Teofil Mureșan, leader of the E-Infra Group, draws attention to several solutions recently proposed in the public sphere and debunks certain myths regarding key aspects of the local energy sector. “We need accurate calculations and decisions based on comprehensive analyses,” he asserts in a post on his social media page. We present the post in its entirety below:
“I have read various opinions regarding investments in battery storage or in different energy generation sources, aimed at lowering energy prices.
I would like to make a few observations:
1. Investing in storage capacity sufficient to cover Romania’s total consumption for an average day would cost approximately 25 billion euros.
This is an enormous sum; it is unnecessary, and it fails to solve the problem during periods when there is no surplus (for instance, in winter). Furthermore, such systems have a relatively short lifespan. They are, however, well-suited for managing daily consumption peaks.
2. In free-market economies, the price of goods decreases when supply exceeds or at least matches demand; the same principle applies to energy.
Through the physical and commercial interconnection of energy systems (electricity, gas, oil) across national borders, we must consider supply and demand at a regional level. Even if Romania were to become the largest gas producer, it is unlikely that our gas prices would be significantly lower than those in the surrounding region.
3. Energy demand is constantly rising due to technological progress and economic growth. Consequently, there is a continuous need to incentivize investment in energy production.
4. Investments in new power plants are substantial and long-term; they are often difficult to finance through banks and are subject to regulatory or technological risks. Large corporations capable of assuming these risks will factor them into their pricing. These risks could be mitigated through state involvement in the financial structure of such investments, given that energy is a strategic resource.
5. The energy mix comprises sources with varying CAPEX and OPEX requirements per MW of installed capacity, as well as differing lifespans and levels of reliability. A comprehensive analysis must take into account…” …continuous operating capacity and the cost of the product, per MWh, over its entire lifespan.
5. Renewable energy is the cheapest and non-polluting, but it is unreliable. Electricity generation from gas is reliable and dispatchable, yet more expensive than that from renewable sources. Hydropower is excellent, but hydroelectric plants have already been built in areas with high hydro potential. Nuclear power plants have the longest lifespans and are non-polluting, but nuclear energy entails the highest initial investment.
6. Some power plants are dispatchable, while others provide only baseload power.
We need accurate calculations and decisions based on comprehensive analyses!
