Pakistan's growing need for Energy: options of coal, gas & nuclear energy and renewables by Dr Maria Sultan, Director General, South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, Pakistan. Published on Dec 19, 2014
Showing posts with label gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gas. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2014
© 2014Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Solar Resource Fundamentals
 |
| Figure 1: Comparing finite and renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt-years). Total recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources. Yearly potential is shown the environmental for the renewables (source: Perez & Perez, 2009a) |
We have, on this planet, vast renewable energy potential: First and foremost, the solar energy resource is very large (Perez et al., 2009a). Figure 1 compares the current annual energy consumption of the world to (1) the known planetary reserves of the finite fossil and nuclear resources, and (2) to the yearly potential of the renewable alternatives. The volume of each sphere represents the total amount of energy recoverable from the finite reserves and the annual potential of renewable sources.
While finite fossil and nuclear resources are very large, particularly coal, they are not infinite and would last at most a few generations. More
Sunday, March 16, 2014
A Fork in the Road by Dr. James Hansen
We stand at a fork in the road. Conventional oil and gas supplies are limited. We can move down the path of dirtier more carbon-intensive unconventional fossil-fuels, digging up the dirtiest tar sands and tar shales, hydrofracking for gas, continued mountain-top removal and mechanized destructive long-wall coal mining. Or we can choose the alternative path of clean energies and energy efficiency.
The climate science is crystal clear. We cannot go down the path of the dirty fuels without guaranteeing that the climate system passes tipping points, leaving our children and grandchildren a situation out of their control, a situation of our making. Unstable ice sheets will lead to continually rising seas and devastation of coastal cities worldwide. A large fraction of Earth's species will be driven to extinction by the combination of shifting climate zones and other stresses. Summer heat waves, scorching droughts, and intense wildfires will become more frequent and extreme. At other times and places, the warmer water bodies and increased evaporation will power stronger storms, heavier rains, greater floods.
The economics is crystal clear. We are all better off if fossil fuels are made to pay their honest costs to society. We must collect a gradually rising fee from fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine or port of entry, distributing the funds to the public on a per capita basis. This approach will provide the business community and entrepreneurs the incentives to develop clean energy and energy-efficient products, and the public will have the resources to make changes.
This approach is transparent, built on conservative principles. Not one dime to the government.
The alternative is to slake fossil fuel addiction, forcing the public to continue to subsidize fossil fuels. And hammer the public with more pollution. The public must pay the medical costs for all pollution effects. The public will pay costs caused by climate change. Fossil fuel moguls get richer, we get poorer. Our children are screwed. Our well-oiled coal-fired government pretends to not understand.
Joe Nocera is polite, but he does not understand basic economics. If a rising price is placed on carbon, the tar sands will be left in the ground where they belong. And the remarkable life and landscape of the original North American people will be preserved.
Joe Nocera quoted a private comment from a note explaining that I could not promise I would be back in New York to meet him. But he did not mention the contents of the e-mail that I sent him with information about the subject we were to discuss. The entire e-mail is copied below.
Jim Hansen
_______Joe,
Here are some relevant words from the draft of a paper that I am working on:
Transition to a post-fossil fuel world of clean energies will not occur as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy. Fossil fuels are cheap only because they are subsidized and do not pay their costs to society. Air and water pollution from fossil fuel extraction and use have high costs in human health, food production, and natural ecosystems, with costs borne by the public. Costs of climate change and ocean acidification also are borne by the public, especially young people and future generations.
Thus the essential underlying policy, albeit not sufficient, is for emissions of CO2 to come with a price that allows these costs to be internalized within the economics of energy use. Because so much energy is used through expensive capital stock, the price should rise in a predictable way to enable people and businesses to efficiently adjust lifestyles and investments to minimize costs.
An economic analysis indicates that a tax beginning at $15/tCO2 and rising $10/tCO2 each year would reduce emissions in the U.S. by 30% within 10 years. Such a reduction is more than 10 times as great as the carbon content of tar sands oil carried by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (830,000 barrels/day). Reduced oil demand would be nearly six times the pipeline capacity, thus rendering it superfluous
A rising carbon price is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but it is not sufficient. Investment is needed in energy RD&D (research, development and demonstration) in new technologies such as low-loss smart electric grids, electrical vehicles interacting effectively with the power grid, and energy storage for intermittent renewable energy. Nuclear power has made major contributions to climate change mitigation and mortality prevention, and advanced nuclear reactor designs can address safety, nuclear waste, and weapons proliferation issues that have limited prior use of nuclear power, but governments need to provide a regulatory environment that supports timely construction of approved designs to limit costs. etc.
Jim Hansen
Monday, June 10, 2013
2013 Environment and Security Discussion Series Natural Resources and International Conflicts
For those who may be in Washington tomorrow this discussion should be well worth attending
The Stimson Center presents: The Stimson Center cordially invites you to join our 2013 Environment and Security Discussion Series. The series brings together the Washington, D.C. area’s leading thinkers for an open exchange of ideas and views on the deepening links between environmental and security concerns, and a discussion of the growing relevance of the environment-security nexus to national and international policy. Speakers: Colgan is an expert on oil geopolitics and author of the newly published "Petro-Aggression: When Oil Causes War" (Cambridge University Press, 2013). Michel is the co-author/editor of several recent reports on natural resource challenges in the Middle East, South Asia, and the Indian Ocean. The event’s discussion will center on how states’ development of natural resources impacts their foreign policy, human security, and political and social stability. What are the geopolitical and environmental implications of growing demands for the world’s natural resources – energy, water, food? We hope you will join us for what promises to be an engaging conversation on current resource development trends, international security, and environmental sustainability. For more information about the June 11th event or the Stimson Environment and Security Discussion Series, please contact Russell Sticklor at rsticklor@stimson.org or (202) 464-2667. |
| If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe |
| The Stimson Center 1111 19th Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, District of Columbia 20036 US Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy. |  |
Friday, March 15, 2013
Pak-Iran Pipeline Carries Energy and Defiance
After almost two decades of non-stop negotiations, and two years of intense U.S. opposition, the much-delayed and controversial 7.5 billion dollar Iran-Pakistan pipeline is well on its track to full operation in the next 15 months.
In a telling sign of Pakistan’s growing energy woes, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari chose to ignore vigorous external opposition and visit Iran (Feb. 27) in order to finalise a fateful energy deal which could potentially elevate Iran-Pakistan relations into a strategic partnership. Zardari and Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the pipeline on Monday this week.
Once completed, the gigantic 1,881 kilometre pipeline is set to carry 21.5 million cubic metres of natural gas per day (mid-2015) from Iran’s Assalouyeh Energy Zone in the south, stretching over 1,100 km through the country, to the Iran-Pakistan border (Gabd-zero point). Then it will pass through Balochistan and Sindh within Pakistan, from where it would be connected to an existing gas transmission network. Iran has almost completed its side of the pipeline, but Pakistan has been searching for sufficient funds to build its side of the bargain.
After meeting Iran’s top leaders in Tehran, Zardari was able to seal a final agreement to complete the 1.5 billion dollar pipeline project on the Pakistani side. According to the deal, Iran will provide as much as 500 million dollars in soft loans, with an Iran-Pakistan consortium, Iran’s Tadbir Energy and Pakistan’s Interstate Gas Company, to undertake the pipeline construction inside Pakistani soil. The pipeline is due to assume full operation by December 2014, based on an earlier gas sales and purchase agreement.
“The two countries have mutual trust and consolidated relations today despite the will of all those who intend to ruin Tehran-Islamabad relations and impede our path of cooperation,” Pakistan’s president said after signing the final agreement with Tehran. “I believe that building this project is very beneficial for both sides and we support all the work carried out so far.”
“Iran and Pakistan have and will stand beside each other with a strategic outlook,” Ahmadinejad declared, characterising the agreement as a diplomatic coup against growing external pressure to isolate Tehran amid the ongoing nuclear impasse.
Ahead of the Zardari visit, the Pakistani cabinet committee (composed of senior figures in the finance, law, and petroleum ministries headed by the minister of state for finance) approved a 1.5 billion dollar agreement. In this sense, Zardari’s visit was to iron out the details of the deal, particularly the terms of Iranian financing, construction participation, and gas prices, since the Pakistani bureaucracy was already fully on board.
Nonetheless, the trip marked a dramatic turn in Islamabad’s foreign policy, with Zardari braving international pressure and risking irreversible estrangement with Washington, which has tirelessly pushed for an alternative supply from Turkmenistan, via Afghanistan, the so-called TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline.
Ahead of the Zardari trip, outgoing secretary of state Hillary Clinton, in a statement to the U.S. Congress, warned Pakistan against pursuing the pipeline project, saying that “beginning the construction of such a pipeline, either as an Iranian project or as a joint project, would violate our Iran sanctions law.”
