What to know about DOE's hydrogen hubs

IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 highlights solar power as the cheapest electricity, projects faster renewables growth, models net-zero pathways, assesses COVID-19 impacts, oil and gas demand, and policy scenarios including STEPS, SDS, and NZE2050.

Key Points

A flagship IEA report analyzing energy trends, COVID-19 impacts, renewables growth, and pathways to net-zero in 2050.

✅ Solar now the cheapest electricity in most major markets

✅ Scenarios: STEPS, SDS, NZE2050, plus delayed recovery case

✅ Oil and gas demand uncertain; CO2 peak needs stronger policy

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use and progress in the global energy transition over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables across markets. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Despite a more rapid rise for renewables and a “structural” decline for coal, the IEA says it is too soon to declare a peak in global oil use, unless there is stronger climate action. Similarly, it says demand for gas could rise 30% by 2040, unless the policy response to global warming steps up.

This means that, while global CO2 emissions have effectively peaked flatlining in 2019 according to the IEA, they are “far from the immediate peak and decline” needed to stabilise the climate. The IEA says achieving net-zero emissions will require “unprecedented” efforts from every part of the global economy, not just the power sector.

For the first time, the IEA includes detailed modeling of a 1.5C pathway that reaches global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. It says individual behaviour change, such as working from home “three days a week”, would play an “essential” role in reaching this new “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050).

Future scenarios
The IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) arrives every autumn and contains some of the most detailed and heavily scrutinised analysis of the global energy system. Over hundreds of densely packed pages, it draws on thousands of datapoints and the IEA’s World Energy Model.

The outlook includes several different scenarios, to reflect uncertainty over the many decisions that will affect the future path of the global economy, as well as the route taken out of the coronavirus crisis during the “critical” next decade. The WEO also aims to inform policymakers by showing how their plans would need to change if they want to shift onto a more sustainable path, including creating the right clean electricity investment incentives to accelerate progress.

This year it omits the “current policies scenario” (CPS), which usually “provides a baseline…by outlining a future in which no new policies are added to those already in place”. This is because “[i]t is difficult to imagine this ‘business as-usual’ approach prevailing in today’s circumstances”.

Those circumstances are the unprecedented fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, which remains highly uncertain as to its depth and duration. The crisis is expected to cause a dramatic decline in global energy demand in 2020, with oil demand also dropping sharply as fossil fuels took the biggest hit.

The main WEO pathway is again the “stated policies scenario” (STEPS, formerly NPS). This shows the impact of government pledges to go beyond the current policy baseline. Crucially, however, the IEA makes its own assessment of whether governments are credibly following through on their targets.

The report explains:

“The STEPS is designed to take a detailed and dispassionate look at the policies that are either in place or announced in different parts of the energy sector. It takes into account long-term energy and climate targets only to the extent that they are backed up by specific policies and measures. In doing so, it holds up a mirror to the plans of today’s policy makers and illustrates their consequences, without second-guessing how these plans might change in future.”

The outlook then shows how plans would need to change to plot a more sustainable path, highlighting efforts to replace fossil fuels with electricity in time to meet climate goals. It says its “sustainable development scenario” (SDS) is “fully aligned” with the Paris target of holding warming “well-below 2C…and pursuing efforts to limit [it] to 1.5C”. (This interpretation is disputed.)

The SDS sees CO2 emissions reach net-zero by 2070 and gives a 50% chance of holding warming to 1.65C, with the potential to stay below 1.5C if negative emissions are used at scale.

The IEA has not previously set out a detailed pathway to staying below 1.5C with 50% probability, with last year’s outlook only offering background analysis and some broad paragraphs of narrative.

For the first time this year, the WEO has “detailed modelling” of a “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050). This shows what would need to happen for CO2 emissions to fall to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 on the way to net-zero by 2050, with a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5C limit, with countries such as Canada's net-zero electricity needs in focus to get there.

The final pathway in this year’s outlook is a “delayed recovery scenario” (DRS), which shows what might happen if the coronavirus pandemic lingers and the global economy takes longer to recover, with knock-on reductions in the growth of GDP and energy demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

EV charging anxiety reflects concerns beyond range anxiety, focusing on charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and network reliability during road trips, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America stations across highways in the United States.

Key Points

EV charging anxiety is worry about finding reliable fast chargers on public networks, not just limited range.

✅ Non-Tesla networks vary in uptime and plug-and-charge reliability.

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

✅ Sync stops: align rest breaks with fast chargers to save time.

With electric cars, people often talk about "range anxiety," and how cars with bigger batteries and longer driving ranges will alleviate that. I just drove an electric car from New York City to Atlanta, a distance of about 950 miles, and it taught me something important. The problem really isn't range anxiety. It's anxiety around finding a convenient and working chargers on America's still-challenged EV charging networks today.

Back in 2019, I drove a Tesla Model S Long Range from New York City to Atlanta. It was a mostly uneventful trip, thanks to Tesla's nicely organized and well maintained network of fast chargers that can fill the batteries with an 80% charge in a half hour or less. Since then, I've wanted to try that trip again with an electric car that wasn't a Tesla, one that wouldn't have Tesla's unified charging network to rely on.
I got my chance with a Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, a car that is as close to a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S as any. And while I made it to Atlanta without major incident, I encountered glitchy chargers, called the charging network's customer service twice, and experienced some serious charging anxiety during a long stretch of the Carolinas.

Long range
The EPA estimated range for the Tesla I drove in 2019 was 370 miles, and Tesla's latest models can go even further.

The EQS 450+ is officially estimated to go 350 miles on a charge, but I beat that handily without even trying. When I got into the car, its internal displays showed a range estimate of 446 miles. On my trip, the car couldn't stretch its legs quite that far, because I was driving almost entirely on highways at fairly high speeds, but by my calculations, I could have gone between 370 and 390 miles on a charge.

I was going to drive over the George Washington Bridge then down through New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia then North Carolina and South Carolina. I figured three charging stops would be needed and, strictly speaking, that was correct. The driving route laid out by the car's navigation system included three charging stops, but the on-board computers tended push things to the limit. At each stop, the battery would be drained to a little over 10% or so. (I learned later this is a setting I could adjust to be more conservative if I'd wanted.)

But I've driven enough electric cars to have some concerns. I use public chargers fairly often, and I know they're imperfect, and we need to fix these problems to build confidence. Sometimes they aren't working as well as they should. Sometimes they're just plain broken. And even if the car's navigation system is telling you that a charger is "available," that can change at any moment. Someone else can pull into the charging spot just a few seconds before you get there.
I've learned to be flexible and not push things to the limit.

On the first day, when I planned to drive from New York to Richmond, Virginia, no charging stop was called for until Spotsylvania, Virginia, a distance of nearly 300 miles. By that point, I had 16% charge left in the car's batteries which, by the car's own calculation, would have taken me another 60 miles.

As I sat and worked inside the Spotsylvania Town Centre mall I realized I'd been dumb. I had already stopped twice, at rest stops in New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware stop, at the Biden Welcome Center, had EV fast chargers, as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide. I could have used one even though the car's navigation didn't suggest it.

Stopping without charging was a lost opportunity and it cost me time. If I'm going to stop to recharge myself why not recharge the car, too?
But that's the thing, though. A car can be designed to go 350 miles or more before needing to park whereas human beings are not. Elementary school math will tell you that at highway speeds, that's nearly six hours of driving all at once. We need bathrooms, beverages, food, and to just get out and move around once in a while. Sure, it's physically possible to sit in a car for longer than that in one go, but most people in need of speed will take an airplane, and a driver of an EQS, with a starting price just north of $100,000, can almost certainly afford the ticket.

I stopped for a charge in Virginia but realized I could have stopped sooner. I encountered a lot of other electric cars on the trip, including this Hyundai Ioniq 5 charging next to the Mercedes.

I vowed not to make that strategic error again. I was going to take back control. On the second day, I decided, I would choose when I needed to stop, and would look for conveniently located fast chargers so both the EQS and I could get refreshed at once. The EQS's navigation screen pinpointed available charging locations and their maximum charging speeds, so, if I saw an available charger, I could poke on the icon with my finger and add it onto my route.

For my first stop after leaving Richmond, I pulled into a rest stop in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It was only about 160 miles south from my hotel and I still had half of a full charge.

I sipped coffee and answered some emails while I waited at a counter. I figured I would take as long as I wanted and leave when I was ready with whatever additional electricity the car had gained in that time. In all, I was there about 45 minutes, but at least 15 minutes of that was used trying to get the charger to work. One of the chargers was simply not working at all, and, at another one, a call to Electrify America customer service -- the EV charging company owned by Volkswagen that, by coincidence, operated all the chargers I used on the trip -- I got a successful charging session going at last. (It was unclear what the issue was.)

That was the last and only time I successfully matched my own need to stop with the car's. I left with my battery 91% charged and 358 miles of range showing on the display. I would only need to stop once more on way to Atlanta and not for a long time.

Charging deserts
Then I began to notice something. As I drove through North Carolina and then South Carolina, the little markers on the map screen indicating available chargers became fewer and fewer. During some fairly long stretches there were none showing at all, highlighting how better grid coordination could improve coverage.

It wasn't an immediate concern, though. The EQS's navigation wasn't calling for me to a charge up again until I'd nearly reached the Georgia border. By that point I would have about 11% of my battery charge remaining. But I was getting nervous. Given how far it was between chargers my whole plan of "recharging the car when I recharge myself" had already fallen apart, the much-touted electric-car revolution notwithstanding. I had to leave the highway once to find a gas station to use the restroom and buy an iced tea. A while later, I stopped for lunch, a big plate of "Lexington Style BBQ" with black eyed peas and collard greens in Lexington, North Carolina. None of that involved charging because there no chargers around.

Fortunately, a charger came into sight on my map while I still had 31% charge remaining. I decided I would protect myself by stopping early. After another call to Electrify America customer service, I was able to get a nice, high-powered charging session on the second charger I tried. After about an hour I was off again with a nearly full battery.

I drove the last 150 miles to Atlanta, crossing the state line through gorgeous wetlands and stopping at the Georgia Welcome Center, with hardly a thought about batteries or charging or range.

But I was driving $105,000 Mercedes. What if I'd been driving something that cost less and that, while still going farther than a human would want to drive at a stretch, wouldn't go far enough to make that trip as easily, a real concern for those deciding if it's time to buy an electric car today. Obviously, people do it. One thing that surprised me on this trip, compared to the one in 2019, was the variety of fully electric vehicles I saw driving the same highways. There were Chevrolet Bolts, Audi E-Trons, Porsche Taycans, Hyundai Ioniqs, Kia EV6s and at least one other Mercedes EQS.

Americans are taking their electric cars out onto the highways, as the age of electric cars gathers pace nationwide. But it's still not as easy as it ought to be.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

DOE Battery Workforce Strategy advances lithium battery manufacturing with DOE, DOL, and AFL-CIO partnerships, pilot training programs, EV supply chain skills, and industry-labor credentials to strengthen clean energy jobs and domestic competitiveness.

Key Points

An initiative to fund pilot training and labor-industry partnerships to scale domestic lithium battery manufacturing.

✅ $5M for up to five pilot training programs.

✅ Builds industry-labor credentials across the battery supply chain.

✅ Targets EV manufacturing, recycling, and materials refining.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in coordination with the U.S. Department of Labor and the AFL-CIO, today announced the launch of a national workforce development strategy for lithium-battery manufacturing. As part of a $5 million investment, DOE will support up to five pilot training programs in energy and automotive communities and advance workforce partnerships between industry and labor for the domestic lithium battery supply chain. Lithium batteries power everything from electric vehicles, where U.S. automakers' battery strategies are rapidly evolving, to consumer electronics and are a critical component of President Biden’s whole-of-government decarbonization strategy. This workforce initiative will support the nation’s global competitiveness within battery manufacturing while strengthening the domestic economy and clean energy supply chains. 

“American leadership in the global battery supply chain, as the U.S. works with allies on EV metals to strengthen access, will be based not only on our innovative edge, but also on our skilled workforce of engineers, designers, scientists, and production workers,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm, “President Biden has a vision for achieving net zero emissions while creating millions of good paying, union jobs — and DOE’s battery partnerships with labor and industry are key to making that vision a reality.” 

“President Biden has made the creation of good union jobs a cornerstone of his climate strategy,” said AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler. “We applaud DOE for being proactive in pulling labor and management together as the domestic battery industry is being established, and as Canada accelerates EV assembly nearby, we look forward to working with DOE and DOL to develop high-road training standards for the entire battery supply chain.” 

“I am glad to see the Department of Energy collaborating with our industry partners to invest in the next generation of our clean energy workforce,” said U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “While I remain concerned about our dependence on China and other foreign countries for key parts of the lithium-ion battery supply chain, and recent lithium supply risks highlight the urgency, engaging our strong and capable workforce to manufacture batteries domestically is a critical step toward reducing our reliance on other countries and ensuring we are able to maintain our energy security. I look forward to seeing this initiative grow, and we will continue to work closely together to ensure we can onshore the rest of the battery supply chain.” 

The pilot training programs will bring together manufacturing companies, organized labor, and training providers to lay the foundation for the development of a broad national workforce strategy. The pilots will support industry-labor cooperation, as major North American projects like the B.C. battery plant advance, and will provide sites for job task analyses and documenting worker competencies. Insights gained will support the development of national industry-recognized credentials and inform the development of broader training programs to support the overall battery supply chain. 

This initiative comes as part of suite of announcements from President Biden’s Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization—a partnership among the White House and nearly a dozen federal agencies committed to pursuing near- and long-term actions to support coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities as the nation transitions to a clean energy economy. 

This announcement follows DOE’s recent release of two Notices of Intent authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to provide $3 billion to support projects that bolster domestic battery manufacturing and battery recycling for a circular economy efforts nationwide. The funding, which will be made available in the coming months, will support battery-materials refining, which will bolster domestic refining capacity of minerals such as lithium, as well as production plants, battery cell and pack manufacturing facilities, and recycling facilities. 

It also builds on progress the Biden-Harris Administration and DOE have driven to secure a sustainable, reliable domestic supply of critical minerals and materials necessary for clean energy supply chains, including lithium, with emerging sources like Alberta's lithium-rich oil fields underscoring regional potential. This includes $44 million in funding through the DOE Mining Innovations for Negative Emissions Resource Recovery (MINER) program to fund the technology research that increases the mineral yield while decreasing the required energy, and subsequent emissions, to mine and extract critical minerals such as lithium, copper, nickel, and cobalt. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Charging Coal and Oil Claim: Fact-check of kWh, CO2 emissions, and electricity grid mix shows 70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil per 66 kWh, with renewables and natural gas reducing lifecycle emissions.

Key Points

A viral claim on EV charging overstates oil use; accurate figures depend on grid mix: ~70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil.

✅ About 70 lb coal or ~8 gal oil per 66 kWh, incl. conversion losses

✅ EVs average ~100 g CO2 per mile vs ~280 g for 30 mpg cars

✅ Grid mix includes renewables, nuclear, natural gas; oil use is low

The claim: Average electric car requires equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge

The Biden administration has pledged to work towards decarbonizing the U.S. electricity grid by 2035. And the recently passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill provides funding for more electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including EV charging networks across the country under current plans.

However, a claim that electric cars require an inordinate amount of oil or coal energy to charge has appeared on social media, even as U.S. plug-ins traveled 19 billion miles on electricity in 2021.

“An average electric car takes 66 KWH To charge. It takes 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil to make 66 KWH,” read a Dec 1 Facebook post that was shared nearly 500 times in a week. “Makes absolutely no sense.” 

The post included a stock image of an electric car charging, though actual charging costs depend on local rates and vehicle efficiency.

This claim is in the ballpark for the coal comparison, but the math on the oil usage is wildly inaccurate.

It would take roughly 70 pounds of coal to produce the energy required to charge a 66 kWh electric car battery, said Ian Miller, a research associate at the MIT Energy Initiative. That's about 15 pounds less than is claimed in the post.

The oil number is much farther off.

While the post claims that it takes six barrels of oil to charge a 66 kWh battery, Miller said the amount is closer to 8 gallons  — the equivalent of 20% of one barrel of oil.

He said both of his estimates account for energy lost when fossil fuels are converted into electricity. 

"I think the most important question is, 'How do EVs and gas cars compare on emissions per distance?'," said Miller. "In the US, using average electricity, EVs produce roughly 100 grams of CO2 per mile."

He said this is more than 60% less than a typical gasoline-powered car that gets 30 mpg, aligning with analyses that EVs are greener in all 50 states today according to recent studies. Such a vehicle produces roughly 280 grams of CO2 per mile.

Lifecycle analyses also show that the CO2 from making an EV battery is not equivalent to driving a gasoline car for years, which often counters common misconceptions.

"If you switch to an electric vehicle, even if you're using fossil fuels (to charge), it's just simply not true that you'll be using more fossil fuel," said Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the environmental impact of energy systems.  

However, she emphasized electric cars in the U.S. are not typically charged using only energy from coal or oil, and that electricity grids can handle EVs with proper management.

The U.S. electricity grid relies on a diversity of energy sources, of which oil and coal together make up about 20 percent, according to a DOE spokesperson. This amount is likely to continue to drop as renewable energy proliferates in the U.S., even as some warn that state power grids will be challenged by rapid EV adoption. 

"Switching to an electric vehicle means that you can use other sources, including less carbon-intensive natural gas, and even less carbon-intensive electricity sources like nuclear, solar and wind energy, which also carry with them health benefits in the form of reduced air pollutant emissions," said Trancik. 

Our rating: Partly false
Based on our research, we rate PARTLY FALSE the claim that the average electric car requires the equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge. The claim is in the ballpark on coal consumption, as an MIT researcher estimates that around 70 pounds. But the oil usage is only about 8 gallons, which is 20% of one barrel. And the actual sources of energy for an electric car vary depending on the energy mix in the local electric grid. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electrified Trucking Grid Integration explores vehicle-to-grid (V2G) strategies where rolling batteries backfeed power during peak demand, optimizing charging infrastructure, time-of-use pricing, and IESO market operations for Ontario shippers like Nature Fresh Farms.

Key Points

An approach using V2G-enabled electric trucks to support the grid, cut peak costs, and add revenue streams.

✅ Models charging sites, timing, and local grid impacts.

✅ Evaluates V2G backfeed economics and IESO pricing.

✅ Uses Nature Fresh Farms data for logistics and energy.

A University of Windsor project will study whether an electrified trucking industry might not only deliver the goods, but help keep the lights on with the timely off-loading of excess electrons from their powerful batteries via vehicle-to-grid approaches now emerging.

The two-year study is being overseen by Environmental Energy Institute director Rupp Carriveau and associate professor Hanna Moah of the Cross-Border Institute in conjunction with the Leamington-based greenhouse grower Nature Fresh Farms.

“The study will look at what happens if we electrified the transport truck fleet in Ontario to different degrees, considering the power demand for truck fleets that would result,” Carriveau said.

“Where trucks would be charging and how that will affect the electricity grid grid coordination in those locations at specific times. We’ll be able to identify peak times on the demand side.

“On the other side, we have to recognize these are rolling batteries. They may be able to backfeed the grid, sell electricity back to prop the grid up in locations it wasn’t able to in the past.”

The national research organization Mathematics of International Technology and Complex Systems (Mitacs) is funding the $160,000 study, and the Independent Electricity Systems Operator, a Crown corporation responsible for operating Ontario’s electricity market, amid an electricity supply crunch that is boosting storage efforts, is also offering support for the project.

Because of the varying electricity prices in the province based on usage, peak demand and even time of year, Carriveau said there could be times where draining off excess truck battery power will be cheaper than the grid, and vehicle-to-building charging models show how those savings can be realized.

“It could offer the truck owner another revenue stream from his asset, and businesses a cheaper electricity alternative in certain circumstances,” he said.

The local greenhouse industry was a natural fit for the study, said Carriveau, based on the amount of work the university does with the sector along with the fact it is both a large consumer and producer of electricity.

The study will be based on assumptions for electric truck capacity and performance because the low number of such vehicles currently on the road, though large electric bus fleets offer operational insights.

How will an electrified trucking industry affect Ontario’s electricity grid? University of Windsor engineering professor Rupp Carriveau is part of a new study on trucks being used to help deliver electricity as well as their products around Ontario. He is shown on campus on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

How will an electrified trucking industry affect Ontario’s electricity grid? University of Windsor engineering professor Rupp Carriveau is part of a new study on trucks being used to help deliver electricity as well as their products around Ontario. He is shown on campus on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

Nature Fresh Farms will supply all its data on power use, logistics, utility costs and shipping schedules to determine if switching to an electrified fleet makes sense for the company.

“As an innovative company, we are always thinking, ‘What is next?’, whether its developments in product varieties, technology or sustainability,” said company CEO Peter Quiring. “Green transportation is the next big focus.

“We were given the opportunity to work closely on this project and offer our operations as a case study to see how we can find feasible alternatives, not only for Nature Fresh Farms or even for companies in agriculture, but for every industry that relies on the transportation of their goods.”

Currently, Nature Fresh Farms doesn’t have any electrified trucks. Carriveau said the second phase of the study might actually involve an electric truck in a pilot project.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nature-friendly offshore wind energy supports climate neutrality by reducing greenhouse gases while safeguarding marine biodiversity through EU marine spatial planning, ecosystem-based approaches, cross-border coordination, and zero-use zones for resilient seas.

Key Points

An approach to offshore wind that cuts emissions while respecting ecological limits and protecting marine biodiversity.

✅ Aligns buildout with ecological limits and marine spatial plans

✅ Minimizes noise, collision, and habitat loss for sensitive species

✅ Coordinates EU-wide monitoring, data, and cross-border siting

Offshore wind power can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it poses risks for the seas. Germany will hold the EU Council Presidency and the North Sea Energy Cooperation Presidency in 2020. What must be done to contain the climate and species crises, as it were?

Offshore wind power is an important regenerative energy source with a $1 trillion market outlook in the coming decades. However, the construction, operation and maintenance of the systems put marine mammals, birds and fish at considerable risk. Photo: Siemens AG

In order to achieve the German and EU climate and energy goals by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, we need a nature-friendly energy transition. At present, the European energy system is largely based on fossil fuels. This is changing, as renewables surge across Europe for end consumers and industry and the large-scale electrification of the energy consumption sectors. Offshore wind energy is an element for future power generation.

A nature-friendly energy transition is only possible if energy consumption is reduced and energy efficiency is maximized in all applications and sectors. Emissions reductions through offshore wind energy In 2019, Europe had an installed offshore wind energy capacity of around 22 gigawatts from 5,047 grid-connected wind turbines in twelve countries. In Germany, the nominal output of the offshore wind turbines feeding into the German power grid was around 7.5 gigawatts, with clean energy accounting for about 50% of electricity nationwide. The wind blows much stronger and more steadily at sea than on land.

