I have a feeling that the debate on expanding renewable energy in the region that has opened up in recent weeks will stand and no longer be closed wrongly. The well-known “renewable yes, but not like that” slogan of those movements opposed to the introduction of renewable energy in the country has always lacked an alternative to justify this “yes”. Now, after several public statements and reports, we are already beginning to guess. The alternative is summarized in the priority or exclusive expansion of photovoltaics on house roofs or otherwise on urban and degraded areas. Finally something tangible to discuss. And we have to be blunt: this alternative doesn’t hold up.
We have to be very clear on one point: the energy transition does not only work with photovoltaics on roofs, simply because the capacities or areas are not sufficient. It’s technical nonsense and, as I’ve said on occasion, verges on anti-science. The best study I know of on this is a comprehensive European study of actual rooftop generation capacity. For Spain, it offers generation capabilities of 65 terawatt hours per year (TWh/year), which is only slightly more than the production of the seven nuclear reactors operating in our country. To give you an idea: Spain consumes around 250 TWh/year of electricity but, and this is relevant, more than 1,000 TWh/year of final energy.
The energy transition process implies that the majority of this final energy consumption is electrified directly or indirectly, which means that we will have to generate much more electricity than these 250 TWh in the future. Even if we succeed in reducing the energy consumption of our society, it will be difficult for the photovoltaic on the roof to generate more than 10% of our energy needs. This is the undeniable reality the numbers show.
There are many more studies on the power generation potential on roofs, but unlike the mentioned study, they do not analyze a real potential but rather a raw or technical potential, ie the potential that could be achieved by filling all surfaces with panels. technically sufficient. But as anyone who has worked in self-consumption knows, there are many limitations that mean that the technical potential cannot be fully exploited. Limitations of property protection, the adequacy of the covers (many do not accept charges or contain asbestos), economics, connection to the grid, the sheer geometry of the panels or, above all, social use. Would you fill the 50 square meters (m²) of your penthouse terrace with panels? These 50 m² are technical potential, but we usually use the terraces for other purposes.
More information
The reality is that we can only show a fraction of the technical potential with panels, but many insist on confusing the technical potential with the real. Experts have already declared, both actively and passively, that this is not the case and that continuing in the confusion would only result in missing emissions reduction targets.
Information is the first tool against climate change. Subscribe to her.
Subscribe to
Renewable crops on urban land
Once it is clear that the rooftop energy transition is technically unsustainable, we must also analyze the rest of the proposals that complement this idea, such as B. Using urban land instead of rural land. This proposal not only ignores how renewable developments work, but also appears to have failed to assess the consequences of widespread renewable crop development on urban land.
With few exceptions, renewable energy systems of a certain size are never installed on arable land. The reason is easy to understand: the cost of buildable land is almost always prohibitive, it would double the cost of the project and certainly make it impossible. If someone tries to force renewable developments onto urban land, the only thing that will result is that almost none of them are finished. But that’s probably the least of the problems. Even if we could afford it, the massive implementation of these developments on arable land would likely have undesirable consequences for the population.
First, the massive use of arable land for renewable energy development would result in a shortage of it for new housing developments and could catalyze a new real estate bubble with obvious social consequences. But beyond that, it would endanger any rational urban organization. Will we use urban land to install renewable energy instead of installing hospitals, health centers, institutions, homes or schools? Will we send devices miles from homes instead of putting power plants there that don’t need to be close to the city center? The energy transition needs massive developments and it seems to me that people do not want to understand what this means in terms of area or the consequences of some proposals.
Finally, proposals such as the use of degraded soils or even greenhouses will also be read. Unfortunately, these are crude and ill-conceived suggestions. We all want developments on degraded land, it would be easier even for developers, but if they don’t go there en masse, we have to ask ourselves why and, above all, what we should do to make it so, not just look for one Requirement that would lead to a reduction in the use of renewable energy. And as for the greenhouses…
In short, I think that before introducing such proposals, it is necessary to analyze their cost, what percentage of the greenhouse area could really be covered with panels without having unwanted effects on the plants, or whether our traditional cultures would accept it . The same applies to road or canal coverage proposals that have technical difficulties and high cost overruns and are therefore not developed. You can’t take a satellite image, fill the areas you want with plates and say it can be done. That’s not a reasonable suggestion.
Multiply renewable energy by four
Let me be clear: in order to achieve the energy transition, Spain needs to install hundreds of thousands of renewable megawatts (MW). Yes, hundreds of thousands, we will need at least between 200,000 and 300,000 MW between solar and wind power. Now we have just over 50,000 MW, so the installation needs to be multiplied by at least four and probably more. This is reality, this is math, it is physics, and math and physics are neither negotiable nor ignorable because it is not convenient to accept the reality they show us.
Spanish society must understand that, given the need for decarbonization, the installation of renewable energy must be massive and as fast as possible to reduce both the impact on the climate and the energy dependency that is causing so much damage to Europe. The what (renewable energy) and the how much (the thousands of MW we need to install annually) cannot be questioned. If we achieve this consensus and acceptance, we will be able to manage the conflicts that the installation of renewable energy obviously has, without the temptation to resort to denial to avoid assuming that uncomfortable contradictions are to be managed are.
And then we will be able to discuss, with undeniable data and needs and without lengthy excuses, how to improve the implementation of renewable energy in Spain for all next generations of projects. Because despite the fact that it is not well known or seen in the media, there are many people and organizations who have worked to improve renewable developments so that they have less environmental impact and greater positive local impact, so implementing renewable energies is responsible and socially accepted. This is the way and not to deny the majority as some pulpits irresponsibly do.
We must not allow the debate on installing renewable energy to go awry again. These are the numbers, this is the reality and this is the technical impracticability of the proposal behind “Renewable yes, but not like that”. You have to tell society. And we must also ban from policies those proposals that aim to twist science and evidence on the basis of voluntarism, because that leads to nothing other than climate retardation. Voluntarism is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and if we try to improve society by turning our backs on science and reason, we will not be very different from the worst political and social movements in history. We can’t let any magical thinking shut down the climate denier, so we don’t do what science tells us while we get angry at those who remind us. Without science there is no progress, and ignoring mathematics will only lead mankind to disaster.
Peter Fresh He is the former Director of the Energy Transition of the Valencian Community and author of “The Future of Energy in 100 Questions”.
Follow CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT on Facebook and Twitteror sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits