Energy communities are easy to establish, eco-friendly, and crucial in helping low-income and vulnerable communities access affordable energy. Yet, they are struggling to take off. Why?

—

Today, the European Union is torn between reducing carbon emissions and addressing the growing social inequalities within its 27 constituent nations. As each country finds itself exposed to an overreliance on foreign providers and market volatility, how its citizens consume energy locally is becoming more relevant.

Data suggests this volatility may increase. According to Eurostat, 9% of the EU population struggled to heat their homes adequately in 2022, compared to 7% the year before. That’s 40 million people, almost comparable to the total population of Spain. Energy poverty can affect people’s health, education, and economic opportunities. 

Instead of building bigger and more expensive power plants, the EU has enacted several directives to promote a more decentralised energy system, aiming to allow local initiatives, known as energy communities, to flourish. 

Energy communities are small organisations, sometimes run by citizens, companies, or public institutions to locally produce and consume generated sustainable energy. For example, neighbours could band together to install solar panels on their roofs, or purchase a stake in a wind farm. The energy generated by these systems can be distributed among people to reduce their energy costs, or sold to the main grid for income.

EU law regarding energy communities is based on two main regulations: the Directive on Common Rules for the Internal Electricity Market (2019) and the revised Renewable Energy Directive (2018). The former aims to help consumers’ adopt energy communities by enabling them to take part in energy markets, and provide flexible services through demand-response and storage. The latter promotes the use of renewable energy and allows citizens to play an active role in the development of renewables “by enabling renewable energy communities and self-consumption of renewable energy.” National initiatives level the playing field further through grants and other initiatives. 

Yet, the public is still mostly unfamiliar with such initiatives. 

“The first impression we often encounter from many people is that they are not aware of what an energy community is,” said Alexandros Chronis, pilot manager of Collective Energy (COEN), a non-profit founded in Athens in 2020.

As he and his colleague Athanasios Vasilakis explained, building trust with locals is crucial to start an energy community, but it can be complicated. 

“Our priority is to showcase the concept as clearly as possible to establish trust with prospective members and investors,’’ Vasilakis told Earth.Org. ‘’But it’s not easy, given that we are a small organisation still working to gain recognition.” 

Nevertheless, things seem promising in Greece, with around 15,000 energy communities established as of 2023. 

Chronis is keenly aware of the future challenges organisations like COEN face. “To capture the public’s interest, we need more success stories demonstrating that these initiatives can benefit citizens,” he said. 

To address this issue, COEN has partnered with an EU-funded project, RESCHOOL, which focuses on public engagement.

The EU has already addressed energy poverty through various policy initiatives. For example, the Clean Energy for All Europeans Package supports locals to develop energy communities throughout Europe. Local authorities also play a role. In Spain, municipalities can select vulnerable families to insert them into social projects linked to energy communities. 

In the Spanish city of Girona, a company called Km0 Energy offers consultancy to residents interested in joining local energy communities. Girona launched the Comunitats locals d’Energia (Local Energy Communities) initiative to encourage its municipalities and citizens to create energy communities. The first four energy communities were implemented with the help of KM0 Energy.

Spain, like Italy and Portugal, faces unique challenges in terms of energy poverty, as it endures both high and low temperatures between summer and winter. According to Statista, in 2021, one out of ten Spanish households still consumed less energy than the national median, suggesting financial difficulties in a significant part of the population. 

Javier Munoz, Km0’s technical pilot site manager, says initiatives like the one in Girona are crucial to provide citizens with technical, legal, economic, and participatory tools to combat rising energy costs. 

“These services are offered to prevent energy poverty among citizens, allowing them to be part of energy solutions and save on their monthly electricity bills,” he said. Like COEN, the project collaborates with RESCHOOL to foster engagement.

Other similar EU projects tackle the energy issue from different perspectives. 

PROLIGHT, for example, aims to retrofit existing European buildings to improve their energy efficiency, with six demo sites and energy communities currently developing a neighbourhood-based approach. Another project, TIMEPAC, promotes energy efficiency in existing buildings and houses to comply with EU certifications. The efficiency of households plays a significant role in exacerbating energy poverty. Inefficient buildings tend to waste more energy than modern and efficient ones, primarily through heating, cooling, and lighting. It is estimated that almost 75% of the EU building stock is energy inefficient, contributing to higher utility bills for citizens. For low-income individuals and families in vulnerable socioeconomic situations, this can be a significant problem.

More on the topic: Improving the Energy Efficiency of European Buildings

Despite energy communities’ promising role in addressing critical social issues and the sheer amount of European-funded projects, these programs are still struggling to gain momentum. Poor awareness and perhaps a reluctance to invest by local citizens may have something to do with it. In this regard, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the centrepiece of NextGenerationEU, could provide funding where initial capital is missing. However, this measure cannot be effective without a quicker permitting process, especially as substantial hindrance stems from the member states’ excessive bureaucracy and red tape. Some, in fact, already widely support energy communities. In contrast, others restrict their expansion, resulting in a highly fragmented policy and regulatory landscape.

The energy transition is a necessary step for Europe’s future. However, realising the full potential of energy communities and other initiatives hinges on addressing long standing regulatory issues, finally bridging the disparities among European nations.

The EU is currently taking measures to bridge the existing gap. For example, last October the bloc published a new proposal to amend the existing directives to improve the Union’s electricity market design. In its new form, the Directive ensures that households and Small and Midsize Businesses have access to regulated retail prices during periods of crisis. In addition, member states are compelled to establish a system of suppliers for emergencies. Consumers can also either share renewable energy with each other or develop new energy communities, a process the new Directive strongly facilitates. 

This should become the new standard for all 27 EU nations.

The post How Energy Communities Could Help Europe Reduce Energy Poverty appeared first on Earth.Org.

On May 9, 2023, the Italian Parliament approved a motion to urge the government to consider incorporating atomic power into the country’s energy mix. Italy abandoned nuclear energy with a referendum after Ukraine’s 1987 Chernobyl disaster. 

—

Nuclear energy may be back in style in Italy. Last week, the Italian Chamber of Deputies gave the green light to the government to “evaluate the opportunity to include nuclear power in the national energy mix” as a clean energy source.

According to the motion – proposed by the opposition party Azione – the government should create a national deposit for radioactive waste, consider using modular reactors, support nuclear power research, and join the “Nuclear Alliance” proposed by the French government.

“Fourth-generation nuclear power […] is as safe as it is clean,” said Environment Minister Gilberto Picetto Fratin following the Chamber’s approval. “We will now discuss with our European partners and evaluate […] how to include it in the national energy mix.”

Fratin also noted that this would set Italy on the way to reaching its decarbonisation objectives and will support the European Union in achieving its goal of climate neutrality by 2050.

This should not be a surprise, as all the parties in the current coalition government usually favour atomic energy. However, the topic itself remains controversial among the public.

You might also like: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The country was among the early adopters of nuclear energy in the 1960s, initially ranking third in atomic power generation behind the US and the UK. Nevertheless, much like Germany, Italy experienced a wave of nuclear scepticism during the 1970s and 1980s, culminating in a referendum on atomic power in 1987, prompted by the Chornobyl disaster. Nuclear energy opponents won, and by 1990, Italy was the first major economy to phase out its existing plants completely. 

Now, however, things may change rapidly.

The motion’s approval, for now, doesn’t mean commitment. The government has only agreed to consider it but has yet to adopt its suggestions. However, the vote signals a stark change of pace from the past – probably a much-needed one.

Renewables represent only 17.6% of the country’s energy mix, while natural gas alone accounts for 41%. By betting on nuclear energy, a power source as reliable as fossil fuels and as low carbon as renewables, Italy may reduce its hunger for coal, oil and gas.

Italy’s energy mix, 2022. Image: Our World in Data.

However, although nuclear power is becoming more popular among the Italian population, and especially among the younger electorate, many still regard this type of energy as dangerous or not economically viable. Moreover, a government intending to build new nuclear power plants will inevitably have to deal with protests and vetoes, even from local authorities – usually uncooperative toward new energy infrastructures.

Nevertheless, the motion’s approval remains crucial for Europe’s ongoing energy debate. It also constitutes an important signal for other EU economies. With Germany closing its last nuclear power plants in April, Italy has a chance to become an atomic energy champion alongside France.

