Good News from Europe:

Reasoned Approaches to Energy Policy

Two optimistic pieces of news regarding energy policy emerged from Europe in the last week or so.  One of them was a European Union decision that scrapped binding renewable energy targets for the future.  The other was a report that the Swiss public recognizes the contribution nuclear power makes to their energy security and that they want a say in decisions about the future of nuclear energy in Switzerland.

The EU decision was a major breakthrough.  Targets for 2020, previously established, known as the "20-20-20" targets, set three key objectives for 2020:

• A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels;
• Raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20%;
• A 20% improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.

These overall targets were supported by a layer of individual national targets based on the wealth of individual EU member countries, with the wealthier countries required to commit to higher renewable energy goals.

The 2020 targets will still stand.  The hotly debated issue in this round was how to set the targets for 2030 and beyond.  Countries like Germany and Italy were pushing for further individual targets for renewable energy sources, while countries like the United Kingdom pushed for more flexibility.  It appears that the arguments for flexibility won the day this time around.  The European Commission set a 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target of 40% over 1990 levels.  There is also an EU-wide target of 27% of energy consumption from renewable sources--BUT, there are no individual national target commitments.  Instead, each nation retains the flexibility to do what makes most sense in that country.

Although here are further steps ahead in finalizing this new plan, this is a major step and a significant change in policy from the past.  It removes the discrimination for and against specific energy technologies, and allows each country to chose a mix that best suits their needs based on their climate, population density, indigenous sources, and other factors.  This is a welcome change in direction.

The news from Switzerland also represents a step forward in having rational discussions on energy supply and demand.  In a series of questions on nuclear power in Switzerland, a majority of the respondents said that Switzerland's nuclear power plants were essential in meeting the country's energy demand, that the reactors should remain in operation, that the population does not want to be dependent on other countries for its energy supply, that the existing mix of energy sources should be retained in the immediate future, and that they want to be able to vote on Switzerland's future nuclear energy policy.  In most of these cases, the percent favorable response has gone up since the last such survey.

This again appears to be at least somewhat of a break with past policy--the current plan in Switzerland is to phase out nuclear power by not replacing the current reactors with new nuclear power plants as they are retired--and a recognition that a nation's energy supply must consider a complex set of interacting factors.  In the case of Switzerland, energy independence and security were highlighted. 

While it is far too soon to project what further developments will follow the EU decision or the Swiss survey, and what the ultimate result will be on the mix of energy sources, it is a welcome breath of fresh air to see the dialogue shifting from a preordained solution to one where energy supply decisions take into account the unique circumstances of each country and all the complex considerations that affect, or are affected by, a nation's energy choices.

***

Replacing Nuclear Power:

And Other Fantasies

Individuals who are anti-nuclear or just plain afraid of nuclear have long harbored the illusion that existing nuclear power is easy to replace. "Just build more solar arrays," I have heard, or "Just put up more windmills." Few are aware of how long it takes to build any new capacity in substantial quantities.

While individuals can, perhaps, be forgiven for not being able to "do the math" and figure out what is really involved in substituting for a substantial fraction of a nation's electricity supply, it is more troubling when countries start subscribing to the same myths, as several countries have done in the last couple of weeks.

Not surprisingly, given its history, Germany has led the way. "We'll just build more renewable energy sources and improve the grid," the government has said. Switzerland soon followed. Grudgingly, the governments are acknowledging that their move in this direction means that they will burn more fossil fuels, at least in the near future.

Actually, it will probably mean that they will build more fossil fuels for quite some time, as they are acknowledging that the shutdown of nuclear plants will require new fossil fuel capacity. It is hard to see them building new fossil-fueled power plants for just a few years of operation. Therefore, the first casualty of the German and Swiss decision is the effort to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

What Germany and Switzerland are not acknowledging is that they will actually not cut their effective use of nuclear power by very much. One advantage of the interconnected European grid is that they can draw on power produced by their neighbors. This allows them to self-righteously proclaim that they are leading the world to a newer, greener nirvana, while they conveniently block out the fact that their neighbors produce much of the electricity by means of nuclear power plants.

As an aside, I should say that I'm not completely sure that France and other neighbor countries can make up for the loss of this much nuclear power without having some negative effects for their own country. So, the second casualty of the German and Swiss decision may be some larger geopolitical consequences.

In any event, Japan doesn't have the luxury of drawing electricity from neighboring countries. Being an island, it is not interconnected to other sources of supply, nuclear or non-nuclear. Therefore, despite the magnitude of the accident, it is surprising and troubling to hear some people in Japan speculate that they may not restart reactors as they shut down for routine maintenance, and that all of Japan's reactors could be closed a year from now. While this may be an extreme view, even the less extreme views seem to be disconnected with reality.

It is true that there is a lot of local opposition to nuclear power at the moment, and the concern of the public is understandable. However, Japan is already suffering power shortages with the plants that are currently shut down. And it isn't even the height of summer there yet.

Even before the accident, Japan had a tight power supply by Western standards. Of course, I know that Americans use more energy than other industrialized nations, and that other countries maintain a standard of living similar to ours with a lower per capita energy expenditure. Still, having lived in both Japan and France, I can say from personal experience that not only are homes smaller in Japan than elsewhere, but the supply of electricity per household is also smaller.

Therefore, I am disappointed to see Japan appearing to retreat from reality. Germany and Switzerland may be able to survive with their heads in the sand, while others feed their thirst for electricity, but Japan has no such options. So a consequence of the directions Japan is beginning to take may have severe consequences on the Japanese economy.

In short, the rosy optimism countries seem to have that they will "just" replace nuclear power with other sources of electricity is likely to have some serious negative consequences, both within their own borders and around the world.

***