Tag: Europe's energy crisis

‘Three Seas’ countries are looking to harness next-gen nuclear energy

Post By World , , , ,

By Nathan Alan-Lee, Doctoral researcher, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Small modular nuclear reactors and their many potential applications have come to reflect the vital role that innovation and technology can have at the nexus of energy security and decarbonisation, Nathan Alan-Lee writes.

Less than two years after the crisis in Ukraine caused massive disruption to the global energy system, Europe continues to feel the fallout of the subsequent energy crisis and is scrambling to replace a historic dependence on Russian fossil fuels.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet, even as the crisis continues to bring instability and insecurity, lasting solutions – which have the potential to not only address immediate challenges but also provide a long-term basis for sustainable energy — are fast emerging.

This year’s Three Seas Initiative (3SI) Summit, held on 6 September in Bucharest, has served as a landmark moment in the development of such vital solutions. 

Broadly speaking, 3SI is tasked with further developing and integrating infrastructure within the bloc of countries between the Baltic, Black and Adriatic seas. 

Recently, the work of 3SI has been critical in addressing energy security concerns in the region and forging new avenues for collaboration.

What exactly is a small modular reactor?

This year’s summit emphasised the key role which next-generation nuclear power will play in the region’s energy transition, and at the same time, proposed a roadmap for wide-scale access and adoption. 

One technology which was particularly celebrated was the small modular reactor (SMR), a forward-looking innovation which has been drawing attention as an option in reducing carbon emissions and powering the energy transition.

What makes an SMR different from other reactors?

Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMRs are able to be deployed more dynamically, with less cost and time investment. As their name “SMR” would suggest, they are much smaller than traditional reactors and can be more flexible in deployment. 

These reactors are also “modular,” with components being factory assembled and ready for installation on site. 

Overall, the function of SMRs in the power grid differs from that of traditional reactors, as they produce far less than standard nuclear reactors. However, this only creates new use cases for nuclear energy and offers new routes for achieving energy security.

Reducing carbon dependence a big plus

The technology’s sweeping potential was a point of focus during the Three Seas Summit, especially as it relates to coal-to-SMR conversion. The US-led Project Phoenix, which looks to facilitate this conversion, announced that Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia “will receive support for coal-to-SMR feasibility studies.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

This will aid domestic SMR initiatives, providing valuable guidance and support to master SMR technology. This program will be a good way to kickstart and boost the adoption of nuclear energy with the goal of sustainability and reduced carbon dependence.

On the global stage, SMRs and by extension nuclear, are also becoming intriguing for complementing other zero-carbon energy sources. 

One use case which has been garnering attention in the past year is the electrolytic and potentially thermochemical production of “green” hydrogen. 

The electrical and thermal outputs of nuclear power can substitute emitting fuels in this production process, and SMR companies like the UK’s Rolls-Royce and NuScale in the US are already considering ways to integrate their reactors in electrolytic Hydrogen production. 

In a similar way nuclear heat emissions are being explored as a means of producing ammonia which acts as a transport medium of hydrogen. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Nuclear energy’s capacity to integrate with other zero-carbon energy systems is gaining wide traction. 

At the upcoming ADIPEC conference, one of the most influential in global energy strategy, nuclear integration will be highlighted alongside the growing role of Hydrogen and Ammonia.

The promise does come with challenges

Despite the promise of SMRs, there are key challenges to successful deployment in the 3SI bloc countries, most of which relate to the cost and the ultimate return on investment calculation. 

The estimated price of electricity produced by the NuScale SMR, for example, increased this year to $89/MWh (€83.5), up from $58/MWh (€54.5); this reflects price inflation in the cost of producing reactor components. 

This price variability, and the fact that SMRs have yet to be proven in operation, have raised concerns about their overall viability.

ADVERTISEMENT

In response to this, 3SI countries have looked to foreign investment. 

Earlier this year, the US Export-Import Bank and US International Development Finance Corporation, issued “letters of interest” to invest up to $4 billion (€3.75bn) in Poland’s SMR development projects. Similar letters have also been offered for Romanian SMR development. 

