The call for greater European cooperation is growing louder as geopolitical tensions rise. Energy security plays a central role in this. Recent agreements on offshore wind power seem to be an important step, but they mask an uncomfortable truth: without a strong commitment to electrification of demand, increased generation will remain a costly sham solution.
Last week, various government leaders in Hamburg announced that countries will be working together more closely in the field of wind energy. Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands agreed to build 100 gigawatts (GW) of joint offshore wind projects. This is part of the existing ambition to have a total of 300 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2050.
The announcement was met with much enthusiasm. Rightly so, because there finally seems to be a growing awareness that greater European cooperation is not a luxury in a rapidly changing geopolitical world. Just a few days earlier, President Trump had threatened a number of EU countries with increased import tariffs because they—as NATO members—had sent troops to Greenland.
“Our most loyal ally is increasingly abandoning us Europeans.”
Although this heated debate has cooled down for the time being, there is a growing awareness that our most loyal ally is increasingly letting us down in many areas, including defense, IT, and energy. Greater strategic autonomy is therefore wise, including when it comes to our energy supply.
That is a lesson we could—or rather should—have learned during the energy crisis caused by the war between Ukraine and Russia. That war led to a rapid, forced reduction in our dependence on Russian gas. Although the ambition for 300 GW of offshore wind power arose at that time, it did not yet lead to much concrete action.
You know the reason why. Wind tenders were a flop, partly because wind energy has become significantly more expensive in recent years. Higher costs for materials and labor, combined with governments wanting to make money from tenders, made the business case unprofitable. Without subsidies, additional wind energy, including offshore, simply cannot get off the ground.
In the UK, new wind projects proved to be possible again – with subsidies. In the Netherlands, outgoing Minister Hermans has also made up to four billion euros available for a new 1 GW wind tender. A quick calculation shows how much money is needed for 100 GW, let alone 300 GW. And that's not even taking into account the necessary infrastructure.
“We don't import electrons at all, but molecules.”
Safety comes at a price. If we want to be less dependent on energy imports, we will have to extract and generate more energy ourselves. However, this is where the problem lies. We do not import electrons from Russia or the US, but molecules in the form of oil and gas. Building additional wind farms will not solve this problem by a long shot.
In fact, when there is strong wind and sunshine, we already have too much renewable electricity and have to scale back. The real key to reducing geopolitical dependence therefore lies not primarily in generating more power, but in electrifying our energy demand. Without demand, extra supply is pointless and a wasted investment.
Nevertheless, governments are repeating the same mistake they made in recent years. The idea that more supply will automatically lead to more demand has yielded little results to date. Electricity demand has been stable for years. Sustainability is therefore not being achieved through additional green supply, but through the relocation of CO2 emissions.
These governments would therefore have been better advised to actively stimulate the further electrification of energy demand. Greater demand for electrons naturally leads to a better business case for the generation of green electricity.
“If you want to become less dependent geopolitically, you have to ensure that industry remains in Europe.”
If you want to become less dependent geopolitically, you need to ensure that industry remains in Europe and become less dependent on imports. This requires time and space for companies to remain competitive and become more sustainable through electrification, just as in the built environment. Only if this extra demand for electricity is guaranteed will there be a real need for more domestic renewable energy generation, including offshore wind.
The announcement in Hamburg did state that governments want to stimulate electrification, but while the 100 GW of joint wind projects was presented with great force and determination, this aspect of the transition remained conspicuously vague. This is partly understandable: we are in a hurry. The sustainability targets clash with the time that large-scale electrification simply takes.
The CO2 reduction required to achieve the targets is happening faster than the industry can technically achieve. This results in leakage. Furthermore, anyone who wants to reduce dependence on energy imports must accept that businesses and households cannot do this alone and need financial support, which means that it will inevitably become more expensive. Independence, security, and the phasing out of efficient global trade simply cost a lot of money. And we will have to bear those costs together.
“Only if we tackle everything at once can we hopefully hold our own in the changing world order.”
The political promise that this will not affect our wallets is therefore an empty promise. Passing the bill on to "the big polluters" – often simply our employers – will not lead to sustainability, but to the impoverishment of our industry and thus our economy. Driving away industry may make us less dependent on imported molecules, but it will make us more dependent on semi-finished products and imported goods. The 'advantage' is that we achieve our national climate targets. A typical case of: operation successful, patient dead.
I therefore sincerely hope that the new cabinet will continue to see the bigger picture. And that European leaders will continue to realize that cooperation is the only way forward when it comes to security—not only defense, but also energy security and economic resilience. Not just the low-hanging fruit, such as energy supply, but the whole package, including demand for electrons and infrastructure.
Even if you go all in on this, our dependence will only decrease gradually. A transition takes time. Only by tackling everything at once can we, as Europe, gradually become less dependent on imports and hold our own in a changing world order. If we don't, we will remain a pawn in the power struggle between the US and China.
This column was previously posted on LinkedIn for Studie Energie Opinie.
Hans van Cleef is Head of Energy Research at EqoLibrium (this column was written in a personal capacity).
