Ekkehard Winter, Managing Director of the Telekom Foundation, on the weaknesses of today’s schools, a novel educational ecosystem and his extraordinary start in the GDNÄ

Dr. Winter, the corona crisis is spreading, some schools are closing down and temporarily switching to home schooling. Do we actually know what effect this has on students?
In April, i.e. during the nationwide school closures, we interviewed a good thousand 10- to 16-year-olds and their parents. As a result, most of them have coped well with learning at home. However, it also became apparent that the children and youths very much lack contact with fellow students and teachers. Most students have their own room at home and can work there in peace and quiet. The technical equipment with computers, laptops and smartphones is also mostly good.

So the conditions for school at home are good?
Unfortunately not. Apart from the fact that a smaller, but not insignificant group of students completely lack the above-mentioned prerequisites, there are weaknesses, especially among schools and teachers. The children, youths and parents interviewed would like to see significantly more support from them. Only half of the students received feedback on submitted work and many of them complained that the teachers were not available for questions. In addition, there was hardly any creative knowledge transfer via real distance learning, explanatory videos or digital group work. Instead, the teachers sent assignments and worksheets by e-mail and let their students read and write texts.

What consequences does this have, for example, for mathematics and science lessons, which is the primary focus of your foundation’s work?
In the so-called MINT subjects, i.e. mathematics, computer science, natural sciences and technology, the 10- to 16-year-olds have the greatest need for support. This is because tasks are often not understood as well as in the social sciences or foreign languages. Moreover, as our study shows, such important experimental work is almost completely neglected in online teaching. Yet many things would be possible today. Sad conclusion: the deficits in home schooling are heavily at the expense of the MINT area.

More than half a year has passed since your survey. A lot of time for the changeover.  Has it been used?
I do not have the impression that much happened in the schools during the summer. For example, only a few places have developed hybrid learning formats with presence and online components. At the universities, things are completely different: in the past few months, the majority of the courses on offer have been prepared for digital teaching.

Why can this not also be done in schools?
Most teachers simply lack the know-how for modern online teaching. Another reason is the rampant education bureaucracy which makes fundamental changes difficult. And school administrators have to deal with too many other things besides their actual tasks – for example, ventilation systems.

At the opening of the Berlin science centre “Futurium”: Ekkehard Winter plays a board game on artificial intelligence with children.

Many challenges, then. Can they be overcome?
We have no other choice. The Corona crisis is a merciless reminder of the weaknesses of the school system – it is no longer possible to simply look away and hide. The deficits have been known for years. They became apparent, for example, in the international comparative study ICILS 2018, which dealt with media competence. Germany’s students came in at the bottom of the league in a comparison of countries. The technical equipment of the schools and the digital competence of teachers also scored badly. Germany is now upgrading its technical equipment, and a lot of money is currently flowing into it. However, pedagogical competence is still inadequate.

Does this apply to all schools or are there not some laudable exceptions?
Fortunately, there are even many good examples of how teachers use digital media productively and with a high pedagogical-didactic added value. We and other foundations and associations such as the Forum Education Digitisation are trying to make these best practice examples known and use them as models. However, this is difficult, also because many teachers who are now working at the schools have neither become acquainted with the new possibilities during their training nor have been able to practise them in suitable further training courses. Incidentally, this applies to older and younger teachers alike.

What does it take to bring about real change?
We need nothing less than a cultural change in the education system. A positive attitude towards the new and a desire to learn throughout one’s working life. It is important to have strong school administrators and colleagues who see themselves as a team and carry this spirit into the classroom. The lone warrior mentality among teachers that still prevails today has survived. For the world of tomorrow we need young people who can develop their creativity and enjoy learning together.

Your foundation focuses on the 10 to 16 year olds. It is precisely in this age group that the desire to learn seems to have dried up.
That is true.  But the flame is still there. You only have to blow on it, then young people do the most amazing things, as we know from many projects.  They really bite down hard when something really interests them and when it seems important to them for their lives. That’s the way they want to go to school, as we have seen in our new study “How do children and young people learn today?”. School is currently seen as the central place of learning, but it is not the place where young people like to learn. This is why our foundation is increasingly focusing on extracurricular learning, whether in modern libraries and museums, youth centres or project workshops such as Makerspaces. We propagate an educational ecosystem in which the school is part of a large network.

In which science also has a role to play?
A very large one, especially in the MINT area. I have seldom experienced such enthusiasm for physics as when a school and scientists at Geneva’s CERN discussed via direct video connection. At CERN, physicists use gigantic particle accelerators to investigate the structure of matter. So what is fun about MINT is not labelled MINT, but instead CERN – or GDNÄ. The fact that the GDNÄ invites students and teachers to its meetings and offers special programmes in the field of education is exemplary for the education system of the future.

Before your involvement in the education sector, you promoted the dialogue between science and society at the Stifterverband. A field in which the GDNÄ is also active…
…and already played an important role in the 1990s, especially in the shape of its former presidents Joachim Treusch and Detlev Ganten. German journalists and scientists made their annual pilgrimage to the conferences of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or Triple AS for short. Detlev Ganten had the idea of creating a European counterpart. That was a time of great hopes for the future. Together with colleagues, I was able to contribute to the establishment of the pan-European science conference EuroScience Open Forum. In the meantime, ESOF has become an institution – the next conference is to be held in Leiden in 2022.

How did you come to DGNÄ?
I was working in Konstanz and wanted to take the opportunity to ask then GDNÄ President Hubert Markl for advice. So we met in his institute and I presented my request. “I can give you this advice”, said Markl, “but on condition that you become a member of the DGNÄ”. He handed me a form, I signed it and left with a few good tips. Well, that’s how membership recruitment used to work back then.

Hardly anyone knows the German science landscape as well as she does: Why microbiologist Bärbel Friedrich’s balance sheet is mixed thirty years after reunification, what she thinks about European genetic engineering law and how Corona has determined her summer.

Professor Friedrich, this year we are celebrating thirty years of German unity. Have East and West really come together in science?
In Berlin there are no longer any major differences. I see many good universities and non-university research institutions in the East and the West. Outside Berlin, however, in the eastern German states, there is a lot of catching up to do. 

You were professor of microbiology at the Free University of Berlin at the time of reunification. How did you experience these years? At the FU, fear began to spread soon after the Wall came down. There was no longer any need for a Free University as a bulwark of the free world. Before the Wall came down, subsidies had flowed abundantly, but that ended abruptly. Many colleagues speculated that the FU would soon be integrated into the Humboldt University (HU). I moved to the HU in 1994 to establish a new subject there, scientific microbiology.

The FU still exists and in 2007 it even received the Seal of Excellence – years ahead of the other Berlin universities.
Yes, that was a huge surprise, but also a powerful incentive for the HU. The federal and state Excellence Programme has changed the mood, which was previously characterised by competition and even hostility. Now it was a matter of cooperation, and that was the key to success. Joint Collaborative Research Centres and Clusters of Excellence were created – in my field, for example, the UniCat Catalysis Cluster, which Berlin and Brandenburg universities have been operating together since 2012. The highlight of this development is certainly the successful performance of the Berlin University Alliance in the 2019 Excellence Competition.

Things look different beyond the capital. What about academic unity in the east German regions?
The picture is very mixed. There are some outstanding institutions, but university research in eastern Germany still lags somewhat behind in terms of breadth. In the funding ranking of the German Research Foundation, for example, West German universities do much better. If we look at the last Excellence Competition in 2019, we see that in East Germany, apart from Berlin, only the TU Dresden is at the top of the list. However, some universities have developed particular strengths. Let me illustrate this with an example. When I first came to Greifswald in 1996 with a delegation from the Science Council, I had the impression that the Chemistry Institute had to be closed down immediately. The equipment was completely outdated, the scientific quality was at rock bottom.  But over the years, the standard has improved considerably and today the university is doing excellent work, especially in medical research. I was able to observe this at close quarters because as director of the Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg in Greifswald, I worked closely with the university for many years.

