Skip to main content

Europe's Long Energy Journey

Image result for solar panels on roof

The headline of this post is the title of a new book by David Buchan and Malcolm Keay. The subtitle is "Toward an Energy Union?".

The general theme of the book is that the EU's reforms on energy related issues have so far been inadequate. They have been too optimistic about the consequences of market liberalization and have underestimated the costs that would be associated with cuts in emissions.

The authors spend a fair amount of time on the issue of feed-in tariffs (FIT). These are the deals that member states are willing to offer alternative electricity generators, including for example homeowners who might simply have solar panels on their roof. The payments are determined by technology, and in essence by politics, so kilowatts are not treated as fungible. Though of course once it gets into the grid, a kilowatt is a kilowatt and is indifferent to where it came from.

Feed-in tariffs have proven very popular. Every nation state that creates them finds that it has created a vocal constituency for preserving them:  those homeowners with solar cells on the roof come to rely on that as a source of income and are perfectly willing to agitate for its preservation or for higher rates. This makes the EU a bit of a patchwork.

Lauren McKee has reviewed the book quite favorably here.

McKee concludes her review with reflections on Brexit. Unless it changes course, the United Kingdom will "lose EU funding for energy infrastructure and it may be more difficult for multinationals to work in the North Sea area."

The long journey continues. And as four lads from Liverpool might once have sung, it is a long and winding road.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak