Editorial

THE TIME FOR HESITANCY IS WELL AND TRULY OVER

By 2050 Europe wants to become the world’s first climate neutral continent. At least that is what it says in the EU’s ‘Green Deal’. To achieve this goal, net greenhouse gas emissions must be lowered by 55% against the level of 1990 by the year 2030. It is an ambitious goal to be sure, but a necessary one. Still, doubts are in order as to whether it can actually be achieved. As the IEA (International Energy Agency) announced in its most recent energy report, global energy production in 2021 once again generated more CO2 emissions than in the year before. The steep rise in demand for electrical energy could not be satisfied by additional renewable energy sources. As a result, coal-based energy production reached a new all-time high, increasing CO2 emissions by 7 per cent. According to IEA experts, we should expect further growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the next three years. At the same time, emissions from energy production are required to be reduced by 50 per cent by 2030, that is, within around seven and a half years. No doubt a rather gloomy perspective. Negative scenarios like these are aggravated by the war in Ukraine, which keeps pushing inflation-driven fossil energy prices even higher. Nearly half of the natural gas consumed in the EU is sourced from Russia (as per February 2022). To evade this dependence on Russia, politicians are already demanding a reopening of disused coal-fired power plants or, as in the UK, a revival of the controversial fracking operations. However, Europe’s political leaders should be aware that there is currently no better argument for giving up fossil energy. It is not insight or political vision but the force of necessity that should encourage us to quickly press on with the expansion of renewable resources. There is no time for hesitancy. If acted on properly, the Russian threat could even turn into a turbo catalyst for an energy turnaround. A fast, massive expansion of renewable energies would also ease the current energy price tensions. After all, as energy experts universally agree, the availability of green power would lower wholesale prices by eliminating the need for expensive coal- and gas-fired power plants and driving them out of the market. In principle, this should open interesting perspectives also for hydropower. However, this oldest form of renewable energy is still struggling to overcome image problems and a strong opposing lobby in the political arena. A perfect example is the Taxonomy, a Delegate Legislative Act included in the EU’s Green Deal. Its original intention was to provide guidelines for citizens and investors as an incentive to invest in climate friendly technologies. Still, one may have one’s doubts about how many scientifically relevant details went into the decision to include nuclear energy and natural gas in the EU Taxonomy, thus giving them a ‘green’ seal of approval. Seeing a climate killer like natural gas being retroactively awarded a “sustainable” label almost seems comical, if only the situation would not be so serious. What is especially concerning, however, is that the small-scale hydropower sector has been denied the same honour. According to the EU Taxonomy, it is still rated as “not environmentally beneficial”. As a further consequence, small-scale hydropower stations will not be eligible for public funding, and financing such projects via banks and investors will become more expensive. It is a highly questionable decision, especially at a time when each renewably generated kilowatt-hour counts – and when the very technology is disadvantaged which, unlike volatile forms of energy such as wind power or photovoltaics, is able to ensure grid stability. It is high time to correct this unwarranted discrimination.

I wish all our valued readers an enjoyable and informative time reading the latest edition of zek HYDRO.

Best regards, Roland Gruber Editor-in-Chief