energy

The invasion of Ukraine (while we are writing we continue to hope for a ceasefire that is not coming) has dramatically revived the energy issue which in Italy uses 11% of renewable sources, for 7% hydroelectric, 4% coal, 36% oil, 42% methane (today 80% from fossil sources). 77% of the energy needs are imported. In Europe, the average use of methane is 40% (Germany 26%, France 17%), of which 36% imported from Russia. Let's rearrange the points on which we will have to reason with an aware public opinion for a long time, beyond stress, for today and for future generations.

SPECULATIONS There is a speculative aspect of extra profits in the increases in the cost of methane and oil, which spills over into the consumption of households, companies and cities, made by those who distribute energy at various levels . It is necessary to avoid and pursue speculation (it affects at least 5%), also reviewing the way in which the public agency in charge defines the costs every three months. Then there is the taxation which has always been disproportionate in Italy (about 51%). The European Union and the US are committed to building the conditions for common energy reservoirs capable of withstanding serious emergencies and protecting the countries that have less energy autonomy. The EU does not intend, for now, to question the ecological plans for 2030 and 2050. The Government intervenes with temporary measures but should try to link them to criteria of equality and coherence with urgent structural measures.

CONSUMPTION The attention of many citizens, economic operators, cities ... to their consumption is significant today. It is possible to act immediately to avoid waste and excesses on energy, especially in an emergency situation: reduce heating by a few degrees, the use of cars, many household appliances, choose the closest destinations for travel and trips. Everything is needed (it could lead to savings of at least 10/15% including public and private) but it is not enough. Structural actions are needed (where possible) such as coatings, boiler changes, window frames, solar panels, heat pumps, less energy-intensive appliances ...

THE CHOICES OF DECISORS Serious and immediate choices of decision makers (governments at all levels) are needed, often postponed and short-sighted, on every aspect. From collective savings (means of transport, public and private buildings, public lighting, lighting for shops and urban places, lights and electric motors in companies ...) to changes and replacement of traditional consumption from fossil fuels to accelerate renewables, with a defined road map , with an energy mix different from today.

NO TO POLARIZED POSITIONS in which ideologized and absolute solutions are proposed, when instead it is necessary to find realistic paths capable of providing immediately applicable energy results to avoid out-of-control social consequences. On the other hand, in public opinion the insecurity of traditional sources, the stress for those who see their work and their income change, find fuel to ignite fire from political parties and economic interests that try to prolong the positions conquered as long as possible. unsustainable today. We need to go in other directions than fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal) and ask ourselves the question of what can be done now by addressing the problems that affect the weaker groups. It is an epochal transition that is best tackled actively, rather than undergoing it under the illusion of turning back the clock.

FLEXIBLE BUT CLEAR STRATEGY The war in Ukraine is an accelerator, but before next winter there is time to organize alternatives and recover even temporary energy sources. The greater use of coal for some power stations (4 active in the peninsula that produce 5% of the national needs), in this perspective, must in any case be implemented as an extreme solution, because it is harmful to the populations near the plants. A long-term strategy. There is an emergency due to the Russian invasion, there is a choice that looks at the changes induced by a geopolitics that has been modified for many years (the renunciation already decided on the Nord Stream 2 - doubling of the gas pipeline), but there is a future even wider neighbor. For years, the European Union has been expressing a very specific path: stepping on the accelerator on renewable sources with planning, including regional ones. Increase NRP funds to help transition. In the current Italian Pnrr it would be useful to increase green spending. The Italian choices can only look to Europe. In three years it is possible to reduce the need for Russian gas by 50% - by 75% in 5 years - with combined maneuvers.


Carlo Degiacomi
NP April 2022