Roaming weg in Europa: goed voor je geld, slecht voor het klimaat

Deze week stond de telecom sector positief in het licht doordat de al zo lang vergruisde roaming tarieven eindelijk werden afgeschaft binnen de Europese Unie en nog enkele andere landen (voor ingewijden de Rip of Surchages)

Europa en zijn ambtenaren mogen zich terecht een pluim op de hoed steken, ook al heeft het nog enkele jaren te lang geduurd door het succesvolle lobby werk van een aantal operatoren. Door de explosie van gebruik van data heeft men zich uiteindelijk toch neergelegd bij deze maatregel, want men denkt een nieuwe marge bron te hebben gevonden.

Paradoxaal genoeg kunnen ze wel eens gelijk krijgen, daar de vraag naar bytes jaarlijks meer dan verdubbelt door onze wens om constant op onze slimme telefoon naar filmpjes te willen kijken. Deze hersenloze activiteit vreet nu eenmaal data en zo zitten we allemaal op de eerste rij als er weer eens iets gebeurd in Verwegiestan.

Maar dit voyeurisme komt met een prijs, iedere doorsnee Google sessie (20 minuten+) verbruikt zoveel als een ketel water tot kook te brengen en hier wringt dan ook het schoentje. In tijden waar iedereen eendrachtig roept dat wij in tegenstelling tot dhr. Trump het klimaatakkoord van Parijs wel even zullen bereiken, is het goedkoop maken van instant online kennis in tegenspraak.

Beslissingen kunnen met de beste intenties worden genomen, maar kunnen ook de meest verschrikkelijke gevolgen kennen. Het stimuleren van consumptie zit in de kern / het bloed van ons economisch model. Het willen van meer is niet te stoppen, en zo wordt onze byte dus steeds goedkoper, maar verbruiken we jaarlijks ook steeds meer.

Dat een aantal studies allang hebben aangetoond dat het online kijken jonge kinderen dom maakt en afstompt is geen reden, maar wel een aandachtspunt. Erger nog is het feit dat men niet lijkt te snappen waar energie efficientie om lijkt te gaan. Het gaat om zuiniger omspringen met de middelen van de aarde en dat begint natuurlijk bij onszelf. Nu hou ik er niet van om met vingertjes te wijzen en dus dienen we in oplossingen te blijven denken.

Bewust maken is al één ding en het zou de overheid sieren mochten ze duidelijk maken hoeveel energie er nodig is voor wat, zodat mensen minstens weten wat hun verantwoordelijkheid is en wat ze er zelf kunnen aan doen.

Afgelopen donderdag was ik in Amsterdam op een namiddag georganiseerd door Energiea (dagelijkse nieuwsbrief van het FD) waar onder andere Dhr. Nijpels kwam uitleggen waar Nederland met het energiebeleid, en dan vooral met de verduurzaming ervan, toe gaat. Er was ook nog een korte speech van een directeur van een groot energiebedrijf die mij enigszins naast de kwestie leek te praten. In plaats van concrete voorstellen over het bijvoorbeeld sluiten van de kolencentrales die massaal veel broeikasgassen uitstoten, had hij het over de oneerlijke verdeling van de kosten tussen burgers en bedrijven en dan vooral de industrie. Een aantal beloftevolle jonge bedrijven mocht in een korte presentatie hun dienst of product toelichten, en dit was bij verre het meest interessante van de namiddag. De afsluitende presentatie van Remco De Boer zette iedereen weer netjes met de voeten op de grond door te stellen dat we helemaal niet richting Parijs aan het gaan zijn.

Een zeer correcte analyse, maar ik vrees dat hij een roepende in de woestijn is en dat er niet echt niemand luistert in Den Haag. Dit laatste is ook lastig, want er is nog geen nieuwe regering en de bestaande regeert vooral naar de waan van de dag. Het aanstellen van een Belgische informateur, in het geval de formatie over het jaar heen gaat, lijkt een goed idee gezien wij in België ruime expertise hebben in het opzetten van onmogelijke coalities met een oneindig geduld (België is toch niet voor niets wereldkampioen regeringsvormen). Indien men toch zou kiezen voor een minderheidskabinet dan zal naar ik vrees de haalbaarheid van het klimaatakkoord van Parijs niet direct dichterbij komen.

Natuurlijk kan men terzake de oneerlijke verdeling van kosten altijd een debat voeren over wie de factuur moet betalen voor de verduurzaming van onze energiehuishouding, maar uiteindelijk zijn we een eenheid. De industrie is geen apart beest, maar is daar om voor ons te produceren, om winst te maken en zo welvaart te creëren.

Ach we weten het allemaal eigenlijk wel, we moeten vooral veel minder gaan produceren en consumeren, want dat is de echte weg naar een duurzame samenleving waar minder schadelijke stoffen de lucht worden uitgestoten. De hete brij wordt in debatten vaak zorgvuldig vermeden en men presenteert vooral technische oplossingen die inderdaad ons energieverbruik zullen gaan vergroenen. Als we echter op het huidige niveau producten blijven produceren dan is wat wij in onze sector doen een maat voor niets.

Dit is geen discussie die onze sector zelf of alleen kan voeren, vermits wij gewoon de energie beschikbaar maken die anderen nodig hebben. Dat de discussie maatschappelijk al wordt gevoerd en alleen maar in belang gaat toenemen is 100% zeker. Goede nieuws is dat we door een echte verduurzaming van de economie, in combinatie met een beperking van de bevolkingsgroei onze voetafdruk zeker naar een aanvaardbaar niveau zouden moeten kunnen krijgen voor het einde van deze eeuw.

Federal Minister is shooting themselves in the foot

Despite the relative scale of our beautiful country every week something happens in our industry, even if there is no news to report is made is just news. Similarly last week where Minister Swethm a "rumor" the world in Belgium that sent yet but better would talk again with Europe because the objectives of 2030 were too strict.

That we 2030 at least 35% To achieve CO2 reduction is indeed at the current pace and vision is a challenging task. As you long enough you come with no vision roadmap develops without saying to this conclusion. That the timing was unhappy chosen only one week after the Prime Minister of Belgium Mr. Trump had execrated by walking away from the climate agreement of Paris was possibly not as convenient.

Therefore, earlier attacked the press about her and soon she was back whistled by the Prime Minister and was soon a victim sought and found. The spokeswoman had a communication mistake, take to the new because the previous spokeswoman is itself already left because of too much Dovecote on this cabinet. The abandonment of this cabinet has no limits and also points a little on a problem.

It is not the first time that our industry remains on site for a full parliamentary term chomping and in the last fifteen years have only Olivier Deleuze and to some extent Mr. Wathelet really matters in motion and is the palmares to achievements of all others as good as non-existent.

More important, however, is whether the wave of spontaneous anger and disenchantment in Europe about withdrawing America from the climate agreement countries can move to with real concrete far-reaching measures that will give the climate agreement teeth.

Coming back to yet another communication error of the Federal Minister for energy is one ignores the fact that she actually has a point because that Belgium and so also the regions with the current speed in no way the objectives of 2030 go pick up. Not to mention the 2020 objectives. That some regional ministers give the suggestion that if the need is high we are still green can buy abroad than does this prove the admission of weakness.

To me was asked if we still go get the CO2besparing and I could only respond that this involves a lot of figure work, but that at this time no one will develop in Belgium still projects of any scale. The many good consultants that we have working in Flanders or in Netherlands or in other countries in order to build a more stable work environment. All they confirm to me that there is currently no interest in Belgium and the regions is to develop projects seen simply the market not attractive.

What the various governments don't seem to understand is that this is only good for the historical status quo parties and especially the one with nuclear power stations or pull out rights. It is now as good as 100% that we will decide to again within a few years the nuclear power stations to keep open when I look at the the last half year and the total lack of new investments.

At the beginning of december 2016 I took part in a debate in a packed full House and when I shook everyone awake by saying that our nuclear power plants will remain open much longer and laughed a little nervous.

Now six months later in which no progress has been made in the field of vision and, above all, concrete choices with resources can the owners of the nuclear power plants get ready to the request in 2019 After the formation of a new Government. This will be the way to go even further to new investments do calving even though I must also say that it is never too late.

The power of change that came with this Federal Government normally would need to be in place is missing completely when it comes to our file. Messing around is also still the best word, It is no coincidence that a giant as ENI after less than five years threw in the towel (they have in 2012 Distrigas and Nuon bought) and that lampiris also by owner has changed.

And yet there are still possibilities and time to make progress, but the chance is smaller every day that during this Government there are still real choices be made go. Itself we focus almost entirely on Netherlands now that has given clear marching orders to redirect backlog. Of course, we continue to keep a finger on the pulse in case there are market opportunities back in Belgium.

Trump "jumps" into the unknown and drags climate Paris agreement with it.

The news last week was as expected the long-awaited announcement of the U.S. president to withdraw from this agreement. Not so much for reasons of substance, but it was one of his election promises and it was the former president Obama that this agreement had approved.

That America will step down now is paradoxically probably good news because just as with the British in Europe you better lose someone who don't really want to because otherwise you're constantly in the fighting zone. It is of course sad that one of the guide countries (If that would be it anyway) and the second largest polluter of the world is going to isolate itself above all diplomatic.

Besides that of the second largest polluter is completely wrong because America is at the very top in terms of energy consumption per capita and that makes it all the worse.

As said the departure of the current Americans can also cause something right, It can connect the others go and not just on climate right. The current agreement is just not strong enough and it is not far enough. The drive is now big countries like China, India and Europe to really try the agreement further.

The lack of a stick to hit in this agreement and the non-binding nature with which one can leave says everything, It is an option agreement full of good intentions, but much more, it is also not.

More important than the geblat by Mr. Trump are the tendencies in the still young yet sustainable market where progress is being made in technology. Last week I was a day at the trade fair Intersolar in Munich and attacked me anyway a few things on. One of the notable newcomers were the many battery manufacturers that all hope to get to go pick up the possible future market for local small-scale storage in combination with solar panels.

A whole room full of providers of all kinds of batteries seems to me today may still be what much of a good thing considering there is no financial underpinning of such investments and much less custom regulations in order to make this possible. However, it's been a while that clear the path of more sun and wind is impossible without changes to the way we use electricity and mainly use it when we need it.

It is of course beautiful that to 12:00our afternoon panels much muster only isn't there any consumption in the House considering there is no one at home (read much less consumption).

Another evolution in the market is the pursuit of integration solar panels in the roof so that we have been delivered from the many ugly roofs where now be imposed indiscriminately panels. Roof tiles with integrated solar cells were numerous present and are also becoming increasingly competitive and certainly if you're new to replace your roof should lay or. The Government can require over the coming years to work with these integrated solutions so that our landscape and especially the view is protected as much as possible.

What also stood out was the acquisition of this market by the Chinese and only Chinese. Surely there will be other manufacturers are only they went lost in the sea of Chinese names. Also, there were a limited number of Belgian companies, including young companies such as some entrepreneurs from Hasselt that along with Imec a PID box have developed that counteracts relegation for those panels that suffer from PID. That is in short the problem of panels that save electricity during the day and in some mysterious way difficult to discharge whereby the efficiency goes down.

We also had such a large park affected and the problem with this technology is as good as resolved immediately.

Also some funds who are interested to support us in our new initiative in Netherlands to among other things even more focus on the development of Sun (and wind). You see that more and more installers of solar panels also develop as parks to be less dependent on the whims of the market and subject to competition on the price. The same applies in reverse given the margins razor thin to develop parks and Governments very sharp count.

In the meantime we come more and more to the conclusion that there is currently in Belgium to develop little falls and are these activities at a very low ebb. Outdoor get some wind farms waiting everyone on what is to come and it is to be seen if one in the rue de la Loi understands that we as a country are no longer attractive to investments in sustainable energy to develop. Perhaps an exception for wind on sea, but also there the developers wait scared wondering if the Government dares to intervene given the current tendency for wind at sea can be built for free or read without subsidies.

Climate on the agenda or not?

That there these days is talk a lot about the climate may have in the first place with the beautiful weather to do which we enjoy now and to a lesser extent with the G7 Summit in Taormina in Sicily.

That the seven richest countries under other climate on the agenda is certainly positive in view of the urgency of the subject and especially the actions that must follow. It is a pity that the eyes again focused on the United States and especially his flamboyant member being Mr. Trump.

That he no color would confess or rather just don't want to say what he thinks is possibly due to the fact that he is diplomatically trying to behave and he carefully waiting for the right time to step out of the climate agreement.

The heads of Government of Europe translate his silence as positive only seems to me that pretty naive, because the best man has always tried to perform what he said during the election campaign. Especially in his own country he is difficult to be "policy" of one-liners and at least as many within his own party if outdoor.

The broken work week(Thursday holiday) also provides extra attention seen people now also have time to see the news and talking about it, philosophizing and possible effects of the way forward in our sector. In itself there are already many good intentions on paper and regardless of political color would anyone change sustainable energy management.

Only the price that we pay is not yet clear to top come and it is also very doubtful that it will accept. Outside the purely financial aspect of necessary investment requires it in particular for a new industrial revolution that will be felt also in the way we live.

The abyss of our current consumer society is getting closer even though we still accelerate the consumption behavior. The need for the growth of the State budget is so great for the needs (read budget deficits rid, money in war, pensions, infrastructure investment, ageing-related costs, etc.) that the economy continues to accelerate with cheap money (from ECB) in order to keep some growth and thus to get more money every year within.

Meanwhile, big statements made about free wind farms at sea and on the other hand, try the developers of these parks the head right to keep and they hope that the storm is going to lay. Very unlikely, moreover, because there are parties in the market playing Russian roulette by Sun- and build wind farms far below cost hoping for a future increase in current exhibitions.

