The Greens want the energy transition.
They are for the five wind turbines in the forest.
Now they have voted against the hydrogen filling stations in Schlacht and Grafing in the district committee.
How does that fit together?
We asked Waltraud Gruber, parliamentary group leader.
The Greens are in favor of wind turbines in the forest but against the hydrogen filling station project in the Ebersberg district. How does that fit together?
Gruber: We Greens are all in favor of hydrogen as a high-quality storage medium.
It can be used flexibly.
And it's precious.
We need it as a substitute for oil.
We can't produce enough of it.
For this we need a lot of surplus renewable electricity.
This is one of the reasons why we are for the wind turbines in the forest.
In particular, we need hydrogen where we cannot use the electricity directly - e.g. for the chemical and steel industries or in aviation and shipping.
In the case of cars, however, the race has long been over, e-vehicles will store their energy purely in batteries without additional H2 storage.
And more and more powerful battery models are also coming onto the market for buses for local transport.
We Greens in the KSA are also responsible for the finances of the district budget.
We are not against the project itself, but against this half-baked project by Transport Minister Scheuer, where the district is being charged € 850,000 per year to introduce a non-economic technology.
So this is a "stupid" bad project.
Risks and costs are passed on to us that are not a core task of the district.
If the higher operating costs were taken over by the Free State, for example, our decision would be different.
In the Environment Committee, the Greens had still approved the project. Not now in the district committee. Are the members of the group divided on this issue? Why? And what does the basis actually say?
Gruber: We exchanged a lot of information in four meetings in the parliamentary group.
There is no black and white decision here.
There are pros and cons.
The fact that we come to different final assessments in the group shows that this topic can be viewed from different angles.
The supporters of our group see it this way: "If a rich district like Ebersberg cannot finance the pilot project - who then?" that can convert and store surplus electricity.
We have no obligation to faction - we all know each other why we have chosen which direction and find that our different positions also reflect the different assessments of the base.
The SPD refers to austerity measures in the area of social affairs and education and thus justifies its criticism of the hydrogen project. Does that mean: either or?
Gruber: Well, at the KSA meeting, one item on the agenda beforehand on the subject of the district levy “when the district reaches the limits of its capabilities, you have to discuss voluntary social benefits”.
That shows that we have to reckon with severe financial cuts due to the corona.
I find saving on voluntary social benefits unacceptable - a lot can often be achieved here with few resources.
In the area of energy, we must primarily use all our energy for renewable energies - for more energy from wind and sun.
In the transport sector, everything points to the much more effective electromobility - studies also show the advantage over hydrogen drives for buses too.
That means we need a nationwide fast charging infrastructure.
And yes, the money can only be spent once - we are responsible for using our citizens' money where the benefit is greatest.
