In a country without chargers… we continue to subsidise electric cars (and trucks)

I ardently support electric cars (and believe they will dominate the market). I’ve been using a Tesla for over three years, but it’s still a “city car” that is optimally powered by a home charger integrated with panels. It works – but with the so-called “for the rich” solution – you have to have a car, a house and panels (and drive mainly in the city). We are strenuously trying to electrify the fleet of company cars – the apparent problems are two (actually one – charging) – how are engineers supposed to travel all over Poland (with a negligible network of charging points) and how are people living in blocks of flats supposed to use electric cars (where are they supposed to charge?). It would seem that investment in “weak spots”, i.e. even more expansion of power points along routes and adaptation of the city to the actual use of electric cars (I recommend looking at London – clean transport zones (including ultra-clean 😊) and chargers on the streets – for example, in every lamppost) are essential. He can look satirically at the regulation of a few years ago (the Electromobility Act), the number of chargers in major cities indicated in them, and how far we are from the goal.

Meanwhile, all the aid programs (My Electrik) with a persistence worthy of a better cause – subsidise mainly the cars themselves, either to individual customers for the second or third car in the family – because the first one needs to go out of town, or to companies – it is just being considered to raise the limit so that managers and board members have more comfortable, grazing electric cars. Now, in addition, electric trucks have taken up the area. The new program will “burn through” billions in subsidies for electric trucks (which are just being introduced in 2024 in the production portfolio of car companies), with a range of about 500 kilometres and a much higher tare weight (meaning we’ll be overhauling the roads). We live in a country where it’s difficult to drive an electric car to the mountains or the seaside, but we’ll be entering chargers (for trucks – 2 billion) and the trucks themselves (pilot trucks) for 1 billion. As always, we plan space solutions and have roads for wagons. But maybe the “electric” idea – let’s first subsidise the infrastructure (chargers along the routes, chargers in the city), give favourable solutions (parking spaces, clean transport zones), don’t add taxes to power the electricity (no ideas about excise taxes on energy). I guarantee that both companies with electrification (after all, there is ESG and corporate carbon footprint reduction) and individual customers buying cars will manage on their own. Even more so (as you can see in the corporations’ ads) – only electric vehicles will be produced – so let them compete with each other, and you don’t need to help them with subsidies.

Europe is investing in green… but China is producing – will Net Zero help?

Politicians start solving (or noticing problems) only when (as in everyday American movie slang) “shit hits the fun.” The concept of an energy technological revolution and position-building of European corporations, financed by the money of affluent European consumers and supported socially by the awareness of the need to prevent a climate catastrophe – in theory, is very clever. Renewable energy sources need to be built, oil and gas imports need to be eliminated, bills need to be temporarily increased, and green projects must be guaranteed to be profitable. At the same time, an advanced market needs to be created for the richest European companies.  “We wanted good, and it came out as it always does” (this is a phrase from the East). This fits the result because politicians needed to fully appreciate that others (China) would not remain passive. The largest manufacturing country, with a reservoir of still-available cheap labour, unfettered government aid, non-transparent and protectionist regulations and a unique marriage of a quasi-free economy with an oppressive system of control and totalitarian censorship (with a big hint of nationalism) responded with an idea – almost monopolising the market for the supply of RES production equipment. With no concern for intellectual property (actually, often violating it), with dumped supply prices, with unlimited (and undeclared government assistance), Chinese companies have captured about 90% of the panel market, already almost half of wind turbines and a quarter of storage and electric cars.

On the one hand, extreme protectionism (control of what is built at home) combined with massive subsidies to the market (now the RES market in China is the largest) with aggressive pricing in exports (finishing off the competition) backed up by the way the ever-improving technical level (one can’t help but notice the radical advances in quality and ever better Chinese technologies) gives excellent results for China. The problem is exploding for European companies, which, after all, were supposed to master the world – it’s getting even worse – Europe is paying billions for new projects. There is a danger that these will be billions pumped into Chinese factories, equipment and components (we already have this in the heat pump market).  Accusations of competitive infringement (e.g., Siemens – wind turbines) are getting stronger, and there is less room for manoeuvring to avoid a trade war. Europe’s latest concept is the Net Zero Industry Act (from March 2023) – another wave of pumping aid into the market (700 billion by 2030) and the assumption that 40% of components (RES, storage, biogas, grid components) will be produced in Europe. This is a rather optimistic projection because wholesale energy prices are falling (stagnation in the world economy), and in a while, all new investment projects will be under cost pressure. So, you have to buy the cheapest, so again, from China. The circle closes, and each way goes out to the Chinese; the only chance that the NZIA provides opportunities to introduce (undoubtedly protectionist) quality criteria to the supply in projects (read, we buy European) but to defend 40% of the supply, however, probably far away. We could make China produce something else… So, let them create…weapons? 😊

German marijuana in the ETS?

Focused on energy processes, we are bypassing the expansion of climate policy into other market areas. Because CO2 emissions are not just about energy. A regulation just introduced in Germany in practice legalises the production and use of marijuana (hemp products) for personal use. Of course, this is formalised “in German”. Local associations are allowed, where, after signing up, it is possible to purchase up to 50g of dried cannabis per week and then consume (smoke) on-site (association headquarters) or in the privacy of the home. A new “green” revolution as early as April 2024 (!). The precise legal system has yet to escape the problem of CO2 emissions from smoking. It is estimated that the new law could ultimately result in the burning of up to 25 million kilograms of dried hemp per year (nationwide) and thus emit (a rough assessment based on available emission factors) up to about 50,000 tons of CO2 per year (this amount may increase with subsequent waves of enrollment in local “green” groups). Bringing this business into the ETS (and the current, unfortunately declining allowance prices) yields revenues of about €2.25 million per year (to start with). It is assumed that ETS taxation of the burning of hemp products will allow the development of a “small CCS” industry (for smokers located in local clubs) or simply a real CO2 burden for home consumption (some groups are protesting because it gives an extra 1-3 euros per twist, so there are even posters criticising the oppressive climate burden system with a visionary drawing of a cigarette and showing the ETS cost). Nevertheless, the direction is specific: Europe will not let go of CO2 emissions in any sector.