Blog
24.January 2008 - 05:08
Now it starts
The European Commission’s Climate and Energy Package has been awaited like the seventh Harry Potter in the EU circles. When it was finally published on Wednesday, the fans probably got locked up to read in their chambers, and now is the time to drag out the matter: “How did this happen?” The Commission did give some more pre-information than Rowling, and as a columnist I am writing only based the publishing deadline.
Always when the Commission prepares an important legislative proposal, intended leaks are part of the practice. The gradual distillation of information benefits all parties – it is advantageous for the Commission when the most devastating feedback is received informally, and thus partially saving the institution from face loss and it also gives the possibility to correct some of the defects before the publishing. For the other parties, it is fruitful to receive informal data and also to get an opportunity to lobby for the final draft. The leak also enables certain types of double agendas for the Commission: “We do care about this matter even if it may not be in the final version”.
In any case, this Energy and Climate Package is probably the most important legislative proposal during this electoral term from Finland’s point of view. Especially the country-specific burden-sharing for renewable energy and the Emissions Trading Directive’s revision are significant for Finland’s energy sector and its basic industry. Even if the Finns’ heavy carbon footprint has been proven, it needs to be said that our production is, in terms of its cleanliness, among the world’s best.
Last week the MEPs of the National Coalition Party (Kokoomus) reminded in unison that Finland is already now the number one among the EU Member States in the exploitation of renewable energy and it exceeds briskly the desired goal. A heavy additional reduction burden following a strict timetable would, at its worst drive Finland into a vicious circle in which our prior achievements would be endangered, too. By expressing these things we took a stance on Hassi’s and Myller’s criticism that the government’s attempt to minimise Finland’s share was inappropriate.
The scolders also retain their belief in wind power, the capacity of which Myller believes could be lifted from the current 100 megawatt to the capacity level of nuclear power by the year 2020. Also this had to be corrected: the juxtaposition is not fair if one does not understand the difference between the rated power of the plant and the electric energy it produces. The electric energy produced by wind energy is only a fourth of the output generated by a nuclear reactor of the same power capacity. 2000 MW of wind power would produce around five terawatt hours (TWh) per year in Finland. The Finnish nuclear power capacity is now 2,700 MW. Last year, it produced around 22,5 TWh.
Some reporters thought that we were just being nasty because of Myller’s press release’s lapse, in which kilowatts and kilowatt-hours were mixed up, and which was corrected by Myller herself afterwards. And that would have been heartless, indeed, everyone makes careless mistakes. Her actual mistake, the aberration, she did not correct, however. And that was exactly the problem: lights are not lit by means of installed capacity, but rather by means of energy derived from real production of electricity. But how much does rated power excite the Finnish mind?
(Column published in Nykypäivä 24 January 2008)
Published: 24.01.2008
http://www.korhola.com/2008/01/nyt-se-alkaanykypaiva/
The European Commission’s Climate and Energy Package has been awaited like the seventh Harry Potter in the EU circles. When it was finally published on Wednesday, the fans probably got locked up to read in their chambers, and now is the time to drag out the matter: “How did this happen?” The Commission did give some more pre-information than Rowling, and as a columnist I am writing only based the publishing deadline.
Always when the Commission prepares an important legislative proposal, intended leaks are part of the practice. The gradual distillation of information benefits all parties – it is advantageous for the Commission when the most devastating feedback is received informally, and thus partially saving the institution from face loss and it also gives the possibility to correct some of the defects before the publishing. For the other parties, it is fruitful to receive informal data and also to get an opportunity to lobby for the final draft. The leak also enables certain types of double agendas for the Commission: “We do care about this matter even if it may not be in the final version”.
In any case, this Energy and Climate Package is probably the most important legislative proposal during this electoral term from Finland’s point of view. Especially the country-specific burden-sharing for renewable energy and the Emissions Trading Directive’s revision are significant for Finland’s energy sector and its basic industry. Even if the Finns’ heavy carbon footprint has been proven, it needs to be said that our production is, in terms of its cleanliness, among the world’s best.
Last week the MEPs of the National Coalition Party (Kokoomus) reminded in unison that Finland is already now the number one among the EU Member States in the exploitation of renewable energy and it exceeds briskly the desired goal. A heavy additional reduction burden following a strict timetable would, at its worst drive Finland into a vicious circle in which our prior achievements would be endangered, too. By expressing these things we took a stance on Hassi’s and Myller’s criticism that the government’s attempt to minimise Finland’s share was inappropriate.
The scolders also retain their belief in wind power, the capacity of which Myller believes could be lifted from the current 100 megawatt to the capacity level of nuclear power by the year 2020. Also this had to be corrected: the juxtaposition is not fair if one does not understand the difference between the rated power of the plant and the electric energy it produces. The electric energy produced by wind energy is only a fourth of the output generated by a nuclear reactor of the same power capacity. 2000 MW of wind power would produce around five terawatt hours (TWh) per year in Finland. The Finnish nuclear power capacity is now 2,700 MW. Last year, it produced around 22,5 TWh.
Some reporters thought that we were just being nasty because of Myller’s press release’s lapse, in which kilowatts and kilowatt-hours were mixed up, and which was corrected by Myller herself afterwards. And that would have been heartless, indeed, everyone makes careless mistakes. Her actual mistake, the aberration, she did not correct, however. And that was exactly the problem: lights are not lit by means of installed capacity, but rather by means of energy derived from real production of electricity. But how much does rated power excite the Finnish mind?
(Column published in Nykypäivä 24 January 2008)
Published: 24.01.2008
http://www.korhola.com/2008/01/nyt-se-alkaanykypaiva/