Luckily then, amid last December’s gloomy, failed UN talks to reach a global deal on fighting climate change, there was a glimmer of hope on the environmental horizon as nine European nations, led by Belgium, signed an agreement to develop offshore wind power.

As the climate talks in Copenhagen got underway, ministers from Belgium, France, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Britain launched an initiative to connect offshore wind farms that dot Europe’s coastlines, creating a super grid. This would include Belgium’s Thornton Bank wind farm, 30 kilometres off the coast of Zeebrugge.

Belgian representatives, who have pushed the issue forward, said the initiative will be one of the country’s top priorities when its government takes on the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year, a move which has been welcomed by environmentalists.

“This is a clear political statement at a high level and a commitment to get on with it in 2010 as a top priority,” said Greenpeace energy specialist Jan Van de Putte, whose team has been actively campaigning to develop windpower technology as an alternative to nuclear or so-called “clean coal” (where the carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored).

Moving offshore

This all sounds perfect but, as critics of wind turbines are all too ready to point out, wind power can be as unreliable as the weather on which it depends; stationary turbines on still days are hardly an advert for throwing all our eggs in that basket when it comes to solving the climate problem.

Then there’s the aesthetic argument. To some, wind turbines are a graceful representation of clean, green energy. To others, they are quite literally a blot on the landscape – and a noisy one at that. Enter an angry mob of “Not-in-my-backyard” protestors (dubbed Nimbies).

Developing offshore wind, where rotating turbines are planted off the coastline, solves the aesthetic problem (unless, of course, you’re an avid sailor). Crucially, connecting wind farms across the North Sea and the Irish Sea also solves the reliability issue.

When there’s a mild day off the 60-kilometre Flemish coastline, for instance, there will doubtless be a blustery enough day off the coast of one of the other countries in the grid to generate a surplus that can be used for this shortfall.

For Belgium in particular, this is the answer. Wind is one of the few renewable energy sources worth exploiting but, as the country is one of the most densely populated in Western Europe, there is little scope for onshore wind.

“Offshore wind is the only possibility for Belgium. It’s not hot here, we don’t have a lot of mountains, and we don’t have a lot of space,” says Marie-Isabelle Gomez, spokeswoman for federal climate minister Paul Magnette. “The sea is the only possibility,”

Developing a grid is also of utmost importance. “For Belgium, it’s a key element. We only have 60 kilometres of coastline, so we need cooperation on the grid to develop renewables,” says Van de Putte.

And if all that wasn’t reason enough, Belgium, like all other EU member states, is obliged under European Community law to source 20% of its energy from renewables such as wind or solar by 2020. “The building of a ‘super grid’ in the North Sea is vital for fully exploiting Europe’s biggest energy source – offshore wind,” says Justin Wilkes, policy director of the European Wind Energy Association. “More than 100 gigawatts of offshore wind projects are at various stages of planning, which could provide more than 10% of the EU’s electricity.”

What now?

To kick-start the process, government officials will hold a series of meetings during the next few months to work out just how to develop this offshore grid, working in tandem with the European Commission, the EU executive which has in parallel been pushing the technology.

By the middle of this year, each member state is required by law to present the commission with its plans for renewable energy. This should clarify the ambitions of each of the nine signatories to the offshore wind agreement.

Once the Belgian government takes up the presidency in July, these officials will hopefully have gotten a head start on a series of issues that must be resolved before any meaningful development can take place. “The technical and economic analysis is not yet done, and different people have different views on the offshore grid. For 2010, we will be having policy discussions to see where the real show-stoppers are,” says an EU official, who does not want to be named.

Crucially, the EU will have to plough ahead with its project to develop a single European market for energy, allowing electricity to flow freely across the power grids. “Electricity market integration is the key element. An offshore grid can then send power in different directions,” said the official.

Connecting with the neighbours

Among the many details to consider in such a trans-border project are questions of responsibility – that is who constructs and maintains each part – and questions of compatibility. Then they’ll have to decide where the money will come from. “That is indeed the question,” says the EU official.

There are, however, several possibilities. Already, under the European stimulus package to get us through the financial crisis, the EU awarded funds to a series of energy projects, including €10 million for the Thornton Bank wind farm and €165 million for the North Sea grid. This wind farm, owned by Flemish company C-Power, is already in operation and plans ultimately to generate close to 1,000 gigawatts – enough energy to power 600,000 homes – and to link up with other wind farms in the North Sea.

Along with other bits of EU funding and national measures – the UK, for example, has been throwing money at renewable energy in its bid to lead the way on “lowcarbon” energy, notably because it’s an island and needs connections to mainland Europe – this should be enough stimulus to encourage companies to invest.

Even without funds, it makes sense. According to the European Wind Energy Association, a grid that allows for cross-border trading in power could lead to savings in operational costs of €1 to 2 billion per year.

An excellent example to look to is the 600-kilometre-long power line between Norway and the Netherlands. It cost €600 million to build but, according to Greenpeace, is already allowing €800,000 a day in cross-border trade.

But regulators will have to be clear, warns Van de Putte. “The commission has to publish a blueprint, and it will need to be sufficiently concrete for political and industrial planning. The financing is not a big challenge, but it’s a challenge to find the mechanisms – a political challenge.” He added that, while Belgium is set to increase dramatically its offshore wind output over the next few years, “to grow further and give confidence, we need certainty for investors that business will go on. Key to that is cooperation on the grid.”

Green jobs

As well as making sense financially, constructing an offshore grid is another step on the way to Europe reinventing itself as a green economy. As it struggles to raise itself out of the depths of the financial crisis, it justifies its expenditure on energy, claiming it will create green jobs.

The European Commission said in December that funding of €565 million awarded to offshore wind projects would push the economy and employment now and “supports innovative energy technologies that may create further jobs and growth in the future”.

Cynics might also add that were it not for the impending energy security crisis and the EU’s desperate desire to wean itself off Russian oil and gas, there would not be such an impetus behind these “green” projects. Nonetheless, offshore wind fans conclude that it meets all these needs.

“A new multi-billion euro European industry is emerging,” states Wilkes. “One that will create thousands of jobs, provide affordable electricity, boost Europe’s energy security and help fight climate change.”

www.ec.europa.eu/energy