It will be the energy companies in difficulty even further downwards pushing there their hope to find new business models in the durable sector now like snow in the Sun disappears. Or the Shell was that in Netherlands (Borssele wind) under heavy cost has provided in order to make a start to its preservation (or still image) or Dong which is also a flight forward seem to take it remains to be seen what its impact will be. On the strategy of Shell and Dong can also work if the investment itself this fall and at the same time their merit is that eventually we might be able to go back to the normal market forces faster.

Sell electricity generated from Sun and wind on the flow scholarships to high enough rates so that the grant can remain not fully. Many critics call long been murder on the so-called wrongful grants for the sustainable sector and only to do this, it will be good news. I did here some serious comments on the fossil sector (and nuclear power) can count on extensive support (political or financial). About Hickley Point is already enough written, but the 35 year grant that all needed to build these new nuclear power stations speaks for itself. It is a pity that we most critics then all of a sudden not hear. Also for oil is war on many fronts for decades, to the black gold to flow in our direction.

The countless dead, pollution and corruption are also long been rife in this sector where the largest oil stocks even in the hands of dictatorial regimes where we massive money to pumps. To do this, only one would want to make a folder for, This only happens best in small steps. Oil we need for a very long time, only we need to stop this as soon as possible in combustion engines to use and more sensible things with it that create more value.

Flemish energy vision, Digital gauges, Farewell to Dutch gas

Last Friday was in Flanders by the competent Minister Mr. Talam the Flemish energy vision presented. This starting contains a number of good accents, but is above all a confirmation of things we already have read in various other (no-obligation) documents such as the climate agreement of Paris, objectives of 2020/2030 from Europe, etc.

This first step is in any case necessary to outline the challenges and get some extra elements to put forward. One of the things is the introduction of heat in addition to electricity and natural gas as a viable alternative in the future. The same you see besides in Netherlands where one quite a while calls to move away from its natural gas given the gas bubble nears its end in Slochteren.

The Federation responsible of energy suppliers (Mrs.. Van der Laan) Netherlands sets right in the question or call only will bring us where to go should. At that point, we as a society and hence our political leaders hard deadlines in laws so that there is no doubt about the need for this change. Of course each sector lobbies to get as much as possible to delay, that you see in the car sector, the oil sector and even in the offshore wind sector. Change is now once on power with continuity and that is just what you need to to finance infrastructure projects.

The call from the Dutch energy sector to delay is understandable given the specific for Netherlands off natural gas for heating (and electricity production as base load energy) require huge adjustments for which one now not see the custom rule and legislation. If one says out loud against political 2030 moving away from natural gas than this must be also in hard laws casting so that the industry knows what he stands for and to inform the population that this is going to cost a lot of money.

Calling change is legitimate and moving away from our fossil addiction even more, only one must at the same time ensure that the continuity for the new technological choices secured through laws and regulations. That the hotel lobby will oppose the current industry is normally her future dominance with new markets is far from certain. Take the example of Nokia that in 2005 Yet the absolute number 1 was in the world of mobile telephony and completely missed the boat of the smartphones and thereby nearly complete the map is swept.

Or the same apply to the current giants in, for example, the oil sector is still not sure, but some of their will be disappear. Create a cover to a completely different business model is a Titans work and must start early. The stop and go policy of a company like Shell on sustainable energy points to doubt and is detrimental for their long term survival. The same also applies to companies in our sector that mostly leave until very late the rifle of shoulder have changed. How dominant they were from their historical monopoly how vulnerable one is in the new renewable energy sector.

That a company like Ebrahimi only recently under the new leadership of Mrs Kochner started to renewable energy is symtomatisch for many similar companies and their market share in installed capacity is small to as (compared to their classic production of nuclear energy, gas- or coal-fired power plants). Of course, there are also other such as Dong energy and Enel that do already have made choices and pick the fruits of today. Also in the low countries worked Eneco already than the others to the development of sustainable production are seen they historically had no significant position in large-scale electricity production.

Coming back to the Flemish energy vision in the long introductory text suggests that the real choices must be made together with the other regions and neighbouring countries. It is a pity that nowhere in the document begins by making visible goals, for example an annual objective as an example already had any ambition to express whether it be on the field of heat, saving or renewable energy had been. "Put your money where you mouth is" remains important and just as in the beautiful texts of our Dutch friends lacks the underpinning and numerical calculation in this stage which in itself have to be seen correctly no problem reported is that this should be done later.

The enumeration of the following actions is useful and it is hoped that it will be more energy pact and interfederal real binding targets per year and per region including technological choices, budget and financing methods.

There are also some contradictions in the text there on the one side is asked by the industry to adapt and that a realistic CO2 price per tonne is needed for this, but on the other hand, is written that this should not affect the competitive position. I think the adjustment to a sustainable way of life that is sustainable for both flora and fauna cannot without bringing our habits and this in a far-reaching way. Here is the biggest pitfall we now it becomes clear that the low hanging fruit as good as have been used up and the next choices will mean changes in the way we live.

Strong together

That Flemish people like their things yourself is often confirmed in cliches and of course, there is also a basis of truth in this statement. Especially in our building habits comes this property extremely out given our proverbial brick in the stomach. The endless ribbon development with individual houses unfortunately not point us in the direction of the future.

That a large part of the population against 2040 in a city lives seems to be more true year after year even though predicting the future certainly not an exact science. From energetic point of view and efficiency are sure great benefits to live close to each other. That does pose an immediate problem that people living in cities take care not for their own energy production. That is not because the truth is as often in the Middle.

Also in energy production, helps to achieve scale efficiency benefits so anyone own producer is probably the wish of parties involved that then you can find material, but for a society far from the ideal solution.

The same is true at this time for those companies that call murder that offshore wind is the solution, Here, too, the truth lies in the middle and even more to the other side. Offshore wind is a link in a future energy management, but no more than that. There may be certain countries and regions are those more from wind at sea will pick up than others, but selling as the Eureka moment there is far over.

Just as the megalomaniac idea of a few years ago to go all solar panels in the Sahel and so electricity over large distances to go transport. Theoretically perfectly possible just practical perfect undesirable. Also at us calling many in slogans, electric driving is all of a sudden the total solution while not there says this is impossible and not even desirable today. Our proverbial eggs in one basket is ill continue in the same cot. Our fossil addiction replaced by a lithium addiction, for example, is the way to even more misery.

Nevertheless, all these technologies a particle of the puzzle are. Also from the political one calls up because all of a sudden wind at sea become free, fantastic yet, but do you believe this really? Of course there are economies of scale and like everyone else, I also hope that go the same way as solar panels on windmills in terms of price alone is the euphoria far too premature.

The compromises that are given away free in Germany now have in the details of their contract without subsidy enough loopholes making it far from certain that these parks there is ever going to come. If the electricity price against 2023 not fors is increased (read the double at least) then one will just not run these concessions and the fine of 60 million euro pay.

The paradox is that this current good news can ensure that we go up in large delay wind at sea because everyone thinks to have suddenly seen the light. We in Flanders/Belgium should know better, free does not exist, not as coaches run wind turbines not on love.

Worse still that policy choices can be changed by this euphoria, for example, we run the risk that the difficult search for good locations on land for wind goes for what it is and concentrate everything on sea. The industry that is involved in building windmills at sea this will certainly stimulate only I do not know whether they are so happy with such a trend because the taking risks also.

Meanwhile, our sector at least for a sense of solidarity, as many as a quarter million families buy energy together to. That this is especially comes from indolence is there is no minibar for itself searching for the best supplier requires some effort. Even though we have all the excellent online tool from the VREG called the V-test. It remains positive that the families are awake, just that constant hammering on the price has its consequences for the appreciation for the product. The will to make more for pay is not great and the wailing wall is never far away.

The merger of Eandis and Infrax is therefore mainly sold under the argument that our Bill goes through bags and that again is more of the same perception, price, price, price. By the way, I invite you to after the merger even with me to calculate how big the saving will be. This will be fully offset by the expected investments needed for us just to make smart and especially ready for the future where some say we all our cars as the plug going to hang out. The "Internet of Things" will desperately need to just part of to be able to make this dream a reality.

Flemish network companies Eandis and Infrax go amalgamate

The news about our sector was governed by the announcement last week that the Flemish network companies have been given approval to Eandis and Infrax one company.

After the break off of the sale of a small part of Eandis to a Chinese State-owned company not long ago could accelerate this merger therefore come. With Minister Taleb as the network companies feel the hot adam in their neck even though they were already in favour of merging.

That the merger is not yet for tomorrow given the complexity of both structures is also called confirmed, but from efficiency point of view, this remains a good measure. Of course there were direct questions from the media or this our electricity bill is going to drop and is the only nuance is in place.

We will actually be able to calculate for several years based on a comparison of the operating expenses of today or the fusion also entail a reduction will go, but it will at least have a dampening effect on the future price increases. That one as always focuses on the costs and possible price cuts is understandable only goes so too much attention to the short term effect.

There is also talk of an IPO only unfortunately not of the network company, but a holding above which then sustainable investments can go and do. About this, it is too early to judge, but in principle, I am for a network administrator who focuses exclusively on its core tasks and not on the other parts of the energy value chain.

The development of wind farms in the Netherlands- and abroad is definitely not at all and the challenges in the network company are huge enough if one looks to the future. The Smart network of the future needs other than today, control of all connected devices via IOT (Internet of Things) applications is indispensable and the regulation will also have to be adapted. Decentralized storage deep in the network, new distribution network rates, microgrids, heat networks, etc..

The list is long and means certainly not inexhaustible, My message that the investments in the future a price increase will have the effect of encounter time and time again on violent reactions that are understandable considering usually the rest of my contention is not included. That other costs come down is often overlooked given our oil and gasfacturen also significantly and to a large extent can fall away.

Promises or make suggestions about possible price declines have always worked against our sector, whether it was at the time the market was liberalised and politics in unison called that now the prices would come down, until Bush invaded Iraq. That liberalization there will make to the lowest possible price is being worked on and is certainly a dampening effect can do not ensure that the perception returns.

Also the sustainable sector is time and time again put away as money Packers, a few years ago with the so-called oversubsidiering of the solar panels and now again with the offshore wind farms. The bashing of the sector is now become a classic and this explains once a mortgage on the much needed support to make the transition.

But it is refreshing that Minister Taleb despite the many their objections of colleagues who resist change are still right there with a lot of voluntarism and against to go. Hopefully he sings the ride he already has taken over the baton from seen Mrs Turtelboom. The elections start next year and often see one or all shifts.

At the same time surfaced in the media again an old monster on with Purpose 1 and 2 which once again has gotten bad points of the Fanc. Perhaps even more important news on term because sooner or later it will be on his patience and go right to this oldest power stations be closed.

That the competent European Commissioner last week was visiting Belgium was no more than a footnote given his message a little eyebrows did move. Suddenly we are on the right track and at the better pupils and what especially noticed was the discourse of Minister Swethm that the objectives of 2020 not so important and that the focus better on 2030 focus can be. Also here is a ground of truth on condition that delay is no excuse and the words sounded very hollow given there is still no evidence to substantiate its assertion is to. Delaying can perfectly acceptable if you have a roll-out plan with resources that shows that the lens in 2030 on a better way can be achieved then instead strongly opposed everywhere windmills to go places without vision on the total picture. That this Minister so far to present a blank sheet is quite painful to call and it was so even more striking that the European Commissioner give an anthology came here.

Our fossil addiction is not over yet

That many their gasoline or diesel engine is still simmering, but worth to say no every day is proven by the many new cars that go over the counter. Yet the break-through of the electric car does not stop. First of all because such prosperity is increasing rapidly in some parts of the world that we go to a doubling of our fleet.

To get this in perspective, We're going to the next ten/fifteen years of 1 to 2 billion cars. It is clear that the option to do this on the current way with fossil powered vehicles at least a challenge is. Our current thirst of grosso modo 90 million barrels of oil per day (If I am not mistaken, there is 212 liters of oil in 1 barrel) for example, with 50% Let rise with the current sources almost impossible.

It is not only impossible, But even more undesirable in view of the many environmental effects and medical challenges. Of course we all know the images of the Brown smog in Beijing and I have already experienced this personally and the effect on a society. But as far as we do not have to go as the concentrations gif measure around the ring of Antwerp where many people live and children who a large increased risk of such things as asthma.

And yet despite the overwhelming arguments in favour of the black gold to move away as a means of transport continue to defend many this. The recent diesel gate scandal deint still out and the companies buy their debt off with many billions of. The many who have been affected by this disease may no longer speak and it is whether you can simply fail to redeem something.

We all know the answer to that, No. Some cases are not buy off and it is worrying that our political representatives also permit and not insist that in no time, descent is made with the diesel engine and a postponement with every internal combustion engine. Despite 100 years of development is the return still saddening and pollution still huge and that, above all, by the law of large numbers.

Closer to our sector plays the same, our primarily by gas and coal powered sector sigh and supports at the low power prices that persist for years and this has many already to closures and depreciation. One chooses for the flight ahead as even companies like Shell opt for offshore wind farms. A positive evolution without more, but it is suggested that the green industry is blind to the criticisms.

This partly justified criticisms are then used to nullify this turn of events by emphasizing the positive aspects of the fossil sector. Important for the sustainable sector is to listen to the justified criticisms and to come up with real evidence-based answers. It's a bit like with the climate deniers who also use arguments in order to show that the man has no influence on the climate.

The arguments to wind and Sun to attack can even correct, but they're not relevant or no reason not to build. That the still young sustainable sector still unheard is normal and if you look at more than 100 year fossil technology than we can safely state that this also still very major flaws kent (emissions, noise, maintenance, duration, etc.). One of the major flaws of the still young green industry is that Sun and wind is not constant and especially in winter periods can cause large deficits.

One of the major missing links is long term storage to counter this problem to a large extent to, but for this is today no incentive. The abundance of cheap gas pushes many Governments in the direction of natural gas/lng as a solution to build spare capacity. Besides understandable and temporarily also a good measure in view of the many unemployed gas plants that are languishing or work with loss.

But also natural gas is only a transition fuel and still heavily polluting (half of coal) and as such we will continue in the coming decades to long term storage should evolve. By the way we do today also for a part with our strategic oil reserves in many countries that often cover more than three to six months consumption.

Another argument is that the social cost of the transition (read from fossil to sustainable) is too expensive and that there are often invested money is wrong. Both are correct and error. The transition from durable is expensive, but is getting cheaper, as I had said in 2009 that solar panels would be four to five times as cheap against 2017 than one had just laughed at me. As I was only a year ago had said that offshore wind farms with less than half of the grant would be built one had still laughed harder.

The road to a society that retired from the black gold is undoubtedly still hard, but we have no choice, we want to give future generations a better world. Any idealism might also be needed, but that should not be understood as naive, but just as belief without totally blind to the flaws. It was therefore disappointing to a former Prime Minister of Belgium to hear say that trade with totalitarian regimes is better without really requiring that people be treated unworthy in these countries. The reason why we now have a situation in North Korea is now just by the policy of tolerance of China for decades by a hand above this regime likes to feed them with oil and other necessary resources.

Belgium goes on adventure

The news of the week was to be the intention of the Secretary of State of the North Sea Mr. Daddy who within the Federal Government want to submit the plan to the three latest concessions made to delete already been forgiven.

No one can be surprised by this evolution because the last ten months, the playing field at the offshore wind farms considerably changing. The ' race to the bottom "was deployed by Dong then by Shell and the latest stunner came from Germany where some parks without subsidies are forgiven.

It's not clear to me what the sector intends to achieve with it because without investment income seem to me at first sight insanely stupid. Having regard to all of these companies are equipped with experienced and smart people can we assume that this change of style is the result of a well thought-out strategy.

Not like even though in media is described because one only or mainly anticipates drastic cost reductions, of course there are economies of scale and one can optimize the maintenance costs as, But what's with the investment? These are lower per MW since the mills get bigger, but the desire to build without subsidy is in any case not justified by dramatically lower investment costs.

Indeed, things such as foundations are still cheap as possible by experience, but foundations in the construction sector are also now not directly with 100% failed. On The Contrary, build is becoming more and more expensive. The argumentation that solar panels also dropped drastically in price so this will happen with all the other technology already thwarted.

My ink by an article in the times last week about Langerlo site is not yet dry or we get a time of disturbance in the already heavily affected sector of energy. The reason of the Secretary of State is in itself good only seems to me to justify the continued plan have not really thought out. It's definitely more like a balloon ascents only would the story have been better served if one first within the Government had taken this decision then first with a detailed plan of action to come.

The sector deserves a different approach than this where you at the dirt and portrayed as money Packers. The truth is completely different. That a company like Deme reacts is very understandable even though they understand that they should not have it both ways can eat. That they function as a subcontractor to poles to place on sea is very useful and this knowledge, they can then use around the world. Co-invest in the parks themselves, however, seems to me not a good signal for thus do you to belangenvermening.

That the costs incurred shall be reimbursed is as far as I am concerned, clear, but that is something else than a fine or compensation. This is not necessary since the exact height of the grant not even known was and this is an important (read one of the important) parameters are to be able to calculate a rate of return.

Furthermore, the euphoric media reports that after the biomass power plants now also the many billions of support for offshore wind farms disappear very out of place and way too premature. The chance is very great that we 2025 stone and bone walk to complain about our energy supply because of prohibitive or worse no longer certain. Infrastructure projects such as our energy management requires huge investment and like all infrastructure projects will have to be borne by the whole society. Whether it's road infrastructure is, public affairs such as the railways, We're going as a community have to finance these utilities.

The argument that the sustainable sector also should be able to live without subsidies is entirely correct, only not realistic today. The same is true also for the fossil sector already hundred years or fifty years of nuclear power, all sectors that hundreds of billions of support since decades.

The sustainable sector can indeed without subsidies, but we should really leave a emissions for everyone and everything, If the price is between the 150 and 180 dollar per tonne of CO2 will the sustainable sector about if only very high-performance are, but our kiwi is priceless. Or how about our shrimps that morning by plane to go to Morocco to be peeled?

