CCGT plants under threat

Though renewable energy in Belgium may not be living up to its promise, at least we still have nuclear energy and CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) plants, don't we? Actually, the nuclear industry has started shutting down. "The nuclear power plant operators are less and less interested in keeping their plants open, given political instability in regards to decision-making," explains Damien Ernst. "It has even become hard for them to be sure that major refurbishments  will still be profitable.”

If only one industry remains, will be it natural gas? Not even, says Damien Ernst: "the large CCGT plants which have efficiencies of 56% are hurt by higher natural gas prices as compared to coal. Coal has become very cheap in the USA thanks to the development of shale gas. There are excess coal reserves that are being exported to Europe. Coal plants have thus become more profitable than natural gas plants. Of course, since CO2 emissions are higher, there is a tax to pay. But since a tonne of CO₂ is worth 5 euros, the market has collapsed, eliminating this disadvantage. So coal plants are now running at full capacity in Europe! Can we then claim to be any more efficient or ecological than the US with its shale gas?"

Low coal prices, lower demand because of the crisis, lower electricity prices because of subsidies to renewable energy: this combination of factors has led to the collapse of CCGT plants in Belgium. "When solar and wind energy produce well - though this is obviously intermittent - we don't need the energy produced by gas plants. The price of electricity at those times is often too low to bother running the plants. This means that the number of hours during which CCGT plants can sell their electricity at a price that is higher than the cost of the gas they burn is fewer than 2,000 per year. This is 3 to 5 times less than expected. They are therefore no longer profitable, and the operators want to close them down, even though they are a key element in ensuring the security of our energy supply. Should we replace them with new coal plants? They are not very ecological and the permits would never be granted.”

Importing left, right, and centre!

The only remaining possibility is to import a great part  of our energy. Imports already represent about 30% of our current electricity needs. "And our imports will only increase," predicts Damien Ernst. “This winter we already witnessed peak demand at 5 p.m.: it was freezing, and since there wasn’t any sun or wind, renewable energies were out of production.  We are already vulnerable today, even though the CCGT plants are still operational. If we don't want to become overly dependent on imports, we must keep these types of plants open and make them profitable. Melchior Wathelet, the State Secretary of State for Environment, Energy, and Mobility, wants to subsidize new gas-fired plants that are even more efficient. I think that’s a bad idea. They recently built a new plant in the Netherlands, but they stopped it after several months because it wasn't profitable enough despite its efficiency. If we go down that road, we'll need to subsidise both the construction and operation of the plants. We'd be better off not building new plants and subsidizing the existing ones - which is more politically problematic: how do you admit that you are writing a check to Electrabel to operate their plants? We’d rather say that we are subsidizing the construction of more ecological plants! We are undoubtedly headed towards a gradual decline in electricity production in Belgium; what remains will be marginal. We are witnessing the silent death of an industry."

If we rely more and more on imports to supply our electricity, we will then also rely more and more on the networks and their capacity to meet demand at all times in all places. If a problem arises, there is the serious risk of a blackout.