This funding would be a massive boost for SMR and nuclear development in the region, while at the same time strengthening transatlantic ties and cooperation.

Crucial years ahead

The run-up to 2030 will be a crucial period, for both the decarbonisation effort and also for nuclear energy as the first SMRs look to begin operations in Europe. 

The 3SI countries are positioned to be a lynchpin in this process, operating at the cutting edge of nuclear development, while looking to guarantee the region’s energy security for years to come. 

SMRs and their many potential applications have come to reflect the vital role that innovation and technology can have at the nexus of energy security and decarbonisation.

Nathan Alan-Lee is a doctoral researcher at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies and a senior analyst at London Politica covering Poland and Central and Eastern Europe.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Seas #countries #harness #nextgen #nuclear #energy

Divorce from Putin’s fossil fuels can’t result in toxic EU-US marriage

Post By World , , , , ,

By Anusha Narayanan and Tal Harris, Greenpeace

We cannot let the continued energy crisis be used to further strip away any hope we have for stopping the worst impacts of climate change, Anusha Narayanan and Tal Harris write.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year resulted in a massive increase in US gas exports to Europe. 

US gas exports to Europe were up by 140% in 2022 compared with 2021, and a record 17 long-term contracts were signed between European companies and US LNG terminals. 

Dozens of new LNG terminals were built, are under construction, or are proposed on both sides of the Atlantic.

The health, social and environmental consequences of this massive buildout are beyond dire. And they’re entirely avoidable.

The new EU LNG terminals would have a total carbon footprint of 950 million tonnes of CO2-eq per year. That’s equivalent to the annual emissions of over 200 million cars. 

And some contracts being signed by European and US companies lock us into two decades or more of such pollution, far beyond the necessary deadline for phasing-out fossil gas.

These contracts also require more export and import terminals. Once built, they could be used by polluters to advocate for further delaying the phase-out date in order to prevent them from turning into stranded assets.

This buildout flies in the face of science: our planet cannot (and need not) afford any fossil fuel expansion if we’re going to avoid the worst climate impacts.

Unnecessary decisions only further perpetuate the crises

It is also shockingly unnecessary: new terminals can take up to five years to build and thus do nothing to meet current energy needs. 

A new report by Greenpeace International finds that the existing capacity in Europe’s LNG terminals is already larger than needed. 

Even in 2022 — the most intense LNG year to date, when Russian fossil fuels supply to Europe was sharply reduced — terminal utilisation rates across Europe remained low, and they had more capacity than they would normally require.

It’s no accident that we have bad policies. Policies have been shaped by ENTSOG, the gas industry’s leading group in the EU. 

European governments have appointed ENTSOG to find “the solution” to the energy crisis — a crisis created by dependence on the fossil fuel industry in the first place. 

It’s no wonder a gas lobby is recommending more of the same, thereby perpetuating both the energy and climate crises.

Instead of seeking energy independence, Europe chose more of the same

Europeans now must pay for new infrastructure for an industry they only recently bailed out.

And they’ll pay even more in the future when promises of repurposing those terminals to green hydrogen turn out to be technically complicated, financially costly, and based on unproven calculations. 

Instead of trying to sustain a gas-reliant energy system, this crisis could be a moment to invest in real solutions to both keep our planet habitable and meet our energy needs.

Gas is widely used in Europe for power generation, industry, and over 30% of household heating. 

That makes it highly dependent on imports, and instead of using the crisis with Russia to break away from gas altogether, the EU only switched to the US as an alternative supplier of an even dirtier gas: LNG.

On the US side, most LNG production and export facilities are located near low-income communities, already suffering from well-documented health impacts of the oil and gas industry, including in the horrifyingly nicknamed “cancer alley.” 

Now the climate crisis ravages across the whole of America. 

And LNG is making it far worse: while Russian piped gas was already a climate killer, LNG’s emissions — from liquefaction, transport, and regassing, to power generation, as well as methane leaks — make its climate impact far worse.

Russia’s war should not be used as an excuse

Gas producers and operators used Russia’s war against Ukraine to spin US and European policy priorities away from climate goals, telling a tale about energy security. 

Yet a divorce from Russia’s fossil fuels must not end in a new miserable marriage of US-EU gas barons. European consumers need not sponsor their own shock treatment.

The top five oil and gas companies made record profits in 2022 while citizens were facing skyrocketing energy bills. 

If invested in renewables, the dividends and share buybacks paid to the shareholders in 2022 could be the downpayment for generating 79% of US electricity or 111% of EU electricity in 2021. 

No miracles are needed. Yet instead of investing their historic profits into aligning their business model with the Paris Agreement on climate, they returned large amounts to shareholders.

Our focus should be on transformative climate action

We cannot let the continued energy crisis be used to further strip away any hope we have for stopping the worst impacts of climate change. 

We must instead shift political power from the fossil fuel industry, hold them accountable and implement immediate measures to support climate targets and benefit citizens. 

A massive insulation plan for buildings would mean lower energy demand. An accelerated shift to renewable energy would mean cheaper supply.

Citizens have voted for transformative climate action. Protecting our homes from a climate catastrophe means a global north LNG phase-out by 2030, pipelined gas phase-out by 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2040.

Blocking fossil fuel companies from politics, enacting due diligence laws, imposing transparency and ending access to decision-making and climate talks for lobbies like ENTSOG would be a shock treatment for the oil and gas industry itself. 

Making polluters pay and holding them accountable — following a colonial and neocolonial legacy that leaves billions exposed to unprecedented climate risks — would finally do justice.

Anusha Narayanan leads the global campaign to stop fossil fuel expansion at Greenpeace US, and Tal Harris is the campaign’s global communications lead.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Divorce #Putins #fossil #fuels #result #toxic #EUUS #marriage

EU leaders must deliver a renovation wave that leaves no one stranded

Post By World , ,


The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Even before the energy crisis struck, 50 million people across the European Union were living in energy poverty, unable to adequately light, heat or cool their homes, choosing between heating and eating. 

Renovating the EU’s worst-performing homes, those that waste the highest quantity of energy — and often housing the most vulnerable families — will help tackle housing exclusion and improve living conditions.

Fixing Europe’s housing is key to eradicating energy poverty. 

With 75% of Europe’s buildings deemed inefficient and 40% of our energy consumption taken by our homes, it seems obvious that housing renovations should be a priority for the bloc’s leaders.

This year is crucial to the well-being of millions

With the revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive or EPBD coming to an end, 2023 could be a watershed moment for the well-being of millions of citizens. 

Europeans cannot afford to let valuable heat escape in the winter or let it creep in during summer.

Indecent housing leads to dampness, which can cause respiratory health issues, and cold living environments can worsen cardiovascular diseases. 

Carbon monoxide poisoning and other intoxications go hand in hand with outdated temperature control methods using wood and coal, and/or fossil fuels. 

Still, high indoor temperatures can be even more harmful, causing increased mortality rates during heat waves.

No one should be made to live in inadequate housing

The EPBD has the potential to offer a long-term solution to address energy poverty and improve living conditions for millions of Europeans. 

This opportunity must be seized by prioritising the renovation of worst performing homes of vulnerable households and ensuring no one is locked into inefficient homes with dirty and outdated heating and cooling technologies. 

Housing renovation incentives have been offered for decades, yet renovation rates are far below what is needed, particularly when considering the number of households faced with energy poverty.

Regulatory measures, including Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) throughout the residential sector, binding standards on indoor air quality and phasing out fossil fuels, are all necessary parts of the push. 

To ensure the EPBD covers vulnerable families, MEPS need to be implemented alongside strong social safeguards and adequate outreach and funding programs to ensure the renovations benefit those who need them the most and don’t leave them stranded.

Energy efficiency and comfort for all

MEPS require buildings to meet a minimum energy efficiency standard within a certain period, giving them the potential to boost renovations in Europe’s most draughty and leaky buildings.

However, amongst the positive proposals within the EPBD, catastrophic exclusions are creeping in.

Negotiators have proposed a range of exemptions that will exclude some households from receiving renovations, meaning some of the people who need them most will see their dreams go up in thin air.

Allowing member states to be selective and exclude large percentages of the worst-performing buildings from the renovation plans drastically limits the directive’s ability to lift millions out of energy poverty.

Homes that have so far been ignored in renovation efforts will continue to be left out.

A key question EU decision-makers need to address when considering each and every single exemption is who is the renovation wave for and who is being excluded? 

Overlooking MEPS for residential buildings means overlooking the EPBD’s potential to tackle some of the structural inequalities of our housing system. 

To actually protect the energy poor, provide decent housing for all and be a way out of the energy crisis, the EPBD needs MEPS for residential buildings with stronger social safeguards.

Fossil fuels for no one

The energy crisis has shown us how exposed we are to the fossil fuel industry’s volatile prices. 

It’s time to stop lining the fossil fuel industry’s pockets and start protecting ourselves by accelerating the energy transition, strengthening citizen engagement in the energy system and fully decarbonising our homes.

Renewable heating and cooling solutions on the market are numerous and are becoming increasingly affordable, offering comfortable home temperatures no matter the climate. 

We need an EPBD that delivers these solutions into our homes by creating a policy framework that helps EU Member States rapidly scale up programmes that let households take advantage of energy savings and renewables.

Fossil fuel-based heating will become more expensive as infrastructure costs will be carried by a smaller number of homes, price volatility increases and the application of carbon taxations to households.

We need to lift millions out of energy poverty — and EPBD can do that

Opening the door to maintaining heating systems that use gas, with the excuse of alternatives like “renewables-ready” systems, including hydrogen, will not serve vulnerable or low-income households. 

It will leave them locked into using expensive, dirty, and dangerous fossil fuels, which won’t offer cheaper bills.

To lift millions of people out of energy poverty, we need ambitious MEPS standards with strong social safeguards and a decarbonised heating and cooling system for all.

We need an EPBD that unleashes its full potential to help solve the housing and climate crisis. 

Laia Segura from Friends of the Earth Europe and Javier Tobías from ECODES are part of the Right to Energy coalition, representing one of Europe’s largest groups fighting to eradicate energy poverty, bringing together trade unions, anti-poverty groups, social housing providers, NGOs, environmental campaigners, health organisations and energy cooperatives across Europe.

_At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.
_

Source link

#leaders #deliver #renovation #wave #leaves #stranded

Will Europe’s ban on Russian diesel hike global fuel prices?

Post By World , , ,

Europe is taking another big step toward cutting its energy ties with Russia, banning imports of diesel fuel and other products made from crude oil in Russian refineries.

The European Union ban takes effect 5 February following its embargo on coal and most oil from Russia. The 27-nation bloc is trying to sever its last uses of Russian energy and stop feeding the Kremlin’s war chest as the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine nears.

The newest ban has risks: Diesel prices have already jumped since the war started on 24 February last year, and they could rise again for the fuel that is key to the global economy.

“We’re leaving money in the road to provide our services,” said Hans-Dieter Sedelmeier of the family-run German bus and travel company Rast Reisen.

Most things people buy or eat is transported at some point by trucks, which mostly run on diesel. It also powers farm equipment, city buses and industrial equipment. The higher cost of diesel is built into the price of almost everything, helping push up inflation that has made life harder for people worldwide.

Will the embargo push up diesel prices?

That depends. Diesel, like crude oil, is sold globally, and Europe could look for new sources, such as the US, India or countries in the Middle East. If that goes smoothly, the impact on prices might be temporary and modest.

Europe has already cut Russian diesel imports almost in half, from 50% of total imports before the war to 27%. US suppliers have stepped up supplies to record levels, from 34,000 barrels a day at the start of 2022 to 237,000 barrels per day so far in January, according to S&P Global.

The EU’s top energy official, Kadri Simson, says markets have had time to adjust after the ban was announced in June. Europeans also appear to have stocked up on Russian diesel before the deadline, with imports rising last month.

There is a complicating factor: the Group of Seven major democracies are talking about imposing a price cap on Russian diesel heading to other countries, just as they did on Russian crude. As with oil, the idea is to keep Russian diesel flowing to world markets but reduce Moscow’s revenue.

If the cap works as advertised, global diesel flows should reshuffle, with Europe finding new suppliers and Russian diesel finding new customers, without a major loss of supply.

But it’s hard to say how the cap will work without knowing where the price will be set and whether Russia will retaliate by withholding shipments.

“When Russian exports are constrained, for whatever reason, that would of course cause some trouble in this whole reshuffle process,” said Hedi Grati, head of fuels and refining research for Europe at S&P Global Commodity Insights. 

“Europe would be competing with other big importers, and that would cause upward pressure on pricing.”

If the cap doesn’t block large amounts of Russian diesel, there might be “a short-lived price spike” as the market adjusts. For one, tankers would have a longer journey to Europe from the US, Middle East or India than from Russia’s Baltic Sea ports, stressing shipping capacity.

But massive new refining capacity is launching in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia later this year and in Oman in 2024. That “could further alleviate any pressure points from this divorce from Russia,” Grati said.

What could a diesel price cap accomplish?

The hope is to reproduce the effect of the oil price cap, which barred Western companies that largely control shipping services from handling Russian crude priced above $60 (€55) a barrel.

Russia says it won’t sell oil to countries observing the price ceiling, but the cap and falling demand from a slowing global economy has meant customers in China, India and elsewhere can buy Russian oil at steep discounts, cutting into the Kremlin’s revenue.

Boosted by more expensive crude, diesel prices rose to over €900 a ton last week from €735 a ton in early December. Diesel costs more than €36 per barrel above the crude used to make it.

One reason for the price hike was a late December storm in the US that disrupted refineries, said Barbara Lambrecht, an analyst at Commerzbank.

What happens if diesel gets more expensive?

Fuel prices have been a major factor behind painful inflation in Europe that has robbed consumers of purchasing power and slowed the economy.

Diesel prices at the pump have swung from €1.66 per litre to €2.14 per litre in the course of a year.

“That is a gigantic increase,” said Christopher Schuldes, the third generation of his family to run German trucking company Schuldes Spedition.

The company has 27 diesel trucks and 50 employees in the small town of Alsbach-Haehnlein between Frankfurt and Heidelberg in southwest Germany. It has already cut fuel costs by equipping trucks with efficient engines, ensuring trucks leave fully loaded and training employees in fuel-efficient driving.

“We did all that a long time ago, long before Russia invaded Ukraine,” Schuldes said. “There’s no more room for optimisation.”

To ease the extra diesel costs, the company tried negotiating higher prices with customers who have long-term contracts. Some agreed, some didn’t. Even if a contract allows prices to rise with diesel costs, there’s a two-month lag.

Regarding the embargo, “I am of two minds about it,” Schuldes said. “I have to see that the company is in good shape, and that our purchasing is as economical as possible. On the other hand — on the personal level — I say Russia must not be supported.”

Meanwhile, Rast Reisen, the bus and travel company near Freiburg im Breisgau in southwestern Germany, has seen diesel fuel rise from 12-15% of costs to 20-25%. Because 15 of its 25 buses are part of the regional public transport network, the company can’t automatically raise fares, and government increases so far are “a droplet on a hot stone,” said Sedelmeier, managing director for public transport.

Rast Reisen had to add a €10-15 diesel surcharge to trips to popular destinations like northern Germany’s island of Sylt or Croatia’s coast because prices spiked after catalogues were printed. 

Next year, prices for trips will simply be higher.

What could go wrong?

Energy markets are looking to China and wondering when the world’s second-largest economy will recover after the end of drastic COVID-19 restrictions. With low demand for fuel at home, the Chinese government let refineries ramp up their exports.

But if travel picks up in China, that diesel may disappear from the world market, raising prices as competition for fuel increases.



Source link

#Europes #ban #Russian #diesel #hike #global #fuel #prices