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

Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy

by Luis de Sousa Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST

[editor's note, by Migeru] Originally published on May 19

This week Andris Piebalgs talks Nuclear in his blog. Without taboos, Andris lays down the advantages of Nuclear energy that have put it at the core of the Commission's New Energy Policy for Europe.

Nuclear energy has been discussed many times at TOD, mostly from a technical perspective, on its practicality and long-term sustainability. This time we look at Nuclear Energy policy, from the perspective of an Executive that has made a clear option towards this energy source.





Source: NewScientistTech (click to enlarge)

Promoted by Migeru

This is a crosspost from TheOilDrum:Europe

Concerns with CO2 emissions are still the main driver behind the EU's Energy Policy, but from the several texts reproduced henceforth, it is becoming clearer a certain sense of urgency towards energy security from the stakeholders.

In his blog, Andris starts by asserting that Nuclear has special a role to fulfill, that other energy sources and/or policies are not able to meet at the moment:

In this context, energy efficiency, renewables and sustainable biofuels have all a very important and growing contribution to make for a sustainable energy policy, as we have seen in previous entries of this blog. However, for the production of base-load energy at competitive prices, nuclear energy is currently the main low-carbon source in many EU Member States.

But there is more to Nuclear energy that makes it so attractive to policy makers at the moment:

Let's start with some facts. Taken together, the EU is the largest nuclear electricity generator in the world, has a mature nuclear industry spanning the entire fuel cycle with its own technological base and highly skilled workforce. Currently, nuclear energy provides more than a third of EU electricity. It has proven to be a stable, reliable source, relatively shielded from price fluctuations when compared to the oil and gas markets. Conventional nuclear energy is essentially free from CO2 emissions and on the face of it, fulfils an important requirement of all three pillars of the EU energy policy, which are competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability. Continued use of nuclear energy therefore would increase our energy independence and supply security as well as contribute to the limitation of CO2 emissions.
[emphasis added]

As a consequence of the current Energy Policy approved by the Council in March of 2007 the Commission set up the European Nuclear Energy Forum in order to provide a debate among stakeholders in a way transparent to the EU citizens.

The idea is simply to have the politic stakeholders, regulators, industry stakeholders and scientists dialoguing together and at the same time projecting a friendlier image of Nuclear Fission in Europe, where safety is ahead of all concerns.

The Czech and Slovak Prime Ministers agreed on jointly host the Forum, which was set to be held alternatively in Bratislava and Prague. The first meeting took place in late November in Bratislava and the next will be held in Prague later this month. Andris promises to take with his luggage the proposals left by commentators at his blog.

After looking into some of the texts produced during the first meeting of the Forum, some passages seem worth reproducing here. Barroso was in China at that time and sent a letter that Andris, as the senior representative of the Commission, read during the opening session. Some important points were made:


In this context I really believe that there is a need for a full and frank debate about nuclear energy. It is not the EU's role, or indeed the role of the Commission, to decide for Member States whether they use nuclear energy or not.

But it is - in my view - not surprising that we are witnessing a renewed interest of nuclear energy at global level. Nuclear energy can have a role to play in meeting our growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions. In the EU, around one third of the electricity currently comes from nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy also protects our economy against price volatility of energy prices, as nuclear power is less vulnerable to fuel price changes than some other energy sources. With the current record  oil prices, this element is becoming increasingly important.

At the same time, I believe that in the context of the revival of nuclear energy, we need to develop  further in Europe the most advanced framework for nuclear energy, meeting the highest standards of safety, security and non proliferation. The EU should also continue their efforts to ensure that such high standards are observed internationally, in the context of increased cooperation with the IAEA.

Although not the main driver, "price volatility" is gaining relevance. When Andris took on the speech with his own words he left it clear that there are serious problems. These appear to be some of the most anxious declarations on Oil ever produced by the Energy Commissioner:


I am concerned about the current escalation of the oil prices and its consequences for our economies. The energy package adopted by Heads of State and Government in March this year already highlighted the multi-dimensional challenges we are facing. But the exponential price increase of crude oil has even accelerated the need for swift and structural action. Therefore we increasingly need a totally open debate on all potential sources of energy, including nuclear energy, to reflect on our energy mix.

[...]

Together with and complementarily to the work of the High Level Group, improving nuclear safety must be an overwhelming principle of your dialogue here as well. The highest level of safety, but also of security and non-proliferation, is the absolute condition for the use and development of nuclear energy.

[...]

However I would like to stress that the highest possible level of safety is only a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Public acceptance is the second important pillar.

Building trust and increasing confidence in the use of nuclear energy are vital elements for public acceptance in democratic societies. Increased transparency and participation is in the interest of all, whatever their position on nuclear. This is at the core of the debates to which you will participate. Gaining trust and confidence, involving the citizens in the decision-making process, tackling all issues in a transparent way are not easy tasks. But they are issues on which you as decision makers or as influential observers have to focus your efforts on. It means demonstrating to people that the risks of nuclear energy are dealt with in a satisfactory manner, that the concerns of the population are taken seriously, and that you are all willing to help those who are not confident yet to get the necessary and balanced information which may gradually reassure them.

In a more elaborate way, Andris explains the importance of Nuclear energy in facing the challenges ahead for the EU. And once more the negative public image is presented as an obstacle left to overcome that could hinder the process.

On the first meeting's website you can find a plethora of texts from different people with different backgrounds. It is worth while to spend sometime  studying them if you have the slightest interest in this matter.

Finally the conclusive document of this first meeting:


Main priorities for the Working Groups of the European Nucelar Energy Forum

"Opportunities of nuclear energy"


  1. To establish a Nuclear Energy Roadmap to improve the nuclear legal framework, including greater harmonization of licensing procedures.

  2. To analyse in more detail, in comparison with other energy sources, the competitiveness of nuclear energy in a European low carbon and global security context. To examine ways to translate some competitive advantages of nuclear energy in the final price of domestic and business consumers.

  3. To explore innovative models regarding regional approaches and financing possibilities in the field of nuclear energy.

  4. To examine the ways and means to maintain the industrial capacity while improving the industrial environment.

"Risks of nuclear energy"


  1. To support a greater harmonization of safety requirements at EU level for nuclear installations in the EU (notable through the High Level Group).

  2. To encourage Members States and industry to swiftly implement adequate nuclear waste disposal facilities, in particular deep geological repositories for high level waste.

  3. To call for sufficient funding for decommissioning and waste management through adequate methods.

  4. To develop innovative approaches and exchange best practices to ensure adequate training, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for nuclear engineers and technicians, including radioprotection (e.g. Possible European post-graduate degrees), and to strengthen the safety culture.

  5. To support the reinforcement of non-proliferation in the international context through a stronger European position and the strengthening of nuclear security.

"Information and transparency"


  1. To examine ways and means to better inform the public in the objective and factual terms all aspects of nuclear energy (e.g. in the context of new build, encourage common approaches between regulators).

  2. To analyse the most effective approaches to build up trust and confidence in the available information, by increasing transparency and giving access to all non-sensitive information.

  3. To provide information in clear language on the existing solutions for waste management.

  4. To exchange and develop best practices at European level between all actors (Member States, municipalities, industry, etc.).

I left on Andris' blog an idea for a European special budget for energy development. With an income tax of 0,1% to 0,2% on each EU citizen, a value in the order of 4 to 8 Giga €uros (4 to 8 short billion €uros) could be raised every year. That money could get a lot people and a lot of resources working together to develop the EU's energy future. Nuclear seems to be the discipline that could benefit the most from such programme, due to the extra infrastructure and waste disposal requirements.

Without starting another endless and quite often inconclusive technical debate, I would like this time to get comments on Nuclear Energy policy. What is the Commission doing right? What is it doing wrong? What alternative policies can be pursued?

And don't forget to pay a visit to Andris' blog and leave some ideas for the second meeting of the Forum.




Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs' priority number one

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Display:
Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Nuclear (4.00 / 6)
only makes sense if run by a State-controlled entity and financed at sovereign rates of funding (and supervised by a separate public watchdog).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 05:50:10 AM EST
Re: Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
Unfortunately, some people think that Nuclear is up to the market...

I hope one day will get at least to a proper European watchdog agency. I don't have great hopes for a public European wide Nuclear (or Energy in general) programme.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:53:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Nuclear (4.00 / 3)
A European watchdog might very well be a great idea for increasing transparency. One of the problems in Sweden appears to be that with a limited job market for specialists it is hard to keep watchdogs and industry from forming one unit, banding together against the outsiders. A European watchdog might solve some of that.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 09:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Nuclear (none / 0)
Why not give EURATOM this task?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
Private companies can do nuclear, there are many examples of it. There are also many examples of state-run companies managing nuclear in a good way.

The difference between a good nuclear company and a bad one is not dependent on the state owning it or not.

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

by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What matters (4.00 / 5)
is the cost of nuclear, which is much lower iff the discount rate is lower.

and the fact that the State will ALWAYS carry the ultimate responsibility (and price tag) for any catastrophic accident, and for long term waste storage and management.

The market is unable to price these subsidies properly, so the State should take the upside as well as the downside.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 04:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: What matters (none / 0)
The capital cost is indeed crucial. But extremely solid power companies with decade-spanning relations with their banks also get really cheap credit. After all, all our nuclear power plants weren't financed by the state and they worked out very well too.

(It doesn't hurt when the people ordering the plant are the same as the ones who own the company that designed it, the company that builds it and the bank that financed it.)

The state carries ultimate responsibility for a lot of things it doesn't own (airlines, pharmaceuticals etc etc).

Long term storage in Sweden is both run and financed (partly) by a private  (not-for-profit) company (which also does some for-profit international consulting).

I have no problem at all with state ownership in power generation, but if private companies can add value while maintaing standards, then I'm the first to welcome then.

I still don't think a deregulated power market is a good idea though, I think it's a disaster.

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

by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 07:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Security is the state's responsibility, (none / 1)
both ultimately and day-to-day. And, as Jerome points out, waste disposal ends up in the state's lap, as well. Let's just cut out the middleman - and I use the word advisedly as they are not entrepreneurs in any sense of the word - in some cases. Energy - particularly nuclear-based energy generation - is a clear-cut case in this regard. Without a broad, public debate and stake in energy, we get petroleum-until-it-runs-out, then coal-until-we-choke-on-the-acid-rain; we get Enron and Exxon; and we get TV ads telling us how 'green' they all are.

Governments are not cure-alls, but the current debacles are primarily brought to us by the Exxons of the world - including their unhealthy level of control of some governments. Time to swing the pendulum; the trick will be to keep and enlarge the democratic components of the process.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Wed May 21st, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Andris Piebalgs (4.00 / 2)
, with his ethanol powered saab, has already shown us what kind of clue he possesses with respect to sustainability.

Conventional nuclear energy is essentially free from CO2 emissions

key weasel word highlit.

i'd really like to see the EU w-a-y more progressive on energy, and so far i think we're being very short-sighted, and the usual suspects are working overtime to spin nuclear for the people to swallow, extending and prolonging the old paradigm for grid technology.

i do appreciate how much better our attitudes here in yurp for truly sustainable energy (especially regarding farming and alternative electricity supply) are than in certain other quarters of the globe, but i suspect nuclear is really a red herring.

the energy moguls want a centralised grid, while they enrich their media friends with endless greenwashing ads that do not convince anyone, in fact raise another generation of young people who have to learn the hard way how many lies they eat with their media cornflakes every day.

that way, people will argue about nuclear, while coal slides in as default...

similar to an argument i'm listening to on foxy news from one clown who's pointing to the ethanol 'boondoggle' (his word), and using that as (il)logical lever to justify drilling in Alaska, and off the coasts (and some of the prettiest, highest-valued coast).

these people are fossil fools, and if it weren't for progress in intelligent solutions such as those promulgated by Our Founder, i would probably check out from europe...again....

these spin doctors will tie themselves in knots trying to sell us what they believe will profit them the most, the longest.

as for italy, one look at naples right now should tell anyone all they need to know as to whether this country has a responsible attitude to governance, or respect for the environment.

damn, it's sad sometimes to see what were up against, we who believe that nuclear power rollout to try and sustain these chaotically, pathologically greedy, wasteful and racist energy and transport policies we debate so thoroughly here at ET, would be a gigantically, titanically retrogressive step for humanity.

in fact the metaphor (tho' inexact and inverted!), cervantes used for don quixote of windmills, was strangely prescient...it does seem quixotic to try and face off against a multibillion dollar-powered set of lying interests, just like anyone trying to point out the folly of the hedge funds ponzi schemes a few years ago might have felt.

at least the statues at easter island are noble looking, in a silly kind of way.

old nuke plants, not so much.

look at china's growth with solar, and wonder why they are growing so much faster than we are in the west.

the only reason i can see for that is that vested interests there have less ability to buy politicians, anyone show me a better one? ( i know they're going coal'n'nuke in a big way too).

besides they take too long to build, even if they weren't evil for so many other reasons, we're out of time.

meanwhile i expect the media saturation about rosy nuke futures to amp up, proportionately to every working windfarm that gets up and running.

monster windplants are great, but we need to think about decentralising the grid, and putting power production closer to consumption.

the 'iron laws' of economics come down in favour of it, after all, or will inevitably, after enough people realise that their taxes would be better invested in incentivising smaller-scale, decentralised grid technology.

the amount spent on the media will be astronomical, and could much better be invested in promoting wind and solar.

2c

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:19:55 AM EST
melo - (none / 0)
I love your "little pixel-droppings" as you call them down-thread.

Your case is strong, but there is room for the base-load stability of nuclear - under the correct controls, which is to say, just like all other technical endeavors. 20% of power generated might be about right for, say, the next 40 years, while we get the solar-based technologies fully deployed and establish a sustainability ethic in the world.

You don't want Italy to run a nuclear-based generation plant, and you may have a case there, too. I don't have firsthand experience, but it seems that France has a fairly good system. Seems, also, that recycling of the 'spent' fuel is the obvious field for further R&D.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Wed May 21st, 2008 at 03:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Andris Piebalgs: (none / 1)
thankyou for blogging this louis.

here's a couple of comments from AP's blog that express my concerns much better than i could.
Commissioner Andris PIEBALGS

  1. G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 Says:
    May 18th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    One taboo you should disregard is the one that says governments' conflict of interest in re nuclear energy must remain unspoken. With each kilotonne of uranium costing roughly $140 million Euros, and the natural gas that it replaces costing -- on the NYME, maybe in Europe prices are different -- six billion Euros, not much of that has to be royalties before the fatalities that
    inevitably attend the burning of that much gas being lucrative ones for government.

  2. Mijo

and:

Commissioner Andris PIEBALGS

Last year, I was surprised to discover survey results (Eurobarometer / SOFRES in France) of European opinions about nuclear energy. According to these results, 56% of French people (53% of European people) think that nuclear energy provides more risks than advantages. (I have published an article about this survey on a French participative website
http://www.agoravox.fr/article.php3?id_article=20288 ).
Why these strange results in France ? We have the most important nuclear plant in Europe, we have good engineers, we have prestigious post-graduate schools, we have spent billion and billion of euros in nuclear research... but we still do not have any solution for nuclear waste.

No one wants to stock nuclear waste in his own area. Someones would like to bring them in Siberia, but I don't think that Russian and Siberian people would agree with this solution !

Nuclear energy is CO2 free, OK. But renewables (wind turbines, solar panels, geothermics, concentrating solar power, and others) are CO2 free and radioactive waste free. The best solution is to increase renewable energy, building isolation, efficiency, and energy savings. I have read that in 2006 in Europe, "traditional energy and renewable energy have got a EUR 62.2 M budget, when nuclear energy has got a EUR 165.2 M budget". Why do we have this difference ? Is it not preferable that renewables get the same budget then nuclear energy ?

You said that "Transparency must become synonymous with the notion of nuclear future". Yes, it must. But, currently, secret is synonymous with nuclear power. In France, during he Chernobyl cloud spell, we have got no information about radioactivity rate on food (milk, salads, mushrooms), we have got no prophylaxis, and now we pay this with an increase in thyroid cancer in the east of France. Now, what are the plans if a nuclear accident happens in France ? The army will manage the operations. As you know, the army is mute. Once again, French people will be well informed...

i shudder to think of italy trying to run nuke plants.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:50:09 AM EST
No to Nuclear (none / 1)
melo, you are obviously not a fan of Nuclear Energy. While this wasn't the main point I wanted to discuss, what kind of Energy Policy can in your view address the fossil decline in Europe? And over that, dealing at the same time with the decommissioning of our present Nuclear park?

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 07:01:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
Before attempting to answer this question, we need to change the frame of the debate.

Looking at the last several thousand years of history, where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?  Looking at the past several hundred years, and not ignoring the environmental catstrophe which is now our home planet, within what perspective of current society would managing such dangerous technology make any kind of universal sense.

When these questions can be answered satisfactorily without resorting to a completely controlled top-down society, only then can we begin to discuss the pluses and minus on the technology side.

From another angle, what's the point.  I for one have already decided, based upon the best evidence at hand, the only future which makes sense to me includes visions of happy children playing in a society powered by the source of life itself, the sun.  Measured against that vision, anything else smacks of the same blindness which has brought us to our current situation.

We are simply not evolved enough to manage anything other than the gentle power of the sun as it reaches us, for example, causing the temperature differences which bring us the wind.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 07:44:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 1)

[...]where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?

France?

I for one have already decided, based upon the best evidence at hand, the only future which makes sense to me includes visions of happy children playing in a society powered by the source of life itself, the sun.

I swear I saw lillies flourishing when I read that ;) Now seriously, that sounds pretty good, the problem is how we get there.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 08:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
France's 50 year management of its nuclear plants does not even begin to address the questions i raised, about very long term stable societies, where the track record to date is a destroyed planet.  And you did see lillies, probably in my hair.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:16:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
I only count one question, on who is able to manage the technology.

I also don't see Nuclear as being the spine of a long lasting steady state society. As renewable energies progress, with time they will all surpass Nuclear, if not on other grounds first, ultimately on economic terms, because the decommissioning is incredibly cheaper and safety concerns are very small (if existent).

But we can't just dream with perfect societies, we have to build them. And for now (and coming back to my initial question to melo) how can we possibly do it without Nuclear?

P.S.: That is evil of you, to destroy beautiful flours to adorn your hair.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 4)
The second question was within what social perspective would such management make universal sense, which you haven't answered.

Renewable technologies have already progressed where some are more cost competitive, especially when all hard and external costs are factored in, and windpower has already shown what will happen with the other technologies.  Thus there is no social need for any nuclear energy, as the renewables can already do the job.  It will entail, of course, the kind of investment necessary to scale up nuclear as well, but it has more social benefit.

Just for the record, Luis, you are talking to a dreamer who happened to be one of the first builders of windpower in the world, so please no lectures on building.  I built the first commercial turbine in the US, asked a developer friend to bring in the first Danish machines to the US, and developed the first utility scale windpark in the world.  I do put my dreams into action.

Renewable energies can deliver all the energy our civilization needs, when combined with demand management and conservation (negawatts.)  In the time frame necessary.  Including all the necessary supply and delivery infrastructure.  Globally.  With much social benefit and virtually no downside.

This view is the result of thousands of studies over four decades, four decades of technology development, and three decades of commercial development.  It is no longer a dream.

Attention:  No flowers were killed in the making of this comment thread, they were all metaphorical, as in i came from San Francisco.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
The third and fourth questions are:

  1. Which technology would be quicker to market? As I understand nukes take a little while to build, sustainables not quite so much, even if the grid sometimes needs to be extended while they're being built.

  2. If the free marketeers love free markets so much, why are they largely promoting the quasi-state organised not-really-free nuke market so over the rather more entrepreneurial sustainables market?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 02:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 1)
wish i had a 10 to give you, crazy horse...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
Looking at the last several thousand years of history, where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?

That's why we are building systems which will not need any management or oversight, systems based on how the natural world works.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 1)
You can build a plant which won't need management or oversight for thousands of years?

Neat trick. How does that work, exactly?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
Like this.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
well, since the stupid software on andre's site doesn't accept that in my reality 79+2=81, so has refused my comment, i shall include it here, as it does try to point to alternatives.

 Hello Andre, thanks for blogging, and giving us a chance to have our little say.
  I too believe nuclear energy to be regressive, and beneficial to very few, compared to the negative characterial change necessary for societies to police the risks inherent in the technology.
  France is just one country, and one of the most advanced and responsible in Europe.
  Your job is to ensure clean, safe energy at the best price to as many europeans as possible, by directing our taxes intelligently into the proper channels to respect our commitments to Kyoto, and as much as possible to exceed them.
  What kind of example are we setting of moral coherence when we sanction Iran for wanting nuclear energy, when we could be modelling much saner alternatives?
  Nuclear energy is a horribly expensive wrong tree, to be barking up right now.
  One look at Naples should tell you how well nuclear energy is going to be managed in Italy. Recently the Italian government snuck in incinerators as a renewable resource. This does not do Europe proud.
  Be careful what you think you want, because you might get it!
  Why are you pushing nuclear with such enthusiasm, that could be going into teaching us about negawatts and reducing consumption by intelligent retrofitting of houses with proper insulation, rolling out MUCH more incentive for wind and solar?
  The corporations who run the nuclear and much else in the energy industries have already shown us over and over how allergic they are to truth and transparency. They are already stinking rich also.
  You would be much better off stimulating the less subsidised sectors of the economy, like builders, roofers and electricians, you know the 'little people' good governance is supposed to represent, rather than the usual brigade.
  There are a lot of us waking up right now, and although there's a lot you're doing right, we are educating ourselves. Please do not waste precious public funds on any more boondoggles with such potentially tragic consequences, no matter how nobly or cleverly justified by clever media campaigns, ie greenwashing.
  No offence intended, but if you're going to run ethanol in your Saab, please push for it not to be made from food crops, or likewise your efforts to bring us into better energy balance remain token symbols, and not what we need for visionary guidance and leadership.

A citizen of the EU.

in the dim hope he might wander over here...

my partner's dad was a nuclear engineer in dusseldorf back in the seventies. he died in his 30's from thymus gland cancer.

she has often told me of his stories about how shoddily the safety protocols were followed, and that's in Germany, where they really usually do sweat the details.

Crazy Horse tells it like it is, natch,  downthread.

I am no scientist, but no matter how relatively uneducated i am scientifically, it seems like fallout, like acid rain, does not only land on those who profited from its use.

i feel to keep silent is to be complicit, and we owe something to future generations that's a lot better than our leaders are pulling for now.

i am only one voice, and not a very articulate one at that.

De Anander has the most completely human summation of this dilemna, imo, and really the gifts to speak about it in the manner it deserves. these little pixel-droppings are all i've got...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
"what kind of Energy Policy can in your view address the fossil decline in Europe?"

How about "fewer people"?

There is no advantage to any energy policy that accepts the axiom that More Is Better. For example, suppose that nuclear energy didn't have the problems that it has, and was too cheap to meter, etc. Then what is accomplished by building more of it? Nothing but further extension of an ultimately unsupportable population size.

The ONLY long term solution to the sustainability problem is the ultimate reduction of the global population to a sustainable level, and there are two choices about how to get there. 1.) Voluntarily. 2.) One or more of The Four Horsemen (three, really) of the Apocalypse.

All political history indicates that we will choose option 2.

by asdf on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 02:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
Population size doesn't depend on electricity consumption. The truth is very likely that you can find a much stronger reverse connection between power consumption and population growth.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
"Population size doesn't depend on electricity consumption. The truth is very likely that you can find a much stronger reverse connection between power consumption and population growth."

Perhaps I was not clear. There are ALREADY too many people; population GROWTH is only a secondary problem. For example, are you proposing that India, China, etc. are going to reduce their electricity consumption over time? And Europe, also?

It seems to me that the problem is not the pollution or climate effect or non-renewable-ness of any given energy technology, but the fact that any energy "solution" becomes objectionable when scaled up to a size that can support the current global population. It applies to all of the options: Wind, solar, coal, nuclear, oil, etc.

The result: Continued discussion of how to "solve" the energy problem by changes on the supply side, when the real issue is the insatiable demand. Conservation can help, but if you don't combine conservation with a strong program to reduce the population, you end up building a system that can support an additional population increase--until you hit a new, higher demand limit.

by asdf on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
Conservation can help, but if you don't combine conservation with a strong program to reduce the population, you end up building a system that can support an additional population increase--until you hit a new, higher demand limit.

If we look at Europe today we have a underlaying population decrease (offset by immigration), despite record levels of potential population support. The dynamics are not as simple as Malthus imagined.

My take is that at this time it is well established that a child normally survives and can reproduce. That means you need one to carry on two families traditions, and one in reserve. Coupled with good access to birth control, and record long schooling / problems with getting established on the job market has pushed the age of first childbirth so high that even getting children gets problematic for biological reasons. Then you also need coupling to accur in the right time interval. So not everybody gets their statistically desired 2 children, thus putting reproduction rates below break even.

Europe is on the other side of the population hump. America and Oceania is somewhere on the top. Asia and Africa are still growing, and are projected to grow another 3.5-4 billions together in the next 150 years. If we make it that far populations world wide will probably be in decline. Its a big if, but I would say access to electricity helps.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 3)

The yellow stuff is the natural population change. We will have in some years natural decrease, but the longer the shape of our demography and the longer life time make it, that so far only in eastern Europe (except Slovac, but marginally), Germany and the Netherlands there is a natural population decrease.

The red is net immigration.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 3)
Asia and Africa are still growing, and are projected to grow another 3.5-4 billions together in the next 150 years.

Somewhat misleading - East Asia has well below replacement level fertility rates. (China 1.77, South Korea 1.29, Japan, 1.22, Taiwan 1.23) Southeast Asia is varied: Thailand, Vietnam, and Burma have all dropped below; Indonesia's almost there while Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia and the Philippines remain well above. So what we're really talking about here is South Asia and the Arab countries of West Asia (Iran and Turkey are also below replacement level).

by MarekNYC on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Leaving money on the table (none / 1)
One of the fundamental axioms in economics is that in an "efficient" transaction there will be no money left on the table. That is, that the sellers will charge as much as they can.

We have already seen this happening with wind power, as the price of building wind farms has risen dramatically over the past few years. I know that Jerome will point out the many causes for this, but the fact is that, eventually, wind will end up only slightly cheaper than other technologies. Why should a firm charge 80% of the going rate for conventionally generated power when it would still be a good deal at 95%?

One can have state controlled, or regulated entities, and prevent this from happening, but the trend has been away from this for decades. If this is going to be reversed it will take more political will then is currently in evidence.

What I'm leading up to is that nuclear will never be a "bargain". Costs all along the supply chain from ore to fuel rods, to disposal, to facilities will all rise, just because they can. So, whatever other reasons there may be for increasing reliance on nuclear cheaper electricity won't be one of them.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 08:48:51 AM EST
Re: Leaving money on the table (none / 0)
good, pragmatic point, rdf.

another example of jeavon's paradox.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Leaving money on the table (none / 1)
What it keeps coming back to is the historic absence of a workable enterprise model for a utility and the perception that the only alternatives are Public = "State" and "Private" = Owned by a "Corporation" for private profit

What is needed is a "Not for Loss" or "Profit for Purpose" enterprise model.

That's where my stuff comes in - a partnership-based model which is:

(a) a market solution which beats state allocation of resources IMHO;

(b) a market solution without profit leaking out to "rentiers" - so it thereby undercuts the "Private" sector and  out-competes them through the "Co-operative Advantage"....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy P (none / 1)
On transparency there was a lot of discussion a year ago on this diary:

European Tribune - Terrorism, Nuclear power and Secrecy

Just heard (Wed. 7/18) swedish radio news about the earthquake and nuclear power plant accident in Japan. Apparently the spill was larger then first reported (no numbers) and IAEA has encouraged Japan to be more open about nuclear power. No surprises thus far.

Now comes the real news (to me anyway).

According to Jan-Olov Liljenzin, professor in nuclear chemistry at Chalmers university of technology (second largest technical college in Sweden) this is probably an empty gesture, and IAEA knows it. After september 11th 2001 nuclear companies has been ordered (by the governments) to keep secret anything that could help terrorists.

Apparently after the accident in Forsmark last summer Liljenzin encouraged Vattenfall to publicly explain the specifics of the electric system. They explained that they were not allowed too by law.



Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM EST
Re: Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy P (none / 0)
They explained that they were not allowed too by law.

democracy at its finest...welcome to the new world order!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy P (none / 1)
If the voters didn't like it they'd elect someone who'd fix it, right?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy P (none / 1)
if there was a pol willing to pander to us, we'd vote for them

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As of last night, (4.00 / 3)
I am the official Democratic Party candidate for County Commissioner (District 2 of 3). I will gladly pander to your sustainability, conservation, demand-reduction, solar-based power-generation 'whims'. Can we use our timber 'waste' to generate bio-diesel, too? Just asking. (We're definitely not suited for nuclear-based power generation, as everything in this county is slowly slipping into the Columbia River.)

Actually, a central part of my 'platform' is local solar- and wind-based generation. (Jerome - get ready to finance a deal out here. All I have to do is win the election.)

paul spencer

by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Wed May 21st, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: As of last night, (none / 1)
congrats paul!

i'll say one day, 'I met my first president on ET!'

panda away!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 06:22:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know if congratulations (4.00 / 3)
are exactly in order. More like a super-pain-in-the-ass is likely. But I love my county, and it needs some help. Same with my country, but they're not sufficiently aware of how much help they need - yet.

paul spencer
by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 11:32:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: As of last night, (none / 1)
Does this mean I have to careful about what pictures of you I post?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 11:34:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: As of last night, (none / 0)
I have never worried about that. In the days of COINTELPRO some of my friends were a little nervous about such things. I always figured that they had sources that I would never recognize, so what the hell? (Turned out I was quite right - they did have sources that I never did recognize.)

paul spencer
by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 03:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: As of last night, (none / 0)
Congratulations! Let us know what you think we can provide to help.

Timber waste is much better burnt in some form of electricity + heat generation process. It can be done fairly cleanly, even in a minor plant - with the latest technology and scrubbers. Same with waste paper - better to burn it for the energy than go through an energy expensive recycling process (and transportation).

I am not really familiar with the N. American situation where newsprint and LWC demand is stable or falling. And none of this applies to the escalating paper demand in Asia. But in Europe, the unilateral recycling directives of the EU go against common sense. All the new fibre comes from Finland and Sweden. It goes down south and is expensively recycled about 5 times in large urban centres and ridiculously expensively elsewhere. But new fibre is needed continuously.

It would make more sense to burn the paper locally, but technologically correctly. Sweden and Finland can supply all the new fibre that Europe needs sustainably (from the forest POV).

A couple of million annual tonnes of papermaking capacity have come. or are coming offline in Finland. There'll probably be more.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: As of last night, (none / 0)
Paul: email me, I have an interesting soundbite/headline for you that Chris and I have discussed.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I want to hear it, (none / 0)
but what's your e-mail address? Do you want me to e-mail Chris and get the address from him?

paul spencer
by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 04:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: I want to hear it, (none / 0)
Can you work it out from my user info? It's h***.p**@k***.fi

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 06:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: I want to hear it, (none / 0)
Oops that didn't work well.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 06:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Information is just what I need. (none / 1)
I was thinking about asking for just such advice from ETers. I have to say that my knowledge of the energy cost of recycling paper is very low; I assumed - as most of us here - that there was a substantial benefit.

As to heat generation from wood waste - we are a very low-population density, somewhat spread-out county. Fitting heat generation from 'waste' logging detritus to our needs will be difficult, except for individual wood stoves (which make up a fairly substantial portion of home heating around here). Do you have any leads/information on the best approaches for this type of heating? (I have a catalytic stove, and I'm not happy with much of anything about it, but it does seem to put out a relatively low amount of smoke.)

About biodiesel - the point is that we have one bus that makes three trips per weekday from Stevenson to Vancouver, WA. I want to expand the service somewhat and reduce the number of cars and trucks making cold starts for short runs in this area. Biodiesel works from several points-of-view to make the whole project more attractive: local source, local labor, lower cost, and (so I'm told) cleaner-burning fuel.

As far as electrical generation - I'm 100% interested. One of my main 'planks' is to generate electricity locally. If you look at a wind chart, you will see that the Columbia River Gorge is rated highly, so that's where I see the main emphasis. However, we are 90% forested, so it's a huge resource, too. In any case - as I say - I'm 100% interested.

Another of my projects will be - assuming election - to kick-start regional participation in a conservation/generation consortium. We've had such a project before, and it was actually quite useful - house insulation, weather-stripping, and such - but Bonneville Power Authority was the main funding source, and you can imagine what's happened there since 1994 - one cutback after another in any project that made sense for the general population.

As to the woods and logging - we are the heart of the Douglas Fir forests. Our 'plantation' timber (we don't cut old-growth nowadays) is still some of the best structural wood in the world. There is a downturn in the market, but there is still demand for our lumber. We cut to metric and ship to Japan, which tells you something about the quality right there. I'd rather have a strictly local market, but with this type of product there will be a distant demand as well.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (paulgspencer@gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 04:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Information is just what I need. (none / 0)
The most efficient stoves are the Russian/Finnish masonry stoves with a typical over 80% use of available BTUs. Properly built, you can put your hand over the chimney and feel only a slight warmth escaping.

They burn very clean - but it depends on the wood and how dry it is. I lived through several harsh winters  with two these at each end of a large wooden house in the forest. They are economical with wood: we had a winter's worth stacked up outside under the eaves.

The easiest biodiesel is locally pressed oil from say rape seed. Your diesel engine will have to be slightly adapted, but it is not major mechanics. It's much easier to adapt an older diesel engine. An old Perkins in a boat would probably burn the stuff as it is.

The building research division of VTT the Finnish state technical research centre was been developing new timber construction techniques. One of these is massive  laminated load-bearing beams that have been used to span 20-30 metres.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Information is just what I need. (none / 0)
not these things?

the standard traditional heating in Polish homes, but they're generally coal fired

by MarekNYC on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 06:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Information is just what I need. (none / 0)
Similar.  The point is the massive brick encasement to soak up and then radiate heat. And the somewhat convoluted flue path to expose as much surface area to rising heat, plus a method of closing off the flue when the fire has burned out to prevent cold air entering above.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri May 23rd, 2008 at 04:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy P (none / 0)
Did this study even miss some nuclear reactors?

http://www.american.edu/TED/bulgarnk.htm

by Upstate NY on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 11:32:17 AM EST
Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


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