Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

New European Energy Strategy is here

by kcurie Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:02:36 AM EST

Ok.. this is it. The thing we were looking for. As scheduled the new energy proposal from the European Comission has appeared in press releases or even pdf documents

I will update as news come up...and please take this as a thread to discuss the proposal or append items that may be interesting.

[editor's note, by Jerome a Paris] all the documents in English can be found from here

[editor's note, by afew]The pdf of the Communication can be downloaded from the ET server here.

Press Release:

The Communication, a key element of the Commission's new energy and climate change strategy, sets out proposals for action by the EU and the rest of the international community to prevent global climate change from irrevocable consequences This means limiting global warming to no more than 2C above the temperature in pre-industrial times.

The Commission's central proposal is that, under a future global agreement, the group of developed countries should cut their emissions of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' responsible for warming the planet to an average of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.

The EU should take the lead by committing autonomously to reduce its own emissions by at least 20% by 2020 a cut that should be increased to 30% as part of a satisfactory global agreement.

In the longer term, greater emission reductions will be necessary and developing countries will also have to be part of the global effort: worldwide emissions will need to be cut by up to half of their 1990 levels by 2050.

Promoted, and edited a little by Colman


I think this is clearly they keystone of this site

EUROPE+ENERGY..

Here I will append only basic general-themes as new information comes. Details will be addressed in the comments

FIRST NEWS ITEM. Firm Biofuel proposal

In the biofuels directive adopted in 2003, Europe set itself the objectives of replacing 2% of petrol and diesel for transport by biofuels by 2005, and 5.75% by 2010. The 2005 target was not met. Substantial progress can be expected by 2010, but not enough to achieve the 2010 target. The Commission therefore proposes reinforcing the legislative framework, with a 10% minimum for the market share of biofuels in 2020.

SECOND NEWS ITEM. Complete internal market by 2009

A real Internal Energy Market is essential to deliver all three of Europe's energy objectives: A competitive market will cut costs for citizens and companies and stimulate energy efficiency and investment; It is vital for the emissions trading mechanism to work properly. An effectively functioning and competitive Internal Energy Market can provide major advantages in terms of security of supply. The Internal Energy Market Communication and the final Report on the Competition Sectoral Enquiry demonstrate that the present rules and measures have not yet achieved these objectives. More needs to be done to create a real European gas and electricity grid and to have a truly competitive market. The Commission's main objective is to have a complete internal energy market with open competition and effective regulation in place by January 2009. A real European grid should work as a one single grid. A number of measures are needed to achieve these objectives, mostly of a rather technical nature

THIRD NEWS ITEM. Carbon sequestration targets

Coal and gas account for over 50% of the EU's electricity supply and will remain an important part of our energy mix. If the EU is to achieve its long term climate change objectives, much cleaner coal technologies and a significant reduction of CO2 emission will be necessary. Furthermore, developing clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies is crucial at the international level: it is expected that twice as much electricity as today will be produced world-wide from coal by 2030. This will in turn bring new opportunities for European export as well.

The Commission will in 2007 start work to:

Design a mechanism to stimulate the construction and operation by 2015 of up to 12 large-scale demonstrations of sustainable fossil fuel technologies in commercial power generation in the EU;

Provide a clear perspective when coal- and gas-fired power plants will need to install CO2 capture and storage. Today, the Commission believes that by 2020 all new coal-fired plants should include CO2 capture and storage technologies and existing plants should then progressively follow the same approach.

FOURTH NEWS ITEM. Climate Change beyond 2020

The EU target needs to be seen in the context of the need for international action of industrial nations on climate change. When such a commitment exists, the EU will need to do more. The aim should therefore be to increase the target to a 30% reduction by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050. The concern is not only about climate change, it is also about Europe's security of energy supply, economy and the wellbeing of its citizens. Even without climate change, there is every reason to take the steps proposed by the European Commission. Achieving the objective can limit the EU's growing exposure to increased volatility and prices for oil and gas, bring about a more competitive EU energy market, and stimulate technology and jobs. It is a huge challenge: in energy specific terms, meeting this overall greenhouse gas target will require the EU to reduce the amount of CO2 from its energy use by at least 20%, and probably more, within the next 13 years. But this will help transform Europe into a highly energy efficient and low CO2 energy economy, able to face with confidence future energy challenges. It will mean the EU taking global leadership in catalysing a new industrial revolution, benefiting the developed and developing world alike, while accelerating the change to low-emission economic growth and dramatically increasing the amount of local, low emission energy produced and used.

