Connect with us

Energy

Some Applications of Non Equilibrium Thermodynamics Thinking to Current Geopolitical Issues

Published

on

In recent decades, there has been a development of several related concepts, some under the category of thermodynamics, which may be applied, to some degree, to the current geopolitical scene.

One is the perception of organization in this universe as ordered energy flows. This perspective can be characterized as ‘‘non equilibrium thermodynamics”. Probably the foremost and broadest scale explicant of this way of looking at the universe is cosmologist Eric Chaisson, now at Harvard. One of his signature books is ‘Cosmic Evolution’ .

Chaisson quantifies energy flows, and relates them to structures, at stellar, galactic, planetary, and even life levels. He relates complexity, at each of these levels, to ‘energy rate densities’. Somewhat surprisingly, he points out that energy rate densities in life forms exceeds those of cosmic structures such as suns. He also identifies energy rate densities of different types of life organization, such as plants and animals, and even the structure of industrial human activities, such as cities, airplanes, etc.

On separate but related themes, explorations of concepts such as ‘hierarchy theory’ and ‘emergence’ have shown that all structures at the scale humans perceive are in a sense hierarchic. Simple atoms make up complex, heavy atoms, atoms make up complex elements often described as molecules and chemical species, molecular structures make up, or are involved in, life structures, single cells make up multicellular organisms, both single cells, at their level, and multicellular organisations make up what we tend to call social systems, and so forth. (e.g. in currently visible human terms, cities are clumped in States, or provinces, states in an United States, ‘nation states’ around the world in the United Nations; or at lower levels franchisees under franchisors, etc,) In this framework, each level of aggregation is seen as a system of relationships, and a differentiated unit at that level joins with other elements, or systems, in a set of stabilized relationships to form the next level of hierarchy.

All these ordered systems involve — or more accurately consist of — stabilized energy flows, or, equivalently, stable systems of relationships, in energy flows. A condensed public summary of this perspective, with citations, is available.

Insights which arise in this perspective include that all organization is combinatorial — combinations of elements. Relatedly, ‘emergent’ effects of any combination of elements upon other combinations which it encounters are the effects of the organization as a whole as distinguished from the effects of its components might have were they not bound in their particular organization. That is, all organized systems are identified and in effect measured, or given meaning, by other systems in terms of the relationships system-to-system, so to speak.

This is an highly condensed overview, but one can get further, and somewhat complementary, clues concerning the stream of thought by looking at some of the work involved in the International Big History Association, including some of its leading members such as Fred Spier and David Christian. This Association traces cosmic evolution from its origins through human historical processes, in a variety of ways and from a variety of perspectives. The Association is recently formed, and its work is evolving in form and content.

Another architectural insight has been offered by Mark Buchanan, in his book ‘Ubiquity’ , to the effect that, as far as he could identify, all phenomena seemed to fall on ‘power law’, or log normal, statistical distributions — wars, city sizes, wealth distributions, earthquakes, etc.   This author has suggested that this is because all ordered phenomena consist of, or arise from, correlational processes, and such correlational processes produce this sort of statistical distribution.

Lastly, for initial introduction, a set of theories, or concepts, called ‘maximum entropy production’ (MEP) suggests, in general layman’s conceptualization, that given a differential (e.g. heat, or temperature, differential), it will be dissipated by all available means, and at situation-quantifiable rates, with common statistical signatures.  

Now to human societies, and the relationships between them. Each society is a group, and a group of groups. For each of these groups to have sustained coherence, its constituents must have stable inter-se relationships, or systems of relationships. But for any given group or set of groups to coexist with others, rather than devouring or being devoured by others, they must work out modi vivendi, so to speak. They must somehow establish complementarities, or symbiotic relationships, or at least non-lethal sets of relationships. Each and all must have an energy basis — a flow of energy into and through the stable system of relationships.

In large scale agricultural society examples, all ‘empires’ are hierarchic, in the sense of being made up by a coordinating mechanism which maintains relationships between component elements.

