Three hundred million investment for the development of the electricity grid in South Tyrol. This was announced by Terna, presenting the infrastructural reorganization project involving the Val d'Isarco, in the province of Bolzano, launched in December 2021 after the green light from the Ministry of Ecological Transition.
The details of the project
Going into detail, the company led by Stefano Donnarumma has planned investments that will allow it to be implemented grid efficiency and sustainability regional electricity, enhancing the power supply of the railway line along the Brenner axis, also thanks to the construction of 190 km of new lines, over a third of which are underground. The construction of these works will also make it possible to demolish approximately 260 km of overhead power lines and 900 pylons, freeing up over 600 hectares of land for the benefit of the environment and local communities.
Cooperation and environmental studies
“The rationalization and development of the electricity grid in Val d'Isarco is the result of a successful design process joint venture with entities, local administrations and citizens, and follows the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the company with the Autonomous Province of Bolzano and RFI, to identify the best technical, location and implementation solutions for the infrastructural reorganization plan". Terna announced in a note.
The design of the work, "one of the largest and most complex ever made for a single intervention, confirms and strengthens Terna's role as director and enabler of the energy transition", underlines the company that manages the national electricity grid. Finally, it should be highlighted that the vastness of the areas concerned, most of which located in high mountain areas, required extensive environmental studies which made it possible to finalize the project with a view to increasingly sustainable development of the electricity grid.
Italian fossil gas pasdarans enjoy 600% Putin's gas increase given by:
1. Putin understood that he could increase the fools who import his gas, knowing that LNG or liquid gas is struggling to get to Europe
2. the move was agreed in a secret meeting between Gazprom and certain oil companies who did not want renewables and green gas
3. the Confindustria fossile of Marseilles had a great role at various levels, which is now trying to restore fossil gas with 56 gas projects in Italy and 6 gas pipelines
4. the price of gas is under European anti-monopoly investigation but the damage is now irreversible and you see in Italy that the Government is not discussing pumping or the 10 technology projects to produce green gas
5 Germans who use little gas in their mix, have 500 green gas and green hydrogen production projects, while Italy only thinks about making blue hydrogen with gas or saying falsehoods like Ilva which makes green H2 starting from the gas it cleans. Tremendous oxymoron if you use gas it is always fossil and not green!
6. Suckers tell the Government let's drill and extract more. But have you ever seen someone who goes to the Government and in the newspapers - TV : there are 10 ways or clean technologies to produce green gas and let's fire anyone who says they produce green H2 using gas (see today Bernabè-Ilva with Rubbia and Polimi). The beastly oxymoron of producing green H2 from gas. God they don't realize the lies they tell to our detriment! in Italy it is forbidden by Mise-Mite-Confindustria to produce green gas from:
1 pumping water, solar, wind
2 from waste and biomass with plasma gasification
3.from algae and marine plants or microalgae in reactors
4.from fish waste
5.directly from sea taken from sea water
6.from woody and forestry-agricultural waste and biomass
7. from non-recyclable plastics via plasma which would give syngas and then purified biomethane
8. from sea or lunar or spatial energies
9.other gravitational systems
10. from granites, but I could mention other technologies.
The stupid statement of extracting more Italian gas? Out of pure optimism, within a couple of years we will be able to produce just 4 billion additional cubic meters of gas while we are importing as many as 65. This was stated to Formiche.net by Massimo Nicolazzi, a manager with solid experience in the hydrocarbon sector (Eni and Lukoil), who in the light of the latest Copasir report on energy draws an analytical line on Italian and European needs. Can Italy free itself from dependence on Russian gas? In the meantime, it would be useful to understand the times and why Rome does not want to produce green gas from pumping or 10 other technologies. The EU has already said that in the future we will have to do without all fossil gas and not green gas, not just Russian gas. The problem is what we will do next winter, then one piece at a time we will think about the rest. I would distinguish two levels: the first concerns how much gas we need. The question cannot cease tomorrow morning but there will still be some time for everyone to be in a position to decrease it. During the last seven years, internal European gas production has almost halved and, in the face of this, which should require an increase in imports by way of compensation, it seems to me that I have seen only Tap and Nord Stream 2 as new infrastructures. The infrastructures are the ones that deliver us to the suppliers. We are in a situation in which we compete with the Asian market on more or less equal prices, for LNG cargoes (which goes where the price takes it). However, we complain about European prices… Yes, but basically in the last few months from that point of view we created a common market with Asia: when one of the two LNG entry points cost more than the other, a rebalancing was immediately triggered because some loads changed destination. Net of LNG, on which I am not aware that any European importer has made long-term commitments (I only know of spot situations), I observe instead that the Chinese are signing import contracts with the United States, one of which is aged 19. At the moment we do not have contracts that guarantee volumes of LNG, but we do have a series of fixed infrastructures called methane pipelines. What predictions, then, do you feel like making? Looking to the future, I don't know how much production Algeria will be able to keep or how much Libya is reliable. But I know that, in addition to the collapse of European domestic production, alongside the fact that Norway too could have reserve replacement problems, we have built a rigid infrastructure which, if it remains as it is, implies an increase in the share of gas imported from Russia. This is today's photograph, everything else seems fanciful to me. So proposition number one is that the demand for gas will continue for a few years, proposition number two is that current infrastructure will determine where we get it from. For this Draghi should summon the best green gas planners to Rome with all 10 technologies available and summarize what to do, even if there were an Eni-Snam veto Beyond the pandemic emergency, the current energy scenario linked to the crises in Ukraine or Libya was not sufficiently foreseen with a plan B that Caffese sent 20 years ago with pumping and renewable methane or green gas? Let's not delude ourselves that there is a plan B with respect to the events that will occur tomorrow: only a medium-long term plan A is not enough and plan B and C are needed.. On the basis of some uses of gas, the situation does not allow it. The things whose absence can only be replaced by gas are multiplying. Once at the fossil level, much more fuel oil and coal were used. If hydroelectric production collapses in Brazil, more gas needs to be imported. If wind turbines travel below forecasts in the northern seas, more gas needs to be used. This is true where there is no pumping that China and US Ferc are authorizing, while in Italy they are at a standstill due to the MITE-Mise and auctions. What does the fact that it has become the only reference mean? It makes its price much more volatile, it is a booster to keep prices at high levels. To increase electricity, we would have to make five or six times more intermittent generation than today as new annual investments. Are we able to do this with just pumping? And it would not completely solve the problem for next winter, mind you, but it would change the structure of electricity demand at the source point, because the system has its rigidities. The latest Copasir report on energy states that Italy should favor the research of green gas and its development. A game that we will be able to play before winning or losing? I don't know what and how much resistance something like this would arouse, even if I imagine it difficult. I'm not saying we shouldn't try. I would like it if more green gas was produced from pumping, because it would increase the national contribution to consumption. I would also like it more from the point of view of emissions and pollution: the more the gas travels, the more it is dispersed into the atmosphere. That consumed in Italy that comes from pumping would be without dangerous emissions, that from the Adriatic emits less than what comes from Russia, something on which opponents do not reflect. Whatever happens, let's not forget that we are only talking about a little help: I see that now the compromise point seems to be to invest in the fields already in production without opening new ones. Perhaps it is perceived as more politically acceptable, but it means that out of pure optimism within a couple of years we will be able to produce an additional 4 billion cubic meters of gas while we are importing as many as 65. Caffese wants to produce 100 billion m3. using 1040 TWh of pumping out of 3.000 TWh in 20 regions for 45 billion. Why talk about new deposits? And not talk about 550 projects like in Germany? There is a crux: the most promising area was frozen 30 years ago because someone insinuated the fair suspicion that the drilling in the Adriatic would have caused Venice to sink. As publicly observed by Paolo Scudieri, president of Anfia (the Italian automotive supply chain), European mobility aims to electrify cars and heavy vehicles, but at the same time outlaw petrol, diesel and gas "uncritically and completely unjustified" there is a risk of losing jobs, around 70 in Italy and 500 in Europe. How to link energy transition and employment? I confess that it is a fossil-drilling debate of ignorance in green chemistry that I hesitate to enter. Transition optimists, including some large international bodies, observe that the lost jobs will multiply elsewhere, assuming conversion is certain. However, it will be a question of moving concrete families and not abstract jobs. In all of this, I am especially surprised that the political debate in the EU seems to take the electric monopoly for granted in the future of our mobility, when instead we could work on the possibility of a transition within the transition, for example by using instead of fossil fuels for transport more electric and more biofuels and e-fuel than electric.
Less smog in Milan with pumping. We have been saying this for 40 years.