The power capacity of the turbines has also almost doubled in the last five years, which has led to a higher energy yield. Offshore wind energy is a building block for replacing fossil fuels, and markets like the U.S. offshore sector are about to soar as well. Wind turbines at sea provide electricity almost every hour of the year and have operating hours that are as high as conventional power plants. They can contribute to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and to mitigate the climate crisis.

It must be ensured that offshore wind turbines and parks as well as the grid infrastructure make a positive contribution to climate protection through their expansion and that the overall condition of marine ecosystems improves. The expansion of offshore wind energy is necessary from the point of view of climate science and must take place within the framework of the ecological load limits and under nature conservation aspects.

Seas and marine ecosystems suffer from years of overfishing, pollution and industrial use. The conservation status of sea birds, marine mammals and fish stocks is poor. Ecosystem services and productivity of the oceans are decreasing as a result of massive species extinction and unfavorable habitats. Changes in sea temperature, oxygen levels and acidification of the oceans reduce their resilience to the climate crisis.

The latest reports from the European Environment Agency show in black and white that the good environmental status and other goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are not being achieved. The primary goal must therefore be to meet the obligations of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the EU nature conservation directives.

With the expansion of offshore wind energy, the pressure on the already polluted marine ecosystems is increasing. Offshore wind turbines also harbor risks for marine ecosystems, especially if they are built in unfavorable locations. Studies show harmful effects on marine mammals, birds, fish and the ocean floor. In Europe, where wind power investments hit $29.4 billion last year, a regulatory framework must be created for the expansion of offshore wind energy within the ecological limits and taking into account zero-use zones. The European Union urgently needs to take coherent measures for healthy and resilient seas.

New strategy of the European Commission The EU Commission plans to present a strategy for the expansion of renewable energies at sea on November 18, 2020.

The strategy will address the opportunities and challenges associated with the expansion of renewable energies at sea, such as effects on energy networks and markets, management of the maritime space, the technological transfer of research projects, regional and international cooperation and industrial policy dimensions, as well as political headwinds in some countries that can affect project pipelines. NABU welcomes the strategy, but worries about insufficient consideration of marine protection, ecological load-bearing capacity and the marine spatial planning that regulates interests in the use of the sea. All EU member states have to submit their marine spatial planning plans by March 2021.

Conclusions of the European Council Shortly before the end of 2020, the European Council plans to adopt conclusions for cooperation among European member states on the subject of offshore wind energy and other renewable energy sources at sea. It is important that the planning and development of offshore wind energy is coordinated across national borders, including alignment with the UK's offshore wind growth, also to protect marine ecosystems.

However, the ecosystem approach must not be left out. It must be ensured that the Council conclusions focus on the implementation of EU marine and nature conservation directives for the expansion of offshore wind energy within the load limits. EU-wide monitoring systems can help protect marine species and ecosystems. Germany holds the EU Council Presidency and the North Sea Energy Cooperation Presidency for 2020 and can make a decisive contribution.

NABU demands on offshore wind energy in Europe Expansion targets for offshore wind energy across Europe should be based on the ecological load limits of the seas. Development of concrete concepts for the ecological upgrading of areas in marine spatial planning and operationalization of the ecosystem-based approach.

For the nature-friendly expansion of offshore – Wind energy systems must take into account avoidance distances from seabirds to turbines, habitat loss, collision risks and cumulative effects. Implementation / obligation to sensitivity analyzes – they allow targeted conclusions about the best possible locations for offshore wind energy without conflicts with marine protection.

Targeted keeping of areas free for species and their Habitats of anthropogenic use – this increases planning security and can lower investment thresholds for EU funding programs. Ensuring regional cooperation between the European member states for nature Protection and with the involvement of nature conservation authorities – after all, the marine ecosystem does not stop at borders.

Adjustment of priorities: If offshore wind energy is prioritized over other renewable energy sources across Europe, other industrial forms of use of the seas must be given a lower priority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News