Canada’s hawkish leadership condemned the pipeline project, with foreign minister John Baird stating that “Canada is deeply disappointed by Pakistan‘s decision” and that “Pakistan’s decision runs directly contrary” to the objective of isolating Iran over its nuclear programme.
In Pakistan’s view, however, the West is insensitive to the country’s national interests. Pakistan is grappling with an energy crisis, with power shortages hammering domestic industries and further angering the general public. Relations with Washington are frosty and mired in controversy, prompting occasional diplomatic jabs, with growing bilateral tensions over American drone strikes and anti-terror operations inside Pakistani soil. More
More on history and timeline of the Iran / Pakistan Pipeline from the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute
Monday, March 11, 2013
Are sanctions against Iran legal? Or are they collective punishment?
Iran, Pakistan Begin Border Gas Pipe Amid Sanctions Threat
The presidents of Pakistan and Iran inaugurated work on the cross-border leg of a gas pipeline that the U.S. has warned may breach a sanctions regime aimed at curbing the Persian Gulf nation’s nuclear program.
Pakistan’s benchmark KSE 100 share index plunged 2.5 percent in Karachi, the biggest drop in almost two months, as the news sparked concerns the U.S. would impose penalties.
Asif Ali Zardari, on his second trip to Iran within a month, joined Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the country’s Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi in the southern port city of Chabahar for the ground-breaking ceremony, Pakistan state television showed. The leaders offered a prayer for the project’s success and uncovered a plaque at the construction site.
Once completed, the 1,931-kilometer (1,200-mile) natural gas pipeline would help alleviate the energy crisis in Pakistan, where 18-hour blackouts last summer forced factories to close and triggered street protests. Iran is under U.S. and European Union restrictions over its atomic activities, measures that have curbed oil exports and complicated the repatriation of cash from crude sales.
Pakistan’s decision to proceed with the $1.3 billion energy link comes amid a bid to repair relations with the U.S., the South Asian nation’s biggest aid donor, after damaging setbacks including the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos in Pakistan in 2011 and a cross-border U.S. airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. The U.S. needs Islamabad’s support as it withdraws combat forces from Afghanistan.
Oil Refinery
Ahmadinejad attacked opponents of the pipeline in a speech at the ceremony, drawing parallels between Iran and Pakistan.
“Foreigners are seeking to create divisions between nations in the region in order to control them and rob them of their wealth,” he said. “The only way for regional nations to safeguard their independence, identity, culture and wealth is through cooperation and unity.”
Iran has completed 900 kilometers of the pipeline on its side of the border, according to the website of Pakistan’s Interstate Gas Systems Pvt. Ltd., which will oversee construction in Pakistan. Under an accord signed in June 2010, Iran will provide about 21.5 million cubic meters of gas a day to Pakistan for 25 years. The deal can be extended by five years and volumes may rise to 30 million cubic meters a day.
The two countries are also expected to sign an agreement today to build a $4 billion oil refinery in Pakistan’s Gwadar, the state-run Press TV news channel reported.
‘Serious Concerns’
Work on extending the pipeline into Pakistan has been delayed by difficulties in arranging funding. The ground- breaking ceremony comes just days before Pakistan’s government, headed by Zardari’s party, is to hand over power to a caretaker administration ahead of parliamentary elections in May. The president’s term expires in September.
The U.S., which has offered to help Pakistan secure gas via an alternate route from Central Asia, has recently reiterated its concerns over the pipeline.
“If this deal is finalized for a proposed Iran-Pakistan pipeline, it would raise serious concerns under our Iran Sanctions Act,” Victoria Nuland, U.S. State Department spokeswoman, told a weekly briefing in Washington March 7. The U.S. hopes Pakistani won’t “go in a direction that would cause sanctions to kick in,” Nuland said, according to a transcript posted on the State Department website.
While Pakistan is aware of concerns in Washington, “all our friends including the U.S.” should show greater understanding of the country’s energy needs, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Ahmad Khan told reporters March 7. More
Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 111, Article 32- 33
Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, the Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that occured in them. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the war's end, which, in turn, caused death and disease to hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.[3] The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
It could therefore be argued that sanctions are a type of economic warfare, in which case the Geneva Conventions should apply. Therefore, the Fourth Geneva Convention, Part 111, Article 33 would apply, prohibiting any measure to cause physical suffering to Protected Persons. Editor
Friday, March 8, 2013
The Deepening Iran-Pakistan Petro-Relationship
The Iran-Pakistan branch of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline (IPI) seems to be coming online. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has announced he will visit Iran for the groundbreaking of the Pakistan branch of a new gas pipeline on March 11. It will be his second visit to Iran in less than a month, part of a deepening petro-relationship that is worrying the United States.
