If we had to describe the idea on which this text is based in one thought, ie in one sentence, then it would read as follows: “The return of strategic planning for the development of European energy to the profession, ie energy itself, physics, economics and mathematics.”
The collectively accepted “truth”, which has been constantly repeated in the global energy industry in recent decades, sounds like this: “Decarbonization in order to prevent global warming, ie climate change, as well as unconditional reduction of CO2 emissions has no alternative. The first in a series of collective axioms of the modern age is, for sure, the claim that climate change, which we have witnessed since meteorological measurements and climate parameters are monitored, is caused exclusively and directly by human activity, ie caused by the emission of gases of the greenhouse effect. What follows this claim, ie its exclusive acceptance as the only truth, which as such is not questioned, although there are current, even more probable theories of the causes of today’s climate change, carries with it a huge risk for the development and survival of the energy system in Europe, including the region in which we live – together with the energy system of the Republic of Serbia.”
What happens when you prepare for a single future scenario of possible development in an area?
Politicians can afford to play their role of the stubborn and ignorant, but engineers should never do that. We must be prepared for the worst-case scenario, when it comes to the future development of the climate environment on our planet. Global warming is just one of the existing theories, supported by international corporations and politicians, who are paid to promote it and fight for it… What happens in any other, quite probable, ie possible scenario of future climate development, we can learn from the example of Texas, these days.
The essence of this text is not to prevent the widespread effects of “collective truths”, which are very skillfully imposed on us, it is simply not possible, the purpose is to awaken the still open minority among us and point out the need to look at a given natural process from other angles. How could we not wake up in 2050 – the year that is currently being emphasized by the European legislator as a reference point in the future, and realized that we have spent key decades and huge funds dealing with only one and, most likely, wrong assumption. The main goal of this text is to point out the need for proper consideration of all possible scenarios of European energy development, with special reference to the electricity and gas sector, as well as to challenge the professional public to gather courage and consider other possible causes of global climate change which will prepare human civilization for what may follow, and in which neither the energy of the wind nor the energy of the sun will save us, at least not in the way that the so-called renewable energy sources are used today.
Unrealistic expectations of green energy
In the area of long-term strategic planning, we deal with probable outcomes, never certain 100% of the outcomes. We use heroic methods and nothing, but nothing at all, we can claim with any great certainty. Precisely for this reason, it would be a huge mistake and a huge risk to be tied exclusively to one theory, to one universal truth. For this reason, the text appeals to look at the problem from several angles and analyze all possible outcomes in order to better prepare our small country, our region, Europe, but also the whole world for a possible future, focusing primarily on energy and energy needs. Personally, I fully support the effort to turn energy to clean, renewable energy sources (RES), but unfortunately, with today’s technology, they are simply not able to enable our society to move smoothly from, or abandon, conventional energy sources. We need to keep our eyes wide open so that unrealistic expectations about green energy do not result in very bad decisions, after which our society may never recover.
Scenarios made without thorough analysis
The theory says that in order to see future, strategic development in any area, which always brings with it a greater or lesser dose of uncertainty, it is necessary to analyze diametrically different development scenarios, ie to analyze different possible outcomes of a certain predefined process in the future. This has been the case in previous similar studies conducted, at least by the Association of Power System Operators. But, starting in 2019, there is a drastic change. We will not deal here, but only mention the catastrophic fact that behind the newly developed scenarios of energy development there are no serious study analyzes of the power system, which would show whether it is possible to implement intermittent, non-permanent, at such a drastically high level as planned by the EU legislator, energy sources such as solar parks and wind farms, ie distributed sources based on wind and solar energy. Namely, it would be necessary, before any application of energy targets imposed by the EU legislator, to analyze all aspects of security and stability of the power system, performing appropriate static and dynamic calculations on simulation models of observed conditions for those years, and only after them to approach possible dunking in the legislation and the already mentioned collective mantra. Unfortunately, so far such serious study, technical analyzes have not been performed at the level of European interconnection, so we can only hope that at some point the professional public will speak up and stop this, we can now freely call it by its real name, “madness”. In such a situation, we are practically left without any chance to check some other, very possible development scenarios, when it comes to the European energy future, and with it the future of energy of all small countries in the Balkans and the wider region.
It is very important to understand how dangerous everything described above is and how difficult the handicap is for the entire process of strategic energy planning of our continent. Figuratively speaking, this would be best described by a situation in which we cut off both legs and both arms at the same time with the best intentions, leaving us completely helpless, blindly believing and completely dependent on the environment.
Climate change needs to be separated from environmental problems
In order not to misunderstand this text, we must emphasize that this text does not in any way imply or ridicule or in any way undermine the clear need for existing energy production technologies, especially those based on fossil fuels, do not make clean, both for man and for the whole environment, as well as to accelerate the work on finding real alternative energy sources, which would be able to replace the currently used, conventional sources. Our goal must be completely clean air and clean, free-flowing water in all rivers. What we are emphasizing here is the mistake that unconditionally connects climate change with it. We are clearly separating climate change from environmental problems, which do exist, but can be solved in other ways, and not just, drastically, by completely abandoning conventional energy sources. You will notice that real environmental problems, the problem of clean air and clean water, the problem of irreversible and complete destruction of river flows are mentioned to a much lesser extent, which result in incalculable, irreversible catastrophic results for biodiversity and survival, not only of human civilization on this planet, of the entire flora and fauna. How the reduction of CO2 that is so insisted on will be affected can be answered by any child who has a good grade in biology in the fifth grade of primary school.
Diversification of inference
We all know that diversification of energy sources is a good thing, let’s try, for a start, to diversify the sources of our conclusions and try to look at the situation from several angles… The result of this will, perhaps, pleasantly surprise us. It costs us nothing to try…
Whether we can predict with absolute accuracy the development of any area in the future, near or far, is completely irrelevant in this case. Let’s ask an easier question. Can we describe with absolute accuracy an event that happened this morning and that we witnessed directly?
The answer to this second question is, we will agree, NO. For absolute reasons, we cannot describe any event with absolute accuracy, and everyone agrees on the same description as witnesses. Even as direct witnesses, we see everything around us from our own angle, as a physical, geometric angle, which defines our location from which we observe an event, and, perhaps more importantly, with our psycho-ethically defined point of view, primarily prejudices – which we control and learned, personal and collective, conscious and unconscious foreknowledge. With foreknowledge and subconscious knowledge, which is greatly influenced today by the mass media and the mentioned collective mantras.
So what to answer to the first, harder question. How can we claim anything with any greater probability for anything in the future, for any process? Well, realistically, with a high probability we can’t… But, that probability of accuracy, so to define it, we can increase in the following way… especially if we consult with mathematics and physics. What do they have to say about that?
Namely, what do we need in order to locate the exact position of the signal, which is broadcast with a location unknown to us (locating forecasts of the development of the situation in the future “truth” is our parallel). What do we need in order to, without physically crossing it, measure the distance to an unknown object, say the distance to a ship on the high seas, or to an object on the other side of the bank of a river (again the same parallel).
Confronting opinions
In both cases, we need at least three available points, three available locations and “little” knowledge of mathematics and geometry, triangulation, trilateration… What would mean in parallel strategic analysis, we need as many different, perhaps diametrically opposed sources, or scenarios possible developments of the situation, as well as analysis – so that with a little common sense, logical reasoning and a lot of work, effort and analysis, we can locate what awaits us in the future, with as much probability, and have time to properly prepare for it.
In the case of strategic analyzes, therefore, the recipe for “triangulation” would be:
• as many different development scenarios as possible, ideally diametrically opposed theories and hypotheses,
• as many experts from different fields of natural and technical sciences, who will perform, in mathematical and physical terms, triangulation and from each of them draw common logical denominators, which can give the much desired logical whole, maybe even some new scientific direction, which is not possible.
• questioning existing authorities: Namely, the basic principle of progress in all natural sciences is the constant questioning of existing principles and authorities. ie. awareness that authority in knowledge does not exist. In our case, the parallel would certainly be the questioning of collective “truths”, which, otherwise, must not be touched at all, that is, the questioning of political agendas, dictated in this case by the EU. If these principles had not been used in practice, the entire human civilization would still be in the Stone Age. To quote one of our contemporaries: “The Stone Age is not over because stones have run out, but because there has been progress in human consciousness and technology, as a consequence of the former.”
Well, if we know all this from the natural sciences, why don’t we apply the same to the social-political sciences, to the critical consideration of political decisions above all. To repeat, the exact natural sciences are based on the principle that nothing is ever nailed and unchangeable, that dogmas do not exist, and socio-political, by nature very subjective science, ie the field of human action does not allow such a thing.
There must be no forbidden topics in science and strategic planning, there must be no predefined and agenda-driven processes, the result of which is known even before the beginning of any analysis. We must look at different attitudes as a treasure, as a necessity that leads us to discovery and correct conclusion. We need to look at criticisms and comments positively, analyzing them through negative feedback and, thus, improving theories and perceptions of the things analyzed. In this case, we use as many angles of view as possible, as many diametrically opposed possible development scenarios as possible. If we follow this recipe, we have a chance. We have a chance to get as close as possible to reality in the assessment of what awaits us and, more importantly, to be ready for the same.
Coal – the guarantor of energy independence
The essence is the following, when it comes to Serbian energy – at the moment. The Republic of Serbia is already completely dependent on gas imports, highly dependent on oil imports, and the only energy sector in which our country is still independent of imports is the electricity sector – thanks, above all, to its natural, mineral and water resources. According to coal reserves, our country is on the eighth place in the world, ahead of us are only large countries such as Russia, China, USA, Australia, Germany, Turkey and Indonesia. The only similar case to ours in Europe could be Poland, which ranks tenth on the same list in terms of lignite reserves, so perhaps the smartest thing would be to emulate this member of the European Union and the Visegrad Four, to follow its moves when it comes to decarbonization and NECP, ie national goals related to the strategic development of energy, but we must keep in mind that we are a small and poor country, which should never lightly give up its own energy reserves and thus become completely energy dependent. In particular, this assertion stands if behind the opposite aspiration lies something that can at least be described as an unexamined and questionable motive.
According to the IEA report, Asia is to blame for the increase in coal use in the world. The IEA said China, India and other Asian economies are the main users of coal, while coal electricity production has fallen in Europe and North America. Even in the non-energy sectors, demand has remained stable despite many switches from coal to gas in China. International coal trade also grew by 4% in 2018, exceeding 1.4 billion tons. The IEA said that despite pressure from the public and the financial sector, which is abolishing support for coal, it cannot say with certainty whether coal use is declining, which means it is not declining. Although coal use was expected to “likely decline in 2019, it is realistic to expect that coal use will remain stable until 2024.”
EU carbon neutrality – a blockade for competition
And this leads us to the following conclusion: we must be very careful about future national energy goals, especially when developing an integrated National Energy and Climate Plan – NECP. We must monitor the development of the situation in the region, as well as the overall development of the situation in the EU, especially in connection with the already seen introduction of the so-called cross-border carbon taxes under the extended ETS-Emission Trading Scheme EU. Namely, within this initiative, importers of steel, aluminum and other products with a high share of CO2 emissions in production, including electricity producers, who want to place their energy on the EU market, would have to pay CO2 emissions, as producers do from the EU in accordance with the EU emissions trading system. In this way, an import tax would be effectively introduced and the price of imported goods would increase, ie energy, increasing the competitiveness of goods produced in the EU. The aim would be to combat “CO2 emissions”, with the EU penalizing cheaper imports from countries that apply less stringent rules to “fight climate change”. This may describe the very essence of the theory of global warming and the so-called theory of “CO2 emissions”, which comes down to increasing the competitiveness of EU products, ie keeping the EU industry alive despite the huge competition coming from both the East and west. It is our job to protect ourselves as much as possible with a wise energy policy, to try to represent the interest of our small country as well as possible, as well as to survive in the interest and game of the big ones and simply not disappear.
Science against the collective mantra
We live in a time of mass media, social networks and general simplification, a general banalization of all, even narrowly professional topics. Averageness has won and successfully governs all aspects of our civilization. We must challenge it and remain firm in our beliefs and our knowledge. If we don’t do that today, we won’t have another chance, which is something I’m sure of.
The energy system must not rely solely on energy sources that are not in complete human control, or that depend heavily on climate and weather conditions and are not robust enough to survive extreme weather conditions – the example of Texas, but also the decades-long example of our neighboring Albania they show it great. The energy mix must remain such that basic national energy needs can be sufficiently covered from conventional, man-controlled energy sources. Serious analyzes of the adaptation of the energy system to national energy needs must be conducted on a set of diametrically different development scenarios, both markets in the narrower region and the wider environment, and global climate conditions. Yes, global climate conditions, but not only those predicted by today’s widely accepted theory of global warming, caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but climate change predicted by mathematical models and forecasts introduced into world science by Milutin Milankovic, and which are studied by the pages of a large number of experts in the world, which are studied very carefully by NASA, just do not come to the fore, as they are not in line with the collective mantra. Also, we must not abandon the research and development of new alternative energy sources, especially, according to the author of this text, we should focus on the ideas and thoughts of the great visionary and humanist, our Nikola Tesla.
How did lawyers become energy policy experts?
On one occasion, I joked with one of my great friends, a good lawyer and colleague, then from the Secretariat of the Energy Community, on the topic of a huge number of lawyers who are currently dealing with, if not dictating, European energy policy. Namely, I jokingly told him that I consider all those experts in the legal profession to be extremely brave, if not the bravest experts in Europe at the moment. Why? Well, because although they are neither educated nor sufficiently trained for issues in natural and technical sciences, issues in climatology, power engineering, mechanical engineering… with great represent of the political agenda of the European Union, which in the field of energy policy is guided by purely political and economic interest of a member of the European Union, that is, to be more precise, in the interests of huge corporate capital. On the other hand, none of these same lawyers think about the near future from the angle of their own profession. Namely, what will happen if the agenda, which so blindly follow, without any possibility to recognize mistakes in it, turns out to be catastrophic, or simply very wrong. Will he then deal with so much zeal and enthusiasm, this time really with his own profession, countless lawsuits of small states with billions of euros in damages, or to be more precise, defense against those lawsuits!
It’s time for a decision
We have a big decision ahead of us, a difficult decision. Will we obey decisions that, as small countries in the Balkans, we cannot influence at all? Decisions that are beyond the reach of common sense and the energy profession, decisions that are guided more by the irrational than the rational. Or we will maintain a course that ensures the security and stability of national energy systems, which provides coverage, ie, consideration of some other possible development scenarios, both energy images in Europe and Eurasia, and other possible, very possible, scenarios of climate development on our planet, on which, apparently, we will have no influence at all? Or will we have a practically negligible impact, but for which can we, this time, prepare much better and prevent catastrophic consequences for human civilization – which “maybe” will soon follow?
We do not suggest any drastic steps, just looking at the problem from other possible angles, as well as preparing measures and activities that will prevent these other possible development scenarios, Energija Balkana reports.
