Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Here is an extra observation not included in the draft. The Baltic Interconnection Plan is one of the proposed priority projects (point 4, pages 13-14). They write:

...Together with the Member States concerned, the Commission will develop this Plan as part of a Baltic Sea Regional Strategy, covering gas, electricity (including offshore wind and potentially tidal power) and storage. This will bring together existing projects into a cohesive system benefiting the whole region. The efficient development of the market as well as the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to increased security of supply will need to be duly taken into account in developing the Plan.

I smell fish. On the surface, all things to like: integration and new interconnections, security of supply, energy efficiency and renewables.

But, on one hand, if they mention gas, all I can think of is Nord Stream (the St. Petersburg-Greifswald pipeline pursued by Gazprom and its partners in Germany).

On the other hand, regarding a power line that could also be part of the Baltic Interconnection, the Polish-Lithuanian Power Link, the Green Paper has this earlier (first box in point 2.4, page 6):

The link could have dual benefits for security of supply in the region, bridging the gap between the network of the three Baltic States and the rest of the EU, as well as opening up the possibilities for power exports from the planned nuclear plant in Lithuania.

Facilitating exports of surplus capacity from a planned plant would improve that plant's profit expectations, and would thus constitute an indirect but quite material influence on the choice of generating modes in Lithuania. One for which the Commission has no mandate for I am aware of -- while it does have a mandate for favouring renewables.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 05:08:38 AM EST
It does make sense to connect the Baltics directly to the EU grid, even if the potential result is to help their nuclear plant project. I suspect that nuclear plant has enough problems that this will not be enough to help it come alive, whereas the connexion is actually good for energy security, and can easily help with offshore wind.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 06:56:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do agree that interconnection makes sense, in the light of what you say and what the justification in point 4 says, but I feel they are weasely in the wording.

I suspect that nuclear plant has enough problems that this will not be enough to help it come alive

Incidentally, just the other day, I read a negative analysis of the Hungarian government's new plan of adding two blocks to the Paks nuclear plant, from unexpected quarters: a purely financial analysis, focusing on financing costs.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 07:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the constant mortal threat to nuclear investments - if financing costs go up, the entire business breaks down.

And with the current situation, even bonds backed by the full faith and credit of Budapest should carry pretty high interest.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 11:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series