MIXED NEWS:

-Comission does not declare nuclear targets. It is up to the states. See comments in the thread.

-The Comission will urge for updates to the European and gas networks. Emphasis in the Power-Link between Germany, Poland and Lithuania; connections to off-shore wind power in Northern Europe; an electricity interconnection between France and Spain; and the Nabucco pipeline, bringing gas from Central Asia, the Caspian region and the Middle East to Central Europe;

-Comission to examine the need to increase EU funding in particular to facilitate the integration of renewable energy into the grid.

FIRST IDEAS:

The first reaction of the comission plans in the British and Spanish press has been along the lines of "revolution in thinking", "revolution in energy". From a general perspective all the music sounds good to me, I wold say excellent. Just imagine what party would implement this in the US...none? With only the details of full pdf reports missing I would say that three things need to be clarified.

First. How to implement the reduction in primary use of energy. While renewable energy plans are on target and renewable generation has advanced dramatically in the last years, conservation has not. The proposal so far is short on details, specially on the private transport sector. Private cars is the great missing entity. A pity.

Second. There are no clear indications about how to prevent the construction of coal and gas plants. There are no details of a carbon scheme yet. The only way to have free market and more renewables and less CO2 (in coal nad gas) is if some kind of very expensive cost is given to C02 generation. The details of a new and strong enforcement of the present trading European scheme is missing.

And finally, third. For the first time ambitious and realisitic targets are set for biofuels and secuestration. While there had been specualtion about Co2 emissions, consevation and renewables, these new two items were very surprising and unexpected to me. The press releases had sufficient details to think that they were serious about it. And I hope that copies of the formal documents will be saved here in ET and further discussed in other diaries (as Migeru or Colman have pointed out).

Other than that I think that the nuclear neutral position and infraestructure investments are also important items which I (do not why :) think will be discussed in detail here or in other diaries.

Display:
You're faster than me. I was going to do a post tonight. Well here are some quick comments.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:06:04 AM EST
Sorry.

I can stop updating it if you were going to do a diary on front-page...

It would make sense to put everything in one place
Tell me and I will stop it.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:08:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nah, you beat me to it as well - go for the updates at will. Though maybe comments in the body would be better since it allows people to discuss bits of the proposal as you/they throw them in.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:09:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As you may remember, I have written elsewhere that the goals of the Green Paper are incoherent, and in particular that market liberalisation is not compatible with fighting global warming (because liberlaisation encourages the building of gas-fired plants) or with security of supply (ditto).

The EC seems to have at least acknowledged the issue in their preemptive Q&A press release:


How is competition compatible with environmental goals?

Competitive energy markets will play a major role in developing and deploying new environmentally friendly technologies. Strong competition in the electricity market has a positive effect on the efficiency of power generation, because market players want to minimise costs and invest in efficient technologies. Renewable technologies would be better served by an increase in transparency, and by open, competitive markets. The larger the internal market, the more economies of scale can be realised.

Addressed, but really not answered, beyond incantations. Renewable energy would not be served by "open, competitive markets", it would be served by regulation that forces other forms of production to internalize externalities or, failing that, by support mechanisms. These can be done within market mechanisms or outside them, but the pre-requisite is the internalisation/support, not the markets.


How is competition compatible with security of supply goals?

Europe needs stable relationships with the main producers outside the EU. But this does not and must not prevent us from ensuring an integrated competitive market inside the EU. An open and competitive, liquid and interconnected, single EU market will guarantee a secure provision of energy in the future, as it will make the European market attractive for external suppliers. Such a market will also be open to new energy mixes.

Again, incantations without justification. No commentary on the fact that "open markets" encourage burning gas, which needs to be imported.

So they are still in lalaland.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
God* will provide.

The one true God of "free-markets" of course. Perhaps they should consider liberalising their religion?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:15:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They can see the problem, they understand what the solution is, but they are unable to consider a wide enough selection of methods of achieving the solution because they are blinded by ideology.

Well, I guess it's a start, but it's going to slow us down while we fight through the idiot talk.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:16:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Make that "Promoted, edited and screwed up a bit by Colman".

Sorry, kcurie - fixed it as best I can!

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:08:47 AM EST
Ok . Now I will go on updating it as new press releases reach us..

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was somewhat surprised to hear that goal of 30%. It's a challenging one. I suspected it would be projected lower. So I'm positively surprised.

The more important question I'm interested in is: how do they intend to get there?

And a second question I'm going to find out: 30% below the 1990 levels, at what historical level do we end up with? 1970-something levels?

by Nomad on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:09:37 AM EST
Note that they're talking about 50% of 1990 levels by 2050!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I haven't looked at it on the specifics, but what's quoted in the diary they aim for 50 percent reduction -worldwide-. Which doesn't specifically imply EU nations.

But I hope to compare the historic record also with that level of reduction.

by Nomad on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:14:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On efficiency, they say this:


The Commission reiterates the objective of saving 20% of total primary energy consumption by 2020. If successful, this would mean that by 2020 the EU would use approximately 13% less energy than today, saving 100 billion euro and around 780 tonnes of CO2 each year.

So the decreases would be from the current upwards trajectory, not from current numbers.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Still this is quite a lot.

A 10% reduction in primary energy is a lot..specially if renewables are added to the mix...

If this redcution plues renewable plus biofuel isimplemented, then necessarily coal consumption should decrease...there is no other way.

How to get there? I just do not know how if they do not put a heavy price onthe externalities of coal...and even gas.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"how do they intend to get there?"

I expect they will strongly push nuclear... nothing i've seen from them points any other way.

by Torres on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm looking forward to seeing how they do that in the context of a free-market approach.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IT can not be completely free market if this is going to be true:

Today, the Commission believes that by 2020 all new coal-fired plants should include CO2 capture and storage technologies and existing plants should then progressively follow the same approach.

Research and regulation is needed for this.

A pleasure


I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They are studiously neutral on nuclear, saying that it should up to individual countries.

But of course they say that nuclear can be done by markets:


Don't we need large companies to invest in power plants?

It does not necessarily take very large companies to make investments in this sector. In fact, it is not the largest energy companies which have invested the most in new generation facilities in the past few years. For instance, for gas-fired plants, much of the capacity has been created by more mid-size companies such as the various generators in the UK and the competitors of the incumbent in Italy.

And in the nuclear sector, the only construction currently under way is made by one of the smallest operators of nuclear plants, not by the larger operators.

"the smallest operator of nuclear plants" is still a pretty big operator, but who cares?

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They have a more specific paper:


A European approach to nuclear power, safety and security

It is for each member state to decide whether to use nuclear power. Nuclear power can have an important role to play in the European Union's energy mix: but it is important to continue to address issues surrounding safety and security. In recognition of this, the European Commission has proposed the establishment of an EU High Level Group of national nuclear regulators in order to further develop a common understanding and European rules in the field of nuclear safety and security.

(...)

Reinforcing nuclear power generation could also represent one option for reducing CO2 emissions and play a major role in addressing global climate change. Nuclear power is essentially carbon emissions-free and forms part of the Commission's carbon reduction scenario including the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. This could also feature as an important consideration when discussing future emissions trading schemes.

The most crucial factor affecting the prospect of growth of nuclear power is its underlying economics as a nuclear plant involves an up front investment ranging from €2 to €3 billion. Nuclear energy generation incurs higher construction costs in comparison to fossil fuels, yet operating costs are significantly lower following the initial investments. Furthermore, nuclear power generation is largely immune to changes in the cost of raw material supplies, as a modest amount of uranium, which comes largely from stable regions of the world, can keep a reactor running for decades. Therefore, in most industrialised countries new nuclear power plants offer an economic way to generate base-load electricity.

No mention of financing costs, of course, because that would raise the heresy of public financing..

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is for each member state to decide whether to use nuclear power. Nuclear power can have an important role to play in the European Union's energy mix: but it is important to continue to address issues surrounding safety and security. In recognition of this, the European Commission has proposed the establishment of an EU High Level Group of national nuclear regulators in order to further develop a common understanding and European rules in the field of nuclear safety and security...

I am perfectly content to let European nations "lead the way," on this because country after country, Germany possibly excepted, are learning that they cannot simultaneously address climate change and do without nuclear energy.

Although I am prone to minimize and dismiss the risks of nuclear energy - and I insist for base load these risks are lower than any other strategy other than not using the energy in the first place - the highest real risk is the use of diversion of enrichment facilities and/or plutonium to national weapons programs.   We must minimize the risk that new weapons will be built and maximize the probability that existing weapons will have their cores fissioned in commercial reactors to make energy.  

A well regulated and consistent set of internationally audited set of rules can serve to minimize this risk even further.   I would like the IEAE to have unannounced auditing authority on all fuel handling facilities.

From a technical standpoint, under the leadership of France, I would very much like to see rules put in place governing the isotopic composition of plutonium.   I believe the French CORAIL and related fuel cycling strategies can prove useful this approach well into technical applicability within a short time.

The French consideration of how to manage its plutonium inventory and composition should be a world model.

Nuclear energy is very much the key to human (and other species) survival in the face of the climate change emergency, but all who support it should recognize that its success is very much a function of advocating for regulation and broad control by all of humanity.

by NNadir on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But gas plants are the worst possible thing that could be built. Surely their own comment is in fact a demonstration that the market isn't doing the job?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Coal plants are the aorst possible. Gas is less polluting and more flexible.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:24:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course you're right. So it could be worse. And it will be, we promise.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is, currently: more coal plants are being built and planned as we speak.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I realize this effort was aimed at energy, but that is what is wrong with it. It treats energy as a separate issue without regard to overall problems such as raw material use and population growth.

A growing population will require more, improving efficiency will perhaps slow the worldwide rate of consumption growth with the proposed policies. Just today I posted a diary (Goal 6) that speaks of restructuring the landscape so that there is less need for transportation. Not having to travel to work or having supplies delivered from far away has the potential to cut energy use more than some modest technical fixes.

There is also no discussion of scaling back on materialism, especially in developed countries. So the world is in a leaky boat and the recommendation is to get a bigger bucket to bail with. Not very inspiring, if you ask me.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:27:01 AM EST
Growing population in a Europe with barely replacement level fertility even now?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:29:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about immigration?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is it not growing through immigration, at least in some places?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:32:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Population growth is not a local issue. Even if one place reaches a sustainable level, the demands from elsewhere will affect them anyway. Competition for resources is trans-national.

Perhaps if Europe spent money on family planning and education for women in developing countries the payback would be greater than an equal amount spent on local energy savings.

This is why I emphasize that compartmentalizing the problems leads to narrow ideas.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd rather they did both, personally. And you have to compartmentalise to some extent, otherwise you can't even think about the problem. This is what Europe should do internally. What we should support externally is another, related, issue.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To some extent all energy strategies are band-aids.

The way to provide for population stabilization - excluding the effects of immigration in various countries - is to address the issues that are part of the traditional liberal agenda.   These things include reasonable access to health care especially for children, respect for the rights of women and gay people, elimination of dire poverty, education etc.

Although wealth is a means of providing these things, wealth must be balanced with its cost, a very difficult trick with no easy black and white solutions.

But the basis of our catastrophe is more or less what you say it is.

by NNadir on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you have some form of electricity, life expectancy goes up. Education and health care improve. Even a solar-powered pump in an off-grid village can make a big difference.  In Africa, for example, girls usually have the job of walking miles to fetch water.  An electric pump liberates them so that they can attend school.

In discussion energy it is easy to lose sight of the humanitarian role that electricity plays.

If we can have a strictly supervised nuclear fuel cycle, then poor countries can enjoy the benefits from electricity we take for granted.  And they will stop burning coal and biomass.

by Plan9 on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 05:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Given the press releases I have highlighted four items which I think represent a clear break with the past.

For each one of them there is enough information right now to make a diary on itself...But it does not make sense since we have the comments.

I frankly do not know what to do...should I follow each item with comments? or should I leave it like this?

help!!!

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:29:35 AM EST
I'd say comment at will and people should spin off diaries on the things that are especially interesting.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:35:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Implementation details

The Review includes a ten-point energy Action Plan with a timetable of measures to put the EU on course to achieve the new strategic objective. A first package of concrete measures is presented with the Action Plan. This includes:

Report on the implementation by the Member States of the internal market of gas and electricity as well as the results of an enquiry of the state of competition in these two sectors;

Plan of for Priority Interconnections in the electricity and gas networks of the Member States so that a European grid becomes a reality;


Proposals to promote sustainable power generation from fossil fuels;


Roadmap and other initiatives to promote renewables, notably biofuels for transport;


An analysis of the situation of nuclear energy in Europe;


A work sheet for a future European Energy Strategic Technology Plan.




I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:35:06 AM EST
Proposals to promote sustainable power generation from fossil fuels;

For small values of "sustainable"?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:38:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I presume they mean this:
Putting in place an environmentally safe strategy to promote the industrial use of carbon capture and storage technology

but that's a pretty interesting use of the word "sustainable".
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actuallu... they name it this way now

It is in the full text.

From now on carbon sequestration is sutainable fossil fuel use.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Newspeak.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely...New frame. Sustainable equals no harming the climate pattern of the Earth not infinite source. I wanted to put more details on this and on biofuels targets.. but now the web site is down.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When the website is back up, it would help if a copy of the relevant documents were save on the ET server, if that's possible.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I now have the PDF and will put on ET server asap.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's here.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you it yourself to the diary...? at any point you wish....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:18:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Add the link... can you add it at any point you wish?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did but it has disappeared???
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You were no doubt adding to the diary when I put up the link, and it got bashed when you saved. I've now done it again.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That means NATO will make the supply sustainable.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:49:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The press release site is down to me. ANyone else has the same problem?

I can not open the web page.. there were a couple of details I had read that I wanted to put here.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:50:41 AM EST
It's possible that the europa.eu site is suffering from a DDOS "attack". I bet you everyone is trying to get their hands on the PDF.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:51:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd bet it.. I am wondering if they knew that there are a bunch of people here who consider it one of the most relevant proposal by the comission ever.

Now in Spain only in EL Periodico is front page

La Comissió demana una revolució postindustrial a la UE que impulsi l'ús de les energies renovables

http://www.elperiodico.cat/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAT&idnoticia_PK=370061& ;idseccio_PK=1021

Others follow ETA, ZP, PP and anti-terrorism demonstrations....so they certainly did not expect mass media focus...they forgot us.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Escolar is busy with black nipples.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Je je..

This is Spain.. and that was an internal joke... there is a group of conspiracy theorists called "peones negros" which defends that ETA (and probably President Zapatero) was behind the attacks of Al-Qaaeda (they were realynot AL-Qaeda.. or not alone.. or...)

SO, yes we are with black nipples.. geeee

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The joke is that nipples = pezones ~ peones = pawns

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chrysler questions climate change

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming.

(...)

Mr Jolissaint was speaking at a private breakfast where the chief economists of the "Big Three" US car firms presented their forecasts for auto industry sales this year.

(...)

Mr Jolissant, a Chrysler veteran who was recently appointed the chief economist for the German-US DaimlerChrysler Group, said that since he started spending more time at the company's corporate headquarters in Stuttgart he had been shocked by the absurdity of European attitudes towards global warming.

(...)

He said that he had been surprised by how much support there had been in the Daimler office in Stuttgart for these "quasi-hysterical" policies that smacked of "Chicken Little" politics - referring to the US children's story in which Chicken Little runs around in circles saying "the sky is falling".

Read the rest...

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 11:55:43 AM EST
"Chicken Little" works better in the American context than the "blind faith" narrative - given American attitudes to religion...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would hazzard a guess that the "blind faith" narrative may not be met with joyous smiles by certain elements of the Republican's Kleptocratic coalition.

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying
by RogueTrooper on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed....

"quasi-hysterical Europeans" with "Chicken Little".

I had heard that relationships between the Daimler and Chrysler wings of the company were not good. I wonder how this is going to go down in Germany?

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't get at the web site either, but, as far as I can see, there's no break with the Green Paper.

The only thing I'd comment on is that there was some noise, between the end of the Green paper Consultation and now, about a difference of opinion between Piebalgs and Barroso, in which Piebalgs wanted to stress the efficiency aspect, and Barroso absolutely wanted the liberalisation. It would seem Barroso got what he wanted, since efficiency doesn't appear as a top priority (Piebalg's choice), whereas market liberalisation is for right now, by 2009, in other words by the end of the Barroso  Commission. Barroso's legacy?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:42:39 PM EST
Absolutely, this is the key of the second of the points I think they are missing.

