Excellent information. The essence seems to be: " beyond a new Energy Policy the EU still needs a new political model. . . only with clearer effective powers can the European Commission correctly achieve “one voice” Energy Policy for the EU."

However it is unlikely at present that member states will grant the EU draconian powers. And even if they did grant them, we learned a few days ago from testimony to a US Senate inquiry into energy: "it was not clear whether the U.S. could achieve energy independence even with the most “draconian” government interventions."

I just off the phone with Arni Benediktsson, Chief Electrical & Mechanical Engineer at Landsvirkjun.

One of the items we discussed was old plans for a 2 GW HV DC line from Iceland to Scotland. I suggested a plan for at least that much or more for seasonal exports of electricity.

Iceland's maximum demand is in the winter and maximum hydro production (about 80% hydro) is in the summer. winter hydro generation must work off of stored water.

Iceland has hundreds or thousands of good sites for run-of-river or small dams hydro generation during the summer, but these are not even evaluated since there is an average excess of 150 MW every summer that is spilled (wasted). Summer only electrical power has no value in Iceland.

Iceland may have the ultimate potential to export as much as 10 GW in the summer and 4 or so GW (geothermal + hydro) during the winter. (My guess)

An HV DC link would be for exports only in the early years but could import excess wind power (saving hydro) in the winter in later years. (Scottish & Irish wind maxes in the winter), similar to the relationship between Denmark and Norway/Sweden.

Iceland does not have enough for all the EU energy needs, but it can help the UK & Ireland with their coming electrical crisis.

The first step may be a small HV DC line (say 700 MW), let Iceland export the surplus 150 MW of today and build more dams & geothermal to fill up the line (some in the winter). Then build another line, etc.

Any thoughts from the EU ?

Best Hopes,

Alan

My theory with extended grids is that hydro's quick startup is used to get peak spot prices while reimporting cheap lignite power when dam levels are lower. That kind of info seems hard to access without whistleblowers like
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/basslink-shock-for-hydro-tasmania...
Solution; carbon taxes.

Right Boss. I give you a lot of opportunities. You gave me about two. You wanna play this way, fine. I just figured you'd like it the other way. Me being internationally represented with the girls with the big boobs at all times. Frankie Cadillac. Relax dude. Multiple categories.

We can erase the long sentence. Yankee Doodle Dandee. Child of the Devil. You won't be barking anymore. Teenage Wasteland. Guess that movie. Gunshots.

PS - We'll talk about Oil some other time. Over BLT's.

How is competition compatible with environmental goals?
How is competition compatible with security of supply goals?

1) It is not.
2) It is NOT.

One thing has to be stated loud and clear, once and for all.

The goals of EC have nothing to do with the energy security. They have much less to do with that ridiculous idea of "saving the environment". All they have to do is with enriching certain set of entities who are watering just at the thought of acquiring the portions of utilities and the grid about to be "privatised". What can be better for these maruadeurs than replacing 1-2 well regulated monopolies with dozens of unregulated, unaccountable regional monopolies??? The user be damned, let him pay until and get polluted until he drops dead.

Capitalistic mother-f****s.

The report was pointless. The single material point was the proposed (and lunatic) separation of production from distribution - which appears like changing for changing sake...or even changing the relative postions of the chairs on the decks.

The UK especially and the EU have a massive problem of energy security which has three elemtns;

1. Sources - run down of indigenous sources
2. Costs - increase in exogenous sources dramatically
4. Physical security - ie bombs, political action Ukraine gas, Belarus oil, Qatar gas, etc., etc.,

None of these are addressed and fiddling with the structures of onwership is ;
1. Pointless
2. EDF and the major German blocs will simply not let their Governments alter the situation
3. The UK is beyond any help as the onwership is outside the influence and power of internal political control already - and if Ibanderol succeed in Scotland the effect of loss of control will be total.

The Forthcoming UK Energy deficit (FCUKED) much herladed is upon us and there is little we can do.

Looking at the US Oil Drum site re the Grid posting today - our problems (UK and especially Europe - see the report on the recent blackout - the largest ever in Europe) get greater every time you look at it.... and the pointless effort and expenditure on wind power become even more apparent.

Someone provide an answer to this ;

The second tanker of LNG into Milford Haven blows up !

Please Sir, what do we do now ? ... and what is more important is anybody working any sensible answers out...NOW before it happens ?

I looked at the WETO-H2 World Energy Technology Outlook 2050 study posted 9 or 10 Jan on the eu.int website after seeing that piece on the BBC. Lots of nice sounding PR, 168 pages. The key for me is the graph on the top of page 32. Conventional oil is shown from 2000 to 2050, and is assumed to show a flat peak near 100 Mb/day centered at 2035. Production is assumed to be higher than 90 Mb/day from 2015 to well after 2050. This shows me they don't have all of the message yet. Furthermore, they continue the rosy scenarios concerning alternative energy that neglect to mention the measured costs and yields of today are marginal figures resulting from infinitesimal changes to an existing petro-energy base.

In other words, this is all in the linear regime. These guys won't have got the point until they show some awareness of the inevitable nonlinear degradation that will occur as soon as the peak in _conventional oil_ is reached. Perhaps now. Perhaps 2010.

Certainly not 2035.

Political analysis of the EU Energy Plan: Behind the Green Rhetoric.

There is a good political analysis today from the wsws.org site that dissects the EU energy plan very well and delves into the real reasons and priorities of the EU. Much of the faked concern about the environment is simply a mask for justifying various policies of strategic interest and to reduce its dependence on imports of hydrocarbons from various unstable regions.

You can find the article at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/ener-j24_prn.shtml

It is some quotes from the article, but for those interested it is well worth reading, because it will add another dimension to the understanding of this topic in addition to the more technical one that will be found here:

Europe, with its limited and dwindling hydrocarbon energy sources, is highly sensitive to the resource wars that have erupted across the globe since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. As America has launched military adventures and instigated coups in order to dominate the main hydrocarbon supplies and transit routes of the world, Europe has found itself increasingly at risk of having its energy needs curtailed. The insecurity of the European powers has been intensified by the resurgence of Russian power due to current high energy prices. Since Russia turned off the gas supply to Ukraine in January 2006, the editorial offices and corridors of power of the European capitals have reverberated with panicked talk of an energy crisis.

AND

The “green” fanfare conceals the most essential points of the EU Commission’s plan: the deregulation of the continent’s energy markets to serve the interests of finance capital coupled with an expansion of nuclear power as a source of electricity generation.

The green credentials of the proposals are very limited. The target to have 10 percent of automobiles powered by bio-fuels will do nothing to reduce current carbon emissions because of the increasing level of car use. The main beneficiary of such a target would be European agribusiness, which can turn over large tracts of land to growing fuel crops that are likely to be highly subsidised by the EU.

AND very significant the article flags up the possibility of the use of more coal, which as we all known is counter productive to the whole notion of CO-2 targets

The “carbon burying” scheme, which aims to limit the emission of atmospheric pollution from fossil fuel burning power stations, would allow more coal-fired electricity generation. While the EU has very little oil and gas, and that which it has is fast diminishing, it still has significant reserves of coal. A shift from Russian oil and gas to Polish and Romanian coal is seen as a facet of “energy security” by the EU bureaucrats. However, coal is a little-favoured form of electricity generation among some energy industry analysts due to its dependence on highly labour-intensive deep pit mining, which raises the possibility of industrial militancy threatening energy supplies, as occurred in Britain in the early 1970s and the 1984-85 miners strike. The far less labour intensive method of open cast mining is a highly environmentally damaging process and is not suitable in many of Europe’s coalfields.

Finally the rest of the article goes on to discuss Nuclear power and how it is increasingly likely there will be a push to expand this as Blair has already signalled in the UK, and the Germans are hinting at reversing their policy of phasing out nuclear power.