What exactly are fossil projects? How far does the definition stretch, given that fossil fuels are part of almost everything arounds us, Van de Sanden points out. This makes for a sharp opening to the debate: “We can’t banish fossil fuels from our lives just yet. Fossil components are everywhere: in our desk chairs, in our cars, in our paint. But that doesn’t mean we need the fossil industry to get rid of fossil fuels. Those are two very different things that are often lumped together, which is why we’re still having the wrong debate as far as I’m concerned.” Van de Sanden believes the question shouldn’t be whether we can stop using fossil fuels, but where we want to go and how we can get there.

Reconsider what kind of country we want to be

“There’s already a consensus on fossil fuels: we’re getting rid of them. But in which direction are we headed and what’s the industry of the future in the Netherlands? How will we make money as a country? Take slaughterhouses, greenhouses, and distribution centers: those are sectors we don’t want anymore. Much of our energy-intensive industry was founded on the back of cheap gas (at the time), which also applies to sectors such as horticulture. If green electricity, which is mainly generated decentrally, is to play a larger role in our energy supply, we’ll have to think about what kind of industry and other commercial activity go with that.”

“In any case, I think we’re heading to a much more decentralized energy infrastructure. You can see this, for instance, when you look at solar energy, with households having their own solar panels on the roof. Now all that’s left is to make the transition to the user side: from central energy generation to decentralized user units,” is Van de Sanden’s conviction.

He doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone will have to purchase a home battery to store that power. According to recent news reports, these aren’t profitable yet within their lifecycles and can only store a relatively small amount of energy. “But there are other steps that are worthwhile taking, such as converting solar energy to synthetic gas from green electricity, captured carbon dioxide, and water, and storing this for re-releasing heat and electricity in winter.” The devices needed to this end are smaller and modular. A great number of these kinds of devices can ensure largescale production, similar to what’s happening with solar and wind energy.

Less export

“Looking at the Netherlands, our greatest assets are the Port of Rotterdam and offshore wind, as well as the access to the European hinterland where many products are needed,” Van de Sanden explains. “We’re currently very focused on bulk chemistry, where we for instance produce many raw materials, such as polymers, for things like mattrasses. We also produce a lot for export. This is mainly done in central places, including Chemelot in Geleen and the Port of Rotterdam. I think that in the future, we’ll start concentrating more on much higher-quality and much more decentralized production, dovetailing with wherever green electricity and other raw materials are available.”

“But that’s a switch neither the chemical sector nor the fossil industry will be making,” he believes. “We didn’t start using solar energy and wind turbines because of energy companies, electric cars because of the traditional car industry, or new types of batteries because of conventional battery factories. The new chemical industry will transition to much more decentralized production,” he expects.

“The newcomers, which are working at a much smaller scale and in a modular way, might make a loss for years but they know that in the future this is the market to be in. Incidentally, if there’s anything we’re not short on, it’s money.”

Discontinuing fossil subsidies

Van de Sanden thinks we shouldn’t hold on to the past too much. “If we had never started using fossil fuels, and we had to remove everything involving fossil fuels from this room (his office, ed.), there would be nothing left. The paper industry, cement industry, plastic, they all still need fossil energy or fossil raw materials.”

But what about discontinuing fossil subsidies to at least stop encouraging their use, and giving that money to sustainable decentralized projects for example? “Apart from the fact that policy doesn’t allow discontinuing the subsidies with immediate effect – this would have to be done at the European level – we’d actually be shifting the problem. If we in the Netherlands were to discontinue everything today, those companies would continue in countries where they still get those benefits. So even if that made things much greener here, people elsewhere would be worse off.”

Incidentally, Van de Sanden isn’t too concerned about job losses resulting from a decision to stop using fossil fuels. “The loss of jobs could be compensated by new ones that will be sparked by the new industries, provided we set everything up properly. So we have to be diligent about ensuring that all of those people still have jobs if our industry undergoes a radical change in the future.”

European collaboration

Van de Sanden likes to focus on making concrete improvements in the future rather than on fossil subsidies, because he thinks the latter aren’t the most important aspect of the debate. “Of course you need to discontinue what you can, as many subsidies lead to certain companies being here. Those subsidies mainly help bulk chemistry, which uses subsidized fossil energy to make raw materials that have way lower margins than high-value end products, hence the subsidies.”

Van de Sanden sees the benefits of European collaboration in dividing up the necessary industry and locating it in places that make sense instead of in places with an advantageous tax climate. “Take Tata, for instance, which produces steel. But its real value is the exceptional kinds of steel they make there. Everything can be hot-rolled directly in the factory because they have good integration. But you can question whether in the future we should be lugging around both iron ore and water, or if we should make European agreements on producing steel in, say, Sweden. There’s a lot of hydro energy and hydrogen production there, as well as iron ore, so maybe it’s better to produce steel there and make agreements about this. That will be more economically viable as well.”

Just transition

When he says we ‘shouldn’t hold on to the past too much’, Van de Sanden doesn’t mean that we must turn a blind eye to the damage inflicted by fossil industry, for instance in the Global South. “That’s a separate debate. A just transition is very important of course. A prerequisite even. If we don’t do a good job in that respect, this will only result in greater unrest. When referring to the past, I mean the things you see around you that were made with the help of cheap energy. The carbon is already in the air, the items have already been produced. But we can do better in future. For instance, a new wind turbine facility is being set up in Namibia. Which means we have a choice between either sending people from here to work there or training locals. The latter is better for the country of course.”

Energy industry of the future

“The most important point is that the fossil industry is organized centrally now, which is outdated, so if they don’t adapt that spells the end for them I think. I see a lot more room for much smaller chemical facilities, maybe even integrated into the built environment,” he says, thinking out loud. “Generating is already more decentralized. Now demand also must be organized that way, also to solve grid congestion.”

“In principle we have everything we need to get started but now we have to use it and come up with the best way to spread it. In this respect, standardization is super important to really speed up things in what is known as the modular approach,” Van de Sanden says.

“Take wind turbines that are getting bigger and bigger. Suppliers and maintainers constantly need to re-adapt to this, which takes time and money. With solar panels, this process has already been finalized: they are using cells of 60 by 120 centimeters and cells of 15 by 15 centimeters. For decentralized chemistry making platform molecules we don’t have such units yet. We are yet to determine the scalable unit. If it’s 1 megawatt, we’ll need 300 houses per decentralized unit in the built environment. If we settle on 10 megawatts, we’ll need 3000 houses. This is key for the way you scale it and, by extension, for rapid wide implementation and cheap procurement.”

Fossil companies not required for cleaner future

Van de Sanden: “We still need the fossil chains right now, but to change the chains we have to start focusing on a new and improved future. I’m on several advisory committees and I’m happy to report decentralization is being put on more and more political (and other) agendas.” He thinks it makes sense that it’s mainly small parties involved in the production of our materials and chemicals that will eventually lead us away from fossil fuels. “The interests of old and new companies differ and that’s what a parallel development like this one often comes down to. So I have a hard time believing those who say we need the fossil industry to create a more sustainable future. Getting rid of fossil fuels now is a pipe dream, but you probably won’t need those companies to bring about fossil-free production of, say, synthetic fuels.”