Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-23-Speech-4-142"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060323.27.4-142"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-23-Speech-4-2002
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to propose a calculation justifying why I voted in favour of nuclear power. If emissions in the EU are cut by approximately 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the first phase of emissions trading, the market price in terms of emissions permits will be 2.5 billion a year at current prices. A cautious estimate is that the price of electricity in the European wholesale electricity market could rise on average by EUR 10 per megawatt-hour as a result of emissions trading. Since electricity consumption in the EU stands at approximately 3 000 terawatt-hours a year, the costs of emissions trading in the wholesale electricity market will be around EUR 30 billion a year. One option which goes against the principle of the market would be to tax electricity. I am not suggesting that, but I do propose a thought experiment. If emissions trading were replaced with a tax on electricity and the revenue were used for genuine investment in emissions reduction, the 30 billion or so a year could be used as investment aid to build up a huge amount of capacity, which would remove the need for fossil fuels. Nuclear power is an example of a form of emission-free energy which the electricity market does not support, and which in fact is not really needed either, unlike many other forms of energy. If you imagine, however, that an investment of 3 billion would result in cuts of approximately 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide through the use of nuclear power, the 30 billion would in fact result in that annual cut in emissions through the construction of nuclear power plants, with the difference that the electricity produced could still be sold."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph