>> One positive element is the attempt to build a thorough Energy Policy, composed of four strategic lines, underlying an integrated vision. These strategies are not properly realised by concrete goals, which even at this level of contact with the broader public should be possible. A few tactics are put forward, that as explained above, do not exactly conform to the vision and strategies outlined. A sense of lack of commitment ends up emerging from the programme as a whole. <<

Did anyone notice that the EU-logo shows a constellation of twelve stars, posted in empty space, and lacking a symbolical centre, like a warm, beating heart? It ressembles a dial without a clockwork, which is useless, or a town square without a fountain to lend it beauty and character.
The EU's ascendance, from a six-member Union for Coal and Steel to the bureaucratic leviathan of today, was based on the availability of cheap fossil fuel. Lacking that in the near future, its administration will dwindle into a mere nuisance of empty statements and hot air.
While the Irish are chided into signing up to the Lisbon Treaty, there is a strong, new current surfacing in several EU-countries to cut back on the EU financially, and to curb its self-assumed responsibilities. Our [Dutch] Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Secretary) Wouter Bos, last week, stated this in so many words, and not without approval.
As to an European energy policy, one policy for half a billion people, in so many different straits, I can't admit to any warm feelings for it. The concentration of power, and political chicanery needed for such a grand scheme to be pulled off, by definition, will be detrimental to democracy, no doubt, if left to the henchmen of this clueless, unwieldy organisation.
As our future is local, there should be room for local ingenuity and local solutions to practical problems of food production, energy, transport, housing, and water management. Diversity will be our most treasured surviving tool. In the headwinds of shrinking economies and declining international trade the EU will be wise to make itself scarce, and stop to find itself a "raison d'ĂȘtre" by imposing rules for everybody, which fit nobody.

While I agree with you, I'm not happy that I do.

Re-localisation is essential, but also not enough (at least without massive de-population of certain areas, such as my country, the UK!).

In my mind to maintain at least some semblance of BAU, a proper focused EU energy policy will be far more effective than individual countries trying to sort it out for themselves. With so much of the modern world relying on globalisation, policies applied across a larger land mass and population will achieve far greater economies of scale.

Eg, we all know that intermitancy is the biggest issue with wind power. However a pan EU super grid would largely resolve this by the large coverage. On such a large scale the chance of all wind turbines being stationary due to no wind is minimal, instead a base load as a percentage of installed capacity is near guaranteed.

@Nick42

>> While I agree with you, I'm not happy that I do. <<
Well, at least I am happy that you do.

>> Re-localisation is essential, but also not enough (at least without massive de-population of certain areas, such as my country, the UK!). <<
I read mr. Lovelock's latest publication, his Gaia's final warning. As the British Isles, in his view, will be a save haven, when the effects of global warming strike, he expects millions of people from the continent and beyond to flock to them, needing food and shelter. Around 2020-30 the UK can "boast" of a hundred million inhabitants. It is the continent that will be depopulated, overcome by droughts, and the Netherlands, though a possible save haven themselves, will be only "nether", without the "lands", by a faster than expected sea-level rise.

As for the remainder of your post, I appreciate your point of view, but I beg to differ. I think your opinion is sensible, if projected back to the world of twenty years ago. I agree with JMK, e.a., on the subject of BAU and globalisation, they are over. In the wake of our current economic troubles, there will be upheavals, and deteriorating social conditions. Many people will be without a job, and I don't pretend to know where it all will end.
I hope the grand schemes, like the EU itself, will die in beauty, and take with them the unrealistic mega-projects to the scrapyard, super-duper grid included. We must re-learn to think small, for small is beautiful, and, above all, small is manageable in an energy-starving world.

My comment on "some semblance of BAU" was supposed to show recognition that BAU is not possible, and even without resource depletion/climate change it is unlikely. Just think of the changes over the last 10, 20, 50, 100, 2000 years! BAU has been changing at an ever faster rate, fed by our consumption of energy.

My comment was really picking up on that I like my central heating, turn on and offable light switches, cars, disposable nappies and so on.

However I agree that the EU (and world) has missed its opportunity, and it is quite clear that by the time things really start to be recognised, we will be well on the down slope, and probably heading for WW3.

As for the UK, assuming that the Gulf Stream doesn't collapse then I agree, it probably will be better than most places. We Britts may like to moan about the weather, but ultimately we have a generally easy climate: mild winters, cool summers, fairly consistant rainfall year round. Food production on a year round basis is fairly straight forward. But even so 60 million mouths is too many to feed (as I understand it), and we still need an energy source to transport the food from farms to cities.