A warm welcome to my blog
February 29, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...I am excited to announce the launch of my web diary. On a weekly basis, I would like to use this communication tool as a way to share with you my ideas, my projects and even my concerns in the energy field. But my priority in this blog is to listen to your suggestions. The challenges in the energy sector are so urgent and so big that if we are to succeed we have to face them together.
When I took office in 22 November 2004 the price of oil (NYMEX) was 52.50$ per barrel. Today the same barrel costs $103. Just a decade ago, we perceived energy as something that could be taken granted: it was abundant and cheap. These times are over. The phantom of economic recession is looming in many economies across the planet and all the accusing fingers point to the same responsible: energy. It is also blamed for a much bigger catastrophe: climate change. Many of the conflicts around the globe involve the fight for energy resources and energy has become, increasingly a powerful political tool, if not a political weapon. At the same time, many see this sector as the great opportunity of the 21st century. New investments in generation capacity and transmissions infrastructures are evaluated in trillions of Euros. Many speak of renewable energy sources as the new “.com” sector and never before have energy companies had been so profitable. Energy is a sector experiencing troubles and challenges, risks and opportunities. Some people consider these times dangerous, others interesting. But nobody is indifferent.
Certainly not the European Commission. Here we can talk of a real revolution. Since October 2005, when the European Council called for a European Energy Policy things have moved very fast. In March 2006, the Commission presented its Green Paper. Three weeks later, Heads of State and Government called for 20 concrete actions to be undertaken by the end of that year. In July, the Commission adopted a first strategy for international energy relations. In November the action plan for energy efficiency with a clear first objective: 20% energy savings by 2020. On 10 January 2007 the first strategic energy review settle the great axes of this new policy. The legislative measures followed. On 19 September, the third (and hopefully the definitive) package on the internal energy market. On 22 November the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) plan. Last 23rd January the framework directive for renewable energies.
The last milestone of this new policy took place yesterday, in the Energy Council. I perceived among the 27 ministers a real wish to move forward. The SET plan was approved creating the necessary framework for energy research in Europe. Ministers made a huge step forward to reach a political compromise on the Internal Energy Market package. I am confident that the Council and the Parliament could approve these essential legislative measures in June. Finally, I was very encouraged by the constructive debate on the Renewable Directive, which I hope will be approved during the French Presidency.
Things are moving in the right direction but there are new challenges ahead. I would like to invite all my fellow bloggers and all citizens to contribute your ideas. I would like 2008 to be the European year of Energy Efficiency. I’m proposing to table measures to increase energy efficiency in our buildings, in our energy devices, in the way we consume energy. What are your ideas? What measures would you like to see the Commission take? What would you include in the new legislation?
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
February 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
S.O.S Live Earth and Total for HEALTH ! For:Energy-saving is an essential part of the EU’s strategy to reduce the Challenges-limit carbon dioxide emissions,Sustainability, improve Security of supply and Competitiveness: the process of realising overall by 2020 !. AN ENERGY POLICY for EUROPE COM(2007)1 final-proposals and targets:
Estimated savings potential annual primary energy consumption 20%
Reduction target of Greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 1990) 20%
Increasing the level of Renewable energy 20%
Endorse the binding targets of minimum Biofuels 10%
Limiting Climate Change –Policy Option –to improve the Emissions Trading Scheme 2°C
Total-in numbers-for to retain –work for Office of the Energy Observatory and European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers 72 !
(The public Debate on introducing a prohibition on the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the European Union-The legislative initiative and project of Directive-response Position DGTREN- Commissioner Piebalgs
Summary:” I appreciate your concern for our multifaceted work on energy efficiency,and your creative ideas,even going as far as proposing draft EU legislation” ;in April 2007-Bucharest-University-Piebalgs-Vosganian-Naidin!). My presentation :www.eficientaenerg.ro - Petre Naidin –-Deputy in the Romanian Parliament, 1992-2004 –www.cdep.ro-I initiate
-The Law no.199/2000 concerning to the efficient use of energy.
For Future cooperation: Your project in Intelligent Energy for Efficiency and Prevent Climate Change for Europe and Globe -PARTENERSHIP with Petre Naidin, in the frame of -Example:
- The second “IEE-II-Intelligent Energy Europe”-Programme 2007-2013 and The first “Competitiveness and Innovation framework Programme (CIP)” ;
- the Seventh Framework Programme(FP-7)-2008-2013 ;
- Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign 2005-2008.
1. Romania –Naidin : Sustainable energy promotion and communication http://www.sustenergy.org/tpl/page.cfm?pagID=15&id=391&submod=details OR http://www.sustenergy.org :Partenerships-Partenership database SEARCH By geographical scope :Romania –Naidin Promotion of Energy Intelligent Building PLAN
Sustainable energy in buildings
b.The activity:
1.Statement: ”Your project Promotion of Energy Intelligent Building PLAN had been selected among the 20 final candidates for the Sustainable Energy Annual Awards the European Commission is organising-2006”- February 1,2007-Brussell-Marc Patuzzo Pracsis s.p.r.l
2.NOW:VIDEO Recordings- http://www.managenergy.net/news/news.html- The first Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign Award Competition aimed to reward the most outstanding sustainable energy partners. Winning partnerships were honoured during the Award ceremony of 1 February 2007, promoted to the press and showcased as an example of excellence(Directly -http://www.managenergy.net/news/news.html#seeac)
3.ManagEnergy is an initiative of the EU-DGTREN - a partner search system with some 2700 organisations, including 350 energy agencies-inclusively Dialog Com-Naidin
4.Participant «The power to inovate European Info Day-Brussels,19 April 2007-DGTREN- European Commission-Partner search document + Annex- «
5.Participant « European Forum on Eco-Innovation :Markets for Sustainable Constructon-ETAP-Environmental Technologies Action Plan- Brussels ,11 June 2007,European Commission »
6. Participant « ENERGY GLOBE 2007-Environmental Award Worldwide»,
7.Is publishing a catalogue on the “Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign”.etc.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
A Legislative Framework Programme necessary on promotion
Intelligent Energy Building for Live Earth!
( For Energy Globe Award -2007 –The world award for sustainability )
Project on Law/Directive:L
1.Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the sale of incandescent light bulbs
2.Energy performance certificate of a building
include a CO2 emission indicator( Romania- Law for the modification of art.5 on Law 372/2005 on the energy performance of buildings; EU-27- Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings)
3.The Programme for implementation
White Certificates Schemes on the increase of Energy Efficiency .
Stakeholder consultation on the revision of Energy Labelling Framework Directive 1992/75/EEC- Naidin Petre!http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm#consultation
February 29th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Good to see a blog on such an important topic such as Energy!
Welcome
February 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Welcome to the blogsphere Mr. Commissioner!
Europe faces today tow main challenges on Energy, on one hand its dependence on liquid fuels derived from Oil and on the other the dependence on Natural Gas for heating and electricity generation. Once these problems are understood the answers are straight forward, but here I leave some comments:
. Transport – it is in this sector that we spend most of the Oil we consume (of which most is imported) and where some adjustments could have the deepest impact. The Commission has been focusing on this, both on freight transport as in people, supporting and leading projects in high speed rail (HSR) and water-borne freight. But we need to make haste, our dependence on lorries for freight is still profound, and large part of the Union are yet to be covered by HSR. I live in Lisbon, an air flight ticket to Brussels costs me something like 100€ to a trip completed in two and a half hours. The same trip by train will cost me at least the double and would take some 24 hours. With the continuing rise of Oil prices flight will eventually became out of reach for the middle class, what then? In my view the Commission should speed up its Transport programs and pressure state executives to do the same.
. Natural Gas – this is a problem that has already made some headlines, but for which an European conscience still doesn’t exist. Our internal production and demand are going in opposite ways and it is unlikely that our neighbours in Russia and North Africa can fill that gap for long. We urgently need a program to phase out electricity generation from Natural Gas, using the volumes we still have access to for direct heating purposes, where its use is most efficient. A large project (at the Union’s scale) to take advantage of our renewable resources is needed (e.g. Solar power in Iberia, Wind power in the North Sea) with the proper integration of a pan-European high voltage grid and energy storage system.
Energy is the great challenge at the dawn of the XXI century, things may look bad at some moments and places, but with a strong Union we shall make it.
The blogpshere is a great place to learn, teach and interact with other people. It can have its bad moments, but the result is always positive. Mr. Piebalgs I hope you enjoy this experience.
Luís
February 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Old litany ! It’s 40 solid years I have been lissening to the old story of the cheap energy…
The fact of the matter is that the E.U. Burocracy has gradually converted to anti-nuke and the
results are very evident in all our pockets!
Time for real change of direction!
Regards
Dominic
February 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Hello Andris!
Very encouraging to learn about your blog, a good move in acommunicative spirit. I’ve told my readership about this, please go to http://www.era.se and have a little practise of your Swedish;-)
See you in Bx some time soon im March.
Best regards
/Bengt M
February 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Hi, comissioner,
Congratulations for your decision. It is a very wellcome supplementary communication channel on matters that tend to become THE ones in our times.
I’m looking forward to reading your blog, and posting my comments to it.
Today I am very excited after finding out South Stream will need agreement from Ukraine and Romania, or from Turkey to pass through their shelf. I believe in Nabucco project. I think it has to be built first. You’ll have a lot of work to do. Good luck!
February 29th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The launch of your blog is a welcome coincidence on the day you have hopefully received my dossier on promoting biofuels through the Bio Power Roadshow. The idea is to raise awareness for the use of biofuels, for both transport and aviation, in a fun and exiting manner through the medium of Formula 1 motor racing. The benefits have been well documented but the positives of second generation biofuels, as a sustainable low emission fuel, need to be highlighted to disprove the many doubters of this important energy source. The use of Sweet Sorghum and Jatropha, both of which will grow on land unsuitable for other crops, are both ideal candidates as a base biomass but the information needs to be imparted to the general public who are getting mixed messages. The bottom line is that oil is running out but as long as the Sun shines crops will grow.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Handelt RWE AG hochriskant???
Schrottreaktor Biblis muß flugs vom Netz
Die im Bundesverband Christliche Demokraten gegen Atomkraft (CDAK) organisierten atomkritischen CDU/CSU- Mitglieder haben die aktuelle Entscheidung des Hessischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofes in Kassel, eine Laufzeitverlängerung für das RWE-Kraftwerk Biblis A via Übertragung von Strommengen zu untersagen, als wegweisend begrüßt.
Biblis
© fuldainfo - se/pixelio
Das Urteil sei vor allem eine Ohrfeige für den derzeitigen Vorstandsvorsitzenden der RWE AG Dr. Jürgen Großmann. Der Sicherheitszustand des von Großmanns Konzern betriebenen ältesten deutschen Atomreaktors Biblis A ist nach Einschätzung der CDAK-Fachexperten bereits dermaßen desolat, daß sie davon ausgehen, dass es dem Vorstandsvorsitzenden der RWE AG binnen Monatsfrist nicht gelingen wird, der Öffentlichkeit für den Uraltreaktor eine Vollkaskoversicherung mit unbegrenzter Deckung beizubringen.
Ein Terroranschlag mit einem Passagierflugzeug auf das hessische Atomkraftwerk Biblis A würde einer neuen Studie zufolge sogar weiträumige Evakuierungen erforderlich machen. Der Meiler halte dem direkten Aufprall nicht stand, so daß seine Schutzhülle zerbrechen und das Atomkraftwerk tödliche radioaktive Strahlung freisetzen würde. Sollte Großmann als Chef der RWE AG wider alle Vernunft auf einem Weiterbetrieb seiner Atommeiler ohne Vollkaskoversicherung bestehen, dann gebühre ihm in der “Gefährder-Kartei für die Sicherheit Deutschlands” augenscheinlich der vorderste Platz.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
BINGO
February 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Dear Mr Pieblags,
thank you for great iniative and also for your groundbreaking work that puts things in order, i.e. that energy efficiency is the horse before the carriage (energy supply).
