Connect with us

Energy

Another US- Canadian corporate collaboration Silences Public Debate on it in the US

Brian Frank

Published

on

The Northern Pass Transmission targets the state of New Hampshire.The media reports polls say 50% of New Hampshire opposes it.From Quebec, Canada to Concord, NH, you see only signs of opposition to Northern Pass. Bumper stickers against it in French are seen on the Canadian side. On the US side hundreds, perhaps thousands of hand-painted postersin English ‘Northern Pass Kiss my Ass’ and commercially printed ones in French‘Enterrez-le’ (Bury It) line the route south to Concord.A public referendum would kill the proposal. There’s been no talk of referendums.

Northern Pass is a collaboration between Boston-based Eversource Energyand Hydro-Quebec, the Quebec State Utilities. Their plan isto construct power lines from Quebec to Concord, NH cutting through 192 miles of NH forest.

In the NH media the arguments against it revolve around the environmental impacts and potential declines in real estate values and tourism. There are more fundamentalreasons not to allow Northern Pass but those have not been raised. Northern Pass is billed as ‘green energy’ because its 90% hydroelectric power. But ‘green’ implies more than simply hydroelectric. Green means sustainable. Regarding this criteria scrutiny of Northern Pass has been noticeably absent in the media. The Northern Pass model is archaic.

Robert Hebner, Director of the University of Texas/ Austin Center for Electomechanics says that transmitting thousands of megawatts long distances is a thing of the past.Smaller grids are the future and threat to big utility companies. The grid-expanding Eversource-HydroQuebec deal is a shrewdmaneuver to prevent losses in the face of a grid-break up.

Small grids are more logical. They are more sustainable, a better defense against climate change. A hotter climate means more storms and higher energy storms.In big grids millions lose power with a flood, a lightning strike, a power line downed by wind, snow or a tree. Heat wavesproduce extreme demand by millions resulting in brownouts and blackouts. Human operator erroron a big grid means millions lose power.

Hydro-Quebec is famous for power failures. For example, a1989 space storm that interrupted service at Hydro-Quebec caused outages in Quebec and in turn New York City affecting 6 million people for 9 hours. The there was the 1998 ice storm. It destroyed transmission towers and caused massive prolonged power outages in Quebec. In 1999 a wind storm downed Hydro-Quebec transmission lines. It cutting  power to 600,000 people for over a week.In 2006 winds blow down Hydro-Quebec power lines. It left 450,000 without power.

The risks of big grids are well documented but absent from the debate on Northern Pass. Big grids fail big. Our experience with big gridsover the last 50 yearsis acomedy of errors. In 2003 fallen tree’s cut power to 8.5 million people in 17 states for two weeks people in Hurricane Sandy on the US’s east coast. In 2012, hundreds of millions lost power due to a surge in demand during a heat wave.In 2012  a wind storm  cut power to 4.2 million customers in 11 states in the midwest for 10 days. In 2011 downed trees and wires caused a ten-day black out for three million customers in Mid-Atlantic states and New England.  In 2011 hot weather and high demand after the end of the cause 12 hour outage , affecting 2.7 million people in Arizona and California which was importing power from Arizona. In 2003 two cables failed in London, and 250,000 customers lost power. In 2003 tree trimming caused a transmission line to short circuit. 50 million people-  10 million in Canada and 40 million in the US, were without power for four days. In 1998 lightning struck a Minnesota transmission line causing a separation of the northern Midwest  from the Eastern grid. 52,000 people in upper Midwest, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan lost power for 19 hours. In 1996 an Idaho transmission line overheated and sagged into a tree, which tripped relays to Wyoming coal plants. Two million people in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico lost power for minutes to hours. In 1996 inadequate tree trimming shorted-circuited Washington state transmission lines which  tripped hydro  turbines  at an Oregon Dam.  7.5 million customers lost power in seven western U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, and Baja California, Mexico for up to six hours.In 1982  high winds knocked one transmission tower over causing a domino effect,  as tower fell on tower.  Five million people on the west coast lost power.In 1977 lightning struck several power lines shutting Indian Point No. 3 nuclear plant, causing power surges, overloads and disconnecting New York City from the North East grid.  Nine million people in New York City lost power. Looting lasted for 26 hours. In 1965 a wrong setting on a transmission system device near Niagara Falls led to other human errors which  lead to 30 million people losing power for 13 hours in the Central Northeast US and Ontario.

Terrorism is a bigger risk for bigger grids. Power failures can result from hacking. A Vermont electric utility was hacked by Russians. It was unaffected only because it was not connected to the bigger grid. In 2015 Kiev, Ukraine lost power as result of suspected Russian hacking.

It is irrelevant that Northern Pass makes no sense. There is a precedent here for senseless things happening. History is about to repeat itself.  US and Canadian corporations will muscle Northern Pass though the same way  the overwhelmingly unpopular Canadian Natural gas pipeline was muscled through. In VT they just dug it. They heck with permits.The corporate attitude was ‘let them stop us’. Maybe the term ‘leader of the free world’ refers to corporate freedom.

Brian Frank was trained in Hydrogeology. He writes to raise public awareness of the quiet destruction of the life-sustaining natural resources around us. It began with research he did on a municipal groundwater supply as a graduate student. That aquifer was pollutedwith industrial solvents and road salt. It was nearly dried up, shockingly unrecognizable compared to descriptions of it 100 years earlier, That contrast permanently changed Brian. He has been writing eversince as he is discovering groundwater problems wherever he goes. He has written about his radioactive tap water in Bridgeton, NJ, his lead contaminated water in Millville, NJ and his pesticide-contaminated water in Vineland, NJ. He has written for the Examiner, Earth Island Press and his own blog, subsurfacestories.wordpress.com, about geoscience and human health. Brian presented his research at the Passaic River Institute’s environmental symposium in 2012. He has also been a physical therapist for 28 years and specializes in rehabilitating people with age-related diseases.

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

“Oil for development” budget, challenges and opportunities

Published

on

Iran has recently announced that its next fiscal year’s budget is going to be set with less reliance on oil revenues.

Last week, Head of the Country’s Budget and Planning Organization (BPO) Mohammad Baqer Nobakht said “In the next year’s budget – it starts on March 19, 2020 – oil revenues will be only spent for development projects and acquisition of capital asset, and not even one rial is going to go to government expenditures and other areas.”

At first glance, the idea is very appealing and it seems if the government manages to pull it off, it will be a significant step for Iran in its movement toward an oil-independent economy. However, it seems that cutting oil revenues from the budget and allocating them only to a specific part of the country’s expenditures is not going to be an easy task.

Although, BPO has already suggested various substitute sources of revenue to replace those of oil, some experts believe that the offered alternatives are not practical in the short-term.

So, how successful will the government be in executing this plan? What are the challenges in the way of this program? What are the chances for it to become fully practical next year?

To answer such questions and to have a clearer idea of the notion, let’s take a more detailed look into this [so called] ambitious program. 

The history of “oil for development”

It is not the first time that such a program is being offered in Iran. Removing oil revenues from the budget and allocating it to development projects goes way back in Iran’s modern history.

In 1927, the Iranian government at the time, decided to go through with a plan for removing oil revenues from the budget, so a bill was approved based on which oil incomes were merely allocated to the country’s development projects.

This law was executed until the year 1939 in which the plan was once again overruled due to what was claimed to be “financial difficulties”.

Since then up until recently, Iran has been heavily reliant on its oil revenues for managing the country’s expenses. However, in the past few years, and in the face of the U.S. sanctions, the issue of oil being used as a political weapon, made the Iranian authorities to, once again, think about reducing the country’s reliance on oil revenues.

In the past few years, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei has repeatedly emphasized the need for reducing reliance on oil and has tasked the government to find ways to move toward an oil-independent economy.

Now that Iran has once again decided to try the “oil for development” plan, the question is, what can be changed in a program that was aborted 80 years ago to make it more compatible with the country’s current economic needs and conditions.

The substitute sources of income

Shortly after BPO announced its decision for cutting the oil revenues from the next year’s budget, the Head of the organization Mohammad-Baqer Nobakht listed three alternative sources of income to offset oil revenues in the budget planning.

According to the official, elimination of hidden energy subsidies, using government assets to generate revenue and increasing tax incomes would be the main sources of revenues to compensate for the cut oil incomes.

In theory, the mentioned replacements for oil revenues, not only can generate a significant amount of income, but they could, in fact, be huge contributors to the stability of the country’s economy in the long run. 

For instance, considering the energy subsidies, it is obvious that allocating huge amounts of energy and fuel subsidies is not a good strategy to follow.

In 2018, Iran ranked first among the world’s top countries in terms of the number of subsidies which is allocated to energy consumption with $69 billion of subsidies allocated for various types of energy consumption including oil, natural gas, and electricity.

Based on data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the total amount of allocated subsidies in Iran equals 15 percent of the country’s total GDP.

The budget that is allocated for subsidies every year could be spent in a variety of more purposeful, more fruitful areas. The country’s industry should compete in order to grow, people must learn to use more wisely and to protect the environment.

However, practically speaking, all the above-mentioned alternatives are in fact long term programs that take time to become fully operational. A huge step like eliminating hidden subsidiaries cannot be taken over a one or event two-year period.

The development aspect

One big aspect of the government’s current decision is the “development” part of the equation.

A big chunk of the country’s revenues is going to be spent on this part and so the government is obliged to make sure to choose such “development” projects very wisely.

Deciding to allocate a huge part of the country’s income on a specific sector, makes it more prone to corruption, and therefore, a plan which is aimed to help the country’s economy could become a deteriorating factor in itself if not wisely executed.

The question here is, “Is the government going to spend oil money on all the projects which are labeled as ‘development’ even if they lack the technical, economic and environmental justification?”

So, the government needs to screen development projects meticulously and eliminate the less vital ones and then plan according to the remaining truly-important projects.

Final thoughts

Even if the “oil-free” budget is a notion that seems a little ambitious at the moment, and even if there are great challenges in the way of its realization, but the decision itself is a huge step toward a better future for Iran’s economy. Although realizing this plan seems fairly impossible in the short-term, it surely can be realized with proper planning and consideration in the long term.

Sooner or later Iran has to cut off the ties of reliance on oil incomes and start moving toward a vibrant, dynamic and oil-free economy; a journey of which the first step has been already taken.

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Energy

Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market

Published

on

Authors: Laura Cozzi and Apostolos Petropoulos*

With major automakers announcing new electric car models at a regular pace, there has been growing interest in recent years about the impact of electric vehicles on the overall car market, as well as global oil demand, carbon emissions, and air pollution.

Carmakers plan more than 350 electric models by 2025, mostly small-to-medium variants. Plans from the top 20 car manufacturers suggest a tenfold increase in annual electric car sales, to 20 million vehicles a year by 2030, from 2 million in 2018. Starting from a low base, less than 0.5% of the total car stock, this growth in electric vehicles means that nearly 7% of the car fleet will be electric by 2030.

Meanwhile, the conventional car market has been showing signs of fatigue, with sales declining in 2018 and 2019, due to slowing economies. Global sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars fell by around 2% to under 87 million in 2018, the first drop since the 2008 recession. Data for 2019 points to a continuation of this trend, led by China, where sales in the first half of the year fell nearly 14%, and India where they declined by 10%.

These trends have created a narrative of an imminent peak in passenger car oil demand, and related CO2 emissions, and the beginning of the end for the “ICE age.” As passenger cars consume nearly one-quarter of global oil demand today, does this signal the approaching erosion of a pillar of global oil consumption?

A more silent structural change may put this conclusion into question: consumers are buying ever larger and less fuel-efficient cars, known as Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs).

This dramatic shift towards bigger and heavier cars has led to a doubling of the share of SUVs over the last decade. As a result, there are now over 200 million SUVs around the world, up from about 35 million in 2010, accounting for 60% of the increase in the global car fleet since 2010. Around 40% of annual car sales today are SUVs, compared with less than 20% a decade ago.

This trend is universal. Today, almost half of all cars sold in the United States and one-third of the cars sold in Europe are SUVs. In China, SUVs are considered symbols of wealth and status. In India, sales are currently lower, but consumer preferences are changing as more and more people can afford SUVs. Similarly, in Africa, the rapid pace of urbanisation and economic development means that demand for premium and luxury vehicles is relatively strong.

The impact of its rise on global emissions is nothing short of surprising. The global fleet of SUVs has seen its emissions growing by nearly 0.55 Gt CO2 during the last decade to roughly 0.7 Gt CO2. As a consequence, SUVs were the second-largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions since 2010 after the power sector, but ahead of heavy industry (including iron & steel, cement, aluminium), as well as trucks and aviation.

On average, SUVs consume about a quarter more energy than medium-size cars. As a result, global fuel economy worsened caused in part by the rising SUV demand since the beginning of the decade, even though efficiency improvements in smaller cars saved over 2 million barrels a day, and electric cars displaced less than 100,000 barrels a day.

In fact, SUVs were responsible for all of the 3.3 million barrels a day growth in oil demand from passenger cars between 2010 and 2018, while oil use from other type of cars (excluding SUVs) declined slightly. If consumers’ appetite for SUVs continues to grow at a similar pace seen in the last decade, SUVs would add nearly 2 million barrels a day in global oil demand by 2040, offsetting the savings from nearly 150 million electric cars.

The upcoming World Energy Outlook will focus on this under-appreciated area in the energy debate today, and examines the possible evolution of the global car market, electrification trends, and consumer preferences and provides insights for policy makers.

While discussions today see significant focus on electric vehicles and fuel economy improvements, the analysis highlights the role of the average size of car fleet. Bigger and heavier cars, like SUVs, are harder to electrify and growth in their rising demand may slow down the development of clean and efficient car fleets. The development of SUV sales given its substantial role in oil demand and CO2 emissions would affect the outlook for passenger cars and the evolution of future oil demand and carbon emissions.

*Apostolos Petropoulos, Energy Modeler.

This commentary is derived from analysis that will be published on 13 November 2019 in the forthcoming World Energy Outlook 2019. IEA

Continue Reading

Energy

A Century of Russia’s Weaponization of Energy

Todd Royal

Published

on

In 1985 a joint meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev conveyed this enduring sentiment during the height of the Cold War, “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This sentiment began moving both countries, and the world away from Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.); and soon thereafter the Cold War ended. With the rise of Vladimir Putin, and the return of the Russian strongman based on the Stalin-model of leadership, Russia now uses and wields Russian energy assets, as geopolitical pawns (Syrian and Crimean invasions) the way they once terrorized the world with their nuclear arsenal.

Russia will remain a global force – even with an economy over reliant on energy – and Putin being the political force that controls the country. What makes the Russian weaponization of energy a force multiplier is “its vast geography, permanent membership in the UN Security Council, rebuilt military, and immense nuclear forces,” while having the ability to disrupt global prosperity, and sway political ideologies in the United States, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and the entire Artic Circle.

Putin understands that whoever controls energy controls the world – mainly fossil fuels – oil, petroleum, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy to electricity is now added to this dominating mix. Now that Stalin has taken on mythological status under Putin’s tutelage, Joseph Stalin once said“The war (WWII) was decided by engines and octane.”Winston Churchill agreed with Stalin on the critical importance of fuel: “Above all, petrol governed every movement.”

The most devastating war in human history, and one that killed millions of Russians continues driving Putin’s choice to make energy the focal point of their economy, military, and forward-projecting foreign policy. This began the modern, energy-industrial complex that mechanized and industrialized energy as a war-making tool that still affects people-groups, countries, and entire regions of the world.

Russia, then the U.S.S.R. (former Soviet Union), and now current Russia have always thought of energy as a way for their government to dominate their countrymen, traditional spheres of influence (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Central Asia), and a strategic buffer zone against land-based attacks that came from Napoleon and Hitler’s armies that still haunts the Russian psyche.