After all, the country is still a nuclear parts supplier and boasts high-quality university education in atomic sciences. If a major economy and manufacturer like Italy gives nuclear energy another shot, more countries may follow suit, helping Europe achieve carbon neutrality.

You might also like: The Long Road to Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out

The post Italy Votes to Include Nuclear Power In the National Energy Mix appeared first on Earth.Org.

Germany closed its last three nuclear reactors in April after years of struggles. While it is true that wind and solar energy have grown over time, the country still heavily relies on coal and gas. A nuclear phase-out may now risk increasing Germany’s reliance on fossil fuels.

—

On April 15th, Germany became the second major economy to ditch nuclear energy for good, after Italy did the same in 1990. 

In the wake of the shutdown of its last three reactors – Isar 2, Emsland, and Neckarwestheim 2 – Germany enters a new, uncertain era. Far from being part of a recent phenomenon, this choice represents the culmination of decades of efforts by activists, opposing parties, and even competing governments.

Nuclear scepticism is nothing new in Germany, as it is throughout the West. And like other European and North American movements, Germany’s anti-nuclearism dates back to the 1970s. However, the anti-nuclear sentiment truly gained traction in the early eighties during heightened tensions between the East and the West. 

In 1979, the US pledged to provide Pershing II missiles to West Germany in response to the deployment of the new Soviet-made SS-20 medium-range missiles. Fear of nuclear escalation began to spread again among the German public, especially concerning the effects of radiation on human health. As the ominous spectre of nuclear annihilation haunted German civil society, part of that fear also began to reflect on how the public perceived atomic energy itself.

Although bombs and reactors operate widely different technologies, the connection was always present in public discourse and became even more relevant after the Chornobyl incident of 1986. 

In the wake of the disaster – a true embodiment of the failures of Soviet bureaucracy – it seemed as if the anti-nuclear movement’s claims had been validated. And in some ways, the incident was probably enough to decouple the fear of nuclear technology from the more general paranoia of mutually assured destruction. In the eyes of the German public, it became its own thing, surviving even the end of the Cold War.

In the meantime, as activists marched proudly wearing the “Atomkraft? Nein Danke” (“Nuclear energy? No thank you”) badge, new political organizations emerged, some even making it to the German Bundestag (the national Parliament). One of them was the Green Party, founded in 1980 by a coalition of leftists, pacifists, environmentalists, and anti-nuclear activists. It was elected to the Parliament for the first time in 1983 and steadily gained popularity over the next few decades.

In the 1990s, with the iron curtain dismantled, the discussion expanded to nuclear waste. Attempts by the government to establish a final storage site and build a reprocessing plant were met with strong opposition, not just from the public but also from local officials. In 1995, a temporary nuclear waste disposal site was planned in Gorleben, a small town located in Lower Saxony. Gorleben was never intended to be the final deposit for leftover materials. Yet, in a matter of weeks, the town became a symbol of the struggle against state-imposed nuclear waste facilities. 

During that time, the protests were supported by Lower Saxony’s then-Minister-President Gerhard Schröder. In 1998, Schröder became Chancellor of Germany, presiding over a coalition of Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party. The coalition proposed to phase out nuclear power plants in the coming years, theoretically closing the last one by 2022. However, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its chairwoman, Angela Merkel, disapproved of the decision and vowed to reverse it if they won the 2005 elections.

After Merkel became Chancellor, the government revoked the deal, extending the lives of all nuclear power plants still in operation. Merkel, a scientist with a PhD in physics, was an anomaly in German politics. Before taking office, she was Minister for Environment and Nuclear Safety from 1994 to 1998. During that time, she stood up to the protesters during the Gorleben crisis, stating that the issue had to be handled technocratically.

The situation changed in 2011 after the Fukushima nuclear accident. In response to the growing popularity of the Green Party, Chancellor Merkel unexpectedly reversed her decision, resuming the plan of her predecessor to close the remaining power plants by 2022. 

