Interview: Dr. Hermann Scheer

Dr. Hermann Scheer, a member of the German Parliament, the Bundestag, since 1980, has been a trailblazer in establishing Germany as the leader of renewable energy development. Scheer argues for massive and rapid development of renewable energy and argues that growth of fossil and nuclear energy will lead society to massive environmental, political, and economic failures.

Scheer, an economist by training, was instrumental in passing perhaps the world’s most effective law promoting renewable energy, Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). The law forces electric utilities to connect and then buy energy from suppliers of renewable energy. Those suppliers might include private homes fitted with solar panels, or communities relying on wind turbines, or farmers who turn manure into biofuels.

Although ratepayers bear the cost for subsidizing renewable energy, the EEG remains popular in Germany, not least because it has created jobs: a quarter of a million Germans now work in “green collar” jobs, constructing windmills, solar panels, biodigestors and other components necessary for producing renewable energy.

Hermann Scheer has criticized Ontario’s energy planning. He urges the province to make radical changes to its electricity system, powering future growth by wind turbines and hydroelectric plants rather than the “outdated centralized system” currently proposed.

Hermann Scheer spoke to the fifth estate’s Bob McKeown.

TAKE ME BACK, MR. SCHEER. HOW DID THIS BECOME YOUR MISSION?

Oh it was, ah, in the mid of the ‘80s. I have been at this time chairman of the Disarmament and Arms Control Committee of the German Parliament. I was foreign relations specialist. And I fighted for nuclear disarmament, nationally, internationally. And ah then I wrote a book. The title of this book is The Liberation from the Bomb. And ah I described the opportunity – the necessity and the opportunity to come to a comprehensive nuclear disarmament - controlled disarmament worldwide and why it is necessary. And why the nuclear arms race, including the ah missiles arms race absorbs so much money and leads the whole technology development into wrong directions. And then ah I described within this book the alternative, a technological alternative. It was at the time of the Star Wars program which was announced and initiated by the United States president Reagan. SDI – Strategic Defense Initiative and the common name was Star Wars. And many ah people, even in Europe, became enthusiastic about that, not because of the military meaning but because ah of the idea this could give – bring a broad push for new technologies, the spin off – the spin off effects. And ah I argued ah if you look to the technologies we need for the future, we can do it directly and should do it directly and not waiting for ah some spin offs. And then I put the question: what is necessary for the future? What is not done today but what is in any way necessary, needed for the future? And this is ah the energy question, the shift from conventional energies to renewable energies. And then I wrote a special chapter which was headlined by Towards a Global Ecological SDI initiative, the solar development initiative, instead of the strategic defense initiative. At this time solar energy or renewable energies were, with the exception of large hydro power plants, totally underestimated, out of any discussion. And ah therefore it was ah a very unique ah statement, very unique statement at this time. Many found that it would be ridiculous, it would be not realistic and so forth. And mainly the energy experts. And also many environmental experts and their argument was we should look to energy saving, energy efficiency.

CONSERVATION.

And my – energy conservation – and my argument was well this is okay but (unclear) … doesn’t exist. And finally the question, which energy source we have is the most decisive question. And ah the argument that’s renewable energy potential which all – the whole potential comes from the direct – direct supply by the sun for our globe is by far – by far ah larger than the conventional power. And ah it was known for me that ah the sun supplies to our globe annually 50,000 times more energy than the annually conventional atomic as well as fossil energy is consumed. And therefore the question if there is enough potential is ridiculous. There is enough potential. The potential of the conventional energy reserves is marginal related to the renewable energy supply and it is forever, the renewable energy supply. Therefore it is a question of new technologies to make it available for us. And for this we need a new technological revolution and this must be pushed. This is an existential question for the whole civilization. It is an existential question for all the states. And this should get main priority. This was the basis of this. And ah then ah it was a surprise for me.

IN WHAT WAY?

It was a surprise for me that ah, um, I experienced that I was the only one who argued in this direction. No politician, not only in Germany but even in other countries had ah, ah done ah had given such a statement, no one.

