Connect with us

Energy

Clean Energy in South Asia and Beyond

Published

on

The causes of energy transformation are essentially the need and consumption of the energy resources in the increasing growing humanity, especially since the industrial era, whether in tangible or intangible form of energy products such as electricity or heat.

Transformed energy was mainly from conventional energy sources such as nuclear energy or fossil fuels (mainly dependent on natural resources such as coal, oil and natural gas), which, with the exception of nuclear power, are forms of energy transformed for billions of years.  Their natural renewal cannot catch up with the speed of their exhaustion. A study conducted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2002 predicts that all the available natural resources will be exhausted by 2050, if they continue to be exploited at the current rate. The energy transformation is increasingly growing and the technologies employed in this regard have already started to affect the planet earth deleteriously.

The rapid depletion of natural resources and the various environmental degradations associated with the production and excessive energy consumption first came to the attention of human society in the sixties of twentieth century. Warnings refuted initially as utopian and exaggerated were finally taken seriously together with developing international legal framework in order to protect, manage, understand and restore the different form of the environment whether it is terrestrial, aquatic, marine or natural and cultural or spatial. Accordingly, the means and methods respecting the long-term, new and clean energy have been developed and have become attractive, especially since the oil shock in 1973. Some call them new energy or clean energy. Now there is an agreement on the common name of “renewable energy”. 

The theme of renewable energy as a method and energy supply means having a vital interest for the status of the biosphere and the condition of life and survival on earth. According to OECD, renewable energy use inexhaustible sources of natural energy such as solar radiation, wind, water and carbon cycles in the biosphere, internal heat flux of Earth, effect of lunar and solar attraction on the oceans.  These energy sources have renewability as a criterion. It also includes that the life cycle of production and processing facilities do not present risks or disadvantages in the short, long and even longer term, and that they are socially and economically sustainable.

Today, the world is in a crisis. This crisis is both ecological and social. This crisis was named as global warming. This is the phenomenon of climate change and energy poverty that plague the world. The challenges are to determine the sustenance of life on planet earth and understanding the contribution of renewable energy sources. Global warming caused by the constant accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has already begun to disrupt the ecosystems.

In the last decade of the twentieth century, it has been observed that there is an increase on the average temperature of the oceans and the atmosphere on a global scale. An assessment conducted by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 confirmed that human activities are causing greenhouse effect that is to say we observe increasing of the amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) etc. that results in global warming.  A study by Global Chance in 2017 establishes a connection between emissions of greenhouse gases and fossil fuels.  IPCC assessment also estimates the share of greenhouse gas emissions due to the energy sector at 25.9%.

All areas of the environment are affected.  The atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels had started to cause air pollution, accentuating the greenhouse effect and the decline of the ozone layer. The increasing water use and water pollution had started to modify the hydrosphere. Rising atmospheric and sea-surface temperature had started to modify the cryosphere. Our increasing use of land, for agriculture, cities, roads, mining – as well as all the pollution we were creating – had started to modify our biosphere and landscape. International Greenpeace speaks of about 150,000 additional deaths per year among the ecosystems due to the environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity persist. In addition to that, there are risks of long-term pollution and environmental degradation posed by the nuclear power that we can no longer ignore.

The IPCC report entitled “Climate Change” published in 2007 predicts major negative consequences for humanity this century due to approaching climate change, a reduction of potential crop yields in most tropical and subtropical areas,  a decrease of water resources in most tropical and subtropical dry regions,  a decrease in the source of water flow from melting ice and snow, following the disappearance of the ice and the snow, an increase in extreme weather events such as heavy rains, storms and droughts, and an increase in the impact of these phenomena on agriculture, an increase in forest fires during warmer summers,  the extension of areas infested with diseases such as cholera and malaria, an increase of flood risk, both because of rising of the sea level and climate change, a higher energy consumption for air conditioning and reduction of potential crop yields at middle and high latitudes.

These effects will be felt worldwide, but they will be especially keen in South Asia – defined as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Flooding, food shortages, and stagnating economic growth are just some of the devastating impacts South Asia may experience due to advancing climate change, according to IPCC. At the end of March 2014, IPCC released its long-awaited Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, a report that compiles the current scientific literature on climate change. The report’s assessment of observed impacts — the climate change effects we are already seeing — ranks Asia as the biggest victim of natural disasters last year, accounting for nearly 30 percent of the global economic loss ascribed to natural disasters.

South Asia’s vulnerability to these and future disasters is profound, principally for reasons of population and poverty. The majority of South Asian countries are low- or lower-middle income countries that already struggle to support the daily needs of their growing populations. Because poorer households dedicate more of their budgets to food, they are the most sensitive to weather-related shocks that can make daily staples unaffordable.

Low-lying Bangladesh is vulnerable to flooding and cyclones in the Indian Ocean, which scientific literature suggests will grow more intense in coming decades.  Rising sea levels are also likely to threaten rice cultivation. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates a one-meter rise in sea level would inundate 17,000 square kilometres of Bangladesh’s land, over ten percent of its total land mass.

The problems the IPCC has identified will become obvious in South Asian economies sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, the cost of action will only rise if delayed.  To insulate themselves from these potential threats, South Asian nations will have to invest heavily in both mitigation and adaptation. One set of efforts would be to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions through improvements in energy efficiency and promotion of renewable energy. Operating renewable energy sources may bring two-fold benefits for this region. They are less polluter; therefore, renewable energy is one of the most effective tools South Asia has in its fight against climate change. Also, they are conducive to sustainable development because they are sustainable and available in abundance. The evidence is that they are environmentally and technically accessible reserves in the world and large enough to provide about six times more energy than the world currently consumes. Thus, renewable energy could supply the people of this region with energy, including those who currently have no access to energy without the need to make expensive network connections.  Even a significant increase in demand can be satisfied with their enormous potential.

While renewable energy contributes environmental protection, it has a huge potential for regional energy trade – it does help spur economic growth, enhance job creation, boost business activity and fund to poverty eradication. The international trade in energy allows countries to balance this important demand and supply, exploiting their own unique comparative advantage while meeting increasingly diverse energy requirements. Despite substantial potential, South Asia is one of the least connected regions in the world in regard to energy trade, according to Asian Development Bank (ADB) report on Energy Trade in South Asia in 2011.

Though South Asia is one of the fastest growing regions in the world with economic growth forecasted to gradually accelerate from 7.1 percent in 2016 to 7.3 percent in 2017, a World Bank (WB) report said, it is still struggling to meet energy demand. Despite such encouraging figures, the facilities and services available in some South Asian countries are inadequate to address the growing demands of their economy and population, thus increasing the strain on scarce resources and contributing to high poverty figures and a relatively low standard of living. The majority people without a sustainable access to the basic energy services were estimated around 1.2 billion worldwide – 16% of the global population – in 2016, mainly from developing countries, particularly in Africa and South Asia, according to World Energy Outlook (WEO). Energy supply and security are major challenges on the road to sustainable development in the South Asian region. Furthermore, the challenge is likely to get more complex as energy demand is growing to keep pace with an expanding population and economy.

The South Asian countries have huge potential for renewable energy sources. Geographically, South Asian countries are located in a region of different climatic conditions such as tropical, humid etc. which provides easy access to a variety of renewable energy sources. It has been reported that hydropower potential in Nepal, the massive wind power potential in Afghanistan, and solar power potential in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh can help the South Asian region go a long way in fulfilling its energy needs.

This enormous potential is still insufficiently taken into account in this regional energy markets.  Today, according to International Energy Agency (IEA) annual report in 2013, renewable energy represents 13.2% of the total energy consumption in the world and in South Asian countries, according to ADB report on Energy Trade in South Asia in 2011, less than 5%, while other energy sources continue to carve the part Lion.  Bangladesh ranks among the lowest in South Asian region with 2.74 percent of energy production from renewable energy sources, according to ADB’s report in 2011. The report also summarises Bangladesh’s heavily dependence on natural gas with 88.45 percent.

Despite the huge potential and benefits of promoting energy efficiency and increasing the share of renewable energy in the gross energy production, there are obstacles at both the national and regional level, which must be overcome. One of the barriers is low investment in renewable energy because it involves high initial capital costs, and the monetary benefits from such projects take time to materialize. Low priority given to renewable energy in national planning and weak implementation framework, weak environmental regulations, fossil fuel subsidies etc. are among some crucial challenges in national level policy adoption. There is also very limited knowledge and expertise regarding renewable energy technologies. Policies are often not conducive to business and do not incentivize private sector participation. Political challenges include an agreement on the energy authority in the area and deliberating options for energy trade.  The regional security framework is another impediment to the adoption of sensible mitigation and adaptation strategy as distrust between India and Pakistan still exists, and some countries in this region are constantly fighting against terrorism.

While geopolitical and geographic constraints are challenging to overcome, they are not unconquerable. Regional cooperation must address variables such as private sector participation, huge investment cost, affordability, political will, climate change, right of way and inaccessibility. The key here is to expand the existing bilateral framework for energy trade into a multi-lateral one, and work towards energy security and look into low-carbon solutions.  Focal offices should be established at the federal/central level in each country under the auspices of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), as there is a need to effectively coordinate between various agencies of national and sub-national governments and organisations including SAARC Energy Centre (SEC), SAARC Meteorological Research Centre (SMRC) etc. The same office may be declared as a liaison with international development partners, civil society and the private sector. Current and planned policies, programmes and projects may be reviewed to align them with the objectives of Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL), a global initiative launched by the United Nations (UN) in 2011.

Energy efficiency practices and standards are the most relevant areas in South Asia. By sharing ideas, they may address energy system losses and inefficient consumption at commercial and household levels. Similarly, the comparative analysis of legislations and policies relating to demand side energy efficiency and conservation may be carried out in order to progress in this direction. Each country should prepare a national energy research agenda to be pursued by academia and other scientific research organizations. There is a tremendous need to foster research culture to develop cost-effective home grown solutions for renewable technologies, energy efficient appliances and energy conservation practices. Additionally, legal and financial advisory services may also be provided through technical assistance programmes.

Through initiating heavy investment in renewable energy sector, the public sector can save substantial resources and set a trend to be followed by private businesses and households in each nation. Hence, there is an urgent need to attract private sector investment in energy sector. Energy trade models and practices in other regions of the world may also be examined for relevance to South Asia. Energy trade may emerge as a cornerstone of regional integration and connectivity. South Asia is also advantageous in terms of its close proximity with Middle East and natural resource rich Central Asia.

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