Previous Story
Primele reactii legate de strategia energetica: Romania are nevoie de competitivitateEarly Feedback to the Energy Strategy: Romania Needs Competitiveness
Posted On 11 mai 2014
Comment: 0
Publicarea de catre Departamentul pentru Energie a principiilor care vor sta la baza viitoarei strategii energetice a Romaniei incepe sa-si arate efectele. Specialisti din domeniul energetic, care au participat de altfel la dezbaterea organizata de catre Departamentul pentru Energie pe aceasta tema, incep sa sesizeze public riscurile la care ne angajam daca tratam si aceasta strategie ca pe problema generala, sau legata strict de contextul integrarii europene. Prezentam in acest numar opinia domnului Catalin Dragostin, director Energy-Serv, unul dintre specialistii romani care si-au exprimat deja punctele de vedere fata de strategia energetica a Romaniei.
Personal, am incercat, printr-un material trimis la Guvern/Departamentul. Energie, in cadrul dezbaterilor publice, sa exprim cateva idei, cred, “educate si argumentate”, referitoare la strategia energetica a Romaniei.
Din ceea ce citesc mai jos (si din http://economie.hotnews.ro/stiri-energie-17184179-concluzii-preliminare-ale-noii-strategii-energetice-piata-energiei-din-romania-putea-integrata-perioada-2019-2020-piata-uniunii-europene.htm) fara a mai fi nevoie sa intru in detalii, constatam ca persista in continuare, dupa parerea noastra, o mare confuzie asupra ceea ce vrem si mai ales cum sa vrem!?
Simpla enuntare a unor principii, in mod incoherent si dezlanat, doar pentru ca “suna frumos” (de exemplu: “integrarea in 2019-2020 in piata Uniunii Europene” alaturi de un alt principiu, cum ar fi sa devenim “independenti energetic in preajma anului 2020, NB: pe baza maririi exploatarilor de gaze din Marea Neagra, etc.” ) demonstreaza ca nu stim “cum sa vrem” si e chiar vag contradictoriu!?. In primul rand “piata Uniunii Europene”, in forma in care probabil este inteleasa de autorii acestor Concluzii, nu exista inca !!…este inca un deziderat si un obiectiv al UE. Ca obiectiv politic al nostru insa, putem fi siguri ca daca vom fi independenti energetic, atunci, vom fi “rugati” sa ne integram in piata Uniunii Europene, indiferent cum o fi aceea la acea vreme, pentru ca vom aduce/scadea “dependenta UE” si nu o vom creste (!)…altminteri, vom fi doar parte a acelei piete din inertia de a fi membri ai UE si furnizor important de resurse…inclusiv cele de gaze din Marea Neagra…
Nu stiu cum as putea sa transmit mai usor un mesaj referitor la problema de mai sus, care sa fie plastic si usor de inteles de “managerii politici”, dar, as incerca prin a explica faptul ca ar trebui sa-si imagineze ceva simplu, de genul ca in contextual European competitiv: ROMANIA AR TREBUI SA FIE TRATATA CA O COMPANIE CARE PRODUCE CEVA (PIB-ul ?!) SI CONSUMA CEVA (Resurse Energetice+ENERGIE !?). ORICE MANAGER DECENT VA CAUTA SA:
– STIE CE VA PRODUCE (stim oare ce si cum realizam dezvoltarea economica a tarii in urmatorii 20 de ani ??…pentru ca deja au trecut alti 20 de ani peste noi si tot “codasii” Europei suntem…)
– STIE DE CE RESURSE ARE NEVOIE SI MAI ALES: SA-SI REALIZEZE COSTUL CEL MAI MIC AL ENERGIEI!, PENTRU PRODUSELE CE LE VA PRODUCE SI CONSUMUL PROPRIU pur si simplu “ca sa traiasca” ! (din acest motiv apare “obsesia” subsemnatului asupra realizarii si institutionalizarii cu prioritate in Romania a unui IRLCEP-Integrated Resources Least Cost Energy Planning, fara de care nu se poate vorbi in mod coerent si obiectiv despre “Strategia Energetica a Romaniei”.)…altminteri vom ramane in zona afirmatiilor lipsite de continut tehnic si fundament economic, ca cele de mai sus.
– Sa asigure bunastarea “propriilor angajati”, prin cele de mai sus, inclusiv “costuri minime” la caldura si electricitate (responsabilitatea oricarui Guvern este bunastarea propriului consumator de energie local/roman si abia apoi a “pietei Europene”…)
PE SCURT, IN TERMENI MANAGERIALI, ASTA SE NUMESTE REALIZAREA “COMPETITIVITATII” IN PIATA (fie ea si a UE !!), iar Romania are nevoie in primul rind de competitivitate, pe care si-o poate castiga singura, si nu neaparat de “INTEGRARE”, care e un obiectiv politic general !
CRED CA NUMAI ASA PUTEM VORBI DE ABORDAREA REALISTA SI PRAGMATICA A UNEI “STRATEGII”!
Afirmatia uneia din “concluzii “ cum ca … Romania ar trebui sa incurajeze dezvoltarea prudenta a energiilor regenerabile, cu un accent pe biomasa”, este, intr-o exprimare eleganta, “o alunecare de la cele lumesti”: cum am putea si mai ales cum sa se argumenteze economic si de ce ar trebui sa manifestam prudenta fata de utilizarea resurselor de sute de mii de tone de paie de pe camp, milioanelor de hectare de teren “parloaga” si/sau mai ales fata de deseurile lemnoase din padurile care au mai ramas (si pe care, tot “strategic”, nu le privim ca o resursa energetica ci ca lemn pentru export, si nici macar nu ne propunem realist sa le marim suprafata)?!.
Tocmai aceasta resursa=biomasa, este aceea si singura care poate asigura si caldura atat de necesara Romaniei sarace, in detrimentul, de exemplu al gazelor naturale scumpe sau altor combustibili fosili si scumpi si poluanti!?…deci, aceasta recomandare de “prudenta” apare ca cel putin dubioasa si contrar chiar Directivei 27 a UE de “utilizare cu prioritate a RES”.
In antiteza cu “concluziile preliminare ale noii (!?) strategii energetice” de mai sus, a aparut initiativa legislativa a Senatului (cu nr.252/24 Apr.2014), privind “Decuplarea Consumului de Energie de cresterea economica a tarii”.
Aceasta initiativa, moderna prin abordare, corecta, necesara si utila, ce se doreste a fi esentialmente, “implementarea Directivei 27 a UE”, poate fi o parte solida a fundamentului unei (intr-adevar noi !) strategii energetice a Romaniei !. Dar, mai presus de orice, aceasta initiativa legislativa demonstreaza ca, inclusiv in interiorul “managementului Companiei numita Romania”, nu exista consens asupra viitorului strategic al Romaniei in general si energetic in special. Concluzia ar fi: TREBUIE AJUNS LA UN CONSENS OBIECTIV ACCEPTAT DE “INTREG MANAGEMENTUL” POLITIC SI DE “CONSUMATORII” DE ENERGIE ASUPRA STRATEGIEI ENERGETICE A ROMANIEI.
Corolar: strategia energetica trebuie protejata de influenta politica.
We already have responses to the publishing of the basic principles of Romania’s energy strategy by the Energy Department. Energy industry experts who have also attended the debate hosted by the Department begin to publicly point out the risk of treating again this strategy as a generality or strictly confining it to the context of European integration. Here is the opinion of Mr. Catalin Dragostin, manager of Energy-Serv, a Romanian expert who already stated his points of view on the matter.
I have personally tried, in a document sent to the Government / Energy Department within the public debate, to voice some points of view – “educated and justified” ones, I hope – concerning Romania’s energy strategy.
What I read here (si din http://economie.hotnews.ro/stiri-energie-17184179-concluzii-preliminare-ale-noii-strategii-energetice-piata-energiei-din-romania-putea-integrata-perioada-2019-2020-piata-uniunii-europene.htm) proves, without further details needed, that there is still great confusion about what we want and especially about how do we want that!?
Merely enouncing principles in an inconsistent and vague manner, just because ‘it sounds good’ (for instance, “integration to the European Union’s market in 2019-2020” next to another principle , such as becoming “energy independent around 2020, NB: based on extended the exploitation of gas in the Black Sea, etc.” ) demonstrates that we do not know ‘how to want’, while also being vaguely contradictory (!?). Firstly, the “Euroean Union market” as probably understood by the authors of these Conclusions does not exist yet! It is still an aspiration and a goal of the EU . As a political goal for us, we can take for granted that if we are energy independent, we shall be ‘asked’ to become integrated to the European Union market, whatever it will be by then, as we would diminish, not increase “EU’s dependence”; otherwise, we will be a part of this market just out of EU membership inertia, and a significant supplier of resources, including the Black Sea gas.
I would not know how to convey a response to the aforementioned problem in a simpler way, both plastic and easily understandable for ‘political managers’; I will try to explain that they should imagine something simple, like – in the European competition context – ROMANIA SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE A COMPANY THAT PRODUCES SOMETHING (the GDP?!) AND CONSUMES SOMETHING (energy resources + ENERGY?!). ANY DECENT MANAGER WILL TRY TO:
– KNOW WHAT IT PRODUCES (do we know what and how we do in terms of economic development of the country over the next 20 years? Two decades already went away and we’re still the latest in Europe.)
– KNOW WHAT RESOURCES IT TAKES AND ESPECIALLY GET THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE ENERGY COST FOR THE PRODUCTS AND FOR THE DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION merely ‘to survive’! (that’s why this author is ‘obsessed’ about the drafting and institutionalization of a Integrated Resources Least Cost Energy Planning (IRLCEP) as a priority for Romania; without it, we cannot discuss “Romania’s Energy strategy” in a coherent and objective manner and we will stay in the area of enounces without technical content and economic support, like those mentioned above.
– To ensure the prosperity of his own ‘employees’, including by the steps mentioned here, namely minimum costs for heating and electricity (any government is responsible first for the prosperity of its own local energy consumer, and only then of the “European market.”)
LONG STORY SHORT, THIS IS WHAT ACHIEVING MARKET COMPETITIVENESS MEANS (even on the EU market), and Romania needs competitiveness – which it can obtain on its own – above all, not “INTEGRATION,” which is a general political goal!
I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY REALISTIC AND PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO A “STRATEGY”!
One of the “conclusions” asserts that Romania should encourage a prudent development of renewable energy, with focus on biomass; this is, to put it mildly ‘getting out of this world. How and why could we be prudent about using resources like the hundreds of thousands of tons of fodder abandoned on fields, like the millions of hectares of ‘fallow’ land and especially like the wood waste in the remaining forest (which we do not see as an energy source, but as timber for export, also in ‘strategic’ terms, while not even trying to extend their area); what economic arguments could support this?!.
Biomass is precisely the one resource that can provide both the much-needed heating for poor Romanians, instead of expensive natural gas, for instance, or of other expensive and polluting fossil fuels; so this recommendation of ‘prudence’ is at least questionable, if not directly contrary to Directive 27 of the EU on the priority use of secondary energy sources.
Opposing the “preliminary conclusions of the new (?!) energy strategy” mentioned above, Senate’s legislateive initiative (No. 252/April 24, 2014) concerns the ”uncoupling of the energy consumption from the country’s economic growth.”
This initiative, modern in its approach, correct, necessary, and useful intends to be essentially “an implementation of Directive 27 of the EU”; it can be a sound part of the basis of a (really new!) energy strategy for Romania! Above anything else, this legislative initiative demonstrates the lack of consensus, including within the ‘management of Romania as a company’, on the country’s strategic future in general, and energy future in particular. As a conclusion, WE NEED AN OBJECTIVE CONSENSUS ACCEPTED BY THE WHOLE POLITICAL ‘MANAGEMENT’ AND BY THE ENERGY ‘CONSUMERS’ ON ROMANIA’S ENERGY STRATEGY.
Corollary: the energy strategy needs protection against political influence.
