Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.17.1-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since I have a few extra minutes, let me begin by thanking the Commission, the Secretariat of our Committee and the other rapporteurs. It was not such an easy task, and I am grateful that we managed to cooperate in an objective manner and to seek out the widest possible common ground on what is not an entirely straightforward issue.
Our work was based on three communications from the Commission, and our aim in this report was to provide answers in the three areas covered by those communications, which we managed to do by a large majority in the responsible committee. The starting point was a generally accepted principle that is restated in every debate on energy policy, namely the view shared by the Commission and Parliament that energy policy has three major goals – competitiveness, in other words affordable prices, protection of the environment and security of supply. The conclusion that the solution lay in the continuing development of new and existing energy technology was certainly the easiest part of the report to deal with.
Technology is the key to the pursuit of these three goals. In a world in which demand for energy is constantly growing while the supply of fossil fuels is steadily dwindling, it is therefore crucial that we invest in research and innovation and try to make progress in these areas. We need only look at the potential for increasing the generation efficiency of coal-fired power stations, which averages 34% at the present time but could be raised to 55% through the use of state-of-the-art technology. If a third of old plants were replaced by cutting-edge facilities, fuel consumption could be reduced by 30%. That is just a small example of the opportunities offered by new technology.
We also spoke about two energy sources which are very different from each other but which share the distinction of provoking the greatest political controversy. No one doubts that the share of fossil fuels, which accounted for 79% of gross domestic fuel consumption in the European Union in 2004, will remain high in the foreseeable future. However long this may continue, the fact is that we will certainly have to operate with fossil fuels for some time to come. Coal is a major factor that plays an important role – one reason, of course, being that it is one of the few energy sources, or indeed the main energy source, that we possess in Europe, even if its availability varies between Member States. This is a significant advantage, particularly in terms of the security of our energy supplies.
This means – and this was an important point in our discussions – that when we say coal has a future, which the Commission has thankfully described, we must ensure that the critical aspects of coal use are addressed. One of these critical aspects is the emission of carbon dioxide. One option is greater efficiency and better technology, and the other option is to try to use new technology to separate CO
and store it underground – the famous carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
That is easier said than done of course, but there are indications that it works. We have acknowledged that in this report and have advocated promoting the development of CCS technology, because it gives us a chance to go on benefiting from coal, which is a very reliable source of energy for us in Europe. This is why we have also stressed that we need to tread warily, that carbon capture can reduce generation efficiency and that it is therefore difficult to estimate when CCS technology could come on stream. Above all, we must do our homework and formulate the appropriate legal provisions.
The third and most controversial part of the report relates to the issue of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants account for more than 30% of power generation in Europe, and nuclear power has advantages that are undeniable, whatever our political views. It is there, it is affordable, and it makes a major contribution to security of supply. In terms of reducing CO
emissions, it is an extremely exciting and interesting option, and I do believe it would be reckless if we simply pushed this form of energy aside and did not even consider it.
We succeeded – not without difficulty – in finding formulas to which a large majority could subscribe and which conveyed the message that airing these ideas is part and parcel of a full debate but that the decision to adopt or reject them is a matter for the Member States. That is quite an important point, but our intention is to contribute to the area for which Europe bears some responsibility, namely security of supply. In this respect it is a wise move to establish the High-Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management and the European Nuclear Energy Forum, and it is undoubtedly right, as postulated in the Illustrative Nuclear Programme for the Community (the PINC paper), to carry this debate forward and, when we discuss investments in new technology, not to turn our backs on any potential solution.
In short, an energy mix does not mean sifting out particular sources of energy but taking all sources into consideration. I hope we shall manage to adopt this resolution tomorrow in the form in which it was approved by a large majority in committee."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples