Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumEU Energy Commissioner: climate goals unattainable without nuclear power
"PRAGUE European Commissioner for Energy, Gunther Oettinger, Thursday said the European Union's goals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and combat climate change can only be reached with an energy mix including nuclear power.
"Without a doubt nuclear energy belongs to the (mix)," Mr. Oettinger said. "In coming years reaching (climate) goals can't be done without nuclear power."
Mr. Oettinger's comments come as Europe faces serious economic headwinds partly due to fast-rising electricity prices for industry and retail consumers despite wholesale energy prices at record lows. This is largely due to the mass rollout of renewable power generation using technologies that are still unprofitable and require subsidies paid by end-users."
http://www.4-traders.com/CEZ-AS-6492098/news/CEZ-as-EU-s-Oettinger-Nuclear-Power-Part-of-Bloc-s-Future-Energy-Mix-16917242/
Socialistlemur
(770 posts)I don't have to hear it from a minister to know this is the case. Or he could say Europe needs to develop its native shale gas reserves as a bridge to something else. I think that's already a conclusion reached in the UK?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and very few other people around here. That's why it's posted.
I'm very interested in this "bridge" philosophy. Say practical Gen IV nuclear reactors come online in the next 5 years (possible), is the expectation that the shale gas industry will gladly step aside for this new, cleaner source of energy? Or, with billions invested in technology and infrastructure, they would instead fight it tooth and nail?
cprise
(8,445 posts)...as in 'elephant in the room'...
There is no discussion about how to more responsibly finance and manage nuclear reactors-- how to get rid of the gouging and corruption. The arrogance is astounding.
A flurry of press releases and brochures from the nuclear industry proclaiming green values only proves they still have the usual psychopaths in charge.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)that gouging and corruption is any worse in that industry than in coal, or solar?
As I've pointed out many times, from a climate change perspective nuclear is about as green as it gets.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Glad that is settled. I hope you realize it is the consequences that are especially worrisome in the case of nuclear?
News release, no copyright issues:
Posted May. 29, 2013 / Posted by: Adam Russell
Friends of the Earth: More proof utility sought to mislead NRC
WASHINGTON, D.C. Under pressure from the California Public Utility Commission, Southern California Edison has released to Friends of the Earth another suppressed and highly incriminating internal document, showing that the utility knew eight years ago of serious flaws in the design of replacement steam generators for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The letter directly contradicts written testimony Edison gave in January to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The 2005 letter from then-Edison Vice President Dwight Nunn was released Tuesday, after the state PUC sharply questioned why Edison had not provided it as part of the PUCs investigation of failure of the San Onofre reactors, shut down since January 2012 after a leak of radioactive steam. The day before, Boxer released a 2004 letter from Nunn proving that Edison knew that the flawed generators were not like-for-like with the ones they replaced, but failed to reveal that to the NRC in order to expedite approval from the NRC.
This new letter shows conclusively that in 2005 Edison was aware that its defective design could lead to vibration and cracking of steam generator tubes, said Damon Moglen, Friends of the Earths climate and energy program director. While Edison knew this could lead to what the earlier letter calls a disastrous outcome, they didnt fix the problem, they didnt tell the NRC then and denied it again in testimony this year. This is a scandal of the highest order: Edison prioritized its construction schedule and profits and endangered the lives and livelihoods of millions of Southern Californians.
In the June 16, 2005 letter, Nunn writes to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which manufactured the replacement steam generators to Edisons specifications, about the probability that the design could cause the tubes to vibrate and crack. Despite later suggestions from a joint Mitsubishi/Edison design team to fix the problem prior to construction, the contractors rejected such changes because they would have triggered a lengthy NRC license amendment review, including public hearings. In January, in written testimony to the NRC in a case brought by Friends of the Earth, Edison claimed that the problem was not known at the time.
S. David Freeman, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority and of several nuclear utilities, said Edison knew it was taking a risk.
With these revelations, its clear that Edison was conducting an experiment all along, said Freeman, senior advisor to Friends of the Earth. They were operating reactors with equipment that they knew had major problems. Thats unforgivable.
Edison gambled that additional safety measures were not needed when they gave the highest priority not to safety but speed of construction. Of course they didn't know for sure that the equipment would fail, but they did know that they were taking a risk and they lost on their gamble. Gambling with the safety of a nuclear plant is not acceptable and an egregious misuse of ratepayers money.
The mounting revelations of Edisons deception dash the utilitys request to restart San Onofre rector Unit 2 this summer, said Moglen. The NRC must make sure these reactors are not restarted with this damaged equipment, and the PUC must make sure no ratepayer money is spent to operate, let alone restart, this failed plant, he said.
After Senator Boxer released the 2004 letter yesterday, the California PUC issued a statement asking whether Edison had a duty to disclose the letters earlier. PUC Executive Director Paul Clanon said the Commission need(s) to investigate whether Edison took unnecessary risks, or tried to evade regulatory oversight. Edison quickly released the 2005 letter, along with other suppressed internal documents (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) that may hold more revelations. Friends of the Earth is currently evaluating the remaining documents.
http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-05-pressed-by-calif-regulators-edison-releases-letter
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Going from a question of, "What evidence do you have ... ?" to "You admit ....."
And then post a long article that has nothing to do with the OP.
Are you a lawyer?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You truncate the question and then recast the implication?
He's questioning that nuclear is "worse", with the implication that it is as bad.
The article posted shows that it is, in fact, as infected with greed as any other industry so it is unquestionably on topic.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)We don't have to use it for electricity generation (although it's definitely an improvement over coal).
The trucking industry in the US has begun shifting to CNG a bit at a time.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/21/us-truck-fleets-turning-towards-cng-lpg/
There's increasing infrastructure going in at truckstops.
Iterate
(3,020 posts)He's an EU commissioner who hates Europeans.
If he were an American he's definitely be a pro-big businesses, pro-big bank Republican. Beyond that there is no easy analog to American politics other than to think Romney, Ryan, and Cantor, only competent, well-spoken and not a religious nutter.
If more DUers understood the nuances of EU politics, I doubt you'd get away with parroting such a self-serving quote. If Romney said it, you'd probably leave it on the table and take it for what it is, using fear and doubt to stampede people to his pro-big-business position.
So what else has he said lately?
The European Union has done its best lately to exude optimism about its efforts to emerge from the ongoing euro crisis. Not only have important steps been made, say EU leaders, but increased political and economic integration mean that the future of the bloc is bright.
European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, however, would beg to differ. Oettinger, Germany's representative on the EU's executive body, held a speech on Tuesday at the German-Belgian-Luxembourgian Chamber of Commerce in which he outlined what he sees as the EU's shortcomings.
...
The commissioner reserved most of his bile for France, identifying it as a principal point of concern and saying that it "is not prepared at all for that which is necessary." Specifically, he said that the country needs to undertake a far-reaching "pension reform, which in truth means pension cuts." In addition, he demanded that the retirement age be raised and that the number of public servants be slashed. He added that the country has "little innovation."
...
"In the coming years, we can't offer services in the form of pensions, smaller class sizes, greater police presence, fewer potholes and other benefits" at the level we have until now, he said.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commissioner-oettinger-says-eu-needs-overhaul-a-902553.html
Evidently, according to Oettinger what's wrong with Europe is that it's not enough like China, Texas, or Mississippi. Fortunately, few people outside of London and Frankfurt listen to him. But it does look like the same rhetorical pattern -and did he actually just say that people need to destroy their pensions in order to save them?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Is it common in this group for posters who don't agree with you to just post a response to change the subject to something else? I've seen it several times already.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Welcome to DU
quadrature
(2,049 posts)of personal insults,
petty bickering
lunacy
and general idiocy.
Iterate
(3,020 posts)The statement quoted in the source was purely political. There was no analysis or demonstrated understanding of nuclear power on his part, probably because he has none.
I'll go through it in smaller steps.
He's an EU commissioner. It's an five-year, appointed position, appointed by the Commission President who is elected by the member states. In the EU structure, this is where each state has its say as a national government. Each of the 27 Commissioners is assigned responsibility for specific policy areas by the President.
His duties as a commissioner:
proposing new laws to Parliament and the Council
managing the EU's budget and allocating funding
enforcing EU law (together with the Court of Justice)
representing the EU internationally, for example, by negotiating agreements between the EU and other countries."
http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission/index_en.htm
He does not set EU policy. Period. This is intended to be a position for a technocrat, so by making those statements cited in the source he was overreaching. He made even more egregious overreaching in the comments concerning social policy that I mentioned. He also used the same rhetoric.
I intended simply to make his right-wing, pro-big business bias clear by mentioning just the latest controversy in the German press. They are ripping him to shreds right now, but all of the best sources are in German.
Look into his past and you'll see no climate activism or study of energy topics. When he took the post he was a CDU hack who probably knew less about energy than most of the regulars in E/E.
In a leaked diplomatic cable from the United States embassy cable entitled "Lame Duck German Governor Kicked Upstairs as New Energy Commissioner in Brussels," Deputy Chief of Mission in Germany, Greg Delawie notes that
"Chancellor Angela Merkel nominated Baden-Wuerttemberg (BW) Minister President Guenther Oettinger as EU Energy Commissioner primarily to remove an unloved lame duck from an important CDU bastion." Before going on to claim "Oettinger is noted for a lackluster public speaking style, and some commentators have asserted that Merkel, who has often stood out at EU meetings, wanted to appoint a German Commissioner who would not outshine her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Oettinger
Need more overreaching and right-wing nuttery? Why not, it's entertaining.
And what about his energy legislation submitted to parliament?
Safety standards for offshore oil and gas drilling.
