Preparing for the next gas crisis
July 17, 2009
(4 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ...On 6th of August we can face a new gas crisis. In front of this possibility, the European Citizens have the right to ask whether we are prepared for it, whether the European Union has done enough to secure their energy supplies.
The gas crisis of last January has made clear that we need to reinforce the security angle of our energy policy and we have to do it quickly. In November 2008, the Commission analyzed the current legislation on Security of Gas Supply and concluded that in case of a major gas supply crisis, Europe could face serious problems.
Our fears were confirmed in January 2009. The interruption of the supply of 20% of our consumption, during two whole weeks, showed the weaknesses, but also the strengths of our gas supply system. As you will remember, we learn some important lessons in that gas crises that I shared with you in this blog. And your comments were very valuable.
Based on our analysis, I concluded that we need to reinforce our security of gas supply with market based mechanisms, while considering national specificities and without losing the strengths offered by the European dimension.
In consequence, the Commission has approved yesterday a new regulation that will improve our internal solidarity mechanisms, equip Member States to face serious gas supply crisis, and empower Europe to speak with one voice in the international arena.
Contrary to oil, gas is a replaceable fuel, so there is no need for strategic stocks, as it is the case of oil. Instead, it is more appropriate to look for market rules that allow each Member State to look for the most effective ways to face the interruption of supply from their main infrastructure.
This is what we call the N minus1 indicator, this is, the ability of the remaining infrastructure to ensure the supply of gas during 60 days even in the worst weather scenario, that is the coldest winter in 20 years. In order to implement the N minus 1 requirements, each Member State will have to draw up Preventive Action Plans and Emergency Plans to mitigate the risks identified in the risk assessment. These plans will have to pay particular attention to protected consumers like households, schools or hospitals, even in extreme supply and meteorological conditions.
At European scale, the regulation will empower the Commission with the role of coordinating internal solidarity mechanisms and make sure that Europe speaks with one voice with third countries in case of a Community Emergency. The Commission can declare an Emergency at the request of any Member State, or when the Community loses more than 10% of its daily gas imports.
The main tool for the Commission to develop this role will be the Gas Coordination Group which will be reinforced with the representatives of the new Energy Regulators Agency (ACER) and the European Network of Gas Network Operators (ENTSO-G).
I think that regulations adopted today, once approved by the Council ad the Parliament, will reinforce the security of supply of European citizens.
My best wish is that we never have to use this measures. Therefore, our first responsibility is to do everything we can to prevent possible crisis. The meeting organised today by the Commission between Russia, Ukraine and the International Financial Institutions is a good example of this.
Secondly, we continue to work to create the necessary infrastructure in order to diversify our supply sources and routes. A good example for that is the facilitating role of the Commission in the signature, last Monday, of the Nabucco Intergovernmental Agreement. See entry.
To conclude, let me emphasise that the Commission has the task to restore confidence in a reliable gas supply to the EU. The proposed Regulations are a cornerstone to restore this confidence by improving the EU’s prevention and management of future gas supply disruptions.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
July 30th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Philipp M. Kanarev
In 1995, Professor Ph. M. Kanarev began his investigations of the water electrolysis process in order to obtain additional energy. It has been determined that there are such modes of plasma electrolysis of water when up to 100% of additional thermal energy takes place, but a thousandfold increase of energy, announced by Pons & Fleishman, was not confirmed. The calculations have shown that an increase of thermal energy by 100% with the unstable reproducibility of such a result has no prospects for industrial implementation. At least 300% increase of thermal energy is necessary, but such result cannot be obtained still.
But if we take into consideration energy of hydrogen and oxygen, which are released from water together with additional thermal energy, it will be possible to get more than 300% of additional energy.
Modern industrial installations require 4 kWh for production of 1 cubic meter of hydrogen from water. When this hydrogen is burnt, 3.6 kWh of energy is released. If the energy expenses for production of hydrogen from water are reduced by twofold or threefold, it becomes a competitive energy carrier. If it is possible to reduce these expenses of hydrogen tenfold, it will become the cheapest energy carrier. In this case, coal, oil and natural gas fail to compete with it.
Professor Kanarev’s investigations have shown that there are some plasma electrolytic devices and modes of their operation, which reduce energy expenses for obtaining one cubic meter of hydrogen up to 0.40 kWh. In this case, more than 1000% of additional energy is obtained. A laboratory device with such indices was made in 2007.[38]
http://kubsau.ru/science/en/links.php?kanarev
http://kanarev.newpowers.org/
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/kanarevelectrolysis.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/kanarev/kanarev1.htm
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Kanarev_Electrolysis
http://kanarev.inauka.ru/
Will you look at that? The Russians just make gas! From water. No it isn’t a lone case of the crazies, the crazies are at the other side of the border (ours)
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
A whole list, not everyone is on it but you only need one implementation those on this index only serve as a means of ridicule.
here is one more,
Xogen Technologies
2003, has developed a system that produces power as a byproduct of waste-water treatment. The system could potentially clean oceans.[37]
Apparatus for producing orthohydrogen and/or parahydrogen
Citations
3311097 (unknown)
3980053 Fuel supply apparatus for internal combustion engines
4107008 Electrolysis method for producing hydrogen and oxygen
4184931 Method of electrolytically generating hydrogen and oxygen for use in a torch or the like
4316787 High voltage electrolytic cell
4384943 Fluid treatment
4394230 Method and apparatus for splitting water molecules
4470894 Nickel electrodes for water electrolyzers
4599158 Circular coil electrolysis apparatus
4755305 Continuous dewatering method
4798661 Gas generator voltage control circuit
5205994 Electrolytic ozone generator
5304289 Method and apparatus for treating water
5324398 Capacitive discharge control circuit for use with electrolytic fluid treatment systems
5376242 Method of cleaning water and apparatus therefor
5399251 System for generating hydrogen and oxygen
5435894 Process and apparatus for improving quality of water
5599437 Electrolysis of electroactive species using pulsed current
5614078 Method and apparatus for removing nitrates from water
5632870 Energy generation apparatus
5695650 Method for dewatering previously-dewatered municipal waste-water sludges using high electrical voltage
5698107 Treatment for acid mine drainage
Method for producing orthohydrogen and/or parahydrogen
Citations
Referenced by
Hydrogen producing apparatus
Citations
Referenced by
enjoy,
PS
“our first responsibility is to do everything we can to prevent possible crisis.”
a joke? right? no?
August 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am
How about also preparing for the next oil crisis??
In an exclusive interview with the Independent newspaper on Monday, 3 August 2009 Fatih Birol gives a clear warning the world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
September 27th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Myths vs. Reality
Myth 1
A supplier (Russia), a shipper (Ukraine) and buyers (the EU) are considered as independent (separated?) units of the European gas system:
- “…the cause of the problem is outside our borders” (Andris Piebalgs, the EU).
- “…what happened was not a supply crisis but a transit crisis staged by Ukraine” (Alexander Medvedev, Russia).
- “…the Russian Federation, not being a party of the Charter, has brought elements of “unregulated” gas market into the trilateral relations (Russia-Ukraine-Europe)” (Press-center of Naftogaz, Ukraine).
Reality 1
The European gas system, existing really as an organic whole for more than 50 years, has already integrated (interchained!) business interests of all the gas partners related:
- 30 % of the EC’s gas consumption and 40 % of the EC’s gas imports flow from Russia.
- 70 % of Ukraine’s gas consumption and 100 % of Ukraine’s gas imports flow from Russia.
- 70 % and 20 % of the Russia’s gas exports flow to the EU and Ukraine relatively.
- 80 % of the Russia’s gas exports to the EU (or 33 % of the EU’s gas imports) flow via Ukraine.
Myth 2
This last gas crisis had been caused by economical issues:
- “The origin of the problem, i.e. the inability of Russia and Ukraine of solving their bilateral commercial differences” (Andris Piebalgs, the EU).
- “…the new agreement with Ukraine forms a solid basis for a new era of energy security in Europe” (Alexander Medvedev, Russia).
Reality 2
Events in January 2006 and 2009 in Russian-Ukrainian gas relations, and in 2004 and 2007 during Russian-Belarusian disputes, Russia’s conflicts with the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic and other states in the oil and gas sector, all point to the systemic manner of Russia’s actions in applying energy resources as a tool of political pressure:
- The strategy of Gazprom (majority of its shares are owned by the Russian government) includes at least three main tactics:
• penetration (reaching, via a system of corporate connections, political leaders in individual countries,
in order to promote its interests);
• warning (use of its influence as a supplier);
• disaggregation (disunity of the EU by way of bilateral agreements).
- Main politicians of the EU take care of their own spirit balance, making believe that the gas contract terms proposed by Russia for Ukraine are fair, do not confessing for themselves yet they are just afraid an overt conflict with Russia, being ready to give away their own principles for the sake of peace.
- The asymmetry of the contracts should be emphasized. On the one hand, Ukraine is obliged to continue the transit of Russian gas even in the case of bilateral dispute, while Russia has the right to stop its supplies if needed. On the other hand, Ukraine will cooperate with Russia on the principle “take-or-pay”. This means that Ukraine is obliged to pay for the entire amount of gas specified in the contract, regardless of the amount actually consumed. At the same time, Russia may alter the volumes of gas transit and, consequently, their payment as it wishes. So another principle works here: “We pay only for actually transited gas”. Another positive development for Russia is the increased presence of Gazprom at the Ukrainian gas market. Founded in the spring of 2008, a subsidiary of Gazprom, “Gazprom sbyt Ukraina”, will get 25% of the Ukrainian gas market, equivalent to about 13.5 billion cubic meters. In 2008 the company was allowed to sell only 7.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Russia has developed such a scheme especially for Ukraine, as there is no other European country where such a clause exists. More over, comparing with the EU, Ukraine has got the highest price of the Russian gas, the lowest both transit and storage tariffs to be paid by Russia. Overall, the asymmetry in the contracts shows that the political component still plays an important role in gas relations between Russia and Ukraine (as well as between Russia and the EU!).
Conclusion
Energy independence is nothing but a myth. It is impossible to be energy independent. All participants in the energy market are extremely dependent on each other: suppliers on transit countries, transit countries on consumers; it is a vicious circle. And in this circle we should develop an energy policy. The so-called Common Policy of the EU in the Energy field has not been established yet. What about the policies of Russia, Ukraine, and other European countries? That is why working out energy market rules for all countries in the world (within both the UN and WTO frameworks) is a priority task for ensuring energy security.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Some predictions on the next gas crisis:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/11/11/8418/8072