Linking power grids to minimise Europe's carbon footprint
The European Climate Foundation wants a pan-European power grid to radically reduce greenhouse emissions.
Imagine a warm summer day in 2050. In Denmark, temperatures have risen to 30 degrees Celsius and people are flocking to the beach to cool off. In the distance, they can see the faint shimmer of one of the many batteries of wind turbines dotting their coast. In this weather however, devoid of even the faintest gust of wind, they are of little use. At the same time, the Danes are pining for extra electricity to power their air conditioners and the electric cars they have to recharge after a day at the beach.
Decades ago, this problem would have been solved by firing up the coal-fired power plants. By 2050, that is no longer an option. Some 40 years ago, Europe and all other developed nations vowed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent before the middle of the century. Most power plants running on fossil fuels have long been demolished.
On this hot day in 2050, the Danes import their power from Germany, where there is some wind, and biomass-fired power plants make up for the difference. In turn, the Germans compensate by importing energy from France, where nuclear power plants are as reliable a source of electricity as ever. And if that still isn’t enough, solar cells in Spain are ready and waiting to provide some more power.
This is what a low-emissions European future will look like, according to the European Climate Foundation (ECF), an independent think tank for climate policy. In a report it published on Tuesday, entitled Roadmap 2050: a practical guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe, the ECF found that the above scenario lies well within the realms of current economic and technological capabilities.
Europe will be hard pressed to further reduce emissions in economic sectors such as air and sea transport, agriculture and industry. In power generation, however, there is still plenty of room for improvement. To compensate for the problems with reduction in other sectors, power will have to be produced with almost zero emissions.
The European demand for power will grow very fast in the coming decades in spite of more efficient use. By 2050, Europe will consume 40 percent more power than it does today.
Electricity is key
A surprise benefit
Even the EFC’s conservative scenarios allow for reducing greenhouse emissions to practically zero. Who would have thought linking European power grids could have such a huge beneficial effect? The EFC researchers were so surprised they sought a second opinion from other researchers, who came to exactly the same conclusion. The German E.on energy company went over the numbers a third time, and its findings were no different.
These encouragements do not mean the plans will be easy to carry out. Spain and France, for instance, have already linked power cables with a capacity of one gigawatt. But because of its nuclear power, France doesn’t need Spain’s solar energy. If Europe wants to enjoy the full benefit of the European sun, the cables’ capacity will have to be expanded to 47 gigawatts.
Such an upgrade would require an enormous investment in infrastructure. It would lead to civil unrest among citizens who fear the electromagnetic fields generated by power cables. It would also force power companies to create a new market. If one company has a power shortage at a certain time of day, for instance, and another has its solar panels running at full capacity, the two will have to find equal terms for trade.
The EFC has calculated the total costs for power in Europe will rise from the current 30 billion per year to 65 billion in 2025. Putting things off would be even more costly though; waiting another ten years would raise costs to 80 billion a year.
Action required
The proposals force European governments -- and the EU in particular -- to take swift and decisive action. Traditional coal-fired power plants will have to be shut down, carbon dioxide emissions will need to be captured and stored. Even gas-fired plants will have to be closed. Jules Kortenhorst does not propose shutting down coal-fired power plants prematurely -- which will undoubtedly please major power companies -- but he does feel they should use stopgap measures to stay open once they are no longer economically viable.
According to Kortenhorst, investors want clarity. “They are confused now. Should they build coal-fired power plants? It is by far the cheapest option, but it won’t be any more as soon as we require all carbon dioxide emissions to be captured and stored. Will wind power still offer a good return on investment if the subsidies supporting it disappear? Current European policy mostly leads to the construction of gas-fired power plants: conveniently middle-of-the-road, but still a source of carbon dioxide. What would happen if the costs of emitting carbon dioxide were to double?”
Last year the developed nations present at the G8 summit in Italy vowed they would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent before 2050. The middle of the century seemed far away, so politicians figured they would have some time to weigh their options. The ECF study has cast new light on the consequence of the G8 pledge. One thing is clear: 2050 is closer than you would imagine. Politicians looking to make good on their promise should draft policies to make good on their promise in the next couple years.
