At the time this interview was being prepared, the undoubtedly important issue of local energy (and other) resources and their correct and rational use had not yet been “brought to the fore” by the additional surge in electricity and heating costs this autumn. Can we, are we capable of, do we want to, and will we be energy independent?

What is “Ventspils nafta” currently working on?

This year we celebrated the company's 60th anniversary. “Ventspils nafta” is still engaged in the storage and transhipment of oil products; that has not changed in 60 years of operation. The flow of products continues to run in both directions: we receive oil products via pipeline, by rail, and from ships; we store them, accumulate larger volumes, improve product quality, and send them on. I would emphasise that the products stored and transhipped do not belong to us; they are the property of our clients, and we provide only the services I have described.

“Ventspils nafta” is directly linked to the sector that people often mention with a sad sigh: “There were great hopes for a “forever” or long-term transit business, but now they have faded.” In your view, what is the current situation in the transit sector?

The situation is not simple; we are seeing a gradual decline in transit volumes. If we look at our colleagues who provide similar services, certain terminals in Ventspils are simply standing idle. This is directly linked to geopolitics, Latvia's current relationship with Belarus (we know what those are like), and the diversion of Russian oil (and other) product flows elsewhere. Speaking about the trends and prospects for our terminal's work, observing the slow yet steady decline in product volumes, we understand that sooner or later there will be a transition from fossil energy carriers (oil products) to something else. This provides the motivation to start work on creating green energy carriers well in advance.

What would those be? Natural (non-fossil) oil or gas-type products derived from biomass, solar, or wind energy. We are actively working on this, researching and looking for opportunities to compensate for the reduction in transit flows with products produced locally in Latvia.

So, is the company's plan to also get involved in the processes of creating or synthesising new products?

We are already working with bioproducts, such as methanol of natural origin, seeing added value in developing a production base. As is well known, our colleagues in Ventspils (BioVenta) are involved in biodiesel production, we have heard of one other company, and that is it. We want to focus on production from locally sourced products (raw materials).

Are you collaborating with Latvian scientists?

We need to understand what exactly we want to create. One area is hydrogen technologies and hydrogen itself. There are two H2 technologies in green production: electrolysis and biogenic hydrogen, which is produced from biomass in various ways. The next stage is fuel production: there are so-called “E-fuels”, produced by combining hydrogen with CO2 to obtain syngas, from which various products can be synthesised, such as methanol (E-methanol), diesel fuel, and ordinary fuel that is similar in chemical composition to fossil fuel but is derived from renewable sources. Then there is synthetic aviation fuel (E-kerosine), the production of which is also our goal, to help decarbonise the national aviation sector by producing fuel right here on the spot.

In Latvia, I believe science has focused more on biogas, and there is a great deal of research in this regard. A number of very strong researchers at RTU are working on studies regarding the creation and purification of biomethane.

Recently, Euronews Green published an article about aviation fuel synthesised from Ethiopian mustard (Article on Euronews Green). “Bio” is popular: how possible is it, without changing anything technically, to pour biodiesel into the tank of a car parked in the yard?

You pour biodiesel into a car's tank without worry. The goal is to create technologies that do not change anything in the composition of automotive fuel. In English, this technology is called drop-in. As is known, Latvia's most serious problem is its ageing vehicle fleet. It is clear that sooner or later (“when” will depend on our purchasing power) the electrification of automobiles will take place. Transport powered by hydrogen will emerge.

I will add that the Riga experiment with hydrogen-powered trolleybuses was valuable, but we have not heard the conclusions: what did not succeed and why, and what did not happen. I would be happy to learn more about this issue in detail from both the trolleybus suppliers and the Riga City Council.

Speaking of transport fuels, their decarbonisation is possible precisely through the use of fuel mixtures, for example, E15 or E85 (a mixture of ethanol and petrol), which can already be purchased in Europe (https://www.epure.org/). There is a Neste product, HVO, produced from recycled cooking oil. All these fuels can be poured directly into a car powered by petrol or diesel, and no additional technology is required.

For example, the Swedish forestry company UPM began work in 2006 on developing technology for diesel fuel (BioVerno Diesel) from wood biomass, and in 2015 this fuel reached the market. The testing of the fuel took place in cooperation with the VolksWagen group in order to understand whether and how anything needed to be done (https://www.upmbiofuels.com/traffic-fuels/upm-bioverno-diesel-for-fuels/).

The old vehicle fleet is directly linked to the level of society's income. Is the idea that can be inferred from what you said correct: could the old vehicle fleet serve longer if non-fossil-derived fuel were used in already used or well-used cars?

The idea is correct! This way, we relieve the economy. Currently, trying to decarbonise the vehicle fleet by purchasing electric cars is going to be too expensive. We can decarbonise this sector by finding better and higher value-added uses for wood biomass. Where is biomass used the most at present?

For heating.

Exactly – cheap and good, and in addition, we get the heat we need. From wood chips or wood waste biomass (it is important to emphasise “wood waste”, otherwise the product will not qualify as a renewable fuel. If we use good wood (timber) and shred it into chips, that will not provide added value for decarbonisation.) it is possible to create biodiesel and use it in transport. How can we decarbonise our households, our country, and later – the whole world? Heat is needed to warm a house in winter. Is burning something the only way to do it?

There are heat pumps and solar panels…

Exactly! I am glad that our conversation has taken a successful turn. So: is it possible, and how, to replace wood-fired boilers that heat houses with something more natural, coming from nature, for example, renewable wind or solar energy? If you install a small generator by your house, it will last 30 years.

Wood chips for a boiler must be prepared every year, and fossil energy consumption in this process is quite high. Since the need for heat will not go away, by replacing wood-chip boilers with other types of energy carriers, we can make room for the use of biomass in another sector. In Latvia, biomass is and will be available in sufficient quantities, and we can successfully use it elsewhere, creating products with higher added value that are more useful for the needs of the national economy.

Whether pouring ordinary fuel (as today) into a car, or, for example, fuel synthesised from grey alder biomass, will the chemical composition of the emissions differ significantly in favour of biodiesel?

No, it won't! It is about the full cycle (net zero). If we take oil or gas reserves formed over millennia from the depths of the earth and “release” them into the atmosphere, we are taking what the earth has already collected. In the case of biodiesel, we take material that has collected CO2, it is processed into fuel, it is burned and collected again. We are forming a cycle. Emissions still reach the atmosphere, but their volume is smaller, the chemical composition is different, the life cycle is shorter; trees will collect CO2 from the atmosphere again. By not creating anything new, we are circulating what already exists. I am speaking about the transition phase, because a time will come when we will need to move using transport that does not create any emissions – that means electric transport or hydrogen-powered ones. We have yet to reach such technologies, because they must also be sufficiently cheap. It is also important to understand that we will still need synthetic products, such as plastics. One of the four basic elements in chemical production is methanol. No matter how much we try, for example, we will not be able to make a voice recorder or mobile phone out of wood or only natural products; we will need plastic! Plastic must be produced, C and H element groups are found in nature, they can be obtained from various sources. Methanol can be of biogenic origin or it can be produced from electricity.

Currently, the most “vicious” topical issue is the pharmaceutical sector, where problems tend to arise in production: demand exceeds supply. One must think about raw materials and production on-site...

In my opinion, in the future, the world will be very decentralised. The long supply chains that we know today will no longer exist. For example, speaking of hydrogen, it is argued that a great place for its production would be Chile – sun, wind, etc. The delivery distance will eliminate the excellent economic effect. In the future, much of what is needed will be produced on-site in small factories on the forester's or farmer's own property. That is how I see it.

At one time, there were many brick kilns and tar kilns in the territory of Latvia. Are you thinking of something similar?

Conceptually similar! Technologies will have developed to such an extent that in a shorter cycle, much will be producible right there on the spot.

Speaking of Green Deal issues, in Latvia we currently see the public (slogan-based) part; the practical part is analysed and planned (by entrepreneurs), but there is less talk about it. How can we talk about the future prosperity of the country's residents, which is very important?

We can certainly achieve the prosperity of our country and our own personal development, as well as the increase in society's wealth, with the help of decarbonisation. If we look at renewable energy resources, Latvia is well ahead of many countries – we have the Daugava and three large hydroelectric power plants, producing 50% of what is needed right here. The remaining balance of the required energy is made up of imported electricity (from Scandinavia and Russia) and fossil elements (for example, Riga TEC). If we decide to go a certain path and change 50% to renewable energy resources – wind and solar, and biomass – we can “decarbonise”. Of course, this requires investments – wind turbines, solar panels... If we look further ahead, by purchasing a solar panel today and calculating it against the current high electricity prices, the purchase will pay off within three or four years; if we calculate that prices will drop, the panel will pay off in seven or eight years. After that, it will already be our income. Looking at it this way, I see that we can obtain 100% of the required electricity right here in Latvia. Perhaps we can obtain even more. We have a certain advantage – a low population density and many forests that we can “open up” for wind energy production. If we produce more than we need ourselves, we can convert it: either into hydrogen or into fuels, which we would then export. I assume that for a time, we could become a second Texas. The idea I am talking about cannot be realised, for example, in the Netherlands with its 17 million inhabitants, where there is much less free space.

According to you, it does not take much: you have to want it and build a house out of bricks, like the third little pig in the fairytale! But what will political will and the fossil fuel lobby “say” to that?

The world is “heading” green. Investments and production will also move where it is greener. For example, Northvolt (https://northvolt.com/), one of the large battery manufacturing plants (giga-factories). It was developed by a Swedish engineer who used to work at Tesla; having returned to Sweden, he looked for a long time for a place for a factory in Scandinavia, believing that batteries should be as green as possible. The place was found in the north of the Gulf of Bothnia, where 100% green electricity is available. Why do I mention batteries? Northvolt has agreed with the VolksWagen group on cooperation; the time will come when we will also pay for the CO2 that was created during the process of manufacturing an electric car. If the most expensive part of a car – the battery – has a smaller CO2 footprint, we will evidently pay less. This is a clear example.

Speaking of Latvia – the greener our local electricity is, the lower our expenses will be. Green energy “attracts” investments, which, by the way, will need to be large, even huge. I realise that my story and conviction are quite optimistic, but one must take into account the necessary investments, the change in habits, and long-term thinking; one needs to think about the latter (that is not a play on words) the most.

Speaking of politics and public perception and position, a distinct short-term mindset still prevails. The spirit of the householder that arose and strengthened during the time of the first Republic has disappeared somewhere, replaced by a slightly spoiled oligarch's perspective: to grab, snatch, and run. If you cannot earn quickly, it is not needed or it is bad. If one sees, delves into, sees and understands the 10-30 or more year perspective, no technology will seem expensive anymore. For example, speaking of buses for public transport. Hydrogen-powered buses are expensive. Producing them in small series, one bus will cost about €500,000; if produced in larger batches, the price will be €325,000. A diesel bus costs about €300,000. If we evaluate this information: money will no longer be given in Europe for diesel buses or loans will be expensive, money will have to be sought, for example, in Asia. The European Bank, rejecting the possibility of buying a diesel car, will say: “I will offer you a low-interest (0.5%) loan for a hydrogen car.” Calculating the possibilities and taking into account that the prices of diesel fuel produced on a fossil basis will undoubtedly rise, in the end, you will have to pay much, much more for a bus that was initially cheap.

Will there be manufacturers for everything required, and will they produce in a timely enough manner?

I think this will not change – the companies that produced buses and trains will continue to do so, only they will do it with other technologies. Will old-style manufacturers be replaced by new ones? For example, the American company Hyzon (https://hyzonmotors.com/), which produces large haulers that run on hydrogen. There are two such large companies in the world – the second is Hyundai. Hyzon has opened a factory in the Netherlands, and garbage trucks produced by them are already driving on European roads.

I am convinced – we will adapt to the new conditions, because it is in human nature to find a solution even in a hopeless situation. We have made a mess, unintentionally ruining the climate, but we can fix it by acting intentionally! If one acts intentionally, the possibilities are much greater. By changing perception and technologies, the situation is fixable without reducing the quality of life. We are talking about automobiles and transport; I by no means think that we would need horses again.

Will the expected high demand be satisfied if there is a will to be green right here and now? The supply worries during the pandemic show potential problems in the future.

There will be problems. For example, as I know, in Europe, they are thinking about and trying to solve the issue with semiconductors, which until now were mostly produced in Asia. The idea is to build a factory in Europe worth €2 billion. From the moment of investment until the first semiconductors produced in Europe, two years will pass. The transition will be gradual; state support is needed (a subsidy or a penalty for non-green usage). From 2023, the new Taxonomy system will begin to operate in Europe, from which we will see the directions of cash flows; one must say – “If someone does not want to, they will be forced to for the sake of noble and good goals.”

Returning to the topic of many small factories. The reality in Latvia will be many activities and signatures “against” each such factory.

Fear has big eyes! Resistance to development is often caused by ignorance. The public must be informed about the possibilities. Of course, we can live as before; we can change our attitude. Forests and trees collect CO2 from the atmosphere; society needs to deal with the amount of CO2, but society also needs electricity. It is planned that by 2050, in the world and also in Latvia, a great deal will be powered by electricity (50-60% of energy consumption). It must be produced! How? We must start producing green electricity. If we install one wind turbine that will operate for 30-40 years, occupying 1/2 hectare of land, in a relatively small area of land, there will be a greater benefit. It is important to talk about the fact that green energy will give us income. Usually, objections to the development of any production facility are simple: “A capitalist comes to our parish and starts ruining the landscape, starts operating, etc.”

In Europe, a study has been conducted on how it is possible to involve the public in the co-financing of green energy development (https://www.score-h2020.eu/). For example, a village that forms a trust, under the leadership of a local leader who is well-versed in many issues and is able to explain them, is a municipality and an electricity producer that wants to develop its business. With three parties agreeing, a public limited company is established, in which everyone invests and everyone is a participant. What does that mean? The owners receive dividends every year. Comparatively, now the situation is linked “to throwing a bone” – you have to agree, for which you will get “something”, but not in the long term, rather now! The plan is to involve local residents in a long-term dividend-yielding (profitable) business. I think that in such a model, there will be a benefit for the person, the municipality, and the state as a whole.