Ernüchterung statt Euphorie: Steag Iquony hat seine Wasserstoffprojekte vorerst "auf Eis" gelegt.
On the topic of hydrogen, disillusionment is spreading for Andreas Reichel, CEO and Labor Director of the Steag Iqony Group, with regard to hydrogen. The electrolysis projects that Steag Iqony is pursuing are currently “on ice,” Reichel said at the Handelsblatt conference in Berlin.
As an example, he cited a Steag project in the environment of Saarland industry. There, the economic viability of an electrolysis project failed in part due to the high requirements, such as the hour-by-hour supply of the plant with green electricity. On site, this requirement can only be implemented with an electricity storage system.
Companies on the other side of the border, by contrast, do not have this problem. In France, the framework conditions are simpler because nuclear power is now classified as “green” under EU regulatory rules. Suitable electricity is sufficiently available there, whereas stricter verification obligations apply in Germany. Hydrogen remains a goal for Steag, “but at present projects cannot be realized economically.”
Reichel is more positive, however, when it comes to power plant strategy. According to its own statements, Steag Iqony wants to build around 2 GW of new secured capacity and points in this context to a concrete project at the Bergkamen site in North Rhine-Westphalia. For a large power plant there, the permitting situation is good, and the partner companies required are largely prepared for the task.
For Reichel, the rapid construction of a gas-fired power plant is a sporting challenge. “In power plant construction, the rule of thumb is 1, 2, 3: one year for planning, two years for permits, and three years for construction,” he said. He considers commissioning by 2031 to be possible, but faster progress is unlikely.
He also evaluated positively that Federal Minister for Economic Affairs Katherina Reiche (CDU) achieved more in the talks with the European Commission than initially announced. “In the end, Ms. Reiche achieved 10 plus 2 GW in Brussels,”
Reichel said. Originally, only 8 plus 2 GW had been planned, with the first number referring to power plants that must demonstrate a binding number of hours of minimum operating time.
Reichel also addressed this point. With regard to the further design of the power plant strategy, he said that the agreement with the European Commission is indeed designed to be technology-neutral. In the first step, however, the focus will in fact be on large power plants, because the need for secured capacity has priority. In a second step, smaller plants, battery storage systems, and additional flexibility options will then also be included.
At the same time, Reichel drew attention to the years until new power plants become available. New plants will not be ready in the “next or the following winter,” but rather at the beginning of the 2030s.
As a bridging solution, he suggested a targeted, time-limited use of reserve power plants in order to smooth price spikes. These plants are available as so-called “Already-present power plants.” As a rule, these are fossil-fuel plants that no longer participate in the electricity market and whose availability is financed via grid fees.
From his perspective, the additional use could have an immediate effect, for example through lower electricity prices and potentially also through dampening effects on grid fees if extreme price and dispatch situations become less frequent. At the same time, Reichel acknowledged that a broad deployment of existing reserve capacities could slow down the construction of new power plants if market prices are dampened and investment signals weakened.
He therefore argued for a clear limitation. The use of reserve power plants should occur only during defined price spikes and be limited in time, for example to three years. He sees the measure as a bridge until new power plants are available on the market.
