Vital parts of UK infrastructure are being neglected, with potentially severe impacts on national competitiveness and quality of life, according to a new study by engineers.
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Monday, September 2, 2013
The new EU External Energy Policy: an important move - if it is not too late
By Alexander Mirtchev
With the
adoption of its new External Energy Policy, the EU has finally made a first
step towards its integration as a single negotiating bloc in the world energy
market. As such the External Energy Policy could become an important factor in
the global energy security picture and a possible geopolitical game-changer.
However, it remains to be seen whether the big EU member states will be willing
to subordinate their interests to the wider EU interest. The External Energy
Policy has probably come five years too late, argues Alexander Mirtchev,
President of Krull Corp. and Vice-President of the Royal United Services
Institute for Defence and Security Studies.
Monday, December 12, 2011
France to strengthen nuclear security after break-ins: EDF
France will beef up security at its nuclear plants after Greenpeace activists broke into two facilities, the head of energy firm EDF said on Friday, denouncing the stunt as "stupid".
Friday, September 30, 2011
Energy efficient renovations could save Bragg $1.5 million
Fort Bragg expects to save more than $1.5 million in energy costs each year as it renovates aging buildings, according to a report that highlighted Department of Defense energy initiatives.
Fort Bragg is one of several installations mentioned in the 88-page report released last week entitled "From Barracks to the Battlefield: Clean Energy Innovation and America's Armed Forces" from the Pew Charitable Trust.
Fort Bragg is one of several installations mentioned in the 88-page report released last week entitled "From Barracks to the Battlefield: Clean Energy Innovation and America's Armed Forces" from the Pew Charitable Trust.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Free-market energy solutions don't jeopardize national security
By spurring development of the politically favored alternative fuel of the moment, devotees of federal energy subsidies say that we can stop sending dollars overseas. Details of the Solyndra scandal continue to unfold, but what we know so far should teach the Obama administration a valuable lesson: The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Unfortunately, some conservatives -- trying to promote national security -- fall into the same trap of arguing for alternative energy subsidies. Interests ranging from solar to wind, from propane to biodiesel, from natural gas to algae, purport to provide the key to America's energy and national security needs, but having the president or Congress pick winners and losers in the energy sector is neither practical nor principled.
Unfortunately, some conservatives -- trying to promote national security -- fall into the same trap of arguing for alternative energy subsidies. Interests ranging from solar to wind, from propane to biodiesel, from natural gas to algae, purport to provide the key to America's energy and national security needs, but having the president or Congress pick winners and losers in the energy sector is neither practical nor principled.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Testimony: Port terrorist attack could cripple energy sector
A terrorist attack on the Houston Ship Channel would be catastrophic for the nation's energy sector, international trade and economy, witnesses testified during a congressional hearing Wednesday at the Port of Houston Authority.
As testimony was under way at the port's executive offices, a Government Accountability Office issued a report finding that the nation must take further measures to secure the maritime energy supply.
As testimony was under way at the port's executive offices, a Government Accountability Office issued a report finding that the nation must take further measures to secure the maritime energy supply.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
GOP wages energetic fight against light bulb standards
House Republicans are finally ready to make good on their promise to stay the execution of incandescent light bulbs.
After months of fiery rhetoric from conservative commentators including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, GOP members confirmed they’re on track for a floor vote Monday on a bill that would stop the federally mandated transition to more energy-efficient home lighting.
After months of fiery rhetoric from conservative commentators including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, GOP members confirmed they’re on track for a floor vote Monday on a bill that would stop the federally mandated transition to more energy-efficient home lighting.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Smart meter security under the spotlight
The saboteurs who struck at Iran's uranium enrichment programme in late 2009 didn't need to set foot inside the heavily guarded underground facility that held the equipment. Instead, the interlopers planted a malicious virus on its computers. The virus, known as Stuxnet, burrowed its way into the the facility's control systems and cranked up the power, causing critical equipment to spin itself apart.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Delabole wind farm opened after redevelopment
Energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne is set to reopen Britain's first commercial wind farm following the addition of four advanced wind turbines.
Run by Good Energy, the Delabole wind farm originally opened in 1991 with ten turbines, the Press Association reported.
Run by Good Energy, the Delabole wind farm originally opened in 1991 with ten turbines, the Press Association reported.
Friday, February 4, 2011
E.U. Leaders Seek Common Energy Negotiations
BRUSSELS — Leaders of the European Union agreed on Friday to give unprecedented leeway to the bloc’s executive agency to take part in negotiating contracts with energy exporters like Russia in an effort to improve security of supplies and safeguard investment.
There is “a need for better coordination” among E.U. countries and for more coherence in “relations with key producer, transit and consumer countries,” the leaders said in a statement at the close of a one-day summit meeting in Brussels.
The meeting was originally dedicated entirely to energy issues and to bolstering innovation. But that focus was overshadowed by the continuing sovereign debt crisis in the euro zone and developments in Egypt.
Negotiations over energy supply and prices are now left to individual member states. But energy deals are a concern for the entire European Union, which has 27 members and imports more than half of its energy, with about 40 percent of its natural gas coming from Russia.
Dealing more effectively with Russia became a priority after a dispute between Ukraine and Russia blocked gas supplies to a number of E.U. countries during the depths of winter two years ago.
Last year, the E.U. authorities struggled to ensure that an agreement between Poland and Russia on a natural gas pipeline between Siberia and Germany that is partly owned by the Russian state-controlled company Gazprom would give other gas operators access to the Polish section of the pipeline.
There are also tensions between the European Union and Russia over an E.U.-backed pipeline called Nabucco that would start delivering gas by around 2015 from the Caspian Sea region, bypassing Russia and Ukraine.
Russia has backed a separate project called South Stream, which would take Russian natural gas under the Black Sea to Europe.
Under the agreement reached Friday, the E.U. energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, is expected to present a formal proposal in June giving the European Commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, the power to help member states reach contracts with Russia and other governments if the deals are significant enough to affect the bloc’s energy security.
Mr. Oettinger’s mandate would also extend to other sources of energy, like electricity from renewable sources. That would give European companies investing in solar projects in countries like Morocco and Tunisia added security because the commission could impose trade sanctions on those countries if there were any attempt to confiscate facilities in the event of political instability.
Giving the commission a role in such negotiations would also allow it to make sure such agreements mandate common standards for technologies of the future, so that electricity from solar farms outside the bloc can easily be integrated into a European grid.
That could increase the willingness of banks and utilities to invest in a project called Desertec, which would harvest the sun’s energy using a method known as concentrating solar power, or C.S.P., from the vast North African desert and deliver it as electricity, via high-voltage transmission lines, to markets in Europe.
But Mr. Oettinger’s proposal will probably face tough scrutiny by E.U. governments that are wary of giving more power to the bloc’s central authority. The British government was already concerned about “competence creep,” said a British diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity, as is customary at E.U. summit meetings.
European leaders also agreed to back an earlier appeal by Mr. Oettinger to direct E.U. funds to Europe’s electricity grids and pipelines, in part to encourage private investment in the sector. The moves are part of an effort to enhance energy security and help integrate renewable sources of power into the bloc’s future energy mix.
Last year, Mr. Oettinger called on E.U. nations and industry to spend up to €1 trillion, or $1.36 trillion, over the next 10 years on energy, with around €200 billion of that dedicated to infrastructure for transmission systems.
Marlene Holzner, a spokeswoman for Mr. Oettinger, said he was likely to offer a list of infrastructure projects and suggestions to pay for them in June. Those could include E.U.-backed loan guarantees, to make it less expensive for companies to raise capital, and E.U.-backed bonds.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
There is “a need for better coordination” among E.U. countries and for more coherence in “relations with key producer, transit and consumer countries,” the leaders said in a statement at the close of a one-day summit meeting in Brussels.
The meeting was originally dedicated entirely to energy issues and to bolstering innovation. But that focus was overshadowed by the continuing sovereign debt crisis in the euro zone and developments in Egypt.
Negotiations over energy supply and prices are now left to individual member states. But energy deals are a concern for the entire European Union, which has 27 members and imports more than half of its energy, with about 40 percent of its natural gas coming from Russia.
Dealing more effectively with Russia became a priority after a dispute between Ukraine and Russia blocked gas supplies to a number of E.U. countries during the depths of winter two years ago.
Last year, the E.U. authorities struggled to ensure that an agreement between Poland and Russia on a natural gas pipeline between Siberia and Germany that is partly owned by the Russian state-controlled company Gazprom would give other gas operators access to the Polish section of the pipeline.
There are also tensions between the European Union and Russia over an E.U.-backed pipeline called Nabucco that would start delivering gas by around 2015 from the Caspian Sea region, bypassing Russia and Ukraine.
Russia has backed a separate project called South Stream, which would take Russian natural gas under the Black Sea to Europe.
Under the agreement reached Friday, the E.U. energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, is expected to present a formal proposal in June giving the European Commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, the power to help member states reach contracts with Russia and other governments if the deals are significant enough to affect the bloc’s energy security.
Mr. Oettinger’s mandate would also extend to other sources of energy, like electricity from renewable sources. That would give European companies investing in solar projects in countries like Morocco and Tunisia added security because the commission could impose trade sanctions on those countries if there were any attempt to confiscate facilities in the event of political instability.
Giving the commission a role in such negotiations would also allow it to make sure such agreements mandate common standards for technologies of the future, so that electricity from solar farms outside the bloc can easily be integrated into a European grid.
That could increase the willingness of banks and utilities to invest in a project called Desertec, which would harvest the sun’s energy using a method known as concentrating solar power, or C.S.P., from the vast North African desert and deliver it as electricity, via high-voltage transmission lines, to markets in Europe.
But Mr. Oettinger’s proposal will probably face tough scrutiny by E.U. governments that are wary of giving more power to the bloc’s central authority. The British government was already concerned about “competence creep,” said a British diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity, as is customary at E.U. summit meetings.
European leaders also agreed to back an earlier appeal by Mr. Oettinger to direct E.U. funds to Europe’s electricity grids and pipelines, in part to encourage private investment in the sector. The moves are part of an effort to enhance energy security and help integrate renewable sources of power into the bloc’s future energy mix.
Last year, Mr. Oettinger called on E.U. nations and industry to spend up to €1 trillion, or $1.36 trillion, over the next 10 years on energy, with around €200 billion of that dedicated to infrastructure for transmission systems.
Marlene Holzner, a spokeswoman for Mr. Oettinger, said he was likely to offer a list of infrastructure projects and suggestions to pay for them in June. Those could include E.U.-backed loan guarantees, to make it less expensive for companies to raise capital, and E.U.-backed bonds.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Is innovation the key driver for businesses
DUBAI — Business leaders in the UAE believe in the importance of innovation as the main lever for a greener national economy and to improve citizens’ lives, according to the new ‘Global Innovation Barometer’ report by GE.
The first ‘Global Innovation Barometer’ also ranks the UAE high in the Innovation Optimism Index — an evaluation of how new thinking and applications can improve the quality of life.
The report comes as a befitting endorsement by the nation’s business community on the UAE’s policies, resources and budgetary allocations to improve education, create jobs, sustain healthcare and improve energy security.
The first-of-its-kind report outlines a new landscape for innovation in the 21st century, placing an increased premium on addressing local needs, marshaling the creativity of individuals and smaller organisations, and forging strategic partnerships.
The independent survey of 1,000 business executives in 12 countries, including the UAE, was commissioned by GE and conducted by research and consulting firm StrategyOne. “This study illustrates the new face of innovation and shows that as a global community, our priorities have shifted from innovations that just make money to innovations that also have the power to create good in people’s lives,” said Nabil Habayeb, GE’s President & CEO for the Middle East and Africa region.
Saudi Arabia ranks highest in the Innovation Optimism Index at 88, followed by UAE at 86 while the average of the 12 countries is 75, underscoring the increasing appreciation in the Arab world on the value of innovation for its positive impact on the society. Some 90 per cent of the UAE respondents said the nation was very or quite successful in allocating its policies to improve education and in creating jobs, while 92 per cent said the policies are in the right direction to sustain healthcare, and 84 per cent said the policies can improve energy security.
In the Innovation Context Index, which ranks the satisfaction level on the innovation environment in their countries, Saudi Arabia and the UAE rank at 72 and 70, respectively - much higher than the 12-country average of 59. An overwhelming 76 per cent of the respondents in the UAE, followed by Saudi Arabia (62per cent), say public private partnerships are essential in developing innovation.
The research also focused, specifically, on healthcare and energy — two key growth sectors for the Middle East region. The majority of respondents in Saudi Arabia (90 per cent) and the UAE (94 per cent) said innovation will improve energy independence; the country’s carbon footprint (Saudi Arabia – 88 per cent; UAE – 84 per cent); and energy distribution quality (92 per cent for both the countries).
Some 76 per cent of UAE respondents said innovation will help manage energy costs while 66 per cent from Saudi Arabia endorsed the view. In driving the efficiency of energy consumption too, innovation has a strong role, observed most respondents (Saudi Arabia – 82 per cent, UAE – 74 per cent). The figures were higher than the international average, highlighting the confidence of the region in innovation-powered energy use efficiency.
In a similar trend, the Saudi Arabian and UAE response to innovation to improve healthcare efficiency was also recorded as higher than the international averages. Some 92 per cent of Saudi and 82 per cent of UAE respondents said innovation by companies operating in their countries could improve overall health of the population.
Source: http://www.khaleejtimes.com
The first ‘Global Innovation Barometer’ also ranks the UAE high in the Innovation Optimism Index — an evaluation of how new thinking and applications can improve the quality of life.
The report comes as a befitting endorsement by the nation’s business community on the UAE’s policies, resources and budgetary allocations to improve education, create jobs, sustain healthcare and improve energy security.
The first-of-its-kind report outlines a new landscape for innovation in the 21st century, placing an increased premium on addressing local needs, marshaling the creativity of individuals and smaller organisations, and forging strategic partnerships.
The independent survey of 1,000 business executives in 12 countries, including the UAE, was commissioned by GE and conducted by research and consulting firm StrategyOne. “This study illustrates the new face of innovation and shows that as a global community, our priorities have shifted from innovations that just make money to innovations that also have the power to create good in people’s lives,” said Nabil Habayeb, GE’s President & CEO for the Middle East and Africa region.
Saudi Arabia ranks highest in the Innovation Optimism Index at 88, followed by UAE at 86 while the average of the 12 countries is 75, underscoring the increasing appreciation in the Arab world on the value of innovation for its positive impact on the society. Some 90 per cent of the UAE respondents said the nation was very or quite successful in allocating its policies to improve education and in creating jobs, while 92 per cent said the policies are in the right direction to sustain healthcare, and 84 per cent said the policies can improve energy security.
In the Innovation Context Index, which ranks the satisfaction level on the innovation environment in their countries, Saudi Arabia and the UAE rank at 72 and 70, respectively - much higher than the 12-country average of 59. An overwhelming 76 per cent of the respondents in the UAE, followed by Saudi Arabia (62per cent), say public private partnerships are essential in developing innovation.
The research also focused, specifically, on healthcare and energy — two key growth sectors for the Middle East region. The majority of respondents in Saudi Arabia (90 per cent) and the UAE (94 per cent) said innovation will improve energy independence; the country’s carbon footprint (Saudi Arabia – 88 per cent; UAE – 84 per cent); and energy distribution quality (92 per cent for both the countries).
Some 76 per cent of UAE respondents said innovation will help manage energy costs while 66 per cent from Saudi Arabia endorsed the view. In driving the efficiency of energy consumption too, innovation has a strong role, observed most respondents (Saudi Arabia – 82 per cent, UAE – 74 per cent). The figures were higher than the international average, highlighting the confidence of the region in innovation-powered energy use efficiency.
In a similar trend, the Saudi Arabian and UAE response to innovation to improve healthcare efficiency was also recorded as higher than the international averages. Some 92 per cent of Saudi and 82 per cent of UAE respondents said innovation by companies operating in their countries could improve overall health of the population.
Source: http://www.khaleejtimes.com
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Home security packaged with energy and solar
Vivint is a home security company looking for growth in home energy and solar installations.
The company, formerly called APX Alarms, today is scheduled to announce its new name and strategy to expand into home automation. It now has about 16,000 homes using a combined home alarm and energy management system, which it expects to grow to about 100,000 customers this year, according to CEO Todd Pederson.
Many utility-run smart-grid programs give consumers the ability to monitor their electricity usage and program appliances to run at off-peak times to save money. But similar energy management functions are being offered as part of home entertainment or security systems.
At this year's Consumer Electronics Show, a number of companies showed off home automation systems featuring home energy management as one application. Broadband providers, including Verizon, are also packaging energy management with other services.
Vivint's system works with a touch-screen panel that does both security and home control. Right now, it lets people remotely control a thermostat from the panel, a smartphone, or Web page.
The latest version expands the home automation with wireless light switches and wireless plugs for small appliances. Those devices use the Z-Wave protocol to communicate with the main control panel, which uses the cell phone network to connect to Vivint.
In the coming months, the company plans to offer solar panel installation services as well, said Pederson. "We think solar is just a natural fit from a service perspective," he said.
Vivint says that consumers can expect about $25 savings a month on electricity bills by turning off equipment from a central point. For example, there are pre-set programs so that a person can hit an "away" button on the control panel and the thermostat adjusts and other connected appliances turn off.
The cost for the service is either $44.99 or $49.99 per month after a $99 fee. Energy management is $6.99 per month and a security camera is another $9.99 per month.
The company is also looking to work with utilities' smart meters so consumers can participate in demand response programs where they get a rebate for moving power-hungry jobs to off-peak times.
Home security company ADT is also offering a home energy management service that lets people program and control thermostats and other connected devices remotely.
Source: http://news.cnet.com
The company, formerly called APX Alarms, today is scheduled to announce its new name and strategy to expand into home automation. It now has about 16,000 homes using a combined home alarm and energy management system, which it expects to grow to about 100,000 customers this year, according to CEO Todd Pederson.
Many utility-run smart-grid programs give consumers the ability to monitor their electricity usage and program appliances to run at off-peak times to save money. But similar energy management functions are being offered as part of home entertainment or security systems.
At this year's Consumer Electronics Show, a number of companies showed off home automation systems featuring home energy management as one application. Broadband providers, including Verizon, are also packaging energy management with other services.
Vivint's system works with a touch-screen panel that does both security and home control. Right now, it lets people remotely control a thermostat from the panel, a smartphone, or Web page.
The latest version expands the home automation with wireless light switches and wireless plugs for small appliances. Those devices use the Z-Wave protocol to communicate with the main control panel, which uses the cell phone network to connect to Vivint.
In the coming months, the company plans to offer solar panel installation services as well, said Pederson. "We think solar is just a natural fit from a service perspective," he said.
Vivint says that consumers can expect about $25 savings a month on electricity bills by turning off equipment from a central point. For example, there are pre-set programs so that a person can hit an "away" button on the control panel and the thermostat adjusts and other connected appliances turn off.
The cost for the service is either $44.99 or $49.99 per month after a $99 fee. Energy management is $6.99 per month and a security camera is another $9.99 per month.
The company is also looking to work with utilities' smart meters so consumers can participate in demand response programs where they get a rebate for moving power-hungry jobs to off-peak times.
Home security company ADT is also offering a home energy management service that lets people program and control thermostats and other connected devices remotely.
Source: http://news.cnet.com
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thompson Questions President’s Commitment to Energy Security, Job Creation
WASHINGTON, DC – On Wednesday, Representative Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson participated in two of the first congressional oversight hearings of the 112th Congress under the new Republican-led majority. Thompson’s first hearing with the House Education & Workforce Committee, entitled “State of the American Workforce,” focused on the Administration’s efforts to grow the economy and support job creation. Among the witnesses was Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia.
Thompson questioned Governor McDonnell with regard to the Administration’s unilateral move to cancel offshore oil and gas production following the Deepwater Horizon Incident in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed lease sale for energy producing areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the state of Virginia was abruptly withdrawn by the federal government following the Gulf oil spill, despite a previous announcement by the Administration to move forward with the planned sale.
Governor McDonnell suggested that Virginia did not play a role in the decision to discontinue the planned lease sale. Although, according to McDonnell, the Secretary of Interior did contact him by phone an hour before the President acted to cancel the action. McDonnell commented, “I didn’t think we ought to give up and write off an entire industry that could create tremendous capital investment in jobs at this time in America, and that I was very disappointed.” Thompson expressed his support for the Governor’s position and went on to outline the long-history of the oil and gas industry’s ability to positively coexist with the commercial fishing, shipping, recreation and tourism industries, and military operations off America’s coastline.
Later in the day, the House Natural Resources Committee, a new appointment for Thompson, held an oversight hearing of the President’s National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Thompson highlighted how America’s energy and workforce needs are inextricably linked, and how the Administration’s policies, before and since the Deepwater tragedy, have lacked coherence, increased our dependence on foreign oil and increased our energy costs including the price of gasoline. Following completion of the oversight proceedings, Thompson offered the following statement:
“The Administration’s actions contradict the President’s commitment to energy security during the State of the Union Address. The Deepwater spill was a terrible tragedy, but it should not be used by the Obama Administration as an excuse to constrain America’s domestic energy production and force further job losses. This will raise energy prices, undermine our nation’s path to a long-term, sustainable energy plan and stifle the American workforce. The families of the Fifth District and across the country rely on steady paying industry jobs and access to an affordable energy supply, and we’ll continue to ensure the White House’s actions live up to their rhetoric. It’s time to work together and find commonsense solutions to our nation’s economic and energy needs.”
Source: http://gantdaily.com
Thompson questioned Governor McDonnell with regard to the Administration’s unilateral move to cancel offshore oil and gas production following the Deepwater Horizon Incident in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed lease sale for energy producing areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the state of Virginia was abruptly withdrawn by the federal government following the Gulf oil spill, despite a previous announcement by the Administration to move forward with the planned sale.
Governor McDonnell suggested that Virginia did not play a role in the decision to discontinue the planned lease sale. Although, according to McDonnell, the Secretary of Interior did contact him by phone an hour before the President acted to cancel the action. McDonnell commented, “I didn’t think we ought to give up and write off an entire industry that could create tremendous capital investment in jobs at this time in America, and that I was very disappointed.” Thompson expressed his support for the Governor’s position and went on to outline the long-history of the oil and gas industry’s ability to positively coexist with the commercial fishing, shipping, recreation and tourism industries, and military operations off America’s coastline.
Later in the day, the House Natural Resources Committee, a new appointment for Thompson, held an oversight hearing of the President’s National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Thompson highlighted how America’s energy and workforce needs are inextricably linked, and how the Administration’s policies, before and since the Deepwater tragedy, have lacked coherence, increased our dependence on foreign oil and increased our energy costs including the price of gasoline. Following completion of the oversight proceedings, Thompson offered the following statement:
“The Administration’s actions contradict the President’s commitment to energy security during the State of the Union Address. The Deepwater spill was a terrible tragedy, but it should not be used by the Obama Administration as an excuse to constrain America’s domestic energy production and force further job losses. This will raise energy prices, undermine our nation’s path to a long-term, sustainable energy plan and stifle the American workforce. The families of the Fifth District and across the country rely on steady paying industry jobs and access to an affordable energy supply, and we’ll continue to ensure the White House’s actions live up to their rhetoric. It’s time to work together and find commonsense solutions to our nation’s economic and energy needs.”
Source: http://gantdaily.com
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Russian Ministry: Security of Energy Infrastructure Paramount
The Russian Energy Ministry is demanding that companies in the fuel and energy sector reinforce security at sites with important fuel and energy infrastructure.
The ministry wants access points of entry to such sites to be made stronger in the wake of the terrorist bombing at the Domodedovo airport on January 24, 2011.
A telegram with the new instructions was signed by Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko and sent to the leaders of all fuel and energy facilities, the Energy Ministry press office reported.
Source: http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com
The ministry wants access points of entry to such sites to be made stronger in the wake of the terrorist bombing at the Domodedovo airport on January 24, 2011.
A telegram with the new instructions was signed by Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko and sent to the leaders of all fuel and energy facilities, the Energy Ministry press office reported.
Source: http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com
Friday, January 21, 2011
Energy security a journey of 1000 miles
The deeper you delve into the proposed vision of a smart, clean-energy grid — much less a supergrid — the more daunting the task appears. Looking into the future is like working your way through a set of matryoshka dolls, never quite sure where it will all end.
Still, as the Chinese proverb says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And there are some good steps forward being taken in the smart-grid space these days.
Some energy companies, for example, seem well on their way to meeting smart-metering and energy-management targets. In the UK, electricity supplier Opus Energy recently announced it had installed a total of 12,000 smart meters and expects to outfit 20 per cent of its customers with the meters this spring. The company says that puts its well ahead of the government’s 2014 deadline for smart-metering maximum-demand users.
Meanwhile, a group of 10 countries — the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Norway and Belgium — is backing plans for a North Seas supergrid that would link renewable energy sources across a wide swath. The idea behind the plan is to eliminate some of the problems with intermittent clean-energy sources by broadening the offshore electricity grid’s reach. In theory, if British winds are producing lots of energy when local demand is low, the surplus electricity could be transmitted all the way to Norway, where it could be used to pump water at hydropower plants. That stored hydropower energy could then be sent back to the UK when local demand goes up but the wind isn’t blowing.
It’s still early in the process, of course. For now, the supergrid organisation’s goals are primarily to identify policy considerations, scenarios and cost assessments. The actual work of building the supergrid remains farther out.
There’s no question that just maintaining the grid we have, never mind building new transmission lines and smart interconnections, will be a costly, time-consuming proposition. Will it be worth it, though? Undoubtedly yes … not only in terms of greater amounts of usable renewables but in more resilience of the system overall. Besides, there are a lot of efficiencies we can wring out of the grid we have today, if we only choose to. As Nick Milne-Home, president of 1E Inc., put it, “The smart grid exists today in very small islands. The challenge is to link them.”
Or to lift out those ever-smaller matryoshkas, one doll at a time.
Source: http://www.greenbang.com
Still, as the Chinese proverb says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And there are some good steps forward being taken in the smart-grid space these days.
Some energy companies, for example, seem well on their way to meeting smart-metering and energy-management targets. In the UK, electricity supplier Opus Energy recently announced it had installed a total of 12,000 smart meters and expects to outfit 20 per cent of its customers with the meters this spring. The company says that puts its well ahead of the government’s 2014 deadline for smart-metering maximum-demand users.
Meanwhile, a group of 10 countries — the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Norway and Belgium — is backing plans for a North Seas supergrid that would link renewable energy sources across a wide swath. The idea behind the plan is to eliminate some of the problems with intermittent clean-energy sources by broadening the offshore electricity grid’s reach. In theory, if British winds are producing lots of energy when local demand is low, the surplus electricity could be transmitted all the way to Norway, where it could be used to pump water at hydropower plants. That stored hydropower energy could then be sent back to the UK when local demand goes up but the wind isn’t blowing.
It’s still early in the process, of course. For now, the supergrid organisation’s goals are primarily to identify policy considerations, scenarios and cost assessments. The actual work of building the supergrid remains farther out.
There’s no question that just maintaining the grid we have, never mind building new transmission lines and smart interconnections, will be a costly, time-consuming proposition. Will it be worth it, though? Undoubtedly yes … not only in terms of greater amounts of usable renewables but in more resilience of the system overall. Besides, there are a lot of efficiencies we can wring out of the grid we have today, if we only choose to. As Nick Milne-Home, president of 1E Inc., put it, “The smart grid exists today in very small islands. The challenge is to link them.”
Or to lift out those ever-smaller matryoshkas, one doll at a time.
Source: http://www.greenbang.com
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Renewable energy policies 'paying dividends in energy security'
It has been announced at the Irish Renewable Energy Summit renewable energy use in Ireland is growing by an average of 15% a year in the second half of the last decade.
Prof. J.Owen Lewis, CEO of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) noted the significant progress made in renewable energy deployment in Ireland.
Prof. Owen said: "Significant progress is being made in developing and harnessing of the country’s natural energy resources. It is important to point out that our existing success in renewable energy is already having a direct impact on the competitiveness of the Irish economy, through enhanced price stability and improved security of energy supply."
Prof. Lewis said that ocean technologies show strong promise.
He said: "In the next few years, clean energy will be a highly prized commodity across the world. Ireland has the resource in abundance, and while there are many substantial challenges to developing the technologies and finding ways to capture and move and control this energy cheaply, there are powerful incentives to address these issues.
"This emphasises the need for a commitment to a long term strategy to decarbonise our energy supply."
The Proffessor noted that energy prices in Ireland for both gas and electricity have decreased "bringing Ireland into line with the European Union average".
He said: "The key factor driving energy prices in Ireland is fossil fuel commodity prices and our vulnerability lies in our continued high dependence on these fuels. Oil and gas prices will continue to be volatile, leading to further uncertainty.
"The clear way out of this uncertainty is to move away from our dependence on imported fuels and seriously exploit our indigenous renewable resources, in parallel with transforming the efficiency with which energy is used in Ireland. Achieving our long-term ambitions for renewable energy will be crucial to the future well being of Irish society."
Source: http://www.irishexaminer.com
Prof. J.Owen Lewis, CEO of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) noted the significant progress made in renewable energy deployment in Ireland.
Prof. Owen said: "Significant progress is being made in developing and harnessing of the country’s natural energy resources. It is important to point out that our existing success in renewable energy is already having a direct impact on the competitiveness of the Irish economy, through enhanced price stability and improved security of energy supply."
Prof. Lewis said that ocean technologies show strong promise.
He said: "In the next few years, clean energy will be a highly prized commodity across the world. Ireland has the resource in abundance, and while there are many substantial challenges to developing the technologies and finding ways to capture and move and control this energy cheaply, there are powerful incentives to address these issues.
"This emphasises the need for a commitment to a long term strategy to decarbonise our energy supply."
The Proffessor noted that energy prices in Ireland for both gas and electricity have decreased "bringing Ireland into line with the European Union average".
He said: "The key factor driving energy prices in Ireland is fossil fuel commodity prices and our vulnerability lies in our continued high dependence on these fuels. Oil and gas prices will continue to be volatile, leading to further uncertainty.
"The clear way out of this uncertainty is to move away from our dependence on imported fuels and seriously exploit our indigenous renewable resources, in parallel with transforming the efficiency with which energy is used in Ireland. Achieving our long-term ambitions for renewable energy will be crucial to the future well being of Irish society."
Source: http://www.irishexaminer.com
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Rosier Outlook for U.S. Energy Security, But China Should Worry
The debate about the dependence of the U.S. on energy imports from unfriendly regions like Venezuela or the Middle East seems to have a certain fatalism these days. The natural assumption is that the problem is intractable and destined to get worse.
However, 20-year projections from U.K. energy giant BP make surprisingly optimistic reading for American energy worriers. BP’s well respected economists predict that U.S. dependency on foreign oil and gas has already peaked and will have declined substantially by 2030.
In their view, it’s China that should be fretting. If BP is correct, Asia’s economic powerhouse could be importing 80% of its oil and 40% of its natural gas within 20 years, a much more parlous position than the country is currently in.
According to BP’s long-term internal projections, released to the public for the first time Wednesday, U.S. oil and gas import dependency peaked in 2005 and is set to steadily decline over the next two decades. By 2030, it will be importing around half its oil, down from 60% currently, and will be entirely self sufficient in natural gas, BP says.
“Import dependency in the U.S. is likely to fall to levels not seen since the 1990s because of improved fuel efficiency and the increased share of biofuels,” said BP’s report.
The internal combustion engine will remain dominant, but U.S. road fuel consumption should decline steadily, as car manufacturers make incremental efficiency improvements and consumers choose smaller vehicles, said BP’s Chief Economist Christof Ruehl.
At the same time biofuels production, mostly corn or sugarcane ethanol produced in the U.S. and Brazil, is expected to more than quadruple to 6.7 million barrels a day by 2030. “For the first time, non-fossil fuels will be major sources of supply growth,” said Ruehl.
BP expects the shale gas revolution that has already transformed the U.S. natural gas market to continue apace. By 2020, U.S. natural gas imports could fall close to zero and by 2030 the country may well be shipping cargoes of liquefied natural gas elsewhere, Ruehl said.
In contrast, China, which imported 54% of its oil and 13% of its gas in 2010, will see import dependency soar. By 2030, BP projects that the country will import 80% of its oil and 40% of its gas. Ten years ago, China was importing just 25% of its oil and no natural gas, so this will be a jarring transformation.
These figures go a long way to explain why state-controlled Chinese companies are on a multi-billion dollar spending spree, snapping up foreign companies in every corner of the world so it can exert greater influence on the international oil and gas flows on which it will be so dependent.
But these acquisitions can only go so far. Even assuming, as BP does, that China’s economic growth becomes far less energy intensive after 2020, the country still faces a big energy problem.
“The scale of China’s energy requirements is such that it has an impact on global energy markets, and prices. Energy prices (or supplies) could indeed become a temporary constraint on growth,” said BP.
For the U.S., this data is perhaps one small sign that predictions of the country’s inexorable slide against an unstoppable China are premature.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com
However, 20-year projections from U.K. energy giant BP make surprisingly optimistic reading for American energy worriers. BP’s well respected economists predict that U.S. dependency on foreign oil and gas has already peaked and will have declined substantially by 2030.
In their view, it’s China that should be fretting. If BP is correct, Asia’s economic powerhouse could be importing 80% of its oil and 40% of its natural gas within 20 years, a much more parlous position than the country is currently in.
According to BP’s long-term internal projections, released to the public for the first time Wednesday, U.S. oil and gas import dependency peaked in 2005 and is set to steadily decline over the next two decades. By 2030, it will be importing around half its oil, down from 60% currently, and will be entirely self sufficient in natural gas, BP says.
“Import dependency in the U.S. is likely to fall to levels not seen since the 1990s because of improved fuel efficiency and the increased share of biofuels,” said BP’s report.
The internal combustion engine will remain dominant, but U.S. road fuel consumption should decline steadily, as car manufacturers make incremental efficiency improvements and consumers choose smaller vehicles, said BP’s Chief Economist Christof Ruehl.
At the same time biofuels production, mostly corn or sugarcane ethanol produced in the U.S. and Brazil, is expected to more than quadruple to 6.7 million barrels a day by 2030. “For the first time, non-fossil fuels will be major sources of supply growth,” said Ruehl.
BP expects the shale gas revolution that has already transformed the U.S. natural gas market to continue apace. By 2020, U.S. natural gas imports could fall close to zero and by 2030 the country may well be shipping cargoes of liquefied natural gas elsewhere, Ruehl said.
In contrast, China, which imported 54% of its oil and 13% of its gas in 2010, will see import dependency soar. By 2030, BP projects that the country will import 80% of its oil and 40% of its gas. Ten years ago, China was importing just 25% of its oil and no natural gas, so this will be a jarring transformation.
These figures go a long way to explain why state-controlled Chinese companies are on a multi-billion dollar spending spree, snapping up foreign companies in every corner of the world so it can exert greater influence on the international oil and gas flows on which it will be so dependent.
But these acquisitions can only go so far. Even assuming, as BP does, that China’s economic growth becomes far less energy intensive after 2020, the country still faces a big energy problem.
“The scale of China’s energy requirements is such that it has an impact on global energy markets, and prices. Energy prices (or supplies) could indeed become a temporary constraint on growth,” said BP.
For the U.S., this data is perhaps one small sign that predictions of the country’s inexorable slide against an unstoppable China are premature.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Report calls for energy rationing within the decade
Fuel and energy rationing will be needed before 2020, according to a new parliamentary report that is proposing a system to make sure people have fair and equal access to energy while helping the Government meet its 80 per cent carbon emission reduction by 2050.
The Lean Economy Connection report, entitled 'Tradable Energy Quotas’ was commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and concludes that the value of carbon savings now warrants the use of Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs). It proposes that all adults should receive energy credits in the rationing system.
The UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security has already said peak oil may be reached by 2015. Peak oil is the point when global oil production is at its highest and future production will have to plateau or reduce.
How the rationing system would work
Using the TEQs system would guarantee people had equal access to energy, and they would be able to sell additional credits if they had more than necessary. Businesses would bid weekly for energy units, which would also generate money to fund the system.
Unlike a carbon taxing system, people would not charged for their emissions, so would not have to pay more money in an economy that is already strained.
Commenting on the release of the report, published today, John Hemming MP, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, said: "What is needed is an intelligent response both to climate change and to fuel depletion. We therefore welcome the model set out in the Lean Economy Connection’s report, which addresses both sides of the problem. It is the first coherent proposal to attempt to do this, and it merits close attention."
Emissions reduction goals
It is unlikely that emissions reduction goals will be met if TEQs aren’t used, according to the report.
"TEQs is the kind of approach we will need if we are to mobilise the infrastructure of a zero-carbon future fast, under pressure. It would increase the chances of working our way through the grim times to renaissance-through-resilience," Jeremy Leggett, chairman of Solarcentury added.
Energy security
The system would help the UK manage should energy scarcities arise in the future while also maintaining the market and mitigating fuel poverty.
Shaun Chamberlin, director of the Lean Economy Connection and co-author of the report, asked that the Government shift its focus away from research and onto ways to implement ways to reduce carbon emissions should rationing become necessary.
Source: http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk
The Lean Economy Connection report, entitled 'Tradable Energy Quotas’ was commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and concludes that the value of carbon savings now warrants the use of Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs). It proposes that all adults should receive energy credits in the rationing system.
The UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security has already said peak oil may be reached by 2015. Peak oil is the point when global oil production is at its highest and future production will have to plateau or reduce.
How the rationing system would work
Using the TEQs system would guarantee people had equal access to energy, and they would be able to sell additional credits if they had more than necessary. Businesses would bid weekly for energy units, which would also generate money to fund the system.
Unlike a carbon taxing system, people would not charged for their emissions, so would not have to pay more money in an economy that is already strained.
Commenting on the release of the report, published today, John Hemming MP, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, said: "What is needed is an intelligent response both to climate change and to fuel depletion. We therefore welcome the model set out in the Lean Economy Connection’s report, which addresses both sides of the problem. It is the first coherent proposal to attempt to do this, and it merits close attention."
Emissions reduction goals
It is unlikely that emissions reduction goals will be met if TEQs aren’t used, according to the report.
"TEQs is the kind of approach we will need if we are to mobilise the infrastructure of a zero-carbon future fast, under pressure. It would increase the chances of working our way through the grim times to renaissance-through-resilience," Jeremy Leggett, chairman of Solarcentury added.
Energy security
The system would help the UK manage should energy scarcities arise in the future while also maintaining the market and mitigating fuel poverty.
Shaun Chamberlin, director of the Lean Economy Connection and co-author of the report, asked that the Government shift its focus away from research and onto ways to implement ways to reduce carbon emissions should rationing become necessary.
Source: http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk
Friday, January 14, 2011
Carbon sequestration: capture technology faces a more hostile environment
Of all the “clean energy” technologies, carbon capture and storage is the one most closely linked to views of the threat presented by global warming.
