The energy transition requires electricity highways and other important infrastructure. But how well are overhead lines, underground cables and substations protected against sabotage? The Friedrich Vorwerk company is significantly involved in the construction of the systems and facilities. Company boss Torben Kleinfeldt warns of significant security gaps: "In England, energy centers have three rows of barbed wire fences and a massive presence of security guards with dogs," he says. Germany is “very negligent” in this area. In the interview, the engineer also explains why the biggest safety challenge is the huge high-voltage lines and also why even underground power lines do not offer 100% protection. At the same time, he explains why underground cables can be more useful than above-ground lines despite the higher construction costs.
ntv.de: You describe yourself as a workbench for the energy transition. To what extent?
Torben Kleinfeldt: Everything that politicians and the major network operators come up with for the energy infrastructure must be implemented. We'll take care of that. Our colleagues plan the projects on their computers. Around 2,000 employees are currently working on construction sites with excavators and large machines.
Friedrich Vorwerk is building pipelines for natural gas and hydrogen, but also large power lines. No matter what the political issue is, you always benefit.
Indeed. There are ultimately four major markets. In the natural gas sector, we build compressor stations and large pipeline systems. We can do the same for hydrogen networks. We earn almost 50 percent of our sales from the electricity grid. We build the large routes with which offshore electricity is brought south to the industrial sites - but not above ground: thanks to our experience in pipeline construction, we have specialized in underground cabling. We also deal with district heating supply in large cities or topics such as biogas processing and CO2 separation.
How is Germany positioned when it comes to network expansion?
Electricity is the source of renewable energy. It is generated by PV, wind or, in countries like Norway, run-of-river power plants. We need electricity highways for distribution. The federal government's network development planning for hydrogen, natural gas and electricity confirms this. The electricity network is the largest chunk, with investments of 320 billion by 2045.
The public impression is that we are making too slow progress.
You have to put that into perspective. Even if you're not an expert in energy infrastructure, you probably know that cables still hang on the outside of houses in Spain or the USA. After a thunderstorm there is no electricity there for two days. In German distribution networks, some of the cables are already completely buried.
In Berlin, there was a power outage in the southwest of the city at the beginning of the year. Last year there was a power outage in the southeast.
But that wasn't due to a thunderstorm. There is a need for expansion in the transport networks: How do we get renewable electricity to consumers? The major overland routes should be completed in 2021. They were delayed because of the approval process. Energy infrastructure always takes place on third-party properties. You have to get tens of thousands of those affected on board if you build across the entire republic. There is always rejection somewhere. You have to pacify them. This is a highly complex undertaking.
Was the resistance not politically on the radar?
But. It is known from decades of building energy infrastructure that a right of way must be acquired for a route. In recent years, however, nature conservation has become significantly more complex due to a variety of requirements. The centralized planning procedures were also more time intensive than the previous model.
When expanding wind energy, the Federal Ministry of Economics under Robert Habeck accelerated the approval process so much that Germany has become a European role model. Is this also possible when expanding the network?
Attempts are being made to compensate for this using the so-called network expansion acceleration laws. They were enacted at the end of the 2010s. Centralized approval procedures for cross-state energy routes were created. However, my impression is not that this regulation contributed to the acceleration, on the contrary. The endless coordination loops with a lot of people involved slowed down the process.
Do you try to make the planning perfect on paper instead of just starting?
Yes. In the early 2000s, we built many pipelines on a turnkey basis. There was no planning law there. We approved everything individually, which means: We went to the route, thought about where we wanted to lay the lines and then spoke to farmers, dike associations, environmental protection and water authorities and coordinated with each individual actor. We had direct contacts who knew their local conditions. We could contact them at any time. This is how we quickly arrived at routes that could be approved. This has become significantly more complex due to the large rounds that are common today.
Will the major electricity highways still be completed on time?
Three major north-south routes are currently under construction: the A-Nord corridor, the Suedlink and the SuedOstLink. The idea for these electricity highways came about as a result of the nuclear phase-out. There is a good reason why the routes run near the former nuclear power plant sites: the infrastructure for transmitting the electricity is available there. The routes should be ready when the last nuclear power plants go offline. We are significantly involved in A-Nord in Lower Saxony and are confident that this route can go into operation at the end of 2027. The last nuclear power plant was shut down in 2023. In this respect we are a few years too late.
Economics Minister Katherina Reiche would like to synchronize the expansion of renewables with the expansion of the grid. Will that be done when these power lines are finished?
I don't know the network capacities 100 percent and I don't know which renewables cannot feed in because the network expansion is delayed. One thing is clear: three such large routes create enormous transport capacities to the south. In the future, fewer wind turbines will have to be curtailed. This also saves money because the operators are compensated when this happens.
How do we protect these electricity highways and other critical energy infrastructure? The two major Berlin power outages were caused by sabotage. In the past few weeks there have been several attacks on substations in Brandenburg, Saxony and the Rhineland.
Substations are spatially limited industrial facilities. Such junctions can be protected well and reliably with relatively little effort. You can see this in our projects in England. The energy centers there, where the North Sea gas lands on the coast, have three rows of barbed wire fences and a massive presence of security guards with dogs.
Can you tell at first glance that this is critical infrastructure?
In the north of Hamburg, one of our companies happens to be neighbors with a large transformer station. We could just go over there and flip the switch. Nobody could stop us from doing that. We are very careless in this area. But the large route connections are more problematic. The power lines are up to 500 kilometers long. Underground cables are also vulnerable.
Isn't the advantage of underground lines that they are better protected than overhead lines?
This is an argument for underground cabling. With an overhead line, you can see from a kilometer away where you have to go and what you can attack. Ultimately, even a kilometer-long cable underground is vulnerable.
Can you cut it? This sometimes happens accidentally during construction work with an excavator.
Yes. We could rent an excavator from relevant companies and get started - if you're willing to dig into a 525 kilovolt line.
Would you advise against it?
In any case, I would stay far away from the excavator. But you can just as easily plant an explosive device. This is also easier with overhead lines than with underground cables. A high-voltage pylon is knocked down in an instant. But the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines showed that there is no 100% protection even 40 meters under water.
A strong argument in favor of overhead lines is the cost. Underground cables are more expensive. Nevertheless, Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony are resisting above-ground construction. Why?
Overhead lines have an acceptance problem. They're just not nice to look at, you have to be honest. Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony make a lot of their living from tourism. It is understandable that one would like to have these lines disappear underground.
Do you accept the higher costs?
Yes. But this is not a black and white debate. There are a number of arguments for both overhead and underground cabling. We touched on safety, which also includes protection from the weather. There are also economic reasons. Building an overhead line is cheaper, but it is more expensive to operate because it has to be checked and repaired more often. There are also technical reasons: in some places an overhead line makes more sense, in others it is better to build an underground line. You can't just do one or the other, you can just formulate a priority. Ultimately, the network operators decide what is more suitable and where. This is a balancing question that should be left to the planning experts.
Because of geography?
For example. In any case, only underground cables are suitable for connecting offshore wind farms. We can hardly build a high-voltage line in the sea. You probably don't necessarily want to build a large electricity pylon in a nature reserve.