That is why the SET-plan is a bit disappointing. In the shorter perspective it looks fair, but in the longer perspective the strange aspirations for large-scale technologies, that will just sweep away all our sorrows, is too dominant. I think it is partly because the the dependence between on one side a massivly improved energy efficiency and on the other hand how such improvements pave the way for (low-density) renewable fuels, is not sufficiently explored.
Now we get the impression that CCS (not yet proven), hydrogen (hardly energy efficient if derived by use of electricity) and nuclear (certainly not cheap), should save us later.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Welcome to the blogosphere. A quote from the first energy crisis in 1973-74 remains as relevant today: “The energy crisis is certainly one of the most complex subjects ever put before the media, and through them, to the … public. It encompasses international relations, economics, science, and that most unpredictable of groups, the consuming public. [Walker 1974]” What’s very different though with 30 years ago is the internet, as a promising medium to reach and engage citizens throughout Europe, and even beyond.
Regarding your question on measures we would like the Commission to consider, we just looked at many of the National Energy Efficiency Actions Plans submitted under the energy services directive. While it’s great to have a panorama on energy efficiency throughout Europe, as well as an ultimate compendium of energy efficiency measures and some nice surprises, there are some large gaps:
1- information, education, knowledge, tools, … could never suffice. Most of what is needed exists in some form somewhere, but a culture of sharing freely in the public domain is needed.
2- few member states include ambitious implementation of the EuP directive into their plans
3- certification, periodic inspection and quality control on the energy performance of equipment, systems and professionals is only addressed sporadically
4- we see few programmes on demand management
5- asset management, and in particular approaches to remove veteran equipment
6- while most plans include measures on building insulation and upgrades of technical installations, few explore the frontier of low and ultra-low energy buildings
7- plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles are 2 technologies which are likely to reach the market within the lifetime of the energy services directive, but few considerations are given to facilitate and accelerate their introduction
8- few plans explicitly address electric motor driven systems, while this is the biggest use of electricity, as well as an area with a large and cost-effective savings potential
March 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am
I really appreciated this new blog, particularly as it comes from the first ever energy commissioner to describe energy efficiency as his “number one priority ” - and appear to mean it. It is a priority I share.
It is an interesting publicity idea to dub 2008 as Energy Efficiency Year: but the only trouble is we are already into the third month of 2008. So I would propose instead ignoring the “calendar year” concept. And simply make it Energy Efficiency Year for the rest of the term of this Commission.
What would I like in the new legislation? It is a long list. But let’s begin by taking a simple decision. That no building , where the fuel bills are paid from our taxes , is other than an exemplar A rated building. That way, we might see some of that “20% energy efficiency improvements by 2020″ promise turned into reality.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am
In 2006 crude oil production in Saudi Arabia reduced by 2.3% over that in 2005 (10859 b/d vs. 11114 b/d) while domestic consumption rose 6% (2005 b/d vs 1891 b/d). This means that net production declined by 4% (8854 b/d vs 9223 b/d).
This was the first year that Saudi oil production failed to rise. The question for us all is: “Was this a policy decision or was it the constraint of declining reserves?” If the latter we are indeed on the peak of oil production and Saudi Arabia has lost its “swing” facility on oil prices.
Figures from BP’s Statistical Review 2007
March 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Dear Andris,
Congratulations on your new blog and welcome to the real world that is the internet! This is a truly splendid initiative and it will be my intention to check back here at least once week.
Let me introduce myself. I have BSc and PhD degrees in geology and for the last 20 months I have written technical articles on energy for The Oil Drum (TOD) where I have recently been made an editor. The Oil Drum is the web’s premier energy discussion blog which frequently receives over 20,000 unique visits per day. I will post a short article on your blog on TOD this weekend.
And so down to business:
“Just a decade ago, we perceived energy as something that could be taken granted: it was abundant and cheap. These times are over.”
I sense here that you are aware of the threats posed by energy decline and dwindling EU energy security. I respectfully suggest that you are not yet sufficiently concerned about these issues and that more drastic and more urgent actions are required.
One view of global decline in fossil fuels is laid out here by my colleague Luis de Sousa:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3565
And these articles I wrote on the European Gas market draw attention to the fundamental questions about future Norwegian and Russian gas supplies and the share of the global LNG market that Europe may reasonably expect to secure. Building LNG import facilities is no guarantee of supply:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3283
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3401
So these are fundamental questions that can be answered with attached uncertainty and this needs to be realistically built into a European Energy strategy.
___________________________
“It is also blamed for a much bigger catastrophe: climate change. Many of the conflicts around the globe involve the fight for energy resources and energy has become, increasingly a powerful political tool, if not a political weapon. At the same time, many see this sector as the great opportunity of the 21st century. New investments in generation capacity and transmissions infrastructures are evaluated in trillions of Euros.”
A week ago I attended a conference in Aberdeen where Peter Vis laid out the EU energy strategy. Addressing climate change and CO2 emissions seemed to lie at the heart of that policy. This I believe is a mistake and this direction of thinking may provide an ineffective energy policy that ultimately fails.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3663
It is often assumed that policies designed to tackle energy decline and climate change are the same. Indeed there is a large area of overlap - expansion of low C alternative energy sources such as wind and solar and energy efficiency measures are common to both strategies. However, there are certain strategies that are being promoted to tackle climate change which are not energy efficient and which may lead us into energy poverty if they are pursued. In particular, temperate latitude bio fuels are a highly inefficient way of gathering solar energy which have a wide range of detrimental effects. Furthermore I will argue that C sequestration consumes energy without providing any energy return (unless it is used in the context of miscible gas flooding of oil reservoirs which is counter to climate policy). Old coal fired power plant is among the least energy efficient way we have of generating electricity - 30 to 45% efficient. Where is the sense in making this even less efficient by burdening the process with C sequestration? There are much more energy efficient ways of tackling CO2 emissions.
I am writing an article on this sensitive subject which should be published in a week or so and at that point I will present these arguments in greater detail.
_______________________________
“I would like 2008 to be the European year of Energy Efficiency. I’m proposing to table measures to increase energy efficiency in our buildings, in our energy devices, in the way we consume energy. What are your ideas?”
I agree whole heartedly with this but need to draw attention to one glaring omission. The most important energy efficiency measure to consider is the efficiency of energy gathering / energy production systems. This must lie at the very heart of EU energy policy IMHO. And once this idea is taken on board then we will be on the road to our salvation.
I am looking forward to the debate.
Yours sincerely,
Euan Mearns
PS it would be beneficial to have a menu of HTML tags that can be used so that comments may be formatted and charts posted. And a comment preview button would also be useful to have.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Sveiciens no 1992. gada Dānijas brauciena ceļabiedra!
Vai tiešām ar EK atbalstu Latvija nevarētu tikt pie tādas pašas absolūti zaļas bezatlikumu tehnoloģijā strādājošas atkritumu termoelektrocentrāles, kāda kā paraugs visām valstīm darbojas Luksemburgā, uz kurieni (ar neskaidru atdevi) komandējumos braukājuši arī Latvijas funkcionāri?
March 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Dear Commissioner.
Congratulations with your new initiatives to mitigate global warming. I do hope that you are not too optimistic in predicting a fast confirmation of the proposed directives by the Member States.
My reason for writing you is however a different one, related to the EU energy policy in relation to the Third World. Already in 1991 I was in charge of an international conference in Denmark on ways to achieve a sustainable energy development. The participants were high level experts and official representatives from the field of energy and environment. The division of participants were fifty-fifty from developing countries and industrial countries.
The participants from the Third World were fully aware of the urgent need for mitigation of global warming, but they also clearly indicated that they had to give first priority to promoting a decent living standard for human beings in their regions. Their conclusion was that a necessary condition for their participation in the mitigation of global warming was a large scale (and free) transfer of green technologies.
It is now more than 15 years since this conference was held, and in principle the conference conclusion has since been supported by a number of governments in industrial countries - but mostly in retoric and at a very modest and insufficient scale in practice.
It is generally recognised that the fight against global warming is certain to fail if large Third World countries like China, India, Brazil etc. are not fully included in the project. It is also clear that this is not going to succeed as long as the industrial countries are only giving lip service to the proposal of support and transfer of green technology to the Third World. We are already coming close to the point of no return.
On this background my concrete proposal to you is to take up an urgent initiative for a new form of GLOBAL MARSHALL AID for the Third World based on a systematic and free transfer of green technologies in the necessary large scale, i.e. 50 to 100 billion worth on a euro scale. The present scale of support has no chance of achieving the goal.
I am aware that you will not get those billions of euros this year or the next. But you could do a global difference by initiating the GLOBAL PIEBALGS AIDS PROJECT while you are still an EU Commissioner.
With kind regards from Niels I. Meyer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Dear mr Piebalgs,
Firstly I’d like to applaud this initiative. I assume you have dedicated adequate resources in communicating with your European constituancy in order to make optimal use of the knowledge present in it.
Upon your request I am willing to support this endeavour where I can.
I’d like to take the liberty to share some of the key finding of my research so far:
on the formal side:
- state of the art knowledge is hidden from main stream research institutes
– it took concrete interactions with stake holders and compare them with official reports to come to this conclusion
on the content side:
- for road transport: bio fuels, hydrogen, CNG/LNG are significantly suboptimal and temporary at best
- mass produced electric vehicles (EV) are a reality wirhin 3 years (source: CEO Renault Nissan)
- Israel will have 200.000 charging points and 500 battery swapping stations for those cars by then (source: http://www.projectbetterplace.com)
- a member state will join this initiative by the end of this month
- the electricity source of choice for these EV’s is from Solar Thermal power plants (CSP)
– for the EU CSP is also entirely feasable, as indicated by the presentation of CSP for the EU (TREC) by Prince Hassan of Jordan to MEP’s some months ago
— cheaper as coal with CCS; cheaper as nuclear (when taking decommissioning cost into account)
— 100 % reliable, sustainable electricity within 15 years for all member states
— abundant drinking water (a by product of CSP) for the North Sahara
— major business opportunities for EU-industries
- a leading role regarding these 2 phenomena for the EU is entirely feasable. Facilitating your endeavours of reducing the EU’s dependency on -foreign- oil & gas and effectively addressing emissions / climate change
- the EU’s leading role regarding these issues on the world stage will enable it to facilitate its endeavours for a more sustainable course for people, planet and profit
Upon your request I can supply you with in depth information regarding the aforementioned.
Emil Möller
0031651680992
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 am
well done andris!
please check out http://www.eurotrib.com for many interesting discussions on energy, economics, and the european union. i don’t think you will be disappointed, and i’m sure your input would be highly appreciated.
thanks again for opening up discussions on european energy policy to the public, we desperately need more access to accurate information, and the interactivity of blogging suits this goal perfectly.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Dear Andris,
being the director of the Institute of Technology of the University of Tartu, Estonia, I would like to welcome You to the blogging world. I started 3 months ago and find it beneficial in many aspects.
Our institute is among the pioneers of developing energy efficient buildings, we are dealing with reuse of solid waste of power generation etc. However, it is very important to understand in which directions to concentrate the effort on the important issues.
I am sure that You know everything or almost everything about the energy panic and fever in the Baltic states (especially Ignalina, oil shale, wind potential, biofuels, energy import, costs of all these and security issues all combined). Is it possible for you among the first posts of the blog to present Your general view about the future development of the energy sector in the Baltic states?
I will definitely come back soon with the ideas about the energy efficiency of the buildings, as this issue also is of the outmost importance in the Baltic states. For now, once again, welcome!
With kind regards,
Erik Puura
erik.puura@ut.ee
http://www.tuit.ut.ee
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Thank you for giving citizens the opportunity to comment on EU Energy policies.
Energy Efficiency is certainly a valid and important area of concern. However the development of future alternatives to fossil fuel dependence is paramount with no time to waste.
What is your opinion on Enhanced Geo-Thermal systems (EGS), which according to a review published by MIT last year could solve much of our energy headaches of the future just about anywhere in the world: http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
Hi!
