The energy crisis: a major challenge for the 21st century

Date: 14/10/04

Two MEPs present their views on one of the most widely debated issues of present times

Renewables and energy intelligence are the only real answer, says Claude Turmes

UK PRIME Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly stressed that the two major challenges for the twenty-first century will be combating terrorism and mitigating climate change. The more than 2,000 people killed in recent hurricanes remind us of the urgent need to seriously reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, especially oil and coal, and to look for alternatives.

Diversifying our oil supply to regions other than the Middle East might be a short-term answer. But this will not help to overcome the real problem of high and highly volatile oil prices. Politicians have to understand that beneath the political problems in some oil-exporting countries there is an underlying structural problem: the explosion of demand for oil from emerging economies like China, India, Mexico and South Africa. It will not be met by supply opportunities from new and cheap wells.

About 80% of oil used in Europe goes to the transport sector, 20% to heating and not even 3% to electricity production. Claiming that enhanced use of nuclear power will give us greater independence from oil was maybe true in the 1970s when electricity from oil represented more than 50% of the electricity production in some EU countries. Reusing the same argument today is intellectually dishonest and shows how poor the nuclear industry's argument is.

The day when hundreds of millions of the emerging middle-classes in China and India will drive their ten litre Mercedes or their 15 litre SUV, the oil price will go crazy and the earth's climate will go awry.

Reducing fuel requirements for the transport sector is an absolute must for all sustainable energy policies. What is needed is a worldwide effort to rethink our transport policies by, among other things, rethinking the way we have organized the big urban centres of the world where most transport needs are a result of outdated urban planning. This will take years, if not decades.

In the meantime, we should not only maintain provision of existing public transport, but also encourage it for both goods and persons. Furthermore, we need to reduce the number of kilometres travelled by cars and lorries while also limiting their energy consumption.

Since the early 1990s, automobile manufacturers have demonstrated their ability to build cars which could run 100km on less than three litres. Today, various car manufacturers, like Toyota with its hybrid engines, are selling mid-range cars able to run on less than four to five litres per 100km. European car manufacturers, mainly for ideological reasons, have made politicians believe that moving to hydrogen would be THE solution. We know today that this solution will not be ready before 2025. Other fuel alternatives like Biomass to Liquid (BtL) are much more promising in the short term as they do not require a new infrastructure for fuel distribution.

The hype surrounding hydrogen in recent years was mainly driven by the nuclear lobby. They hoped to hide their dirty and risky technology behind the clean image of hydrogen. But hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. What the nuclear industry does not tell politicians is that if we opt for major investment in nuclear-based hydrogen production, then we would need to build hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear reactors.

Who would dare to take up this challenge in a world where the cases of Iran and North Korea demonstate our inability to halt nuclear proliferation and where terrorism will be a major threat?

• Luxembourg Green MEP Claude Turmes is a vice-president of the Green group in the European Parliament and coordinator on energy issues.

The problem must be faced without excluding any possible solution, argues Dominique Vlasto

CURRENT oil prices hover at around &036;50 dollars (41 euro). World oil markets are going through a period of deep instability, putting European citizens and businesses under high pressure. Prices might well fall in the near future, but the underlying issue for the EU will remain: can we be confident in our own future when our economy, daily comfort and way of life are based on an increasing 50% energy dependence rate?

Given its importance and broad reach, EU security of energy supply should be addressed as a top priority. It should not be hidden behind demand-side measures, which are useful, but are no substitute for generation capacity. Reducing the EU overall energy demand by optimizing energy-use efficiency is not an energy supply policy per se. Considering that world energy consumption is set to increase by 60% by 2030, the hypothetical 20% general decrease in EU energy consumption, as targeted by the European Commission, will not save us from supply problems.

Solutions are complex and complementary. Priority must be given to the completion of the EU single energy market, which should not be hindered by infrastructure limitations, dominant positions or regulatory barriers. The EU can challenge issues such as a better interconnection capacity or more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Blackouts, such as those suffered by EU citizens last year, are not linked to energy dependency, but to market failures. It is unacceptable.

As a global player on the energy market, the EU weighs more than each of its member states. A common EU foreign policy should take cooperation with oil and gas producers and transit countries into account. It is the case in the EU-Russia dialogue; it should be more significant in the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation.

Diversifying energy supply is a key answer. However, our long term policy should aim at reducing the EU's dependency on overall energy imports. The EU should reduce significantly the 70% fossil fuel share of its total energy consumption. A realistic policy must be based on a better energy mix, including fossil fuels as well as nuclear and renewable energy sources.

Renewables seem to be accorded priority within the EU, but given their actual 7% share in EU energy consumption, there also seems to be a rather long way to go before they become an economically sustainable alternative to other fuels - not to mention their unequal reliability and efficiency. There is also a strong contradiction in the Commission's policy which aims at liberalizing the energy market with lower prices and promotes pricing systems to support the development of renewables until they become economically viable.

Nuclear energy, which emits no CO2 and will enable us eventually to reach the targets of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, should be given a more significant part in the EU energy mix. For long years to come, it is our best asset to reduce the EU dependency on oil fuels. The question should no more be for or against nuclear energy, but mainly how to dispose of all forms of radioactive waste. Nuclear energy will not be considered as safe and clean as long as this issue is not dealt with responsibly.

Last, we should also consider launching a broader research and development effort to promote cleaner and more efficient use of conventional fuels such as coal or natural gas. Other countries in the world are going that route too. Let us make sure that the EU is not isolated and that we have the proper partnerships in place. Security of energy supply represents a somewhat daunting challenge for the EU. We have to face it without excluding any solution.

• French centre-right MEP Dominique Vlasto is a member of Parliament's committee on industry, research and energy.

Two MEPs present their views on one of the most widely debated issues of present times. 'Renewables and energy intelligence are the only real answer', says Claude Turmes, Luxembourg Green MEP, who is a vice-president of the Green group in the European Parliament and coordinator on energy issues. 'The problem must be faced without excluding any possible solution', argues Dominique Vlasto, French centre-right MEP, who is a Member of Parliament's committee on industry, research and energy.