Nuclear, wind and solar power, biofuels and new reserves of natural gas, can all be presented as contributions to energy security, hedges against global shortages of fossil fuel created by soaring demand in emerging economies.
Capturing the carbon dioxide emissions created by burning coal, liquefying them, pumping them under the ground and then ensuring they stay there for thousands of years, will be done only if politicians are sufficiently alarmed by the risk of climate change to put in place the policy framework to make it happen.
That makes carbon capture particularly vulnerable to a shift in political opinion, which in many countries over the past year has moved away from curbing greenhouse gas emissions towards a focus on economic growth and jobs.
As Dominic Cook, carbon capture and storage (CCS) group manager at Parsons Brinckerhoff, the strategic and engineering consultancy, points out: “It is rare for any company to commit to CCS purely on a commercial basis.”
He adds: “The main driver will be when you get a carbon price high enough to incentivise companies to capture and store, rather than pay to emit.”
Yet in spite of the more hostile conditions facing CCS, there are still about two dozen development projects around the world that are making real progress.
Ken Humphreys, the chief executive of FutureGen, a $1.3bn US carbon capture project under development in Illinois, says it is still important to develop CCS capability, to safeguard the long-term future of coal-fired power generation.
“While the political environment certainly is changing, we see a need to develop and prove out the technology, so that whatever happens in the US and internationally, we have the option of rolling out CCS if that is the way we want to go.”
Officially, ambitions for the technology are unchanged. At the end of 2008 Steven Chu, the US energy secretary, said CCS technology could be ready for commercial deployment by the end of this decade. A paper published by his department in January 2011 reiterated that target, saying “first generation CO2 capture technologies” should be ready for commercial deployment by 2020.
And while some of the planned demonstration projects in the US have faced obstacles, the Department of Energy lists seven, backed by the government’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, that are expected to begin operation starting in 2014.
FutureGen, backed by a consortium of 10 energy and coal companies including Peabody, Rio Tinto, Xstrata and Eon, has redrawn its project to cut its budget from a previously estimated $2bn-plus, and its power output from 244 megawatts to about 140MW.
Nevertheless, the group is still pushing ahead with its plan. “We made significant adjustments to the project structure, to make sure we can be on line in late 2015 or early 2016, and on a reasonable budget,” Mr Humphreys says. The US government is supporting the project with a $1bn grant, roughly three-quarters of its cost.
Keith White, general manager of global gasification products at GE Energy, says that before the global recession governments were prepared to spend much more on supporting technology.
In the US, he says, companies have had “to reset their expectations, but we are hopeful”.
In the UK, the government’s ambitions to become a leading developer of carbon capture and storage technology suffered a setback just before Christmas when Powerfuel, which is developing the country’s first commercial scale clean coal power plant, went into administration.
KPMG, the administrator, said at the time the company needed a new owner with deeper pockets in order to fund the large amount of capital needed up front for the project.
The company also fell foul of regulatory change when the Department of Energy and Climate Change decided that it would fund only post-combustion plants that strip carbon dioxide out of a power station’s exhaust after the coal is burnt. Powerfuel’s proposed plant relies on pre-combustion technology.
Mr White of GE, which is supplying the gas power turbines for Powerfuel’s project, says “it would be a shame to see it dissolve at this point”. He argues government incentives for CCS technology are important and that “without strong government action” more such projects will falter.
The UK government’s competition to award £1bn ($1.6bn) to one company to build Britain’s first CCS plant has so far not identified a winner despite having been launched in 2007.
Today, only one of the four original contestants, a consortium led by Scottish Power, remains but has yet to be named the winner. Eon, the German utility, pulled out in the autumn saying the market was “not conducive”.
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, an industry body, says while he remains “optimistic” for the prospects of CCS in the UK compared with the rest of the world, there is “still a long way to go to put in place the right support mechanisms”.
Nevertheless, Mr Cook highlights one positive development recently. “There is a push to get the rules for CCS in the [UN] Clean Development Mechanism finalised by December 2011. One of the concerns is that while it can be argued that the developed world has a moral duty to lead on CCS development, the bulk of the technology is likely going to be implemented in the developing economies and the CDM will provide a route to funds,” he says.
Source: http://www.ft.com
Nuclear, wind and solar power, biofuels and new reserves of natural gas, can all be presented as contributions to energy security, hedges against global shortages of fossil fuel created by soaring demand in emerging economies.
Capturing the carbon dioxide emissions created by burning coal, liquefying them, pumping them under the ground and then ensuring they stay there for thousands of years, will be done only if politicians are sufficiently alarmed by the risk of climate change to put in place the policy framework to make it happen.
That makes carbon capture particularly vulnerable to a shift in political opinion, which in many countries over the past year has moved away from curbing greenhouse gas emissions towards a focus on economic growth and jobs.
As Dominic Cook, carbon capture and storage (CCS) group manager at Parsons Brinckerhoff, the strategic and engineering consultancy, points out: “It is rare for any company to commit to CCS purely on a commercial basis.”
He adds: “The main driver will be when you get a carbon price high enough to incentivise companies to capture and store, rather than pay to emit.”
Yet in spite of the more hostile conditions facing CCS, there are still about two dozen development projects around the world that are making real progress.
Ken Humphreys, the chief executive of FutureGen, a $1.3bn US carbon capture project under development in Illinois, says it is still important to develop CCS capability, to safeguard the long-term future of coal-fired power generation.
“While the political environment certainly is changing, we see a need to develop and prove out the technology, so that whatever happens in the US and internationally, we have the option of rolling out CCS if that is the way we want to go.”
Officially, ambitions for the technology are unchanged. At the end of 2008 Steven Chu, the US energy secretary, said CCS technology could be ready for commercial deployment by the end of this decade. A paper published by his department in January 2011 reiterated that target, saying “first generation CO2 capture technologies” should be ready for commercial deployment by 2020.
And while some of the planned demonstration projects in the US have faced obstacles, the Department of Energy lists seven, backed by the government’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, that are expected to begin operation starting in 2014.
FutureGen, backed by a consortium of 10 energy and coal companies including Peabody, Rio Tinto, Xstrata and Eon, has redrawn its project to cut its budget from a previously estimated $2bn-plus, and its power output from 244 megawatts to about 140MW.
Nevertheless, the group is still pushing ahead with its plan. “We made significant adjustments to the project structure, to make sure we can be on line in late 2015 or early 2016, and on a reasonable budget,” Mr Humphreys says. The US government is supporting the project with a $1bn grant, roughly three-quarters of its cost.
Keith White, general manager of global gasification products at GE Energy, says that before the global recession governments were prepared to spend much more on supporting technology.
In the US, he says, companies have had “to reset their expectations, but we are hopeful”.
In the UK, the government’s ambitions to become a leading developer of carbon capture and storage technology suffered a setback just before Christmas when Powerfuel, which is developing the country’s first commercial scale clean coal power plant, went into administration.
KPMG, the administrator, said at the time the company needed a new owner with deeper pockets in order to fund the large amount of capital needed up front for the project.
The company also fell foul of regulatory change when the Department of Energy and Climate Change decided that it would fund only post-combustion plants that strip carbon dioxide out of a power station’s exhaust after the coal is burnt. Powerfuel’s proposed plant relies on pre-combustion technology.
Mr White of GE, which is supplying the gas power turbines for Powerfuel’s project, says “it would be a shame to see it dissolve at this point”. He argues government incentives for CCS technology are important and that “without strong government action” more such projects will falter.
The UK government’s competition to award £1bn ($1.6bn) to one company to build Britain’s first CCS plant has so far not identified a winner despite having been launched in 2007.
Today, only one of the four original contestants, a consortium led by Scottish Power, remains but has yet to be named the winner. Eon, the German utility, pulled out in the autumn saying the market was “not conducive”.
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, an industry body, says while he remains “optimistic” for the prospects of CCS in the UK compared with the rest of the world, there is “still a long way to go to put in place the right support mechanisms”.
Nevertheless, Mr Cook highlights one positive development recently. “There is a push to get the rules for CCS in the [UN] Clean Development Mechanism finalised by December 2011. One of the concerns is that while it can be argued that the developed world has a moral duty to lead on CCS development, the bulk of the technology is likely going to be implemented in the developing economies and the CDM will provide a route to funds,” he says.
Source: http://www.ft.com
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Investors Beware: Hidden Dangers of Increasing U.S. Dependence on Canadian Oil Sands
Canada is the biggest supplier of oil imports to the United States. Increasingly, those imports come from its vast reserves of oil sands. Is the growing U.S. dependence on Canadian oil sands a win-win deal for both countries, crucial for U.S. energy security, and a source of jobs and economic growth, as American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard claims? Is the development of Canadian oil sands "the most destructive project on earth", as a Canadian environmental report calls it? What pitfalls for policy makers and investors lie hidden in the heated rhetoric coming from both sides in the oil sands debate?
The debate places much emphasis on how just dirty or clean oil from the Canadian sands is compared with the alternatives. Detractors prefer to call them "tar sands" to project an image that is as dirty as possible. (Both "oil sands" and "tar sands" are popular terms; purists prefer "bituminous sands.") They cite data showing that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for a barrel of oil from Canadian sands run from three to as much as seven times as high as from a barrel of conventional Texas crude. Oil sand supporters cite different numbers that indicate only 5 to 15 percent more GHG emissions from the sands than from conventional oil.
Surprisingly, the widely differing numbers do not come from competing scientific teams. Instead, both sides draw on the same studies, like this one from the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy. A closer look at the underlying data shows that two factors account for the gap between the "clean" and "dirty" numbers for oil sands.
One is whether GHG emissions are measured on a "well-to-tank" basis or a "well-to-wheels" basis. Most of the extra GHG emissions for oil sands come from the energy-intensive process of getting the gunky bitumen out of the ground, upgrading it to refinery quality, and then refining it. That is the well-to-tank part. Subsequent highway use of the fuel, regardless of its source, produces the bulk of GHG emissions for the whole well-to-wheels fuel cycle. As a matter of simple arithmetic, then, moving from a well-to-tank measure to a well-to-wheels measure makes oil sands look relatively less dirty.
The second source of the gap between the clean and dirty numbers lies in what oil sands are compared to. Oil sands detractors like to use U.S. domestic crude as the basis for comparison. On a well-to-tank basis, DOE data show that production of diesel fuel from Canadian sands emits two and a half times more GHG than the average for diesel from domestic crude. But domestic crude is a poor basis for comparison. We use all our domestic crude first; after that, we have to go out and import the rest. The decision to use more or less oil from Canadian sands means importing correspondingly less or more from other sources. It turns out that almost all U.S. oil imports are low quality, heavy, or high in sulfur, meaning more emissions from extraction and refining. Long-distance transportation adds more emissions. All things considered, then, it appears that oil from Canadian sands is about 10 percent dirtier than crude from Nigeria (8 percent of imports) and 42 percent dirtier than oil from Mexico (12 percent of imports) on a well-to-tank basis. The gap is even less on a well-to-wheels basis.
So what do we really learn from parsing the DOE emissions data? We learn that although oil from Canadian sands is dirtier than average, no oil is really clean. As far as GHG emissions are concerned, what really matters is the total quantity of oil that is used. Where it comes from makes some difference, but a fairly small one.
Our discussion of the environmental impact of Canadian oil sand development would be incomplete if it stopped with the GHG issue. There are also major adverse effects on the local environment. One big issue is land reclamation. Much of the bitumen is recovered by surface mining, which leaves a moonlike landscape in place of the original boreal forests and wetlands. Water is another issue. Both surface and subsurface extraction of bitumen use vast quantities of fresh water and leave behind huge storage ponds full of toxic tailings. Candice Beaumont, an industry supporter who thinks oil sands may help delay "peak oil," describes the situation this way: "If a bird flies over a river near the oil sands, the bird dies just from flying over the river. It's that toxic. They are just dumping all the waste into the waterways. If you did that in the U.S. you would be in jail." (She discounts environmental impacts on the grounds that few people live in the main mining areas.)
Canadian authorities, to their credit, require that producers restore the land and water, and deposit funds in escrow to ensure that they do so. However, critics question the adequacy of the regulations. They point out that restoration technology is poorly demonstrated--very little land and none of the most toxic tailing ponds have actually been restored as yet. Furthermore, they argue that the required escrow deposits are not adequate to protect against potential disasters like a major wastewater spill.
Because environmental concerns cannot be entirely dismissed, oil sands supporters play the national security card. As the American Petroleum Institute's Jane Van Ryan puts it, "Every barrel imported from Canada could replace one from a less secure source, adding to our energy security and benefiting our economy." To evaluate the energy security argument, we have to think both about the nature of the oil security threat and that of the global oil market.
One aspect of the security threat is logistical. If, say, a civil war cut off supplies from Nigeria, the United States would have to scramble to find alternative sources. Contracts would have to be renegotiated. Tankers would have to be rerouted. Refineries would have to be reconfigured to handle a different type of crude. Even if those adjustments were eased by releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, there would be short-term costs.
A second aspect of the security threat comes from oil price volatility. Oil is an import into virtually everything produced in the economy, and a major component of the cost of living. Sharp spikes in oil prices caused by war, politics, natural disasters, or industrial accidents send shockwaves through the whole economy.
A third security concern is who ends up pocketing the vast revenues generated by high oil prices. It has become a cliche to point out that not all oil producers are among America's closest friends. At worst, oil money funds authoritarian governments, the weapons programs of hostile states, and terrorism.
What could be better, then, than to replace oil from unstable countries like Nigeria with oil from friendly, democratic, and near-by Canada? It sounds good, but when you think about it, the security benefits are less than they seem. Again, consider a hypothetical Nigerian civil war. How much would it matter if, before the war started, Canadian output had expanded by enough that the United States was no longer an importer of Nigerian crude? It would not matter very much, because the global oil market operates as a single pool. Oil prices everywhere would spike as other countries scrambled to replace Nigerian oil. The dictators, hostile arms programs, and terrorist training centers we worry about would still get their inflow of new money. The U.S. economy would still be set back by higher import costs, unless, perhaps, our friendly neighbors to the north generously agreed to keep selling us oil at the low, pre-crisis price. True, there would still be logistical benefits to a short pipeline link with a stable Canada compared with a long sea route to a volatile Nigeria, but those would be of a second order of magnitude. For national security, as for the environment, the biggest part of the threat lies in excessive total consumption of oil, not in the specific sources from which that oil comes.
The preceding discussion of environmental and security issues reveals the hidden pitfalls of growing U.S. dependence on Canadian oil sands.
The pitfall for U.S. policy makers is that stable and abundant Canadian supplies will serve as an excuse to avoid the hard work of implementing a rational energy policy. Such a policy would be one that accounted for the full cost of every unit of energy from every source, new and old, and imposed those costs on the end user through higher prices. Meanwhile, Canadian policy makers would hopefully make sure that producers were pricing in the full costs of contingent liabilities from land reclamation and wastewater spills. A well-coordinated set of policies would place appropriate charges against all forms of energy, but oil from Canadian sands would take one of the biggest hits. Yes, such a policy would substantially increase end-user energy prices in the United States, but once the transition was complete, the economy would be strengthened, not weakened. As I have argued elsewhere, the one thing the country definitely cannot afford is "affordable energy."
The pitfall for investors is that putting money into the development of Canadian oil sands amounts to a bet that both the United States and Canada will, for the foreseeable future, remain committed to pro-producer policies that are non-rational from the point of view of broader national interests. True, that is not a completely stupid bet. Oil has a strong lobby on both sides of the border, and both governments are currently committed to further oil-sand development. But that might change.
It would be a mistake for investors to fool themselves with the arguments their own lobbyists are using to underplay the environmental impact of oil-sand development and overplay its national security benefits. Experience shows that a crisis can quickly shift public sentiment, and when that happens, politicians tend to run for cover. A generation ago, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island shifted sentiment against nuclear power. Last summer, BP's blowout in the Gulf of Mexico did the same for offshore drilling. A dramatic climate event like an ice-free summer on the Arctic Ocean or a burst dam on a big Alberta tailings pond could do the same for Canadian oil sands. At such moments policy can shift quickly from irrationally permissive to irrationally restrictive. Investors beware.
Source: http://oilprice.com
The debate places much emphasis on how just dirty or clean oil from the Canadian sands is compared with the alternatives. Detractors prefer to call them "tar sands" to project an image that is as dirty as possible. (Both "oil sands" and "tar sands" are popular terms; purists prefer "bituminous sands.") They cite data showing that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for a barrel of oil from Canadian sands run from three to as much as seven times as high as from a barrel of conventional Texas crude. Oil sand supporters cite different numbers that indicate only 5 to 15 percent more GHG emissions from the sands than from conventional oil.
Surprisingly, the widely differing numbers do not come from competing scientific teams. Instead, both sides draw on the same studies, like this one from the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy. A closer look at the underlying data shows that two factors account for the gap between the "clean" and "dirty" numbers for oil sands.
One is whether GHG emissions are measured on a "well-to-tank" basis or a "well-to-wheels" basis. Most of the extra GHG emissions for oil sands come from the energy-intensive process of getting the gunky bitumen out of the ground, upgrading it to refinery quality, and then refining it. That is the well-to-tank part. Subsequent highway use of the fuel, regardless of its source, produces the bulk of GHG emissions for the whole well-to-wheels fuel cycle. As a matter of simple arithmetic, then, moving from a well-to-tank measure to a well-to-wheels measure makes oil sands look relatively less dirty.
The second source of the gap between the clean and dirty numbers lies in what oil sands are compared to. Oil sands detractors like to use U.S. domestic crude as the basis for comparison. On a well-to-tank basis, DOE data show that production of diesel fuel from Canadian sands emits two and a half times more GHG than the average for diesel from domestic crude. But domestic crude is a poor basis for comparison. We use all our domestic crude first; after that, we have to go out and import the rest. The decision to use more or less oil from Canadian sands means importing correspondingly less or more from other sources. It turns out that almost all U.S. oil imports are low quality, heavy, or high in sulfur, meaning more emissions from extraction and refining. Long-distance transportation adds more emissions. All things considered, then, it appears that oil from Canadian sands is about 10 percent dirtier than crude from Nigeria (8 percent of imports) and 42 percent dirtier than oil from Mexico (12 percent of imports) on a well-to-tank basis. The gap is even less on a well-to-wheels basis.
So what do we really learn from parsing the DOE emissions data? We learn that although oil from Canadian sands is dirtier than average, no oil is really clean. As far as GHG emissions are concerned, what really matters is the total quantity of oil that is used. Where it comes from makes some difference, but a fairly small one.
Our discussion of the environmental impact of Canadian oil sand development would be incomplete if it stopped with the GHG issue. There are also major adverse effects on the local environment. One big issue is land reclamation. Much of the bitumen is recovered by surface mining, which leaves a moonlike landscape in place of the original boreal forests and wetlands. Water is another issue. Both surface and subsurface extraction of bitumen use vast quantities of fresh water and leave behind huge storage ponds full of toxic tailings. Candice Beaumont, an industry supporter who thinks oil sands may help delay "peak oil," describes the situation this way: "If a bird flies over a river near the oil sands, the bird dies just from flying over the river. It's that toxic. They are just dumping all the waste into the waterways. If you did that in the U.S. you would be in jail." (She discounts environmental impacts on the grounds that few people live in the main mining areas.)
Canadian authorities, to their credit, require that producers restore the land and water, and deposit funds in escrow to ensure that they do so. However, critics question the adequacy of the regulations. They point out that restoration technology is poorly demonstrated--very little land and none of the most toxic tailing ponds have actually been restored as yet. Furthermore, they argue that the required escrow deposits are not adequate to protect against potential disasters like a major wastewater spill.
Because environmental concerns cannot be entirely dismissed, oil sands supporters play the national security card. As the American Petroleum Institute's Jane Van Ryan puts it, "Every barrel imported from Canada could replace one from a less secure source, adding to our energy security and benefiting our economy." To evaluate the energy security argument, we have to think both about the nature of the oil security threat and that of the global oil market.
One aspect of the security threat is logistical. If, say, a civil war cut off supplies from Nigeria, the United States would have to scramble to find alternative sources. Contracts would have to be renegotiated. Tankers would have to be rerouted. Refineries would have to be reconfigured to handle a different type of crude. Even if those adjustments were eased by releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, there would be short-term costs.
A second aspect of the security threat comes from oil price volatility. Oil is an import into virtually everything produced in the economy, and a major component of the cost of living. Sharp spikes in oil prices caused by war, politics, natural disasters, or industrial accidents send shockwaves through the whole economy.
A third security concern is who ends up pocketing the vast revenues generated by high oil prices. It has become a cliche to point out that not all oil producers are among America's closest friends. At worst, oil money funds authoritarian governments, the weapons programs of hostile states, and terrorism.
What could be better, then, than to replace oil from unstable countries like Nigeria with oil from friendly, democratic, and near-by Canada? It sounds good, but when you think about it, the security benefits are less than they seem. Again, consider a hypothetical Nigerian civil war. How much would it matter if, before the war started, Canadian output had expanded by enough that the United States was no longer an importer of Nigerian crude? It would not matter very much, because the global oil market operates as a single pool. Oil prices everywhere would spike as other countries scrambled to replace Nigerian oil. The dictators, hostile arms programs, and terrorist training centers we worry about would still get their inflow of new money. The U.S. economy would still be set back by higher import costs, unless, perhaps, our friendly neighbors to the north generously agreed to keep selling us oil at the low, pre-crisis price. True, there would still be logistical benefits to a short pipeline link with a stable Canada compared with a long sea route to a volatile Nigeria, but those would be of a second order of magnitude. For national security, as for the environment, the biggest part of the threat lies in excessive total consumption of oil, not in the specific sources from which that oil comes.
The preceding discussion of environmental and security issues reveals the hidden pitfalls of growing U.S. dependence on Canadian oil sands.
The pitfall for U.S. policy makers is that stable and abundant Canadian supplies will serve as an excuse to avoid the hard work of implementing a rational energy policy. Such a policy would be one that accounted for the full cost of every unit of energy from every source, new and old, and imposed those costs on the end user through higher prices. Meanwhile, Canadian policy makers would hopefully make sure that producers were pricing in the full costs of contingent liabilities from land reclamation and wastewater spills. A well-coordinated set of policies would place appropriate charges against all forms of energy, but oil from Canadian sands would take one of the biggest hits. Yes, such a policy would substantially increase end-user energy prices in the United States, but once the transition was complete, the economy would be strengthened, not weakened. As I have argued elsewhere, the one thing the country definitely cannot afford is "affordable energy."
The pitfall for investors is that putting money into the development of Canadian oil sands amounts to a bet that both the United States and Canada will, for the foreseeable future, remain committed to pro-producer policies that are non-rational from the point of view of broader national interests. True, that is not a completely stupid bet. Oil has a strong lobby on both sides of the border, and both governments are currently committed to further oil-sand development. But that might change.
It would be a mistake for investors to fool themselves with the arguments their own lobbyists are using to underplay the environmental impact of oil-sand development and overplay its national security benefits. Experience shows that a crisis can quickly shift public sentiment, and when that happens, politicians tend to run for cover. A generation ago, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island shifted sentiment against nuclear power. Last summer, BP's blowout in the Gulf of Mexico did the same for offshore drilling. A dramatic climate event like an ice-free summer on the Arctic Ocean or a burst dam on a big Alberta tailings pond could do the same for Canadian oil sands. At such moments policy can shift quickly from irrationally permissive to irrationally restrictive. Investors beware.
Source: http://oilprice.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)