Meanwhile, this stop and go policy detrimental to a good investment climate despite the correct action now by the State Secretary to the "best practices" of other countries to take over and to go to auction. This, however, do without a long-term energy policy that is worked out, keeps playing with fire. It continues to wait on this plan and the odds are very high that the lion is going to give birth to a mouse. Meanwhile, Minister Swethm coincidentally with another balloon, Why not let the citizens participate in the offshore wind farms? In itself is a good idea but, parks that today only going life of current fair prices without subsidy are doomed. Indeed, These are never going to be built. No coincidence that the concessions in Germany speak of building against 2025, far enough away to still to decide they didn't build because of unprofitable (If the power show no substantial increase in scholarships go).

Sustainable sector shoot in all directions, but moves forward

That in Europe there are common objectives are agreed to at 2020 and 2030 to obtain a greater share of renewable energy is more or less known by all. The same is true for energy efficiency and the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Especially the last two turn out to be a tough little Critter, because they intervene in our existing infrastructure. Thanks to Government support that good progress is being made in the area of electricity production is therefore mainly because we are talking about new construction often (or alteration) and the resistance of existing infrastructure out of the way.

That the CO2 emissions in recent years, flattened may be positive, the problem is that he still at record highs is. Diving the symptoms of global warming becoming increasingly evident on especially on extreme locations. Whether in Spitsbergen is where the permafrost starts to thaw and people literally by their home bags or the Great Barrier Reef in Australia that dying in record time is, the signals are clear.

That people are concerned that the power grab by the countless populists such as Mr. Trump that their super bombs did not hesitate to use the change of our climate is many times more extensive than this kind of figures. The long term effects work on much longer and are also almost irreversible. The world that we are going to leave behind for coming generations will know unique challenges that humanity has never known given his young age. But that's a topic for others.

Meanwhile, there are also striking business in our industry, the closing down of the Central of Langerlo site is not without a struggle and the current manager and his Latvian shareholder do even an ultimate attempt to save what can be saved. The aim is besides nobel because the site certainly has an added value. I only fear that the wind is wrong and that every wanhoopsidee is doomed to fail given the will in Brussels is no longer present in order to continue with the current owner.

Now it was news last year by taking over the old Eon Central also known as striking, first German Pallets that even though on a less prominent party was falling over and from Estonia. The financial strength of this kind of parties is simply too small to have such a big old coal plant to build and, above all, the risk is way too big. Even the largest energy companies in Europe almost never to venture into large wood Combustors except recently in Netherlands.

Now one seizes the Dutch example to say that it can, but here goes one very simplistic given this central not be fully converted, but still also keep burning coal. That the Dutch Government used such patching up just to keep his target against 2020 is mainly due to the fact that one is behind its goals. The billions that literally by the chimney are burnt to wood have no long term benefit, on the contrary. One is pumping even more CO2 in the air, but given the current low price for CO2 per tonne a negligible factor.

Flanders and besides most countries rightly aware take away from such practices and. Only we should also see what Netherlands be fine does and that's also encouraging. A clear goal backed up with the necessary resources results in a clear development of many Sun- and wind farms. The successful auction of wind turbines has quite the world with stunned and who knows what else comes.

The most recent notable winner in the list of offshore wind farms is ENBW in Germany licensed won without 1 euro grant to ask. This bold move is based on other assumptions for the future. One gambling completely on the fact that the electricity price on the current exhibitions against 2025 Fors is going to rise and that the cost to operate at sea wind still going to drop. The chance of this happening is very real given the future shortages of large scale production, only gambling remains.

These companies are in debt, and the banks are going to seen the grant is virtually non-existent securities requirements. For a bank, it is simply impossible to on an assumption of higher current beursprijzen give a loan. However, it is positive that this happens so that Governments understand that one full can and should choose durable and that this is also the cheapest way is. The decades long grant power to fossil fuels has many hundreds of billions not to mention the environmental cost (and health) who's coming. Nuclear power still has subsidy even though they exist for more than 50 years.

We should be happy that companies like ENBW in Germany their necks out and take only this great risk, it is to be seen if one does not take to such conclusions too fast stunting. As Governments adjust their policy go too fast now threaten the growth we ever stop instead of to speed up. Wind and Sun can flow on term life beursprijs (If it above the 70 Euro per MWh goes), but then not without short and long term storage.

Governments should understand that without new infrastructure, as we have developed also after the war, for example, our ports and road infrastructure, sustainable development will remain a dead letter for a part. The emission of CO2 is, so to speak, still not a ton of dropped and that proves that there is still building blocks are missing, but also a great behavioral change of everyone will be needed to ensure that future generations can live in normal conditions.

EnglishNederlandsFrançaisDeutsch
 Edit Translation
by Transposh - translation plugin for wordpress

Archives

Polls

Do you believe that Belgium and the regions their durable lenses 2030 will pick up?


View Results

Loading ... Loading ...