Remember those campaigns against nuclear power in the eighties, promoted by the greens and environmentalists? The logo of those campaigns have long disappeared, and particularly after the Tchernobyl disaster, some countries have frozen or promised to dismantle their nuclear power networks (such as Sweden).
So where are we today? What is the situation? Energy has become strategic, ensuring global power to energy producers over those energy-dependent countries, like the US, Europe, Japan or China. These dependent countries have developed different strategies to secure their energy, China for instance is investing in Africa and deveoppling aid to many developping countries in exchange for energy deliveries. The US have different stategies which seem not to be working very well (oil production in Iraq bellow befor-the-war levels). And where does Europe stand?
So where are we today? What is the situation? Energy has become strategic, ensuring global power to energy producers over those energy-dependent countries, like the US, Europe, Japan or China. These dependent countries have developed different strategies to secure their energy, China for instance is investing in Africa and deveoppling aid to many developping countries in exchange for energy deliveries. The US have different stategies which seem not to be working very well (oil production in Iraq bellow befor-the-war levels). And where does Europe stand?
Europe faces different challenges. Firstly it is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the green house effect. Secondly, with the reduction of its reserves of natural gas and oil Europe will have to rely increasingly on imports of natural gas and oil from unstable regions (and from authoritarian regimes) such as Russia, Algeria, the Middle East. And these resources are also not eternal. And contribute to increase CO2 emissions. The tendency is to increase the number of coal plants to produce energy, but which contribute heavily to CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, according to specialists, Europe faces the growing threat of electricity shortages because growth in demand has outstripped investment in new power stations. Analysts predict posible power shortfalls as early as in winter 2006. Russian gas exports to Europe will grow no more than 25 percent and will not surpass 200 billion cu. before 2016, a report of the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies (OIES) says. Russia is unable to cover a growing energy demand of Europe, and as soon as in 2010 the European Union could face a gas shortage. Presently Europe imports some 50% of its energy needs, in 2030 it should be around 75%.
This weekend's Finland summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the European Union leaders was intended to be a friendly and informal affair. Instead, following recent attacks on democracy and freedom of speech in Russia, Europeans are increasingly suspicious of Russian behaviour, yet fear that their energy dependency on Russia leaves them no cards to play. Energy is an essential EU's strategic concern, but human rights groups and members of the European Union and the various national parliaments have mobilized considerable pressure for the EU leaders to make clear their growing alarm at Russia's trend toward authoritarian rule.
In this context Europe has all interest in increasing internal energy & electricity production to a maximum, reducing external dependency. So which are the alternatives? Coal is not a clean alternative and also not a renewable one, although coal resources will last longer than oil and gas ones. Renewable energies should be the first alternative. The EU has been promoting an action plan to improve production of energy from renewable sources from 6% in 2000 to 12% by 2010. But not all countries are equally engaged in that process. Denmark, Germany and Spain have invested heavily in wind power (Portugal also lately). Germany is the world’s 1st wind power producer and Spain is already the second. Yet, wind power production is not enough to cover increasing energy demand. Its energy production makes up less than 1% of world-wide electricity use. However it accounts for 23% of electricity use in Denmark, 8% in Spain and 4.3% in Germany. Globally, wind power generation more than quadrupled between 1999 and 2005.
Solar photovoltaic energy has also developed (namely in Spain) but it remains marginal. The production of biodiesel and bioethanol has been increasing as well and it is an alternative to oil products, because they also do not produce CO2. The EU is developing actions so that biodiesel and bioethanol used by cars will reach 6% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Yet the production of such fuels from agriculture products and waste requires too large areas to be cultivated and also has its production and transport costs. And that also means huge subventions to the agriculture. Presently only Sweden has reached the 6% objective, while Germany is the first bioethanol producer and Spain the first biodiesel producer. But that could be a serious alternative, considering that transport is one of the most important producers of CO2. Brazil is a good example, nowadays between 40 and 50% of its cars and trucks work on bioethanol from sugarcane.
However, energy production from these and other renewable energy sources, even with increased production, will not be able to meet the demand in Europe and replace decreasing oil and gas resources. So the question is whether nuclear power can be an alternative. Countries like Finland have already started building up new nuclear power plants while others are considering it (even Portugal is debating the construction of a first nuclear power plant). In Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair has given his strongest signal that he backs the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. He said Britain faced the prospect of being largely reliant on foreign gas imports for its future energy needs and that nuclear could be an alternative. Presently France is the first world producer, with nearly 80% of it’s electricity production coming from uranium. In Belgium it accounts for 55%, 30% in Germany, nearly 30% in Finland and 22% in Spain. In the US it represents less than 20% of electricity production as well as in the UK.
Some argue that nuclear power is very clean and safe nowadays, without producing CO2 emissions (others argue that Uranium treatment produces CO2 and that uranium is not a renewable source). Opponents say that nuclear power requires massive public aid and is therefore too expensive and that disposal of nuclear waste is also very expensive. They prefer to invest in improving energy efficiency and in renewable energy sources. They claim that in Britain, for instance, replacing nuclear power plants by gas and coal ones would “only” increase CO2 emissions by 4% to 8%. Those in favour of nuclear say that between the only two alternatives, coal and nuclear, this is by far the best less polluting choice and that costs are not as high as its detractors claim. I say that Finland is reputed to be a very well managed country and a country which thrives to make the best sustainable management of its resources. Clearly they should be a good example to consider.
The bottomline is that Europe (and the world) is facing a real energy policy challenge in the coming years. With decreasing own gas and oil resources, with increasing oil prices and dependency from unstable and unreliable markets, Europe has all the interest in securing its production of energy and electricity and reducing its energy dependency. We all have our share to play in this, by reducing energy consumption, by using public transports. And by supporting our governments to make the best choices.
Read more:
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire