘recovers’ the environmental cost associated with its production and construction in as little as 6 to 9 months. All production after year 1 therefore makes a net contribution to a better environment and climate.

Selective outrage part 3. Yes, renewable energy needed hefty subsidies in the past to compete with fossil energy. With ever-matured technology, that subsidy requirement is rapidly decreasing or no longer requires direct support at all, as is the case for solar panels. Yet renewable energy is frowned upon by many because of those subsidies. Meanwhile, report after report are published by all kinds of courts of auditors and international organisations about the support the fossil industry gets from governments. In Belgium, according to a minimalist calculation, some 14 billion euros in subsidies flow to fossil fuels. At a maximum calculation, this rises to at least 19.7 billion euros . So how selective is the outcry against the support that renewable energy gets, to compensate for the fact that fossil energy is cheaper because the external (environmental) costs such as air pollution, noise pollution and climate damage are not passed on to the customer? Imagine the impetus we would give to the energy transition if we could use those fossil energy subsidies in a structural way for energetic renovations, or for a tax shift in favour of a degreased electricity bill and thus encourage heat pumps!

Are you, your company, local government or organisation looking for an inspiring speaker or consultant on the energy transformation our society needs? Who sees the links between renewable energy, electric mobility and other sectors? Who can guide people and companies through the multitude of choices and opportunities offered by the energy transition? I like the challenge of explaining this complex reality in an understandable way. Send a message to dirk@2degNRG.eu and I will get in touch soon.

/by

Explaining the Concept of Guarantees of Origin for Green Electricity

Have you ever tried explaining to your aunt what a Guarantee of Origin (GO) is and why it matters? Or perhaps you’ve pondered whether green electricity is akin to organic potatoes? With the surge in families and businesses opting for green energy contracts, these questions become increasingly relevant. So, let’s delve into the intricacies of green electricity and the role of Guarantees of Origin.

Green electricity isn’t as straightforward to grasp as tangible products like a bottle of wine. Unlike wine, where you can simply slap a label on the bottle, electricity operates in a realm dictated solely by the laws of physics, not contracts or regulations. Thus, ensuring transparency about its renewable sources requires a robust system – enter the Guarantee of Origin.

But what exactly is a Guarantee of Origin? Think of it as a ‘green label’ certifying that 1 MWh of electricity stems from renewable sources like wind, solar, hydro, or geothermal. When consumers purchase power backed by a GO, they can trust they’re using genuinely green energy. Once the power is sold, the GO is retired, preventing double counting and maintaining the integrity of green energy contracts.

However, criticisms abound. Some consumers struggle to reconcile the idea that a Norwegian GO can vouch for green power in Flanders. This is because many GOs issued to Norwegian hydro plants find their way to other countries, which turns the Norwegian power grid grey and results in an energy mix with much less renewables. Despite the challenge of such hard to grasp functioning, the GO system remains a beacon of reliability amidst the complexities of energy sourcing.

A critic once likened the GO system to a bag of mixed potatoes with only some being organic, questioning its efficacy. However, this metaphor overlooks crucial distinctions. Unlike potatoes, where organic ones can be physically separated, all electrons in the grid are indistinguishable. Yet, consumers are increasingly willing to pay for certainty regarding their power’s renewable origin, driving positive change in the energy landscape.

Moving forward, there’s a pressing need for dialogue and transparency in defining green power. Extending the GO system to encompass non-renewable sources could level the playing field and ensure fairness in the energy market. Ultimately, empowering consumers with knowledge about their energy sources is key to fostering a sustainable future.

Are you seeking an engaging speaker or advisor on renewable energy, adept at demystifying complex concepts like Guarantees of Origin? Look no further! Reach out to me at dirk@2degNRG.eu, and let’s navigate the renewable energy landscape together. Your inquiries and insights are always welcome!

/by

When will we consider clean energy normal?

It may surprise you, but in my view, “normal” is a particularly dangerous word. Our brains are programmed to conform what we observe to what we consider normal. Without thinking about it, most people classify the world this way. A lot of things are considered normal, but what happens implicitly and automatically because of this is that new (sustainable) alternatives are unconsciously seen as ‘abnormal’ or deviant. And abnormal things very often collide with being unknown and therefore unloved.

This division between normal and deviant is hampering the evolution towards an economy and society based on clean renewable energy, the energy transition. For instance, a lot of people still consider it normal to heat on natural gas. As a result, the sustainable alternative, the heat pump, encounters a lot of scepticism because of its unusualness. For most people, a car is still normal if it runs on petrol or diesel. That is why parking spaces for electric vehicles are marked with symbols of power plugs on the ground, but as long as no petrol pumps are painted on the other parking spaces, we unconsciously send the message that fossil fuel is normal and electric driving is abnormal. So in this way, we unconsciously divide the world into what we think is normal and what we see as deviant. A petrol or diesel car is familiar, and our habits are attuned to it. If you then suddenly use a car with which you no longer have to go to an malodorous petrol station every fortnight, but which you just have to plug into a charging station on your driveway every few days, it raises questions. And questions very often lead to resistance….

Until you realise that that heat pump is not only better for the climate and the environment, but also for us as people. For example, they can often cool, a need we are increasingly facing. And you realise that it is actually tremendously comfortable when you no longer have to go to that gas station to dump stinky fuel into your car, but can just plug the EV in at home, just like you do with your phone.

Normal means ordinary, until you realise that your new ‘unusual’ situation or habit actually has many advantages over what you have hitherto considered normal. At that point, what you consider normal changes, and so does what is ordinary for you.

That change generates resistance is – well – normal. That this resistance is fuelled by media, social or otherwise, just makes it that much harder to get the reality and benefits of new technologies to permeate. Good examples are essential here. Let’s show that heat pumps provide houses with comfortable living conditions and that EVs are more pleasant to drive than combustion engine cars!

Often, media coverage of innovation is based on misjudgements. Many people, including journalists, underestimate (the speed of) innovation and react from their unconscious ‘normal’ frame of reference. English newspaper The Telegraph is known for a conservationist reflex in its reporting. For instance, on 7 September 2023, there was an article by the infamous Matthew Lynn in The Telegraph saying that despite all the government’s “increasingly desperate attempts”, no one wants to switch to an electric car. Fortunately, some sharp minds were quick to point out that the same author wrote an article for Bloomberg in 2007 about the fact that everyone was very happy with their Nokia and Blackberry phones and so no one wanted to buy such a new-fangled iPhone. After all, who wants a phone without keys, and you didn’t need to be able to look up anything on the internet with your phone, right? Phones were for calling and texting, everything else was superfluous… The man was clearly not judged on it. Just like Steve Ballmer, the then CEO of Microsoft, who adamantly claimed that the iPhone would at most be able to capture a marginal share of the market.

But even captains of industry who successfully innovate and set up companies of their own that prove to be disruptive often get stuck in “normal thinking” and therefore underestimate the future potential of their companies. In 2005, for instance, YouTube’s CTO and co-founder Steve Chen doubted the company had a great future: “There’s just not that many videos I want to watch.” Not an example from the renewable energy sector, of course, but important because it shows that even disruptive companies can fall into the trap of ‘normal’ thinking. 

What is worse is that the (social) media also likes to carry/enforce messages based on completely erroneous or out-of-context facts. That selective outrage is holding back the energy transition is clear. But that’s material for another blog….

How can we all together make clean energy normal? How do we break through the prejudices and misconceptions that prevent our society from fully engaging in the energy transition? By showing that it can be done, how it can be done and what benefits it offers for people, the environment and the climate. I would love to help you with that!

Are you looking for an inspiring speaker or advisor on the energy transition our society needs? Who sees the links between renewable energy and electric mobility? Who can guide people and companies through the multitude of choices and opportunities offered by the energy transition? I like the challenge of explaining this complex reality in an understandable way. Send an e-mail to dirk@2degNRG.eu and I will get in touch soon.

/by