EU second thoughts on climate and energy policy

By Paavo Lipponen
The writer is former Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament of Finland

This article was published on NORDICUM 3/2008

In spite of systematic campaign against its legitimacy, nuclear energy is coming back as an important element in European climate change policy. The statement of Energy Commissioner Andres Pielbags at the Foratom Conference in April made it clear: “Nuclear energy makes an important contribution to our fight against climate change and our security on energy supply.”

The Finnish model of nuclear energy is supported by Commissioner Pielbags: “We need to strengthen the cooperation between EU member states on the issues related to the safety and security of nuclear installations and the treatment of nuclear waste”. The combination of state-of-the-art technology and the strictest safety standards is applied in the construction of the third reactor at Olkiluoto.

The urgency of reducing CO2 emissions makes it necessary to use a mix of emission free energy sources, including nuclear, not only renewables. The spring 2007 EU summit – the so-called 20-20- 20 decision – favoured renewables at the expense of efficiency of CO2 emission reduction. Nuclear energy was not given the credit it deserves. Finland could have no chance to reach the Kyoto goal of CO2 emission reduction without the new Olkiluoto reactor.

The European Commission seems to realise that it is necessary to give priority to emission reduction. The International Energy Agency has consistently underlined the urgency of dealing with the climate change problem by taking strong measures now. The author of the Stern Report on climate change, Lord Stern, states (The Financial Times, 17 April 2008): “We underestimated the risks... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature changes...and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases.”

It is time for the EU to face the facts and revise its 20-20-20 decision. The goals are too challenging in this combination. Particularly the share of renewable energy is unrealistic and was never properly prepared the way we are used to seeing in Finnish decision- making. There are two major problems with it: first, the technology, like CCS, required to meet the goal of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020 simply will not be there in time; second, incentives planned to increase renewable energy, e.g. feed-in tariffs, will raise the price of energy and threaten security of supply.

Biofuels are a prime example of the lack of proper analysis in preparing EU renewable energy decisions. Too ambitious goals are bringing into the market biofuels that do not reduce or even increase emissions if we take the whole production process into account.

Wind power is the biggest single problem because it needs reserve power. In Finland, it would be mostly coal, because investment in new hydropower meets strong resistance. Besides, any new capacity will be needed to satisfy increasing demand of electricity.

The present situation EC energy policy is schizophrenic. New coal power plants are being built in Germany at a rapid rate and the country is preparing to decommission its nuclear power plants. In desperation, the German economics minister Glos suggests that Germany should be given a special permit to burn coal because of shutting off the nuclear reactors. In a fair EU policy, Germany should rather be punished for building CO2 emitting energy and decommissioning emissions-free energy. That, of course, will not happen, but those who maintain and build new nuclear capacity, emissions free, should be given credit for it.