Regarding ‘Cyber-attacks now the most feared EU energy threat‘:

Recent comments by European Commission officials concerning ‘cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure’ are superficial and fail to address key issues. Furthermore, discussions on this subject seem to occur only when budget allocations are being made.

In 2003 PWR produced a report on this subject (Vulnerabilities of Critical Network Infrastructure) for a G8 government. Our qualifications to produce this report? I used to run power networks for a UK DNO (Distribution Network Operator) and have worked inside power stations and regional control centres.

In the case of nuclear, I speak on a regular basis to a senior software engineer for one of the main global providers of nuclear power systems. Cyber attacks are one topic that is guaranteed to reduce him to fits of laughter.

His comments mesh quite nicely with those of TSOs (Transmission Systems Operators) such as RTE (interviewed for the cyber-attack report). Their composite message: if you don’t want to be vulnerable to a cyber attack, don’t connect your systems to public networks. Why would you want to do this? – see below.

Engineers running the power network in London mentioned the pressure they come under to provide more information to ‘management’ (= the men in suits) on network status, use of assets, etc. via the company intranet (which of course is linked to the Internet). This information was not necessary for operational purposes and at the time of writing the report, the engineers were holding the line against the suits.

At this point it is worth identifying a particularly unpleasant group of terrorists that have a history of disrupting power networks. In September 2003 they caused the loss of one day’s GDP in Italy due to the loss of power across the country for nearly 12 hours. The terrorist group responsible is known by the collective name: trees. It is a growing group and unless rigorous tree cutting is undertaken causes regular problems. Parties concerned with cyber attacks are invited to point to similar losses in Europe caused by cyber attacks (answer: none – so far).

Security in any network requires a layered approach. The first step, as we have seen, should be no connection of control systems to public networks (i.e. the Internet), the second should be ‘don’t use communication protocols that are in widespread use’.

Sadly this latter point is being overtaken by a lemming-like rush to adopt Internet protocols among TSOs and DNOs. Standardisation is one of the causes of this. The TSOs and DNOs fondly imagine that standards will somehow or other protect them from supplier lock-in. In the case of DNOs this illusion is shattered the first time they try and move from one vendor’s DMS (distribution management system) to another.

A topic that PWR is currently developing (and relevant to cyber security) is resilient network topologies and the role of unit protection schemes in electrical power networks. In summary, network topologies exist which require a minimal communications infrastructure and little in the way of protocols. This makes them both highly reliable and highly resistance to cyber attack since, by definition, there is almost no communications network to attack.

There is one place on earth that has implemented such systems on a regional scale: Merseyside. That only one network of this type exists says much about mind-sets within the power industry and the role of ‘conventional wisdom’ (or would that be ‘group think’) with respect to network design and network security.

Furthermore, and as a matter of record, the MANWEB urban network is the most reliable in terms of loss of supply to urban consumers in the UK. Discussions with other DNOs on the subject and mentioning the MANWEB network leads to a range of comments that can be grouped under the general heading ‘cognitive dissonance’.

The current trajectory of the power industry with respect to both cyber protection and the move towards active networks (‘smart grids’ for the non-professional) is a way of guaranteeing infinitely escalating spending on IT systems (great news for the IT industry).

To summarise, the risk of cyber attack is reduced by:

1. Ensuring there is no connection between control systems for power systems and the Internet;
2. Using communications protocols on power networks that are not in widespread use.
3. Using network topologies that are resilient and which minimise the need for complex control systems.

On each point the power industry, for various reasons, is heading in precisely the opposite direction with actions only addressing the symptoms (of vulnerabilities) not the causes. The case of Council of Ministers and their idea of a centralised cyber agency falls into the same class. If there are minimal vulnerabilities then the opportunities for cyber crime are reduced, ergo much lower the need for an agency.

Sadly this is not how the world works and, after all, people need a job.

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘Smart grids could save Europe €52bn‘:

The linking of ‘smart grids’ and ‘energy saving’ is often done by those with an interest in selling equipment that ranges from remote-controlled meters (the people that design these are smart, the meters themselves are pretty dumb) through to capital equipment for power networks (similar comments on people and smartness apply).

“In which the writer positions himself”

I’m a power engineer involved in various projects that aim to improve the ability of power networks to absorb more renewables. This transition of power networks is commonly referred to as a move towards active network management and the components which accomplish it as active network components. I have also worked as a factory services engineer responsible for energy reduction activities.

“Energy Efficiency – Industry”

In November 2008 two Fraunhofers published a report on electrical energy efficiency in German manufacturing industry. They estimated medium-term efficiency gains of around 30%, all without smart grids or smart meters. The same savings and perhaps greater could apply to other EU member states. Furthermore, most factories (if the engineers know what they are doing) will already monitor, in real time, electrical energy consumption. Score: SGs & SMs 0 Energy Efficiency in Industry 1

“Energy Efficiency – Residential”

A PWR position paper has shown that there are only three types of energy consumption in homes (autonomous, instant and time shift). Autonomous refers to things like fridges, freezers and heating circulation pumps. Instant are items such as lights, cookers etc. Time shift has three items: dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers.

Energy saving with respect to autonomous products can only be accomplished by replacement with more efficient ones. As a class this can account for up to 50% of a household’s electrical energy budget. It is quite possible through replacement to cut consumption in this class by more than half. Example (fridge freezer – 215l/60l): Class A++ = 137 Kwhrs/yr, Class C = 522Kwhrs/yr. A 75% reduction in energy consumption by replacing the Class C with a Class A.

Instant accounts for around 23% of electrical power consumption with, lighting accounting for between 12 to 18%. Lights are amenable to replacement with LEDS (which would cut consumption by 90% in this category). Time shift appliances account for less than 10% although smart grid proponents often emphasise the importance of this class.

The unresolved issue of ‘who pays for smart meter roll-out?’ can be answered quite simply. So far, the only country-wide installation of smart meters in Europe was done in Italy by ENEL. The financial justification was theft reduction. The project paid for itself in two years and was funded by ENEL. If power companies feel there is a need for ‘smart meters’, let them pay for the installation themselves.

Alternative systems to smart meters which also provide timely consumption information to the residential sector are rarely mentioned, for example Alertme in the UK (PWR has no commercial links to this company). When your only tool is a hammer (smart meter) every problem (energy consumption) becomes a nail.
Score: SGs & SMs 0 Energy Efficiency Residential Sector 1.

“Power Networks & Smart Grids”

It is claimed that using smart grids could reduce losses in electricity distribution networks. Losses in networks arise from two areas: transformers and cables/overhead lines. There are three ways to reduce losses. Replace old transformers with new, low-loss ones, re-configure the network in a more energy-efficient topology and change transformer tap settings to deliver a more accurate voltage. The latter two can be accomplished with more widespread instrumentation on a given network. Smart Grid? Hardly.

No doubt Mr Chris King (“utilities will also be able to lower the system voltage level”) is aware that distribution companies have a regulatory duty to deliver voltage within specific limits. Depending on the network, some struggle with both over and under-voltage. PWR is working on projects in this area. However, the core challenge facing power networks (both transmission and distribution) is absorbing more renewables. I would suggest this comes first and reducing system voltage a poor second.

“Saving Money.”

The Smart Energy Demand Coalition claims that smart grids and meters could save 52 billion euros. The residential sector spends around 103 bn euros per year and industry spends around 120bn euros on electricity. The Fraunhofer report indicates non-smart grid savings of around 30bn euros for industry. The residential sector could save (on a non-smart meter basis) around 40bn euros. In total, this amounts to 80bn euros without either smart meters or smart grids. I would be interested to hear in more detail about the hypothetical 53 bn euros that smart grids and smart meters would bring.

“Standardisation”

John Harris was quoted as saying “the first thing we need to do is to define what an intelligent system and meter is,” and noted that European standardisation bodies working under an EU mandate are a good starting point. Perhaps they are, but tell me John, how long does it take to make a meter standard (smart or otherwise?). The Open Meter project has been going for two years: what are the results so far???.

Let’s put this into context: Groupe Speciale Mobile took two years to put together a mobile network standard capable of supporting calls across a continent. Two years after that, the first commercial network went live. PWR does not see a similar level of urgency with smart meters and in any case, many member states are already rolling out smart meter systems. Possibly a case of closing the standardisation door after the smart meter horse has bolted?

Conclusion

In George Orwell’s 1984, the end of the book discusses how ‘newspeak’ will remove the ability to think certain concepts. Trite phrases such as ‘smart meters’ or ‘smart grids’ do likewise. They simplify to the point of meaninglessness complex energy systems and networks. Such an approach is useful if the intention is to eliminate clear thinking and open debate. It is also useful if the aim is to gloss over the complexities and the alternatives with the hope that politicians will be sufficiently bamboozled to simply hand over lots of money.

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘Bulgaria surrenders to ‘South Stream’ pipeline‘:

It seems like a very bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket.

Both the Nabucco and South Stream gas pipelines are already at the mercy of the Russians even before they start: so when they are pumping and the infrastructure moves towards relying on them, take note! This is the story of things to come.

What nonsense for the EU to back this project. The only beneficiaries will be mega-rich oligarchs and their henchmen.

Geraldine Edwards

Regarding ‘Carbon capture and storage‘:

I find the whole saga of the CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) issue entirely distasteful.

The oil industry magnates and the coal industry giants must be laughing all the way to the bank and their shareholders must be agreeing with them that they can make a huge killing with dividends. This is another EU farce and the member states should stand back for a moment to consider this.

The facts are pretty plain:

1. Pumping catbon dioxide into oil-bearing and gas-bearing fields under the sea will help the greedy oil companies extract the last vestiges of these fuels from reserves paid for by taxpayers (and also bank-rolled by the public) who finance the EU for little net overall benefit.

2. Pumping the carbon dioxide into these underground areas will therefore result in more fossil fuels being extracted and burnt, thus creating even more greenhouse gases. The Mass Balance of these systems has already been done and it shows that for every 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into these reserves, 20 tonnes of oil (from those oil reserves) and 183 tonnes of gas (from those gas reserves) will be extracted. From these, the dissipation of carbon dioxide will be of the order of 400-500 tonnes of additional carbon dioxide, irrespective of the sulphur!

3. Then of course there is the issue that at least 50% of the available carbon dioxide pumped in to these aquifers will get to the surface in less than a year.

Think again EU – let’s not pretend that this is a good idea!

Carol Horner

Private citizen

It is understandable that our elected representatives in the form of the Environment Council may wish to undertake more studies on moving to a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. After all, this is a momentous step. PWR has some very good news in this regard, which will also delight BusinessEurope.

Towards the end of 2009 two Fraunhofers produced a report for the German Ministry of Education and Research which addressed the issue of “how much energy could the German manufacturing industry save in the medium term”. The answer was between 25 and 30%, or expressed another way – about half the energy currently consumed by German households (= roughly 15% of German CO2 emissions).

The European Commission was sufficiently impressed by the report to have the summary translated into English. If the European Council asks the Commission nicely, it might even let it have a copy of the summary.

One image that does not spring to mind when considering the German manufacturing industry is the word ‘inefficient’. Quite the reverse. That an institution known for its generally rigorous approach (i.e. the Fraunhofers) can identify medium-term (less than 10 years) savings in an industry admired globally for its efficient approach to most things suggests that as a minimum there are similar (if not greater) amounts of energy savings possible in the rest of the European manufacturing sector.

In turn this suggests that achieving the 30% (well in reality an additional 10%) over 10 years using efficiency measures in industry is not just possible but also desirable, since it would leave the European manufacturing industry in the position of using less energy to produce the same goods. PWR has no doubt that BusinessEurope and doubtless our elected representatives in the form of the environment ministers would support such a worthy aim (over to you chaps).

BusinessEurope (BE) is also correct in observing that CO2 emission reductions can only be tackled globally. However, as the Fraunhofer study has shown, important sectors such as manufacturing could take efficiency measures that would in turn allow Europe to easily reach the 30% and at the same time be more competitive.

I cannot imagine that either the ministers or BE would want a less competitive European manufacturing industry. So why not, for example, push hard for efficiency in the manufacturing industry and get to a double result – a more competitive industry and a painless 30% CO2 reduction?

In the case of ‘open markets’, these are to be desired and supported and in this PWR agrees with BE. Continuing in this context, PWR would be delighted to hear an explanation of China’s current lack of ‘market economy status’ vis-à-vis the EU and how this relates to ‘open markets’. If a lack of ‘market economy status’ means that China does not have an ‘open market’ then surely the fuss over border carbon tariffs (BCTs) does not matter.

The other curious aspect of BCTs rarely referred to is the July 2009 report from the WTO on border carbon taxes. Depending on where you sit, this gives either an orange light (get ready to go) or green light with respect to BCTs. Either the report is garbage (over to you, Pascal) or some member states and the European Commission are being ‘economical with the truth’ when they warble on about how the imposition of BCTs would leave Europe open to disputes in the WTO. Surely the WTO would not produce a report that encourages trade litigation – would it?

Yours sincerely,

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘Oettinger values EU 2020 energy goals at €1 trln‘:

Readers will have noticed that in nature round numbers tend to be the exception rather than the rule (think of pi or e). However, in politics, the reverse seems to be the case as shown by Mr Oettinger’s €1 trln needed to overhaul energy networks (would that be with or without VAT, Guenter?) mentioned in an “early draft of the EU’s ‘Energy 2020′ strategy”.

The rhetoric that accompanies such figures is both entertaining and something of a giveaway in terms of the knowledge of the people writing, e.g. “massive refurbishment of its draughty buildings and creaking distribution networks”.

I’m an ex-power engineer that used to run power distribution networks. The phrase “creaking distribution networks” is not something that readily springs to mind when considering today’s distribution networks. They face challenges, but creaking? One does so love journalistic license. Let’s explore this in some detail.

Renewables will become more prominent as sources of embedded power in distribution networks. In the sunny south of Europe, PV will tend to dominate in both urban and rural networks. In the more windy north it will tend to be rural wind (with some PV).

Distribution networks will experience an increase in demand due to the growth in heat pumps (demand circa 6kW per installation) and later electric vehicles (probably in significant numbers from 2015 onwards). An EV on trickle charge looks like an additional house. A heat pump looks like several additional houses from the point of view of the power company.

Options to address the problem of increased demand include throwing more copper at the network (expensive) or mixing some targeted network reinforcement with home storage. If you are substituting electricity for gas and oil even with extensive electrical energy efficiency measures, it is still likely that overall power demand will rise.

PWR is currently discussing such issues with distribution companies, which clearly shows that we could not possibling know what we are talking about compared to Brussels-based NGOs (hi Erica) or indeed the towering intellects in the Commission.

By the way, you need to have well insulated houses (or offices) if heat pumps are to work well, which brings us to the “motherhood and apple pie” issue also known as “energy efficiency”. Considering the energy efficiency of electrical appliances, Mr Turmes may care to talk to his fellow MEPs who rejected a recent EC proposal on a new appliance labelling system on the basis that it was too complicated (…for our expensively educated citizens to understand). Nothing like positioning yourself as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

On the issue of transmission, 50,000kms of line (those round numbers again) is truly eye popping. But is it really this much?

Outstanding issues in this area include: moving German north sea wind to the Rhur (500km) / Stuttgart (650km) / Munich (750km), the Spain–France interconnection problem, integrating the UK into mainland networks and improving links to Europe’s battery aka Norway.

50,000km? Hmmm.

Some of the problems are political. A recent conversation between PWR and REE (Spanish TSO) respresentatives went along the following lines: PWR “you chaps need much more than 1GW of connectivity to France” REE “yes, we know – we have built most of the transmission lines needed to upgrade connections to France but the French don’t want to build on their side”. One does so love politics – over to you, Mr Oettinger: I understand you are ‘good’ at this kind of thing.

The numbers next to the German locations give distances from German north sea wind assets to the locations in question. A look at the Transpower network (which connects several of the German areas in question) suggests that a mix of a few new links (mostly located in areas of low population density) coupled to reinforcement of lines and perhaps more cross-border connections with Holland (to provide further circuit/paths) should do the trick. Say max 2,000km of network re-enforcement.

Mr Turmes is an excellent publicist but suggesting that “If Oettinger gives the message that we should sweep away protections for citizens to make way for infrastructure all he’ll get is public outcry” is missing the mark, since it is not him giving the message: Matthias Kurth, head of the country’s energy regulator (Bundesnetzagentur (BnetzA), has said that Germany’s renewable energy future hinges on the fast expansion of power transmission grids, but planning authorities are too slow.

I’m sure Mr Kurth will be interested in hearing the views of a Luxembourg MEP on the issue of network reinforcements in Germany and German citizens’ property rights. Perhaps a Euro questionnaire along the lines of ‘Do you find electricity useful?’ would focus people’s minds and help politicians get a feel for people’s priorities.

I will finish this letter with two round numbers. The recent Ecofys and the Fraunhofer ISI report commissioned by the European Climate Foundation and the Regulatory Assistance Project suggested that Europe could reach its goal of making energy savings of 20% by 2020 by realising all cost-effective energy saving measures.

Savings would be €78 billion/year by 2020 or reducing an average EU household’s energy bill by €380/year in 2020. The Euro380 figure is close to the estimate per household (Euro300/year) contained in the report ‘Roadmap 2050: A practical Guide to a Low-Carbon Europe for reducing GHGs by 80% by 2050′.

