Daniel Pérez (Madrid, 1987), director of the public company of the Generalitat l'Energètica, publishes 'The renewable superpower' (Arpa), exhaustive analysis of clean energy
Despite his youth, this Madrid native who speaks perfect Catalan, has a degree in law and political science, is a recognized expert in renewables, as he has demonstrated in his meteoric career. He started in Piet Holtrop's office, defended the people who suffered the "hacking" of the remuneration of premiums for renewables, moved to Holaluz and has been co-delegate in Catalonia of UNEF, the group of companies in the photovoltaic sector.
Why are you convinced that Spain can be a great power in renewable energy?
The new energy model will be clearly renewable and clearly electric, and that means that whoever has the most renewable resources is the one who can have the most advantages. The Iberian Peninsula has 50% more sun than Germany and, on the other hand, in wind energy we tie with Germany. The fact that we have more sun than any other country in Europe and have an acceptable resource of wind and water gives us a good base. It's a lottery. It's like having oil in our subsoil. We can be the Arabia of renewables.
But other countries also have these resources.
Italy or Greece also have sun; less, but similar levels. But we also have the availability of land in emptied Spain. We also have the knowledge of companies in the sector, with pioneering companies that win competitions worldwide. Therefore we have the capacity to exploit that resource.
They are our competitive advantages, since
If we only had wind power we would not have a competitive advantage, because Denmark or Norway have the same wind as us. On the other hand, being wind powered and having much more sun makes up a combination of terrain, sun, wind and water that gives us an advantage.
But we already had that basis before and that commitment has not always been made.
We must recognize and remember that 10 years ago solar energy was worth practically 10 times more; It is now when the opportunity arises. It is now that we reach a sufficiently competitive technological cost.
What would that great electricity production be used for?
There are three alternatives in a scenario with excess renewables. An alternative is to export renewables and generate a trade surplus, as Saudi Arabia does. The second option is to use that surplus electricity to mass produce green hydrogen and export it across the Mediterranean to European industrial countries; The advantage here is that we would have a trade surplus and capture hydrogen production, which provides jobs and attracts local investment. But the problem is that hydrogen travels poorly; So I'm not very clear that this is the best solution.
And the third solution?
It would mean not exporting that electricity or hydrogen, but rather attracting new industries that are located in the Iberian Peninsula, thanks to the fact that I offer them cheaper green hydrogen and electricity than what France or Germany have. That third option is to attract industries and export the goods and services generated: data, aluminum profiles, the final product. If we looked at it from a selfish perspective, and I'm not saying we should be, the interesting thing would be not having electrical interconnections and having the capacity to export goods; that is, having roads, trains, the Mediterranean corridor.
He says in his book that we must get rid of dependence on gas...
Yes, the evidence is piling up. Europe has said that, since Putin is not reliable, we must diversify the origin of gas. Europe has set its sights on Azerbaijan and this summer the conflict with the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabag arises. It has set its sights on the gas wells in the Mediterranean, which Israel and Egypt exploit with Cyprus and the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and that is why the gas rose when the conflict broke out. Or the example of Qatar is cited, but this country accused of a plot to bribe European parliamentarians to obtain favors. And so systematically. But in the end, opening Europe's factories on Monday cannot depend on what a dictator does on a Sunday. And so systematically. But in the end, opening Europe's factories on Monday cannot depend on what a dictator does on a Sunday. This is what Macron calls strategic autonomy. It is not about autarky, it is not about closing borders.
You also propose desalination as a solution to deal with droughts, but regenerating wastewater is three times cheaper than desalination...
-There are always hierarchies. It is always better to save water first, regenerate it. Desalination is one more solution. And as a solution the key is the price of energy. Therefore, in a scenario of very cheap energy in certain time slots, the price of desalination also lowers the cost. And, therefore, having cheap energy can facilitate the viability of desalination by lowering the cost of water. I cite in the book the case of the agreement between Israel and Jordan. Israel has very good desalination technology, but it has no land; On the other hand, Jordan does not have desalination technology but it has land. And here the agreement has been that Israel gives water to Jordan and Jordan gives technology to desalinize Israel.
Renewable energies face many obstacles...
Yes. And the first threat is clearly the difficulty of implementation. The citizen is clearly in favor of renewables; but when you ask him if he accepts a specific installation in his town, then he lowers that support. When moving from the abstract to the concrete is when delays or limitations may occur. When there are promoters who dialogue, agreements are generally reached. People's fears or reluctance must be answered with dialogue.
Give an example.
A paradigmatic case is Montroig (Tarragona), where a Korean company plans to create up to 700 jobs with an investment to manufacture copper sheets (elecfoil), an essential component in the production of electric batteries, which will be used in part for Volkswagen in Sagunto. . And if the company decides to choose Montroig it is, in part, because there will be a solar park that will supply the factory and that will allow it to have cheaper energy. This park generates much more acceptance because although it alters the territory, it will ensure work; and that is why it is a sacrifice that people are willing to assume.
Renewables make energy cheaper, but if there is excess sun and wind and the remuneration drops, promoters will not have motivation for new investments.
That has a solution. Market rules are one of the threats to the energy transition because the market, as it is currently conceived, is marginalist; and if the dominant energy mix is technologies with marginal costs tending toward zero (such as renewables), the effect you get is that the price goes to zero. And this requires reflection, and reforms. The drop in prices is positive, but reasonable returns must be offered to investors; If not, no one will invest in new renewable plants.
And how to ensure that the market does not harm renewables?
I'm betting on a mixed solution. If we go to a scenario like the one set out in the National Energy and Climate Plan, in which almost 80% of the electricity is of renewable origin in 2030, only 20% of the technology will have a marginal cost in 2030. So, does it make sense for that 20% to determine the price of that other 80%?
So?
One option would be to radically change the market and offer long-term vision rules, with more stable prices, either with a floor and a price ceiling, in the style of an Iberian exception, also with minimum prices for countries with a high penetration of renewables. .
The other?
It is cornering the marginalist market only for those cases where it makes sense: that is, limiting it to that 20% of polluting energy. Today a large part of renewables are already financed via auctions or via bilateral contracts (PPAs). But if the market signal tends to zero, the PPA price would also sink. Therefore, it is necessary to hold specific auctions to give long-term signals to renewables.
Are we wasting renewable potential?
It is not always possible to take advantage of all the wind, we see mills stopped, nodes and transportation lines are missing. What has happened is that the pace of implementation of renewables has perhaps been higher than the system's capacity to absorb them. We lack batteries, pumps or other mechanisms that allow us to manage demand. Electricity has a process whose logistics are very complicated. It is like a supermarket food product that has to be available to the person who is going to consume it at all times and cannot be stored; electricity does not travel well; now it is beginning to travel a little in time with batteries and in space with electrical networks. But it is not a transport truck that delivers the goods where you want. It is normal that there are times when that offer cannot be assumed. For this reason, we have to equip ourselves with batteries, pumps, and more flexible systems to be able to absorb a greater percentage.
Will there be enough materials for the energy transition?
Let's talk about lithium, key for batteries, which is what is talked about the most and it is said that it is going to end. But we must differentiate between resource, reserve and production. The lithium in the world is one thing; Another thing is the exploitable reserve that is profitable to exploit, and a third is the lithium that we produce from those reserves. The lithium problem currently is one of extraction capacity, not reserves; The problem is that we are not able to extract the lithium we have from those lithium reserves at a sufficient speed to supply the current market. If we had more lithium exploitation capacities, the batteries would be cheaper. But it is not a reservation problem; Every year lithium reserves increase worldwide. What there is not enough lithium production capacity.
But its extraction has other effects...
One of the legitimate criticisms that can be made of the extraction of materials is that in some cases it is said that in China the human rights of some minorities and their labor rights are not respected. This is regrettable and Europe has to enforce higher standards. high labor law. And the same could be said about oil in Nigeria or Qatar. Obviously, certain suppliers of certain raw materials do not comply with human rights or labor rights.
China has won the battle for silicon and photovoltaic panels in the market...Can Europe confront this Chinese monopoly?
It is not an issue of lack of resources, but of industries. It will be difficult for Europe to win the battle of the plates, we would have to focus on the following battles: those of batteries, chargers, electric vehicles, aerothermal machines or digitalization of the energy transition. We are already late to the battle of solar panels. But we have not lost the wind battle. Europe has not freed itself from complexes enough and we must face this situation.
Will we see wind turbine blades abandoned in landfills once they have completed their production cycle?
Much progress is being made in recycling. The European association has requested that it be mandatory to recycle generator blades, blades...
But given the failures of recycling in Europe, this may be one of its black points...
Yes, shovels have recycling challenges; But what people in the sector are saying is that progress is being made. New materials are already recyclable in many cases, not always. And on the other hand, more and more capacity is being gained to recycle things that could not be recycled before. I'm not saying that everything is going to be recyclable; but to the extent that the resource is going to have value it will be more interesting
What should green hydrogen be used for and what should it not be used for?
It should be used for everything that cannot be electrified. We must accept the reality that not everything can be electric. Hydrogen makes sense in cases of longer-distance transport and industries that require higher temperatures and that we will not be able to electrify, such as heavy industry, air transport or maritime transport. But everything regarding trains, housing, cars, refrigeration, urban buses makes no sense. I am neither for nor against, but in favor of a rational use of hydrogen.
What do you think of private high-voltage lines that cross 200 kilometers, such as those planned from Aragon to Catalonia?
Since power lines have impacts, we should try to make them for public use; I'm not saying public ownership, but public use. If we build a solar or photovoltaic park and it connects to the grid 50 km, or 400 km away, that link line passes through towns that may have electrical connection problems and cannot take advantage of it. In order not to create multiple private roads, the main lines have to be for public use.
How can you recover the downturned self-consumption market?
If you want to make all the planned self-consumption, you must expand the current radius for the beneficiaries of the facilities with energy communities (now limited to 2 km on roofs and 500 meters on floors). I believe in France's proposal, which has extended it up to 20 kilometers in some cases. There must also be a dynamic distribution of energy among users and procedures with distributors must be streamlined and facilitated.