The pipeline is controversial, to say the least, in the US. The State Department has threatened Pakistan with sanctions for dealing with the regime in Iran, offering a electrification projects to replace any sort of benefit Pakistan would get from the petro-deal.
The challenge facing Islamabad is that it is next door to Iran, while the U.S. is not. In the long-run, it is not in their interest to remain at loggerheads with Tehran even if the U.S. wants them to be. In his press statements, foreign ministry spokesman Moazzam Ahmad Khan has been open about this. “Yes, we know about their concerns but hope our friends, including the US, will understand our economic compulsions,” said Khan.
Iran has already proposed building a new oil refinery near the Pakistani port of Gwadar.
The Pakistan-Iran pipeline is separate from a larger regional project to link India with the natural gas fields of Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan (the so-called TAPI pipeline, or Trans-Afghanistan pipeline) . It is a goal that has been lurking in the back rooms of the energy industry since the 1990s: how can one efficiently extract and export the vast energy wealth of the Caspian region without going through Russia or China?
Two decades ago Argentina-based Bridas and Texas-based Unocal were in bitter competition for who would get the Taliban’s permission to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bridas came close to signing a deal, but pulled out a year later. Unocal actually brought a Taliban delegation to visit the Texas homes of its executives. Unocal eventually pulled out when the Taliban made unreasonable demands.998, Unocal also pulled out when crashed oil prices combined with international opprobrium over the Taliban’s human rights record and terrorism made the deal too difficult to finalize.
The Asia Development Bank has been pushing TAPI for years, though the insecurity in Afghanistan remains a constant barrier to anything concrete coming to pass.
While TAPI languishes in development hell, Pakistan and Iran have pushed forward with their own pipeline.From Iran’s perspective, anything that gives them an economic connection with the region and is outside the regulatory reach of the U.S. government is a boon. From Pakistan’s perspective, too, the prospect of getting income and energy without U.S. strings attached is deeply attractive. More
Monday, November 26, 2012
Pakistan's struggle for LNG
The marginal increase in the GDP between 2009-2010 was not due to any real increase in economic activity rather it reflected the impact of substantial increases in the international price of Pakistan’s largest export item, textiles. Otherwise the impact of the economic crisis is clear and economic growth may continue to nose dive and may not stabilize unless a lasting solution to the energy crisis is found for the country’s 180 million residents. 
Apart from its impact upon Pakistan’s economy, the energy crisis has destabilized the routine of every day life for the vast majority of Pakistanis. It affects their behavior and psychology due to their inability to carry out essential daily activities ranging from cooking to commuting to work.
This situation cannot be left unattended. Fuel availability must be expedited, particularly natural gas, in order to arrest the free fall of Pakistan’s economy and to bring solace to its people. The indigenous production of natural gas cannot be increased overnight and the teetering economy coupled with an unstable regional geopolitical situation does not bode well for the success of cross border gas pipelines. Therefore, Pakistan must go for imports of LNG and on a fast track. If Pakistan is unable to bring LNG into the country over the next 3 to 4 years, the whole economic structure built around the natural gas industry will fall into ruins.
Today’s unenviable situation was not created overnight rather it is the cumulative effect of inconsistent and inept energy policies pursued for decades. Successive governments kept on discarding the policies of their predecessors on the basis of political expediency. On this account numerous promising projects have been shelved without looking into their merits. Two examples may suffice to help understand the impact that political rivalries have had on the economic development of the country. The government of the Pakistan (GoP) Muslim League led by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif initiated the privatization of public sector companies including gas and electricity utilities in the early 1990s which was halted by the succeeding government of Benazir Bhutto’s led Pakistan People Party.
One of the surprising initiatives taken by the Bhutto government was the introduction of Independent Power Producers (IPPs) in 1993 to overcome electricity shortages. This was surprising because the Buhtto government was largely skeptical of the role of the private sector yet she recognized the need for IPPs to fill Pakistan's electricity gap. Though the projects could not be thrown out unilaterally by the succeeding government of Nawaz Sharif due to internationally binding contracts he left no stone untouched to scare off future investors by making life difficult for the IPPs. They were dragged in the courts on the allegation that these power generation projects were unduly favorable to IPPs due to the corruption and favoritism of the outgoing government. (Of note is the fact that the GoP did not have sufficient evidence to prove corruption in the project agreements.)
One of the main reasons behind today’s electricity crisis in Pakistan is the then hounding of the IPPs. Every martial law regime has brought its own economic vision of the country totally discarding the policies of the toppled civilian regimes. Throughout the 65 year history of Pakistan there have been military takeovers of the government four times in total. One of the common allegations against the toppled civilian government in each of the military takeovers has been the pursuit of failed and rather dangerous economic policies. Thus the first step of every martial law regime has been to discard all of the economic policies of the previous government and to introduce its own economic cycle afresh.
There has been no clear direction for increasing resource availability, and the efficient utilization of available resources. Myopic vision has kept policy makers blind of the creeping gap between the country’s energy supply and demand profile. Pakistan’s energy supply mix remains dominated by oil and gas with little contributions from hydroelectricity, coal, and nuclear energy while alternate fuel sources like wind, bio-gas and solar energy are glaringly absent. The composition of Pakistan’s primary energy supply for 2010-11 is given in Table 2 below. More
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy
The great energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is under way. As fossil fuel prices rise, as oil insecurity deepens, and as concerns about pollution and climate instability cast a shadow over the future of coal, a new world energy economy is emerging.
The old energy economy, fueled by oil, coal, and natural gas, is being replaced with an economy powered by wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The Earth’s renewable energy resources are vast and available to be tapped through visionary initiatives. Our civilization needs to embrace renewable energy on a scale and at a pace we’ve never seen before.
We inherited our current fossil fuel based world energy economy from another era. The 19th century was the century of coal, and oil took the lead during the 20th century. Today, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal climate-altering greenhouse gas—come largely from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal, mainly used for electricity generation, accounts for 44 percent of global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oil, used primarily for transportation, accounts for 36 percent. Natural gas, used for electricity and heating, accounts for the remaining 20 percent. It is time to design a carbon- and pollution-free energy economy for the 21st century.
Some trends are already moving in the right direction. The burning of coal, for example, is declining in many countries. In the United States, the number two coal consumer after China, coal use dropped 14 percent from 2007 to 2011 as dozens of coal plants were closed. This trend is expected to continue, due in part to widespread opposition to coal now being organized by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.
Oil is used to produce just 5 percent of the world’s electricity generation and is becoming ever more costly. Because oil is used mainly for transport, we can phase it out by electrifying the transport system. Plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars can run largely on clean electricity. Wind-generated electricity to operate cars could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-per gallon gasoline.
As oil reserves are being depleted, the world has been turning its attention to plant-based energy sources. Their potential use is limited, though, because plants typically convert less than 1 percent of solar energy into biomass.
Crops can be used to produce automotive fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Investments in U.S. corn-based ethanol distilleries became hugely profitable when oil prices jumped above $60 a barrel following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The investment frenzy that followed was also fueled by government mandates and subsidies. In 2011, the world produced 23 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and nearly 6 billion gallons of biodiesel.
But the more research that’s done on liquid biofuels, the less attractive they become. Every acre planted in corn for ethanol means pressure for another acre to be cleared elsewhere for crop production. Clearing land in the tropics for biofuel crops can increase greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. Energy crops cannot compete with land-efficient wind power. More
We inherited our current fossil fuel based world energy economy from another era. The 19th century was the century of coal, and oil took the lead during the 20th century. Today, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal climate-altering greenhouse gas—come largely from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal, mainly used for electricity generation, accounts for 44 percent of global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oil, used primarily for transportation, accounts for 36 percent. Natural gas, used for electricity and heating, accounts for the remaining 20 percent. It is time to design a carbon- and pollution-free energy economy for the 21st century.
Some trends are already moving in the right direction. The burning of coal, for example, is declining in many countries. In the United States, the number two coal consumer after China, coal use dropped 14 percent from 2007 to 2011 as dozens of coal plants were closed. This trend is expected to continue, due in part to widespread opposition to coal now being organized by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.
Oil is used to produce just 5 percent of the world’s electricity generation and is becoming ever more costly. Because oil is used mainly for transport, we can phase it out by electrifying the transport system. Plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars can run largely on clean electricity. Wind-generated electricity to operate cars could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-per gallon gasoline.
As oil reserves are being depleted, the world has been turning its attention to plant-based energy sources. Their potential use is limited, though, because plants typically convert less than 1 percent of solar energy into biomass.
Crops can be used to produce automotive fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Investments in U.S. corn-based ethanol distilleries became hugely profitable when oil prices jumped above $60 a barrel following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The investment frenzy that followed was also fueled by government mandates and subsidies. In 2011, the world produced 23 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and nearly 6 billion gallons of biodiesel.
But the more research that’s done on liquid biofuels, the less attractive they become. Every acre planted in corn for ethanol means pressure for another acre to be cleared elsewhere for crop production. Clearing land in the tropics for biofuel crops can increase greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. Energy crops cannot compete with land-efficient wind power. More
Saturday, July 7, 2012
National Energy Conference 2012
A Two Day National Conference titled “Applications of Nuclear Science and Technology in Pakistan” Organized by South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) to be held from 12th-13th July 2012 (Tentative) at Islamabad Serena Hotel.
Concept:
Economic growth and industrialization in a globalized world today is inextricably linked to the continuous availability, access, diversity and modernization of energy resources. Ensuring a secure and safe supply of energy, both from domestic and foreign sources, constitutes a core foreign policy pillar of both emerging and established global powers today.
Energy security establishes a frame work which links the issues regarding energy supplies with foreign and national security policy. This link is all the more relevant and provides the requisite flexibility for a state to manage both the crisis and opportunities in this regard. Placing the formulation of energy policy in security domain comes with the benefit of establishing linkage between economic development and national survival.
Pakistanis facing an acute crisis of energy and consequently adverse economic situation. The energy crisis is effecting cross spectrum dimensions of society and economy. The crisis have resulted in a number of substantive protests, some of them being violent, in the back drop of power shortages, limited availability of transport fuel such as compressed natural gas and petrol and price hikes.
The industrial sector is also struggling to meet its production demands and improving the consumer output required to sustain a minimum level of sustainability. Energy crisis has slowed the industrial output and resultantly the already limited manufacturing base. Moreover, the energy crunch has also put restraint on Pakistan’s economy to compete globally in an era of increasing globalization.
In an environment of bleak global economic outlook in the after math of prevailing financial crisis, the problem is compounded given the lack of competitiveness. The much touted Pakistani narrative of “market access” is exhausted by the fact that the energy crunch has limited Pakistan’s capacity to compete with emerging and established economies. So market access will not bring desired output unless the domestic economic front is strengthened in Pakistan.
There also exists an international dimension to Pakistan’s energy crunch.Pakistanis subjected to international diplomatic and political pressure, by the select few, over its efforts of diversification of its energy imports. The case in point isIran–Pakistangas pipeline (IP). International sanctions on Iran and subsequent diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to be a process of Iranian containment have exacerbated the energy crisis and increased the uncertainty of its economic future. More
Economic growth and industrialization in a globalized world today is inextricably linked to the continuous availability, access, diversity and modernization of energy resources. Ensuring a secure and safe supply of energy, both from domestic and foreign sources, constitutes a core foreign policy pillar of both emerging and established global powers today.
Energy security establishes a frame work which links the issues regarding energy supplies with foreign and national security policy. This link is all the more relevant and provides the requisite flexibility for a state to manage both the crisis and opportunities in this regard. Placing the formulation of energy policy in security domain comes with the benefit of establishing linkage between economic development and national survival.
Pakistanis facing an acute crisis of energy and consequently adverse economic situation. The energy crisis is effecting cross spectrum dimensions of society and economy. The crisis have resulted in a number of substantive protests, some of them being violent, in the back drop of power shortages, limited availability of transport fuel such as compressed natural gas and petrol and price hikes.
The industrial sector is also struggling to meet its production demands and improving the consumer output required to sustain a minimum level of sustainability. Energy crisis has slowed the industrial output and resultantly the already limited manufacturing base. Moreover, the energy crunch has also put restraint on Pakistan’s economy to compete globally in an era of increasing globalization.
In an environment of bleak global economic outlook in the after math of prevailing financial crisis, the problem is compounded given the lack of competitiveness. The much touted Pakistani narrative of “market access” is exhausted by the fact that the energy crunch has limited Pakistan’s capacity to compete with emerging and established economies. So market access will not bring desired output unless the domestic economic front is strengthened in Pakistan.
There also exists an international dimension to Pakistan’s energy crunch.Pakistanis subjected to international diplomatic and political pressure, by the select few, over its efforts of diversification of its energy imports. The case in point isIran–Pakistangas pipeline (IP). International sanctions on Iran and subsequent diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to be a process of Iranian containment have exacerbated the energy crisis and increased the uncertainty of its economic future. More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)