O Portuguese government Last week, a competition was opened within the scope of the PRR, for the purchase of 300 buses with zero CO2 emissions worth 90 million euros, which will have to be electricity or hydrogen.
In the same week, the Spanish government approved in the Council of Ministers, aid of 450 million euros, intended for the transport of goods, whether electricity, hydrogen, compressed or liquefied natural gas.
There are, in these two decisions, different rationales that say a lot about the public policies followed. In Spain, the path towards decarbonization is taking into account the European and global reality, the capacity of companies and, also, the necessary use of regional origins and companies’ own funds. In Portugal, the path has been to take advantage of PRR resources to implement energy policy, associated with environmental policy, without a true connection with the real economy and without an average vision. term.
Our country has made a somewhat incorrect choice for the almost total electrification of our economy. Such an objective is incorrect from the point of view of energy sovereignty and security. There is not a single Portuguese person who does not understand, in any universe, that you cannot put all your eggs in one basket.
On the other hand, the path to hydrogen, important for part of the industry, will take more than a decade to produce the opportunity for universalization, a universalization that will not costs are anticipated. In France and the United States, numerous hydrogen projects are being abandoned.
The richest countries know that, as it is also of fossil origin, oil cannot be compared with natural gas. This, as is happening all over the world, is transition energy and will also have a lifespan of +/- three decades.
In Portugal, the interests of some electricity companies, who want more investment to obtain more profits, associated with some environmentalist associations, are creating a situation of total impossibility of competition between the road transport markets. long haul river. All countries are still investing in natural gas, like Spain, both in terms of support for fleet renewal and in terms of taxation.
On the other hand, the total electrification of economic activity, which seems to be on the minds of some public decision-makers, will, in the long term, create serious security problems. Let us imagine the possibility of heavy catastrophes that seriously damage electricity transport and distribution networks… A safe country is one that has a replacement energy, which in new times should be gases renewable energy, to assume normal supply of at least one third of the country’s total needs.
Over the last three decades, Portugal has built a gas distribution network. It is the most modern in Europe and still has a lifespan of +/- 50 years. What we are doing, by deciding to take an exclusivist view of electricity, is losing immense value. Portugal should therefore progress towards a mix of natural gas, hydrogen and biomethane to be progressively introduced into these networks and authorize the construction of energy communities with networks dedicated to the distribution of renewable gases from new production plants spread across the territory.
But it is not only in macro decisions that we see the absence of a strategic sense.
The Nordic countries have long been replacing natural gas with biomethane. They follow this path by fulfilling the objectives of the circular economy policy by promoting the integration of urban and industrial waste, wastewater, agriculture and livestock in the production of biogas. And they strongly support the acquisition of vehicles powered by biomethane for collecting waste, transporting goods and passengers.
Several countries have also determined that passenger fleets must have an electricity component of 50% of the vehicles and the remainder must be renewable gases with a special focus on biomethane. This should also be the path we should take in Portugal.
The biomethane value chain does not get off the ground for three very simple reasons: 1st, whoever produces biogas is also producing electricity; 2nd whoever produces biogas, from wastewater or solid waste, has the power to influence the market as they are two very strong groups; 3rd public authorities are slow in defining policies and regulatory rules.
Now, the groups mentioned above hold concessions and public responsibilities and the State should force them to open the market to those who know how to produce and make biogas profitable. Incumbent companies doing what is not theirs core they impede the country’s advancement, create bureaucracy and delay the modernization of the economy.
On the mainland there are only two biomethane plants, built by a private group and which had to go through all the ordeals to see the light of day. This group, due to its ability to build bridges at an international level, has already managed to decarbonize 3% of the total heavy transport in the country, an exercise superior to the electric mobility agenda.
In Spain, a biomethane plant opens every fortnight, in France there are three per week and in Denmark, in addition to having replaced the consumption of natural gas with biomethane by more than 50%, already Transport vehicles are fueled by around 60%.
We have the defect of determining public policies by associating these policies with the option for technologies. It is a very serious error that only results from a spurious relationship between the State and large companies. Now, the determination of policy objectives should place technologies in competition and they should all be supported according to their performance and contribution.
This is why the Spanish Government has been more successful than ours. This is why it is important to rethink how to achieve the objectives set out in the PNEC based on the goodness of all existing resources. We are in good time to do so.
