Geothermal energy development has followed the same storyline for many decades: a low-carbon energy source that can offer reliable and sustainable baseload power, whose development globally has been held back by high resource risk and the costs of test drilling.
Some 40 countries in Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean all have sizeable geothermal resources that can help them meet their energy needs in a reliable and low-cost way.
Geothermal energy could also help curb harmful emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that by 2050 geothermal power could account for 3.5% of global electricity production, with 200 GW of installed capacity, avoiding 760 million tons of CO2 emissions annually.
Although geothermal energy has received wide recognition as a transformational resource, the prohibitively risky and expensive early-stage development has been a barrier to private sector investment and led to a slow growth of installed geothermal capacity for the past couple of decades.
In 2016, cumulative global geothermal capacity reached just over 13 GW and it is expected to rise to almost 17 GW by 2021, with the largest capacity additions expected in Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines and Mexico.
Over the past five years, geothermal development has taken a different course, driven primarily by two factors: a global commitment to low-carbon development and the Sustainable Development Goal on energy (SDG7), and the strategic deployment of concessional climate financing to mitigate risks associated with initial stages of geothermal development.
Risk Mitigation Works
Global experience shows that mitigating exploration and drilling costs and risks can unlock investment needed to take geothermal to scale.
In 2013, the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) launched the Global Geothermal Development Plan (GGDP). The initiative works with partners to mobilize concessional funding for upstream development and in turn, catalyze significant investment across the entire value chain.
In just five years, the GGDP has managed to spur an important shift in the sector. It has raised $235 million in concessional funding through the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), which has been made available to multilateral development banks (MDBs), including the World Bank to support upstream geothermal activities.
As a result, multilateral financing for upstream activities in 2013-2017 grew to around $100 million per year, with projects in more than 30 countries. This represents at least a four-fold increase in the share of MDBs financing for early stage development, from only 6.7% in 1978-2012 to 29.2% of their geothermal investments in 2013-2017. The projects currently underway are expected to mobilize an additional $1.5 billion from other sources.
The World Bank has leveraged ESMAP’s technical assistance and is currently supporting six upstream geothermal projects (with $610 million of World Bank financing and $689 million from other donors) in five countries: Indonesia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Armenia. Another four projects in Nicaragua, Dominica, St. Lucia and Indonesia are under preparation.
Other MDBs have similarly scaled up by tapping into CTF funding to help de-risk geothermal fields in countries such as Chile, Mexico, Kenya, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Eastern Caribbean.
Countries are also establishing de-risking mechanisms to attract and assists developers in the early phases of their investment. For example, with support from the World Bank/ESMAP and other partners, Indonesia is planning a new Geothermal Risk Mitigation Facility to leverage billions of dollars in private sector funding. This is a crucial step to bridging the $25 billion investment gap over the next 8 years to help the government add 5.8 gigawatts (GW) of electricity production with geothermal resources by 2026. In 2012 the World Bank supported the government through a grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to undertake reforms, and helped Pertamina Geothermal Energy (PGE) to begin its geothermal expansion program through a $175 million IBRD loan, along with $125 million of concessional financing from the CTF. In 2017, the World Bank provided $55.25 million in grants to support Indonesia’s Geothermal Energy Upstream Development Project. The CTF is contributing $49 million to support infrastructure development and exploration drilling and the GEF is contributing an additional $6.25 million to support technical assistance and capacity building.
A Tailored Approach Works
Global experience has also shown that approaches to geothermal expansion can be tailored to fit different country settings. An ESMAP-funded analysis of the global portfolio of geothermal power projects commissioned prior to 2014 takes an in-depth look at the support mechanisms for each project and outlines distinct approaches that countries have taken to expand their geothermal energy.
For example, countries such as Mexico, Kenya, El Salvador and Costa Rica have relied almost entirely on public resources for geothermal expansion to develop over 3.6 GW of energy. Their successes were driven by strong government commitment and the availability of public funds.
Increasingly, however, more countries have been opening doors to private developers and are following a model where the public and private sectors share cost and risks. example, one of the key-components to Turkey’s unparalleled growth in geothermal development has been the de-risking of geothermal fields using public funds. In 2016, the World Bank approved a $350 million project developed with support of ESMAP which included a $40 million risk sharing mechanism to cover part of the cost for failed exploration wells in projects that are expected to confirm about 210 MW of geothermal capacity. These projects are expected to mobilize about $200 million of private capital and incentivize exploration outside the most developed areas.
Another example of cost sharing between public and private sectors is St. Lucia, where concessional financing will be used to carry out an exploration drilling campaign in an area with high prospects. If the resource is confirmed the government will engage a private company to fully develop the field.
“Oil for development” budget, challenges and opportunities
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.
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
Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market
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.
A Century of Russia’s Weaponization of Energy
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.
Achieving Broadband Access for All in Africa Comes With a $100 Billion Price Tag
Across Africa, where less than a third of the population has access to broadband connectivity, achieving universal, affordable, and good...
Best of the Net nominated essay: “Secrets”
So, mother, like Johannesburg, you cut me in deep, imaginative and raw ways. A cut from you was a project....
Satellites record second lowest Arctic sea ice extent since 1979
The polar oceans are among the most rapidly changing oceans in the world. The yearly cycle of the build-up and...
Revitalising the Quad
With a high-level informal meeting of the Foreign Ministers of US, India, Japan and Australia on the side lines of...
The return of a “political wunderkind”: Results of parliamentary elections in Austria
At the end of September, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), led by the former Chancellor – the 33-year-old “political prodigy”...
Landmark labour reforms signal end of kafala system in Qatar
Qatar has announced sweeping reforms to its labour market, with a view to ending the kafala system and marking a...
US Blacklist of Chinese Surveillance Companies Creates Supply Chain Confusion
The United States Department of Commerce’s decision to blacklist 28 Chinese public safety organizations and commercial entities hit at some...
Newsdesk3 days ago
Live Simulation Exercise to Prepare Public and Private Leaders for Pandemic Response
Urban Development2 days ago
Cities Around the World Want to Be Resilient and Sustainable. But What Does This Mean?
Americas1 day ago
When Democracy Becomes the Problem: Why So Many Millions Still Support Donald Trump
East Asia2 days ago
Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea
Middle East3 days ago
Turkey and the Kurds: What goes around comes around
Middle East3 days ago
Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?
South Asia2 days ago
Kashmir Issue at the UNGA and the Nuclear Discourse
Africa2 days ago
The Impact of Xenophobic Attack on Nigerians