AND WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? WHY WERE YOU THE FIRST?

I think ah this has ah to do with several – with several reasons. One reason is the ah particularization of the energy science including of the energy economists. Because they do think that the development of modern energy systems would be a linear one. That means from the first solar age before the first Industrial Revolution happened with the steam engine and then with fossil energy, that ah the way from natural energies to ah the ah fossil energies and later on to nuclear would be a (unclear) in itself. Renewable energies were estimated as the thing from the past.

RIGHT. AS A STEP BACKWARDS.

A step backwards. And this, this is a myth. This was a channeling of science, of the thinking which make – which made the energy really stupid. This is not the only example that this could happen. In the history of science there are many examples like that. I remember too the Nobel Prize laureate for physics, very famous, Max Plank. He wrote in his autobiography in the ‘20s of the last century a new thinking, a new idea, a new concept, a new knowledge, will not succeed in the way that the representatives of the old knowledge, the old thinking ah accepted. It can only succeed if they die out, only then. But we cannot wait for that. We cannot wait for that. It is a new scientific paradigm and a new technological paradigm. And all new paradigms, this shows the history of technologies, had um resistances by the structures, the representatives of the old paradigm. And this is in the same way an economical conflict, a conflict between companies. Because the most important difference besides the fundamental differences between conventional energies and renewed energies is the energy structure. The way how to make an energy source available. It is let’s say the energy system. We have two fundamental differences by itself, between conventional energies and renewable energies. The first is the ah difference between ah energy forever or energy only for a limited time. Renewables are forever, conventionals are for a limited time. The depletion of oil and natural gas comes. Everyone knows it. Of coal it comes. Of ah of uranium it comes. Renewables are forever. And we have – We are in a situation of an increasing world energy demand. Look to China and India, 2.4 billion people. And ah up to now they have an energy consumption per capita of 15% related to the Western industrialized countries. And 2.4 billion people means there’s more than one-third of world population. Now you can imagine what happens if the reserves – the curve of reserves goes down, the curve of demand goes up. This leads to a lot of conflicts. This leads to rising prices. This leads to ah wars on energy. And we have had in the last 20 years two. One is the direct ah related to the energy ah situation. The two was in the Arabian Peninsula, the so-called Gulf War and Iraq War. These two wars would never happen if there would be at this part of the world the plantation of bananas instead of the extraction of oil. Everyone knows it, yeah.

* * *

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAY THERE SIMPLY ISN’T ENOUGH TO REPLACE NUCLEAR AND OTHER CONVENTIONAL SOURCES?

Yes and the first time they said it is not enough.  It doesn’t work technologically.  It doesn’t work economically.  Now they changed it because they cannot ignore that more and more people become aware about the real opportunities.  They see it in Germany at least.  They see it if they go drive through the countryside.  They see it if they drive in a train.   They see it in the villages and they see PV rooftops and therefore they argument is this will not work.

It’s over.  It’s out.  Now they changed the argument.  They say we need time.  It requires time and in the meantime we need some new nuclear power stations.  We need some nuclear coal power stations.  The longer view is we will arrive at renewals but not yet.  This is a new argument. 

Again this argument is very tricky because if people look to the energy statistics then they see renewables in some countries, two percent.  Some countries five percent, some countries it is more and electric power it is in some countries, more like in Canada the cost of the hydro power potential.  People cannot imagine that in a short run ninety-five percent, ninety percent, eighty percent can become replaced. 

Therefore, they believe if they don’t think about it without additional information, they believe that this argument will be right.  When the power companies now make their lip services for renewables, take over a green washing strategy and then many people believe okay, now they have understood that it could go in this direction.  This satisfies some people, makes them calm and hopefully that they will do it now.

If they say we need time, something must be right about this argument – With this argument.  Therefore, the new debate is the time debate.  Again we can say this argument of time, only a long-term implementation of renewable energies is wrong.  It’s totally wrong because look to power stations. 

A large power station, most for nuclear or new hydro power with a large dam requires construction times of eight, ten, twelve or fifteen years.  The first kilowatt hour can be produced when all the whole construction is finished.  The installation of a windmill lasts one week.  One week. 

