The managing partner of energiE, Daniel Salazar, a former student of the Department of Electrical Engineering, points out that this fuel will play a fundamental role in enabling carbon neutrality.
Last week the Senate approved in general the bill that prohibits the injection by generation of fossil sources by the year 2030, with the purpose of promoting energy from renewable sources.
This initiative anticipates that this goal is to be achieved with all possible means, generating controversy among the actors in the energy sector, due to the tight situation that has forced an increase in thermal generation and that would also delay the output of some coal-fired power plants in the system.
Based on this, the managing partner of Grupo energiE, Daniel Salazar, explained to ELECTRICIDAD the challenges that this bill would mean for the electricity matrix, where he highlighted that “it imposes an additional challenge since it considers the removal of all fossil sources, which which reinstates the dilemma between ambition and realism”.
The executive points out that this project, by not considering gas in the energy transition, “does not recognize the condition of narrowness and risk of rationing that was installed last year and that is projected to recur as the process of removing the park progresses to coal and continue to be affected by desertification”.
In his opinion, how do you analyze this project?
This project is inserted in the framework of the discussion on the decarbonization of the electrical matrix that began with the presentation of another bill that establishes the closure of coal-fired power plants by 2025. It is presented after the public hearings held by the Mining and Energy Commission of the Senate in relation to said project. Let us remember that this project – already approved by the Chamber – is still based in that commission, which has not voted for it in general. On the one hand, it reflects the majority opinions that were expressed in the Commission that 2030 would be a more viable date for decarbonization, but it imposes an additional challenge, since it considers the removal of all fossil sources, which reinstates the dilemma. between ambition and realism.
What do you think that this project does not consider gas in the energy transition?
I think it is something that needs to be corrected. It was exposed to the Commission and it has been in the public discussion of the sector that one of the enabling conditions for the process towards carbon neutrality of the matrix and that makes the removal of coal viable is precisely the fundamental role that natural gas will have in this process. This, since time will be required to incorporate into the system the large amount of additional GW required to replace this technology, as well as storage or base renewable generation.
Apparently they do not want to recognize that there is a transition that must occur, nor do they want to recognize the condition of tightness and risk of rationing that was installed last year and that is projected to recur as the process of withdrawing the park progresses. coal and continue to be affected by desertification.
What are the main shortcomings of this project?
The definition of any goal must be associated with the identification of its benefits, opportunities, risks and costs. It is not a matter of saying only you can or you can’t. The most important thing is to know and generate a certain critical mass regarding the enabling conditions for the public policy results that are sought to be achieved.
In this sense, there are no known finished studies regarding the impact of the withdrawal of gas by 2030, therefore it is a goal that is not related to reality. This is without taking into account that the system will require for a long time to have a technology that allows the system to be sufficient in the hours of least renewable generation, since replacing all thermal generation to provide supply at those hours would require the installation of an enormous storage capacity, for example, which also implies technical challenges and economic impacts.
How could this project be replaced or what aspects should I consider?
I believe that a kind of mandate should be established to establish progressive goals, with a mechanism of accountability regarding how the different actions and initiatives progress that would make compliance viable, with certain conditions that give some margin of slack or flexibility to adapt if the System security and supply at minimum cost demand it. In short, a more “responsive” regulation.
original news