13^th of January 2019

Future of the Energy Transition in Germany, an open letter to the Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany

 

Federal Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Straße 1
10557 Berlin

 

Dear Mrs. Federal Chancellor Dr. Merkel,
dear Federal Government of Germany,

 

firstly I want to say thank you for all the great achievements in the past. Since 2005, as a Federal Chancellor, you’re engaging in the entire issues of Germany with excellent engagement and success. Many people (including me) appreciate the steady progress and the comfortable economic situation you are standing for. On the other hand, aside from all the good news, there are still some issues that give reason to worry. In my opinion, these issues slightly slipped into the background. So I decided to write this open letter, to make them gain some attention.
 

Since my 14^th year of life, I’m interested in the public discussion about energy and environmental issues. It took me much time, to analyse the pros and cons within these debates and come to a persistent opinion. Meanwhile I’m working as an Electrical Engineer in the industrial production automation business and this year I will celebrate my 28^th birthday. Regarding energy politics I’ve already seen much positive change in the past, which I really appreciate. One the other hand I would like to annotate some points, that still gives me reason to worry.

 

Point 1: Global trend of the world’s population

 

While in most of the western societies the low birth rates leads to an almost constant level of population, the global trend of a rising world population continues. Currently we are about 7.6 billion people, sharing the planet with each other. There is no sign at all that this growing trend is going to stop in the future.
 

This is a trend that makes me worry for many different reasons. It is likely, that a growing world population increases the number of people dying from hunger in the world. Also it increases the number of refugees, trying to escape from terrorists, dictatorship and a general lack of prospects. To sum it up, a higher world population is very likely to increase hunger and the global fight for resources. I don’t think, this is a good perspective for the world’s future. In my opinion, the only justifiable way to reduce the number of world population is a controlled decrease in birth rates all over the world. One opportunity would be to sign a worldwide common agreement, where the participants agree to reduce their national birth rates to a level, were the population will stop growing. This could be a UN agreement for example. I’m pretty sure, this would not be easy to implement, but I’m also sure, that this is not completely impossible. In the past we already signed agreements on inconvenient topics, such as the global agreements on climate change for example. It is definitely worth a trial, because every small step that we do today, to reduce the global birth number, can make a difference for future generations.

 

Point 2: Climate protection

 

Meanwhile we know that it would be a good idea to stop burning fossil fuels, because they are mainly responsible for the current warming of the planet. And so we know, that we should stop running our coal-burning power plants, because they are emitting high amounts of CO₂. So let’s have a look at the nuclear power plants. These power plants are running due to a nuclear chain reaction inside that must be supervised and controlled constantly over time. What is going to happen, when this functional principle meets constructional faults, or even a natural disaster? The answer to this interesting question can now be seen in Tschernobyl and Fukushima. Within the last 33 years, the world was an observer of two nuclear disasters, where the nuclear chain reaction went totally out of control, resulting in a nuclear meltdown and the well documented results. In my opinion nuclear power should no longer play an important role in the European energy supply of the future. It is way too risky, to be a sustainable power source, so finally nuclear power plants should be shut down, as well as the coal-burning power plants.
 

Now Germany has stated, to quit the usage of its own nuclear power plants until 2022. On one hand this is a pragmatic step into the right direction, one the other hand, this increases the need to find and use alternative energy sources. In my opinion it is the government’s duty, to support the research on renewable energy sources. Most of the renewable energy technologies, that we’re actually using today, do only have a small power density (photovoltaic cells for example). This simply means that we need much space to build up renewable energy constructions with an acceptable power rating. And that might not be such a good perspective for the densely populated Federal Republic. So we will have to do some advanced research on renewable energy constructions. And we have to focus on finding a natural energy source with a much higher power density, than we use today. In the next step we can discover, how to implement technologies that can use this new source. And hopefully in the end we create constructions with a much higher power rating, than we have today. So as a result we can easily cover our need for energy without covering huge areas with inefficient renewable energy parks. The sooner we’re thinking and moving into this direction, the better we will manage to get through the midterm and long-term-stages of our energy transition.
 