Although there is a time gap, it nevertheless suggests that getting to 80% through a mix of network upgrades coupled to investment by citizens in energy-efficiency measures should mean a fairly neutral overall cost.

The trick will be to balance the two such that they move forward in parallel. At the moment both seem to be stuck in Never Never Land where round numbers dominate and nasty detail is pushed into the background.

Mike Parr

PWR

The recent report produced by the National Technical University of Athens – ‘Energy Trends to 2030′ and profiled in your august organ included a comment by Mr. Kjaer of the EWEA along the lines that he thought the estimate for 2030 for wind was unrealistic.

There is a rather interesting back story to this. The Technical University also happens to be the guardian of the sacred flame with respect to the ‘Primes’ energy methodology. This was used to produce the ‘Energy Trends’ report.

In December 2009, the EWEA published its ‘Pure Power’ report with a foreword by Christopher Jones, then director for New and Renewable Sources of Energy at the European Commission’s transport and energy department, who spoke in glowing terms about the report and its contents.

The political ‘entertainment’ in the EWEA report starts on page 33. The EWEA demolishes the Commission’s projections for wind made in 2008 and looking forward to 2010 and 2015. Page 34 gets to the heart of the matter with a straightforward attack on ‘Primes’ and its controller. An extract is shown below:

“The European Commission scenario is obtained with the PRIMES energy model by the E3M Lab at the National Technical University of Athens. It would appear from the wind energy scenarios described above that the E3M Lab’s model is more than a little unreliable and has been so since its introduction in 1996. Unfortunately, it is not only wind energy that the PRIMES model fails to predict. In its 2008 scenario, the European Commission’s PRIMES model even suggests that EU investments in ‘other renewables’ (that is, renewables excluding biomass and wind) will be negative in 2009 and 2010 (see Figure 4.3). It predicts that more than 6 GW of ‘other renewables’ will be taken off the grid in 2009 and 2010. In sharp contrast to this, 4.8 GW of ‘other renewables’ were installed in 2008 alone.”

I think readers get the general idea, but just in case, another relevant extract follows: “The European Commission has allowed the E3M Lab to feed member states and the general public with misleading information about the future of European energy.”

EWEA notes that the ‘Primes’ model was last reviewed in 1997-1998. Given that the model seems to have real ‘form’ in making ‘misleading’ projections, there are a couple of questions that could be posed to EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger (who commissioned the ‘Energy Trends’ report). The first could be “did you know there are some serious doubts about the Primes model’s ability to provide reasonable energy projections?”. It could be followed by ” are there any plans to review the model?” and “do Athens Uni and E3M have the capabilities to operate the model?”.

The last question is not so difficult to answer. Working on the basis that the EWEA’s facts (with respect to the reliability of the model) are correct and given the apparent failure to review the model, then answer seems to be ‘no’.

None of this would matter much if the discussion were about projections for European chicken markets. However, it is about Europe’s energy future. Given the issues raised by the EWEA in its December 2009 report, it might be wise for the Commission to give serious thought to a Primes review and also the right institution to ‘hold’ the model.

Herr Oettinger might also wish to consider the value of the current report given the above comments. I am sure he would not like to mislead member states. Likewise, I wonder if they are aware of the issues concerning Primes.

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘Commissioner: Farm aid should be a third of EU budget‘:

I was one of the contributors to the recent Centre for European Policy Studies report ‘For a Future Sustainable Competitive and Greener EU Budget’. The report came out in favour of restructuring the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) whilst predicting that such restructuring would prove contentious. All parties to the current budget negotiations are failing to address two core issues: the CAP is there to provide some food security to Europe and some stability to farm incomes. The two tend to go hand in hand.

With respect to farm incomes, the question that needs to be asked is ‘are there any other revenue-generating activities which farmers could undertake and which would offer reasonably stable incomes?’.

As it happens there are. Feed-in tariffs (FITs) for renewable energy are a feature of the European energy landscape. However, projects involving, for example, wind or ground-based photovoltaics tend to be held up by lengthy and tortuous planning processes.

Taking the UK as an example, the recently enacted FIT could generate incomes for farms in the range Euro 100,000 to Euro 200,000 with payback in terms of capital within 3 -4 years (based on the erection of two 250kW wind turbines). A lengthy UK planning process is slowing things down despite generalised political support.

Interestingly, the country that is least keen on CAP reform – France – is also the one that recently made it even more difficult to erect wind turbines. They now go through the same planning process as petro-chemical plants (no, I’m not joking).

In summary, renewable energy coupled to FITs could provide a stable income stream for farmers. They could continue to farm the land and provide food for Europe whilst also helping meet European targets for renewable energy.

It would be nice to think that politicos could, for once, pull their heads out of the sand and recognise that a win-win situation is staring them in the face.

Mike Parr

PWR

As ministers from across the EU-27 meet for the Informal Energy Council on 6-7 September, the oil refining industry urges them to recognise refining as an essential element of energy infrastructure and ensure that the Communication on Energy infrastructure includes oil pipelines and refining as a vital part of the supply chain for refined products.

Transportation networks are essential for all energies and we welcome the proposal to include oil transporting infrastructure with a transnational dimension. However, unlike electricity and gas, oil cannot be used as such and needs to be refined into oil products to be used by consumers.

The most ambitious forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) are that oil will continue to play an important role in the EU’s energy mix, accounting for almost one third of energy demand and 80% of transport fuels in 2030.

Oil refining is and will remain a strategic European asset, contributing to both EU mobility and economic value, and it is also an essential element in enabling the transition to a resource-efficient society by supporting the economy and developing the energy products of the future.

A robust domestic refining industry will bring key value in a number of strategic areas – security of supply through affordable and reliable energy, value creation for the entire industrial value chain – and it will underpin the EU’s economic growth while safeguarding its competitiveness. Not only is access to crude oil crucial to Europe but also the ability to refine it into energy end products, such as transport and heating fuels and feedstock for the chemical industry.

Transitioning to a lower carbon economy will be more difficult and carry greater risk if the existing supply chain assets become uncompetitive. Europe must guard against this by fully recognising oil refining and its related transport infrastructure in the European Infrastructure Plan.

Isabelle Muller

Secretary-General

EUROPIA (European Petroleum Industry Association)

Regarding ‘EU sees solar power imported from Sahara in five years‘:

Desertec is a German idea. It has mostly German companies taking part and thus it is hardly surprising that a German politician – albeit one that now happens to be a commissioner – supports it.

The concerns with respect to using power links to import fossil fuel-based power rather than renewables are justifiable. Currently the Italians are building a power link to Libya to import electricity from coal-fired stations in Libya. Thus making a joke of the Emissions Trading Scheme. To help Mr. Oettinger with his “is it from renewables or fossil fuel sources” problem; generally speaking electrons do not come with labels saying “fossil-fuel source” or “renewable-source”.

The country closest to North Africa is Spain, suggesting that this would be a good location for initial Europe-North Africa interconnectors. Importing more renewables into Spain will make a bad situation (the need to match RES growth with back-up gas turbines – CCGTs) worse.

One gains the impression (from comments and lack of action) that Mr Oettinger seems to prefer to focus on projects in North Africa that will benefit German companies than addressing the pitiful electrical connections between, for example, Spain and France, which currently has around 1GW of connections. A recent presentation by Elia (Belgian TSO) at a CEPS meeting suggested that something like 10GW is needed between the two countries i.e. nine new double circuit 400kV lines.

At his EP hearing in February Oettinger claimed that his focus would be implementing the 3rd Energy Package. The package explicitly includes strengthening EU cross-border power links, the weakest ones being France-Spain, Italy to various northern states and links between the new member states to the east and those to the west. Limited cross-border links make a joke of any ambition to have an EU market for electrical power – a key pillar of EU energy policy.

Another key pillar of EU energy policy is energy independence. Mr Oettinger’s support for power connections to North Africa contradicts this policy.

The idea of Desertec is not a bad one but falls over in a few important areas. The country that is closest to North Africa, Spain, already has interconnection problems with the rest of Europe i.e. France. Thus landing HVDC interconnectors in Spain makes no sense (how to shift the power?).

The country furthest away from North Africa, France (650kms), has a network which with some reinforcement might be able to carry North African power to mid and north Europe. However, if France cannot be bothered to connect to Spain, why would it bother reinforcing its network for North African energy. This leaves Italy, with a weak north-south network and cross-border links (mostly across the Alps) that are used to import 25% of is electrical power needs, leaving zero spare capacity for exports of any meaningful size.

This brings us full circle. If Oettinger wants to help his pet project Destertec and his chums in German industry, the best thing he could do is push forward with implementing the 3rd Energy Package. However, his rather muted action in this area means that his Desertec ambitions will never be realised.

Finishing on a positive note, one is encouraged to see that Mr Oettinger is an expert in one area, gas (as produced in large quantities by politicians).

Mike Parr

PWR