Very interesting idea of yours indeed! We hope you will be able to keep up with the flow of ideas you will get and wish you all the best !
We have been trying to rise attention for quite a while to our very own project called “MARE Initiative”, a MEGA clean energy project for Europe. In a nutshell, it’s an offshore project, using solar energy, ocean temerature exchange energy and biomass from Algae. The “smart” combination of these three elements gives you clean energy production 24/7 all year around.
We hope you have time to visit our website !
Regards,
Mare team
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
Thanks for this initiative.
It is now clear that we have done far too little far too slowly with respect to the linked issues of energy security and global warming. We must empower the political leaders to keep fossil fuels safely unused and underground, mitigating the consequences by vastly expanding efforts on renewables and conservation.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Andris,
I’m interested to see you engaging with the wider community and professing to listen to the comments (although I fully expect this is going via an assistant). So I’d like to point up two, slightly left of centre, but key foci of your role.
Benefits and Scale
Benefits, in that its easy to get wrapped up in potential solution routes without understanding the problem - and then to lose sight of why you are doing it at all. As I see it your role is to get europe in a better state regards energy, reducing the substantial risks (environmental, supply, peaking, etc.) to deliver your employers (the people of europe) with the energy they need to sustain them.
In that regulations are only an enabler, and as I think you have found, a poor one at effecting a rate of change that matches the global environment. Although you sit as part of a top down agency, it is from the bottom up that the only real impacting change is likely to occur. Therefore one of the key questions you face is how you can encourage action by all; with the carrot rather than the stick (since time is key). How can people be supported in wanting to change, and how can red tape created by your and national agencies be cut away. A metric of your success will be how many FEWER laws exist to prevent action at the end of your term, and how energised the groundswell action is.
The other is Scale. One or two percentage actions over many years are not going to be sufficient to make the difference required - they will be drowned out by other events. Even 10-20% values over decades are not sufficient. To be purposeful we will need to see the big action on the big targets of energy generation and use.
We need to see the amount of energy required decreasing swiftly while the range and distribution (and thus resilience) of generation increases as fast. Above all, we need to see the majority of people and companies wanting, running, to act - not being dragged to it.
The scale we need is not 1+1+1, its 1,2,4,8,16, with change growing exponentially and it taking on a life of its own. For the real scale of targets we face we need root level behaviour change - and for that willing uptake is needed. In short ’scale’ means big items, big change, wildfire uptake. It will be obvious if you succeed, since people will view energy and its use differently - from the cost side of a balance sheet, to the base valued enabler.
I wish you luck, suggest you question 90% of the accepted wisdom, and await to see the energy star shining brightly.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Miikka Raninen - Tampere University of Tech. Finland
“What are your ideas? What measures would you like to see the Commission take? What would you include in the new legislation?”
The first thing that must be done, before any actions of new legislation can be taken, is to educate the people of Europe of the realities of the situation. Currently the people are not aware that we are running out of oil, even though they might suspect it. In their doubt and uncertainty they will blame the oil companies for the oil prices, demand subsidies to keep their current life styles, and not understand any energy conservation measures imposed by you while the rest of the world, especially India and China, can import their jobs away while continuing to waste energy and pollute the air.
Communication of the basic ideas behind your decisions is something the European Commission does badly. Here in Finland the cap on CO2 emission and the demand for each country to have their share of renewable sources in their energy budget has been met in the media and by the people as some sort of scam by the central European nations to harm our industries. The general complaint is that you there in Brussels do not appreciate how much more energy we here in the cold north have to use for heating and transporting goods long distances. And how the potential for wind and solar are very small here. There are a lot of valid arguments to criticise the EU commission’s decisions and no one to defend your actions. The people do not understand why we should conserve energy and invest in renewables at the expense of our life style and jobs.
How you communicate your ideas is one thing. But what those ideas are is more important. They should include the concept of peak oil as well as its derivatives, the export land model and peak energy. After getting the idea across that cheap oil has effectively already run out, we need to remind people that in many ways there are no alternatives. Oil was just too cheap, too high in energy density, too versatile chemically, for us to just replace it with ’something’ without incurring losses to our life style. We have a lot of ’somethings’ but all of them have their problems. Biofuel is the worst and should be vigorously fought against. It endangers the whole food economy of the world, threatens forests and their biodiversity, and most importantly, allows us in the west to keep smiling and driving our insane unsustainable vehicles for a few more years yet. And the one thing that must be done as soon as possible is get us the people on our way to change our lifestyles. We are like heroin addicts who need withdrawal therapy to survive. And its going to be painful. And you politicians have the almost impossible task of seeing us through it.
I don’t know how far you have researched this subject being so busy a politician as not to have anything on his Agenda page yet (at least no accessible with my browser). But here is a small list of sources to follow if you dare to delve into the darkness…
Quickest way to get to grips with some of these issues is to go to wikipedia page on peak oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Books:
Deffeyes, Kenneth S. Beyond Oil (2005)
Simmons, Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert (2005)
Heinberg, Richard. The Oil Depletion Protocol (2006)
Documentaries:
- Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash (2006)
- The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream (2004)
- The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006)
- What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire (2007)
Online: Robert Newmans History of Oil - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159
A more long-term study would include the articles and research at the Oil Drum http://www.theoildrum.com
Alternatively if you are really interested you should contact ASPO http://www.aspo-global.org
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Please stop the import of US B99 Biodiesel as it is crippling the european biodiesel industry. Whatever happened to the WTO and unfair subsidies? The US Farm and Energy Bills requite to be challenged - What are YOU going to do about this unfair situation??
Argent Energy also require the Animal By-Products Regulations and the Waste Framework Directive to be aligned - please make the EC work for industry not against it.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
First Penned - 15-4-2005
Ref: Irelands Next Famine? – The coming energy crisis and how we avoid it!
Dear Commisioner,
Energy has the same relationship to Irelands Economy as food has to our bodies. Without food we starve and die and without energy our economy dies. Food is a very small part of our complex lifestyles but it is an absolutely essential part. Similarly energy, primarily nowadays supplied by fossil fuels, forms the same relationship in our complex economy – without it the economy cannot produce any of the goods and services we have grown used to.
The problem we now face is how to change our economy over from the cheap energy from fossil fuels to the more expensive inexhaustible supplies of energy available from our environment. We are rapidly approaching the time when the world supply of cheap fossil fuels will not meet the global demand for energy. The energy supply industries are totally focused on fossil fuels with only token efforts made to develop inexhaustible energy sources.
How severe the changeover will be depends upon several factors. If the coming scarcity of fossil fuels is ignored until it is upon us then we may have left it too late to prepare for the post oil era. It will take vast sums for investment in the new sustainable energy future and the past investment in the old energies will have little value as the supply of oil is used up.
The vast treasure of fossil fuels which was laid down hundred of millions of years in the Earths past will have been burnt into smoke in a geological blink of an eye. In fact even taken from a human perspective it will have been squandered and wasted in a very few years of our species long existence on this planet.
Future generations will wonder how we were so foolish to burn this precious feedstock for so many products.
The burning of this fuel has released into the atmosphere carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, which was locked away for hundreds of millions of years under the ground. This sudden release of extra CO2 has increased the greenhouse effect heating up our world. We simply do not know what the eventual effect of this global warming will be but most of the effects will be negative on the planet and its biosphere.
The economies of the developing world are beginning to grow and follow the First World model only too well. Take India and China for instance whose growths are causing a quickening in the demand for oil and gas at a time when oil production is just about at its peak. They will want cars and
televisions and all the good things we have and if they cannot fuel them with oil they will turn to coal based technologies.
This will be a disaster for the planet, as a return to more coal will release even more CO2 into the air thus making the global warming even more severe. So not only must we change over our first world economies to the
inexhaustible non-polluting energy sources we must also persuade and help the developing economies to skip the cheap and dirty energy stage we hopefully will now leave behind.
This will be one hell of a job, but the alternative in the long term will be even more hellish in more ways than one!
The difficulty is not eased by the richest country in the world, the United States, which consists of 4.5% of the world’s population consuming 26% of the world’s energy resources and absolutely refusing to see anything wrong with it. With this example why should the developing world do anything but follow
their lead?
All this is leading to an energy famine, which can be avoided if the switch to the inexhaustible energy sources available in our environment is carried out in a timely manner. Our food supplies also are dependent upon modern production methods which in turn are very energy intensive so it is not outside the bounds of possibility for food production to drop or food to become much more expensive. Either of these outcomes could lead to widespread famine particularly in the poorer parts of the world.
Those countries that change over to sustainable energy sources and sustainable food production before the energy crunch comes will have gained a massive advantage for their economies and peoples.
For Irelands future lets hope we will be one of the wise countries.
Anthony McCarthy .
Peace Commissioner
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Recent results of modeling with the Millennium Institute (soon to relocate to Riga) for the United States have significant implications for the EU.
We found that the best policy by EVERY metric (GDP, CO2, Reduced oil use) was a combination of a maximum push for renewable energy combined with a maximum push for a Non-Oil Transportation system (electrified inter-city rail, Urban Rail, bicycling, walkable neighborhoods). These policies are similar to current French programs, but at a faster rate.
THESE POLICIES GAVE THE USA THE LARGEST ECONOMY, as well as the least CO2 (-50%) and oil use (-62%) in 30 years.
I think that the EU could use a comparable modeling effort,
Best Hopes,
Alan Drake
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Welcome to the blogosphere!
There have been many blog sites involved in discussions of energy policy already, but it will be most useful to have one run by an insider.
What most of the existing ones seem to worry about is the lack of any consideration for alternatives to business as usual by policy makers. What is heard outside the blogosphere are discussions of cutting GHG emissions more or less by some date in the future. There are also vague ideas about improving efficiency while, simultaneously, raising the income levels of those in the developing nations.
The optimists think that there will be technological solutions forthcoming and, depending upon their degree of hopefulness, there is, therefore, little reason to worry at present. The pessimists see the sky falling, some within a decade and some within the next 50 years.
Personally, I side more with the pessimists, in that I think it is imprudent to base policy on the hope that technology will develop solutions in time. Prudence should require planning for the worst case scenario, not the best.
What needs to be added to the discussions are the issues of overpopulation and its consequent impact on the consumption of (non-renewable) resources. This can only be dealt with by some combination of population planning and a refocusing of social goals away from materialism and towards community and social interaction. This may seem utopian, but one needs to start someplace.
I hope this site may develop into a mixture of the practical day-to-day efforts and the longer-range planning that is needed to get people to think beyond the conventional ideas.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I think you have real courage sharing your thinking with the citizens, and letting them post their ideas. I’ve spent several years on blogs and message boards and surfing websites reading ideas from thousands of people.. the combined amount of knowledge gained is immense. Especially with an issue so multi-faceted as energy.
One thought I had was with the power of a massive wealthy state at your disposal is to go for breakout research. Like Dr. Robert Bussard’s intertial electrostatic confinement fusion work. He gave a talk at google where he showed how he got around the confinement and density problems of the Tokamak fusion reactor. If for anything else it is a mind blowing presentation he gives.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The difference between the 1973 Oil Embargo and Peak Oil the embargo had a finite shock that hit everyone. Peak Oil wears away based on economic strength. With Peak Oil we are the proverbial frog in a pot of cool water placed on the fire. The current tax stimulus tosses ice in the water and inflation on the fire.
We must face the brutal fact that until we de-monopolize power generation and transportation we will remain 69% energy inefficient (power generation) and 70% energy inefficient (transportation).
There are different solutions. In Germany, Feed-in Tariffs are changing the power generation industry. In transportation, Morgantown’s PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) has delivered 110 million injury-free, oil-free, low-emissions passenger miles.
Recently CSX Railroad began ads noting they can move a ton of freight 423 miles on a gallon of diesel. PRT can deliver 183 miles per gallon in urban transport if we de-monopolize rights of way to implement niche solutions that preempts wastes, changing pollution into profit and jobs.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Dear Andris,
I’ve spent the last year working on a renewable energy study at NASA Ames (funded by an external sources). We are looking at algal biodiesel, Personal Rapid transit for our ground transportation, using nanotech for developing enzymes for cellulosic as well as a many solar, wind technologies.
I think the EU should support a fully electrified zero emission transport system by 2025 using a mechanism similar to the california air resources board. I point you to the recent ETAAC report presented at CARB on Feb 28, 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/etaac.htm We need to make bold moves as the market is not fast enough. If battery technology is too slow to replace the entire fleet, than we need more rail and also lightweight elevated guideways to penetrate dense urban areas. I’m a big fan of high voltage DC to bring solar, wind and geothermal over long distances. I support your vision in that area.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
In the past we have two crisis. (Nothing to do ???)
Today the price of the energy is cheaper in constant money.
I think, you are not able to fight the industry lobby.
Sorry for this, but we have lost a lot of time for anticipate this situation.
In today, I’m sure is to late, we use oil to transform the vegetable mass and just for put into the tank of our car.
The CEE spend a lot of money into no sense technology.
There are nothing for really durable inovation
We have no alternative, no futur for our livestyle.
For me your blog is just another window dressing.
Good luck
G. TABART
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
My ideas for solving the 2 most important problems that mankind has ever faced: Energy depletion & Climate warming
My priority action list:
————————
o Communicate to the people that something has to be done NOW to avoid an energy crisis (catastrophe) and that this “something” is going to hurt, but that there is no other way! Make clear that they can reduce the problem significantly themselves by making the right choices, but if they don’t… government will have to intervene. Most people in my country could walk, bike or take public transport to work if they wanted to, but car-usage is so cheep that they don’t see a reason to do this.
o Implement a “Super Intelligent International Grid” with state of the art energy transport systems (HVDC High voltage DC, superconductor), small scale distributed energy production (as much locally as possible to avoid losses as much as possible), with energy storage facilities to compensate the intermittency of wind and solar energy. See below for more.
o Don’t try to stop the declining birth rates of western countries, like they do in some countries (maybe promote the opposite in a politically correct way, for instance by scrapping what we in Belgium call child-money (I have children myself))!
o Strict regulation on energy efficiency of everything (cars, household appliances, manufacturing…). There is a lot of room for improvement.
o Use the instrument of taxes to discourage energy use, car usage…
o Free public transport. Make sure that people understand that they have already paid for it by taxes and that it is stupid not to use it. This would mean only a minor tax increase. It is a fair solution because taxes are based on income.
o Improve public transport. It will be good investment in the long run.
o Make an end to (forbid) short haul flights. It is perverse that a ticket for a plain is cheaper than a train ticket (how is this even possible?).
o All new-build houses should be passive(+) houses. It only costs 10% more!!! All architects should be re-trained for this. Subsidise this for people with lower income.
o Renovations should be done using the passive house concept (as much energy efficient as possible). Since the birth rate in western countries is low we should put more emphasis on renovation than on newly build houses.
o Launch a Manhattan-like project on energy storage, energy efficiency, alternative energy … research. I have high hopes for nanotechnology. I think it has the potential to revolutionise the energy landscape like the transistor did for the electronics sector.
o Launch a study on EROEI of the alternatives. See below.
o Roofs should be built using solar panels instead of roof-tiles. Now the cost of solar panels is too high for doing this it seems, but this price will come down if production is scaled up.
o For newly build houses, apartments, it would be cost efficient to store energy in summer underground and reuse the heat in winter.
o Using the Internet, GSM, GPS and distribution channels it must be possible to avoid frequent car rides for shopping.
OTHER IDEAS AND REMARKS:
————————
§ Everybody knows that fossil fuel reserves are finite, but most people do not know that a lot of geologist en ex-oil-industry people think that between now and 2018 we will have past the maximum production of oil (most predict peak by 2011-2012). You can verify it here: (http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/28/PU200611_Fig3.png).
The American government is aware of it and has launched several studies:
- http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf
- Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations
- http://www.energybulletin.net/28280.html
You can find an enormous amount of “Peak Oil” info on the internet and the global awareness of the problem seems to increase every day. I can recommend you lots of Internet sites, but staying up to date (what I have been doing for the last 3 years) is almost a full time job.
Our economy is built on eternal growth (until now at least) and this growth is fuelled by growth in energy. Our economy is literally built on fossil fuels. Even our food is made by using lots of fuel. Once you realise all this you know we are in for BIG trouble. Of course there are people with different opinions but all of them seem to have ties with the oil industry and have a vested interest in defending the status quo, but recently an (anonymous poll?) showed even oil and gas industry executives think that declining oil reserves are a problem (http://www.energybulletin.net/30106.html)
We should switch to alternatives as quickly as possible because (according to Hirsch) we need 20 years (at least 10) before peak to avoid “demand destruction”.
An additional reason to switch to alternatives is the fact that we don’t have the moral right to use “all “of the fossil fuels. Future generations also have a right to use them.
Then there is the global warming problem. All the things we have to do to avoid an energy crisis are exactly the things we should be doing to avoid climate change catastrophes anyway.
§ Everybody is talking about alternative energy these days. But a lot of times decisions are taken without taking the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) of the alternative into account. And if they do, you can’t be sure what is taken into account in the EROEI (e.g. to count every energy input is probably impossible but it is not enough to count the fuel energy used by a tractor, you should also take into account the energy that was needed to build the tractor …).
There should be a strict regulation into how EROEI is calculated, because otherwise it is pointless to compare alternative energy sources. EROEI is of course not the only thing that should be taken into account, there are other things like soil depletion, erosion …
A study should be launched to determine the Energy contained in every item, like the calories (joules) listed on every food item.
§ I was surprised to see that Europe is still thinking that a Hydrogen-economy is viable (See http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2007/EP_Hyrdodeclaration )?
I don’t understand how Europe can support this. Please read my reaction to the article (which Niklas Tessem did not care to respond to).
***************************************
Hi Niklas,
Are you taking the disadvantages of a hydrogen economy into account?
Hydrogen has to be produced, and from what I understand, this is now done using natural gas with an efficiency of 75-80%.
As with any fossil fuel, natural gas is a limited resource and will most likely pass its maximum production volume in the coming decade(s).
Wouldn’t it be silly to build such an expensive new infrastructure for such a limited use?
You could argue that you can also produce the hydrogen using alternative energy, like wind power and solar or even nuclear energy but then I have the following remark:
If you are thinking to use the hydrogen for transportation than I think this is a dead-end because by the time you would have the hydrogen infrastructure up and running the PHEV-battery (Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) technology will make it obsolete.
There are numerous new battery technologies (A123System, Altair Nanotechnologies, several Japanese companies and 1 German), which will make the all-electric car a reality very soon (see http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/batteries/index.html)
Compared with hydrogen car, the electric car has a much greater overall efficiency.
An all-electric car has other interesting opportunities; you can build an intelligent grid with it (most of the cars will stay connected to the grid most of the time, representing an enormous backup for the electric grid)
I see several other disadvantages with a hydrogen economy:
§ Expensive infrastructure (all over the chain)!
§ Energy losses everywhere:
Production of hydrogen, storage, compression (30% loss?), cooling.
§ Reliability issues: leaks, embritllment of steel…
Capturing CO2 and store it, is experimental and has several issues:
§ It takes a lot of energy to capture the CO2 (further reducing the efficiency).
§ There are (too) few places that are OK for storing CO2 underground.
§ I read that the chemical properties of the CO2 might complicate the containment of the CO2 underground.
…
***************************************
§ I would like to propose the building of a “Super (Intelligent) Grid”. My version of it would look like this:
o Worldwide Super Grid using HVDC (High Voltage DC only 3% loss per 1000 Km). Maybe this can be improved using superconductors but I am not sure what the EROEI would be (because it needs cooling). There is one project being planned where they are going to use superconductors. See (http://www.amsuper.com/documents/NYCAMSCRelease-Final.pdf).
By using a super-grid you can choose the most efficient locating for generating your energy (for example solar panels in the Sahara). A worldwide grid would also solve the day/night problem and could prevent current inefficiencies (idle power stations at night).
The biggest benefit would be for wind power, because this would solve the intermittency problem of wind. With a very wide grid you can guarantee that a decent percentage of the windmills will work.
o Each town should be made responsible for their energy production (consumption). This way we can break the power of the incubents, which nearly have a monopoly on the energy market.
Produce Electricity locally as much as possible by using PV solar, windmills (of all scale), CHP (combined heat power), micro-generation.
o “Intelligent Grid”:
There are a lot of nanotechnology- based battery technologies coming to the market that have the potential to revolutionise the Electricity market by solving the intermittency problem of wind and solar-power (see http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/batteries/index.html). They have larger energy densities and can be charge more quickly and more often. We need to make sure that the batteries are made in a sustainable way and that they are not based on limited resources.
I am not a promoter of personal transport (because I think “the car” is in the main reason that our economy became unsustainable). Maybe an all-electric car can be an acceptable compromise if we can use it in the concept of an intelligent grid. If we connect the all-electric car to the grid, the combined capacity of all the batteries (much larger capacity than current car batteries) in the cars would make it an enormous backup system for the grid. Most of the times the cars are standing idle at a parking lot. The all-electric car is already a fact (see http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php) it just needs to get cheaper.
There are also larger battery backup systems (see http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/vandium_reflux_.html)
§ BIO energy.
This sounds like a good idea but recent studies have shown that this is not always the case:
o The EROEI of the complete production should be large enough. To be economically viable in the long run it should probably be at least 3 (this could be the subject of a separate study).
o BIO energy production should not compete with food (like it does now).
o We should make sure that it comes from sustainable production and that the production does not involve chopping down pristine forests.
o Also soil erosion, water usage, water pollution … should be taken into account.
§ CO2 sequestration (Coal To Liquids).
Some time ago I saw a German documetary on an CO2 sequestration project that showed a not so rosy picture..
o It costs a lot of energy to filter the CO2.
o There are only a few locations that are suitable for storing CO2 underground. Nearly not enough storage space to store the gigantic amounts of CO2.
o Can be dangerous should the CO2 escape..
o The CO2 stored underground could cause chemical reactions which could produce unexpected effects.
§ Solar PV
This is for me the alternative energy source of choice for the future. They have already achieved efficiencies of up to 38% (see http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/UAN/486/v/3/sp/332958698966342800322) soon solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels. It remains to be seen that we can produce the solar panels with a high enough EROEI.
They predict that prices of solar PV will fall as much as 40% in the coming 3 years (see http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/05/solar_pv_costs_.html).
I hope that the materials used are plenty and harmless to the environment.
§ The demographics problem.
The reason of our problems (energy, resource depletion) can be traced back to the fact that, up to now, almost no one seemed to be aware of the fact that we are living in a closed loop system and that we need to find a balance point. This balancing can be done in 2 ways: reduce our consumption or reduce the amount of people on this earth. I’m not promoting the Chinese on child policy but I am surprised to see that some governments want to implement policies to reverse the trend of falling birth rates in western countries.
§ Convince people that change is needed urgently.
This is probably the biggest problem. Last year I watched the Al Gore movie on Climate Change. At the end of the picture there were a lot of suggestions what one could do for helping solve the problem. Almost everybody left the room without watching the list of things that can be done. This convinced me that the people are not going to do this out of free will. Government will have to force them, but they will have to implement changes without getting people too angry about it!
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,
Thank you for the initiative of sharing your ideas, projects and concerns in the field of energy. We will promote it on the FuturEnergia website and invite teachers and students to contribute: http://www.futurenergia.org/
Petru Dumitru
European Schoolnet, Brussels
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Dear Mr Piebalgs,
Your idea to share your thoughts, on a weekly basis, with the EU citizens is very much appreciated.
There are so many changes in energy sector and, as you described in your welcome post, so many ongoing and planned actions in energy sector at the EU level, so even energy experts can not easily follow them, not mentioning citizens. There are already well established channels for communication in between European Commission and national governments, but there is still (despite such communication platforms like MERG or EUSEW) demand for better direct involvement of local authorities, NGO and individuals in such debate, especially in areas of high importance for local level and citizens.
Issues where local groups might active, are especially related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Both ideas are difficult to “sell” to policy makers and difficult to implement by national governments. After “renewable energy sound ‘2007”, to focus on energy efficiency in ‘2008 is a grate idea.
However new renewable energy directive is not fixed yet. It seems that ‘2008 will be full of intensive discussion ad even negotiations in between DG TREN and EU members states. It would be excellent if the process of negotiation is transparent and open for media and the public and particularly if NGO and local authorities might have opportunities to take a part in this discussion and to react immediately. Your regular comments on the process, steps and milestones of adoption of new directive on the promotion of renewable energy sources might help to have people better informed, involved and more responsible. I hope you will find a time to refer to this on your blog regularly in 2008.
I wish you many readers and many constructive comments on you blog and personal satisfaction from shearing, both your ideas and concerns directly with the people.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Dear Mister Piebalg,
Excellent idea to open your own blog. You may be surprised about the breakthrough suggestions you get taking into account the present losses in communication, a consequence of the millstones of vested interests, grinding many excellent ideas and concepts into useless dust before they get to your desk. The challenge for you and your associates will be to select the messages of value and treat them accordingly. We wish you a lot of success in accomplishing such a goal
We, HeeCon Business Development, a consultancy firm from the Netherlands, specialised in the application of and transfer of sustainable technologies into useful business, are confident to be able to present you with some breakthrough suggestions that could become the basis for a European energy “Manhattan project”.
We are fully aware of the present gloomy energy picture:
1. Quickly increasing shortages in European energy resources, quickly growing dependence on less desirable regions/countries, quickly growing worldwide competition for raw materials and (energy) resources;
2. Quickly growing concern for climate and environment;
3. Failing solutions for alternative energy resources:
a. Bio-energy: competing with feedstock, second generation not available
b. Hydrogen: too far away and not competitive to ever become a solution
c. CNG/LNG: growing shortages for natural gas are already a problem in itself;
d. Car manufacturers: not, or very reluctantly, willing to comply with CO2 reductions as desired by most of European citizens except themselves
e. Conventional power stations: rising coal prises, CCS not ready for application yet in the foreseeable future. No sustainable solution
f. Nuclear: a possible contributor to the solution with still, dependent on the country, public opposition. No sustainable solution
g. Nuclear fusion: too far away to really contribute to solve short term problems
h. Sustainable energy solutions via wind and water: not enough potential to be able to cope with the size of the problem
4. Failing consensus in the European environment to embrace true solutions.
We have been studying and testing energy solutions and came to remarkable conclusions. These solutions are well in line with the ambitions of the Project Better Place (PBP) in Israel ( http://www.projectbetterplace.com ), but then applicable for the European environment. For more details see the PBP Whitepaper to be retrieved from their website. We highly concur with their conclusions.
We are referring to the following situation
1. Electric vehicle (EV) technology recently made great strides. Mass produced EV’s are now getting on the verge to enter and drastically change the marketplace. Battery technology is now on the brink of becoming viable, to serve proper vehicle range. Proper financing methods and stimulating subsidies for batteries can help to solve the initial pricing problem. Introduction of EV’s will cut energy usage in transport by more than 50%, based on Well to Wheel calculations and will drastically reduce CO2 emissions to levels well below European ambitions.
2. Electricity companies are starting to recognize the great potential of electric transport for their business and are starting to prepare their programs to stimulate the introduction of EV’s as well as their facilitating charging infrastructure. Their consequential increased ROI can serve acceleration towards a RES infrastructure;
3. Recognition of the enormous potential of solar energy via CSP, to be retrieved from North Africa and to be exported to Europe, is quickly increasing. TREC (Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation, http://www.desertec.org ) is proceeding to convince more and more parties of the viability to follow that solution, including presentations to MEP’s, the World Bank and the EIB. The latest developments in electricity transport technologies support the viability of the suggested solutions. The combination with electrification of transport is the route being followed by PBP with strong and full support of the government of Israel. A similar route can be followed by Europe. Several additional advantages for Europe can be a consequence of such an approach. Renault Nissan already joined the PBP initiative and committed themselves to enter the EV market with volume based vehicles starting 2011-2012.
We are in the middle of several motions and actions to raise attention for the referred solutions and are communicating with representatives of PBP regularly. The technology is there, with Israel leading the way. Why should Europe not be able to show its willpower and decisiveness, which is still rather lacking ? The real energy solutions are here now, for the ones willing to see. It could become a program, uniting Europe to effectively address the problematic energy situation.
We are proceeding with Dutch government officials already as well as national and international business circles, NGO’s and academia to stimulate arties to get into action and jointly prove the viability of the case.
We have a lot of additional material available through ourselves as well as our network. A blog however is not the right medium to communicate such information. We are happy to share our findings and conclusions by your request and would strongly appreciate to get the suggested case supported and accelerated in the European environment.
We are looking forward for your appreciated reaction,
sincere regards,
Ir Jan C.G. Heetebrij, Managing Partner of HeeCon Business Development
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Please!
Stop palmoil and other agrar-products using for energy.
We need the rainforests to safe the climate! We need all the fields for food!
We need ways to save energy and not to use agriculture for it or other energies.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
And I wish you good luck for your blog!
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Congratulations for your decision to blog and welcome into the blogosphere
Several suggestions
First, as a blogger I think it would be good if you were providing links to the other bloggers among the EU commissioners (and also among staff?), and also to sites/blogs you find interesting.
Second, it would be nice to figure out the possibilities of translation: I am concerned most of the blogs of EU commissioners are only in english…Working toward translation softwares into the various EU languages would be good.
As far as promoting renewable energies within the EU I want to share with you my present frustration at not finding very easily on line references to existing solar houses (for instance).
I have started a little blog collecting a house here and there but we obviously need something much more systematic like the Swiss do with their Minergy inventory.
In any case it would be great if the Commission was supporting/promoting the creation an inventory (blog/database) that would collect/present images and stories about energy efficient buildings within the EU.
How easy is it to get a list of solar houses from Spain or Italy or Sweden? I di not find it easy at all while I think it would be great to be able to get this type of info.
My little contribution (that will hopefully morph into something more substantial) is at:
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/123
Last (for now) but not least, I would be interested to know what you are doing (as an individual) to use renewable energy and save energy: are you biking to work or using a prius like your environment colleague? Do you have solar panels on the roof of your house (as do a few Mps in the UK)?
Are you telling us to do as you say but not as you do?
Just curious
Again all my best wishes for your blog
Take care
Philippe Boucher
http://www.blogvert.org (in French)
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
First, I’d like to say that I applaud efforts such as this blog in setting new standards for openness and inclusiveness within government policy dialog.
One issue which I would be very keen to see discussed is the degree to which energy security issues do not always align perfectly with climate change issues, and the effects that has on policy decision processes. It is true that many steps taken to address one, also contribute to addressing the other, especially with very long term views. However, there are issues such as biofuels, oil shale, coal, etc. where steps taken to address energy security might have negative consequences in the struggle to address climate change. Likewise, there might be some cases, such as large solar facilities exporting electricity from North Africa, where something that could be beneficial in reducing carbon emissions might carry it’s own energy security risks.
While it is often politically expedient to conflate the issues of energy security and global warming abatement, it is also important to recognize when these two goals might be at odds. I believe it could be very informative to use this blog to help explore how a framework could be developed to resolve the policy issues that arise from these conflicts.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 am
There is a new world wide web emerging right before our eyes. It is a global energy network and, like the internet, it will change our culture, society and how we do business. More importantly, it will alter how we use, transform and exchange energy.
For more information, see http://www.terrawatts.com
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 am
Hi,
I heard rumours there were plans to ban traditional filament lightbulbs in favour of the new energy efficient long life bulbs. Is there any truth in this? It seems like a good idea to me, a small change which i believe would have a big impact on energy consumption.
Also I believe putting pressure on electrical goods manufacturers to improve the energy efficieny would also be a big help.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 am
This blog is a really great idea, Mr Piebalgs. I was wondering two separate things :
-Do you still stick to your 2006 affirmation that “peak oil is nothing but a theory” when everything in the world points to the fact that it is happening right now (financial meltdown, soaring food, energy and other commodities prices, increases in blackouts and food shortages, war)?
-You encourage what you call “increased efficiency”. Were you aware that increased efficiency always leads to increased energy consumption (it is called the “efficiency paradox”), and that the only real phenomenon that can decrease energy consumption is a decrease of the GDP (i.e. an economic crisis) ?
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 am
Hello, I am pleased that you have created this forum to be able to talk about energy issues. As technical climate change, I am very interested in the topics of energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Furthermore, since I was working in Brussels (4 months) I love to follow the European policies.
Therefore I would like to first congratulate the new package energy and climate change. As sure later discussed the issue, I will give my opinion on some specific points.
Sorry my English because it is not very good
greetings from Spain
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
The first thing is to recognise that energy is the now, and will be for the remainder of the century, the single biggest issue facing mankind, both as the foundation for our present globalised economy and as a cause of global warming (and other undesirable environmental problems). You do seem to be taking this on board.
However, there are some specific matters I take strong issue with.
You state the importance of an effective and efficient internal market. It is my belief that the market will never deliver what we need with the urgency and completeness required. It is incapable of doing so, and why should we expect that it could - it is a naive and fatally flawed conceit of our times that market is the only means to deliver desirable economic change. It is just the opposite, deference to the market threatens our very survival, it is what has brought us to our present pass in the first place. I have many times suggested that the degree of effort and cooperation required to deal with the twin issues of global warming and oil depletion will be similar to what was required by the Allies to fight the Second World War. I don’t recall the market having much to say in this effort then, in fact it would have been manifestly absurd to expect it to have done. I contend it as manifestly absurd to expect the market to rescue us now.
Ultimately the only thing that will save us is the wise use of sovereign powers by all states acting in concert, with a reliance on direct intervention in all aspects of energy and industry to achieve the required aim. Which of course is not very likely at all.
In particular the suggestion that 10% of all transport fuels should be from renewable resources is absurd. There is barely enough food to go around now, not because there isn’t enough, but so much is wasted, and so much diverted for instance to animal feed. To think that vast amounts of land and resources should be diverted to “feed” cars, so we can continue to live in our parallel universe of a car-driven utopia, is preposterous, and immoral. The promise of biofuels is the promise of starvation for millions and the accelerated destruction and unsustainable use of millions of acres of productive land and pristine forest. Please think about this, and if you don’t get it, think again.
That will do for a start.
John Monro, UK citizen now living in New Zealand
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Thank you for inviting us to participate.
Energy efficiency is a challenge, we all know that.
History has taught us that very little gets done, either on the consumer or the political side, unless the price of energy goes through the roof (ref. oil shocks of the 1970’s).
The fact that oil consumption continues to rise is a proof that for oil, the price has not yet risen enough to seriously cut into consumption (within the EU countries).
As for consumption, one of the key challenges appears to be how can politicians get new legislation through that raises the price of _using_ energy while maintaining public acceptance?
This is not easy.
While it is likely that the price of primary energy sources will continue to rise (sans the coming recession cycle), this may not be enough - if indeed a cut in energy usage or at least in the growth of energy usage is required.
So the remaining option is to make the use of energy more expensive.
This can be done on various fronts:
1) continue taxing progressively the price of cars that consume much more than the best of breed or median (this discourages buying such cars)
2) continue taxing progressively the usage of automotive fuels (the more you use, the relatively more you pay, discouraging needless use of fuels)
It is important to note, that 1&2 are separate and factor into the total effect through the car fleet replacement rate. It is not enough to implement 2, because a minimum level of driving will be done by many, regardless of the car being used.
3) Total overhaul of electrical appliance energy labellings. This is quite honestly a disgrace within the EU in its current state. The energy efficiency label A was trivially achieved by almost any manufacturer for almost any appliance class already when the system was put into place.
Further, the current system is badly outdated and does not reflect the advances in technology and potential energy savings.
Now it makes almost no sense for a mfg to put out an appliance that has 1/2 the energy usage compared to another “class A” device, because one cannot get better than a class A rating and 80% of consumers do not understand kWh.
As such, the new system would had to be a moving one (albeit somewhat slowly), where the classification categories are automatically moved based on new available best of breed technology and the performance of devices on the market.
That is, a system where it is impossible for 100% of manufacturers to get a rating A for 100% of their products. And a class A device of 2008 is unlikely to get a class A rating in 2010 (unless thermodynamic ceiling for the operational efficiency of the device has been reached).
In addition to the price of electricity multiplying, this is one of the few ways to make consumers think of and buy efficient appliances.
That covers just part of transport fuels and part of consumer electricity use, but its a start.
A related, but separate challenge is resisting the lobbying power of the existing power, automotive, fuel and CE industry: they will stall, divert, lobby for useless lip-service changes and try to claim that any new legislation will destroy the competitiveness of EU companies.
Unfortunately, for them, that is already lost and the only way forward is aggressively overtaking the others and providing the best of breed solutions that are not only climate change mitigating, but also energy efficient for it’s own sake. How can politicians ease the transition for the companies during this transition, that remains the key question.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
It would be great if there could be EU-wide policy to provide interest-free loans to finance energy efficient home improvements, such as that offered in the Milan region. I would love to make improvements in my flat, but can’t afford to.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,
With oil, natural gas, and electricity being serious challenges in the very near future, I propose these current technology solutions;
Transportation: Revitalize the urban car-free approach already evident in many EU cities. Insist on pervasive mass transit networks with pedestrian zones within 1/2 km. Expand freight train infrastructure, including urban cargo movement.
Electricity: Utilize a supergrid with regions within and outside of the EU to take advantage of a wider net by which to employ renewable energy sources. Promote energy storage techniques, such as CAES and hydro. Implement aggressive Demand Management through *forecasted* spot pricing (we will know our solar, wind, and storage resources at least 48 hours ahead of time). Nuclear power as a baseload source will be hard to ignore, though one must be careful not to use more than is wise. Electricity and home fuel rates could be incrementally higher so that they increase after certain consumption setpoints in order to reward those who conserve fuel and incentivize lifestyle changes for those who overconsume.
Space Heating: Where deep geothermal hot spots exist, utilize Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) for district heating. Other geothermal heating methods for medium to larger buildings (or district heating) take advantage of the great strides in seasonal underground storage of solar energy (collecting abundant solar thermal energy in the spring, summer, and fall), made famous recently in Okotoks, Alberta with the Drake Solar Community where 52 homes will receive over 90% of their home space heating from underground solar thermal energy storage.
http://www.dlsc.ca/how.htm
In hotter climates, also use storage of ‘coolth’ from the winter in separate underground storage to provide cooling. Ground source heat pumps could also provide significant savings. Superinsulation should become the norm so that we can drop the ’super’ (along with tight weatherization and IAQ air exchangers).
Hot water: Solar hot water backed up by renewable electric
Lighting: Effective daylighting techniques now abound.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
On the product side, I would like to see the European Union adopt the Japanese ‘top-runner’ approach. It is a tried and proven policy that makes the most efficient products now into the industry standard after a number of years. There has already been discussion of this in the Commission, as I understand it.
On the production side, energy efficiency should feature more prominently in the EU’s integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) policy, particularly in the reference documents drawn up for the industry.
On the consumption side, the major issues are information and people’s aversion to front-up investments. Investment in energy efficient equipment and housing is often worthwhile, but only pays back after a number of years. The first problem could partially be dealt with on the European level, by building an information clearing-house for domestic energy efficiency. The second problem can be dealt with through providing zero-interest financing. The EU should stimulate its Member States to do so, when possible, through the power utilities, or now, power companies.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Dear Commissioner Piebalgs,
Congratulations and thank you for your sincere interest in an open and honest dialogue on how to improve the energy situation for EU. As a representative for the Danish District Heating Industry (www.dbdh.dk) with more than 100 years of practical experience developing the district heating solutions technology, we consider our solutions and technology among the most advanced in the world. In Denmark more than 60% of th homes are heated from district heating of which 42% is based on CO2-neutral energy supply.
As you have hopefully been informed of Euroheat and Power has developed with the support from the EU Commission a very interesting and insightful report. Let me kindly give just three real time calculations for EU according to the Ecoheatcool Study. In the case of doubling the heat sales from today’s level of around 9-10%,
(i) higher energy efficiency would be registered as the primary energy supply can be reduced with 2.14 EJ/year, corresponding to the whole energy balance of Sweden.
(ii) higher security of supply would be achieved from a reduction of the import dependency with 4.45 EJ/year, corresponding to 5.5% of all primary energy supply or more than the whole energy balance of Poland.
(iii) carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced, estimated to 404 million tons annually, corresponding to 9.3% of the total carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion or the total annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion in France.
Inside the EU 75% of all residents live in cities, hereof over half in multi-level buildings, which indicate paramount potential for increasing the supply of district heating (and cooling).
Therefore, it is also very welcoming to learn from the Commissions Proposal on promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources COM(2008)19 of 23 January 2008 that district heating and cooling has been included to the extend shown in the proposal. However, this does not in itself lead to fulfilling the 20/20/20 initiative. We would need an even stronger appearance and support from both the Commission and Parliament.
Thank you for your attention and I highly welcome your feedback.
Best regard,
Jes B. Christensen
Managing Director of Danish Board of District Heating
http://www.dbdh.dk
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
An addendum to my earlier blog comment.
The Millennium Institute will be speaking just before you at WIREC. From 12:30 to 2:00 PM in Room 153 on Tuesday, March 4th.
You may want to seek out Hans Herren, President of the Millennium Institute and 1995 winner of the World Food Prize to discuss some of their recent modeling work.
I have been involved with an effort for the USA that has shown a surprising synergy between renewable energy and non-oil transportation, where the combined effects are much greater than either alone. A comparable effort for the EU should “be of interest”.
Best Hopes,
Alan Drake
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Dear mr. Piebalgs,
I do not envy your position, because your task is next to impossible. To succeed you have to communicate to the European people something only a few can understand: namely that there is no more business as usual.
While the EU citizens are trying to understand the new situation, I join other commentators above in urging you to stop the biofuels disaster. The biofuel revolution has the same potential danger as the nuclear revolution, but this is not understood by most people.
A strong and comprehensive biofuel certification scheme has to be formulated and passed into law as quickly as possible. Until such a scheme exists, the EU appear increasingly to be a partner in crime against the Third World. It will be difficult to continue to support the “War on Terror” when EU citizens start to realise that the EU biofuel program itself is (partly) causing mass famine and consequential armed conflict and terrorist activity in the third world.
Best regards and good luck.
J. van Dorp
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Dear Mr Pieblags,
Thank you for great iniative inviting everyone to participate on a blogosphere discussion about such an interesting subject!
I sense that you’ll get so many comments, including some contradictory ones, that I bet you’ll need a comment scoring and sorting system, or someone working full time on trying to make sense of all this blog-post. Best of luck here!
Now, to my comments as far as these go:
First, it is astonishing amount of energy wasted in transport of goods such as mineral water - from Scotland to Sicily, from south of France to Scotland, from Luxembourg to Latvia and so on. If we could possibly cut out all this unnecessary transport and convince ourselves to consume local produce, what a great saving could we praise ourselves to!
Second goes to the comparisons of various sources of energy I have seen recently: my impression is that this is all purpose-made statistics presented to convince us that a particular source of energy is the one for the future and all the rest is - rest in peace. Not very convincing, indeed! Hence, why not take up it at the Commission level to elaborate methods that would apply for making comparisons between sources of energy - be it solar, wind, hydro or nuclear, or fossil fuels? All costs to be included in total basket, such as R&D, construction and commissioning, running costs of all kinds, decommissioning costs… so that we have a true comparison, so that it could be clearly seen what a MW of electricity costs if taken from solar panel in Sahara and in Scotland, or if we get it from ocean waves near Spain and near Norway, or if we are building generation III nuclear power plant in France or, later perhaps, generation IV NPP elsewhere, subject to favourable public opinion.
Third one goes to energy efficiency of my sweet home - I admit, not a particularly good example of today’s standards. Now, please could someone convince me that the investment in total refurbishment with an aim to make this 1937 building an energy efficient one will pay itself in, say, 10 to 15 years time! More so, since it is a listed building… which just poses limits to what I can do with it and gives no advantages whatsoever to the owner. Here, too, some change in legislation might be appreciated, for example, supporting the conversion.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hello Mr. Commissioner,
Yes we are all concerned about energy shortage and climate change issues.
But when trying - as you do very well ! - to tackle those issues, the real problem might be … the democracy itself: The anti-nuclear fanatics and lobbyists ARE the minority threatening our responsible answers to our energy problems. This is a political and educational problem. Not a technical one.
I am a scientist. I spent my life working on energy issues. I am simply horrified when reading what the so called “independent experts” - understand: anti-nuclear, of course ! - are writing and propagating about nuclear energy.
The clean and sustainable energy shortage is something that can be appropriately and effectively tackled if based on the use of nuclear energy AND all other sustainable energy sources as well as drastic energy consumption reduction rules/laws.
I know that you perfectly know this, just as do all the basic science educated “normal” people all around the world.
But our democracy has to take care of the “green fanatics”. (See for example the last SETP outcome !) That’s a very difficult one Mr. Commissioner. Wish you all the best !
Basic science education might very well be the only way to solve this “energy & democracy” issue. Unfortunately it will need much more time than elective mandates periods. That’s the problem.
For the short time, just two suggestions:
1. Nowadays, any kind of new investment in carbon emitting electricity production should be simply forbidden. Not taxed: just forbidden! France has shown how producing enough electricity for everyone 24 hours/day, 365 days/year is technically possible. It is as simple as that. The technical and economical answer exists: Go responsibly nuclear !
2. For transport, put caps on the allowed fuel consumption of all new cars. Not financial penalties: real legal limits !
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dear Mr. Commissioner,
Thanks for setting up this blog. Hopefully it will help to contribute to the debate.
Regarding biofuels:
From the policy page:
“The European Commission has proposed and the European Council has endorsed an overall binding 20% renewable energy target and a binding minimum target of 10% for transport biofuels for the EU by 2020. ”
Transport biofuels are a disastrous approach to take to personal transportation for reasons too numerous to mention here. By 2020 biofuels will be widely discredited and so the target above will long since have been dropped.
The correct approach to personal transportation is a combination of windpower and plug-in electric vehicles.
Windpower is local to Europe and so has no energy security issues and the plug-in electric vehicles can be used as a storage mechanism for the wind energy energy produced. Combine this with intelligent metering and you are well on the way to solving the intermittent nature of wind energy.
On a separate energy topic: by depending on Russian Natural gas Europe is virtually committing suicide. Our democracies will be challenged by depending on an autocratic state for such a vital commodity. We must wean ourselves off Russian Natural gas now
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Thank you for opening this site, Commissioner.
I’m convinced that right now the most important thing you and the EU can do is help educate the people of the EU and the entire world (especially the US, where I live), about the compound problems associated with continued fossil fuel use. Between uncertain and highly politicized supplies and the environmental impacts of their use, we must transition away from them as quickly as possible. That can only happen on a broad basis with not just the approval but the insistence of consumers and voters.
Like many other bloggers, I’m doing what I can via my own site (The Cost of Energy, http://www.grinzo.com/energy/), but we amateurs desperately need your help.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Re: run into wood firing
Dear Mr. Piebalgs,
3 years ago, the European Environment Agency noted in a briefing on HOW MUCH BIOMASS CAN EUROPE USE WITHOUT HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT:
“Without a CO2 permit price, projections for Europe show a slight increase in STEM WOOD demand. Thus, the amount of forest residues increases. At the same time, complementary fellings would fall due to the increase in the harvest needed to satisfy stem wood demand. The total forest bioenergy potential would almost remain constant over time… However, if we assume a CO2 permit price that rises up to 65 EUR/tonne in 2030, the market value of ENERGY WOOD would increase further. As a result, substantial amounts of wood biomass resources would be used for BIOENERGY and not in competing industries” (EEA Briefing 2005,2,3).