The timeline of Russia from the 1917, violence-fueled Russian Revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power, the rise and death of Stalin in 1953, World War II in-between, the Cold War that began March 5, 1946 in Winston Churchill’s famous speech declaring “an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent,” has been powered by energy.

This kicked off the Cold War until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. During this epoch in history the Soviets promoted global revolution using their economy and military that ran on fossil fuels and nuclear weaponry. In 1999 Vladimir Putin becomes Prime Minister after Boris Yeltsin resigns office, and the rebirth of the Soviet Union, and weaponization of energy continues until today under Putin’s regime.

What Russia now promotes foremost over all objectives: “undermining the U.S.-led liberal international order and the cohesion of the West.”Russia’s principal adversaries in this geopolitical tug-of-war over energy and influence are the U.S., the European Union (EU), and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). All of these variables are meant to bolster Russia and Putin’s “commercial, military, and energy interests.”

This geopolitical struggle doesn’t take place without abundant, reliable, affordable, scalable, and flexible oil, and natural gas. This is likely why Russia has begun a massive coal exploration and production (E&P) program that has grown exponentially since 2017 according to Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service.

The entire Russian economy is now based on rewarding Putin’s oligarchical cronies, and ensuring Russian energy giants Rosneft and Gazprom can fill the Kremlin’s coffers to annex Crimea and gain a strategic foothold in the Middle East via the Syrian invasion. This economic system is now referred to as “Putinomics.” Using energy resources to fund global chaos, and wars while rewarding his favorite oligarchs and agencies that do the Kremlin’s bidding.

Russia is now in a full-fledged battle with western powers, and its affiliated allies over the fossil fuel industry. While the rest of the world is attempting to incorporate renewable energy to electricity onto its electrical grids, and pouring government monies into building momentum for a carbon-free society, Russia is going the opposite direction.

Moscow’s energy intentions are clear, and have been for over one hundred years. Currently, there Syrian foothold has allowed them to entrench themselves back into the Middle East. This time they aren’t spreading revolutionary communism, instead it is Putin-driven oil and natural gas supplies through pipelines and E&P rights acquired in “Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.”

Russia has a clear pathway to block U.S. liquid natural gas (LNG) into Europe, and a land bridge from the Middle East to Europe almost guarantees Russian natural gas is cheaper, more accessible, and maintains that Europe looks to Russia first for its energy needs. By cementing their role as the “primary gas supplier and expands its influence in the Middle East,” the U.S., EU, and NATO’s military dominance are overtaken by natural gas that Europe desperately needs to power their economies, and heat their homes in brutal, winter months.

To counter Russian energy influence bordering on a monopoly over European energy needs, the current U.S. administration should make exporting natural gas into LNG a top “priority.” Work with European allies in Paris, Berlin, and NATO headquarters to operationally thwart Moscow’s “Middle East energy land bridge.” Global energy security is too important by allowing Russian influence to continue spreading.

Continue Reading

Latest

East Asia1 hour ago

China & Nepal working towards a genuine good-neighbour tie

Authors: Himal Neupane & Jamal Ait Laadam Although China and Nepal are very different in terms of each territorial size,...

Newsdesk4 hours ago

ADB Support to the Philippines to Reach Record High in 2020–2022

The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) sovereign lending for the Philippines is expected to reach $9.1 billion between 2020 and 2022,...

East Asia6 hours ago

Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea

Authors: Gleb Toropchin and Anastasia Tolstukhina In the summer of 2019, a trade conflict broke out between Tokyo and Seoul...

Reports12 hours ago

Reforms in Latvia must result in stronger enforcement to tackle foreign bribery

Latvia has continued to improve its framework against bribery of foreign public officials and subsequent money laundering but the reforms...

South Asia14 hours ago

Kashmir Issue at the UNGA and the Nuclear Discourse

The Kashmir issue has more significance in view of the nuclearization of South Asia as many security experts around the...

Urban Development16 hours ago

Cities Around the World Want to Be Resilient and Sustainable. But What Does This Mean?

Cities around the world, large and small, face common challenges, especially due to rapid urbanization and climate change. According to...

Middle East18 hours ago

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy