Studying the networks that served to transport raw materials, food, and luxuries from areas of abundance to others where they were in short supply, is an interesting approach to the study of the entire history of the world. A world history bestseller titled “The Silk Road” has recently been published, while various scholars have been tackling spice roads, incense routes along which camel caravans brought frankincense and myrrh, and the like.

Nothing like this applies to energy transmission networks and the explanation is simple: until the beginning of the 19th century, humanity covered all its energy needs from inexhaustible sources of energy, those that we now call renewable energy sources, which, of course, could not and did not. does not need to be transported over long distances. The wind moved sailing ships and pumped water from wells or ground wheat, the sun dried fruit and pasta, animals were used for transportation and farm work, and there were small waterfalls as the most advanced form of energy at the time.

Transport from the forest to the city was necessary for another important source of energy, wood, but the distances were short and of no geopolitical importance. We can say that the first transcontinental energy was animal, as horses from Arabia and slaves from Africa were massively transported to a new continent, to America.

Fossil fuels followed, but the use of the first, which was coal, did not immediately lead to the need for transport networks. Coal was first used where it was found, and in England, the Ruhr, Belgium, or Pennsylvania in America, the industrial revolution and subsequent wealth was created. Railroad networks with their open coal cars, coal cars, then tanks, huge tankers, all came later, while transcontinental and underwater oil and gas pipelines are only a few decades old.

It all started with renewable energy sources, whose share in the total energy consumed by mankind was more than 95% until the beginning of the 19th century. Thanks to the then prevailing minerals, living conditions have changed dramatically. Within two centuries, the average citizen of a developed country now consumes 50 times more energy, travels 250 times farther, receives 27,500 times more light, has a 20 times increase in income, and finally, his life expectancy has increased from less than 40 years as it was before. around 85 years old.

And yes, environmentalists will forgive me, but replacing renewable energy with fossil fuels was not only an economic but also an environmental achievement: replacing wood with coal saved forests from destruction. With electrification, pollution inside living and working areas, which is much more harmful than pollution outside, has disappeared. Kerosene saved the whales from extinction, whose oil was used for lighting. Huge tracts of land used for the production of fodder to feed the “sources of living energy (horses, oxen, etc.)” were released and used to grow food for people. On the other side of all the positive aspects, the big problem of greenhouse gas emissions and the threat of climate change has been identified and realized. Thus, the return to the dominance of renewable energy today becomes mandatory.

The potential for energy storage, which is already being developed, limits the role of weather conditions in the operation of RES.

Let’s accept the fact that prior to the transition to fossil fuels, transmission networks were unnecessary and non-existent, and question whether long-distance power transmission will be necessary in the coming new era of renewable energy dominance. The conditions are, of course, quite different, with electricity now playing a dominant role and some contributors argue that its production, like synthetic fuels, should continue to be done by large remote installations (nuclear, offshore wind or large scale solar) transported over long distance networks. .

However, the wind blows everywhere and in every corner of the Earth there is a sun, somewhere more abundant, and somewhere limited, but it is everywhere. Energy storage already being developed limits the importance of more or less sunlight and stronger or weaker wind potential, while energy losses and the cost of transmission systems are factors that favor production close to consumption.

Thus, energy needs can be covered by relatively small blocks of renewable energy – perhaps also by small nuclear blocks – and distribution through local networks or even through highly decentralized microgeneration. The latter will develop as the cost of electricity production from solar and wind energy becomes cheaper and batteries become more affordable. Thus, more industries will become energy independent, and more citizens will strive to make their homes energy independent with rooftop photovoltaic systems, small wind turbines, geothermal heating and air conditioning.

It may be said that the situation described above belongs to the distant future and should not affect current energy planning. But that’s not the point. The main question is whether distributed energy generation is desirable in the long run. Let’s consider whether it serves the needs of the many people better than the economic or political interests of a few, whether it limits the oligarchy and promotes a better distribution of wealth. Because if they are true and desirable, then the construction of expensive pipelines and transcontinental networks should be avoided, the existence of which and the need for a return on the corresponding investments will delay the transition to the desired.

Especially for Greece, plans that sound like a cable that will import cheap solar energy from Egypt or an underwater pipeline that will bring us green hydrogen should be treated with extreme caution and such networks should only be built if they also have export direction. Because for energy to ever be a comparative advantage for our economy, it’s not enough that our energy landscape just goes green. It must be blue and white!

Mr. Rafael Moussis is the Honorary President of IOBE.