Meanwhile, the latter assumption regarding permit prices has been set aside in the same way as the oil price has jumped since You came into office, as You told in Your opening letter to this conversation. There is, however, more of a challenge in the CO2-emissions question than estimating permit prices, as was pointed out succinctly in the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council (8/9 March 2007) within its decision on an integrated climate and energy policy. Here, it was said that “absolute emission reduction commitments are the backbone of a global carbon market” (par.30). Now, that those commitments are being sharpened, we have rising permit prices – and this is intended to be so.
This means, however, that the shift-over from productive uses of hard-core wood to materially destructive burning for energy purposes, which the EEA briefing points out, is enhanced systematically. On top of this, burning hard-core wood is justified by energy administrations as a ‘CO2-neutral’ activity in itself, because it is uncritically subsumed under the label “biomass for energy”.
Here, uncritical policy formulations are in serious collision with fundamentals of the science of renewable energy. Physicist Bent Sørensen stated, thus, in his seminal work on renewable energy: “Concerning carbon dioxide, which accumulates in the atmosphere as a consequence of rapid combustion of fossil fuels, it should be kept in mind that the carbon dioxide emissions during biomass combustion are balanced in magnitude by the net carbon dioxide assimilation in the plants, so that the atmospheric CO2 content is not affected, at least by the use of biomass crops in fast rotation” as e.g. yearly energy plants. “However”, as Sørensen differentiates, “the lag time for trees may be decades or centuries, and in such case the temporary carbon dioxide imbalance (between CO2-emission by actual combustion and the eventual binding of the same amount of CO2 by additional photosynthetic activity, rcd) may contribute to climatic alterations.” (Bent Sørensen , 3d ed., 2004: Renewable energy, Academic Press, p. 483)
Add to this the fact that, measured in relation to the desired energy service from burning fuels, a substitution of the combustion of biomass for that of fossil fuels leads to the emission of a SURPLUS (sic!) of CO2 into the atmosphere – not so much for coal, but more for oil and almost 80% MORE for natural gas. Therefore, it cannot be otherwise but a very long term process until even massive reforestation programmes should have captured the amounts of CO2 released by destructive burning. And this is not compatible with the said climate policy goal of the European Council to REDUCE CO2 - emissions in absolute terms.
Environmentally, the burning of biomass (which has not been refined in geological storage) frees more of those pollutants, whose toxic potentials are not visible, but are being detected by high-tech instruments as critical emissions e.g. from wood stoves: fine particles, Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and chlorinated dioxins, to name only some. These emissions affect often densely built-up areas in roof height toYour next neighbour!
Therefore my question: What will You do to dampen the gold fever leading to a veritable rush into wood firing in EU member countries? Will You accept that wood firing (also in individual wood stoves without any abatement measures) is seen as part of member countries’ strategies for sustainable development?
Rolf Czeskleba-Dupont, energy, environment and climate research group at Roskilde University, Denmark (http://energy.ruc.dk)
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Hello Andris,
From your blog I do not know whether you have really understood the magnitude of the problem facing humanity. Over the last 150 years the world’s population has hugely increased, this has been driven by the use of oil = cheap dense energy. Like many things in nature oil production follows a bell curve and we are almost certainly at the top of the curve. In a very few years production will decrease year on year, this is a geological fact the only question is when and how fast. Therefore demand will now always exceed supply and while you state “Today the same barrel costs $103″ soon the same barrel will probably cost $200 then $300… Natural gas prices track oil prices so will also increase and gas production will also decline since it is also a finite resource so switching to gas is not an option.
The problem is not that oil costs $???? but that it will not be readily available at any price and almost everything is reliant on oil and gas, agriculture, mining, transport, plastics, electricity … Without rapid planning and action this has the possibility to throw us back to the Stone Age in a very few years with a huge die-off of the world’s population. China is already trying to line up long term lock-ins with oil and gas producing countries.
Burning oil to get to the mall to buy plastic toys from China or jetting from one side of Europe to another for 1 euro is a mad waste of this most valuable resource. We need urgent action to get us off fossil fuel, action needs to be much faster than since October 2005. A sustainable future needs to be mapped out and renewable energy supplies secured while we still have fossil fuel to create these.
First and almost immediately not in 3 or 5 or 7 years we need to reduce demand, I would suggest the following easy steps:
Ban sales of incandescent lights with a three month period.
All lights turned off when buildings not in use.
Ban sales of new cars over 300 g/km with a three month period with a long term stated plan to reduce this further each year. Say 250 by the following year, then 200 the next and so on.
Electrify all rail – do not order new diesel engines.
Stop expansion of airports and roads with immediate effect.
Tax aviation fuel and marine fuel used for pleasure boats.
For all new building ensure they are fully self sufficient for heating, e.g. insulated to German “PassivHaus” standards. Start upgrading the existing stock.
Apply a tax on electrical devices over their working life that is equal to the cost of the extra electricity used down to the level of A+ or A performing devices. This will encourage people to buy A class devices since now people often tend to just look at the initial price and others who have no interest in the running costs just the up-front costs e.g. landlords, builders.
We must get to a sustainable situation so make all consumer goods built to be repaired not thrown away. Have 20 year life span at minimum?
Get a bright assistant to spend one week looking at Peak Oil then come back to you with a summary of the problems and ask the people at The Oil Drum http://www.theoildrum.com to give you a presentation.
Let’s have some real leadership NOW, no more politics, grandstanding, delays, pork-barrels (patronage) just education of the masses so they know there is no other option and action.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Good Morrning,
I am glad that the European Commission is aware of the coming energy crisis and the grave dangers that are hence waiting in our future. I guess you agree with me that, if we do not solve this issue in time, we will risk world wide resource wars, as it is very unlikely that the major economic and military powers on this planet will sit still while their economies die from energy starvation.
So what are the solutions? Or are there any?
I’m sure, you wouldn’t have started this blog if there were any easy solutions at hand, so you know that everything that we can do will bring with it its own difficulties and problems.
The only advice that I can give you in this regard is to foster conservation; to stop subsidising energy wasting. Everything that can be done locally should be done locally, like slaughtering and food production and many other things. Of course this would mean to some degree a reversal of the current globalization trend, but if you want to conserve energy, you cannot promote that goods are transported from one end of the world to the other, when it is more energy efficent to produce the stuff at its final destination.
As I am of little help in finding solutions let me analyse another question. I would say it is THE question.
What is the problem?
You cannot search for solutions, as long as you cannot outline your problem. So what is our problem, if we’ll be confronted with energy shortages? Well, the faces of this issue will be many, but it comes down to that we will not be able to continue business as usual; that our system will collapse, if we are not able to feed it properly.
Thus, we may ask the following: is the problem, that we will not have enough energy to keep our system healthy, or is it that our system is an energy hungry monster, that devours almost anything to keep growing, which causes it to need even more energy to grow further…?
Or to say it in other words: Is this planet to blame for not bearing enough resources to fulfill our needs or are we to blame for poor planning and propagating unconstraint growth in the giant petri dish that we call Earth?
I know that no one wants to hear this, because the most offensive thing anyone could do is to question the system, but it is the sad truth that our system is the fundamental problem. A system based on the principle of avarice; a system that will fail if it cannot yield rising profits; a system that depends on neverending growth.
Infinite growth on a finite planet? You don’t have to be a genius to see that this is impossible. This world has its limitations and with China rising to a notable economic power, as well as aggravating climate change we started to feel these limitations with full force. And it is very unlikely that the effects, brought upon us by the limits of the system Earth, will ease while our economic system desperately tries to fatten, devouring the base it depends on.
So, as long as we try to keep things running as they do now, we will achieve nothing, even if we would be able to solve the current energy problem, because our system is destined to grow to the limits, and as soon as we reach them, we‘ll have to face the same problems again and again, until either our system ultimately fails and dies, and with it everybody who is reliant on it, or we change it from growth- to sustainability-oriented.
No matter what will finally be done to mitigate and overcome the looming crisis you have to consider that, if we don’t shove aside the dogma of neverending growth, eventually all of our efforts will be of no avail and will just delay the inevitable: collapse.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Dear Mr. Piebalgs,
We are small company in California that has developed a unique revolutionary technology that converts water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen using RET (radiant energy transfer) efficiently and economically. This technology does not use carbon nor does it generate carbon dioxide. Our web site http://www.genesys-hydrogen.com contains technical papers as well as a video that describes our technology and vision. We believe that producing hydrogen from solar thermal, geothermal or abandoned oil wells will accelerate the use of hydrogen as a fuel. The Kyoto protocol for any nation can be satisfied using RET. Since RET needs only water (of any kind, e.g. waste water, sea water, etc.) and heat, hydrogen may be produced anywhere. I would appreciate your feedback on this. By the way, we were just awarded our patent for this breakthrough technology.
Regards,
Ronny Bar-Gadda
CEO
Genesys, LLC
http://www.genesys-hydrogen.com
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“…nuclear (certainly not cheap)…”
This is nonsense. France’s generates ~80% of its electricity supply from nuclear and it manages to do so at some of the cheapest rates in Europe.
The fact is that with standardized reactors and without the misinformed public, endless obstructionism, NIMBY’s and red-tape nuclear is nearly competitive with coal power.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Many challenges are facing Europe concerning energy. We are to move to a less carbon-intensive society and at the same time have to put effort into keeping energy supply secure and affordable for consumers.
We recently saw Russia making moves to create alternatives to the EU-backed upcoming Nabucco pipeline project. It is of tremendous strategic importance to have a supply line of gas independently from Russia.
The new Russian president Medvedev is now the CEO of Gazprom, this underlines how important they consider their energy capabilities.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Thank you for hearing your thoughts and opening up this discussion. It is fascinating to see the mix of views and suggestions. Very different from most US politicians.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Dear Mr Commissioner,
I am sure you are aware that there are double standards in the standards of equipment that is sold in India and the same product that is sold in Europe. Indian manufacturers live up to european standards when they need to export to the EU but do not use those same standards when it comes to selling products in India.
How can you solve this problem?
March 4th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Developed countries are forced to pay the highest affordable price (currently 10% of global GDP) for energy produced by a negligible minority (currently ~0.1% of global working population) and sold at prices greatly exceeding the cost price (currently by 40 times). This burden of overpayments keeps the developed economies eternally on the verge of breakdown, making any large-scale expenditures of whatever nature, including environment, intolerable.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Energy saving is only one side of the coin. The other one is justified use of it. As i understood form the discussion with one of the green MEP’s (between the lines), no one is courageous enough to bother His Majesty Consumer with such awful ideas. So, is seems, everything will end in foggy market reforms and questionable green energy, which allready drew food prices up to the sky and reserves - below the level of floor.
I am not against the green energy. The only possibility I see for the green energy top play its role is reduction of energy consumption by some 50-75%. Yes, it means serious changes in the quality of life, mobility, comfort, but I predict it will happen whether we want it or not. So, it is the right time to start working at “safe landing” and I have a feeling it is allready going on unannounced.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Commissioner and Team,
I would like to add to my previous comment by proposing full consideration of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) for baseload electrical power generation. EGS is one renewable energy that is not intermittent and is in full abundance in many EU nations. For example, theoretically, geothermal energy plants could cover Germany‘s annual electricity consumption 600 times over. And in those areas where it is marginal for steam power generation, it is available for district heating.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Replacing fossil fuel energy with clean energy to the greatest possible extent should be high on the list of priorities. Electricity has the greatest potential (no pun intended) in the long term to displace fossil fuels used for heating and for surface transport. There is ample solar, geothermal, hydro and wind power in Europe and in adjacent areas to support an economy powered by electricity. And nuclear can be phased out.
The DESERTEC concepts for example are now reasonably well known and can be studied in more detail at http://www.desertec.org and at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk. Essentially they consist of a supergrid connection from N. Africa and the Middle East into Europe, carrying power generated by Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants, wind farms and other renewable systems. Intermittency, transmission losses (very low through use of HVDC), and security aspects are addressed in the proposed schemes.
The most important contribution the EU can make is to initiate the necessary work to design and build the infrastructure to support the harvesting of renewable electricty from countries in the sun belt, where they have ample solar radiation and wind, and the required huge areas of uninhabited (and uninhabitable land). Building this infrastructure will benefit the whole of the EU, and will stimulate investment in clean electricity generation. (comparable to the feed-in tariffs in Spain which have encouraged the development of utility scale CSP plants).
Robert Palgrave
Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (UK)
March 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Dear Mr. Piebalgs
In your wellcoming entries you wrote:
‘Just a decade ago, we perceived energy as something that could be taken granted: it was abundant and cheap. These times are over’.
From my point of view and as a worried pro-EU citizen this statement is somehow an illustration of the predicament our societies face on the questions of energy and sustainability.
Because the times of abundant and cheap energy are not over - they never existed. Only in the eyes of the car-makers and people who would (or could) not face reality or had a lot of money involved such times existed. In the eyes and minds of people with thinking abilities fossils fuels were always a limited ressource, which some day would run dry. Half a century back the Rome-Club told us this and voices on the issue was heard further back in the century. But strong forces in the economic and politcal arena were willing to deny these facts and do BAU (business as usual). Don’t ask questions - be happy! It is therefore not reassuring to read your words on the issue, because you are the highest and best paid EU-official in this field. Are you also the cleverest?
So the problem is this lack of understanding of the energy and supply situation in general, which is a bad omen for the future, because now the situation is worrying - on the supply side and on the problems of sustainability. And the problems will not be solved by talks and words from the Commission and the national governments. Action is needed and it has to be action to the benefit of sustainability (the securing of a decent life for generations to come) and not action to the benefit of the market, the car-makers, oil companies and other ressourceful groupings or individual persons with a lot of money, who can afford to let out a lot of CO2 in big SUVs. It has to be action that deliberately is a political involvment in the workings of the free market, the doctrine of growth and the possibilities for the individual to consume as she og he pleases. Action with dramatic effects for everybody which surely will create conflicts. Nothing less. But see if you dare on this issue. Se for instance if you dare to make restrictions on car-driving.
The other problem is that allthough talks are fine and action maybe on the way it is far to late. Action should have been taken 25 years ago, because now the societies in EU are totally unprepared for the oil wells running dry. It is not clear how seriously the Commission and the nations-states are viewing the problems which will arise, when oil is out. The danish goverment took seats in 2001 and totally denied any problems and the need for actions in this area. They made severe cuts in the area. Environment was a dead duck. Under pressure of both domestic and global opinion - and facts - they slowly, slowly changed there minds. Now at least they are talking about the problems. Six more years were wasted. On a larger scale actions taken so far does not give much hope for the future. It is to late, to slow and to meagre. Cut backs in CO2 is not enough and renewabel alternatives on the supply side are not developed with neccesary force, speed and money. Politicians should have learned the lessons from the previous oil-crisis, but it passed and they learned nothing. They should have initiatied a shift in the supply of energy from fossils fuels to sustainabel energy created from wind, solar and other not-environmental dangerous energy forms. That would have been foresight and it could have been done, because the ressources were availabel. Now the ressources are dwindling and becoming hard to get at, expensive and situated in unstable countries. It is a dangerous supply and environmental situation, which is the fault of the politicians, whereever they may be seated.
So time is running out.
These are the facts:
1. oil will soon be a rare commodity
2. societies will need to change drastically in a lot of ways (ex. growth must be stopped) to cope with the situation because
3. alternatives are not developed and in place but
4. it is technically feasibel to make changes that will secure sustainability
5. it will demand sacrifices but doing nothing will be followed by events which even a Commissioner at the EU can’t imagine.
The possible survivors will rewrite history and make someone responsibel.
I have children and grandchildren and I cannot allow myself to be too pessimistic about their future because I believe that the problems can be solved in a way that secure a decent living for this and the coming generations. In Denmark a lot of iniatitives have been taken - not government sponsored until now - but it has been described how the society can be changed in order to make it more sustainabel. And as I see it minds are starting to change too. There is a growing concern and public interest in the climate changes and actions are taken to create the political pressure needed to start the neccesary changes. It will not be easy because it will affect peoples everyday and make restrictions on there behavior.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Andris, in your El Economista interview yesterday you said:
“When I arrived at the European Commission in 2004, a barrel of oil cost
$52. In three years it has doubled. We cannot exclude that within three years,
in 2011, it could be at $200. What I am saying is, partly, a joke. But we
should not be surprised.”
“We cannot rule out the $200/b because in the last two years we have all
been completely wrong in thinking that what is now happening was impossible.
The companies, the International Energy Agency were wrong… When someone said
we would get to $80/b, and then they said $100/b, nobody thought they were
talking seriously. I remember that Goldman Sachs said it three years ago,
everybody took it as a joke,”
http://odac-info.org/article/eus-piebalgs-says-oil-could-hit-200b
Of course, some of us did take it seriously and do not believe you are joking now. Perhaps you could expand on this theme in your next blog entry?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Yes, as Rob Palgrave says, the worldwide potential of the DESERTEC concept is huge: using CSP, less than 1% of the world’s deserts could generate as much electricity as the world is currently using. Using high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission lines, it is feasible and cost-effective to transmit electricity for 3000 km or more. It has been calculated that 90% of the world’s population lives within 2700 km of a hot desert and could be supplied with solar electricity from there. The TRANS-CSP report from the German Aerospace Centre calculates that CSP is likely to become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission.
Further information may be found at http://www.desertec.org/ and http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/ .
March 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
The DESERTEC concepts also fit in with the proposals for a “supergrid” for wind power from Airtricity and ABB. The Supergrid could ultimately link a series of offshore wind farms through the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean. It seems that a European HVDC grid would have huge advantages spreading the widely supply.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thank you for your initiative in opening this blog.
I feel that simplicity is all, and it is important for regulators to stand back as far as possible to avoid trying to ‘pick winners’.
To this end it seems important to have a clear overall goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and ensuring security of supply at reasonable cost.
Therefore the three ‘legs’ of a low-carbon economy, conservation, renewables and nuclear, should be given equal weight.
The renewables energy target seems to me to skew this, and to make putting money into renewables take priority over the other two.
Of course, should individual European countries such as Germany choose not to pursue the nuclear alternative, then that is their call, but at a European level we should allow all options to count equally.
With others I would ask that biofuels where they are likely to impact food should be severely restricted.
Other strategic initiatives at the European level should include the encouragement of a European grid, high speed trains instead of aeroplanes, and a greater willingness to provide seed capital for less developed alternatives to present technologies such as high altitude wind power and hot dry rock geothermal, rather reducing present large feed in tariffs for more established alternatives such as wind turbines.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Glad to see this innitiative on a blog. Hope it will have some impact…
March 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Welcome to the blogsphere M. Commissioner!
I am Belgian and working in Palesine on Hydric, Environmental and Energetical issues. I am most of the time pleased to cite Europe as a relatively good model in terms of policies regarding these topics.
I will follow your posts on your blog with high interest…
Good luck!
March 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Small comment on Gled’s post: I can’t catch the general position - do we want to have an open energy market with the prices detemined by demand/supply or a kind of Soviet economy with the prices set by ruling party based on the visions of brigt future? Looking at the tight regulations and prctices on price setting etc I have impression that Europe choosed the last option.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
hi Andris,
a very simple suggestion to make your blog more helpful.
When you quote resources, other people’s opinions, etc, please do so using links, like so: Strategic Energy Technology Plan.
This makes it easier to understand your message and evaluate it in context (in other words, it makes reading your blog more energy efficient).
best,
stefano
March 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Dear Mr. Commissioner,
thank you for this opportunity to communicate.
Heating houses in winter uses a lot of energy, energy-efficiency-measures in this sector achieve a lot.
I think the best motivation for people to throw invest in an energyefficient new oil- or gas- condensing boiler is to give tax-reduction.
Replacing an old boiler by a new oil or gas condensing boiler saves up to 30 % of energy. People do not like to be forced by law to invest in a new boiler, they will find ways to avoid the investment, and the law-enforcement is highly bureaucratic and costly.
Politics can win people by offering tax reduction. For example 25 % of the investment in the gas- or oil-condensing boiler could be tax-exempt in each year for the next four years, and could be subtracted from the incometax-base in the annual income-tax-declaration. The chance to save income-tax is a huge incentive!
Even with all the programs and developments in renewable energies, we will depend on fossile fuels to heat our homes for the next 30 years and probably longer. Boilers last for 12 to 25 years – so now is the perfect time to invest in a new oil- or gas-condensing boiler and I think a tax-reduction-offer is a win-win-situation.
The EU may not have the competence to implement this idea, but can talk to national politicians and motivate them to move in this direction.
Good luck for your work, best regards
Sabine Link
March 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“This plot shows actual Russian crude oil production, I believe through 2005. The red line is the HL projection, generated using production data through 1984 (the green data points). IMO, the red curve is a reasonably close approximation for cumulative Russian production from mature producing basins–those basins that were largely developed and in production in 1984. This would exclude areas like Sakhalin Island, which had been found, but which was not in production in the Eighties.
Note that excluding Sakhalin Island, Russian crude oil production has shown a year over year decline since May, 2007, and recent production numbers show declines in total crude oil production. This is significant because Russia basically has now produced about 100% of what the HL model predicted that their post-1984 cumulative production would be (using production data through 1984 to generate the model).
What is scary about this scenario is that the Russian production decline could be fairly severe. ”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3703#comment-312746
In defense of the Hubbert Linearization Method
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2689
Cortesy of Jeffrey J. Brown, independent oil geologist
March 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Hello, Andris!
I would personally recommend to you a book by Tom Bearden: “Energy from The Vacuum: Concepts & Principles”. This is what it takes to solve energy problems.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Apsveicu ar Bloga izveidošanu. Par labiem piemēriem enerģijas jautājumu risināšanā nav tālu jālūkojās - Dānijas Samso sala ir lielisks piemērs kurā virzinā iet, ko darīt un no kādām kļūdām mācīties. Ja to var izdarīt 4000 iedzīvotāji, tad kādēļ lai to nevarētu visa Eiropa?
Congrats on commencing you Blog. We do not need to look too far for viable solutions in regard to upcoming energy crisis in Europe - Samso Island in Denmark is fantastic example where to go, what to do and what mistakes to learn from.
If energy autonomy and presumably sustainability can be achieved in population of 4000 why can’t the rest of the Europe do that?
March 11th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Dear Commissioner,
Your own native country of Latvia is phasing out the growing of sugar beets, while France and Germany are using sugar beets to support an expanding biofuel industry. What can you do as EU energy commissioner to promote more uniform exploitation of alternative fuel throughout the EU?
March 26th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Dear Mr. Andris Piebalgs
In Your welcome to your blog, Mr Piebalgs explains that there is a major objective for 2020: get a 20% energy savings in Europe. In the portuguese press it was announced that last january the European Commission invited European Cientists to present their projects to be developed so that this objective is met. Since I have developed a theory how to produce Solar Energy, how can I present it so that it may be considered in terms of financial funds for recearch. I am not a cientist, nor I’m connected in anyway with a cientific department. I would also like to ask if I can presented the text writen in Portuguese or must I write it in English.
Thankyou very much
Carlos
If I could have your guidance
April 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Dear Carlos,
Possibilities for the funding of highly innovative (not standard), projects with a robust European dimension exist in the context of the 7th Framework Programme for Research of the European Union (FP7).
The rules for participation, the criteria of eligibility, preparation and submission of a proposal, the work programme, are described in the website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html
Please note that the proposals can be only submitted following a call for proposals. I inform you that the DG-TREN 2008 call for proposal under FP7 for the energy theme will be launched at the end of April 2008. the details will be available at the same address.