Energy sovereignty begins locally

Current geopolitics as a stress test

The last few days have shown once again how quickly centralised, import-dependent supply systems come under pressure: when maritime chokepoints are blocked, when energy infrastructure becomes a target, when insurance, logistics and transport prices react abruptly, then once “efficient supply chains” turn into fragile dependencies within moments. This is exactly what we are experiencing right now: disruptions at global bottlenecks and security-policy escalations feed straight through to oil and gas prices, delivery capability and planning certainty – and, thanks to the market economy, directly into our wallets.

At the same time, it remains visible what every war in the 21st century also is: an attack on resources, grids and power plants – and thus on the backbone of modern societies. Our appeal: resilience is not a luxury – it is a basic requirement.

Dependence on imports is a design flaw

In recent years, Europe has made efforts to reduce individual dependencies. At the same time, however, it is becoming clear that it is simply not enough to replace dependency A with dependency B. If new import routes (e.g. LNG) carry political, price, geographical or logistical risks, the basic problem remains.

This situation is structural: a considerable share of energy demand is still based on imported fossil fuels. As long as our prosperity depends on supply chains that we do not control, our sovereignty remains limited – no matter how “stable” the situation seems at the moment.

Decentralised is not a trend but risk management

The consequence is not a technical fashion but a strategic turn: away from a few large, central nodes (imports, pipelines, large plants, global transport routes) – towards many decentralised sources where energy is needed. This does not mean “everything self-sufficient at any price”. It means: making the basic supply as local, diverse and robust as possible – and using central infrastructure specifically for balancing, industrial clusters and system stability.

And this decentralised supply is open to all technologies. It includes photovoltaics, wind, hydro, geothermal energy, waste-heat use, storage, load management, neighbourhood solutions, energy communities – and also new approaches such as neutrinovoltaics, which are still at the beginning of their development today. What matters is the principle: making energy available as a resource where it is consumed, instead of channelling it as an imported commodity through political and logistical risks. That corresponding strategies rely heavily on electrification, efficiency and “homegrown” energy is a signal in exactly this direction.

From a few owners to many stakeholders

Decentralised systems are not only more robust – they are fairer, if we design them correctly. They allow value creation to stay in the regions, citizens to become co-creators, and “customers” to become stakeholders: with participation, co-determination and a direct benefit from local energy. This is social stability through economic participation – not as a slogan, but as the logic of the system.

The topic of the energy transition has still not sunk in. It is not the replacement of fossil energy by renewable energy, but a complete system change so fundamental that no stone is left standing .. one in which the CITIZENS, SOCIETY are among the winners. It is a shift from a few owners with millions of shares to millions of citizens with a few shares, an inevitable process. But it would be naive to believe that this change will happen voluntarily on the part of established systems …

Wolfgang Löser, first energy-self-sufficient farm

System change means rethinking rules, markets and planning

If we are serious, we have to ask the system question: permits, grid access, remuneration, local storage and flexibility markets, building standards, neighbourhood planning, financing for citizens’ energy – all of this decides whether decentralisation scales or stays on the margins. That those in government are once again reviewing their rules on security of supply and trying to adapt them to experience, including from the current crisis, at least shows that the pressure to act has been recognised. But what is needed now is speed and consistency in implementation.

Conclusion An invitation to change course

The current geopolitical situation does not deliver a “warning”, it delivers the justification:

Resilience does not come from hoping for stable imports, but from structured decisions towards change. And a real turn away from central dependencies towards decentralised local resources is the single most important step, one that strengthens supply, price stability and social participation at the same time.