By Gunnar Schupelius
After the natural gas end, Berlin has to switch to liquid gas. But liquid gas doesn’t come off much better than coal in terms of the CO2 balance. The energy transition in Berlin was therefore the wrong way and is now backfiring, says Gunnar Schupelius.
Everyone is talking about the gas supply. Finally, one has to say, because we felt safe for far too long. Or rather, we were reassured by federal and state politicians and almost all parties who gave us wrong or incomplete information.
They promised renewable energy to replace coal and made us dependent on Russian natural gas instead. They initiated an energy transition that was supposed to save the climate and backed the completely wrong horse.
Now one scandal after another is coming to light, especially in Berlin, because this is where the energy transition went particularly wrong. Here not only the heating systems were converted to natural gas, but also almost the entire production of electricity and district heating.
Six of the eight combined heat and power plants in the city no longer run on coal and instead on gas, the last two are to follow by 2030 (Moabit, Reuter West).
The reason given is that the use of gas causes fewer CO₂ emissions than burning coal. That’s true, but this calculation only applies to natural gas, which was mainly sourced from Russia. This source dries up because Putin turns off the tap.
Berlin is now trying to replace natural gas with liquid gas. Even if that were to succeed, we would have to do another calculation, because liquid gas only has a small CO₂ advantage over coal, for two reasons: First, it has to be shipped halfway around the world in traditional tankers, which consume a lot of fuel. Second, it needs to be heavily cooled and reheated heavily after landing, which also consumes a lot of energy.
If the liquefied gas is now obtained via so-called fracking, it no longer has any CO₂ advantage over coal. The Federal Environment Ministry stated at the end of 2020: “The use of fracking gas is unlikely to have any positive effects on climate targets, especially compared to the use of pipeline-bound imported natural gas.”
The science network Energy Watch Group even comes to the conclusion that power plants that run on fracked gas “emit up to 30 percent more greenhouse gases than coal-fired power plants”.
Switching from coal to gas-fired power plants therefore has minimal or no impact on climate protection. So you might as well have stayed with the coal.
What does the senator for climate protection, Bettina Jarasch (Greens) say? Her answer to a request from the daily newspaper “taz” reads as follows: “Since the Senate Administration has no knowledge of the use of fracking gases, we cannot provide any information on this.”
That means in plain language: Berlin switched to gas without knowing where the journey is going. The climate goals will not be achieved. The energy transition was a mistake and strikes us terribly
feet.
Is Gunnar Schupelius right? Call: 030/2591 73153 or email: [email protected]