How do you experience personal contact with each other in everyday life?
In Greifswald and especially at the university, you meet each other impartially.  But in the countryside, as a Westerner I am still viewed critically. Everyone knows that you can’t do without tourists, but actually, you’d rather stay among yourself. To my mind, that expresses the frustration of a generation of losers. It’s different with the young people, they no longer see themselves as Ossis, but as Germans. The youth is my hope – with them the German division could grow.

You have been emeritus for a while now, but you are still very active in science policy. Together with some colleagues, you recently took a stand against a ruling of the European Court of Justice on genome edited plants. Why?
Many scientists were immensely disappointed with the ruling. Because it means that a pioneering genetic engineering method is practically not used in Europe in the crop sector. With CRISPR-Cas, as the technique is called, individual building blocks in the genome can be altered very easily, precisely and inexpensively – we scientists speak of editing. The method is a real quantum leap. It has very quickly conquered the laboratories of the world and has recently been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  Not only could CRISPR-Cas be used to achieve larger harvests, the technique could also significantly reduce the use of fertilisers and pesticides. It is also suitable to breed plants that are more resistant to climate change. 

What does the European Court of Justice have against the method?
It is considered a risk and is subject to the complex and impractical requirements for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs for short. The restrictions have led to a virtual absence of research in this field in Europe. Anyone who wants to work in the field and test plants in the field has to move, for example to Canada. There are now many genetically modified plants produced using older techniques and more than a hundred genome-modified plants. These include soybeans with healthier fatty acids, gluten-reduced wheat and potato tubers with longer storage life. The changes in the genetic make-up of the new varieties could also have been caused by chance or conventional breeding methods -– their origin is usually no longer clearly identifiable. Harmful effects of GMOs, a very important point, have never been reported.

What needs to be done?
European genetic engineering legislation is outdated and should be revised. We came to this conclusion in a joint statement by the National Academy Leopoldina and the Union of German Academies. As a short-term measure, we propose that genome edited plants should only be classified as GMOs if genetic information foreign to the species is introduced – i.e. only in exceptional cases. In the longer term, we are advocating a completely new legal framework which does not define the risks to human health and the environment in terms of the process used, but in terms of the characteristics of the product produced. 

What are the chances of your initiative?
In politics, the FDP is completely on our side. The Greens are gradually becoming more open-minded. We have many advocates in the media, and we are receiving additional support from farmers. Even organic farmers who are pleased with the prospect of pesticide-free agriculture on the probably drier soils of the future, start to hesitantly support us.

You have contributed to numerous scientific policy papers. This year there were particularly many. How did this come about?
It all started on March 12 – I was just returning to Berlin from a microbiologists’ conference in Leipzig. I got a call from the Leopoldina’s capital office telling me to come right over, it was urgent. In an interdisciplinary team, we then immediately started work on the first policy paper on how to deal with the corona pandemic, which was published just ten days later. In spring and summer I worked on four other statements – from the home office, practically never in attendance. All in all, it was an enormous effort, partly because we knew that we had a huge responsibility. What was good was the close cooperation with politicians, which I had never experienced before in such intensity. 

Was your team able to maintain its scientific independence?
We always tried to make recommendations for action on the basis of the latest scientific findings, knowing well that politicians ultimately have to decide according to their own criteria. There is a clear line of demarcation here, which preserves our independence.  

You have known and shaped the German science landscape for many years. What place does the GDNÄ have in this?
It has particular strengths that cannot be found elsewhere in this combination. At its meetings and, increasingly, on its website, the GDNÄ conveys up-to-date knowledge at a high level, from an interdisciplinary perspective and in an easily understandable way. A big plus point are the student programmes and the cooperation with teachers. The older population is often frightened when it comes to future topics. In order to make progress here, we need to bring scientists into the public eye, especially in schools, and win over the next generation. This is where I see great potential for the GDNÄ .

Jürgen Tautz has been with the GDNÄ since his doctoral thesis, he only came to bee research much later. To this day, the zoologist, beekeeper and well-known non-fiction author is fascinated by the way these insects communicate with each other.

Professor Tautz, how are the bees doing?
Not so bad, at least not in Germany. In this country there are about one million bee colonies and around one hundred thousand beekeepers. The beekeepers are growing from year to year and they are becoming younger, more feminine and more urban. In the last ten years bees have become extremely popular animals and now they have a strong lobby worldwide – much stronger than other insects.

But surely this has a lot to do with the death of bees?
There is no such thing as a generalised bee mortality. We have to deal with threats that vary greatly from region to region, for example from parasites like the Varroa mite, diseases or a lack of flowering plants. This threatens above all the numerous lesser-known wild bee species, which do not form states but live predominantly solitary lives. The western honeybee, which is widespread in our country, is not endangered as long as it is cared for by a committed beekeeper.

What is the effect of herbicides such as glyphosate on bees?
The negative impact of glyphosate and other herbicides is mostly indirect. Glyphosate, for example, damages the bees’ bacterial gut flora, which can ultimately weaken their immune system. In addition, this herbicide reduces the food supply for many insects, since all plants except genetically modified crops are killed.

If beetles, ants or hornets suffer as a result, few people are interested. Why is it different for bees?
At first sight this is indeed astonishing. After all, a beehive contains around fifty thousand poisonous stings. But this does not diminish our love for bees. There are historical reasons for this, I think. In all cultures honey is a food of the gods, just think of ambrosia in Greek mythology. For our ancestors it was always a feast when they found a bees’ nest with honey. However, it was not until the end of the 18th century that we realised how important bees are for the natural balance and agriculture. At that time, the Berlin theologian Christian Konrad Sprengel observed that bees pollinate and thus fertilise plants. One can therefore say that bees are a key organism and a wonderful bridge builder between the environment and man. 

You are a zoologist. What exactly brought you to bee research?
I only started specialising in this field when I was 45 years old. Before that, my research involved butterfly caterpillars, crabs, frogs, fish and other organisms. But after first insights into the communication biology of bees I was absolutely fascinated and couldn’t get away from it.

What impresses you so much about the bee?
Bees are incredibly resilient and have amazing abilities. The honeybee, for example, can count to four, has an idea of the concept of the number zero and can tell the painting styles of Picasso and Monet apart. This has all been experimentally proven. The cultural history is also fascinating: it was only in the 18th century that it was discovered that a colony of bees was led by a queen and not, as was claimed for thousands of years, by a king. We are actually dealing with a women’s state that functions excellently, not least because of the sophisticated communication between them.

What significance does the dancing language of bees have in this?
It plays an important role, as the research work of Nobel Prize winner Karl von Frisch has already shown. He had observed how worker bees showed their fellow bees the way to food through dance-like movements in the beehive, the so-called tail dance. However, the information provided in this case only provides a rough orientation, as we know today. In order to find the exact feeding place, the honeybee needs further information which it receives during the flight – among other things through constant communication with other bees.

“The importance of the bee dance is overestimated” – You were quoted with this sentence in a daily newspaper years ago, which caused a fierce controversy in the professional world. What do you think about this today?
The controversy would not have been necessary in this form. My view of things has not changed since then: In the bees’ tail wagging dance I see the beginning of a seamless that accurately guides worker bees from the beehive to the food source, supplemented by additional information. This view is supported by many international research results.

You have done a lot for the dialogue with the public and have been awarded the renowned Communicator Prize of the German Research Foundation and the Stifterverband for your excellent communication with the public in 2012. What does this honour mean to you?
It is wonderful to be able to interest and inspire your fellow human beings in things that you yourself consider important. But it also costs resources that are lost in the actual research work. So the Communicator Award is a very motivating recognition.

As a retired professor, you are now primarily involved in educational work in schools. What drives you in this area?
My team and I want to bring young and older people together personally and not just digitally with a modern project. With us, Fridays for Future supporters can do something concrete for the environment and climate. After the positive experience with an online project at the University of Würzburg called Honeybee Online Studies, HOBOS for short, we recently launched a new project with we4bee. The focus here is on high-tech hives for independent environmental research.

How can we imagine school research?
Currently, more than one hundred schools throughout Germany have borrowed such beehives from us. Thanks to a generous sponsor, the Audi Foundation for the Environment, this is free of charge for schools. Each hive houses a colony of bees, whose condition and behaviour is recorded around the clock with cameras and sensors installed in the nest and can be observed via app. In addition, temperature, humidity, weather conditions and other parameters in the surrounding area are documented. The pupils collect all the data and send it to our team at the University of Würzburg for evaluation. What does a bee colony need to stay healthy? And does the new 5G mobile phone network harm the bees? These are some of the questions that we hope to be able to answer better soon using the data. But we don’t just want to discuss the results with young people, we want to bring all generations together in a conversation about bees. Beekeepers should also benefit from this, so that they can create the best possible living conditions for their colonies.

How are your own bees doing and what hopes for the future do you have as a beekeeper?
My own five bee colonies are doing well. For the future, I hope for environmental conditions that are beneficial to the bees as a whole. Then a huge network in nature will be doing well, and ultimately we humans will also be doing well.

Pollen collecting honeybee on a cherry blossom.

Research at the feeding site: These collecting bees were tagged after birth with an RFID chip that records their flight activity.

These wild honeybees have found a home in an old black woodpecker cave. Unlike honeybees kept by beekeepers, wild bees are exposed to natural selection. One consequence is that they can adapt flexibly to changing living conditions. 

Katharina Kohse-Höinghaus, Professor of Chemistry at Bielefeld University, on smart strategies for energy system transformation, China as a research nation and female scientists in male domains

Professor Kohse-Höinghaus, you are committed to a consistent energy system transformation – in Germany and internationally. What motivates you?
The obvious climate change. It will lead to global distortions if we do not vehemently change course and ensure that much fewer greenhouse gases are released as soon as possible. To achieve this, we need to restructure all sectors of the energy system, not only energy supply, but also industry, mobility and building services engineering.

In Corona times, climate change has been pushed into the background somewhat. Is the issue still receiving sufficient attention from politicians and society?
It is a priority of the German EU Council Presidency, the European Green Deal is still valid and climate change is by no means forgotten in society either. We should now always consider climate protection in everything we do to counter the economic consequences of the pandemic. It is possible that the corona crisis will lead to a new awareness of creeping dangers, one of which is climate change. That would be a good learning effect.

The European Green Deal could make Europe the first continent to become climate neutral. How can this goal best be achieved?
By cleverly combining local solutions, for example in local transport, and at the same time sticking to the big visions. The goal must be a climate-neutral circular economy. We should proceed step by step and start quickly.

Starting quickly sounds good. But where first and how?
An important contribution can be made by chemical energy sources that are synthesized using renewable energies and are therefore considerably more climate-friendly than fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil or coal. For example, fossil methane in gas-fired power plants can be gradually replaced by synthetic methane and then by methane/hydrogen mixtures. Such chemical energy sources have major advantages: they can be used within the existing infrastructure, they can balance out fluctuations in sun and wind, and they are ideal storage media. Synthetic fuels will also be available for cars, aircraft and ships.

But we cannot be satisfied with this.
That is true. In order to improve the climate balance, not only technological but also social and political aspects must be considered. A great deal will depend on whether we manage to reliably assess technologies in terms of their impact on climate and whether we can take an open-minded approach to energy system transformation. For example, it already makes sense to use carbon dioxide from industrial processes as a resource. It is ideally suited for the production of carbon-containing synthetic chemical energy sources using renewable energies. Carbon-free chemical energy carriers – such as hydrogen, ammonia and possibly even metals – are also interesting for the future. In the short and medium term, however, rapidly available synthetic chemical energy carriers are important. They provide us with a breathing space that we can use to also transform our infrastructure for a sustainable future. One way to achieve this is outlined in the position paper “Energiewende: verlässlich, machbar, technologieoffen” (Energy system transformation: reliable, feasible, open to all possible technologjes), which I emphatically support.

The Federal Government’s hydrogen strategy also aims at a carbon-free future. What do you think of the initiative?
I think it is a very good approach. We just have to make sure that it really is green hydrogen produced by using wind and solar energy. There are certainly not enough resources I our country to meet the demand. But in some southern regions of the world there is great potential for wind and solar energy – just think of Spain or North Africa. One challenge now is to establish long-term, reliable partnerships with the relevant countries, especially since we are not the only ones who want to harvest sun and wind there.

China is also showing interest in this. You have known the country for many years. What significance do climate change and the energy system transformation have there?
They take these challenges seriously. In the northwest of the country, extensive solar plants with state-of-the-art thin-film technology are currently being built. In Beijing, there has been a switch to modern gas power plants. And the rail network is being expanded at full speed throughout the country. China is investing massively in research, including basic research. In some fields, the country is among the world’s best, for example in nanotechnology or artificial intelligence. I think it is important to keep updating our image of China to the current situation.

How deep are your insights into the Chinese scientific landscape?
I’ve been active in China for twenty years now, getting involved in joint research projects, giving courses and providing advice. Several Chinese professors have been in my laboratory as PhD students or postdocs. Of course, I tend to see the top universities in the country and not necessarily the weaker institutions that exist as well. I have no illusions about China’s hegemonic ambitions. Political cooperation is often not easy. But it is important that communication is going on. Science can make a significant contribution to this.

There are only a few female professors in your field. How did you manage to make a career and raise a child at the same time – at a time when working mothers were hardly supported at all?
My husband and I were both equally committed to our careers and shared the family work. Particularly difficult were long periods of commuting between home and work, as well as conferences and meetings where there were hardly any childcare options. I have always found it best to address my needs and proposed solutions clearly and in most cases I have found support for this.

As a professor in Bielefeld, how did you manage to deal with the promotion of women yourself?
I highly value diverse teams in which people from different disciplines and regions of the world work together. It is about responding to different life situations in the best possible way. Together with some female doctoral students we have seen that pregnancy can be well combined with writing a dissertation. We then had such situations several times and each time there were two joyful events within a short period. In my international work I try to give young female scientists confidence in their own abilities. I am thinking, for example, of the four years I spent as Chair of the International Combustion Institute, which has sections in 35 countries. The international association “Women in Combustion”, which I co-founded, offers an exchange platform for women scientists in the technical field. As president, I was able to help female colleagues from Japan to join together under this umbrella and increase their visibility.

How did you become a member to the GDNÄ?
I was invited to give a lecture at the 2004 meeting in Passau and became a member on that occasion. What I find particularly appealing about societies like GDNÄ is the interdisciplinary approach. It allows to look at and discuss a topic from different perspectives – that can be a very enriching experience. What I also like about the GDNÄ is its commitment to students. From the experiences with our student laboratory teutolab in Bielefeld and far beyond, I know how important the dialogue between schools and science is. This exchange will become even more important in the future.

The geoscientist Reinhard Hüttl on research in corona times, tomorrow’s energy supply and the value of good science communication

Professor Hüttl, your Helmholtz Centre employs almost 1300 staff. How does the Corona crisis affect your Centre?
To a considerable extent our work still takes place in the home office. Only about half of the employees work on the mountain, as we say -–in our offices and laboratories on the Potsdam Telegrafenberg. Travelling abroad is only possible to a limited extent, domestic journeys only under strict consideration of infection protection.

How much does this affect research?
So far, no project has failed because of the pandemic, but there are certainly considerable delays. Certain measurements, which we can only carry out in spring, had to be cancelled this year. This was the case with our project in Lusatia, for example. There we study the effects of climate change on soils and forests and test new ways of land use. The corona restrictions are a particular problem for our young scientists. Internships had to be cancelled and the doctoral students now lack data for their work. The meetings that are so important for their professional development have been postponed or cancelled altogether.

How do you deal with the problem?
In any case, we want to prevent scientific careers from being damaged by the crisis. This is why, for example, the deadlines for final papers have been extended. The most important thing now is to continue to ramp up research. Our crisis management team has developed a concept for a limited presence operation. It regulates how laboratory and field work can be started while taking into account the protection against infection. This makes seasonal measurements possible again, but also maintenance work on instruments.

Is it already possible to foresee a return to normal operation?
Unfortunately not, it’s too early for that. We assume that the pandemic will affect our work long-term and that we will have to establish ourselves in limited presence. But it is going to work out. The main problem is a different one.

Which one?
The real crisis is still climate change. Heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall and other extreme events are making this increasingly clear to us. We will only be able to meet the challenge with a dual strategy. On the one hand, we must drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. On the other hand, we as a society and as an industrial nation cannot avoid adapting to the consequences of the region-specific effects of climate change. For example, through the conversion of our forests, more resilient agriculture, countermeasures against floods and a climate-neutral energy supply. Here the GFZ can make a significant contribution with its knowledge and innovative technologies.

Do you have an example?
Take the issue of reliable energy storage. The Corona crisis has shown us just how quickly supply chains can be broken and how important our own reserves are. But the solution is obvious, especially in Germany. Indeed, we have large underground gas storage facilities – the fourth largest in the world and the largest in the EU. There we can hold useful gas for a long time and withdraw it if necessary. The storage facilities have been operated safely for decades. Their reliability has also been proven in numerous studies conducted by the GFZ.

The main greenhouse gas stored underground today is methane. Where does that leave climate protection?
It won’t stay on methane alone. Hydrogen as a completely carbon-free energy carrier can also be stored in salt caverns as well as in porous rock formations. These rocks are also suitable for storing synthetic, climate-neutral natural gas, which, as a reliable energy source, can help to compensate for the fluctuating yields of wind and solar power. Storage is still a weak point in the energy system transformation that we so urgently need for a climate-friendly future. A further advantage of underground storage: Carbon dioxide can also be safely deposited there, as we were able to demonstrate convincingly at the GFZ. The gas does not enter the atmosphere, but can be extracted for industrial applications as required.

How do you assess the National Hydrogen Strategy, which the Federal Government has now adopted?
I expressly welcome the strategy. It combines climate protection and technological innovation and also takes into account the necessary imports. Hydrogen will be the new oil and the new gas – other technology nations such as Japan, Australia and China have long recognized this. Germany can still achieve a leading role and we will do everything in our power within the Helmholtz Association to achieve this.

Currently, the public discussion is more about electric cars and charging stations. How does this fit in with the hydrogen strategy?
I regret that we in Germany still rely so heavily on e-mobility and electrochemical energy storage in batteries. With these technologies the enormous consumption of resources, even in comparison to conventional engines, is often not taken into account. One example: Taking into account all environmental impacts, an e-vehicle will only reach the level of a comparable modern diesel vehicle after several years. For industry, aircraft and ships, the potential of purely electrical solutions is not sufficient anyway. We need climate-neutral hydrogen for an environmentally friendly recycling economy and a secure supply at the same time. It is by far the better alternative and must be produced primarily where favourable conditions for renewable energies exist.

Professor Hüttl, thank you very much for the interview.

The interview took place in May 2020.