This one windmill doesn’t replace a large power station but many can replace.  It is not necessary to wait with the installation of one to start the next because at many places it could happen at the same time.  Each single windmill can produce immediately after installation. 

This is the advantage of a modernized system.  This is an advantage not a disadvantage.

LET ME JUST JUMP IN AND PRESENT TO YOU SOME OF THE CRITICISMS WE’VE HEARD OF WIND IN PARTICULAR.  DEPENDABILITY IS AN ISSUE THAT IT’S NOT ALWAYS WINDY OR IT’S NOT ALWAYS WINDY ENOUGH OR SOMETIMES IT’S TOO WINDY.  YOU CAN’T DEPEND ON IT TO FULFILL YOUR TOTAL NEEDS.  YOU NEED A BACKUP SYSTEM.

There is no electric power system including the conventional power system, which can work without back up systems.  This argument has a bias.  We have in Germany for example, we have one hundred and twenty thousand megawatt conventional power capacities and contemporarily we need only seventy thousand.

There are fifty thousand megawatt over capacities.  This is a backup system and if a nuclear power station fails without the big accident and there must be some repairments and these last several months this is very usual, very often.  There is a backup system. 

We have, in the last years we have already in Germany seventeen nuclear power stations.  In the last year where for six or seven months, six of them are not working.  There was no break in the power supply because we have backup systems.  We need also backup systems for renewables but we need less.

This is an important thing because if we work with modules, with many modules which are together in new supplying structures we have not a necessity to invest in too much over capacities.  If there is a mistake in the forecast, if there’s more demand then expected, in a very short run you can make the additional investment. 

That means we need less backup systems then in the conventional power system, which works with highly centralized capacities.  There is sometimes a thousand megawatt reactor not working or only working for two hundred hours a year.  This is nothing, therefore this argument has a bias.

DO YOU REALISTICALLY PERCEIVE THE DAY WHEN RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES WOULD ACCOUNT FOR ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE NEEDS OF GERMANY?

We have already some cities who have done it, some cities.  We have more and more decisions by counties to come up to 2020, 2025, two hundred percent with their own activities.  Yes I see it and I can give very accurate examples for that. 

Let me give a very accurate example everyone can follow.  In Germany we introduced, based on the Renewable Energy Act in the last year, new renewable energy power production.  Only the result of one year, additional investments in 2007 lead to, alone this, three percent of the total electric power demand; a result of one year. 

If we would have in the next twenty-five years the same introduction rate like last year, we would have in twenty-five years a hundred percent.  We are a small country with only three hundred and fifty thousand square kilometers, with eighty-five million people, highly industrialized.  It means high energy demand. 

What is possible in Germany is possible everywhere.

 WHAT ABOUT A LARGE COUNTRY LIKE CANADA?

It is easier.  It is easier.

WITH A VERY SPARSE POPULATION?

You need – If we go to renewables, we need many places and more country, more – Better.  The more square kilometers the more natural supply.  A country like Canada, one of the largest countries in the world, with only roughly…

THIRTY MILLION.

…thirty million people.  It is much easier than in Germany, much easier.  The more countryside the more square kilometers and the less population, the easier is the way and the faster it could be done through a hundred percent renewables. 

WHEN YOU GO TO CANADA, WHICH I KNOW YOU DO FREQUENTLY AND YOU SPEAK TO PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, DO THEY SEE IT THAT WAY?

Yes they are surprised.  They are consulted by the energy experts and you know what I have – What is my experience with them?  They are a part of the problem.  Let me give an example to Canada.

Canada has not only the large area, it has very large hydro power potential, which is introduced.  If I’m well informed, it is sixty percent of the total electric power demand from hydro power.  Hydro power combined with windmills, with wind power is absolutely complimentary, absolutely. 

If there is not enough wind, one turbine more runs from the dams.  That is it.  It can be organized within some seconds.  Very easy, the (unclear) management is very easy.  If there is enough wind you keep the water behind the dams; totally complimentary.

I can show in all countries like Canada that the way to a hundred percent renewable energy supply for the whole country, could be implemented only with this combination of wind and hydro within five years; only the installation time.

* * *

IS IT POSSIBLE TO APPLY THE SAME ARGUMENT TO THE REPLACEMENT OF FOSSIL FUELS FOR AUTOMOBILES?

Yes it is possible. 

MORE DIFFICULT?

It is possible.  Now I believe the – I say within twenty years.  The car for the future will be the electric powered car.  I have not a single doubt on that and since one or two years the automotive industry has recognized that.  They all go now in this direction, all of them. 

They have lost a lot of time because they ignored the main problem.  The main problem is they have the wrong fuel.  This is the problem with the car industry.  It was forecasted.  They (unclear) decayed in an alliance with the mineral oil industry.  They deliver the oil and they deliver the machine, the engine, the car. 

This division of labour is the thing of the past.  It is anachronistic because if cars would become driven by electric power coming from renewables, you have a real clean car.  It is a big step to a real clean city with much less noises by the way.

This shows that the automotive industry can become a driving force for this development.  The loser of this development are the energy suppliers, the conventional energy suppliers.  The winners of this historical game are the producers of technologies who give us the opportunity to get the conversion of renewable energy sources to electric power or to heat in the way like we need it.

What is a car?  A car is a decentralized energy module on wheels. With bad efficiency at the moment.  This is a car.

THIS A COUNTRY WITH A LEGENDARY AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY.  DO THE GERMAN MANUFACTURERS UNDERSTAND THAT?  DO THEY GET IT?

Yes they started now.  Last year they started to understand that.  I became invited by practically all of their boards to speak about the other energy future.  I believe that they could become, they have the chance to become a driving force even in a very special way because if people have an electric powered car, they have renewable energy in their storage system.  They have it. 

Think about one person coming from the work with an electric powered car.  They have a solar rooftop or windmill.  In the countryside when they charge it in the night, the next morning they go to their working place.  They have not used the whole energy and what they can give some of that to the factory or to the parking place. 

They can reduce their parking bill or they can get money for that because they bring energy.  Take another example, he comes home, has a charged battery at the windmill tank; tank filling station.  The electric powered car; the future will not be one with a battery and you have to wait for some hours until it is charged.

It will come to the tank filling station, takes the battery and gives it to them and takes a charge and then after three minutes he can go on.  Then they come home, such people come home and then they can take some of their power within the car for their electric power needs in the evening. 

Today they take it from the solar rooftop and in the night they take it from the car.  That means you come to millions of energy storage.  This is energy storage in a double using function; in a double or triple using function.  This makes the whole economy more effective. 

This avoids over production and this creates more individual autonomy for all.  This shows to a real efficient energy consuming society.  We can come by this way, not by the conventional way.  In the conventional way we have long chains from the (unclear) Peninsula to North America or to Japan or to Europe, long energy chains with many losses on the way; transportation losses, losses in the extraction process or mining process.  

Then you have the large power stations and then you have to bring it to the people.  They have the high voltage lines and then the transformation losses and losses and losses.  If they speak today in efficiency rate, with efficiency rate for large power station of forty or forty-five percent, in fact it is less than twenty. 

They only count - If they say forty percent or forty-five efficiency, they only count the input output relation at the power station but you must count the input power relation from the mining place to the customer.  Then you have twenty percent efficiency.  The conventional power system has very, very limited possibilities to become really efficient.

Therefore, it meets all our modern needs.  Therefore, I’m very optimistic that it is possible to come to a renewable energy solution; revolutionary.  It’s a very short run if the dogs can run free. 

IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT TECHNOLOGY EXISTS BUT WHAT’S MISSING IS IMAGINATION AND POLITICAL WILL.

Yeah, political will and they protect the conventional power structures; they protect it by giving permissions for nuclear power stations but don’t give, in many places permission for windmills.  Then they argue with protection of nature.  At the same time they give permission for coal power stations with all the negative consequences for nature because of the climate change and so forth.

Therefore, all these arguments have a double standard.