In analysing any given society, or set of them, we have to follow the energy flows. Karl Marx’s thesis that societies are structured by their means of production translates into the view that any given society, or set of them, will have institutions (regular patterns of activity embodying energy flows) which feed off of, embody and maintain the energetics of the system.

‘Agricultural’ societies can be seen as group-organized means of harvesting the photosynthetic capture of energy by plants, plus the energy of other-animal harvesters of the plants (‘livestock’). ‘Industrial’ societies maintain the plant and animal harvesting base, but have taken flight, so to speak, by capturing stored and concentrated energy of the residues of past eons of plant life on earth.

Since this cache of stored plant energy is finite and its boundaries are visible, it increasingly appears that if the multibillion human complex thus created is to be maintained in some form, over decades and centuries, humans will have to move to reliance on artifactual photosynthesis (AKA ’solar energy’), supplemented by wind energy, tapping the energy of breakdowns of heavy, complex atoms (nuclear energy), and perhaps some trace additions of current and earth-stored biological photosynthesis. Perhaps the best references for the data and analysis underlying this perspective are an international review of renewable energy sources,   and a conceptually elegant report by Sandia Laboratory personnel.  

We currently tend to call this a ‘renewable’ energy society. But it can be seen as a larger scale, current technological, or artifactual, or human-mediated, direct harvesting of sunlight, bypassing the biological processes of other organisms, past and present. In addition there seems a likelihood of harvesting of the differentials created by differentials in sunlight on the Earth’s surface (wind energy), with limited additional sourcing.

We tend to think of this all as a human created and engineered mastering of energy flows. But let us try to look at it from the Universe’s point of view, were the Universe to bother itself, apart from creating ourselves, to have one. From a thermodynamics perspective, from Chaisson on down, one can consider that life itself was created as a means of channelling energy flows to reducing differentials caused by universal ordering, as proposed by Santa Fe Institute researchers.   Derivatively, all our institutions, being driven by energy differentials and flows, and ourselves, can be seen as expressions of thermodynamic forces. We are, from such a point of view, but the enablers of Chaisson’s energy density rate functions.  

Lest this expression be interpreted as a whimsy to attract attention, I will use it to make suggestions about how current and future societies may tend to work out.

Let us consider the turbulent Middle East. Also we can consider the Soviet Union, and nearby Euro-asian areas.

Assuming no system-wide catastrophic breakdown, the stored plant energy potentials of these areas have been and will continue to be tapped. Pipelines will be built. Streams of oil tankers will continue.

This does not mean that there will not be intrastate and interstate maneuvering about where, when, and at what rate. Water flows downhill. But humans make dams, channels, irrigation projects, etc. And we humans do a lot of squabbling about how to create and divide up participation in reservoirs and flow systems over and outside political boundaries. Elinor Ostrom was given a Nobel prize for her careful and extensive work on how such situations, particularly those involving economic ‘commons’, have been successfully managed. Her prescriptions are worth careful attention.

The fractured and fractious political organizations of the Persian Gulf area have been, to some extent, and are likely gradually to be shaped to allow these energy concentrations to be distributed, or, to use MEP logic, dissipated. If democracies cannot reliably be constructed, autocracies and dynasties will have to conform themselves to these requirements. If they cannot do so, then possibly ‘trusteeships’ might be constructed by the world’s hydrocarbon thirsty and consuming polities. The political entities in the area will be monitored for efficiency and stability. This may lead to assistance, if possible; reshaping if necessary: both from outside their boundaries, and, possibly to a lesser degree, from within.  

Though thinly populated in many of its parts, Russia will, from its vast and central position on the Eurasian land mass, continue to feed gas into the highly organized energy transformation and use systems of Europe, and perhaps also China. It will also continue to be a source of other resources. (There may be some question whether the Easternmost portion of Russia remains European oriented, or becomes Sinified to such an extent as to lead to rearrangement of the State identification and administration.)

Around the globe the hydrocarbon potentials available from fracturing rocks will also continue to be developed, geographically unevenly but widely, on and adjacent to several continents. The phasing will be partially gated over time by relative efficiencies as between the hydrocarbon pools of the Middle East, Venezuela, and Canada, and ‘shale’ systems elsewhere. And the extent and rate of rock mining for hydrocarbons may be affected by the efficiencies of emerging photovoltaics based energy systems. But the techniques and tools are in hand, so to speak, in use, and expansible at current and sufficiently rewarded EROEI (energy return on energy investment) ratios.

Two factors seem likely to limit, or boundary, these extractions from the energy concentrations of life’s past, other than exhaustion. One is the possibility that the atmospheric temperature effects of the gaseous emissions from freeing up all these hydrocarbons — particularly carbon dioxide — will so disrupt the organic processes of current life as to arrest the whole process. The other is, as noted, the apparent potential of tapping the vastly larger solar energy flux of Earth to entrain larger energy flows with lesser disruption of current life patterns.

The first potential limitation has engendered much attention, but limited current effect, other than to lead to some effort to manage replacement of hydrocarbon mining by tapping the global solar energy flux — ‘renewable energy’ technologies, including the ancillary and necessary technologies to make solar energy universal, convenient, and supportive of at least the current level of human activity.

Efforts to coordinate limitations on ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions may slow the rate of increase, but seem far short of capping or reducing such emissions in immediately upcoming decades.

The salient geopolitical consequences of this projected transition to artifactual solar energy are interesting in a number of respects, prominently two.

First, artifactual solar energy capture, like biological, is inherently geographically extensive. The capture systems may be on the whole more southerly (take note, Northern Europe), and less co-located with water (but still dependent on some water to keep the needed biological support mechanisms in place). Whether this leads to massive territory wars like those of the agricultural era remains to be seen. We had best hope not, and strive to avoid them, for urgent reason.

The scope, efficiency and sustainability of this artifactual photosynthetic system seems likely to depend upon a complex web of interconnected resource, processing, and exchange systems implemented by humans, as distinguished from self sustaining (if we do not too much interfere) plants, ocean oxygen emitters, and generally the vast web of biological processes which we call Nature. The combinatorics of this system, globally employed, will be complex, subtle and demanding — of us.

In other words, whatever the array of geographically defined governance systems, if the systems for replacement of ‘fossil’ energy support for humans are to be realized, humans are going to have to construct and durably maintain large, and probably at best global, cooperation systems.

We may characterize these systems in economic, social, institutional, and other terms. But if we are going to get, for example, silicon, lithium, iron, copper, aluminum, etc. from where they are first found, and do all the intricate dances of transporting them, cunningly shaping them into microscopically toleranced formats, in large volume and at large scale, covering them with sand made into glass (or not), and have them harvest energy for decades, we have to have sophisticated coordinating mechanisms (including markets, and thus also including financial markets). And if humans seek a sustainable future of abundance of the sort many humans now enjoy, we can’t be blundering about periodically, or widely, destroying parts of such interconnected systems at will or impulse (read, if you wish, ISIL).

Lastly, for the moment, the imperative for hierarchical construction suggests that central coordinating functions, like those now embodied by the United Nations, will continue to evolve.

I have suggested that the above general directions, or tendencies, emerge from a consideration of order building, non equilibrium thermodynamic forces. However, I cannot assure my fellow humans that life on Earth, and our human part of it, must necessarily realize all the potentials one can envisage. Life, and order building in it, works in probabilistic increments. Over several billions of years, Earthlife has advanced as a whole in mass and complexity, it now appears, but also suffered some catastrophic setbacks in the process.

Whether our species of language and tool wielding ape will be able to achieve and maintain — over centuries — global integration at high levels of energy-fed activity, with current or better levels of individual welfare, is thus very much an open question. We have no good reason to think that an Abrahamic God, or other general Universal Governor, has decreed success for our hopeful projections of organizational potentials of human life on this Earth at this time. We are on our own, in an evolutionary adventure. In Star Wars terms, the force(s) may be with us, but guarantees are not on order.      

This leads to questions about what those concerned with ‘diplomacy’, or forms of facilitating international concert, may need to focus on in order to foster the needed, but far from guaranteed, international coherence. Modern Diplomacy, as a publication, is oriented to this topic.

In a prior post in another publication, I attempted an outline of some major themes, or focal points. In very brief summary, I suggested that we be aware of the central importance of energy flows and hierarchical ordering tendencies, mentioned here, that participants will be required to focus on arrangements which yield sustained mutual benefit to the participating parties (in current parlance, ‘win-win’ solutions), that there need to be monitoring of and controls on parasitism of the coordinated system by the coordinators, or ‘elites’ in the systems, that sound, objective knowledge systems of the sort developed in the sciences, and published through ‘free speech’ and ‘free presses’, be maintained, and that there is a need for continuity in systems (as massive breakdowns in an highly industrialized world may be very difficult, if not impossible, fully to repair).

Some of these suggestions relate to a need to prevent ossified, myopic national and international structures evolving, milked unproductively by national and international elites, stifling the growth potentials of the global human (and life) community.

I also pointed out that however much we wish completely to equalize welfare results for all participants globally, the prevalence of ‘power laws’ in the Universe counsels that we will never be able to do so. The operational possibility to be sought is that the various elements of the system be better off than if there were no system. (The philosopher John Rawls addressed this criterion in a way when he suggested that one approve or disapprove of a given system as if one did not know where one would fit in it.) A refinement of this concept is that an optimal system is one in which no one can be made more well off without making someone else less well off. But this logic does not, strictly, imply that in all circumstances complete equality applies as to all system participants.

On the global scene, both State and non-state actors seek to encourage successful and sustainable global integration. Some current organizations target selected international objectives from time to time, such as, but not limited to, Citizens for Global Solutions, and other organizations seek to create a global ‘parliament’ to parallel and inform the United Nations, promote a global ‘rule of law’ at the UN level and non governmental organization level, promote economic freedom, protect human rights, as by indexing State performance in human rights protection, and inhibit corruption in various polities by indexing State success in doing so. This is only a very limited sketch of such organizations. Please feel free to point up others in any comments on this essay.

The concepts I suggest here provide some support for the specifics of such efforts. Given my background as an attorney, I suggest that the ‘rule of law’ can be justified as an universal requirement by appeal to the basic nature of ordered processes — that is, that there be regularity and thus predictability in component processes — and the requirement that participating elements, such as ‘elites’, do not advantage themselves at the expense of the regularity and efficiency of the whole (the generic word for this is ‘corruption’). This basis goes deeper than others conventionally offered.  

I would also note that ‘human rights’ activities can be justified, perhaps somewhat undramatically and colorlessly, by the requirement that participating human elements in social groups, such as States, be accorded those nutrients and potentials for action which allow them to function with some equilibrium and effect.  

How well are such efforts succeeding? In the IA Forum piece, this author, perhaps parochially, attempted to rate the performance of his own native country, the United States, in meeting these criteria,, or requirements. Readers of this article are invited to correct this rating, and self-evaluate the conformance of their own polities by these criteria, if so inclined.

The effort reflected in this paper to to re-conceptualize some of traditional ‘statecraft’ has resulted in a limited and general set of suggested approaches. Broader efforts can be undertaken. Having had some connection with the US State Department and its education program for its foreign service officers, this author has proposed that such institutions might consider fostering research organizations (in a loose parallel to the US Defense Department’s DARPA) to probe analytically the theoretical and practical underpinnings of State construction and interaction.

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage finally catches the spotlight

Laszlo Varro

Published

on

The recent Green House Gas Technologies Summit (GHGT), the biggest global event on carbon capture, was a good place to reflect on a technology that perhaps has the biggest gap between the aspiration of energy models and the investment reality on the ground, between the disappointments of the past decade and a gathering new wave of optimism.

In some circles, it is fashionable to write down this technology, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). For some, CCUS is everything that needs to be left behind in the clean-energy transitions: big centralized facilities based on chemistry and mechanical engineering rather than big data, ongoing investments by large conventional energy companies that should be going the way of dinosaurs, and the continuous use of fossil fuels.

Some scepticism is understandable. The first IEA CCS roadmap, from 2009, makes for sobering reading. Consistent with the Group of 8 commitments adopted a year earlier, the report expected CCS projects totalling 22 GW in power generation and 170 million tons in industry by 2020 With a year to go, the current status for CCS falls well short of these goals: only 0.4 GW in power and around 32 million tons in industry.

But we should not dismiss this technology – in fact, CCUS is going to be critical to the global clean energy transitions, and why the IEA held a major CCUS Summit, with the UK Government, on 28 November in Edinburgh bringing governments and industry together to give the technology a new start.

Theoretically it is possible to achieve climate goals without CCUS. The recently published IPCC report has a pathway (P1) that arrives at climate stabilization without CCS by emphasising restraints on energy demand. However, this pathway entails energy demand declining to an extent  which as the IPCC righty emphasised would be unprecedented. For example, the average annual decline of oil demand from today till 2030 in this scenario would be twice as large as the decline triggered in 2008/2009 by a combination of USD $140 per barrel and the global financial crisis.

A robust energy efficiency effort is certainly the first pillar of any serious climate policy and it is very much incorporated into the IEA’s analysis. For example in our Energy Technology Perspectives a high speed train network replaces a third of domestic aviation in the United States by mid-century. Even with such assumptions, the decline in oil demand is much slower than what the IPCC scenario described above would demand.  It would be highly desirable to achieve this without a recession by global cooperation and bottom up, voluntary lifestyle changes. Nevertheless, ancient Greek dramas are so enjoyable today precisely because there has been much less change in human nature than in our technological capability. We better have technological solutions ready for the eventuality that human nature remains unchanged for another 20 years. The other IPCC pathways, which don’t have such demand restraint, have large scale application of carbon capture to deal with ongoing fossil fuel consumption, and eventually remove carbon from the air.

At this stage it is also useful to dispel some misunderstandings. Carbon capture is not an alternative to wind and solar deployment and should not stop reallocating investment from fossil fuels to clean energy. A credible climate stabilization pathway like the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario has an amazing scale up of wind and solar as the backbone of the transition, deployment way above the current investment activity that will stretch the limits for mobilizing investment and require major changes in electricity network.

Likewise, CCUS is not a pretext to stop investment reallocation. From a financial point of view the largest fossil fuel asset by far is oil upstream, which is intimately connected to transport, a sector where, due to dispersed and mobile emission sources, CCUS will not play any meaningful role. The largest application of CCUS is likely to be on coal whose upstream has an order of magnitude smaller financial valuation.

And even for coal, as one compares a “business as usual” trajectory with the Sustainable Development Scenario, around 85% of the reduction in coal plant emissions came from efficiency and renewables, leading to fewer coal plants running less hours and only a minority from capturing the emissions from continuous operation.

The role of CCUS is something different and focuses on overcoming three often neglected asymmetries. The first is the age profile of coal. There are countries that implement coal phase out policies, but they tend to be ones like the UK where coal mining peaked a century ago, and where the last coal plants were built in the 1970s. However, due to the massive investment wave of developing Asia, one third of coal plants in the world are less than 10 years old. They each represent a USD $2 billion capital investment and run on a cheap, well distributed and geopolitically secure energy source. Shutting them all down would be unrealistic given their role energy security. Retrofitting them with CCUS could be a feasible alternative.

The second asymmetry is between the truly amazing success of wind and solar and the slow progress in low carbon options for the heavy industry that represent a third of global emissions. To produce steel without carbon emissions would require the equivalent of all the solar panels in California to produce hydrogen and use it instead of coal in steelmaking – all for a single steel plant. This is possible and certainly worth researching and innovating, but should not be framed as an obvious cheap and easy alternative.

Last but not least, the third asymmetry is between the current momentum of the energy system and the uncomfortable facts of climate science. In the absence of a sudden transformation of social and political attitudes, the CO2 concentration will overshoot and carbon will need to be removed from the air.

The GHGT summit displayed an exciting mixture of a sense of urgency, an appreciation of the scale of the challenge but also a “this time for real” feeling due to positive developments in policy and technology. The most important policy development is in the United States, which introduced new investment incentives for both carbon storage and utilisation.

Importantly, whereas previous approaches tended to support specific projects, handpicking technology and location with a mixed tracked record to put it mildly, the new policy is a broad-based tax incentive putting a value on avoided emissions and unleashing the creativity and innovativeness of the private sector. It was refreshing to meet people who were hired as Head of CCS Business Development by major corporations, a job title inconceivable not long ago. A lot of the new US capture investment seems to go to gas rather than coal, which is understandable in the light of the unfolding gas revolution in the US economy.

GHGT also had a strong participation and commitment from China, the country representing half of global coal demand and perhaps the most advanced coal technologies. China took the first step towards CCUS with the first large scale integrated coal conversion/carbon capture project now under development. It has a very smart approach focusing on capturing an almost pure CO2 stream from a coal to chemicals process, enabling the high value added and clean utilisation of the country’s abundant coal resources. Game changer is an overused term, but China moving to CCUS in a systematic fashion would certainly qualify for it.

It was also very visible how innovation into both technology and business models are reshaping the prospects of CCUS, especially the interactions between carbon capture and hydrogen. The resurgence of strategic interest to hydrogen is strongly connected with carbon capture in multiple ways. The most basic is the source of hydrogen: today it is fossil fuels with over 10 tons of CO2 emitted for a ton of H2.

Capturing it is one of the possible pathways for clean H2. There are already operating projects in Canada, the United States and the United Arab Emirates. Those use the hydrogen locally in an industrial process, but there is a serious initiative to produce H2 from Australian coal with CCUS and export it to Japan.

The other pathway, wind and solar based electrolysis, is gathering momentum and likely to become robustly competitive. And even that has a carbon capture connection: in regions that have a large heavy industry but less attractive storage geology, attention and investment are shifting towards carbon utilisation. In many cases the basic concept is to combine the captured CO2 with renewable based H2 and then let imagination fly around various chemical pathways. All of these still require innovation and investment to scale up, but the commitment and optimism was already visible.

After the decade of disappointments, there may be some legitimate scepticism. Still, CCUS’s moment has arrived. And we should hope so, for the stake of the global energy transition.

IEA

Continue Reading

Energy

Kenya Charts Path to Achieving Universal Access to Electricity

MD Staff

Published

on

Kenya has achieved substantial progress in economic, social, and human development over the past decade. Significant progress has also been made in the energy sector. For instance, Kenya has been taking advantage of its rich renewable resources and has emerged as one of the global leaders in the use of geothermal resources as a clean fuel for power generation.

Thanks to strong government leadership, as well as private sector investment and support from development partners, Kenya has also experienced an impressive expansion of access to electricity.  Kenya now has the highest electricity access rate in East Africa: total access stands at 75% both from grid and off-grid solutions, according to the recent Multi-Tier Framework Energy Access Survey Report.

But there are a quarter of Kenyans still lack access to electricity.

Responding to this challenge, in December 2018 the government launched the Kenya National Electrification Strategy (KNES) – a roadmap for achieving universal access to electricity by the year 2022. With the help of geospatial technology, the strategy has identified least-cost options for bringing electricity to homes, businesses and public facilities. In addition to grid extension and intensification, it recognizes the important role the private sector will have to play in off-grid solutions, both mini-grids and standalone solar systems.

Universal access to electricity is a key requirement for meeting Kenya’s development goals under Vision 2030 –the country’s development plan and blueprint to become an industrialized and middle-income country providing a high quality of life to all of its citizens. Kenya ranked 94th globally in the recently released World Bank Human Capital Index with a 0.52 score. This means that a child born in Kenya today is 52% of who s/he could be with complete education and full health. Provision of adequate, affordable, and reliable electricity supply will be important supplement to the investments in health and education guided by Kenya’s Vision 2030 to help Kenya move up the index. Achievement of the Big Four Agenda – enhanced manufacturing, food security and nutrition, universal health coverage, affordable housing- is dependent on adequate energy supply.

The World Bank has been working closely with the Government of Kenya for many years and is committed to helping Kenya extend access to modern, affordable, reliable and clean energy. The World Bank supported the flagship Last Mile Connectivity Program and Slum Electrification Program, which have contributed to the phenomenal expansion of electricity access in the country in the last five years.  The World Bank is also supporting the government’s efforts to provide electricity to 1.3 million people in remote rural areas in Kenya’s underserved counties through off-grid solutions.

“Kenya’s experience is providing valuable lessons for other African countries in terms of the government’s commitment, incentive policies and regulation,” said Lucio Monari, Director for Energy and Energy Extractives at the World Bank. “Its efforts to expand and improve access to electricity will impact millions of lives for generations to come. The World Bank will continue to support the Government of Kenya in its ambitious plans to achieve universal access by 2022.”

World Bank

Continue Reading

Energy

Why No Questions Asked About Turkish Stream Gas Pipeline Project

Published

on

November 19 saw the completion of the offshore section of the 1,800-kilometer Turkish Stream pipeline to supply Russian natural gas to Turkey. Mentioning the project’s geopolitical significance in a speech during the completion ceremony, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that “Projects of this kind and this project in particular, are not directed against anyone’s interests. They are exclusively constructive in nature. They are aimed at developing relations between states, creating stable conditions for economic development and improving the well-being of our citizens. The implementation of such projects is a clear example of our ability to stand up for our national interests, because Turkish Stream serves the best economic interests of the Turkish Republic.”

When gas starts flowing through the Turkish Stream pipeline as scheduled in 2016, Ankara will no longer have to bother about transit risks for itself. Turkish Stream proves again that Russian-Turkish projects defy any third-country pressure, which is certainly there, but is effectively neutralized by Moscow and Ankara.

This situation comes in sharp contrast with the battles raging over the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is being actively opposed by the United States with President Donald Trump and other officials in Washington warning about Europe’s unacceptable economic and, therefore, political, dependence on energy supplies from Russia.

The Nord Stream 2 project is facing equally strong opposition also from Ukraine and Poland, which are eager to demonstrate their concern about safeguarding America’s interests. During a meeting with Donald Trump in September, Polish President Andrzej Duda, “expressed hope that Trump will stop the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. The Polish president also said that he had discussed with his US counterpart how Washington could benefit from this since Russian energy supplies to Europe prevent the US from selling its LNG to the European market.”

Meanwhile, it looks like Ukraine and Poland are the only countries that welcome the hawkish statements made by US Energy Secretary Rick Perry. During a visit to Kiev earlier this month, Perry made a number of populist and illogical statements. “Thank you, President Petro Poroshenko, for your commitment to energy diversification. The US remains opposed to Nord Stream 2 and any energy source that can be held hostage by unstable state actors. The US stands ready to support our allies with abundant, affordable energy,” he said.

He also said that the “revolution of dignity” [in Ukraine] was a struggle for “economic freedom.” This is exactly the type of “freedom” the United States is forcing upon Ukraine by trying to raise gas prices for the people with the help of the IMF so that the cost of US-supplied LNG does not come as too much of a surprise to ordinary Ukrainians.

Natural gas supplies via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline are expected to begin in January 2020, and the Turkish Stream pipeline will go on-stream in 2019. This means that 80-85 percent of the natural gas transit via Ukraine will move elsewhere. According to the head of the Ukrainian Council on the Development of the Gas Industry and Natural Gas Market Leonid Unigovsky, “after the launch of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, gas transit through Ukraine will decrease by 12–13 billion cubic meters a year.”

As a result, Ukraine will lose half of the 70-90 billion cubic meters of natural gas currently flowing through its territory.

Mindful of this prospect, Kiev representatives have repeatedly stated that Ukraine is counting on US and EU in thwarting the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. How come they haven’t they been saying the same about the Turkish Stream project?

Ukraine has always actively protested against the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, but has for most part ignored the Turkish Stream project, just acknowledging the mere fact of its existence and mentioning the possible consequences of its construction.

“The construction of the second half of the Turkish Stream pipe may be completed in 2018. It is almost 50 percent ready now and the rest will be completed next year,” the board chairman of Naftogaz of Ukraine, Andrei Kobolev, said in the fall of 2017.

“We expect that as early as late next year, the first leg Turkish Stream will take on a share of the [gas] transit through the territory of Ukraine,” he added.

The US position on the Turkish Stream project has never been as vocal and insistent as it has been on the North Stream 2. Kiev’s position has been the same, even despite the threat Turkish Stream poses to its economic interests. Just like that of the leaders of Mejlis (banned in Russia) who, despite their claim to have a special relationship with Ankara, have not protested against the construction of the  Turkish Stream pipeline, realizing full well that kowtowing to Washington’s interests  could cost them their more important relations with Ankara.

Why all this lack of attention towards the Turkish stream project? Washington wants Europeans to start buying its LNG, which, though expensive, brings democracy to the Old World, while simultaneously sticking to its anti-Russian policy. The US is also unwilling to antagonize a fellow NATO member, which plays an important role in the Middle East and the Syrian conflict.

Europe needs gas and doesn’t really care about where it comes from, provided that itkeeps non-commercial risks at a minimum [something Kiev worries so much about], and is available at an affordable price.

Ukraine wants to remain a transiter of Russian gas while simultaneously switching to LNG imports from the US and convincing the European Union of the importance of such an arrangement. Kiev’s fears are reflected in concrete figures: “… the implementation by the Russian Gazprom of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project poses a major fiscal risk for Ukraine, which will lose up to 3 percent of GDP.”

Speaking of strange logic, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin insists on the extension of the gas transit contract with Russia beyond 2020, which he believes could facilitate his country’s early EU integration. However, there are certain undercurrents here too. Ukrainian energy officials planned to minimize transit risks through the sale of the country’s gas transmission system (GTS).

“The Ukrainian GTS costs about $14 billion. Ernst & Young estimated it at 329 billion hryvnia ($11.9 billion), and so Ukraine will be looking for buyers of its ‘pipe’ outside the EU,’” in a thinly-veiled hint that there is only one buyer outside the European Union – the United States.

Washington wants to wrest Ukraine from the peaceful context of interstate relations by keeping it in a state of tension and conflict with Russia. However, this goal is fully shared by Kiev, which entertains illusions that America really cares much about Ukraine’s economic wellbeing. In fact, the US is more interested in the European market than it is in Ukraine’s, so the former Soviet republic is only instrumental in Washington’s ongoing war with Brussels for the EU market.

Turkey is a NATO member playing a significant role in the Middle East and serving a buffer between Europe and refugees. Ankara has a real sway over the political processes unfolding both in Europe and the Middle East. This allows President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to play his game defending his country’s interests.

By contrast, Ukraine, which neither has an own game to play, nor any political weight to lean on, just can’t afford antagonizing Turkey, which, otherwise, might stop reckoning with Kiev’s interests in the Black Sea region. Meanwhile, as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said, the gas transit via Ukraine will continue only if its economic feasibility is fully proved by Kiev.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy