Sailing against the wind

How can the energy transition still gain momentum?

The objective pursued by the German government with the energy transition is clear: the energy supply should switch to renewable energies and primary energy consumption be halved by 2050. Fossil energy sources, such as oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy, should give way to renewable sources, that is, solar and wind energy, hydropower, biomass and geothermal energy. Far less clear, however, is the means to this end. Infrastructure expansion in Germany is progressing only slowly. Convincing people here of scale of the effort required to meet the targets of the energy transition is sometimes not so easy. Citizens are rallying against wind turbines and power lines. Just as hotly debated is the matter of expedient state funding. The question remains: How can the energy transition be shaped in a way that makes sense?

Considering the progress of the energy transition so far, Professor Mario Liebensteiner, Assistant Professor for Energy Markets and Energy Systems Analysis at FAU, sees above all one thing: policy failure. His summary of state subsidies as a means for reducing CO₂ emissions: ‘Germany has the highest per capita subsidies for renewable energies in the EU and probably even worldwide. But emissions have only decreased moderately so far. The financial expense is disproportionate to the return, and the subsidies miss their mark.’ As an expert for the energy market, he advocates questioning the effectiveness of such subsidies and grants. In his opinion, what is missing is a genuine debate on cost and benefit.

He further criticises that through the direct subsidies for renewable energies the most expensive conventional form of energy is displaced in the electricity supply first and the cheapest is the last to go. This leads to the unwanted effect that gas, which is still very clean in comparison, disappears from the market first and coal last.’ He adds: ‘If we subsidise renewable energies directly, we distort electricity prices and hinder investments in other energies, for example electricity storage.’

An argument in favour of CO₂ tax

In a current research project, Mario Liebensteiner points out the direct connection: ‘By promoting renewable energies, investments in electricity storage become less profitable. However, to phase out fossil energies we need this technology too. After all, the energy has to be stored somewhere so that we can use it when the sun doesn’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow.’

In Liebensteiner’s view, another problem associated with direct subsidies lies in the political popularity of technologies: ‘Politicians who are not fully au fait with the latest state of the art of research and who, of course, cannot see into the future either, are now backing certain technologies, such as solar or wind energy. But they’ve no idea whether these are really the technologies of the future.’ He believes, furthermore, that most approaches are inconsistent: ‘It’s not at all clear what level of funding would really make sense.’ Liebensteiner explains that subsidies and other types of funding are only necessary as long as a technology is still in the development phase and not yet market-ready.

His recommendation: it would be better to stake our bets much more on market-based instruments such as CO₂ tax or CO₂ price. ‘We economists have spoken with a single voice in favour of an internationally coordinated CO₂ price as the main instrument of an effective climate policy for a long time, but politics has ignored this suggestion for decades,’ Liebensteiner points out. However, the benefits are obvious: ‘In principle, a company is free to rely on fossil fuels and pay more for them. But practice will show that they will attempt to adjust their production because demand will also react. The majority will buy products that are cheaper because they are less carbon-intensive.’

Is the energy transition just symbolic politics?

As an expert on the energy market, Liebensteiner is unwilling to accept the argument that such a CO₂ price would be socially unjust: ‘Economic theory indicates that levying a price on CO₂ is probably the most cost-effective approach. At the same time, it could also support those who would perhaps be too disadvantaged – low-income households in periphery regions who are not connected to public transport or have difficulty in switching to alternative types of heating.’ Other parts of this tax revenue, he says, could be invested in additional climate policy measures as well as in research and development: ‘In this way, we could perhaps advance other technologies in future that we’re not yet aware of.’

Mario Liebensteiner also criticises the fact that the energy transition is frequently accompanied by symbolic politics only: ‘Let’s float the idea of banning domestic flights: overall, CO₂ emissions from domestic flights make up only 0.8 percent of Germany’s CO₂ emissions. In addition, transportation, and with it emissions, would shift elsewhere, so that in the end we would save even less than the 0.8 percent.’ He believes that a climate policy is needed which also has the support of society as a whole: ‘Citizens find tough measures, such as banning diesel cars, rather frustrating and inconvenient. We need to make sure that they support the energy transition.’

How this can be achieved is something that Dr Thorsten Winkelmann from the Institute of Political Science, is examining too. He thinks there is more to the resistance against wind turbines or power lines than just ‘not in my backyard’ protests: ‘Those citizens rallying forces are not simply rejecting the energy transition but instead have specific concerns.’ His findings revealed that their interests in this context range from environmental protection and nature conservation to landscape and heritage protection as well as economic reasons.

‘We’re clashing with animal rights activists who complain that the rotor blades of wind turbines kill bats or endangered bird species,’ says Thorsten Winkelmann, who deals particularly with infrastructure policy:

‘The wind turbines or power lines are regarded by the local communities as an interference that destroys the landscape and the country idyll. Above all tourist areas additionally fear economic damage through them.’ It also leads to social upheaval: ‘While landowners who make land available profit economically through high leasing income, the immediate environment has to put up with the downsides.’

Local authorities must profit from the energy transition

For Thorsten Winkelmann, these infrastructure conflicts pose a dilemma: ‘Normally in democratic decision-making processes, it always boils down to a compromise solution. But that’s not possible here. At the end of the day, an either/or solution to the question of whether a power line or a wind turbine is built or not must be found.’ On top, there are problems which, although unintended, must be taken into consideration: ‘In Bavaria, the 10H rule was introduced quite some time ago. This prescribes that a wind turbine must have a minimum distance of ten times its height from the nearest residential development. The outcome is that the expansion of wind power in Bavaria has ground almost entirely to a standstill. If underground cables are laid instead of building power lines, farmers complain that it heats up the soil.’

Instead of attempting to create acceptance through various participation formats, the approach adopted until now, Winkelmann is in favour of much broader compensation: ‘An undoubtedly effective approach is to create not only monetary and individual compensation but also compensation that is immaterial and collective. Affected local communities must profit – for example, by providing them straight away with fast internet if the ground is being ripped up anyway to lay an underground cable.’

The portfolio of measures for mastering the energy transition also addresses the question of how rural areas can be used in the best possible way for both agricultural production and the generation of renewable energies. Professor Perdita Pohle from the Institute of Geography at FAU, is tackling this challenge within the collaborative research project ‘View into the Future’ (BLIZ). ‘Demands on rural areas are very diversified, and competition for land is fierce,’ she says. These areas are the main production sites for food and fodder, wood and energy. They have important ecological functions and make a significant contribution to protecting the environment, nature and the landscape. In addition, they are living, recreational and economic space for a large part of the population.

Use land in multiple ways

‘Societal demands, not least as a result of developments in energy and climate policy, present complex challenges for Bavaria’s rural areas,’ she says. Added to this are partially competing statutory provisions between legislation at EU, national and federal state level. She thinks that it is important in this field of tension to negotiate and discuss again and again with stakeholders from politics, environment, (agricultural) economy and civil society on what should happen on which percentage of land. Developing viable concepts for how this can succeed under the conditions of climate change, especially in Bavaria, is a task that Professor Pohle is working on together with her research team.

One option: use energy production areas in multiple ways. ‘Photovoltaic systems on stands are conceivable, under which there is grazing land, specific types of vegetables and cereals are cultivated, or areas are designated for nature conservation, for example as flowering meadows,’ says Pohle. Another option would be short rotation coppices (SRCs). ‘Planting fast-growing trees, such as poplars or willows, on low-yield agricultural land with the aim of producing wood chips as a renewable raw material within short rotation cycles offers ecological advantages and is economical,’ says Pohle. ‘The trees bind CO₂ and at the same time serve as a reproducible raw material for generating renewable energy. What’s more, they are a source of income for the farmers.’

And yet especially the latter example reveals the conflicts potentially associated with these options: ‘SRCs are agroforestry systems in which trees are usually planted in strips on arable land or grassland. A lot of farmers have problems accepting trees on agricultural land because of the strict legal separation of agricultural land and woodland as well as the different job descriptions for farmers and foresters.’

How acceptance among farmers towards such sustainable land use options can be increased is just one of the numerous questions that need answering en route to an expedient implementation of the energy transition. This comes as little surprise to FAU researchers working in political science, economics and geography. After all, the energy transition is a major project that involves the whole of society and is unique in German history in terms of scale and consequences.

And yet especially the latter example reveals the conflicts potentially associated with these options: ‘SRCs are agroforestry systems in which trees are usually planted in strips on arable land or grassland. A lot of farmers have problems accepting trees on agricultural land because of the strict legal separation of agricultural land and woodland as well as the different job descriptions for farmers and foresters.’

How acceptance among farmers towards such sustainable land use options can be increased is just one of the numerous questions that need answering en route to an expedient implementation of the energy transition. This comes as little surprise to FAU researchers working in political science, economics and geography. After all, the energy transition is a major project that involves the whole of society and is unique in German history in terms of scale and consequences.

FAU research magazine friedrich

This article first appeared in our research magazine friedrich. You can order the print issue (only available in German) free of charge at presse@fau.de.