Proposed EU-wide standards for fracking and gas extraction (very much a booster)
Proposing an LNG terminal in Finland
Pushing a Caspian Sea gas/oil pipeline
Opposes tariff on Chinese solar panels, but has done nothing to stop the dumping.
There's more, but overall it's less than impressive. But he did manage this week to piss off and insult Bulgaria and Romania by calling them "ungovernable".
The bigger question I'm wondering is why he got a headline with that statement in your source. Member states determine their own energy mix, as Oettinger himself said, and as it should be. He has nothing to do with it, nothing at all. And it wasn't news. So why then was it beefed up and posted to a stock market blog?
I've noticed the WSJ does this sort of thing on nearly a weekly basis, that is using or misusing an easily misunderstood European source to support their business position. You sure you're not being gamed?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)he made the mistake of pointing out the catastrophic failure of Merkel's Energiewende.
I don't know, maybe he is a dick. Maybe he does have lackluster speaking style. But the notion that he doesn't set EU policy is ridiculous:
"The Commissioner holds responsibility for the European Union's energy policy as well as nuclear issues (Euratom). It was previously a backwater in the Commission but has now become sought-after as the European energy policy has been developed. The Commissioner for Energy has to deal with ongoing gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine which threaten European supplies, reduce dependence on Russian energy and reduce carbon emissions.[4]
The Directorate-General serving this Commissioner is the Directorate-General for Energy, which was combined with Transport prior to 2010."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner_for_Energy
Iterate
(3,020 posts)http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission/index_en.htm
They are bureaucrats. Commissioners are responsible for the implementation of policy, and do not set the policy itself, which is handled elsewhere in the EU structure. Even that is fairly limited by aspects of national sovereignty that remain. The idea is to coordinate laws and policies and not to dictate them. That's one of the reasons, for example, why the laws on GM crops vary from country to country.
As Commissioner, he is responsible for "representing the EU internationally, for example, by negotiating agreements between the EU and other countries." That is why that office negotiates gas supply disputes.
The "right of initiative" allows him to propose laws, but that doesn't mean anyone will listen to him. It's also why the anti-EU press in the UK and elsewhere always runs a regular feature of ridiculous proposed laws that get nowhere when they reach the EU Parliament. It always reminds me of some asinine state senators who do the same thing -and it never gets out of committee. Every state seems to have some. That doesn't mean they are setting policy.
He was a supporter of Energiewende, as are about 65-75% of Germans, but as a Commissioner he is explicitly charged with representing the whole of Europe and explicitly prohibited from advocating national policies. He has spoken in favor of the nuclear phaseout.
But it's his loose-cannon mishandling of the Commissioner's position that has particularly made him an object of ridicule and contempt throughout the EU, even thought the EU Parliament supports many of the same energy policies.
Long story short, you've been gamed by the WSJ into jumping on the bandwagon by a meaningless, Palinesque comment. And it's not the first time.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)OP was about a comment that an EU policymaker (yes, policymaker) made. Maybe he's an asshole, but he has influence and you don't.
It's a news story. That's all.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)He's an EU politician. The comments in the OP occurred at a conference in Prague, I believe.
It seems like EU-wide energy policy is now a hot political button that's something of a proxy for other economic tensions. And the news that the EU is going to rule Germany's EEG subsidy "state aid" was just dropped on them, which is what France has been agitating for:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-set-to-fight-german-energy-subsidies-a-902269.html
But to be fair about it, Oettinger has been toiling away trying to get the cross-border arrangements set that are the requirement for a lot of European CO2-lowering plans:
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2012-11/oettinger-eu-energiepolitik
European politics is complicated, and Oettinger can't be seen to be favoring Germany. There's been way too much back and forth between Poland, The Czech Republic and Germany over the nuclear issue, and it's not dying down. But then both those countries have been quite critical of Germany's renewables push due to the pressures on their grids. When Oettinger affirmed that those countries had the right to use nuclear power, he did so in the context of affirming sovereign choice as to sources of power, which then reflects back on Germany's right to use renewables and use the interchange grids.
As for Oettinger's comments on pensions, it's no more than the Swedish PM is saying:
http://www.euractiv.com/health/sweden-prime-minister-considers-news-518068
Full retirement ages in Europe have been slowly cranking up, and France is a major outlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age
That would be no big deal, but the Europeans at least CLAIM that they are going to a system to unify financial risk and sovereign risk, so that does cause issues in the rest of Europe.
The Western world as a whole is waking up to some new realities. The northern Scandinavian whatever you want to call thems are pretty much going to US/German retirement ages due to fiscal pressures. The Netherlands:
http://www.ipe.com/news/dutch-parties-to-increase-retirement-age-sooner-than-expected_47715.php#.Ua6R45xu-ls
You can't realistically get the citizens of all these other countries to subsidize the financial risks that France takes on by keeping retirement ages lower.
Oettinger surely does believe in the EU, but keeping that political unit alive requires a lot of adjustments, and they will be painful at times.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)The EU is screwed. A bad idea from conception - one currency, 27 different priorities.