If they liberalize by 2009.. are they going to implement the CO2 scheme? or are we going to have wild construction of coal plants unitl then....? and how to go back after that?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Though this of course is true (re efficiency):

On 19th October 2006 the Commission adopted the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, containing measures that would put the EU well on the path to achieving a key goal of reducing its global primary energy use by 20% by 2020. If successful, this would mean that by 2020 the EU would use approximately 13% less energy than today, saving €100 billion and around 780 millions tonnes of CO2 each year.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 03:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First news item:

Well, that didn't work so let's just pretend it did and try it again. See also the aims for growth in other renewables.  

Second news item:

"The Commission's main objective is to have a complete internal energy market with open competition and effective regulation in place by January 2009."

Note 'main' objective - not used elsewhere. This will be more economic noodling and goal setting - good news if you're one the people playing with the deckchairs, less good if you're up on the bridge wondering what to do about the iceberg.

Third news item:

Lipstick on a pig.

Fourth news item:

Euro Kyoto 2.0 - and we know how well that worked.

Missing:

Incentives for small-scale micro generation that can supply excess power to the Euro Grid

Re-tooling the economy to minimise unnecessary travel - e.g. teleworking

Incentives for basic economies such as better insulation for houses, and tax breaks for companies that can drastically reduce their energy use and carbon footprint. There's a hint of this, but the subtext is 'Only as long as no one has to change what they're used to doing now'

Formal carbon accounting and management

Overall:
This is a big business bean counter proposal, big on wind, less big on wind power.

Active carbon sequestration is better than nothing. But the real problem is that this is a centralised, industrial-scale solution to a problem that needs a regulated plan to promote decentralisation of energy production, and some de-industrialisation, especially when it comes to travel, to limit demand. And it's been coated coated with a frosty pink icing of econo-speak about magic markets that has nothing to do with anything.

As a proposal it's sort of interesting-ish, in a half-hearted 'But do we really have to?' way.

But it's hardly inspired leadership, and I'm going to be very surprised if any of the stated targets are met.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:01:13 PM EST
On frist item..

There were no clear target before on biofuels (that I know)

Second item... clear as water.

Third. Full sequestration is transforming coal from dirty and centralized to merely centralized...Ilove pigs so I would say that it is leaving it as a wonderful pick :) Sorry, here I am not skeptic about the goal.. only skeptic that the target of 2015 is feasible.. I hope I will be convinced that it is possible

Fourth: The target of 20% independentlyof otehrs is excellent.. theonly question is how to force the trading scheme before the liberalization process..

Other than that... I think it is leadership... if a leader appears and sets clear rules of implementation :) Until then....we will wait.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First:
The aim ten (!) years ago was to have 12% renewables by 2010. Bio may have been a part of that, but it's a little hazy. It's looking like it's going to be 10% in 2010. But - the problem is that a handful of countries (Sweden, Portugal) have moved heavily towards renewables, while others (UK, Belgium) have hardly bothered.

What is the EU going to do to enforce compliance? My guess is not much.

Third:
The problem isn't so much sequestration, as the cost-effectiveness of 'clean' coal compared with truly renewable sources, and the reliability of the coal supply. How does the cost of clean coal compare to the cost of other sources?

Fourth:
The implementation is the issue. I'm not seeing much here beyond 'The markets will find a sacred way'. For some reason I'm not completely convinced.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First. It was only on renewables.. no biofuel item. We are on target. According to the last report of the comission. the disparities ofthe countries will be reduced in the next two years.

Third Amen.

Fourth.. the mechanism is right now a cap on Co2 and a trading scheme. There is no way to implement liberalization and the fourth point if an extra  cost to Co2 is not considered before 2009...if it is not included markets will not find a sacred way..as expected.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The non-enforced target was 5.75% biofuels by 2010.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 01:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a little surprised by your surprise at the biofuels point. Remember our work on the Biofuels Consultation (see Energy in the wiki for diaries and our contribution to the Consultation). It was clear then that the Commission was making ready to bring in "firm" targets on biofuels.

And it was clear to us (at least, to me ;)) that this was largely vain. Even negative. Nothing has happened since to change my mind, on the contrary. Biofuels from foodstuffs will enter into competition for land surface with food production. The result will be imports of biofuels from tropical countries to try to reach targets (I say try). This will in no way favorise security of supply, while it will favorise unsustainable agricultural methods both here and in the tropical producing countries.

I'll do another diary on this soon, as the evidence is accumulating that we were right to pour cold water on first-generation biofuel hopes.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 03:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I expected that they would leave biofuels out.. as they have done with cars.

I thought that they would not bring forward any proposal in this frame but relate biofuels with the car industry.

I also expect now that future proposals about fuel efficiency will be very disappointing...So pursuing a reasonable scenario for first generation biofuels seems ok to me. I am not as sure as yo that reaching a 5-10 % means more unsustainable methods. I think present methods are OK and 5-10 % can be reached with no problem for the environment.

I do share with you a strong pessimism regarding first-generation biofuels reaching mroe than 15-20 % of fuel use. Any other improvement should come from 2nd generation.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 04:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am now very surprised. Up to 15% of fuel use with 1st-generation biofuels, to you poses no problem? Don't you remember our calculations as to how much land would be needed to attain even 5.75%?

But if you think "present methods" are OK, I suppose anything goes...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 04:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, yes..
I thought I had written this in the comment

I see no problem until 10 %.. I DO SEE big problems  from 15-20%

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 04:23:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now I realize it was poorly written..

I actually meant I do see problems for a higher share such as 15-20%. It looks like I said that I see problem only after 20%.

Poorly written.

My limit is 15%

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 04:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that don't change much for me, mister. We're gonna have to shoot it out.

I will do another diary fairly soon. And you will explain your reasoning, I hope. or do a diary about it yourself?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 04:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok...Good. I wait for the diary

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 06:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Attnetion to Annex 2 of the full Report!!!

Am I readin correctly?

PROVEN RESERVES AT CURRENT PRODUCTION OF oIL:

42 years

???

Not the 100 years that oil companies and most producers ME countries claim?

This means that the peak according to the EU should be at least beofore that date.... SO, safely the EU puts peak oil at 2020-2030.

Am I wrong?

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 02:11:26 PM EST
Yep, you are wrong.

It's been 30-40 years for like forever.

But it doesn't matter as what counts is not reserves but production flows. It doesn't matter in the slightest if we still have oil in 400 years if it's just 100.000 barrels per day.

The R/P (reserves/production) number is irrelevant in all cases except that for a single field - as a rule of thumb, if the number falls under 10 you are pumping to fast and hard and permanently damaging the field, limiting ultmate recovery.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Jan 11th, 2007 at 11:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This means they have giving the sma numbers for ever...
well I did not know it.. I know the US says 100 years...ina ny report...

A matter of chosing one number in fornt of the other just by chance :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jan 11th, 2007 at 11:40:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reserves backdated? Who knows.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Jan 11th, 2007 at 12:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All the full report has to say about the way to mix free market and CO2 reduction goals in coal and gas fired-plants is this. A clear sad point of the proposal.

3.3. A long-term commitment to greenhouse gases reduction and the EU Emissions
Trading System.

The EU traditionally favours the use of economic instruments to internalise external costs as
the allow the market to determine how to react most efficiently and with limited costs. More
particularly, in its Communication Limiting Climate Change to 2° - Policy Options for the EU
and the world for 2020 and beyond, the Commission has set out how the emissions trading
mechanism is and must remain a key mechanism for stimulating reductions in carbon
emissions and how it could be used as a basis for international efforts to fight climate change.
The Commission is reviewing the EU ETS to ensure that emissions trading reaches its full
potential: this is critical to creating the incentives to stimulate changes in how Europe
generates and uses its energy.

That's all.. I did not cut anything.. this is it. This is all point 3.3. Sad.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 02:23:17 PM EST
The really sad thing is that they write:
the emissions trading mechanism is and must remain a key mechanism for stimulating reductions in carbon emissions


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Jan 11th, 2007 at 11:13:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by NNadir on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 07:14:21 PM EST


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

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
24 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
112 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments