EU energy consensus - trending in the right direction

by Jerome a Paris
Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 01:37:17 AM EST

I was invited last Monday [editor's note, by Migeru] December 1st to a seminar organised by the French government as part of the presidency of the EU on the theme of energy security. A lot of heavy hitters speaking: former IEA boss Mandil chaired the whole process, current IEA boss Tanaka spoke, as did the CEOs of E.ON, Total or Dow Europe, various high level EU Commission members and EU ministers. Here are some notes of what I found interesting in the first part of the conference (I missed the second half, but part of it was a summary of the first part for ministers, and the other part was ministerial speeches).

No media was authorised at the meeting, so this is an exclusive summary, which the organisers in the French ministry of industry have kindly allowed me to post.

front-paged by afew


Tanaka spoke first, to provide a summary of the WEO: he called it "shocking but interesting" (his exact words) which I found notable (and a hint maybe of the internal conflicts that the IEA faced on the topic). He flagged the "serious investment issue" the world faces, as well as the risk of a serious supply crunch when demand comes back after the current crisis. He strongly supported the idea of a stimulus package focused on sustainable energy, calling a "Green New Deal" an excellent thing.

One insightful point he made is that with respect to security of supply, non-OECD countries matter more and more, and thus focusing only on ourselves (the rich countries) is not good enough. After mentioning the increased reliance on imports, and mentioning the importance of fighting climate change, he concluded by saying the the "era of cheap oil is over', and that we have to get used to expensive energy.

The Ruhrgas/E.On CEO said he welcomed the new focus on security of supply, and went on to talk about the importance of the new pipelines from Russia (Nordstream and Southstream). He underlined that Russia needs security of demand just like we need security of supply to make investments. He emphasised his company's massive investment in renewables, noted his support for nuclear, as well as the need to keep on using fossil fuels (he qualified coal by pushing CCS).

De Margerie, the Total CEO, had some hard-hitting words, saying that he was tired of the mindless alarmism he sees too much of, which is not focused on the real problems. So he blasted Nabucco once more (a pipeline without gas), told people to stop worrying about Ukraine, about terrorism in general - although he said that Somalia was a very real issue, or about the energy weapon - on the other hand, Hormuz was a real issue for him. He said  that beyond the lack of investment, he was worried in the medium term about the increasing scarcity of resources, about low prices making exporting countries just as difficult to deal with (because of internal problems) than high prices, and about a need for importers to talk to exporting countries and to actually listen to what they have to say ("even the Russians and the Saudi have legitimate preoccupations sometimes..."). He noted that it might be smart to remember that some exporters are also large consumers and thus do not behave in the same way (and he suggested that helping them use less energy might be a smart thing to do)

Two heads of TSOs (transmision system operators), that of France and Poland, talked about the need to strengthen the networks, and noted that the main obstacle was social (the absolute hostility of local populations to high voltage lines). The head of Dalkia (a utility focused on heat and industrial energy sevices, part of Veolia, the French group), noted how hard it would be to reach the EU's objectives, giving concrete examples from his business, under today's rules and regulations. He saw biomass as the main large scale route to reduce fossil fuel use, with housing efficiency having a large potential, but not at today's prices. The head of Dow chemicals just protested against rules that would make his production uncompetitive and push him out of Europe. A professor talked about Russia more specifically, in a generally non-confrontational way, noting that our attempts to reduce demand or to diversify sources are seen as a threat by Russia, which might be tempted to diversify its clients, that Ukraine is mostly a non-issue, but that the problem of whether Russia has enough gas to provide more to Europe will be a problem starting as soon as 2012 (old fields maturing, domestic demand growing, and new fields not yet online)

Mandil, summing up the first half of the day noted 5 points (which he was going to pass on to ministers in the afternoon session, which I missed):

  1. Keynes is back, and a Green New Deal focused on the electricity grid seems like a good thing to everybody
  2. energy efficiency is the first priority for all, followed by renewables, nukes, CCS, cogen and R&D
  3. the regulatory framework is not good enough yet for objective to be met, and must be improved
  4. nobody has asked for the European Commission to do less on the issue, quite the opposite: coordination is a key buzzword
  5. let's not cry wolf too much - the real issue is medium term investment.

I managed to grab him at the end of the session (we've bumped into one another at several energy conferences, so he knows me), and suggest that he add the coming resource shortages in the medium term that were hinted at by several speakers (de Margerie, the guy on Russia, and Tanaka) - he told me once again that he did not believe it to be the case, and that it had not be said (it's just an investment shortage) so he would not talk about it.

Overall, a pretty interesting morning, with much less ideology than I have seen at earlier European energy conferences.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
(an allusion to the American pop song - http://www.lorenzhart.org/onenote.htm )

I always sing the same one note, actually its a bit of a short melody:

  1. There are too many people on the planet
  2. There will be even more people over the next 50 years
  3. Resources already are insufficient for those here now
  4. Efforts at conservation and improved "efficiency" only postpone the day of reckoning.
  5. The only solution(s) are to address over population and to reform developed societies so that they are less resource intensive.

Now it is political suicide for any government or political leader to discuss any of this, so they promote "growth" and ignore the other issues.

Since I'm not a government or business leader and don't expect to become one, I'm not subject to the same constraints. Resolving the issues is tricky since we need to achieve three goals at the same time.

  1. Improve the lot of those of the "bottom billion"
  2. Replace our fossil fuel economic system with something else
  3. Decrease world population

Number 1 is the easiest. A recent estimate I saw says it would take about $600 billion per year to lift these people out of poverty, this is less that the US DoD spends. It's all a question of priorities.

Number 2 has no current solution. Efforts at renewables are too modest and don't encompass the need for liquid fuels. Basic R&D has been neglected in favor of rushing in to engineering before new technologies are fully developed. Perhaps we might be able to replace 20-30% of fossil fuel use over the next 20 years with a combination of wind, solar and nuclear, but that seems to be about the realistic limit. This is insufficient, population growth will eat up all the savings.

Number 3 is also "fixable" in theory. It requires bringing the bottom billion out of poverty as well as educating women and allowing them to fully enter into society. Cultural restraints have limited this for thousands of years and even in the most advanced societies residual barriers are quite apparent. Expecting a rapid change in attitudes seems utopian.

The alternatives are unpleasant, which is why no one (with the exception of the planning units of the DoD) are discussing them. Basically they boil down to the strong nations continuing to exploit the weaker for their resources while the weaker get poorer and fall into chaos and become "failed" states. The pattern is already clear in much of Africa, but world leaders chose to see each instance as a special case rather than as part of an emerging pattern.

Those wanting a more equitable world have not been able to make a convincing case as to why the rich states should sacrifice for the benefit of weak, that's why they hide their true intentions with talk of "growth" and non-existent new technology.

Sorry, to be so negative, but I don't see any way out of this given the present world alliances. Just as those in Europe could see the inevitability of the wars in the 1910's and 1930's I think we have to consider that we are in a similar situation now.

Perhaps this is why so many have turned to hedonism, just as in the 1920's. You might as well live it up while you can.


Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST
If one is sufficiently evil, amongst your goals number three is by far the easiest.  We have the means, ready to be deployed overnight, to immediately carry out rapid population reductions in a targeted, yet thorough fashion.  For whatever reason, though, most people don't seem too enthused with the idea.

While I agree with you on reducing consumption and using education and subsidies to deal with the population growth brought about by poverty, I'm not sure one will ever manage to encourage voluntary, long-term population decline.

Further, as it is often the careerist drive to accomplish and succeed that leads Westerners to control their fertility, often to the desired below-replacement levels, than reducing consumption and in turn reducing the focus on accomplishment and accumulation may well run counter to your stated population goals.

by Zwackus on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 at 05:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We have the means...to immediately carry out rapid population reductions in a targeted, yet thorough fashion.  For whatever reason, though, most people don't seem too enthused with the idea.
Some want the result, are willing to accept the means, but don't want to go down in history as monsters.  So such rapid, targeted population reductions will be the result of "situations that got out of hand before the international community had the time to react" or some such.  This is what happened in Rwanda in a low tech operation.  Clinton regrets not having done more, but, in truth, he was dealing with a hostile congress that did not want him to be seen as bringing off a humanitarian coup by application of effective military force and other possible actors had their own agendas and inhibitions.

There seem to be a number of "leaders" perfectly willing to play the monster if they are not stopped.  And there is no shortage of others, with cleaner hands, who will find themselves unable to act effectively in a timely manner, as in Darfur.  Another problem is governments that effectively committ slow rolling genocide against their own population, as with North Korea or Burma.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 06:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once again, because it's apparently necessary to point this out.

And for good measure:

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 07:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... but its evidently not Rwanda that is the example, nor having a kleptocracy collapse into civil war next door in the DRC, or hosting a three decade long war in Afghanistan ..

... it would seem that the low technology reduction would be more further east in the Eurasian continent, in that country that looks like a Chicken and which is progressing rapidly through a demographic transition.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 10:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, nanne.  Very informative graph and map.  One conclusion seems to be that chaos begets fecundity.  So we have a rationale even more compelling than morality alone.  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, though I do not know if it is more compelling. Morality factors into reality, it affects decisions being made. Not to go into theology, most people at least want to think of their actions as moral. You have to anticipate this when drawing up policies. If an amoral policy seems much clearer and more effective than a moral policy that's slow and fuzzy, it's probably because you've kept some factors out of the equation.

(this maxim can be applied to economic policy to great effect, I expect)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 08:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
most people at least want to think of their actions as moral.
A corollary of what I call "The First Law of Narcissism:"  Everyone wants to think well of themselves and will go to amazing lengths to do so.  Unfortunately our powers of rationalization even enable folks like Robert Mugabe and George Bush to think well of themselves.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 03:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What China has done -- limit families to one child -- will halve the population in a generation. The only reason China's population hasn't collapsed is that people aren't dying at the rates they used to. But if everyone had small families of one or two children and some had none the population could halve in 30 or 40 years and then halve again. The big drawback would be an excess of old people (relatively) but that seems a small price to pay for a steep population fall, especially since old people can expect to be healthier.
by John Culpepper on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 12:35:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the things China has done to enforce that policy are... not pretty.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 05:53:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... what would have happened if they had not responded to the crisis created by Mao's pro-population-growth policies would have likely been even worse.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's almost certainly true. But in very few other areas are we willing to accept that it is ethical to apply that kind of pressure to people in order to avoid disasters that lie ten or twenty years down the road.

It presents ethical issues that are... not trivial.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 04:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And at the same time, it seems too few are willing to act on problems like that before things get so bad that they present ethical dilemmas.

Half measures and lip-service or, in the case of the US, a Mao-like headlong rush in the wrong direction, have likely taken the whole world past the point of avoiding big ethical dilemmas with the climate crisis.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 06:24:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You would be referring to the USA's GREAT FLOP BACKWARDS, begun under Reagan and still continuing, I presume.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 03:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... Backward under Bush and a Republican Congress, but the Great Flop Backward under Reagan and the Lesser Flopping Around Aimlessly under Bush-the-actually-elected and Clinton certainly contributed.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, only now is the cachet of neo-rhetroic beginning to wear a bit thin.  Where Clinton needed to go was directly into strong prevailing headwinds.  When the neos had 40% thoroughly convinced and another 15-20% cowed into silence it was hard to make headway.  You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time.  55% for 38 years did just fine until the bastards blew themselves up.  Else we would be looking towards a McCain Presidency.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 05:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... a certain extent ... refraining from hiring people who'd gained experience in the Carter administration left him with an awfully green krewe at first, and he could well have done much better in his first year. And "winning" a belt tightening budget and NAFTA helped make the Republican majority in the House larger than it otherwise would have been, without which it might not have lasted twelve years.

But what made 92-94 so pivotal is that it was basically the best chance to make gains against the run of play ... when the bad guys are mostly playing offense for all but two years of a quarter century, then on the one hand, it makes that any slips in that narrow opening critical, but on the other hand, the fact that the opening is so narrow shows what you're up against.

As LBJ said, the Civil Rights act meant the loss of the White House for a generation, except for the fluke of a wealthy third-party run at the White House ... but now that generation has passed.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Dec 8th, 2008 at 06:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but now that generation has passed.
And are we ever glad!  I don't care that so many of Obama'a appointments are from the Clinton Admin., so long as he can drive them leftward.  I do want the current ideology thoroughly discredited to the extent that 70-80% want to puke when they hear it.  The damage they have inflicted using that ideology needs to be clearly and thoroughly identified with the ends, means and morality of that whole movement.  Come the day!


As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 01:06:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a technologist I disagree with you on point 2. Unfortunately for us humans, I expect that point 3 is the most important and that Mother Nature already has the solution well in hand: The four horsemen are already riding:

  • Starvation
  • Plague
  • War
  • Spiritual Death--this one is way out ahead of the others...  :-)

by asdf on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 at 10:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I found remarkable was that there is a consensus (ie, this is the overwhelimingly shared opinion of all thge speakers) that:

  • we have a major supply problem in, at most, a few years;
  • demand reduction is the way to go, starting with energy efficiency;
  • investment in energy infrastructure ie doubly a good thing to do: it's good for the energy problems, and it will be good to fight the current economic crisis

This is all things we've been saying for a while.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 06:33:50 AM EST
I think it is good that you see the glass as half full, it means that your professional efforts are starting to have a positive effect.

Critics, like me, see the glass as 1/4 full, the movement towards rationality is just going too slowly to alter the worst effects of over population and resource shortage in a timely enough manner to avoid major sorrow a few decades hence. It's odd that old guys like me, who certainly won't be around to see the misery, are more pessimistic than younger people, many of whom will still be here.

Perhaps pessimism just comes with age...

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You've had longer to realize that the wall really is tougher than your head, I suppose.  :-)
by Zwackus on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama seems to be saying the same thing.  Wouldn't it be ironic if the US were to surpass Europe in sustainable energy production during his Presidency!

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
got to side with Jerome. In some cases the head is tougher than the wall - or maybe I've just lost feeling up there.

It's more galling to me to feel the arrogance emanating from some of those 'quoted' by Jerome. To think that to some degree we have to wait on those folks to actually accept reality before things will move forward is the real pain that I feel. And then we have to wait even longer for the clods that they have to convince.

In any case - good graph, nanne - as usual. The population thing is almost in our rear-view mirror in my opinion. Best to keep the energy thing in the headlights, as Jerome has described.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Sun Dec 7th, 2008 at 08:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You've been missed... your Euroerudition in particular.. your knowledgeable comments in general

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 08:09:33 AM EST
LOL, I am a Eurodite, now?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 08:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as opposed to a Luddite

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Dec 9th, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]


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