By Sikander Hayat
Climate change has become a major issue of the 21st century and there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that although we are too late to reverse the impact it already has on the environment but with careful planning we can at least make the future impact less severe. A study sanctioned by UN in which scientist from all over the globe took part has testified to this fact.
Challenge for the energy suppliers in Europe is to confront the problem head on and seek new and clean ways of producing energy before being pushed too hard by the political pressure.
Although there is an emerging consensus about the global warming and its causes but still there are differing opinions on how to tackle this issue.
Another factor in today’s energy market is the security of supply and lately it has been a major issue in the European press as increasingly it is the case that countries where oil and gas are most abundantly available in the form of natural reserves are situated in the politically, economically and racially volatile regions with many secessionist movements vying for their share of the wealth; resulting in civil and regional wars. Each time, a crisis occurs in any oil/gas rich country, prices of the said commodities go up; hampering the healthy supply and leading to speculation in the market creating further problems in the supply chain.
EU depends for a large part on Russia for its energy imports and Russian way of doing business is not very much alike the European way as Russia has in recent times used energy as a political tool, flexing its muscle in Ukraine and Belarus and these events have increase pressure on EU’s political elite to find alternative sources in case any future Russian government want to use its energy sources as a blackmailing instrument.
Russia has recently signed a new agreement with Kazakhstan and Tajikistan that has compelled these countries to sell there gas through Russia by building pipelines which will be linked with the Russian pipeline. This development has put in jeopardy the dream of European countries to build a pipeline though Turkey which will bypass the Russian territory and hence make any future supplies secure in case of change of mood in Russia after Putin.
This pressure along with the climate concerns has started a new debate in the Union about the feasibility of nuclear energy as an abundant source and a clean one in terms of carbon emissions.
The proponents of clean energy are not all singing from the same hymn sheet and increasingly there is an emergence of pro and anti nuclear camp in the “green” corner of the environmental debate.
Pro camp believes that this could be the answer to humanity’s problems as more nuclear reactors will produce more electricity and eventually all vehicles and factories will be running on the clean energy. While the other side deem nuclear as still a
dangerous entity that could harm humanity in ways which were witnessed in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. One of their main concern is that any advance in nuclear technology will eventually translate into weapons of mass destruction and therefore nuclear option must not be touched at all.
EU’s role is crucial in this regard but still it might not be the final one as the individual EU governments are being pressured by the local electorates which have different demands in different EU countries. For example, France is pro nuclear whereas countries like UK have their nuclear plants cleared for total shut down as these plants reach their age limits, although there is a renewed interest in nuclear power due to concerns about carbon emissions and security of supply.
It has been argued that at its highest production a nuclear power plant can generate a lot more energy than traditional hydro power plants which are traditionally used in many countries of the world.
This debate has reached a point where EU needs to stop talking and start taking concrete steps because in countries like UK, nuclear power plants are nearing their date of decommissioning and a decision has to be taken now for the construction of new plants to replace these ageing ones.
One more reason for an urgent action in this field is because rest of world is putting great emphasis on nuclear energy regardless of what Europeans do, as China, India and Russia combined have plans to build 100 new nuclear power plants in their fight to keep their economies growing at the rate they have been for last many years.
Urgent priority is to a have a common EU grid which can be supplied by all the possible power sources in the union and can distribute electricity according to the needs of the constituent members. Similar could be achieved with gas and both these projects can emulate the achievements of the European coal and steel community which lead to the creation of the EU. A common EU energy policy is the most pressing need of our times and will require political will on part of all the member states.
European Union’s role in this regard is crucial as eventually it will be regulation by the commission which will be followed by the members of the EU and its business institutions.
The questions we have to ask are these, where is E.ON placed in this regard. What are our motives? Are we going to have a common strategy pursued by all market units or are we going to tailor our strategy according to the demands of each market unit.
There needs to be a rethink of strategy as E.ON is primarily a customer orientated business instead of a gas, oil or electricity provider and it must behave like one and will have to understand that is not in the business of providing oil, gas or other commodities but it deals with keeping people’s houses warm. The way to achieve this is by no means single as there are forms of energy which will ultimately become the backbone of our industry but also trump the finite nature of fossil fuels.
Whether it is solar, tidal, geo thermal or wind, one thing is sure that future in medium to long run is without oil and gas.
Research is the way forward to make these alternate forms of energy viable at commercial scale or to explore a new way at par with invention of wheel which can make the conventional way of fuelling/running the world redundant.
One of the options, in the short term, which need to be looked at, is the cooperation of E.ON UK with Gazprom so that they have a stake in British distribution market and in return E.ON can make a deal with them in terms of security of supply.
This option may be problematic as relations between Russia and UK are on lower ebb at the moment due to the developments in Litvinenko murder case and refusal of Russian authorities to handover the chief suspect in this case to Scotland Yard.
E.ON AG has good relations with Gazprom as it is one of members of consortium currently building a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is heading the consortium and E.ON can use this relationship involving high political figures to ask Russia to allay the fears of UK government.
A mechanism could be developed to create a buffer or emergency capacity to counter any future meddling of supplier in the affairs of the buyer.
E.ON can align itself with Gazprom so that they have some sort of stake in British distribution market and in return E.ON can get a stake in production and supply facilities in Russia and Russian market is particularly attractive in the medium term as Russia is set to become the biggest gas exporter in the world as the country needs heavy investment in there creaking Soviet era infrastructure and extraction technologies which they lack at the moment. E.ON can invest in the infrastructure in Russia in return for a long term deal, securing energy for many years to come.
What can help in this regard is an initial agreement between Gazprom and E.ON UK which will guarantee the energy supply in the short to medium term.
The next option is the nuclear power and this will help in the long term. The present method of a fission reaction to produce heat which turns water into steam and hence run the turbine to produce electricity is a cost efficient one but there is a need to develop further the field of nuclear generation.
One way to do that is to work further on fusion reaction which at the moment is not cost effective as it takes more energy to run the process than the energy produced as the result of the process.
The company must also look towards a target of replacing oil and gas generation with other forms as even if we put the issue of climate change aside, fossil fuel is a finite resource and will eventually run out so to tackle that, other energy generation techniques including nuclear power plants need to be looked at. There is a need to set a target of at least 50% generation by 2030 through these resources (including nuclear).
Research needs to be done in the field of disposing nuclear waste in an environmentally friendly way to make sure that it does not become a liability for the future generations.
Climate change has become a major issue of the 21st century and there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that although we are too late to reverse the impact it already has on the environment but with careful planning we can at least make the future impact less severe. A study sanctioned by UN in which scientist from all over the globe took part has testified to this fact.
Challenge for the energy suppliers in Europe is to confront the problem head on and seek new and clean ways of producing energy before being pushed too hard by the political pressure.
Although there is an emerging consensus about the global warming and its causes but still there are differing opinions on how to tackle this issue.
Another factor in today’s energy market is the security of supply and lately it has been a major issue in the European press as increasingly it is the case that countries where oil and gas are most abundantly available in the form of natural reserves are situated in the politically, economically and racially volatile regions with many secessionist movements vying for their share of the wealth; resulting in civil and regional wars. Each time, a crisis occurs in any oil/gas rich country, prices of the said commodities go up; hampering the healthy supply and leading to speculation in the market creating further problems in the supply chain.
EU depends for a large part on Russia for its energy imports and Russian way of doing business is not very much alike the European way as Russia has in recent times used energy as a political tool, flexing its muscle in Ukraine and Belarus and these events have increase pressure on EU’s political elite to find alternative sources in case any future Russian government want to use its energy sources as a blackmailing instrument.
Russia has recently signed a new agreement with Kazakhstan and Tajikistan that has compelled these countries to sell there gas through Russia by building pipelines which will be linked with the Russian pipeline. This development has put in jeopardy the dream of European countries to build a pipeline though Turkey which will bypass the Russian territory and hence make any future supplies secure in case of change of mood in Russia after Putin.
This pressure along with the climate concerns has started a new debate in the Union about the feasibility of nuclear energy as an abundant source and a clean one in terms of carbon emissions.
The proponents of clean energy are not all singing from the same hymn sheet and increasingly there is an emergence of pro and anti nuclear camp in the “green” corner of the environmental debate.
Pro camp believes that this could be the answer to humanity’s problems as more nuclear reactors will produce more electricity and eventually all vehicles and factories will be running on the clean energy. While the other side deem nuclear as still a
dangerous entity that could harm humanity in ways which were witnessed in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. One of their main concern is that any advance in nuclear technology will eventually translate into weapons of mass destruction and therefore nuclear option must not be touched at all.
EU’s role is crucial in this regard but still it might not be the final one as the individual EU governments are being pressured by the local electorates which have different demands in different EU countries. For example, France is pro nuclear whereas countries like UK have their nuclear plants cleared for total shut down as these plants reach their age limits, although there is a renewed interest in nuclear power due to concerns about carbon emissions and security of supply.
It has been argued that at its highest production a nuclear power plant can generate a lot more energy than traditional hydro power plants which are traditionally used in many countries of the world.
This debate has reached a point where EU needs to stop talking and start taking concrete steps because in countries like UK, nuclear power plants are nearing their date of decommissioning and a decision has to be taken now for the construction of new plants to replace these ageing ones.
One more reason for an urgent action in this field is because rest of world is putting great emphasis on nuclear energy regardless of what Europeans do, as China, India and Russia combined have plans to build 100 new nuclear power plants in their fight to keep their economies growing at the rate they have been for last many years.
Urgent priority is to a have a common EU grid which can be supplied by all the possible power sources in the union and can distribute electricity according to the needs of the constituent members. Similar could be achieved with gas and both these projects can emulate the achievements of the European coal and steel community which lead to the creation of the EU. A common EU energy policy is the most pressing need of our times and will require political will on part of all the member states.
European Union’s role in this regard is crucial as eventually it will be regulation by the commission which will be followed by the members of the EU and its business institutions.
The questions we have to ask are these, where is E.ON placed in this regard. What are our motives? Are we going to have a common strategy pursued by all market units or are we going to tailor our strategy according to the demands of each market unit.
There needs to be a rethink of strategy as E.ON is primarily a customer orientated business instead of a gas, oil or electricity provider and it must behave like one and will have to understand that is not in the business of providing oil, gas or other commodities but it deals with keeping people’s houses warm. The way to achieve this is by no means single as there are forms of energy which will ultimately become the backbone of our industry but also trump the finite nature of fossil fuels.
Whether it is solar, tidal, geo thermal or wind, one thing is sure that future in medium to long run is without oil and gas.
Research is the way forward to make these alternate forms of energy viable at commercial scale or to explore a new way at par with invention of wheel which can make the conventional way of fuelling/running the world redundant.
One of the options, in the short term, which need to be looked at, is the cooperation of E.ON UK with Gazprom so that they have a stake in British distribution market and in return E.ON can make a deal with them in terms of security of supply.
This option may be problematic as relations between Russia and UK are on lower ebb at the moment due to the developments in Litvinenko murder case and refusal of Russian authorities to handover the chief suspect in this case to Scotland Yard.
E.ON AG has good relations with Gazprom as it is one of members of consortium currently building a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is heading the consortium and E.ON can use this relationship involving high political figures to ask Russia to allay the fears of UK government.
A mechanism could be developed to create a buffer or emergency capacity to counter any future meddling of supplier in the affairs of the buyer.
E.ON can align itself with Gazprom so that they have some sort of stake in British distribution market and in return E.ON can get a stake in production and supply facilities in Russia and Russian market is particularly attractive in the medium term as Russia is set to become the biggest gas exporter in the world as the country needs heavy investment in there creaking Soviet era infrastructure and extraction technologies which they lack at the moment. E.ON can invest in the infrastructure in Russia in return for a long term deal, securing energy for many years to come.
What can help in this regard is an initial agreement between Gazprom and E.ON UK which will guarantee the energy supply in the short to medium term.
The next option is the nuclear power and this will help in the long term. The present method of a fission reaction to produce heat which turns water into steam and hence run the turbine to produce electricity is a cost efficient one but there is a need to develop further the field of nuclear generation.
One way to do that is to work further on fusion reaction which at the moment is not cost effective as it takes more energy to run the process than the energy produced as the result of the process.
The company must also look towards a target of replacing oil and gas generation with other forms as even if we put the issue of climate change aside, fossil fuel is a finite resource and will eventually run out so to tackle that, other energy generation techniques including nuclear power plants need to be looked at. There is a need to set a target of at least 50% generation by 2030 through these resources (including nuclear).
Research needs to be done in the field of disposing nuclear waste in an environmentally friendly way to make sure that it does not become a liability for the future generations.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.