EUROPEAN POWER & ENERGY
EURELECTRIC recently launched a study at the European
Parliament outlining two scenarios – a business-as-usual Baseline Scenario and a scenario entitled Power Choices, which assumes that climate change action becomes a major policy priority in the EU and that the EU makes a determined drive for energy efficiency on the demand side. Power Choices sees CO2
emissions from the power sector fall
by 90% from current levels, from 1,423 to just 128 Mt by 2050. This important result is achieved under an EU overall GHG emissions reduction of 75% by 2050, reached domestically. “In our view, this target is consistent with the latest official EU commitment to reduce GHG emissions, via domestic action plus use of international crediting mechanisms, by 80-95% by 2050,” according to EURELECTRIC Secretary General Hans ten Berge. Under Power Choices, RES claim a 19.1% share of final energy demand in the EU-27 in 2020 (without taking into account imports from non-EU countries). RES-power takes a 32% share of EU electricity. Considering that, in the recently adopted Renewables Directive, RES imports from non-EU countries would also count towards the 2020 RES target, under the scenario, the EU would reach or over-shoot the 2020 target, with the electricity sector fully committed to playing a major role. Under Power Choices, electricity increases its share in final
energy demand by replacing other fossil fuels in road transport and the residential/industrial sectors. In this context, electricity production would rise from about 3,100 TWh in 2005 to 4,800 TWh in 2050 – requiring very significant investments in renewing the electricity generation fleet. EURELECTRIC is calling on public authorities to encourage
public support for the necessary RES infrastructure. Power Choices also shows that achieving all these objectives will result in lower energy costs to society, a result of high importance for both family budgets and EU industrial competitiveness. •
from achieving the objective set for energy efficiency. At the international level, little
heed is paid to warnings about tight oil supplies going forward. And despite serious gas supply crises that have exposed Europe’s vulnerability, there is still no common approach towards partner, supplier or transit countries. The Treaty of Lisbon now gives
a firm and solid foundation for developing energy initiatives based on solidarity. EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has admitted on many occasions that internal energy convergence can only be reached if the EU speaks with one voice on energy matters at an international level. However, recent developments are pointing towards a totally different direction.
32 December 2010
“We need gas and we will need it more and the
reality is that we do not have it and we highly depend on external suppliers to deliver it ... the Union now has a way but the remaining question is whether it will be able and willing to use it,” according to Zigmantas Balytis, Member of European Parliament. Balytis, an active member of the Committee on
Industry, Research and Energy explains; “If we take the latest Polish-Russian agreement on the extension of exploitation of the Yamal pipeline until 2045 we will see a very disappointing scenario laying the foundations for the future of European energy policy. Initial concerns of the Commission on the possible infringements of EU competition law concerning the monopolistic operation and governance of the Yamal pipeline have ended up with the green light for Poland to sign the agreement with Russia without any further inquiries. This agreement will have direct consequences not only to the EU consumers’ energy bills but to the overall competitiveness of the Union. How much do we know about the conditions governing this agreement? Not too much. Basically, nothing indeed but all of us for the next 35 years will live subject to its conditions. And what will happen if something goes wrong?” Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s recent
critcism of EU laws aimed at energy market liberalisation amounted to uncivilised “robbery” he recently told an audience in Berlin, demanding that the EU consult Moscow when drafting such important legislation, which he said threatened key gas pipelines backed by Russian state-controlled gas giant, Gazprom. He was referring to legislation he said was damaging investments in major pipelines by forcing a separation of gas supply and transport assets.
European Energy Programme for Recovery European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) triggered by
the global crisis and introduced by the European Commission mobilized more than €4 billion to finance much needed infrastructure projects and technological developments and represents a first attempt to bringing the EU closer to meeting its energy objectives namely; the security and diversification of energy supply. The successful implementation of EEPR programme is critical to the existing so-called “energy islands” in the EU which are lacking basic energy infrastructure and are left at the mercy of monopolistic gas suppliers from third countries. Nonetheless, the programme should not be regarded as the
only way out of the current situation because a well–functioning infrastructure alone will not be able to resolve these problems by itself. Reducing CO2 emissions, increasing energy efficiency and the share of renewable energy might be an option but it is taking place at a very slow pace. The European Commission presented its New Energy Strategy
last month, calling for €1 trillion of investment over the next decade to integrate Europe’s energy network.
[Continued on Page 35 ...]
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96