150 Oscar Van Vliet
result of the ongoing expansion of renewables in Germany and elsewhere. The
‘merit order effect’ reduces prices when renewable electricity is abundant (i.e.
sunny weather and high winds across the EU) and drives up prices of balancing
power when renewable electricity is scarce, making renewable electricity a
victim of its own success (see Cludius et al., 2014). This has reduced enthusiasm
for installing renewable electricity by utilities. Consumer- owned rooftop PV has
not been affected as much, as domestic production reduces electricity bills that
include taxes and grid fees (electricity cost is only half the total) and the Swiss
feed- in tariff policy.
Across the three projects, stakeholder perspectives suggested a risk to the
overall Swiss ES2050: stakeholders feel disengaged with the ES2050 process
because they disagree on the overarching framework, i.e. the pillars of the
energy strategy. It seems that the federal, cantonal, and local stakeholders have
different interpretations of the ES2050 and its major objectives of energy efficiency, supply diversity, deployment of investments, and environmental protection. Each of these levels of government prioritises the ES2050 objectives
differently, and all of them seem to think their approach is best for everyone.
However, these authorities lack a forum to resolve these differences. Furthermore, these interpretations differ in turn from the preferences of the Swiss
public. This is a risk to the general political process that carries the ES2050
forward.
This is separate from the ‘usual’ political risk where different interest groups
want different things. This is also present in Switzerland, and some of the lobby
groups have very close ties to political parties.
Comparing pathways
Unsurprisingly, we cannot have an energy system that is reliable, climate
friendly, gives us independence, keeps the landscape intact, and phases out
nuclear all at the same time. However, it is possible to replace the existing
nuclear plants in Switzerland with a combination of domestic and imported
renewables without infringing on reliability. The cost for this would be no
higher than using natural gas, as suggested in the ES2050, or replacing the
ageing Swiss nuclear plants. Good management by the TSOs that carry the
imported power would minimise the risk of weather- induced grid failures. Both
pathways, domestic renewables and the foreign renewables, are therefore possible in principle, though rooftop PV would have to be supplemented with Swiss
wind power in strictly domestic pathways. Due to the low potential for wind
power in Switzerland (i.e. wind blows slowly, infrequently, and/or erratically),
this would also have highest cost. Natural gas is technically feasible but a nonstarter in the opinion of the Swiss public.
While both pathways are technically feasible and broadly socially acceptable,
there are still issues with individual projects (see Table 9.1). As long as renewables partially depend on subsidies to be competitive, financing remains difficult
and the projects will be seen as risky by investors. This is especially the case if
result of the ongoing expansion of renewables in Germany and elsewhere. The
‘merit order effect’ reduces prices when renewable electricity is abundant (i.e.
sunny weather and high winds across the EU) and drives up prices of balancing
power when renewable electricity is scarce, making renewable electricity a
victim of its own success (see Cludius et al., 2014). This has reduced enthusiasm
for installing renewable electricity by utilities. Consumer- owned rooftop PV has
not been affected as much, as domestic production reduces electricity bills that
include taxes and grid fees (electricity cost is only half the total) and the Swiss
feed- in tariff policy.
Across the three projects, stakeholder perspectives suggested a risk to the
overall Swiss ES2050: stakeholders feel disengaged with the ES2050 process
because they disagree on the overarching framework, i.e. the pillars of the
energy strategy. It seems that the federal, cantonal, and local stakeholders have
different interpretations of the ES2050 and its major objectives of energy efficiency, supply diversity, deployment of investments, and environmental protection. Each of these levels of government prioritises the ES2050 objectives
differently, and all of them seem to think their approach is best for everyone.
However, these authorities lack a forum to resolve these differences. Furthermore, these interpretations differ in turn from the preferences of the Swiss
public. This is a risk to the general political process that carries the ES2050
forward.
This is separate from the ‘usual’ political risk where different interest groups
want different things. This is also present in Switzerland, and some of the lobby
groups have very close ties to political parties.
Comparing pathways
Unsurprisingly, we cannot have an energy system that is reliable, climate
friendly, gives us independence, keeps the landscape intact, and phases out
nuclear all at the same time. However, it is possible to replace the existing
nuclear plants in Switzerland with a combination of domestic and imported
renewables without infringing on reliability. The cost for this would be no
higher than using natural gas, as suggested in the ES2050, or replacing the
ageing Swiss nuclear plants. Good management by the TSOs that carry the
imported power would minimise the risk of weather- induced grid failures. Both
pathways, domestic renewables and the foreign renewables, are therefore possible in principle, though rooftop PV would have to be supplemented with Swiss
wind power in strictly domestic pathways. Due to the low potential for wind
power in Switzerland (i.e. wind blows slowly, infrequently, and/or erratically),
this would also have highest cost. Natural gas is technically feasible but a nonstarter in the opinion of the Swiss public.
While both pathways are technically feasible and broadly socially acceptable,
there are still issues with individual projects (see Table 9.1). As long as renewables partially depend on subsidies to be competitive, financing remains difficult
and the projects will be seen as risky by investors. This is especially the case if