Climate Action & Energy


I have a few questions/thoughts on

  1. Carbon storage:

a. Does the PPEU have a view on it, if so what is it?

I found this article interesting regarding the ‘safety’ or effectiveness of these storage sights:

b. Some marine scientist from Kiel, Germany, mentioned that the partial pressure of CO2 in the storage sight off Norway does not seem to increase in spite of CO2 being put into it.

  1. Could one ask for more funding for housing greening projects for insulation in summer and winter or for buildings which allow inhabitants to do just this, rather than putting so much money into these insulation ‘polysterene’-clad houses (whose flammability was/is a problem as well)?

  2. What is your view on all the LNG hype, given that a fair fraction of it may well come from fracking? And if one spends lots of money on infrastructure, can that be easily be converted to gas facilities from other sources, I think the water to gas route? ( I obviously haven’t got much of a clue.)

  3. Would it not be a good opportunity to also make a statement regarding the likely loss of methane while carrying out drilling, which is mandatory to be monitored in regions of Canada, and bearing in mind that increased methane values have been monitored in the north-eastern region of Germany whilst drilling was/is carried out (so I understand)? And maybe stressing that for the next 20 years the greenhouse gas effect of methane is about 80 times (or so) that of CO2?


Correction to point 4 above: what I meant to write was that the methane had been measured by others, not monitored, in the northeast of Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)


At the last meeting of the working group we discussed the main points of the discussion in Barcelona.

“… including some concrete means to achieve the Paris Agreement goals…”

  • Demand of the Pirate Party: National implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive II within two years (status: ). May be with a reward if the goals are reached early and a punishment if the goals are not reached in time.

  • “… including carbon charges as explained in “Beat protectionism and emissions at a stroke …” ( )
    E.g. current import and export France/Germany: Import of Germany in 2017 3,8 TWh with low CO2-emissions and export to France of 17,5 TWh with high CO2-emissions by the current production. This could also be analyzed for the movement of goods between european countries and also be considered in worldwide trade.

  • “The transition is not only a technology problem but a question about what are doing with all the energy we are production.”
    Demand of the Pirate Party: Switch to energy-efficient processes and start with sustainable business.

  • “… Proprietary tech should generally not be allowed anywhere it touches fundamental civil
    rights of consumers and citizen…”:
    This point should be treated elsewhere - perhaps in a preamble to the program.


I had posted the following text in the pad for the last meeting (which I could not attend) and want to bring it to a broader attention. As the Pirate Party we should think ahead and be aware of technology that is coming soon or already gaining momentum:

Looking at the available technology and cost structures it is evident that we have a regulatory problem driven by the interests of the old energy industry. The renewables are blocked in the market by every means available to the fossil energy industry.

This includes the myth of the instable power grid. Germany today has the most reliable grid ever. The number of corrective measures to stabilize the grid has risen, but not due to the renewables as most want to make you believe. Power demand too has become much more fluctuating in last couple years due energy efficiency measures. Where a converyor belt used to rund the full work day today it stops every time it is not needed. Many other devices do the same: They switch off even for the shortest time when not needed.

The cost of electricity from renewables has dropped so far that solar power in Germany costs less in production (< 3ct/kWh) than power from lignite plants. Wind is below hard coal. And that with the distorted pricing that externalizes many costs of coal. But since the renewables have no equal access to the power market they are still not where they could be.

Changing the rules of the market to give renewables an actualy access to the regular power market would drive the fossil power plants out of the market in record time.

Photovoltaics is just now on the brink of the next large step in price reduction. Solar cells based on perovskite are entering production. They are produced in a low energy process, use abundant raw materials, can be printed, and don’t need to be shielded from oxygen like organic solar cells. This should drive the cost below 1 ct/kWh for installations in Germany, southern countries even further.

Tesla has driven the cost of battery cells below 125 US$/kWh. Further price drops are ahead. BYD is currently constructing a plant that will be able to produce about 35 GWh/a in battery cells and Tesla plans more factories with >20 GWh/a each. Also battery chemistry allowing more capacity and cheaper raw material is coming to the market along with a steady improvement of the current technologies by about 5-7% per year.

So local power storage will continue to drop in cost significantly. It is already below grid parity.

The actual points that currently are in the way for more renewable power are:

  • Local production and use of renewable power is often taxed in one way or another
  • Regular access to the market is not readily available
  • Regulations (at least in Germany) allow renewable power to be squeezed off the net for stability issues (usually that means the lignite plant wants to continue to run)

I see oil only as a secondary issue that will resolve itself shortly. About 70% of the oil goes into traffic. Electric cars are mature, only the German manufacturers try to stall to continue selling their combustion engines. Lower the emissions, enable a charging infrastruture (which should be part of the decentralization of power generation). This will lead to a fast phase out of combustion engines. The turnover of cars is about 1/16 of the total fleet per year. Add the benefits of electric cars and it will accelerate somewhat. So within a few years oil companies could lose a major chunck of their market.

We should look further forward than the other parties. There are disruptive technologies coming or already on the market. The whole energy sector will be totally redefined within a decade. We should plan for this szenario and not for the status quo.


I am not sure if we have an actual position on this. But the technology is just a straw man.

Coal in an open market where the plant has to carry its full cost is not able to compete with solar and wind anymore. So adding CCS will not make its competitiveness any better.

This means in addition to being a totally stupid idea with all the risks and the chance to damage the eco system, it is not even a business case unless some government is dumb enough to hand out money for such a project.


Early in this thread there was a question how governments could be forced to implement the necessary regulations.

I think the better option is to play a rail shot here. Going to near 100% renewable is an economic issue in addition to an ecological.

An economy going to full renewable energy supply is eliminating all the imports of coal, gas, oil from its trade balance sheet. Decentralized supply via wind, solar, geothermal etc. has the potential to significantly reduce energy costs as well as cut down on the externalized costs of fossil fuels. Even health care will see a cost reduction. But that is a medium term effect.

The short term effect is that if there is a regulatory frame that allows everyone to build systems and either use the harvested energy themselfs, or sell it via a simple mechanism onto the market, this will lead to a reduced price for energy.

If we get that into the heads of the people and especially the companies, then any government will get the necessary pressure.


Taking into account the last discussions, here is the draft text for the vote on the European elections program:

"The Agreement of Paris to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels has to be implemented. [*] The necessary concepts and technologies for achieving the climate protection goal have been developed.The Pirate Party demands to provide the legal conditions that these technologies are used to achieve this goal. Co2 emissions from cross-border goods (for example in power generation) are attributable to the importing countries.The expansion of electricity production with renewable energy must not be restricted by law in the countries of the European Union. The Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) is to be implemented throughout Europe within two years.

We want to establish a sustainable and reliable energy infrastructure. The transition away from consumed energy resources to regenerative sources is necessary. Use of energy sources has to be sustainable and must not be in conflict with other environmental objectives. The target is a transparent, decentralized, and redundant structure of energy suppliers.This guarantees participation options for all citizens and prevents monopolies.

The European energy market is facing a profound structural change: Electricity generation with photovoltaics will become the cheapest form of electricity generation, and increasing electromobility will dramatically reduce the consumption of minerals. This structural change must be accompanied by european guidelines in order to prevent disruptive effects on entire economic sectors.

We can and we have to learn from eachother about energy transition and we have to discuss at eye level to be successful in energy transition worldwide."


Hello, I want to say that I agree with you. Moreover, we need to pay more attention to this global issue. Unfortunately, only some of the counties consider it a problem. I read a lot of environment essay from experts based on this topic.