Pedro Fresco (Valencia, 42 years old) is the director of the Valencian Association of the Energy Sector and is one of the voices that for years has publicly defended the expansion of renewables and the need for solar and wind macro plants.
After working in this sector for more than a decade, he was an advisor to the Ministry for the Ecological Transition.
From there he jumped to the Valencian Generalitat in 2021, where he was appointed director of Ecological Transition.
But in December 2022 he was dismissed by Compromís after the current that rejected the implementation of large photovoltaic parks prevailed in that formation.
He now publishes the book
Energy Fakes.
Myths and hoaxes about the energy transition
(Barlin Libros),
where he combats the hoaxes that are spread left and right in the political arena and from companies.
“There are myths that are transversal, but the greatest intensity of mythology about energy comes from the two sides of the ideological extreme: from the radical right and then from certain extreme left groups,” summarizes Fresco in this telephone conversation with EL PAÍS.
Ask.
Where does fake news come from?
Answer.
From many sites, but they generally have two main sources.
The first are economic interests - on the part of companies - or political interests - on the part of certain worldviews.
Then there is another part that comes from previous learning, from things that were true in the past, when technology was different, and that are not true today.
Q.
Are there companies in the fossil sector that spread fake news?
A.
The
fake news
that comes from these companies is something historic.
It began in the seventies and eighties with climate change, when major oil companies used
fakes
to sow distrust about what science said.
But then it has continued with different technologies.
Today the
fakes
coming from companies about renewables are much less, because practically all companies, even oil companies, have sections that are dedicated to renewables.
Where we currently see the most fake news coming out of companies is in the field of electric cars, which pose a threat to the main destination of oil: mobility in vehicles.
Q.
And do they come more from companies that supply these fuels or from automobile manufacturers?
A.
They come from both, from companies that supply oil, which is a business that they do not want to lose quickly, and from the sector of automobile manufacturers and everything that involves the combustion engine.
I think this is clearly seen with many supposed studies, which are false, which say that the electric car pollutes more or that there are not enough materials for so many electric cars or that they will always be very expensive or that the electrical grid cannot sustain a system. of electric cars.
Q.
Is fake news more abundant on the ideological left or right?
A.
There are myths that are transversal, but the greatest intensity of mythology about energy comes from the two parts of the ideological extreme: from the radical right and then from certain extreme left groups.
Perhaps the radical right spreads more myths, because in the end the basis of many myths is conspiratorial thinking and radical right ideologies rely heavily on conspiratorial thinking to spread.
The curious thing is that there are also quite a few myths among the most radical sectors of the left.
We are seeing it, for example, against renewables and in all sectors that have a certain affinity with collapseism, because collapseism is one of the groups that spreads the most energy hoaxes.
Q.
Do you consider that defending degrowth as the only way to fight climate change is
fake news
?
A.
The evidence shows that insisting that degrowth is the only way to combat climate change is false, it is
fake news
.
That does not mean that all degrowthers spread
fake news
.
Degrowth is a broad movement where there are different families and different branches.
Some are more moderate, more realistic, and do not usually spread
fake news
, but there are sectors that are radical, and I am talking fundamentally about collapseism, whose idea of collapse is based on propagating that nothing is possible, that nothing is real, that there is no alternative.
Therefore, they become maximum disseminators of any mythology they see in the mythology market.
In fact, it is extremely curious to see how collapseists use many of the myths of the radical right to defend their theses.
Q.
For example?
A.
Things like not being able to introduce more electricity into the electrical grid is something that has been defended by the most conservative energy options.
Or, for example, all this tendency to undervalue electric cars is mythology that comes from the fossil world and the manufacture of combustion vehicles, and the collapsists use it without any problem, because it is useful for them to spread their theories.
Q.
Do you consider yourself a victim of these energy hoaxes for having been removed from your position in the Generalitat?
A.
It is true that my dismissal had a lot to do with one of the myths: that the energy transition can be made only with photovoltaics on the roofs and without the need to install renewable energies in the territory.
That is not really a collapseist thought, because collapseism believes that the energy transition is impossible.
It is another type of different mythology that is rooted in those politically infantile visions that are not capable of assuming that things that have a certain rejection must be done to achieve climate objectives.
Pedro fresh this Wednesday in Valencia.
PACO PUENTES
Q.
But do you consider that renewables have impacts on the territory?
A.
To begin with, anything we human beings do has an impact, and renewables have an impact and they have it on the territory.
The point is that at an environmental level the impact of renewable energies is much lower than that of the energies they are replacing, which are fossil and traditional energies.
That does not mean that there is no impact and, above all, that there are no landscape impacts that are the most difficult to avoid, because they are obvious.
But I defend that the landscape impact is a very acceptable impact for the benefits that renewable energies bring.
Q.
And what impact do they have on biodiversity?
A.
The impact on biodiversity is low.
Above all, it is low when we have environmental authorizations for the projects to go ahead.
The impacts of renewable energies are assessed in environmental studies and authorizations given by administrations.
They are not zero, obviously, but they are low.
And many times what we observe is that when these renewable energies are used on less sensitive sites and replace activities that also intrinsically have an impact, such as agriculture, in many cases the impact on biodiversity is positive.
Q.
Of all the myths that you have analyzed in the book, which one do you think has penetrated the population the most?
A.
There are two extremely persistent myths.
One is that nuclear energy is cheap, which is something that we have been seeing in Europe for more than two decades that is not the case.
And other myths that persist for a long time are those related to heat pumps.
There is a lot of myth that a heat pump is not efficient, it cannot heat a house, it cannot be used in cold climates.
Q.
Is nuclear power experiencing a boom in the world?
A.
No, nuclear is not experiencing any international boom, that is propaganda.
In fact, in three of the last four years nuclear power has declined in the world, that is, more plants have been closed than have been connected.
I have been hearing about the nuclear renaissance for about 25 years and it was always said that it was coming.
It is an energy that has been stagnant in the world for three decades.
Q.
Is waste from nuclear plants just as difficult to manage or dangerous as waste from renewables?
A.
Nuclear waste is much more difficult to manage than renewable waste because it is extremely dangerous.
Another thing is that they are less bulky, but they are infinitely more dangerous.
Renewable waste is normal waste: aluminum, concrete, copper or glass.
The most complicated thing is the composites from wind turbine blades, which are difficult to recycle, but are still non-hazardous waste.
Comparing nuclear waste with waste from renewables is a totally ridiculous argument, a
fake
.
Q.
Do you think that former President Felipe González was poorly advised or did he know that
what he was spreading was
fake when he compared both residues?
A.
This case shows us to what extent
fake news
can confuse the most intelligent people.
Felipe González is probably the most important historical figure alive in Spain and has fallen for several of the hoaxes that he commented on in the book, both about nuclear energy and that solar panels cannot be recycled.
It is a very paradigmatic case of how even the most enlightened and most prepared people, when they do not have specific knowledge about energy matters, are victims of
fake news
like any of us can be.
Q.
Is there any hoax that has been left out that worries you?
A.
I am very concerned about two hoaxes that I am beginning to see from the platforms against renewables and that can be seen in their allegations regarding specific projects.
One is that the solar plants are going to increase the temperature of the area and of the people who have houses around them, which is a hoax, it is false.
And another thing that I have seen that is new is that solar plants are going to make it rain less, another hoax that also has no scientific basis.
These two hoaxes are not in the book because they are relatively new.
You can follow
Climate and Environment
on
and
X
, or sign up here to receive
our weekly newsletter
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_