On August 26, the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, announced the creation of two solar thermal plants in Baja California Sur, which are part of the 51 projects of the Plan to Strengthen the Expansion of the National Electricity System 2025-2030.
The objective of this plan is to accelerate the energy transition and contribute to the fulfillment of climate commitments. To reduce gas emissions that cause climate change, Mexico has an obligation that at least 35% of total electricity generation comes from clean and renewable energy by 2030.
Jaqueline Valenzuela, director of the Center for Renewable Energy and Environmental Quality (CERCA), recognizes as positive the promotion of renewable energy projects such as the one in Baja California Sur. However, he points out that it is incongruous that at the same time this plan promotes a greater number of projects associated with fossil fuels such as gas, which is even considered to be clean energy that contributes to achieving the goal of 35% when used as cogeneration with thermal energy.
In an interview with Causa Natura Media, Valenzuela highlighted that as part of the updating of Mexico's climate commitments towards the COP30 on Climate Change, the country's energy matrix needs to be decarbonized to contribute to a sustainable reduction in emissions.
*This interview has been edited for synthesis and better reading.
— What role does the solar thermal plant that is going to be installed in Baja California Sur play?
They announced it as one of the projects that will achieve Mexico's compliance with its international commitments in terms of reducing emissions, in particular emissions from fixed sources that are directly related to electricity generation.
— Is the Plan to Strengthen the Expansion of the National Electricity System 2025-2030 sufficient to meet the goal of 35% of renewable and clean energy in Mexico?
They do land it in renewable and clean energy, including gas, if they comply.
From civil society, there was a lot of resistance when the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources proposed updating the Nationally Determined Commitments (NDC), which are issued every five years to all countries that are part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and which were presented in 2022.
This happened because in this redesign there was talk of moving from renewable energy to clean energy, and after that update, gas was classified as clean energy. Gas projects were included in these emission reduction targets and gas projects began to appear for the entire country. It was very controversial.
So, although Mexico is ambitious with 35% of clean and renewable energy in its NDC, the reality is that there has been a conceptual change in how to achieve it.
With its action plan, Mexico could achieve it, but the specialized sector believes that if we don't decarbonize the energy matrix -mobility and all energy uses-, we are reproducing the problem, since we will continue to warm the planet and contribute to the climate boiling in which Mexico, being such a megadiverse country, is one of the most affected.
— What is the difference between renewable and clean energy, and why is gas considered clean energy?
Renewable energies are natural sources capable of producing some type of energy constantly without interruptions such as wind, tides, sun and heat. Clean energies are those that have the lowest emissions compared to highly polluting fossil fuels such as coal, fuel oil, diesel and the entire range of hydrocarbons.
Gas falls under the definition of clean energy because it reduces 90% of some pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, but a comprehensive analysis is not carried out to show that it in turn has other emissions, for example, it is responsible for the emission of one of the most powerful pollutants in terms of depletion of the protective layer to the atmosphere, such as methane, and that is where the trap is.
— What opportunities does the next COP30 on Climate Change represent to make progress in this regard?
I hope that we talk in an honest way about decarbonizing all our activities and that we will let go of this double discourse of clean energy, which is gas for now, but later on we can find another source derived from the same fossil fuels that we can continue to use and, let's say, we are meeting our goals.
I think that the planet has had enough of the intensive use of fossil fuels and we have to migrate to other ways of understanding civilization with renewable energy sources that are going to have limits and intermittences because that is the planet's natural cycle, we are not going to have everything always and in the quantities we want.
It is time to put a stop to international organizations, to make countries genuinely commit to meeting decarbonization and carbon footprint reduction goals.
I think that is the core conversation, what is the realistic plan of action to prevent the planet from continuing to warm and that this is a cross line of all decision-making. This way it wouldn't make sense to use gas or any fossil fuel.
— How are these policies reflected in Baja California Sur?
The Baja California Sur system grew in its installed fossil capacity mainly with fossil infrastructure. In 2019, when we had the blackouts, we had an installed capacity of 750 megawatts, but the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) has gradually been integrating aeroderivative turbines that run on diesel and gas. Currently, we are talking about more than 1,100 megawatts of installed capacity.
Approximately 250 megawatts of installed capacity have entered through aeroderivative turbines and, mainly, in Los Cabos. For example, there are two new distribution centers that nobody is paying much attention to, and the CFE also has two Environmental Impact Manifestations (MIA), for a regasification plant and for the construction of 150 kilometers of pipelines and a new distribution plant.
Fossil fuels benefit from the fact that we can have more base energy, that is, it is not intermittent, so that intermittent technologies can enter. In addition, we must leave behind the discourse of the intermittency of renewable energies when the regulation for storage has already been published. Let's say that all the conditions are in place so that the renewable energies of the two electrical systems in Baja California Sur could triple.
— How is Baja California Sur doing in terms of renewable energy?
In Baja California Sur, only 13% of installed capacity is with renewable technologies and is operated by private individuals. There is only one renewable energy (solar) power plant in Santa Rosalía that belongs to the Federal Electricity Commission, it is one megawatt and we know that it operates well.
One thing that was said is that the two solar thermal plants of 50 megawatts each capable of growing to 100 would replace the units that already have to come out, for example the San Carlos power plant in Comondú and Punta Prieta in La Paz, whose release has been announced twice in the National Electricity System Development Program (Prodesen).
So we believe that the new installed capacity has the reason to replace these units that can no longer continue operating because they are around 40 years old, when the useful life of any technology is 25 years, that is why the pollution is so high, because we are operating a technology that is no longer in a position to do so.
But as long as logic continues to replace and not reduce, this will remain the same. That is the problem, the goals are not designed to reduce a country's footprint, but to replace what is being issued, but it is never said that growth needs a brake.
The only way to commit to a sustainable reduction in emissions is to decrease processes, but no country is thinking about that, and in Mexico they are also thinking about replacing to continue with growth.
Obviously, you have to feel positive about renewable energy projects, because you know that the conviction was more of the same, but we don't have a blindfold on our eyes thinking that this is going to be the case that the planet will warm up less.
We are pleased because in terms of public health these decisions are correct, but in terms of contributing to climate goals, it would have to be analyzed with a very critical view.
Comentarios (0)