To realise the entire dimension of the German energy transition, it is useful to have a feeling for certain terms and numbers. The so called “electric power demand” is actually only a minor part of the whole “primary energy demand”. The primary energy demand is actually the total consumption of energy in Germany. That contains electric energy consumption, gas and oil for heating purpose, liquid fuels for driving cars, plains, trucks, and other energies we need to power our civilisation. So the primary energy demand gives us a much more realistic and accurate picture of the total power consumption, than the electric power demand does. With this knowledge in mind, we now take a look at the numbers. In the year 2017 the electric power demand of Germany was already covered with 38.2 % by renewable energies. This is due to the following source:
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie_de.htm?year=2017
That may look impressive, but as I said, this is just the amount of electric energy. If we have a look at the total primary energy demand from the same year, we notice, that it is just covered with 13.1 % by renewable energies. You can look it up on that source:
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Energie/energieeffizienz-in-zahlen-2018.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8
To come to a conclusion: Quitting the usage of fossil fuels is not easy. Germany has already shown progress, but there’s still plenty of room for further improvement. And we need to hurry, to find a replacement for coal and nuclear power.
 

Within the renewable energies, wind power is said to have a promising development potential. The higher were moving upwards into the sky, the stronger and steadier is the wind that is blowing at that height. This correlation works until a height of 10 km, before the wind gets weaker again. So there is a maximum in wind power density at a height of ten thousand meters above the ground. This is the result of many scientific studies. Nowadays the average wind turbine is about 200 meters tall and has an electric power rating of about 3 MW. None of the commercially built wind turbines reaches a height of more than 300 meters. In other words: All the wind turbines, that we have built in the past, can only grab a tiny small amount of the wind energy, that the planet is offering to us. There are already some concepts of turbines, to use the energy of the so called “high altitude winds”. In my point of view the “BAT-Turbine” is a sign of a possible breakthrough in this category of wind power. By optimising the size of the turbine, the flight altitude and a suitable deep-water-fundament on the ground of the sea, it might be possible to build a wind turbine which exceeds the power of all conventional built wind turbines on land. In general, the wind that is blowing over the sea is much stronger and steadier than the wind that is moving over land. And even in high altitude, this trend seems to continue, because most of the “power areas” of the planet, where the wind in 10 km height reaches its maximum values, is actually located above an ocean. So basically when I’m talking about high-value wind power, I’m talking about offshore constructions in the sea. This means, it would be useful to focus on how to improve the existing offshore constructions, so that they can resist the enormous mechanical forces of a turbine. In my opinion it would make sense, to do the research not only on the national level, but also for instance in some European projects. An advantage would be, that other countries might also have a benefit from that. And the European sea areas in general offer much more opportunity’s, than the German sea areas.
 

It makes sense, to step up the efforts of research and development in the offshore wind technology, as well as it does in other renewable energy technologies. If we don’t do that and just concentrate on assembling more and more 200-meters high steel tube towers into the landscape, we might miss our goals in climate protection politics. Because the onshore wind power might not deliver enough energy to cover Germany’s primary energy demand entirely. Another reason, why we should not rely on onshore wind power completely, is that people might get angry about the energy transition, requiring so many interventions in Nature. And loosing people’s faith in the need for the energy transition is not the point of it. On the other hand I would like to appeal to the consumers, to rethink their consumption of energy. What’s the purpose of all the consumption of goods? And do we might pay more than just money for powering our huge flat screens? In the history of the power industry engineers have often raised the following question: Is there a kind of super power plant? A power plant that can easily deliver a huge amount of power for cheap prises? That doesn’t harm the environment, doesn’t emit radioactivity or any CO₂-molecule and it has to fit into a basement garage? I do not think that a power plant like this will ever be possible. Not today, not tomorrow and not in any other galaxy, that obeys the same laws of physics as our planet does. The best power plant that I can imagine is the one that actually doesn’t needs to be built anymore, because humanity has learnt to be happy with less energy consumption.

