The energy transition is caught in a paradox: the desire to phase out fossil fuels more quickly is growing, while resistance to the alternatives is actually increasing. This is creating a widening gap between ambitions and practical feasibility. According to Hans van Cleef, the transition can only succeed if supply, demand, and infrastructure grow simultaneously. This requires more space for energy facilities, decisive government policy, and an honest debate about the inevitable consequences: the transition is becoming more visible, more complex, and more expensive for everyone.
Hans van Cleef is Head of Energy Research at EqoLibrium (this column was written in a personal capacity and previously appeared in Studio Energie Opinie)
Last week, Energeia reported that replacing old wind turbines with new ones—known as “repowering”—is not going as planned. We’re hearing more and more often that the further expansion of renewable energy is slowing down. Not only the elimination of the net metering program for solar panels and grid congestion, but also growing resistance to replacing—let alone building new—onshore wind turbines is causing delays. In addition, solar and wind farm projects are becoming increasingly expensive, and investors are more cautious, putting pressure on the business case.
At the same time—especially after this summer’s heat waves—civil society organizations and policymakers are calling for a faster phase-out of fossil fuels. This creates tension. A faster phase-out of fossil fuels must go hand in hand with a faster rollout of alternatives.
“We want the benefits of the digital economy, but not the physical infrastructure required to support it.”
Since efforts to make industry more sustainable or to electrify it are making very limited progress, the growth in demand for electricity must come from somewhere else. That is precisely why it is striking that public opposition to data centers continues to grow. These data centers are primarily viewed as energy wasters and create few jobs.
It is a bit hypocritical, though, since virtually everyone uses digital services on a daily basis. And with the advent of artificial intelligence, the demand for data processing will continue to grow in the coming years. This is a curious contradiction. We want the benefits of the digital economy, but not the physical infrastructure that is necessary to support it.
“What seemed like a theoretical problem for years has turned into a tangible economic drag”
And even if supply and demand do become better balanced, that electricity still needs to be transmitted. Reports of grid congestion and a lack of capacity on the grid appear in the newspapers every day. Consequently, there is a great deal of frustration about the grid acting as a limiting factor when it comes to building more homes, expanding business operations, connecting charging stations for electric cars, and so on.
For years, there were clear signs that the power grid would be unable to handle the growing demand and generation. Yet not enough was done to prepare for this. Now, in many places, businesses and consumers are literally waiting for a connection or an expansion of capacity. What seemed like a theoretical problem for years has turned into a tangible economic obstacle.
But if a grid operator then tries to obtain a permit for a transformer station in the neighborhood or a number of high-voltage transmission towers, the number of appeals is countless, and this expansion is significantly delayed—if it succeeds at all.
“The risk is that we keep following the same pattern over and over again. That’s not a strategy—it’s procrastination.”
It is thus becoming increasingly clear that all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked, and that the energy transition is starting to become more and more tangible and visible. Tangible in the decline in security of supply, tangible in our wallets, visible in the landscape, and visible in the fact that we can no longer blindly carry out our (energy-intensive) plans. It’s causing friction once again.
“No pain, no gain” is, as the saying goes, a well-known adage. But in a world that is already increasingly dominated by contradictions, geopolitical unrest, and—at the very least—a sense of growing inequality, finding common ground on these issues is becoming an increasingly difficult task.
The risk is that we constantly follow the same pattern: first, we spend years recognizing that a problem is emerging; then, we engage in endless discussions about possible solutions; and finally, we take action only when the consequences have fully manifested themselves. That is not a strategy—it is procrastination.
“The energy transition will not succeed simply by increasing supply. It will only succeed when supply, demand, and infrastructure grow together.”
If the Netherlands truly wants to make progress in phasing out fossil fuels, we must accept that a sustainable future requires more electricity, not less. That means making room for electrification, data centers, AI, and more energy infrastructure. At the same time, it requires a government that is willing to look ahead and bridge temporary market shortages when societal goals demand it.
The energy transition will not succeed simply by increasing supply. It will only succeed when supply, demand, and infrastructure grow in tandem. Furthermore, it is certain that our energy supply will become more expensive. Everyone must be brought on board in this regard as well. Simply stating that “polluting companies” should pay is downright short-sighted. After all, the burden cannot be placed indefinitely on the business community due to international competition. Moreover, those costs will, wherever possible, be passed on to the end user (i.e., the voter).
In short, the transition is becoming more difficult, more visible, and more expensive for everyone. That insight seems obvious, but it is strikingly often overlooked in the current debate. Perhaps it is time to correct that and paint an honest—and above all, complete—picture. Before this problem, too, gets out of hand and we only then decide to do something about it.
