Work
21.June 2006 - 00:00
Place of nuclear energy in the EU policy
Place of nuclear energy in the EU policy, Nuluc-meeting 21.06.2006
First of all I would like to thank for this opportunity to participate in this NULUC-meeting and to take the floor in front of such distinguished professionals as you are.
Some of you may have seen my presentations before, but maybe it is still good to introduce why I'm here. I speak here in a role of MEP and a member of environmental committee. Recently I also was nominated by European EPP to be responsible of the EPP task force on energy. I will be a rapporteur together with Loyola de Palacio responsible on the standing committee "European Policy" on energy and security. On nuclear issues I speak here as a convert and tell why I had to check my attitudes and update my view on nuclear energy some years ago.
As you may know, I am not the most typical pro-nuclear spokesman. According to the statistics, this is a gender-related matter: women tend to oppose nuclear energy while men are far more tolerant for the growing use of nuclear energy. Secondly, representing humanistic discipline, theoretical philosophy, as my academic background, people would expect me not to speak on energy issues.
So, maybe a testimony of a convert would be a good start. Some ten – fifteen years ago it was crystal clear to me: so crystal clear that I did not need to think about it. I rejected the nuclear mainly because of the waste problem which I thought was not solved. And yes, this is indeed an area that needs careful consideration and ambitious technical efforts. In Finland, I think, we have managed very well. I welcome all to see our permanent repository unit in Olkiluoto.
My second argument against nuclear was classical also: Nuclear reactors are likely to have accidents with severe consequences for humanity. It did not occur to me that there are now many hundreds of reactor years of experience, and Chernobyl was the only accident that injured the public. That's actually a very good record for a source of energy – there are severe accidents among other sources but they never make big titles.
But what made me re-evaluate my opinion has very much to do with the same facts and especially the possible threats that are also listed in the commissions recent Green Paper on energy. EU's dependency on imported energy grows at an alarming pace, if effective measures are not taken.
But before analysing it further, let me take you back a few years and go more local. As you know, the Finnish parliament made a decision on the fifth reactor in May 2002. As an MEP, I had the luxury not to take a stand in this hot debate. But when I started to follow the arguments, I could not help intervening the debate. Why was it ok to import nuclear energy from Russia but not to build a new one in Finland? Why was it better to count on natural gas, fossile source anyway? Why the Greens warned the environmentalists not to expose the local environmental problems of natural gas drilling during the debate? Why the choices of our energy sources should not be based on the impacts on the climate and the need for self-sufficiency? After all, these were supposed to be the ultimate goals in EU and Finnish energy policy.
Like you may know, in my work in the European Parliament's Environment committee, I have been actively involved in the climate policies and in the fight against climate change. And it was during that time in May 2002, when I realized that within our grasp we have something that may not be the complete solution, but a really good, environmentally just answer to the needs of today. Situation may be different in 50 years, but what we have in nuclear power is a way to get us securely to the time when other non-emitting energy sources could realistically start contributing.
I think the facts back up my reasoning: The climate is not equipped with ideological filters: it can't tell the difference between fossil emissions due to so-called "nice reasons", i.e shutting down nuclear power and of those deriving from pure ignorance. The experience has shown so-far, that declining the use of nuclear energy means in practise increase on the use of fossil energy sources. Therefore, what we need is a whole new way of energy thinking, which instead of fossil fuels builds upon energy efficiency and savings, renewables and non/low emitting sources of energy. As I mentioned before, the great threat of climate change is not solved by nuclear alone, but in the meantime, it should be used to its fullest potential while developing fusion and other forms of energy saving.
Therefore I believe, that a smart politician needs to update his/her views on energy solutions and respond to reality. There is no harmless energy source.
As is evident also from the Green Paper on a European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy, one of the EU's main problems is the weakening of energy self- sufficiency. Like you know, at present the EU imports half its energy from outside and by the year 2025-2030 its dependence on imports is estimated to exceed 70%. In practice this means being dependent on Russia's natural gas, whose price development is unpredictable.
The EU competes with India and China for the available energy while leaving the joy of pricing to Russia. Therefore on the other hand as I welcome the Green Paper's suggestion that the EU should strengthen its dialogue and co-operation with Russia, the EU's most important energy supplier, on the other I want to stress that it is not a solution. Because, unfortunately, I see a great threat here: this great dependence is not just an uncertain supply problem but in the near future it can also affect the quality of the EU's foreign policy and human rights. Dialogue with major suppliers is necessary, yet it doesn't take away the fact that it is us who are dependent, not the seller.
But where does nuclear fit in this picture? The commission staff working document, as an annex to the Green Paper, paints the trends to 2030 in the EU under current policies. It clearly estimates that the increasing energy consumption is expected to be met increasingly by imports, which come to a large extent from geopolitically unstable regions. With a limited combined contribution from renewables and nuclear, the EU dependency on imports will grow. Especially natural gas demand is expected to expand considerably. Due to political decisions and the aging of existing plants, nuclear is expected to decrease in the long term below the current level. As a consequence of these energy developments, CO2 emissions would raise significantly.
Of course, this would only be the scenario should nothing be done and the problems addressed. The listed negative consequences of the possible future clearly show the need for actions. But now the question rises, do the suggestions of the Green Paper deliver the wanted results? It is true that it addresses the main problem areas: internal energy market, diversification of the energy mix, sustainable development and external policy to mention a few. And it stresses the importance of energy efficiency and further investment on renewables. But still many uncertainties remain and only time will tell whether the right decisions will be taken.
For instance, each Member State chooses its own energy mix, and that has an impact on the energy security of its neighbours and the Community as a whole. Member States may still rely on natural gas for power generation and make decisions relating to nuclear energy that have significant consequences on the EU as a whole, in terms of dependence on imported fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. In that respect, there is no change. On the positive note though, the proposed Strategic EU Energy Review to be presented on a regular basis that would offer a clear European framework for national decisions on the energy mix, could be an improvement for nuclear energy. As one of the aims of this Energy Review would be to allow a transparent and objective debate on the future role of nuclear energy in the EU, nuclear would be brought back to the discussion in which as the largest source of non-emitting energy it rightly deserves to be. The Green paper clearly confesses the role of nuclear energy as a non-emitting and domestic energy source. It says: The Review should also allow a transparent and objective debate on the future role of nuclear energy in the EU, for those Member States concerned. Nuclear power, at present, contributes roughly one-third of the EU´s electricity production and, whilst careful attenttion needs to be given to the issues of nuclear waste and safety, represents at present the largest source of largely carbon free energy in Europe.
Still much needs to be done and this is just the beginning. For instance, more emphasis needs to be given on the importance of large-scale integrated actions like the long term energy-related ITER project. I also believe that we will need in Europe a fourth fission generation while we are waiting for fusion solution. The new small scale fourth generation reactors will be very efficient in their use of uranium and the nuclear waste as well.
With regards to what has been mentioned, I have never really understood, why in the energy debates, nuclear power has often been set against forms of renewable energy. In the light of climatic goals this juxtapositioning has to be eliminated once and for all, so that the necessary emission reductions can be achieved in practice. They do not contradict each other but complement. So with or without the Green Paper, this is something that the Member States need to understand before we can truly tackle the issue of energy dependence and CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, today it still takes great political courage to say it in many Member States, and many local politicians do not have it. Maybe a stronger incentive and encouragement should come from the EU level.
After all, a "political" abandonment of nuclear power is much easier to do than finding adequate alternatives in practice. Sweden has almost tripled its nuclear capacity after deciding to give it up following a 1980s referendum. In Germany the Social Democrat-Green coalition government is, for reasons of "sustainable development" giving up nuclear power which produces almost 30% of the country's electricity. They don't explain how they will replace nuclear power with emission free generation, because wind power would supply only a small part of the deficit.
On a positive side, for the before mentioned reasons and threats, the interest in nuclear power, is however, growing again. Finland is not alone in its discussions about building additional plants. France, Great Britain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and the Baltic countries are also waking up. Also Belgium looks set to dismantle its nuclear shutdown plans which were only formulated a couple of years ago. However, a decision to build additional nuclear plants should not be made unless it is strongly linked with a political commitment to reduce emissions.
The task is not easy, but I am willing to make my part in this realistic fight against climate change and maintaining at least some level energy self-sufficiency. And in my work, nuclear has a strong place in the energy-mix.
I would like to leave you with an interesting math exercise concerning emissions trading, an instrument with a strong effect on EUs energy field :
Let's put forward a simple calculation: If EU emissions are reduced during the first emission trading period around 100 Mt CO2 per year, is the price of this approximately 2500 million euros per year, in terms of emission allowances. We know that emission trading has influence on energy market. A very cautious estimate on the consequences of emission trading is that an average rise in the wholesale European electric market of about 10 euros/MWh. This is an estimate that for instance the Finnish research institute VTT has made. The electricity consumption of the EU-25 is around 3 000 TWh/a. So the imaginary cost to the wholesale market in the EU-25 would be around 30 billion euros per year, at least.
Of course all methods leading to emission reduction have market effects. One alternative would be to tax electricity and allocate the funds gathered to actual emission reduction investments. I don’t mean to suggest taxation, I just want to make this comparison which shows the volume of . The hypothetical cost of 30 billion per year in investment grants would help build an enormous of capacity that in turn would replace fossil fuels.
Nuclear power, for one, is one way to produce energy and even without subsidies. Unlike many other sources, it does not need subsidies. An investment of 3 billion euros (e.g. Olkiluoto 3) in nuclear energy amounts to a reduction in emissions of around 10 MtCO2. This means that a 30 billion investment in nuclear energy would cover the annual emission reducement target of 100 MtCO2. With, of course, the difference that the energy is there to sell as well. So not only would there be emission reduction but also profit to be gained.
How about that.
Place of nuclear energy in the EU policy, Nuluc-meeting 21.06.2006
First of all I would like to thank for this opportunity to participate in this NULUC-meeting and to take the floor in front of such distinguished professionals as you are.
Some of you may have seen my presentations before, but maybe it is still good to introduce why I'm here. I speak here in a role of MEP and a member of environmental committee. Recently I also was nominated by European EPP to be responsible of the EPP task force on energy. I will be a rapporteur together with Loyola de Palacio responsible on the standing committee "European Policy" on energy and security. On nuclear issues I speak here as a convert and tell why I had to check my attitudes and update my view on nuclear energy some years ago.
As you may know, I am not the most typical pro-nuclear spokesman. According to the statistics, this is a gender-related matter: women tend to oppose nuclear energy while men are far more tolerant for the growing use of nuclear energy. Secondly, representing humanistic discipline, theoretical philosophy, as my academic background, people would expect me not to speak on energy issues.
So, maybe a testimony of a convert would be a good start. Some ten – fifteen years ago it was crystal clear to me: so crystal clear that I did not need to think about it. I rejected the nuclear mainly because of the waste problem which I thought was not solved. And yes, this is indeed an area that needs careful consideration and ambitious technical efforts. In Finland, I think, we have managed very well. I welcome all to see our permanent repository unit in Olkiluoto.
My second argument against nuclear was classical also: Nuclear reactors are likely to have accidents with severe consequences for humanity. It did not occur to me that there are now many hundreds of reactor years of experience, and Chernobyl was the only accident that injured the public. That's actually a very good record for a source of energy – there are severe accidents among other sources but they never make big titles.
But what made me re-evaluate my opinion has very much to do with the same facts and especially the possible threats that are also listed in the commissions recent Green Paper on energy. EU's dependency on imported energy grows at an alarming pace, if effective measures are not taken.
But before analysing it further, let me take you back a few years and go more local. As you know, the Finnish parliament made a decision on the fifth reactor in May 2002. As an MEP, I had the luxury not to take a stand in this hot debate. But when I started to follow the arguments, I could not help intervening the debate. Why was it ok to import nuclear energy from Russia but not to build a new one in Finland? Why was it better to count on natural gas, fossile source anyway? Why the Greens warned the environmentalists not to expose the local environmental problems of natural gas drilling during the debate? Why the choices of our energy sources should not be based on the impacts on the climate and the need for self-sufficiency? After all, these were supposed to be the ultimate goals in EU and Finnish energy policy.
Like you may know, in my work in the European Parliament's Environment committee, I have been actively involved in the climate policies and in the fight against climate change. And it was during that time in May 2002, when I realized that within our grasp we have something that may not be the complete solution, but a really good, environmentally just answer to the needs of today. Situation may be different in 50 years, but what we have in nuclear power is a way to get us securely to the time when other non-emitting energy sources could realistically start contributing.
I think the facts back up my reasoning: The climate is not equipped with ideological filters: it can't tell the difference between fossil emissions due to so-called "nice reasons", i.e shutting down nuclear power and of those deriving from pure ignorance. The experience has shown so-far, that declining the use of nuclear energy means in practise increase on the use of fossil energy sources. Therefore, what we need is a whole new way of energy thinking, which instead of fossil fuels builds upon energy efficiency and savings, renewables and non/low emitting sources of energy. As I mentioned before, the great threat of climate change is not solved by nuclear alone, but in the meantime, it should be used to its fullest potential while developing fusion and other forms of energy saving.
Therefore I believe, that a smart politician needs to update his/her views on energy solutions and respond to reality. There is no harmless energy source.
As is evident also from the Green Paper on a European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy, one of the EU's main problems is the weakening of energy self- sufficiency. Like you know, at present the EU imports half its energy from outside and by the year 2025-2030 its dependence on imports is estimated to exceed 70%. In practice this means being dependent on Russia's natural gas, whose price development is unpredictable.
The EU competes with India and China for the available energy while leaving the joy of pricing to Russia. Therefore on the other hand as I welcome the Green Paper's suggestion that the EU should strengthen its dialogue and co-operation with Russia, the EU's most important energy supplier, on the other I want to stress that it is not a solution. Because, unfortunately, I see a great threat here: this great dependence is not just an uncertain supply problem but in the near future it can also affect the quality of the EU's foreign policy and human rights. Dialogue with major suppliers is necessary, yet it doesn't take away the fact that it is us who are dependent, not the seller.
But where does nuclear fit in this picture? The commission staff working document, as an annex to the Green Paper, paints the trends to 2030 in the EU under current policies. It clearly estimates that the increasing energy consumption is expected to be met increasingly by imports, which come to a large extent from geopolitically unstable regions. With a limited combined contribution from renewables and nuclear, the EU dependency on imports will grow. Especially natural gas demand is expected to expand considerably. Due to political decisions and the aging of existing plants, nuclear is expected to decrease in the long term below the current level. As a consequence of these energy developments, CO2 emissions would raise significantly.
Of course, this would only be the scenario should nothing be done and the problems addressed. The listed negative consequences of the possible future clearly show the need for actions. But now the question rises, do the suggestions of the Green Paper deliver the wanted results? It is true that it addresses the main problem areas: internal energy market, diversification of the energy mix, sustainable development and external policy to mention a few. And it stresses the importance of energy efficiency and further investment on renewables. But still many uncertainties remain and only time will tell whether the right decisions will be taken.
For instance, each Member State chooses its own energy mix, and that has an impact on the energy security of its neighbours and the Community as a whole. Member States may still rely on natural gas for power generation and make decisions relating to nuclear energy that have significant consequences on the EU as a whole, in terms of dependence on imported fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. In that respect, there is no change. On the positive note though, the proposed Strategic EU Energy Review to be presented on a regular basis that would offer a clear European framework for national decisions on the energy mix, could be an improvement for nuclear energy. As one of the aims of this Energy Review would be to allow a transparent and objective debate on the future role of nuclear energy in the EU, nuclear would be brought back to the discussion in which as the largest source of non-emitting energy it rightly deserves to be. The Green paper clearly confesses the role of nuclear energy as a non-emitting and domestic energy source. It says: The Review should also allow a transparent and objective debate on the future role of nuclear energy in the EU, for those Member States concerned. Nuclear power, at present, contributes roughly one-third of the EU´s electricity production and, whilst careful attenttion needs to be given to the issues of nuclear waste and safety, represents at present the largest source of largely carbon free energy in Europe.
Still much needs to be done and this is just the beginning. For instance, more emphasis needs to be given on the importance of large-scale integrated actions like the long term energy-related ITER project. I also believe that we will need in Europe a fourth fission generation while we are waiting for fusion solution. The new small scale fourth generation reactors will be very efficient in their use of uranium and the nuclear waste as well.
With regards to what has been mentioned, I have never really understood, why in the energy debates, nuclear power has often been set against forms of renewable energy. In the light of climatic goals this juxtapositioning has to be eliminated once and for all, so that the necessary emission reductions can be achieved in practice. They do not contradict each other but complement. So with or without the Green Paper, this is something that the Member States need to understand before we can truly tackle the issue of energy dependence and CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, today it still takes great political courage to say it in many Member States, and many local politicians do not have it. Maybe a stronger incentive and encouragement should come from the EU level.
After all, a "political" abandonment of nuclear power is much easier to do than finding adequate alternatives in practice. Sweden has almost tripled its nuclear capacity after deciding to give it up following a 1980s referendum. In Germany the Social Democrat-Green coalition government is, for reasons of "sustainable development" giving up nuclear power which produces almost 30% of the country's electricity. They don't explain how they will replace nuclear power with emission free generation, because wind power would supply only a small part of the deficit.
On a positive side, for the before mentioned reasons and threats, the interest in nuclear power, is however, growing again. Finland is not alone in its discussions about building additional plants. France, Great Britain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and the Baltic countries are also waking up. Also Belgium looks set to dismantle its nuclear shutdown plans which were only formulated a couple of years ago. However, a decision to build additional nuclear plants should not be made unless it is strongly linked with a political commitment to reduce emissions.
The task is not easy, but I am willing to make my part in this realistic fight against climate change and maintaining at least some level energy self-sufficiency. And in my work, nuclear has a strong place in the energy-mix.
I would like to leave you with an interesting math exercise concerning emissions trading, an instrument with a strong effect on EUs energy field :
Let's put forward a simple calculation: If EU emissions are reduced during the first emission trading period around 100 Mt CO2 per year, is the price of this approximately 2500 million euros per year, in terms of emission allowances. We know that emission trading has influence on energy market. A very cautious estimate on the consequences of emission trading is that an average rise in the wholesale European electric market of about 10 euros/MWh. This is an estimate that for instance the Finnish research institute VTT has made. The electricity consumption of the EU-25 is around 3 000 TWh/a. So the imaginary cost to the wholesale market in the EU-25 would be around 30 billion euros per year, at least.
Of course all methods leading to emission reduction have market effects. One alternative would be to tax electricity and allocate the funds gathered to actual emission reduction investments. I don’t mean to suggest taxation, I just want to make this comparison which shows the volume of . The hypothetical cost of 30 billion per year in investment grants would help build an enormous of capacity that in turn would replace fossil fuels.
Nuclear power, for one, is one way to produce energy and even without subsidies. Unlike many other sources, it does not need subsidies. An investment of 3 billion euros (e.g. Olkiluoto 3) in nuclear energy amounts to a reduction in emissions of around 10 MtCO2. This means that a 30 billion investment in nuclear energy would cover the annual emission reducement target of 100 MtCO2. With, of course, the difference that the energy is there to sell as well. So not only would there be emission reduction but also profit to be gained.
How about that.