 

Point 3: Nature protection

 

Climate protection yes please, nature protection no thanks? Conflicts between protecting climate and nature are very common. Basically every power plant construction means an intervention in Nature. Regarding the onshore wind turbine industry there are supporters and opponents and despite this contrary opinions it seems, that most of the people in Germany don’t get emotional, when talking about wind turbines. It’s a well-known fact, that most of Germany’s surface consists of cultivated land and timber. So in most cases, one or two wind turbines doesn’t lead to a significant degradation of nature.
 

This social attitude is almost equal to my own opinion about wind turbines. As there is no free flying wind turbine in the German sky jet, the wind turbines must be built somewhere on the ground to create the energy we need. And the wind turbines along my jogging trail have never prevented me from doing my sport. Anyway I do not think it is a good idea, to build a wind turbine on every place in the world. In my opinion nature reserves and other landscapes of sensitive, almost untouched nature should not be turned into industrial wind farms. People spend their time there for relaxing, taking a timeout, and enjoying Nature. By adding lots of wind turbines, these landscapes lose their individual identity, value and purpose. This reminds me of the case, of a Swedish photographer, who claimed, that an almost untouched nature area in Sweden was about to be equipped with at least 200 wind turbines. The purpose of these wind turbines might not be to supply the local consumers, but to export the electric energy to Germany. Obviously many people disagreed about this plans. It didn’t take long until a petition was made:
https://www.change.org/p/berit-högman-don-t-build-wind-turbines-in-grundtjärn
From my personal point of view, it would be a pity, if it’s true and these wind turbines are really going to be built on that place. From my personal experience I know, that wind turbines are visible over many kilometres; they emit light and noise. I can imagine that this intervention in Nature leads to degradation in sensitive areas. I do not think that these kinds of building projects make any sense, neither in Sweden nor in Germany.
 

The necessary efforts for nature protection might be a matter of opinion. Anyway it is certain, that an intact natural environment plays an important role for health and well-being of people. Therefore it is in our interest to keep an eye on the condition of nature and to solve emerging problems. Regarding the following issues, I noticed that the problems are well-known, but the conditions over the years get rather worse than better:

• Usage of pesticides => dying insects
• General decrease in biodiversity
• Land sealing
• Noise / light pollution
• Over-fertilization of the fields
• Usage of monocultures in forests and on fields

It’s important to follow these issues, discuss them corporately and to decide the right political action if it’s required. For instance, you know, glyphosate is said to have a negative impact on the health of insects. I read that the Federal Government of Germany has a systematic reduction strategy, in order to decrease the usage of glyphosate significantly. The goal is to end the usage of glyphosate as soon as possible. I got this information from the following source:
https://kleineanfragen.de/bundestag/19/3461-folgen-des-moeglichen-verbots-von-glyphosat.txt
Being deeply impressed by this clear statement, I turned on the radio and heard that Germany voted for “yes” in an EU-voting regarding the question, if the licensing for glyphosate should be continued for another 5 years. So obviously the systematic reduction strategy says that it would be no problem, to continue to use glyphosate for another 5 years. Despite this “yes”-vote, in my personal opinion it would be a good idea, not to step back from the original reduction plan. It would be an appropriate action to decrease the number of use cases of glyphosate, so that it is only used in those cases, where it can’t be avoided or replaced by other substances. Regarding the survival of many insect species, this action would be worth it in the long run.

 

Conclusion:

 

In this open letter I tried to convey something to the public, that me and many others of my generation are worried about (Of course this is not everything, we care about. Regarding the digitisation I could also write some lines, but that would exceed the scope of this letter). With your politics you make much effort to continue the balancing act between the economic interests of the energy industry, implementation of the goals of climate protection politics and also nature protection politics. I’m afraid this balancing act could get more and more complicated in the future, if we decide to keep our portfolio of renewable energies on the status quo. In my Opinion there is an urgent and important need for research about the usage of high altitude winds over the ocean and other promising new technologies regarding renewable energies.
 

For this reason, I want to plead for significantly more efforts in research and development in the following topics:

• Offshore constructions in the (deep) sea for getting electricity from wind power
• Power To Gas (to store the energy, that is not actually needed jet)
• Opportunities to expand our existing power grid (for instance a high-voltage d.c. link)

The faster were approaching new standards on these subjects, the better and easier we can cope with the tasks of the energy transition towards renewable energies, and the more we are able to protect nature against large interventions. In my opinion it also makes sense to define some kind of restricted areas, were the installation of wind turbines is not permitted. Last but not least it would be important to campaign for a UN agreement on reducing the world’s birth rate, as this has far-reaching consequence for future generations. So finally I’d like to wish you, and all the other readers of this letter, an energetic and exciting new year 2019. Thank you very much.
 

Yours sincerely
 
 

Anonym Sender, 13^th of January 2019
 

P.S.: Feel free to copy and share this letter.
 

__________________________________________________

Sources and continuative literature:

http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~highwind/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/archer_caldeira.pdf
http://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Offshore-Energy-Outlook.pdf
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5009948?class=pdf&
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/20116/umfrage/anzahl-der-windkraftanlagen-in-deutschland-seit-1993/
https://kleineanfragen.de/bundestag/19/3461-folgen-des-moeglichen-verbots-von-glyphosat.txt
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/june24/high-altitude-winds-062309.html
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/hurricane-winds-turbine-022614.html
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Infografiken/Energie/Energiedaten/Energiegewinnung-und-Energieverbrauch/energiedaten-energiegewinnung-verbrauch-03.html
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Energie/energieeffizienz-in-zahlen-2018.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8
https://www.energie-winde.de/faszination-und-technik/details/schwimmende-windparks.html
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie_de.htm?year=2017
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Sep/IRENA_offshore_wind_brief_G7_2018.pdf
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/daten-zu-erneuerbaren-energien/Stromerzeugung_2017.pdf
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/studie-100-erneuerbare-energien-fuer-strom-und-waerme-in-deutschland.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.short
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111300097X
https://www.scinexx.de/news/geowissen/windkraft-kann-den-welt-energiebedarf-mehrfach-decken/
https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Scientists-look-high-in-the-sky-for-power-Jet-2596175.php#item-85307-tbla-2
https://www.skysails.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Power/Presse/EN_SkySails_Power_Wind_Power_Next_Level.pdf
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/glyphosat-zulassung-103.html
https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA_PUB_2018_EN_SWP.pdf

 

My special thanks
go to the following people, for tremendously minting my attitude in questions of energy and environmental politics. Without their influence on my thinking I would never have found the motivation to write this letter.
 

Dr. Wilfried Bommert:
In his book “Kein Brot für die Welt. Die Zukunft der Welternährung” I learned something about the various different reasons, why the global food supply of the people living on earth today is far away from being guaranteed. It is a remarkable fact, that this nutrition crisis does not have a single cause. There are lots of negative influences by the well-known problems that we’re facing today. From the growing world population, profit-motivated exploitation of land, to the point of climate change, almost every critical issue of today’s world has its own negative impact on the global nutrition situation. This leads to the obvious conclusion, that this crisis will get worse in the future, so continuing with business as usual cannot be an option. Debating all these issues in detail would have exceeded the scope of this letter.
 

Prof. Robert Betts Laughlin:
In his book “Der Letzte macht das Licht aus” Professor Laughlin writes about the pros and cons of every imaginable energy source on the planet. His demoralising conclusion: None of these energy sources is perfect, in terms of fulfilling every requirement that we define. From Professor Laughlin I’ve learned that in the long run, we should give up burning coal as an energy source, but it would be clever not to give up the hydrocarbons as a medium to store big amounts of energy within a small amount of space. Catchphrase: Power To Gas
 

Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber:
By reading the book “Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie” I learned about the changes in the world’s global temperature over the past epochs in the earth’s climate history. Also the writers name the elements that influence the global temperature, explaining the basic correlations behind. Conclusion: It is necessary to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels as much as possible and as soon as possible, in order to slow down the man made global warming.
 

Jonna Jinton:
Her YouTube videos fascinated and inspired me. They opened my eyes for the beauty and the value of nature.
 

Family and friends:
for their moral support as well as all the exciting discussions.