he disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in the weeks following Japan’s earthquake and tsunami in March has already had a major impact on Europe. Bowing to political pressure, Germany declared a three-month moratorium on a decision to extend the life of existing nuclear reactors and permanently junked two of the country’s oldest ones. Switzerland has suspended a programme to replace three of its five plants (which provide more than a third of its energy) and will “update the energy outlook”. Hungary has dropped nuclear from its embryonic energy strategy and even France, nuclear power’s stalwart poster child, saw an uncharacteristic debate flare up about a technology that generates 75% of its energy. The Socialist Party is now demanding a concerted transition to renewables in its 2012 election manifesto. Brussels, meanwhile, has announced potentially show-stopping ‘stress tests’ for all 143 member-state nuclear reactors.

In a climate where 27 EU member states find themselves in the unenviable, GDP-sapping, unsustainable position of importing more than half their oil and gas supplies – a proportion that could rise to 70% by 2030 – this added dimension of power- supply uncertainty is about as welcome as a cold shower. Which, as it happens, is a pretty likely scenario for millions of Central Europeans should there be a repeat of 2009’s midwinter face-off between Ukraine and Russia over unpaid gas bills.

Nevertheless, the EU is at least showing signs that a reliance on hydrocarbons may be diminishing. Recent figures suggest that the 2009 EU directive for a 20% renewable-energy mix by 2020 should be exceeded, albeit by a meagre 0.3%. “More and more EU members realise investment in renewables is also good in terms of security of supply, encouraging industry competitiveness, creating jobs and developing markets,” says Christine Lins, secretary general of the European Renewable Energy Council.

Last month Total, one of the world’s largest oil firms and France’s biggest company, announced it is to purchase 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second-largest solar-panel manufacturer in the US. Total has held a half share in two solar firms – Photovoltech and Tenesol – since the early 1980s and in November it unveiled plans to build a solar-panel manufacturing plant in the Moselle region of France with an annual capacity of 220,000 panels a year. The company will inject $1bn into the US business over the next five years, allowing it, in the words of SunPower chief executive Tom Werner, to “accelerate our power plant and development business”.

BP and Shell have also made forays into renewables but have backed off in recent years. BP shut down its alternative-energy head office, while Shell sold off a major part of its photovoltaic module production to SolarWorld of Germany in 2006 and then disposed of its solar rural business in the developing world.

Total had been investing in nuclear, having acquired an 8.33% interest in the consortium commissioned to develop Europe’s pressurised-reactor project in Penly, France, with EDF and GDF Suez. Greenpeace notes that in 2009, €13bn was invested in wind power alone – 23% more than in 2008 – creating infrastructure it claims could produce the same amount of electricity as three to four large coal or nuclear plants running at capacity.

As Europe’s overarching policy inches towards greenness, there are calls for more certitude beyond 2020. Arthouros Zervos, president of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), says Europe may relinquish its pole position in renewables if ambitions are not bolstered soon and more intimately linked to a more robust Emissions Performance Standard. He also embraces the discredited cap and trade-driven Emissions Trading System. “We’re facing a policy vacuum after 2020,” he adds. “We must ensure that the renewable targets established in 2001 and 2009 are replicated with ambitious 2030 targets.”

WWF’s European energy policy chief, Jason Anderson, is similarly cautious, claiming that “not too many have made the necessary preparations” to ramp up their ambition. Despite the growing – albeit sometimes rhetoric-heavy – calls for an integrated renewable-power system, Brussels bureaucracy and a tangle of national interests have the potential to thwart, particularly when it comes to infrastructure. “With electricity you need the power lines, and we do not have enough of them or the connections [across countries],” says EU energy spokeswoman Marlene Holzner.

One imaginative concept being touted is a sprawling, interconnected ‘supergrid’ which, although initially involving the usual suspects of oil, gas and nuclear power, would also be able to siphon and pool renewable energy from places with a particular natural-resource bounty – offshore wind and marine energy from, say, the UK and Denmark, solar from Spain and Portugal – and distribute them in an efficient, decarbonising manner. Friends of the Supergrid, made up of 20 companies with a mutual interest in promoting this hugely ambitious scheme, presented a proposal for the first phase to the European Commission at the end of 2010 with an initial focus on four member states (Germany, Belgium, Norway and the UK) to harness 23GW of wind power in the North Sea, before rolling out the concept to rest of the EU for zero-carbon energy by 2050. Funding could be provided either by individual household charges or by national taxes.

Greenpeace’s studies suggest that the resources and wherewithal exist to create a supergrid incorporating almost 68% renewable energy, rising to 99.5% by 2050 – even with unfavourable climatic conditions such as low solar radiation and variable wind, dashing the illusion that renewable energy will always have to bend to meteorological whims. In its Battle of the Grids report, it proposes two scenarios. A ‘low grid’ Central Europe-based model would see security of supply less reliant on the electricity grid and long-distance transmission. Instead, gas pipelines are used more intensively to transfer gasified biomass. The ‘high grid’ approach, meanwhile, installs a maximum of renewable-energy sources in areas of the highest output – solar in sunny Southern Europe, say, potentially involving interconnections to North Africa. This, Greenpeace predicts, would minimise the cost of producing and transferring electricity. The suggested investment cost is €581bn between 2030 and 2050.

The most extreme outcome could necessitate some pretty radical energy- mix changes, however. In 2030, gas plants would provide most of the non- renewable energy and serve as back-up before being gradually phased out by 2050. Coal and nuclear are no-no’s due to their inflexibility to respond to variations in wind and solar generation – 90% would be ditched by 2030, with the rest gone in 2050. “There is a clash between nuclear and coal, which would basically perpetuate the old, inflexible and inefficient grid system, and the modern and flexible renewables,” says Frauke Thies, Greenpeace’s EU energy policy adviser. “We have proved that is it is possible to run an energy system with almost 100% renewable energy.”

Intriguingly, many projects compatible with any eventual supergrid plug-in are already underway. Last December, 10 countries (including the UK, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and France), signed up for the North Seas Offshore Grid Initiative. There is a similar initiative, involving eight countries, known as the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan. Elsewhere, Desertec, a proposal to capture concentrated solar power from the Sahara desert and transmit it to Europe, is beginning to gain some traction. Supported by the likes of Munich Re, Siemens, E.ON, and Deutsche Bank, the concept of energy-yielding desert schemes is also being mooted for other appropriate regions, including China.

The biggest obstacle to engineering ingenuity, though, seems to be time. Europe is fragmented, with investment across national boundaries often hamstrung, particularly when it comes to investment. National energy monopolies add to the disharmony. “There is support for the integration of the market but it remains very much in words. In reality the member states still have their own views on the energy mix they want,” says Friends of the Supergrid CEO Ana Aguado. “The borders are still political.”

Desertec Foundation director Friedrich Feuhr adds: “The money is there. The concept is there. What’s needed now is the political will to make it happen. We’re looking to speed up the process for the decision makers to find a practical solution or to implement the solution that is already on the table.”

Nevertheless, recent events in Japan, where arguably too much consensus on energy matters has backfired catastrophically, has focused European minds on the bigger picture.

MERKEL FEELS THE HEAT

Berlin’s rush to exit nuclear power marks a U-turn by Chancellor Angela Merkel, and one that has infuriated the energy industry. Months ago, she opted to extend the lifespans of Germany’s 17 nuclear power plants, scrapping a planned phase-out of all nuclear energy by 2022 and arguing that the technology was required as a bridge until renewables could supply more of the country’s needs. Then, as news of the Fukushima crisis emerged in the wake of the 11 March tsunami, she ordered a three-month moratorium on new plant construction and the closure of the seven oldest plants to permit security tests.

Her conservative Christian Democrats still lost a key state election to the anti-nuclear Greens on 27 March, and the following day she announced that the retreat from nuclear would be permanent. After Fukushima, she said, there would be no going back “to business as usual”. By mid-June, her government would be bringing before parliament proposals on how to achieve a speedy exit from nuclear power.

By April, Berlin had come up with a draft six-point plan. It envisages massive investment in renewable energy, particularly wind farms, and building a much larger network to store and deliver it. Improving energy efficiency, flexibility and citizen involvement are also part of the mix. “We all want to move away from nuclear energy as quickly as possible and switch to supplying renewable energy,” Merkel announced, following a summit with state governors and her cabinet.

This may prove difficult. Nuclear plants have been providing 23% of Germany’s energy needs, while renewables such as wind, solar and biomass account for just 17% A greater reliance on traditional fossil fuels will be unavoidable. Yet this could in turn hinder Berlin’s ambitious goals for reducing CO2 emissions. The government has now drafted legislation for the development and testing of carbon-capture and storage technology (CCS) which pumps greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired plants underground.

The move could go some way to placating energy utilities RWE, E.ON, Vattenfall and EnBW. Furious at their reversal of fortunes on the nuclear issue, they stopped paying into a fund for research into renewables. RWE has also launched a legal challenge to the shutdown of the older plants. The companies accuse the government of undermining industry, putting jobs at risk and pushing up energy costs. And the Federation of German Industries (BDI) warns that the effect on energy-intensive industries could have serious repercussions for the economy. Siobhán Dowling