The hydrogen and ethanol powered car

[break]
Riots won’t bring oil prices down. Andris Piebalgs blog entry from 6th June. My emphasis added.

Last Tuesday I was a witness of a very sad episode. Belgian riot police employed force against a group of French and Italian fishermen marching to the European quarter to protest violently against high price of fuel. A car crash occurred as a consequence of the riots. The frustration of the demonstration is easy to understand, but certainly demonstrations and street fights are not the answer to this problem. Oil prices are high and will go higher. No demonstration can change that.

In the past, periods of relatively expensive crude, were followed by periods of cheap oil due to temporary factors like the first Gulf war. Currently, as well, there are temporary factors that are influencing oil prices, like the boom in commodities markets, geopolitical situation in several key producing areas, the weakening of the dollar or the turmoil in global financial markets.

However, the real drivers of oil price escalade have a structural nature. You all know the offer and demand law. If offer decreases, price increases. If there is a growth on demand, there is also a growth on price. If, at the same time offer decreases and demand increases then, price skyrockets. This is precisely what is happening in oil markets.

In year 2000 China had 4 million cars. In 2005 - already 19 million cars. It is expected that in 2010 the Chinese car fleet will be 55 million and 130 million in 2020. India is following a similar trend, and the economies of the United States and Europe continue to devour oil in large quantities. More and more people compete for an increasingly scarce commodity. We all know that oil will run out some day. The exact date is certainly under discussion, but there is a fact that nobody can deny, getting oil out of the earth is now much more difficult and expensive that it used to be.

The easy sources of oil are already in use. Oil companies are currently exploring in deep seas or in frozen and inaccessible regions. Geopolitical uncertainties reign in oil producing areas, while there is a growing tendency among producing countries to nationalise their resources, or make foreign investments more difficult. There is a growing shortage of highly skilled working force and exploration and production of oil is becoming a high tech activity, extremely expensive.

We all know the consequences. The barrel is currently around 130$, 300% more expensive than only 3 years ago. Experts are talking about prices of 200$ per barrel for next year only. At this levels, even non-conventional oil sources, such as heavy crude or tar sands become attractive, despite its awful CO2 foot print and high energy consumption.

So what is the solution? Well, we have to move away from oil. This is what the European Energy Policy is all about.We need to reduce demand with more efficient transport, industry and housing. We need to promote alternative fuels, like biofuels, electricity or hydrogen; we need to change to cleaner and more efficient transport modes like rail, short sea shipping, or public transport. And in the meantime, we need to continue our dialog with oil producers to encourage them to produce more and to supply the markets better. On 24th of June, I will meet ministers of the OPEC countries to discuss with them on this issue.

The era of cheap and easily available oil is over. We need to move away from black gold and put our efforts in a low carbon economy. The sooner we do that, the better.

My reply

Dear Andris,

This entry is the most appalling muddled mess - which is a direct reflection of EU energy policy. There are shafts of sunlight mixed in with utter rubbish.

Each time I have left an entry here I have told you that we are in the early stages of a full blown energy crisis. It is a great pity that you have waited until oil hit $130 per barrel and for French fisherman to riot before realising that this is indeed the case. Of course if you and your team were up to the job, you would be able to study the oil supply and demand data published by the IEA, the EIA and BP and conclude that an energy crisis is on the way in advance and put in place effective strategies to mitigate for this. But no, your approach is reactive, well behind the curve, wrongly focussed and without a substantial re-writing of the EU Energy policy, it is destined to fail. The riots in Belgium and Iberia are partly your fault. You are the EU energy commissioner, pipe dreaming whilst EU energy security drains away.

It is encouraging to see that you finally understand that demand for oil, gas and coal are rising whilst supply for oil at least is static. Rising demand against static supply is controlled by escalating price, encouraging conservation and pricing poor Europeans out of the energy market. You should by now understand that when poor people get priced out of the energy market they riot.

The next thing you need to grasp with some urgency is that oil supply will not stay static for long. IT IS GOING TO GO DOWN ONE DAY VERY SOON. (2012±3 years) And then the problems we are experiencing now will get worse by a factor of 100 or more. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?

The EU and the OECD in general has absolutely no control over raising global oil supplies. You seem to think that OPEC does, BUT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT OPEC ARE PUMPING FLAT OUT. The IEA data shows that their reserve capacity is near zero. So the only control OPEC has would be to reduce supply in order to conserve their dwindling reserves for future generations.

Thus, the only part of the equation that the EU can control is demand. The EU needs to introduce with some urgency measures to reduce demand for oil and natural gas. And here I believe you make some good points. We need solid, urgent plans to radically transform our transportation systems. To be blunt, cheap air travel for all will not be part of this future. Shipping, canals, and electrified mass transit and electric cars are the future. We need someone with vision to stimulate pilot V2G projects across Europe.

Energy conservation and energy efficiency must be vital cornerstones of the EU energy policy. I believe you understand that but you don't seem to understand what energy efficiency means. (hence you drive one of the least energy efficient cars ever produced). Producing H uses more energy than can be recovered. It is an energy sink, a waste of energy and a waste of time (apart from in some isolated special cases). Ethanol consumes almost as much energy as it produces and falls into the same category - a waste of time and precious energy. You are converting Gold (nat gas) to Lead (ethanol - anecdote borrowed from Matt Simmons). As a guiding beacon if the eroei of an energy producing system is less than 7 then it must be ignored. It does not produce sufficient net energy to run society - and so pursuing the twin follies of H and ethanol will drag Europe off the net energy cliff.

In essence what you have done in this blog entry is to re-package the wholly misguided EU energy policy that is predicated on climate change and trying now to sell this rubbish as a solution to the emerging energy crisis.

From here there are two ways forward. You either have to admit that the current energy policy is a shambolic mess, tear it up and start over - but this needs to be done urgently, within a matter of months. Or you need to resign and let someone else do this vital job.

Euan Mearns BSc PhD
Editor The Oil Drum Europe

PS I wholly endorse tonyw's comment up thread - if you want to reduce demand for oil today we need pan-european speed limits and legislation on gas guzzlers. Let these fine German engineers turn their attention to efficiency instead of speed and power.

If you feel strongly about EU energy policy then please leave a comment on Andris Piebalgs blog on the thread - Riots won't bring oil prices down

The EU Commission contemplating driving Europe and all its citizens off the net energy cliff. The Oil Drum's geologists, chemists, physicists, economists, bankers and engineers are in pursuit, trying to stop them. Will they get there in time?

Pictures from Thelma and Louise who were having a great time on a girls night out until they made a mistake. And one thing lead to another....

High fuel prices are wreaking havoc in Europe, some call for tax exemptions others go on strike. The structural constraints affecting oil supply are becoming to much to bear for Europeans, especially those more reliant on the automobile. But before going out for a demonstration against who ever you may think is responsible for high fuel prices, there are a few things you can do to ease the pain: it's called Eco-Driving.

[break] Crossposted at the European Tribune.

Together with Europia (European Petroleum Industry Association) the European Commission has launched a campaign to promote energy efficient driving. Leaflets with a roll of tips that help drivers reducing their fuel consumption will be made available at filling stations all across Europe. Some 45 000 stations will receive the leaflets in one the biggest public information campaign I can remember (surely the biggest on Energy). The press from the Comission anouncing the campaign can be read in full here.

Andris Piebalgs wrote in his blog about this “intelligent driving”:

I made recently a short test with an eco-driving simulator. By applying all eco-driving tips, a normal driver is able to reduce his energy consumption in an urban circuit from 7.3 l/100km to 5 liters. That means, at a price of 1.40 € per litre of gasoline and 15 000 km per year, that the driver is saving 500 €. Let’s imagine that the drivers would apply just some of the tips, we are still speaking of impressive savings, in money terms for the citizens and in CO2 emissions for the planet.

Eco-driving entails no investment, no need for sacrifice. It is simply a matter of responsible behaviour, keeping in mind some principles when driving, which make sense and are beneficial in all respects: not only for our planet and economy, but also for our health and our safety. One could ask: Why do so few people eco-drive? The reply is quite obvious: because we have not been educated to do that! Only recently are eco-driving principles really becoming part of the syllabus for obtaining a driver’s licence. That means that only new drivers have been taught to drive intelligently.

A website was made promoting the campaign on-line. Go there and click your flag of choice, you'll be presented with some funny cartoons exemplifying the tips (nice to send around to your friends perhaps).

Here are the 10 tips being promoted in the leaflet [pdf 2.9 Mb]:

Save more than fuel

10 tips to help you drive more efficiently.

1. Keep your car well serviced and check the oil level regularly.
   Correctly maintained cars can operate more efficiently and help reduce CO2 emissions.


2. Check your tyre pressure every month.
   Under-inflated tyres can increase fuel consumption by up to 4%.


3. Remove unnecessary weight from your boot or back seats.
   The heavier the car, the harder the engine has to work and the more fuel it consumes.


4. Close your windows, especially at higher speeds, and remove empty roof racks.
   This will reduce wind resistance and can lower your fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10%.


5. Use air conditioning only when necessary.
   Unnecessary use increases fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 5%.


6. Start driving soon after starting the engine and turn off the engine when stationary for more than one minute.
   Modern engines enable you to just get in and go, thus reducing fuel consumption.


7. Drive at reasonable speeds and above all, drive smoothly.
   Every time you accelerate or brake suddenly, your engine uses more fuel and produces more CO2.


8. When accelerating, change up gears as early as possible.
   Higher gears are more economical in terms of fuel consumption.


9. Try to anticipate traffic flow.
   Look at the traffic as far ahead as possible in order to avoid unnecessary stopping and starting within the flow of traffic.


10. Consider car sharing for work or leisure.
    You will help reduce congestion and fuel consumption.

Following these tips will not likely have any impact on world oil prices, but they are one step that each EU citizen can take to ease the dependence on oil and at the same time diminish the economic backlash from high fuel costs.

Finally there's a video worth watching on EUtube on the subject (possibly good educational stuff too):

This week Andris Piebalgs talks Nuclear in his blog. Without taboos, Andris lays down the advantages of Nuclear energy that have put it at the core of the Commission's New Energy Policy for Europe.

Nuclear energy has been discussed many times at TOD, mostly from a technical perspective, on its practicality and long-term sustainability. This time we look at Nuclear Energy policy, from the perspective of an Executive that has made a clear option towards this energy source.

Source: NewScientistTech (click to enlarge)

[break]

Crossposted at the European Tribune

Concerns with CO2 emissions are still the main driver behind the EU's Energy Policy, but from the several texts reproduced henceforth, it is becoming clearer a certain sense of urgency towards energy security from the stakeholders.

In his blog, Andris starts by asserting that Nuclear has special a role to fulfill, that other energy sources and/or policies are not able to meet at the moment:

In this context, energy efficiency, renewables and sustainable biofuels have all a very important and growing contribution to make for a sustainable energy policy, as we have seen in previous entries of this blog. However, for the production of base-load energy at competitive prices, nuclear energy is currently the main low-carbon source in many EU Member States.

But there is more to Nuclear energy that makes it so attractive to policy makers at the moment:

Let’s start with some facts. Taken together, the EU is the largest nuclear electricity generator in the world, has a mature nuclear industry spanning the entire fuel cycle with its own technological base and highly skilled workforce. Currently, nuclear energy provides more than a third of EU electricity. It has proven to be a stable, reliable source, relatively shielded from price fluctuations when compared to the oil and gas markets. Conventional nuclear energy is essentially free from CO2 emissions and on the face of it, fulfils an important requirement of all three pillars of the EU energy policy, which are competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability. Continued use of nuclear energy therefore would increase our energy independence and supply security as well as contribute to the limitation of CO2 emissions.
[emphasis added]

As a consequence of the current Energy Policy approved by the Council in March of 2007 the Commission set up the European Nuclear Energy Forum in order to provide a debate among stakeholders in a way transparent to the EU citizens.

The idea is simply to have the politic stakeholders, regulators, industry stakeholders and scientists dialoguing together and at the same time projecting a friendlier image of Nuclear Fission in Europe, where safety is ahead of all concerns.

The Czech and Slovak Prime Ministers agreed on jointly host the Forum, which was set to be held alternatively in Bratislava and Prague. The first meeting took place in late November in Bratislava and the next will be held in Prague later this month. Andris promises to take with his luggage the proposals left by commentators at his blog.

After looking into some of the texts produced during the first meeting of the Forum, some passages seem worth reproducing here. Barroso was in China at that time and sent a letter that Andris, as the senior representative of the Commission, read during the opening session. Some important points were made:

In this context I really believe that there is a need for a full and frank debate about nuclear energy. It is not the EU's role, or indeed the role of the Commission, to decide for Member States whether they use nuclear energy or not.

But it is - in my view - not surprising that we are witnessing a renewed interest of nuclear energy at global level. Nuclear energy can have a role to play in meeting our growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions. In the EU, around one third of the electricity currently comes from nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy also protects our economy against price volatility of energy prices, as nuclear power is less vulnerable to fuel price changes than some other energy sources. With the current record oil prices, this element is becoming increasingly important.

At the same time, I believe that in the context of the revival of nuclear energy, we need to develop further in Europe the most advanced framework for nuclear energy, meeting the highest standards of safety, security and non proliferation. The EU should also continue their efforts to ensure that such high standards are observed internationally, in the context of increased cooperation with the IAEA.

Although not the main driver, “price volatility” is gaining relevance. When Andris took on the speech with his own words he left it clear that there are serious problems. These appear to be some of the most anxious declarations on Oil ever produced by the Energy Commissioner:

I am concerned about the current escalation of the oil prices and its consequences for our economies. The energy package adopted by Heads of State and Government in March this year already highlighted the multi-dimensional challenges we are facing. But the exponential price increase of crude oil has even accelerated the need for swift and structural action. Therefore we increasingly need a totally open debate on all potential sources of energy, including nuclear energy, to reflect on our energy mix.

[...]

Together with and complementarily to the work of the High Level Group, improving nuclear safety must be an overwhelming principle of your dialogue here as well. The highest level of safety, but also of security and non-proliferation, is the absolute condition for the use and development of nuclear energy.

[...]

However I would like to stress that the highest possible level of safety is only a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Public acceptance is the second important pillar.

Building trust and increasing confidence in the use of nuclear energy are vital elements for public acceptance in democratic societies. Increased transparency and participation is in the interest of all, whatever their position on nuclear. This is at the core of the debates to which you will participate. Gaining trust and confidence, involving the citizens in the decision-making process, tackling all issues in a transparent way are not easy tasks. But they are issues on which you as decision makers or as influential observers have to focus your efforts on. It means demonstrating to people that the risks of nuclear energy are dealt with in a satisfactory manner, that the concerns of the population are taken seriously, and that you are all willing to help those who are not confident yet to get the necessary and balanced information which may gradually reassure them.

In a more elaborate way, Andris explains the importance of Nuclear energy in facing the challenges ahead for the EU. And once more the negative public image is presented as an obstacle left to overcome that could hinder the process.

On the first meeting's website you can find a plethora of texts from different people with different backgrounds. It is worth while to spend sometime studying them if you have the slightest interest in this matter.

Finally the conclusive document of this first meeting:

Main priorities for the Working Groups of the European Nucelar Energy Forum

“Opportunities of nuclear energy”

1. To establish a Nuclear Energy Roadmap to improve the nuclear legal framework, including greater harmonization of licensing procedures.
2. To analyse in more detail, in comparison with other energy sources, the competitiveness of nuclear energy in a European low carbon and global security context. To examine ways to translate some competitive advantages of nuclear energy in the final price of domestic and business consumers.
3. To explore innovative models regarding regional approaches and financing possibilities in the field of nuclear energy.
4. To examine the ways and means to maintain the industrial capacity while improving the industrial environment.

“Risks of nuclear energy”

1. To support a greater harmonization of safety requirements at EU level for nuclear installations in the EU (notable through the High Level Group).
2. To encourage Members States and industry to swiftly implement adequate nuclear waste disposal facilities, in particular deep geological repositories for high level waste.
3. To call for sufficient funding for decommissioning and waste management through adequate methods.
4. To develop innovative approaches and exchange best practices to ensure adequate training, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for nuclear engineers and technicians, including radioprotection (e.g. Possible European post-graduate degrees), and to strengthen the safety culture.
5. To support the reinforcement of non-proliferation in the international context through a stronger European position and the strengthening of nuclear security.

“Information and transparency”

1. To examine ways and means to better inform the public in the objective and factual terms all aspects of nuclear energy (e.g. in the context of new build, encourage common approaches between regulators).
2. To analyse the most effective approaches to build up trust and confidence in the available information, by increasing transparency and giving access to all non-sensitive information.
3. To provide information in clear language on the existing solutions for waste management.
4. To exchange and develop best practices at European level between all actors (Member States, municipalities, industry, etc.).

I left on Andris' blog an idea for a European special budget for energy development. With an income tax of 0,1% to 0,2% on each EU citizen, a value in the order of 4 to 8 Giga €uros (4 to 8 short billion €uros) could be raised every year. That money could get a lot people and a lot of resources working together to develop the EU's energy future. Nuclear seems to be the discipline that could benefit the most from such programme, due to the extra infrastructure and waste disposal requirements.

Without starting another endless and quite often inconclusive technical debate, I would like this time to get comments on Nuclear Energy policy. What is the Commission doing right? What is it doing wrong? What alternative policies can be pursued?

And don't forget to pay a visit to Andris' blog and leave some ideas for the second meeting of the Forum.

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs' priority number one

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

This week Andris Piebalgs talks Nuclear in his blog. Without taboos, Andris lays down the advantages of Nuclear energy that have put it at the core of the Commission's New Energy Policy for Europe.

Nuclear energy has been discussed many times at TOD, mostly from a technical perspective, on its practicality and long-term sustainability. This time we look at Nuclear Energy policy, from the perspective of an Executive that has made a clear option towards this energy source.

Source: NewScientistTech (click to enlarge)

[break]

Concerns with CO2 emissions are still the main driver behind the EU's Energy Policy, but from the several texts reproduced henceforth, it is becoming clearer a certain sense of urgency towards energy security from the stakeholders.

In his blog, Andris starts by asserting that Nuclear has special a role to fulfil, that other energy sources and/or policies are not able to meet at the moment:

In this context, energy efficiency, renewables and sustainable biofuels have all a very important and growing contribution to make for a sustainable energy policy, as we have seen in previous entries of this blog. However, for the production of base-load energy at competitive prices, nuclear energy is currently the main low-carbon source in many EU Member States.

But there is more to Nuclear energy that makes it so attractive to policy makers at the moment:

Let’s start with some facts. Taken together, the EU is the largest nuclear electricity generator in the world, has a mature nuclear industry spanning the entire fuel cycle with its own technological base and highly skilled workforce. Currently, nuclear energy provides more than a third of EU electricity. It has proven to be a stable, reliable source, relatively shielded from price fluctuations when compared to the oil and gas markets. Conventional nuclear energy is essentially free from CO2 emissions and on the face of it, fulfils an important requirement of all three pillars of the EU energy policy, which are competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability. Continued use of nuclear energy therefore would increase our energy independence and supply security as well as contribute to the limitation of CO2 emissions.
[enfasis added]

As a consequence of the current Energy Policy approved by the Council in March of 2007 the Commission set up the European Nuclear Energy Forum in order to provide a debate among stakeholders in a way transparent to the EU citizens.

The idea is simply to have the politic stakeholders, regulators, industry stakeholders and scientists dialoguing together and at the same time projecting a friendlier image of Nuclear Fission in Europe, where safety is ahead of all concerns.

The Czech and Slovak Prime Ministers agreed on jointly host the Forum, which was set to be held alternatively in Bratislava and Prague. The first meeting took place in late November in Bratislava and the next will be held in Prague later this month. Andris promises to take with his luggage the proposals left by commentators at his blog.

After looking into some of the texts produced during the first meeting of the Forum, some passages seem worth reproducing here. Barroso was in China at that time and sent a letter that Andris, as the senior representative of the Comission, read during the opening session. Some important points were made:

In this context I really believe that there is a need for a full and frank debate about nuclear energy. It is not the EU's role, or indeed the role of the Commission, to decide for Member States whether they use nuclear energy or not.

But it is - in my view - not surprising that we are witnessing a renewed interest of nuclear energy at global level. Nuclear energy can have a role to play in meeting our growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions. In the EU, around one third of the electricity currently comes from nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy also protects our economy against price volatility of energy prices, as nuclear power is less vulnerable to fuel price changes than some other energy sources. With the current record oil prices, this element is becoming increasingly important.

At the same time, I believe that in the context of the revival of nuclear energy, we need to develop further in Europe the most advanced framework for nuclear energy, meeting the highest standards of safety, security and non proliferation. The EU should also continue their efforts to ensure that such high standards are observed internationally, in the context of increased cooperation with the IAEA.

Although not the main driver, “price volatility” is gaining relevance. When Andris took on the speech with his own words he left it clear that there are serious problems. These appear to be some of the most anxious declarations on Oil ever produced by the Energy Commissioner:

I am concerned about the current escalation of the oil prices and its consequences for our economies. The energy package adopted by Heads of State and Government in March this year already highlighted the multi-dimensional challenges we are facing. But the exponential price increase of crude oil has even accelerated the need for swift and structural action. Therefore we increasingly need a totally open debate on all potential sources of energy, including nuclear energy, to reflect on our energy mix.

[...]

Together with and complementarily to the work of the High Level Group, improving nuclear safety must be an overwhelming principle of your dialogue here as well. The highest level of safety, but also of security and non-proliferation, is the absolute condition for the use and development of nuclear energy.

[...]

However I would like to stress that the highest possible level of safety is only a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Public acceptance is the second important pillar.

Building trust and increasing confidence in the use of nuclear energy are vital elements for public acceptance in democratic societies. Increased transparency and participation is in the interest of all, whatever their position on nuclear. This is at the core of the debates to which you will participate. Gaining trust and confidence, involving the citizens in the decision-making process, tackling all issues in a transparent way are not easy tasks. But they are issues on which you as decision makers or as influential observers have to focus your efforts on. It means demonstrating to people that the risks of nuclear energy are dealt with in a satisfactory manner, that the concerns of the population are taken seriously, and that you are all willing to help those who are not confident yet to get the necessary and balanced information which may gradually reassure them.

In a more elaborate way, Andris explains the importance of Nuclear energy in facing the challenges ahead for the EU. And once more the negative public image is presented as an obstacle left to overcome that could hinder the process.

On the first meeting's website you can find a plethora of texts from different people with different backgrounds. It is worth while to spend sometime studying them if you have the slightest interest in this matter.

Finally the conclusive document of this first meeting:

Main priorities for the Working Groups of the European Nucelar Energy Forum

“Opportunities of nuclear energy”

1. To establish a Nuclear Energy Roadmap to improve the nuclear legal framework, including greater harmonization of licensing procedures.
2. To analyse in more detail, in comparision with other energy sources, the competitiveness of nuclear energy in a European low carbon and global security context. To examine ways to translate some competitive advantages of nuclear energy in the final price of domestic and business consumers.
3. To explore innovative models regarding regional approaches and financing possibilities in the field of nuclear energy.
4. To examine the ways and means to maintain the industrial capacity while improving the industrial environment.

“Risks of nuclear energy”

1. To support a greater harmonization of safety requirements at EU level for nuclear installations in the EU (notable through the High Level Group).
2. To encourage Members States and industry to swiftly implement adequate nuclear waste disposal facilities, in particular deep geological repositories for high level waste.
3. To call for sufficient funding for decommissioning and waste management through adequate methods.
4. To develop innovative approaches and exchange best practices to ensure adequate training, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for nuclear engineers and technicians, including radioprotection (e.g. Possible European post-graduate degress), and to strengthen the safety culture.
5. To support the reinforcement of non-proliferation in the international context through a stronger European position and the strengthening of nuclear security.

“Information and transparency”

1. To examine ways and means to better inform the public in the objective and factual terms all aspects of nuclear energy (e.g. in the context of new build, encourage common approaches between regulators).
2. To analyse the most effective approaches to build up trust and confidence in the available information, by increasing transparency and giving access to all non-sensitive information.
3. To provide information in clear language on the existing solutions for waste management.
4. To exchange and develop best practices at European level between all actors (Member States, municipalities, industry, etc.).

I left on Andris' blog an idea for a European special budget for energy development. With an income tax of 0,1% on each EU citizen, a value in the order of 8 Giga €uros (8 short billion €uros) could be raised every year. That money could get a lot people and a lot of resources working together to develop the EU's energy future. Nuclear seems to be the discipline that could benefit the most from such programme, due to the extra infrastructure and waste disposal requirements.

Without starting another endless and quite often inconclusive technical debate, I would like this time to get comments on Nuclear Energy policy. What is the Commission doing right? What is it doing wrong? What alternative policies can be pursued?

And don't forget to pay a visit to Andris' blog and leave some ideas for the second meeting of the Forum.

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs' priority number one

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

Last week's log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:

Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.

[break]

Crossposted at The European Tribune.

After an awkward start with bio-fuels, Andris Piebalgs is finally addressing EU's energy future objectively. In a nutshell:

For me the best energy is the energy that we don’t use. In other words, energy efficiency. There is no cleaner kilowatt/hour than the one we don’t consume. Every cubic meter of gas we don’t burn makes us a cubic meter less dependent on foreign supplies. Every barrel of petrol that we don’t need makes our economy a barrel less vulnerable to volatile oil prices.

These few sentences address many of the issues raised by the commentators at Andris' blog during the past weeks. But there is more to it than simply facing the coming energy decline, an Energy Efficiency policy can have economic upturns:

To make things more interesting, when we make an investment in energy efficiency we create jobs and growth in Europe. Let’s put the case of better insulation for your house. Putting double glazed windows certainly is an investment that has a cost. So has your gas bill. The difference is that the cost of the windows will go to a European window company, and will be installed by European workers. Your double-glazed window will not only help to reduce your gas bill and your greenhouse gas emissions, increase the comfort of your house, but will also help to create new window companies and installer jobs. The alternative consists of taking your hard earned euros and sending them to rich oil and gas producing countries.

This all sounds better than the hollow bio-fuel talk. As we've seen previously at TOD:E some states in the EU have poor records on GDP unit generated per Fossil Fuel unit consumed. This could be a good measure of how this policy gets under way. As discussed, the 2000$ / boe could be a tentative target for every state of the EU (accounting for currency oscillations).

Some commentators were fast in reminding that Jevons' Paradox may indeed imply a different outcome than what would otherwise be expected from energy efficiency improvements. But for energy consumption to increase in face of a technological development, there has to be surplus supply, which at least for Oil and Natural Gas today is not the case.

There are two extra advantages for a Energy Efficiency lead policy in today's energy landscape:

• Alternative energy sources have their own timings entering the market. Even if there’s a political shift towards some alternative(s), technological development might constrain its growth (e.g. Photo-voltaics) hence Efficiency might be the best short-term policy against energy constraints;
• Energy Efficiency is popular. It is hard for anyone to be against it, the dependence on foreign sources diminishes as so the bills by the end of the month.

Finally the announcement of how this policy is taking shape:

Certainly, there are many things that the Commission can do at political level, and I’m proud to announce that 2008 will be the European year of energy efficiency. During these 12 months I plan to come up with a number of energy efficiency legislative proposals, including a stronger energy efficiency in buildings directive; a new energy efficiency labelling directive; new standards for energy efficiency in various groups of products; a Covenant of Mayors for energy efficiency and last but not least, an international agreement on energy efficiency that I hope to sign in Japan next June. In my next entry I will explain all these proposals in detail.

The Commission's website on Energy Efficiency can be found here. Also in the Commision's website you can download a copy of the Energy Green Paper (available in 19 different languages), where the 20% savings figure was divised. The english version can be downloaded directly from here [pdf!].

This political path for Energy security can only be well received. Let's hope that the European year of energy efficiency initiative can be a fruitful one.

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

Last week's log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:

Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.

[break]

Crossposted at The European Tribune.

After an awkward start with bio-fuels, Andris Piebalgs is finally addressing EU's energy future objectively. In a nutshell:

For me the best energy is the energy that we don’t use. In other words, energy efficiency. There is no cleaner kilowatt/hour than the one we don’t consume. Every cubic meter of gas we don’t burn makes us a cubic meter less dependent on foreign supplies. Every barrel of petrol that we don’t need makes our economy a barrel less vulnerable to volatile oil prices.

These few sentences address many of the issues raised by the commentators at Andris' blog during the past weeks. But there is more to it than simply facing the coming energy decline, an Energy Efficiency policy can have economic upturns:

To make things more interesting, when we make an investment in energy efficiency we create jobs and growth in Europe. Let’s put the case of better insulation for your house. Putting double glazed windows certainly is an investment that has a cost. So has your gas bill. The difference is that the cost of the windows will go to a European window company, and will be installed by European workers. Your double-glazed window will not only help to reduce your gas bill and your greenhouse gas emissions, increase the comfort of your house, but will also help to create new window companies and installer jobs. The alternative consists of taking your hard earned euros and sending them to rich oil and gas producing countries.

This all sounds better than the hollow bio-fuel talk. As we've seen previously at TOD:E some states in the EU have poor records on GDP unit generated per Fossil Fuel unit consumed. This could be a good measure of how this policy gets under way. As discussed, the 2000$ / boe could be a tentative target for every state of the EU (accounting for currency oscillations).

Some commentators were fast in reminding that Jevons' Paradox may indeed imply a different outcome than what would otherwise be expected from energy efficiency improvements. But for energy consumption to increase in face of a technological development, there has to be surplus supply, which at least for Oil and Natural Gas today is not the case.

There are two extra advantages for a Energy Efficiency lead policy in today's energy landscape:

• Alternative energy sources have their own timings entering the market. Even if there’s a political shift towards some alternative(s), technological development might constrain its growth (e.g. Photo-voltaics) hence Efficiency might be the best short-term policy against energy constraints;
• Energy Efficiency is popular. It is hard for anyone to be against it, the dependence on foreign sources diminishes as so the bills by the end of the month.

Finally the announcement of how this policy is taking shape:

Certainly, there are many things that the Commission can do at political level, and I’m proud to announce that 2008 will be the European year of energy efficiency. During these 12 months I plan to come up with a number of energy efficiency legislative proposals, including a stronger energy efficiency in buildings directive; a new energy efficiency labelling directive; new standards for energy efficiency in various groups of products; a Covenant of Mayors for energy efficiency and last but not least, an international agreement on energy efficiency that I hope to sign in Japan next June. In my next entry I will explain all these proposals in detail.

The Commission's website on Energy Efficiency can be found here. Also in the Commision's website you can download a copy of the Energy Green Paper (available in 19 different languages), where the 20% savings figure was divised. The english version can be downloaded directly from here [pdf!].

This political path for Energy security can only be well received. Let's hope that the European year of energy efficiency initiative can be a fruitful one.

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

Andris Piebalgs continues this Friday his blogging on bio-fuels, addressing some of the concerns expressed by the readers of the last blog-entry.

I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient. At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport. It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided.

Before continuing I can't but express once more my joy in seeing EU's leaders having such a close interaction with their citizens. More bio-fuel talk under the fold.

[break]

Crossposted at the European Tribune.

In Europe, we use less than 2 percent of our cereals production for biofuels, so they do not contribute significantly to higher food prices in the European context. Even if we reach our 10% biofuels target by 2020, the price impact will be small. Our modeling suggests that it will cause a 8 to 10% increase in rape seed prices and 3 to 6% increase in cereal prices. Increase in the price of the latest has very small influence on the cost of bread. It makes up around 4 per cent of the consumer price of a loaf.

[...]

We need to use first-generation biofuels as a bridge to the second generation biofuels using lignocellulosic materials as a feedstock. With this in mind, the Commission within the forthcoming review of the Common Agricultural Policy will urge the farmers to invest more in short rotation forestry crops and perennial grasses which are the most typical feedstocks for advanced biofuels.Over the past 30 years, Europe’s farmers have stood accused, through their association with the Common Agricultural Policy, of over-producing and dumping their surpluses with the aid of massive export subsidies on over supplied world markets, therefore depressing market prices and contributing massively to poverty and starvation in poor countries. That criticism has now been reversed. The charge now is that EU biofuel policy will contribute to third world poverty by driving food prices up. My impression from this debate sometimes is that we the Europeans know best what is good for people in developing world. Let them speak for themselves.

[...]

And let’s not forget that oil is a finite commodity, and high oil prices are one of the main factors making food more expensive, particularly in poor countries.

The most important questions raised in the previous log entries were left unattended. Here's a simple accounting exercise to get a real sense of proportion:

The EU consumes today roughly 20 Mb/d of Oil. Of that about two thirds are used in Transport, make it 13 Mb/d. Assuming that EU's Transport use remains unchanged up to 2020 that turns the target to something like 1.3 Mb/d.

Ethanol has an energy density of about 60% of gasoline, biodiesel is somewhat better, so make it 75%. Thus to replace those 1.3 Mb/d of Oil, about 1.75 Mb/d of bio-fuels are needed ( 1.3/0.75 ).

Ethanol production in temperate climates has an EROEI below 2:1, biodiesel about 4:1. Oil's EROEI differs markedly from place to place (offshore versus onshore, etc) but 10:1 is a general enough mark. Accounting for EROEI, the useful energy the EU gets from Oil is about 1.2 Mb/d. To match that useful energy, total bio-fuels production has to rise to 2.1 Mb/d ( 1.2/0.75/0.75 ).

Corn crops yield about 3500 litres of ethanol per hectare per year (that's 9.5 litres per hectare per day). With sugar cane in the tropics that number goes up to 6000 (16,5 litres per hectare per day). But for bio-diesels the numbers are considerably lower, around 1250 litres per hectare per year (3,5 per hectare litres per day).

Using 159 litres for a barrel, 2.1 Mb correspond roughly to 333 Ml (mega-litre). Using again the most optimistic figure for the temperate regions, the EU needs to allocate thirty five million (35 000 000) hectares to bio-fuels production.

I live in a state that has an area of less than 9 million hectares. Germany has an area just over 35 million hectares.

All that dark green area producing ethanol in 2020?

Good or evil? Friend or foe? This kind of wording doesn't fit in my Engeneering/Architecture dictionaries. Bio-fuels are not an option, it's all a matter of numbers.

Data sources:

Ethanol fuel

Biodiesel

The EROEI of ehtanol

Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:

Andris Piebalgs on Bio Fuels

Piebalgs on European Energy Security

Andris Piebalgs' Blog

Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe

This week European Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, moves the debate onto the key issue of bio-fuels. The comment I left on his blog pursued the theme of EroEI and energy efficiency. If you feel strongly about bio-fuels then PLEASE call by Andris Piebalg's blog and leave him a polite, forceful, well documented message.

Andris Piebalgs drives a Saab 9-5 that runs on bio-ethanol. By my estimation, the energy efficiency of this vehicle is a meagre 5%. Andris no doubt believes he is doing the right thing and I believe he cares a great deal about European energy. And yet he is driving one of the least energy efficient vehicles ever produced - and he is a physicist. How on Earth have these totally bizarre circumstances come about?

[break]

So how have I determined the energy efficiency of a bio-fuel Saab to be 5%. The calculation is as follows:

I have assumed the ERoEI (energy return on energy invested) of tempearte latitude bio-ethanol is 1.2. Sources here and here. Hence the energy efficiency of fuel production is:

((eroei-1) / eroei) * 100 = 0.2 / 1.2 = 16.7%

Assuming the internal combustion engine efficiency is 30% (combined urban cycle) yields an over all efficiency of 0.3 * 0.167 = 5%.

"And how have these bizarre circumstances come about?" - the answer to that I believe lies in an obsession with CO₂ emissions that has lost sight of energy efficiency.

First of all, when biofuels replace fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions are almost always lower. Biofuels are produced from plants that absorb the CO₂ they generate when they are burnt. This has to take into account the fertiliser used to produce the crops, the energy needed to convert them into liquid fuels and so on. On this basis, biofuels produced in Europe from rape seed, wheat and sugar beet, typically reduce emissions by 20-50% compared to the oil they replace. Biofuels from sugar cane, waste vegetable oil and second generation biofuels can save 75% or more. Under our proposal, all biofuels used for the EU target will have to save, at least, 35%.

I have to say that in this statement the claims made about CO₂ conservation seem accurate - proving that the principals involved are understood by the EU Commission. It is just that the energy cost / energy efficiency has not been taken into account.

Variations in ERoEI with CO₂ conserved assuming the energy input to bio fuel production is from fossil fuel.

Andris goes on to say:

And this is why biofuels are so important. Today, there are only three ways to reduce greenhouse emissions: the shift from polluting modes to more energy efficient ones (i.e. rail, short sea shipping, collective transport); the promotion of less consuming cars, by establishing CO₂/km targets; and biofuels.

I'm sorry this is just not true. The middle of the three options is of course the most sensible - to concentrate upon energy efficient vehicles. But what about:

1. Electric cars running on renewable or nuclear electricity. This is the future of vehicular transportation - so why are the European Commission not sinking billions into this?

2. Pneumatic cars (which I know very little about) but which are reported to be a viable option.

3. Reducing the speed limits across Europe which will save fuel (the number one priority!) reduce pollution and save lives.

Andris, I would like to emphasise how much we appreciate the opportunity to present these arguments on your blog. In your first blog entry you said you were here to listen. I sincerely hope that is the case and that following the period of listening and analysis that there is a period of action.