Erdgas als Partner der Energiewende, Bodo Rodestock

Ladies and gentlemen, I now face two major challenges. First, I'm coming after Kusterer, and they already said it would get harder toward the end, and the break or the end is already approaching. Second, we had very exciting topics earlier like digitalization—the beautiful sides of the energy transition that inspire and encourage discussion. Now I have to bring you back to the depths of the energy transition, decarbonization, and perhaps less exciting topics. But I will show you, picking up on Mr. Boss's topic, that we stand not only for the old solution but also for the new one. At the center of the panel is the question: can the energy transition succeed only with natural gas? I emphasize that. You may wonder, as has been hinted in many places, what role does natural gas play? As a fossil fuel, it's a model of the past, more a problem than a solution. Although that might meet your expectations in some parts, I will neither question the energy transition nor tear it down, nor will I exclusively sing the praises of natural gas, though I will do so in some places. Nevertheless, I want to present some arguments that describe the current situation and also show solutions: natural gas can be considered part of the solution and not a model of the past. I am absolutely convinced of that. Unfortunately, we—and I don't just mean VNG and the gas industry—have the feeling that this conviction is shared by only a few. Parts of politics would like to phase out all fossil fuels immediately, and they are quick with supposed answers to future challenges. Mr. Flasbarth mentioned it this morning, and I think he showed that investments in renewable energies should be the focus, and fossil investments should be avoided as much as possible. The climate protection plan has already set clear signals: bans on natural gas heating are being discussed for 2030. So the question is, what role does natural gas still play? But I don't want to criticize politics one-sidedly. We ourselves—the gas industry, though it no longer exists in that sense—don't have answers to all questions yet. We have also underestimated the challenge for too long, and we have not yet succeeded in highlighting the advantages and communicating them at decisive points. We must question ourselves more and are still looking for practical solutions on the path to a decarbonized world. I want to use the next few minutes to briefly outline how we at VNG see the future, but also how we perceive and shape the energy transition of the present. How do I perceive the current situation? Dear Mr. Bunsen, I think it's great and I want to thank you for including the focus topics—the megatrends of digitalization and decarbonization—at this energy forum. That brings exciting discussions. They are called megatrends because they affect the whole world and will accompany us for the next decades, impacting all areas of our lives. We heard a lot about the consequences of digitalization this morning. Now it's about the second trend. In contrast to digitalization, the targeted decarbonization is only gradually casting its shadow. We are talking about very long timeframes, with a target horizon of 2050. Nevertheless, there is already a lot of activism and competition for supposedly the best ideas. Not just since Paris do we know that the energy system of the future should be almost without oil, coal, and fossil natural gas. However, there is no stringent plan for how we can become CO2-free. So we know what we want to achieve, but the path is not visible. We are essentially still discussing the entry into the exit from CO2. We are still at the very beginning. Although the previous discussion rounds covered the need for grid expansion, the role of lignite, or sector coupling, a framework that captures all these approaches and ideas is missing, and sometimes the necessary objectivity to evaluate the different paths is lacking. But we will only be successful if we approach the tasks with economic reason, sustainability, and above all, technology openness—I emphasized that several times yesterday. I like to quote Mr. Gabriel here, as I mentioned yesterday, from his foreword to the recently published Green Paper on Energy Efficiency. He says: 'To achieve our long-term goals, we must consistently use, evaluate, and innovate all opportunities for greater energy efficiency.' He essentially invokes technology openness, but that is not taken seriously in the Green Paper itself. I am convinced that the path to decarbonization will only succeed if it builds on values, avoids structural breaks, fosters innovation, includes people and their livelihoods, and keeps costs as low as possible. Where do we currently stand? As a trained businessman, I like to look at the facts—concrete numbers. And here and now, something is wrong from my perspective with the climate policy goals and the accounting. CO2 emissions have stagnated at a high level for years. Since 1990, they have only decreased by about 24%, and the target of 40% by 2020 currently seems unattainable. The energy reference forecast from the Federal Ministry of Economics also shows a large gap between the self-set target and the actual reduction. The target for 2050 is 191 million tons of CO2 emissions. Under current conditions, we would only reach 340 million tons—that's the trend scenario describing the current development and pricing everything we have. That means a gap of 150 million tons, and the same applies to the years in between. The question is: are we serious about the energy transition? We must also ask ourselves how we can economically and sustainably close this gap. The ban on new fossil heating systems from 2030 mentioned in the climate protection plan does not, in my view, fall under the term 'reasonable.' Arbitrary bans on modern and efficient technologies will certainly not get us further. An electrification at all costs creates new problems instead of solving existing ones. Professor Barn mentioned it yesterday: if we look at the energy balance, it means a significant investment volume in the future. The power grid is already overloaded and would need to be massively expanded. Costs would skyrocket, and as a result, approval for the energy transition would continue to decline. Mr. Hartmann, who just left the room, also showed in his study that trust in the energy transition is still very high among the population, but it has fallen and is trending downward. Basic approval is crucial for acceptance among consumers for the success of the energy transition. And one thing is a fact: natural gas has this acceptance. I'll illustrate with a concrete example: myself. I recently bought a natural gas heating system—a condensing boiler—and I consciously decided to do so. To preempt the question: I received no subsidy, no discount. As a consumer, I decided because I prioritized price, efficiency, and reliability. And like me, more than 500,000 consumers decided last year. The share of gas heating in total installations in 2015 was over 75%. Where is the journey heading from a natural gas perspective? The fact is, and I won't tire of saying it, natural gas is the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel with the lowest CO2 emissions and the lowest CO2 avoidance costs. Natural gas provides the so-called quick wins in CO2 savings that have been frequently discussed recently. The best example: replacing an old oil boiler immediately saves 40% CO2. And there are still 2.5 million oil boilers in basements in gas-supplied areas. I'll do the math: the CO2 gap in the heating market could be completely closed with natural gas. Just by using modern natural gas heating, more than 16 million tons of CO2 can be saved in residential buildings. By using bio natural gas, modern micro-CHP systems, or fuel cells, an additional 40 million tons of CO2 savings would be added. These are not abstract number games but facts that politics should also orient itself by. We also see potential in mobility. We have been struggling there for many years, at least in the passenger car sector, but more and more, heavy-duty and shipping traffic are coming into focus. Promising options based on LNG are emerging that will help reduce CO2 emissions in the mobility sector. But let's not fool ourselves: the importance of fossil natural gas will decrease in the long term. Therefore, I like to speak of two phases of decarbonization. Phase 1: natural gas as a bridge to a renewable energy system. This bridge will span many years, and I assert that natural gas will be indispensable. I don't just mean the heating market, where natural gas clearly dominates; I also mean the electricity market. Mr. Kusterer gave an answer earlier: it may not be noticeable yet, but gas-fired power plants will form the backbone of every stable energy system in the future. This is also underscored by top scientists in special, independent studies. A total of 130 constellations were compared to find the best flexibility risks or techniques for the electricity market of the future. The result: almost no technology is without alternatives, but there is no way around flexible gas-fired power plants. The gradual merging of the sectors—electricity, heating, and mobility—will also become increasingly important. This sector coupling can be an opportunity if approached under certain principles. We should think from two directions: the heating market should not be reduced to the role of electricity consumers. The potential of decentralized heating systems that simultaneously produce electricity from combined heat and power, and power-to-gas as a prime example of sector coupling, must be considered. But we should also not forget highly efficient technologies like gas heat pumps and fuel cells. All measures in the heating market must be measured by the question of how much climate protection is achieved per euro invested. The goal is to put affordable, socially acceptable climate protection at the center of a coupled system, and the CO2 avoidance costs should be decisive. Phase 2: at the end of the bridge, at the beginning of the second phase, gas and the gas infrastructure will continue to play a very important role. Note: we are no longer talking about natural gas; we are talking about gas. We must face the fact that it will no longer be primarily about fossil natural gas but more and more about green gases—bio natural gas, wind gas, green hydrogen—will then be the future option. And the gas infrastructure can then become the core infrastructure of the energy transition. Compared to the power grid, the gas grid already has enormous transport and storage capacities: over 500,000 km of network and a storage capacity of 230 terawatt-hours. That is gigantic. For comparison, pumped storage plants—we discussed this yesterday on the panel with Mr. Ramelow—have 0.04 terawatt-hours. That's negligible. So the gas grid is predestined for both transport and storage of green electricity. It provides the necessary flexibility in a system characterized by fluctuating renewable energies. What are we doing concretely? Admittedly, power-to-gas is still far from an economic business case. It seems that investments are not worthwhile today. Nevertheless, numerous companies in eastern Germany are dealing with the topic of green electricity storage. We are involved as VNG Sanfeire. There are many initiatives driving this topic forward, and even politics has recognized the importance of energy storage. Both in the climate protection plan and in a number of coalition agreements, it is stated that Germany needs a strategy for energy storage and that funding must be improved. These developments show that a purely commercial, short-term view of things does not always lead to the right insights. We must learn to consciously free ourselves from old thought structures and patterns when it comes to these futures. At VNG, we are working hard to live this philosophy across the group. The prerequisite for this is good. Our long-distance gas network operator, ONTRAS, has been gaining experience with hydrogen feed-in since 2013. Power-to-gas plants in Falkenhagen and Prenzlau are pilot projects. ONTRAS is also a co-founder of the European Green Gas Initiative, which works on strategies for a CO2-neutral gas supply by 2020. The commitment of our storage operator VGS in the HYPOS project, which Mr. Busack reported on yesterday, also shows that we see a future for renewable energies and storage, especially in central Germany. We are also looking for further partners and solutions to increase the economic viability of the plants. There are currently some promising developments in the field of electrolysis. However, I would like to emphasize at this point: the supposedly beautiful energy future will never become reality if bans are threatened. It does no good to close off individual paths through regulatory or tax law. For example, building gas infrastructure only works with an intact, large-scale, expanded network. But investments in networks and storage will only be made if companies have the necessary planning security. This brings us back to the question of depreciation periods for investments and the current regulatory regime. Politics comes into play again. If you want a functioning decarbonization, efficient energy storage, efficient heating, and green gas the day after tomorrow, you must continue to rely on fossil natural gas today and tomorrow. My conclusion, ladies and gentlemen: I am sure that we can be successful under these premises. And by that, I don't just mean the gas industry but the entire energy industry and ultimately the energy transition. I am convinced that the best and most efficient solutions will prevail if all options are given the same opportunities and if we make the right decisions ourselves and are open to new paths. Admittedly, the latter is a quality that has not necessarily been attributed to the gas industry in recent years. But we have also recognized the signs of the times. We have learned. In this sense, I look forward to an interesting discussion. Thank you.