Then, in February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

In the wake of the resulting hydrocarbon crisis triggered by Moscow, keeping the remaining nuclear power plant appeared to be the most reasonable solution. The Social Democrats and the Green Party were in power again, yet a compromise seemed at hand – if anything, for sheer pragmatism. Nevertheless, after a brief delay justified by winter, the last three reactors were permanently shut down in April 2023.

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Now, the country that prided itself on championing renewable energy is solving its energy woes through something as environmentally unfriendly as coal. With hindsight, these choices seem even harder to justify. The Social Democrats and the Green Party in the 1990s and early 2000s may have targeted this resource instead of nuclear. However, while coal mining only accounted for a small portion of all jobs in Germany, many were located in Social Democrats’ strongholds. 

So, Schröder’s idea in 1998 was to reach an agreement with the Green Party: Closing the nuclear power plant, a symbol for those raised in the wake of Chornobyl, scaling up renewables, and hope for the best. 

The same applies to Merkel in 2011. The choice was once again political, to get voters away from the Green Party, which was experiencing a sharp rise in popularity. Similarly, the solution had the same amount of wishful thinking – acquiring most fossil fuels from a notoriously undemocratic and mercurial country with territorial ambitions toward its neighbours.

In twenty years’ time, wind and solar indeed have grown in capacity, going from 16 TWh in 2002 to 185 TWh in 2022. At the same time, nuclear energy went from generating 165 TWh of electricity to only 35. Coal use decreased as well, although not as much, from 293 TWh to 183, while gas grew slightly, from 56 to 77 TWh.

But there’s a catch. Solar and wind are highly intermittent, only working best on sunny or windy days. In addition, there is no way yet to effectively store energy when these resources are at full capacity, which brings us to the real issue of the debate about nuclear power. For renewables to work best, they must be supported by reliable sources that function consistently every moment. And with nuclear out of the picture, coal becomes once again the best candidate to power the country.

So, while wind and solar have absorbed most of the decrease in nuclear energy production and coal has declined by over one-third, the latter remains equal to renewables in terms of power generation. And with the closure of the last three reactors, only a handful of that demand will now be replaced by low-carbon resources. A day after the shutdown, coal – but also nuclear power from France – immediately replaced most of the energy needed.

The environment and European Union climate goals are the most prominent victims of this choice, but also consumers and local industries. By ditching a cheap power source, energy costs will rise even more, making companies less competitive and putting an unnecessary burden on families.

According to a paper published in 2022 in the Journal of the European Economic Association by Stephen Jarvis, Oliver Deschenes, and Akshaya Jha, the nuclear power phase-out has already cost Germany between €3 and 8 billion euros per year.

This choice makes little sense even as a trade-off based on health risks. As scary as it was, the Fukushima incident did not result in deaths by radiation poisoning, nor did the area around the power plant become an exclusion zone, as it happened in Ukraine. Chornobyl was the only true nuclear power-related tragedy. Yet, the four thousand excess death estimated in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia between 1986 and 2006 pale compared to fossil fuels’ excessive yearly deaths.

According to a peer-reviewed paper published by climate scientists Pushker A. Kharecha and Makiko Sato from Columbia University in 2019, significant emissions and fatalities would have been avoided if coal and gas were closed instead of nuclear power. Specifically, Germany could have prevented up to 4.6 thousand deaths between 2011 and 2017, all by pairing atomic energy with renewables and phasing out fossil fuels.

Regardless of how one perceives nuclear energy, all of this matters, as every pressing issue of our time is linked to energy. The type of energy we use impacts our capacity to counter the most dreadful effects of climate change. Energy costs significantly influence a country’s prosperity and economic inequality since they affect families and businesses. And, of course, energy imports from unstable countries are a further security issue—not just for Germany, as the Ukrainians have experienced.

No technology is completely risk-free, including nuclear. However, the latter emits virtually no CO2, unlike natural gas, oil, and coal. Additionally, unlike wind and solar, it does not depend on atmospheric conditions, so it is as reliable as fossil fuels and as low-carbon as classic renewables. Nevertheless, as with most things, in the end, it’s just a matter of choice – albeit one that may also have implications for the rest of the EU.

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.

You might also like: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The post The Long Road to Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out appeared first on Earth.Org.