The political willingness of EU Member States is clearly the most important condition for the idea of a Common Energy Policy to take shape. However, it is also necessary that the EU overcomes some differences of opinion and difficulties (see yesterday's column), concerning:
Differences of opinion on nuclear energy - At first sight, the arguments both for and against hold water. And that is where the problem lies. One only has to listen to the Greens who rule out nuclear energy development altogether. They argue that the problem of nuclear waste has yet to be resolved. Nuclear waste is stowed away all over the planet: In the deep abysses of the sea in decaying containers, dumped in salt mines or other unlikely places, stored in or around reactors which are not in service any more and the nuclear waste continues to emit radiation and shall continue to do so for dozens, hundreds or even thousands of years of come. Do we have the right to leave such a legacy to future generations? As for accidents, zero risk cannot be achieved. The choice of nuclear energy therefore represents a continual threat to humanity. But when we listen to those in favour, they insist that nuclear energy is pollution-free and is the only way to generate large amounts of energy without any negative effects on air and climate. And they claim that the problem of nuclear waste will be resolved (several solutions are being studied, including the disposal of nuclear waste in space) and that new power stations are getting safer by the day. Not to mention the impact of spreading European technology round the world. In fact, no serious accident has ever occurred in Western European power stations, as Chernobyl was the doing of a regime that saw the well-being of humanity in general and environmental protection as the least of its worries. Power stations of the same type still in service are gradually being decommissioned with EU aid and no more will be built. Simultaneously, research is continuing into new ways of generating nuclear electricity in the future, based on radically different ideas from atomic fission.
I think it's an area where we will have to pin our hopes upon representative democracy, however widely criticised in recent times. The average citizen, to which category I belong, does not have enough expertise to really form a valid opinion about nuclear energy. It is up to national parliaments (by telling governments what stance to take at the Council of the EU) and the European Parliament to give their views, after taking the best qualified scientific advice.
Paradox of certain renewable energy sources. Scientists, politicians and the general public are unanimous in their support of renewable energy sources. But putting it into practice on a large-scale raises questions and reservations. Comments that wind turbines ruin the landscape are becoming more frequent, or that solar panels take up too much space and have other drawbacks, and that agricultural sources of energy need huge tracts of land which are rarely available on our continent (rather congested when compared to the rest of the planet) and that their cultivation needs lots of energy itself. No one says that these sources should be dropped, but the most prudent are calling for plans to be scaled back because they will only make a modest (but real) contribution to future energy needs. Some observers are a bit more optimistic. In a recent speech, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said she is still thoroughly convinced bio-fuel has a real future in the EU, outlining its undeniable advantages, namely protecting the environment, freeing the EU economy from its dependence on oil imports, using technology “made in Europe”, creating new markets for European farmers. She added, however, that start-up aid for bio-fuel is essential, in addition to the existing measures (aid per hectare) and measures under study (not including sugar beet for ethanol production in future sugar production quotas). The Commissioner concluded that Europe cannot go on counting on “black gold” to satisfy its energy needs. Tomorrow's gold will be green!
Even if the sceptics were right about bio-fuel's contribution to the generation of electricity in Europe, one should not forget the positive potential of biomass, most importantly that there is colossal potential for bio-fuel elsewhere, in Brazil for example. But this consideration comes under another chapter of the energy issue, a world-wide issue involving several other countries, like Russia, and therefore deserves separate consideration. (F.R.)