European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Energise Europe: Proposed Outline

by Colman
Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 10:05:54 AM EST

Further to yesterday's opening set of thoughts, there's an outline for what we'd need for an Energise Europe plan below the fold. I'm putting this up in the hope that people will provide corrections rather than as a serious proposal.

I agree that we need to identify the people to whom ideas from this can be pushed, the channels they can be reached by and how to do it. This sort of marketing/pr plan is pretty much separate from the work of producing an action plan in my mind.

I'd also like to see a head-count of people who are interested in contributing to the development and writing of a document.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Energise Europe: Proposed Outline | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

So, what am I missing?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 10:14:55 AM EST

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

A Leontief matrix.

LOL

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 10:22:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (4.00 / 3)

I've had to put reading that thread on my to-do list - I'm beginning to think the purpose of ET is to overwhelm me with information.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 10:24:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh good (4.00 / 2)

I'm beginning to think the purpose of ET is to overwhelm me with information.

I'm not the only one, then.

by Nomad on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 01:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh good (4.00 / 2)

<raises head from under pile of stuff> Duh... what?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 01:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (4.00 / 2)

Not much, but you've put a lot of stuff in it. Do you want to write a 100-page document or a 30-page document?

On the principles of a solution, we have to include the economical part. Integration is an extremely important part of any solution as well. It has to be integrative (incorporating all related policy-fields).

Available resources and solutions should include 'energy efficiency'. What do you mean by a 'bridging solution'? Something like using nuclear for 50 years to bridge to a total shift to sustainable energy?

I will try to contribute as much as I can (I know something on environmental law, policies, management and a bit of env./ecological economics). What's the time-frame? I'd suggest drafting the final version shortly after the IPCC report comes out early next year.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 06:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

The European Union's White Paper on Energy is expected around the time of the EU summit in December. That's about 3 weeks away.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (4.00 / 3)

I think the target for the document needs to be identified before the type of document gets decided on.

These days the world deals in sound bites and catch phrases, so if the purpose is to "energize" the average person then all the background material is unnecessary. This is the road taken by Al Gore, he has a few key points and then illustrates them visually in his movie.

On the other hand if the purpose is to provide a document that can be used by policy makers then the emphasis needs to be on what are the political aspects.

I tried to do this in my series of essays on Goals for the 21st Century. There are four sections for each item: the goal, specific objections, general objections, and implementation. From a political point of view overcoming the status quo (or vested interests, if you prefer) is the part that gets least attention, but is where most idealistic plans run aground.

To give a simple example: If we really could come up with a plan to cut gasoline usage by, say, 50% the money and power of OPEC and the oil majors would immediately be applied to prevent implementation. For such a plan to succeed these groups would need to be given something in the way of compensation to get their cooperation. I have no idea what that would be, which is exactly why fuel conservation plans are going nowhere.

I've already gone on at length, which is ironic when my underlying message is to keep the document "short and sweet".

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 10:43:00 AM EST

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 1)

There can be more that one version of the document, for different audiences. IMHO we should concentrate on the substance of what we want to say, and more importantly on backing the proposed policy with facts and substantiating the charge that the current model is unsustainable.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (4.00 / 4)

How about including a nice "fluffy dreams" part, which explains why sustainable energy use does not mean a "decrease in standard of living" unless one has a very narrow imagination of what constitutes "value" in this field.

Transportation of persons, for example. If we move to a system of fewer cars it does not mean that everyone is forced to use public transport as it exist today. If ridership on trains, light rail, and busses goes up, so would available locations with good service, as well as frequency of departure. If we had not more cars and planes, how many rail lines would we end up with, and what kind of urban transport system would we have? Maybe the answer is not the inconvenient, slow, and uncomfortable transport I'm guessing most people imagine? Show people why a society with served exclusively by public transport is an attractive place to live.

Oh, and one would have to make this not sound like crazy, environmentalist, eco-nuttso, back to the stoneage lunacy, but appealing and more "modern" than having to drive yourself all the way there.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 11:00:09 AM EST

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Public transport needs electricity and/or fuel oil, too. Unless you explain where that comes from, it will sound like eco-nuttso, stone knives and bear skins lunacy.

by ustenzel on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 07:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 1)

That goes without saying, of course. Having not looked into it in details lately, I do remember numbers showing cars to be rather more energy intensive than trains or public transport. Yes, energy is still needed, but hopefully less. And the energy used can be carried to a larger extent by electricity, which means that it can come from any source that has been thus transformed.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 02:35:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Would you be interested in contributing to the Nuclear Power part of the document?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Probably not. It doesn't go well with the usual sustainable/renewable/alternative/decentralized/whatever rhetoric and we'll just get into a useless fight over whether nuclear power is sustainable.

by ustenzel on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 05:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Well, that's constructive.

For what it's worth, I don't think we can say anything on Nuclear Energy that we can't get both DoDo and Starvid to agree on.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 05:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Can't or can?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 05:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Well, since I highly respect both of you on your technical judgement and you come at Nuclear energy from opposite positions, if you two can't agree to something I don't think I'd endorse its inclusion.

Other people whose informed input on nuclear would be very useful are Pierre, Francois in Paris (if he were around) and, yes, ustenzel if he could be a little less cynical.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 05:51:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

So you meant "...we can get both DoDo and Starvid to agree on".

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Yes, I have my job cut for me there, have I not?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

Watch the double negative... we CAN'T say something if we CAN'T get you two to agree to it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:36:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

If you had written "if", that would work, but you wrote "that" :-)

Reminds me of one of my best professors at the university (himself paraphrasing an old professor of his).

When some noticed that the figures he wrote on the table were wrong, he said: "Don't listen to what I write, listen to what I say!" When later someone corrected what he said, he told: "Don't listen to what I say, listen to what I think!"

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:07:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

I've heard that line attributed to Feynman.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 1)

It's probably much older than that.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:24:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again (none / 0)

The order of priority should be:

conservation
renewables
nuclear
hydrocarbon burning

Even if we all say that we can be highly ambitious on renewables, and that a lot more can be done on the cosnervation front, it appears obvious (to me in any case) that nuclear should play a role in our energy mix, especially if we move transport towards electricity-consuming modes (whether public transport or plug-in hybrids or other).

So let's discuss nuclear rationally and make sure that it is promoted in a reasonable way, with all appropriate safeguards and accounting of costs.

The main argument that will make or break nuclear in any case is not waste, it is public financing - and that's a case that will also help renewables, so I'm all for it.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 23rd, 2006 at 06:29:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again (none / 1)

I disagree. Usually you would set goals and if they conflict, you prioritize or weight them. Instead of doing so, you didn't state a single goal, but listed means to an end and prioritized them. That's not a way to get a rational decision.

So what's actually the goal here? How about to provide society's energy needs at minimal cost, of course including externalities? The rational answer will turn out to be a combination of all the points you listed. Not a prioritized list, because in the real world you decide on a case by case basis and don't get away with easy and wrong answers.

The main argument that will make or break nuclear in any case is not waste, it is public financing

No. It's irrational fear of radiation and the completely impenetrable maze of regulations resulting from that. Nuclear power plants could be privately funded (E-On, Vattenfall, RWE, ... surely have the money to do so for classic reactor types and even smaller utilities could have a PBMR shipped from south africa for pocket money), but that won't happen in a world where you can easily shell out two billion euros building a power station just to be told that the government changed its mind and you are not allowed to turn it on when it is finished. Hypothetical? No, that's exactly what happened to the SNR-300 at Kalkar.

by ustenzel on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 09:04:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Headcount (4.00 / 2)

I'm in for marketing planning that involves the media/general public, and also conceptualizing/writing for non-technical, non-political audiences. Trying to explain and visualize complex stuff to Charlie Chuft and his sister is what I do every day.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 11:11:55 AM EST

Re: Headcount (none / 0)

Great.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 11:13:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Headcount (none / 0)

I'd be happy to help out with any of the writing parts.

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 01:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Headcount (none / 0)

I'll help--if I can be of any help.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 11:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Headcount (4.00 / 2)

Let's set it all to music, with amazing visuals ;-)
I'm countin'on ya!

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 01:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 0)

I'll help where I can, which, given my lack of technical knowledge almost everywhere, doesn't mean much. Biofuels, biomass (and I'd call for support there, I'm sure we have people who could contribute).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 01:58:06 PM EST

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 1)

On the outline, Energy Usage under Context I take to mean a description of current energy usage patterns. (?)

Shouldn't there be a parallel heading under Solutions, where we'd attempt to characterize new energy usage patterns resulting from the proposed solutions?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 at 02:03:18 PM EST

Re: Energise Europe: Proposed Outline (none / 1)

I will try to participate in this. (I kept out of the biofuels thingy consciously for time considerations.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 at 04:12:53 AM EST

Energise Europe: Proposed Outline | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]