September 2023 – Response to BCG’s “A Blueprint for the Energy Transition”

I dare to say that I care about the environment and the future of our children and planet as much as BCG and the authors of the report do.” – Lars Schernikau

Here you can read Lars´ responce to a recent report “A Blueprint for the Energy Transition” from September 2023 by BCG. He wrote this response with good intentions to spark further research and an important debate. 

Lars seeks further feedback on his response from any professionals or academics.

Issues covered in Lars’ response (table of content):

  1. Addition or “Transition”?
  2. Cost of power… wind and solar increases (not decreases) costs
  3. Coal vs. Gas
  4. Insufficient global investments in supplying energy?
  5. Supply side variability vs demand side response
  6. The trilemma of energy policy
  7. Warming of 1.5°C vs. 2.7°
  8. Extreme weather and catastrophes
  9. Poor vs “rich”, impacts of climate change


March 2023 – Response to Germany’s Draft “PV-Strategy 2023"

In early March 2023, Germany’s Ministry for Economy and Climate issued a new “Photovoltaic Strategy” (download here) for review by the Germany citizens before 23rd March.

Lars Schernikau prepared a detailed reply pointing out various fundamental shortcomings of the strategy focusing on four points,
    a) energy costs,
    b) energy demand, natural capacity factors, and storage
    c) energy effiency, and
    d) system/network integration

Lars’ Review is publicly available and can be downloaded below. It has been sent to various media outlets and is published on social media

June 2022 – Response to IMF´s "Working Paper - The Great Carbon Arbitrage"

“Your use of the variable cost measure LCOE is scientifically incorrect when comparing dispatchable with base load power. When you adjust your analysis for full costs (which you must for a logical economic argument), you will get different results. ” – Lars Schernikau

Lars Schernikau is the initiator and main author of this letter . The letters serves as a reply to the IMF´s Working Paper – The Great Carbon Arbitrage and is endorsed by a number of science and energy economic experts in the energy, commodity, and atmospheric physics fields who have chosen to co-sign this letter.

Summary of the content:

  1. Social “cost of carbon” is not consistent with life-cycle analysis and a macro view to the environment 
  2. Your choice to focus on coal is misleading and incorrect 
  3. Your statement that variable “renewables” will bring economic benefit over coal in misleading and incorrect