Dear Director,
I would like to submit some comments regarding the two articles published respectively with the title "Italy's new energy strategy: you can reduce prices without breaking the public accounts", signed by Prof. Gilardoni, and E ”Energy, the renewables boom has created development but the era of generous subsidies is over”, unsigned but still referable to OIR, the Observatory on the Renewable Energy Industry. In my opinion, the two articles can only be shared in part, denoting various elements of imprecision and incompleteness.
In the first, some of the main points of the National Energy Strategy (SEN) are reviewed on a descriptive level, among which, in a paragraph dedicated to renewables, it says: "For renewables, the phase of the cuccagna closed, in which the overflowing support allowed both excessive surplus profits and largely inefficient productions, a new chapter is now opening.” Immediately after Prof. Gilardoni declares himself convinced that renewable sources can develop even without incentives. It seems to me a rather exaggerated view that magnifies the errors perhaps, in part, committed for photovoltaics and extends them to sources that instead have never seen all this abundance, as demonstrated by the financial statements of companies in the sector. Compared to the "oil and gas hoard available to Italy” the article argues that “their balanced exploitation would give a boost to the national economy by reducing imports and dependence on foreign countries”, essentially endorsing Minister Passera's position: we would think it wiser, and not only us but the vast majority of Italians, to grow renewables, rather than drilling our seas to find a laughable amount of fossil energy when compared to our consumption.
The second article, on the other hand, consists of a reflection on the future prospects of renewables, reiterating already in the title, which cannot be shared, that "the era of generous subsidies is over". The article talks about the "explosion" of incentives as "dark side” of the tumultuous development of renewables, again citing the photovoltaic data. Subsequently, the authors seem to repent and cite their own study on the "important benefits" generated by renewables. But without mentioning (strangely) that in that study these benefits, including the environmental and health impacts, as well as in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and easing of dependence on foreign energy supplies, are decidedly higher than the overall costs for the incentive.
In the following, the article leverages the industrial point of view that renewable energy operators will have to adopt from today on in a world without incentives (also in line with the statements made by the association I preside over), without, however, dwelling on possible support or market models that can favor the transition (efficient user systems, on-the-spot trading, etc.). In closing, the article dwells on the regulation of the market, emphasizing how this will have to "take into account and enhance the evolutions underway without dispersing the important investments in gas combined cycles made in recent years”. Also in this case it is difficult to agree: these investments were mostly made when the European objectives on renewables were already known and, precisely for this reason, they do not seem particularly worthy of "being saved".
I don't know the editorial line of your magazine, but it seems to me that both articles, while striving to be equidistant, end up "winking at fossils". As an association we are ready to fuel the debate and to discuss our observations in more depth, perhaps with a forthcoming article in your magazine, if you will be kind enough to host us. I take this opportunity to send you my best regards.
Agostino Re Rebaudengo
APER President
