Contrary Opinion. The Trivializations to Avoid on the Spanish Blackout

On the same topic:

To the Editor - In his long article in Il Foglio on the Spanish “apagon”, very interesting, documented and detailed, Carlo Stagnaro concludes that ultimately the blackout was caused by a failure of the Spanish system, until a few days ago a “model”, because it depends excessively on renewables installed in an “ill-considered” way. So the underlying message is that even if the trigger is not known exactly, the “system” reason that led to the apagon is an energy model based on renewable energies, which are not safe .

Read also:

I do not agree with this conclusion, especially considering that in Spain the price of energy for citizens and businesses is much lower than ours, that the economy is growing 4 times more than in Italy and that Spain is a very attractive country for foreign investors; moreover, electricity returned quite quickly and certainly not thanks to nuclear power (5 plants are still off); the day after the blackout, 84 percent of Spanish electricity was produced from renewables and the price was the lowest in Europe .

In short, if we speak in terms of models, it seems to me that the Italian one, which produces 44 percent of its electricity with gas (compared to 16 percent of the European average), has very high bills, happily wants to continue investing in fossil fuels, return to nuclear power and is slowing down renewables , against which an absurd and uninformed campaign has been unleashed, is much less convincing and effective, with or without blackouts.

That there are important points to resolve, such as the adaptation of the networks and, as they think in the Spanish government, also regulatory gaps to fill in particular with regard to the responsibilities of las “electricas” in terms of reinvestment and obligations to provide for storage and batteries is an incontrovertible fact . That there is an urgent need to strengthen interconnections with the rest of the continent, overcoming the historic opposition of France which, as Luigi Moccia says, perhaps does not want to find itself with too many cheap renewables at home in the face of its nuclear power which will be increasingly expensive, also seems obvious to me; as obvious is that something serious happened on April 28 , which certainly cost the Spanish a few million euros (the numbers vary greatly depending on who reports them for now ...).

But the political choice to focus on renewables and exit nuclear is absolutely sacrosanct and is bearing positive results ; moreover, Stagnaro argues that the accusations against nuclear of not having helped solve the problem are out of place because nuclear is not made to work “accordion-style” but to provide energy continuously. Here, precisely: its rigidity is another reason why nuclear is perhaps not well suited to a world that focuses on renewable energy and efficiency. Stagnaro rightly argues that there will be huge investments to be made and that the transition costs. Absolutely true. No one has ever hidden it, on the contrary. But no energy choice is free. Not even the reckless choice of Italy to focus on gas, on a “safe” nuclear that does not yet exist or on non-existent technologies such as CCS. It is just a matter of choosing where it is best to focus resources . In times of climate emergency perhaps the Spanish model, with all its limitations, remains an example to follow.

Monica Frassoni President European Alliance to Save Energy and European Center for Electoral Support

More on these topics: