Is the world in general and Europe in particular finally preparing itself for the "post-oil" era? Several symptoms point to it. The USA, EU countries and several other countries have sufficient scientific and technical knowledge to launch into it, but there were two pre-requisites which were necessary before they would put the necessary effort and means into it: a sustained and growing increase in the price of oil, and the political will to impose the turnaround on the oil magnates who are the major beneficiaries of the current situation. These conditions now seem to have been met. Experts are unanimous in saying that the price of oil will continue to rise, added to which the alternative sources and technical advances (often very costly) are already or will soon become economically viable.
USA has made its choice. According to information from the USA, George Bush is said to have made it clear that oil-interests will no longer dictate his behaviour. His announced objective is to make the USA energy-autonomous by 2025. Oil used after this time will be American oil, and alternative energies will replace imported oil. Not everything is clear in this new strategy, but the aim is to have energy which is “clean and safe”. And when the USA commits its dynamism, capacity and finances to reaching a “new frontier”, it's no joke. The priority objectives concern electric and hydrogen-powered cars, extracting ethanol from agricultural waste (competitive objective: 2012), solar power (2015), and a new method for reprocessing uranium which will no longer produce plutonium which can be used for military purposes. The funding available for this programme will be considerable from 2007, and the USA certainly has no lack of researchers, space or sunshine. This will be the most positive and desirable aspect of the war on terror, the methods being more acceptable (and, one hopes, effective) than the invasion of Iraq, the camp at Guantanamo bay or certain CIA operations.
Balance between the two aspects. Europe cannot ignore what is going on on the other side of the Atlantic in its three imminent political meetings: the Commission green paper this week, the Energy Council next week and the debate at the Summit on 23/24 March. There is a need to balance the effective management of the current situation (the predominance of oil and European dependence on external sources, which will persist for a number of years) and the accelerated preparations of the developments to be announced. The first aspect includes relations with supplier-countries, the development and diversification of networks linking Europe to these countries, the installations for receiving and processing gas imported in liquid-form, etc. Relations with Russia are still a priority (see this column in our bulletin 9141 on the Energy Charter), as are those with Turkey, not forgetting other elements, such as Algeria's ability to increase its gas supplies, the position of countries in Central and Eastern Europe (including Austria) with regard to diversifying their supply sources by linking up to the Algerian gas network, new pipeline projects in the Baltic and the Caspian sea, etc.
But strengthening and launching projects for the “post-oil” era must take place in parallel. The Commission has stepped up its initiatives in favour of alternative energy-sources, particularly those from agricultural sources, and its green paper will probably give a lot of space to such initiatives. The USA's intentions are likely to crack the political whip at European ambitions, creating a sense of urgency at the highest levels.
Question marks. This somewhat rhetorical appeal implies some more controversial issues than is being admitted. Should the energy policy of tomorrow include or exclude the nuclear option? The Greens want to go as far as doing away with research in this area, whereas on the other side of the political fence it is stated that the problem of waste has been solved, a third generation reactor is built, the fourth generation is announced. Bio-fuels are supported by everyone, but already there is in-fighting about whether to protect European production with customs duties. Wind power is sometimes contested… in the name of the environment! And what of the hydrogen revolution? Jeremy Rifkin announces it will be here tomorrow, but then five university professors turn up to announce that it is “an illusion, potentially fraught with consequences”.
By the end of the month, the political promises of complete commitment should have been achieved. There is therefore a need to tackle the points I have mentioned above, along with others.
(F.R.)